The List of Incongruence of COTPOTCOJCOLDS and the Book of Mormon

[Guest]

No, it is assumed that a church and the book upon which it is founded might resemble each other in some small way.

Agreed. So, are you then proposing by this list that the Church and the Book of Mormon teachings do not resemble each other in some small way? If so, then rest assured there is plenty more to the teachings of the Church and the teachings of the Book of Mormon then what is listed. Number one: Jesus is the Christ the Savior of the World. Such a teaching, even if it be a small resemblance of each other, is forwarded by both.

It is not assumed that the critical and unique teachings of a church would be absent (or condemned) in the very book they claim as a foundation.

Cool. So you don't even assume that much huh? Well good. I see nothing to discuss then.

Thanks for the thread. Not much to discuss but hopefully we worked something out.

Proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ is not a teaching unique to the LDS Church.

Teachings which are unique to the LDS church, indeed, those which seem to define the LDS Church, are completely absent from the Book of Mormon, which is said to be the keystone of the Mormon church(es).

I think one of us is missing the point. (I hope it's not me.)

[EDIT: fixed typos]

[_zeezrom]

Here is one that is congruent:

The Book of Mormon teaches that it is possible for an entire nation (including the children, elderly, disabled, infirm, hungry, poor, widows, etc.) to digress morally to the point where there is NO turning back or possibility for the infinite atoning blood of Christ to reach. The entire population is so bad, the prophets give up on them and they will all be tortured and killed. Sadly, it is a fundamental teaching of the book.

I think the Church still teaches that very sad and disturbing doctrine. That is one of those things that feels like a creepy bug on your shirt that you just have to flick off. It feels good to flick that one...

[_Darth J]

Beefcalf:

I think you will agree with me that the importance of the Book of Mormon in the modern LDS Church is not the Book of Mormon's substance, but its mere existence.

Book of Mormon Seminary Student Study Guide

“The Book of Mormon is also the keystone of the doctrine of the Resurrection. As mentioned before, the Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the ‘fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ’ ( D&C 20:9 ). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon offers so much that broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. Without it, much of what is taught in other scriptures would not be nearly so plain and precious.

If the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the doctrines required for our salvation, then President Benson here is making a frank but unintentional admission that whatever the Church teaches beyond the Book of Mormon is superfluous. We already know everything we need to know for salvation from the Book of Mormon.

“Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 4–5; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 5–6 ).

This is the real key. The Book of Mormon has to be an ancient historical record for the LDS Church to be true.

However, President Benson jumps the gun quite a bit here. It turns out that even if one believes in the Book of Mormon being an ancient historical record, one is not therefore compelled to accept "the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it." David Whitmer believed in the Book of Mormon but emphatically testified that God told him to separate himself from the Mormons because Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. The Community of Christ, the Bickeronites, the Strangites, and the FLDS, among others, accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. So while the truthiness [sic] of the Book of Mormon is necessary for the LDS Church to be true, contra Ezra Taft Benson it is not sufficient.

[_stemelbow]

Proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ is not a teaching unique to the LDS Church.

Are you sure about that? Just kidding. I didn't say or suggest it was.

Teachings which are unique to the LDS church, indeed, those which seem to define the LDS Church, are completely absent from the Book of Mormon, which is said to the keystone of the Mormon church(es).

I would argue the teaching that defines the Church is its fundamental reliance on the common teaching of Christianity--Jesus being the Savior of mankind and LORD of all. But I digress. So are you suggesting then this list is an exhaustive list of all that is unique to the LDS Church?

Also, do you think it possible, that LDS themselves see a different take on what defines the Church than you? I mean I surely do. But if that is the case, then what is so bad about scripture not defining the very practices, in some cases, or unique teachings among us today? While it seems like a problem to you, it doesn't seem that way to me. And I'm the one whose actually practicing the religion.

I think one of us is missing the point. (I hope it's not me.)

Oh I admit...its probably me. Thus, I ask.

[_stemelbow]

I think you will agree with me that the importance of the Book of Mormon in the modern LDS Church is not the Book of Mormon's substance, but its mere existence.

I know this is from DJ, and he just hated it when I reply and often retorts with hostility, name calling, and condescension but I think he's missing the boat again.

The importance of the Book to the Church is not only its existence but also its teachings--or cherry-picked quotes don't do the LDS perspective on the book justice. Sadly your logic has failed ya again, and it can truly be both, for which I contend it is--seeing as how much its quoted and utilitized as a teaching tool. But I'm in the Church. you aren't. So we have two different perspectives on this. Who to believe?

[_beefcalf]

...snip...

• Father and Son each a personage of flesh - Not in the Book of Mormon.
• ...snip...

Boy there's a lot of stuff here... I'll address the first one.

There are lots of sources other than the Book of Mormon that specifically address this concept but I'll stick to the point that there seems to be no mention of it in the Book of Mormon.

Let's also consider the intended purpose of the Book of Mormon: "to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

I'll submit 3 Nephi 28:10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

If we can be as He is, and He is as the Father isn't it possible that includes having a physical body?

