Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
113 Responses to Evangelism to Mormons
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Falcon,
Haha! Thats awesome! I am quite a ways away from the mall of America. I am in NM. If you guys are down this way let me know and we can find a good place to eat some good enchiladas! Rick B has my email you can get it from him.
Have you noticed I havent received any kind of response from Alex or Faithoffathers? See this is what im talking about lack of answers to my questions and concerns with Church doctrine. I state my concern and I get no response. Why am I not surprised. What happened to Shem? I bet he would have at least attempted to rspond!
Really? That’s not very long in the scheme of things. Compared with Christianity, that is just a drop in the bucket. And yes, it has “stayed strong”, but mostly in Utah, where it has much more power socially over people. In fact, that is most of the power of the Church. Once people break past that, and really start investigating and are willing to leave the social aspect behind, they are apt to leave. But… Like many other movements, there will always be a core group of people that stick with it, for reasons other than truth, logic and common sense. The church also has a lot of money to throw at people, and hold membership over their heads to pursue their livelihoods if they work for the church. The fact is, due to the flood of information in the past two decades, Church growth has slowed considerably, and will continue to do so. It won’t be long until that will be clearly obvious to everyone.
Cattyjane,
The Mormons can harp all they want about speaking to people, but the Church itself (deemed “perfect”) has set it up to be that way. Therefore it is their flaw, not the one asking for the truth. This has been done purposefully. You have to get your information from SOMEONE, whether from the past or present. God has given us discernment, and we have common sense. That is why faith comes from HEARING THE WORD. If the word is bad, it won’t generate faith in God, but faith in something else. That is why the story of Jo Smith is so important to them.
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
The Bible is the word of God. Jo Smith’s pseudepigrapha is NOT the word of God. Mormon “prophets” can’t (and refuse) to give answers to verify that Jo’s “revelations” like the BOM is the Word of God.
We know there is a city called Jerusalem, we know that the Biblical lands are there, there was a Caesar, there was a Roman Empire, the Hittites, the Canaanites, etc. There is absolutely no evidence at all that there were Nephites and there never will be.
Where are all the things that the early Mormons were stressing about today? The added “revelations” given constantly, the records that would continue to come forth from the ground, the prophecy, the gift of tongues, the absolute proof of healing, raising the dead, etc. Nowhere to be found. The Mormon Church today, is in the same boat that they say Christianity was in when Jo Smith was around. But today, we have the facts to check the story. They don’t match up. They can’t just point to a bunch of ruins and say “SEE.. THERE IS YOUR PROOF”.
Mormon Priesthood Leaders loved to do that in the 19th century. They don’t do that anymore. They are all quiet, and their main focus is now making money and running a corporation, and making sure that the leadership is well taken care of, instead of the poor of the world.
I haven’t had one Mormon who can answer why Parley P. Pratt prophesied in the name of Jesus Christ that there would not be one unbelieving Gentile left on the American continent 50 years from 1838, or the Book of Mormon would have proven itself false.
This alone, proves the BOM is false. That Mormon “apostle”, with all his “Priesthood Power” could not even get that right. If he gave a false prophecy, and was allowed to print it, and circulate it, and no one ever corrected it at the time, it stands as a testament to the falsehood of Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.
And that is not the only one. That is what they based their “Restoration” on, the ABILITY to prophecy, ect. The “Restoration” was a sham, and no Mormon will ever be able to explain Parley P. Pratt’s gaffe away. They can’t.
homeschoolmom,
You stated: “Repentance comes after God already saved us. It is not a condition of salvation, it is my response to His free gift.”
If that is true, how do you explain these Biblical passages?
“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
Or the passages that explains that “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Mark 1:4
Or these words from Jesus, ” I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Luke 13:3
Or “But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” Act 26:20
In other words, if you do not repent and bring forth good fruit, you will be hewn down and cast into the fire. Seems repentance is a condition for not being cast into the fire.
cattyjane,
Forgive my oversight. There are usually many responses to any LDS post here as there are more critics here than LDS.
Regarding the usage of the term “land of Jerusalem” as the birthplace of Christ in the Book of Mormon:
The Dead Sea scrolls confirm without doubt the ancient usage of this term, “the land of Jerusalem” to refer to the area also called “Judah” anciently. In other words, the terms “land of Jerusalem” and “Judah” were synonymous anciently.
