Problems thus far with the Book of Mormon!

[Guest]

As I has endevored to paraphrase The Book of Mormon, I find some issues become more glaring.
1. Nephi loves to talk about HIMSELF.

2. Nephi is told of GOD to murder a fellow Israelite who is drunk. That in itself is off because unless in the heat of battle or clearing with invaders, or ridding the land of evil people groups --- all squabbles between the Israelites/Jews were to be dealt with legally. Read the Bible and note the laws guiding how matters were to be handled among themselves in the land. And then there is the simple fact that GOD could have sent an angel or caused some accident or disease to kill to Laban. I'm sure Mormons have heard this all before...

3. Nephi slices off Laban's head with Laban's sword. Now I don't know about you but if I sliced off someone's head there would be blood, blood, blood everywhere and especially all over Laban's clothing.You figure that one out --- I know some of you must have wondered. PS> The servant doesn't notice, and Nephi doesn't seem to have any problem putting on the bloody mess.

4. Nephi writes that he needs to conserve space to write HIS story --- and yet he is so redundant and obviously wastes space with repeating various phrases over and over and over and over. Either Nephi or Joseph Smith was oblivious (perhaps they were both oblivious-- and if Nephi never existed I guess we can't really blame him) to exactly how to get any point across without being repetitive.

5. How many time does one need to return UP to Jerusalem from DOWN in the wilderness before one gets it correct... I mean really! Leave now, leave everything -- go back and get the plates and return -- go back and get wives --- come back to Lehi's tent.

6. Was it a vision or a dream. If Lehi doesn't know ---How are we and does it matter?

I'm sorry for being tough but the facts are the facts. The listing of names in the Bible were always somewhat tedious for me; however, its stories were never insipid.

[_Maksutov]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

Main article: Ethics in the Bible

Elizabeth Anderson, a professor of philosophy and women's studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, states that "the Bible contains both good and evil teachings", and it is "morally inconsistent".[13]

Anderson criticizes commands God gave to men in the Old Testament, such as: kill adulterers, homosexuals, and "people who work on the Sabbath" (Leviticus 20:10; Leviticus 20:13; Exodus 35:2, respectively); to commit ethnic cleansing (Exodus 34:11-14, Leviticus 26:7-9); commit genocide (Numbers 21: 2-3, Numbers 21:33–35, Deuteronomy 2:26–35, and Joshua 1–12); and other mass killings.[14] Anderson considers the Bible to permit slavery, the beating of slaves, the rape of female captives in wartime, polygamy (for men), the killing of prisoners, and child sacrifice.[14] She also provides a number of examples to illustrate what she considers "God's moral character": "Routinely punishes people for the sins of others ... punishes all mothers by condemning them to painful childbirth", punishes four generations of descendants of those who worship other gods, kills 24,000 Israelites because some of them sinned (Numbers 25:1–9), kills 70,000 Israelites for the sin of David in 2 Samuel 24:10–15, and "sends two bears out of the woods to tear forty-two children to pieces" because they called someone names in 2 Kings 2:23–24.[15]

Anderson criticizes what she terms morally repugnant lessons of the New Testament. She claims that "Jesus tells us his mission is to make family members hate one another, so that they shall love him more than their kin" (Matt 10:35-37), that "Disciples must hate their parents, siblings, wives, and children (Luke 14:26)", and that Peter and Paul elevate men over their wives "who must obey their husbands as gods" (1 Corinthians 11:3, 14:34-5, Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18, 1 Tim. 2: 11-2, 1 Pet. 3:1).[16] Anderson states that the Gospel of John implies that "infants and anyone who never had the opportunity to hear about Christ are damned [to hell], through no fault of their own".[17]

Simon Blackburn states that the "Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women".[18]

Blackburn criticizes what he terms morally suspect themes of the New Testament.[19] He notes some "moral quirks" of Jesus: that he could be "sectarian" (Matt 10:5–6),[20] racist (Matt 15:26 and Mark 7:27), and placed no value on animal life (Luke 8: 27–33).