GR33N,

You make a good point that there is room for interpreting those passages to allow for God the Father to have a physical body. In the 'Polite' thread, we had been discussing the Lectures on Faith and I pointed out that the Lecture Fifth described God as being a "personage of spirit, glory and power." I used this as evidence which suggests that God was not viewed as having a physical body, but I can see how you might legitimately see it as simply emphasizing other aspects of God, without mentioning his physical nature one way or another.

I think, however, that my position holds a slight advantage over your position, at least in this one regard: The Book of Mormon, in mentioning the nature of God (let's say) one-thousand times, has to only describe God/Christ in the (incorrect) Nicene view one time for my claim to have validity. To argue that nine-hundred and ninety-nine times the Book of Mormon got it right, and that it only erred in one instance, does great harm to the proposition that the Book of Mormon is the inspired word of God.

So, I will concede on the outset that there are definitely verses in the Book of Mormon which allow for the interpretation of the nature of God to be either LDS or Nicene (to use simplified labels). But I would like to show that there are a large number of isolated descriptions of the nature of God which seem to clearly indicate a lack of understanding of the LDS (God the Father = Physical Body) Godhead.

Let me reference those here:

1 Nephi 11:18 (1830 version, "the Son of" was added in the 1837 edition)
And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

1 Nephi 11:21 (1830 version, before being edited to add "the Son of")
And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

1 Nephi 13:40 (1830 version, before being edited to add "the Son of")
And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

Mosiah 15:1 (indeed, throughout chapters 15 and 16) And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

Mosiah 16:15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Alma 11:38-39 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Ether 3:14: Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

These verses should make clear why many critics, including myself, consider Smith's 1838 account of an 1820 First Vision to be terribly difficult to believe.

[_Darth J]

I think you will agree with me that the importance of the Book of Mormon in the modern LDS Church is not the Book of Mormon's substance, but its mere existence.

I know this is from DJ, and he just hated it when I reply and often retorts with hostility, name calling, and condescension but I think he's missing the boat again.

The importance of the Book to the Church is not only its existence but also its teachings--or cherry-picked quotes don't do the LDS perspective on the book justice. Sadly your logic has failed ya again, and it can truly be both, for which I contend it is--seeing as how much its quoted and utilitized as a teaching tool. But I'm in the Church. you aren't. So we have two different perspectives on this. Who to believe?

Dear stemelbow:

Thank you for expressing interest in our comments on Mormon Discussions. As someone who has been in the LDS Church for 37 years and only stopped believing its truth claims less than a year ago, we always appreciate people who volunteer that we do not know or understand the teachings and/or culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Unfortunately, our quota for today on responding to idiotic trolls currently stands at zero. Should our quota rise above zero in the near future, we will respond accordingly.

thinking of you naked,
DJ

[_beefcalf]

Beefcalf:

I think you will agree with me that the importance of the Book of Mormon in the modern LDS Church is not the Book of Mormon's substance, but its mere existence.

Book of Mormon Seminary Student Study Guide

“The Book of Mormon is also the keystone of the doctrine of the Resurrection. As mentioned before, the Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the ‘fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ’ ( D&C 20:9 ). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon offers so much that broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. Without it, much of what is taught in other scriptures would not be nearly so plain and precious.

If the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the doctrines required for our salvation, then President Benson here is making a frank but unintentional admission that whatever the Church teaches beyond the Book of Mormon is superfluous. We already know everything we need to know for salvation from the Book of Mormon.

“Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 4–5; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 5–6 ).

This is the real key. The Book of Mormon has to be an ancient historical record for the LDS Church to be true.

However, President Benson jumps the gun quite a bit here. It turns out that even if one believes in the Book of Mormon being an ancient historical record, one is not therefore compelled to accept "the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it." David Whitmer believed in the Book of Mormon but emphatically testified that God told him to separate himself from the Mormons because Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. The Community of Christ, the Bickeronites, the Strangites, and the FLDS, among others, accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. So while the truthiness [sic] of the Book of Mormon is necessary for the LDS Church to be true, contra Ezra Taft Benson it is not sufficient.

Yes, excellent points, Darth.

To expand a bit on the point you made (I've bolded the relevant text, above), with this statement, we can dispense with tithing, baptisms for the dead, temple endowments and sealings, holding priesthood offices, etc. and do so with the Prophet's blessing, it seems. Superfluous, indeed.

[cacheman]

I always thought it was interesting that the doctrine of the nature of the Godhead has changed since the early days of the church. The Lectures on Faith seem quite compatible with the Book of Mormon, but they were jettisoned later in favor of the three-person Godhead.

There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things--by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space--They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;--he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh--and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all--the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father--possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father--a Mediator for man--being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

One personage of Spirit, one personage of tabernacle, both sharing the same Mind. That makes two personages, if anyone is ounting.

[_zeezrom]

I think you will agree with me that the importance of the Book of Mormon in the modern LDS Church is not the Book of Mormon's substance, but its mere existence.

EXACTLY. I'm using all caps because it means I'm yelling. Not because I'm mad but rather to hear myself talk over the disco music.