Even more, there is a passage within the dead sea scrolls that refers to Bethlehem specifically as “the land of Jerusalem.” It is found in Armana Letter 290 and reads, “But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit Lahmi by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the people of Keilah.”
Scholars have concluded that “Bit Lahmi” is Bethlehem.
Here is a link: http://books.google.com/books?id=cSuErBFmykQC&pg=PA230&dq=%22a+town+of+the+land+of+Jerusalem%22&hl=en&ei=Y3fJTLm3EIeTnQe4pLDMDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22a%20town%20of%20the%20land%20of%20Jerusalem%22&f=false
So this document, which dates to 1300 B.C., refers to Bethlehem as “the land of Jerusalem.”
So what the critics think is a flat out fail by the Book of Mormon is actually a “bull’s eye” for the Book of Mormon.
This is just one of literally hundreds of such “bull’s eyes” for the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon says,
And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.
Let’s apply what FOF says using common sense to the verse about. He says it should be translated, “he shall be born “at the land of Jerusalem”. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon itself clarifies what is meant by “at Jerusalem”. Nephi states that Lehi had “dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days” (1 Nephi 1:4).
Where did Lehi live? Jo Smith tells us,
We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six-hundred years before Christ” (Documentary History of the Church 4:537).
The argument using a translation of a letter that says,
“But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the people of Keilah.
Doesn’t work, because even they give the name of the town “in the land of Jerusalem”. It is a town OF THAT LAND sure, and They CLARIFY by giving the EXACT name of the town WITHIN that land. Jo did not because he meant the City of Jerusalem. As Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson write,
…The Book of Mormon uses the phrase “at Jerusalem” 19 times. Since it has been established that Lehi lived in Jerusalem, this accounts for seven of the 19. (These include 1 Nephi 1:4,7; 1 Nephi 2:13; 1 Nephi 5:4; 2 Nephi 6:8; 2 Nephi 9:5; 2 Nephi 25:6.)
Two more examples are 1 Nephi 19:20 and 1 Nephi 22:4. The former records Nephi’s weariness “for those who are at Jerusalem.” Page 53 of the Book of Mormon Student Manual interprets this to mean, “Nephi knew that the Jews in Jerusalem had suffered the fate his father said they would.” In 1 Nephi 22:4, mention is again made of those who suffered at Jerusalem. Context would demand that this too speaks of the city. Hence, it is safe to say at this point that nine of the 19 passages directly refer to the city of Jerusalem.
When we examine the remaining 10 passages that use at Jerusalem, three of them refer to the people who were responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. First Nephi 19:13 reads, “And as for those who are at Jerusalem, saith the prophet, they shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel.” (See also 2 Nephi 10:5 and 4 Nephi 1:31.)
Four other examples are allegedly the words of Jesus Himself (3 Nephi 15:14; 16:4; 17:8). Third Nephi 10:5 records Jesus virtually repeating what he said in Matthew 23:37. It reads in part, “O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not.” In the New Testament we have two occasions where Jesus is credited with using the phrase “at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47 and John 4:21). In both cases we have no reason to believe that it is anything but another reference to the city itself. Luke, John, and Paul all use the phrase at Jerusalem, and in every case it speaks directly to the city.
Helaman 16:18 in the Book of Mormon states that the wicked Nephites and Lamanites began to doubt that Christ should come and asked, “Why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem?” The heading of chapter 16 interprets this to mean the actual city when it says, “The unbelievers say it is not reasonable to believe in Christ and his coming in Jerusalem.” Helaman 16:19 in effect repeats the question, only this time it uses the phrase land of Jerusalem. This is one of those times that the context allows this phrase to be interpreted to mean the city.
We next come to Alma 11:4. It reads in part, “Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem.” Though many LDS apologists have argued against this phrase having to do with actual coinage, we can’t find anything specific regarding where the decisions for the values of precious metals would have been made. Since Jerusalem was the capital city of Israel, and since it is normally from the capital where such matters were determined, this would again be a reference to the actual city.
This leaves us with one more reference to at Jerusalem and that is the verse in question, Alma 7:10. We can only offer our readers the simple suggestion that if a phrase is used 19 times, and in 18 of those times it can be demonstrated that it means the actual city of Jerusalem, it is both inconsistent and tenuous to interpret Alma 7:10 otherwise.