Blackburn provides examples of Old Testament moral criticisms, such as the phrase in Exodus 22:18, ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.") which he says has "helped to burn alive tens or hundreds of thousands of women in Europe and America". He states that the Old Testament God apparently has "no problems with a slave-owning society", considers birth control a crime punishable by death, and "is keen on child abuse".[21] Additional examples that are questioned today are: the prohibition on touching women during their "period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19–24)", the apparent approval of selling daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and the obligation to put to death someone working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).[22]

[_LittleNipper]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

Main article: Ethics in the Bible

Elizabeth Anderson, a professor of philosophy and women's studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, states that "the Bible contains both good and evil teachings", and it is "morally inconsistent".[13]

Anderson criticizes commands God gave to men in the Old Testament, such as: kill adulterers, homosexuals, and "people who work on the Sabbath" (Leviticus 20:10; Leviticus 20:13; Exodus 35:2, respectively); to commit ethnic cleansing (Exodus 34:11-14, Leviticus 26:7-9); commit genocide (Numbers 21: 2-3, Numbers 21:33–35, Deuteronomy 2:26–35, and Joshua 1–12); and other mass killings.[14] Anderson considers the Bible to permit slavery, the beating of slaves, the rape of female captives in wartime, polygamy (for men), the killing of prisoners, and child sacrifice.[14] She also provides a number of examples to illustrate what she considers "God's moral character": "Routinely punishes people for the sins of others ... punishes all mothers by condemning them to painful childbirth", punishes four generations of descendants of those who worship other gods, kills 24,000 Israelites because some of them sinned (Numbers 25:1–9), kills 70,000 Israelites for the sin of David in 2 Samuel 24:10–15, and "sends two bears out of the woods to tear forty-two children to pieces" because they called someone names in 2 Kings 2:23–24.[15]

Anderson criticizes what she terms morally repugnant lessons of the New Testament. She claims that "Jesus tells us his mission is to make family members hate one another, so that they shall love him more than their kin" (Matt 10:35-37), that "Disciples must hate their parents, siblings, wives, and children (Luke 14:26)", and that Peter and Paul elevate men over their wives "who must obey their husbands as gods" (1 Corinthians 11:3, 14:34-5, Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18, 1 Tim. 2: 11-2, 1 Pet. 3:1).[16] Anderson states that the Gospel of John implies that "infants and anyone who never had the opportunity to hear about Christ are damned [to hell], through no fault of their own".[17]

Simon Blackburn states that the "Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women".[18]

Blackburn criticizes what he terms morally suspect themes of the New Testament.[19] He notes some "moral quirks" of Jesus: that he could be "sectarian" (Matt 10:5–6),[20] racist (Matt 15:26 and Mark 7:27), and placed no value on animal life (Luke 8: 27–33).

Blackburn provides examples of Old Testament moral criticisms, such as the phrase in Exodus 22:18, ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.") which he says has "helped to burn alive tens or hundreds of thousands of women in Europe and America". He states that the Old Testament God apparently has "no problems with a slave-owning society", considers birth control a crime punishable by death, and "is keen on child abuse".[21] Additional examples that are questioned today are: the prohibition on touching women during their "period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19–24)", the apparent approval of selling daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and the obligation to put to death someone working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).[22]

With every case where there are multiple wives, the Bible clearly presents such arrangements as nothing if not troublesome and teaches that one wife for one husband is exactly what GOD intended. Jesus revealed that one's love for GOD should supersede one's love for one's family and self --- even to the point that one's love for one's family members should seem as hate when compared with one's love for the Lord. AND a parent needs to be a parent and not the son or daughter's friend. There are a multitude of individuals in jail and not going anywhere because their parents did not wish to correct them. Yet the story of the prodigal son reveals the extent of a father's love towards even a wayward child. Elderly women and orphans were to be cared for and protected --- and the Bible clearly looks down on those who would abuse strangers who came into the land of Israel. And as for your lame verse regarding the PIGS, did you ever wonder what were those PIGS being raised for? I mean the Jews were not to eat PIGS. And clearly GOD cares for a sparrow and yet clearly cares far more for even an insane human. If you do some research there were very few witch burning in the American Colonies. AND most of the witch trials in Europe involved the Jesuits and the Spanish Inquisition. It is so much easier to steal one's wealth when one is dead and out of the way. But the truth be told that practicing witchcraft was not allowed in Israel and anyone stupid enough to go there and then practiced it reaped its benefit. And yes it is far better that a millstone be placed around the neck of a child abuser than to even encourage such behavior to grow unabated.

[_Brackite]

2. Nephi is told of GOD to murder his uncle. That in itself is off because unless in the heat of battle or clearing with invaders, or ridding the land of evil people groups --- all squabbles between the Israelites/Jews were to be dealt with legally. Read the Bible and note the laws guiding how matters were to be handled among themselves in the land. And then there is the simple fact that GOD could have sent an angel or caused some accident or disease to kill to Laban. I'm sure Mormons have heard this all before...