Common sense folks, common sense. Jo got it wrong.
How can someone “repent” BEFORE they realize they had done something wrong? If it is true what FOF says, then all Mormons must have a trial period before they are baptized to see if they will do good works first. They don’t. They PROMISE to live according to the Mormon “covenants”.
Christians have a change of heart and are SAVED, feel Godly sorrow and are baptized. They do not have to “prove” themselves first by “works”. It is after this, that your “works” determine if you really had a change of heart, and this change of heart inspires one to do good works, (Love God and your neighbor), not a laundry list of “regulations” like in Mormonism. FOF’s reasoning is senseless drivel.
Grindael, you beat me to the weak argument. I would not have been able to have given the supporting evidence, but I would have addressed the weakness of the argument, specifically that the name of the town was given in FoF’s example. That is a huge and glaring difference and is enough to cast into doubt his stating it is a bull’s eye.
And, FoF, I hope you do not need us to recite all the verses and times Jesus says we are only to believe to be saved, do you?
If you want to do something kind of fun, read the Book of Acts, actually you can skim it and find the sermons that are delivered and what the invitation is to the unbelievers. It’s interesting that at times it does say “repent”. Even John the Baptist had a baptism where by people were to “repent”. The idea being to make ready the pathway of the Lord.
However when we read through the Book of Acts there isn’t really a “formula” i.e. repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. In fact in Acts 10:44-48 while Peter is preaching the Holy Spirit falls on those listening to the message. Then they are baptized and it doesn’t say they repented. There is no formula. These folks listened to the Word and they obviously were believing as God saw their hearts and the Holy Spirit fell on them as was obvious that they spoke in tongues as the disciples did on the day of Pentecost.
With Paul and the Jailer, the Jailer asked, “What must I do to be saved.” Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.” Not a word about repentance. The Jailer did get baptized we are told along with his entire family.
But this is the Biblical message not the message of Mormonism.
If one is to believe Mormonism, it would have to be believed that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith, gave him some gold plates with “Reformed Egyptian” writing, and that Smith translated this unknown language by putting his magic rock in his hat and burying his face in the hat. This was the same magic rock that he claimed that he could see buried treasure in the ground.
OK folks is this so difficult to figure out? What I want to know is what do the MM tell their prospects? Is the message a Biblical one about believing in Jesus to be saved or join the LDS church because we are the one true church?
I would think that the MM would at least have a replica of the magic rock to show their prospects.
Grindael and Faith of Fathers,
Thank you both for your response to the concern I had with the birth place of the Christ being in Jerusalem. I have to agree with Grindael on this one. He made some very good points and Im glad he presented the evidence that he did.
What I do agree with you on Faith of Fathers is your argument of repentance. Repentance, also called Teshuva, means to return. A few ways that I think we can accomplish repentance is by regretting or acknowledging the sin, forsaking the sin, confessing the sin, praying for atonement, correcting the sin, or fasting. If the sin was committed against someone I believe that we are required to correct it if it is possible to.
True repentance can only occur if the sinner recognizes his sin, feels sincere remorse, undo the damage that he has done if it was done to someone, and resolves to never commit the offense again. (I don’t think this is in line with the Christian belief that they often say when they say the first step in becoming a Christian is to recognize that you are a sinner.) I think that we can tell that are sins have been forgiven when we no longer commit the sin. The reason that I say this is because if we truly are pained by the sin and we have truly committed to forsake the sin, than why would we want to go back to it to do it all over again? If a person has truly understands the magnitude of the sin he will have the strength to overcome the sin the next time that he is placed in that situation. He wont turn away out of fear or weakness but out of true repentance. I believe that the act of true repentance help us to keep things in perspective. How we honor God with our lives and how we treat others.
Why in the world would repentance not be a necessary part in being able to take part in the afterlife with God? How can anyone be forgiven unless they first repent? Repentance is the act of asking for forgiveness for doing something that has wronged someone. They have the right to deliver or refuse their forgiveness so repentance must come before forgiveness.
Am I understanding the discussion correctly here or did I go in a different direction?
Falcon said
Wow, I’m so happy that you told me/us what happend because I dont remember most of that, LOL.
Catty, I am pretty extreme, and I dont like most sports. I love Mixed Martial arts though.
Falcon, My pastor and many in my church are huge Vikings fans, I love teasing them and reminding them about how they needed a packer to help them try and win, and even then they still could not. Thanks for the laugh.
Hey cattyjane,
I hope you are well,
You said,
I think that we can tell that are sins have been forgiven when we no longer commit the sin.
Jesus says,
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
(Luke 17:3-4)
the Bible says,
Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.
(Matthew 18:21-22)
I say,
Would the Lord demand that we forgive our brothers even if they continue to sin yet be unwilling to do the same thing for us??
peace
Cattyjane said,
I think that we can tell that are sins have been forgiven when we no longer commit the sin.
I say,
I think we can tell that are sins have been forgiven because He who called us is faithful,
quote:
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
(1 John 1:8-10)
end quote:
peace
Grindael, cattyjane, and others,
One of the problems with your response to the claim by the Book of Mormon that Jesus would be born “at Jerusalem” is that in the days of Lehi, “Jerusalem” was synonymous with “Judah.” So “Jerusalem” meant the land included in the Kingdom of Judah. So saying that Jesus was born “at Jerusalem” would have been perfectly correct.
Here is just one reference for this:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/jerusalem.html
You are simply wrong. But I understand that you will never concede this point.
It is notable and irrational for you to insist that Joseph Smith knew the Bible well enough to pull out obscure names that came from the right time period and other Hebraic phenomena, like parallelism or chiasmus (Alma 36 contains a 52 line inverted chiastic structure), yet he didn’t know Jesus was born in Jerusalem. It certainly strains logic to think the way you want us to.
And do you recognize that the statement in the Book of Mormon occurs 500 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. Do you think that the nuances in terminology and phrases “Jerusalem” and “land of Jerusalem” may have been lost among a people that had lived on the other side of the planet for those 500 years.
You have no argument. “Jerusalem” was synonymous with “Judah” or “Kindgom of Judah” in Lehi’s day. The statement in the Book of Mormon about the location of Christ’s birth is an evidence supporting the historicity of the book.
Thanks.
cattyjane,
I’m processing what you wrote about sin, repentance and forgiveness. My first reaction was that you’d have made a pretty good Catholic of my era. We used to march over to church every Thursday afternoon to go to confession. The priest was in the confessional, in the middle actually, and there would be one person up to bat on one side and the another person in the on-deck circle on the other side. When it was your turn a sort of wooden shade would be pulled aside but there was another form of fabric that was to make the person making their confession anonymous.
Prior to that we had to go individually through our little examination of conscious booklets. The purpose was to probe our memory so that sins would come to mind.
So we’d say, “Bless me Father for I have sinned my last confession was……” then we’d give the last time. We’d then tell our sins, the priest would give us absolution as we said the act of contrition (prayer). Funny but I can’t remember it any more, surprisingly but there was a lot of Catholic theology contained in it. I had to look it up. This is pretty close to what I use to recite:
“O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended You and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of your grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life.”
We were then given a penance. Generally it’s be like say five Hail Marys and two Our Fathers or some such thing.
The problem is, I would leave and sin again. It was a constant cycle of sin and death. We even had classification of sins and were taught to continually examine ourselves. Quite frankly, it drove me nuts.
I could never get right with God. It was a constant cycle of sin and confess, sin and confess. Besides the classification of different kinds of sin, we had all sorts of bullet points about had we sinned or not. I’d go over this and over this to determine if I had sinned.
The apostle Paul said it well in Romans 7:14-25. In verse 24 he exclaims, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from this body of death?”
I’ve been told that if you accidentally killed someone in those days, one penalty might be to have the dead person’s body tied to yours and you carried it around for a prescribed length of time. I don’t know if that’s true but imagine that dead body as sin that you can’t get off of you.
Just some thoughts because as a Catholic, I could not get free from that body of death that clung to me.
It no longer does. In Romans Paul gives the answer to the answer to the dilemma of sin and death.
That would be something good to study.
So cattyjane,
I no longer have a sin orientation. I have a Jesus orientation. I really don’t give all that much thought to sin. It lurks around on the edges of my mind but I’ve found that the closer I am to Jesus, the less likely I am to fall into serious sin.
Satan is our accuser. I don’t listen to him.
“For there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” I’m not under the Law of sin and death. Should I continue to sin that God’s grace will abound? Nope! But there’s a different law at work in me now that I’m in Christ Jesus.