Laban was Nephi's uncle??? There is no where within the Book of Mormon text that states that Laban was Nephi's uncle. (Maybe confusing Laban of Genesis who was Jacob's uncle.) Please See: viewtopic.php?p=888270#p888270

[_LittleNipper]

2. Nephi is told of GOD to murder his uncle. That in itself is off because unless in the heat of battle or clearing with invaders, or ridding the land of evil people groups --- all squabbles between the Israelites/Jews were to be dealt with legally. Read the Bible and note the laws guiding how matters were to be handled among themselves in the land. And then there is the simple fact that GOD could have sent an angel or caused some accident or disease to kill to Laban. I'm sure Mormons have heard this all before...

Laban was Nephi's uncle??? There is no where within the Book of Mormon text that states that Laban was Nephi's uncle. (Maybe confusing Laban of Genesis who was Jacob's uncle.) Please See: viewtopic.php?p=888270#p888270

You are right. I guess the character Laban possessing the family genealogy of the character Lehi might mean they were somehow related. And in fact, all Israelies are related --- connected by way of Jacob and his 12 sons. But again, the Hebrews were an extended family and legal issues were to be handled according to the Commandments when they became established, and not like some American frontier town that Joseph Smith was perhaps acquainted with...

[_Mittens]

https://thetruthaboutmormonism-creeksal ... le-of.html

[_LittleNipper]

Consider the place where John was baptizing, according to John 1:28. Look in different translations and you can note that the KJV says "Bethabara", while virtually everything else says "Bethany." To make a long story short, the "church father" Origen (c. 230 AD) changed the text from Bethany to Bethabara, honestly thinking that he was correcting an existing mistake, not creating one. The original text of John absolutely, positively, read Bethany, and that is absolutely the name of the place where John was baptizing at the time. But the KJV translators didn't know about this textual question, and so the KJV reads Bethabara. This means nothing in the big picture of Bible translation; however, in the case of the Book of Mormon it does, because if the Book of Mormon was of divine origin then the prophecy in 1 Nephi 10:9 about where the Christ would be baptized would have revealed the correct place, even though in Smith's day the KJV said something else. But instead Smith copied the "prophecy" out of the KJV and so copied down the wrong place.

[_moksha]

Fairy etiquette dictates that you should not look for logistical problems or factual consistencies in the stories of Aesop, the Brothers Grimm, Mother Goose, or J.K. Rowling. These stories, while loaded with helpful ideas, are purely fictional.

That said, perhaps this so-called "Laban" was the six-fingered man who killed Inigo's father. That might have been the reason he had to die.

[_LittleNipper]

Fairy etiquette dictates that you should not look for logistical problems or factual consistencies in the stories of Aesop, the Brothers Grimm, Mother Goose, or J.K. Rowling. These stories, while loaded with helpful ideas, are purely fictional.

That said, perhaps this so-called "Laban" was the six-fingered man who killed Inigo's father. That might have been the reason he had to die.

One's eternal well-being doesn't hang on Aesop's Fables, The Brother's Grimm Fairy Tales, Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes, or on Harry Potter. The Book of Mormon is passed off as scripture. And while it does contain passages from the Bible, this doesn't make it GOD breathed or inspired by the Holy Spirit. And since the Book of Mormon is the foundation upon which a religious sect rests its doctrine and authority, it makes no sense not to hold it to the same standards as the Holy Bible.

[_Maksutov]

Fairy etiquette dictates that you should not look for logistical problems or factual consistencies in the stories of Aesop, the Brothers Grimm, Mother Goose, or J.K. Rowling. These stories, while loaded with helpful ideas, are purely fictional.

That said, perhaps this so-called "Laban" was the six-fingered man who killed Inigo's father. That might have been the reason he had to die.

One's eternal well-being doesn't hang on Aesop's Fables, The Brother's Grimm Fairy Tales, Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes, or on Harry Potter. The Book of Mormon is passed off as scripture. And while it does contain passages from the Bible, this doesn't make it GOD breathed or inspired by the Holy Spirit. And since the Book of Mormon is the foundation upon which a religious sect rests its doctrine and authority, it makes no sense not to hold it to the same standards as the Holy Bible.

So one's eternal well-being hangs on Moses' fables, Abraham's fables, Paul's fables. Much better.