I prefer to be oriented to God’s love, kindness, benevolence and mercy and not sin.
fifth monarchy man,
I think that the reason we are told to always forgive our neighbors is because to be unforgiving can lead us to sin. The difference between us and God is that God can see into a persons heart in order to tell if that person has the true spirit of repentance and we cannot. So we have to always give the person the benefit of the doubt and forgive them. We can never tell which time that person may truly be repentant. It is better to forgive than to hold a grudge and bring our own selves into sin by becoming bitter and angry.
Falcon,
I think that our differences in view of repentance and forgiveness comes from our different views of sin itself. I think the Christian view is to believe that human beings are born sinful (carring the burden of sin committed by their ancestors or tainted by it) I think that sin is just a human inclination and that sin is an act and not a state that humans are born into. Genesis 8:21 states that we have the inclination from our youth but it doesn’t say that we were born into it. We can choose to do good or choose to do wrong but I think each of us are responsible for our own actions.
I agree that where our focus is our actions will follow. I know that the more that I learn and focus on God, the more that my actions tend to become closer to the way that He desires. I think that we do have the ability to overcome the sinful inclination Genesis 4:7. There may be things that are more difficult to overcome but none that are impossible.
I think that God is a just God but also a merciful God and I think that his mercy is more abundant than his justice. I think that he grants us more than enough opportunity to repent and remove the desires to go astray. To repent means to return to God. Ezekial 18:27 states “When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive” Malachi 3:7 says, “Return to Me and I shall return to you”. He is a God of love and mercy for sure. And of course being repentant doesn’t make us righteous but it just shows that we seek Gods mercy when we err in our ways and seek to return to His ways Daniel 9:18.
Falcon,
Catholic? Really? LOL You are the second person who has told me that. My boss told me that as well. How funny. 🙂
FaithofFathers~ None of those verses state that God does not save me until AFTER I repent.
Here is my question for you: Is it possible for God to love me so much, He saved me BEFORE I repented?
Romans 5:8- But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
FOF,
Keep ignoring the evidence from the BOM itself. That is your style. And Chiasmus… really? Anyone can make one out of nearly anything. This has been proven over and over again. It is only this subjective, esoterical, and completely irrelevant nonsense that you have for BOM “evidence”. You will never find a ruin, their language, their bones, their swords, or anything else in America. They just NEVER EXISTED. Anyone can say “land of Jerusalem”. Jo used the phrase “land of” for EVERYTHING…
the land of his inheritance
land of promise
land of Jerusalem
land of Egypt
land of their inheritance
land of Bountiful
land of Sinim.
land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed
land forever
land for thine inheritance
land of my people
land of liberty unto the Gentiles
land of Assyria
land of Zebulun
land of Naphtali
land of the Lord
land for their sakes
land of thy vineyard
land of my vineyard.
land of Zarahemla
land of Nephi
land where Mosiah discovered them
land which is called the land of Zarahemla
the land northward
land of their fathers
land of Shilom
but returned to this land, having travelled in a land among many waters; having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men
land which had been peopled with a people
land of Lehi-Nephi
land of Shemlon
land round about
land to keep them off
land of the living
land which was covered with dry bones
land that had authority from God
land by night
land of pure water
land of Amulon
land of Helam
land which was possessed by his people
land of liberty
land of Minon
land of Mormon
land of our forefathers
land of Gideon
land of Melek
land of Ammonihah
land of Salem
land of Manti
land of the Lamanites
land of Ishmael
land of Middoni
land of their fathers’ nativity
land between the land northward, and the land southward.
I got too tired to keep doing this. EVERYTHING was a “land of” to Smith. It is repeated 465 times in the 1830 edition. THAT is why there is “land of Jerusalem”, he said “land of” or “land for” over and over and over and over again about EVERYTHING. It’s easy to come in later and make something out of nothing. I know lots of people who do this with the Prophecies of Nostradamus. But not one of them can point to one BEFORE it happens and get it right. Only AFTERWARDS, because they are so vague. This is vagueness at its very best.
Common sense and context. You have none of the former and ignore the latter. Now if Jo had said the town of Bethlehem in the land of Jerusalem, LIKE THE RECORD you referred to, then yes, you would have something. BUT HE DIDN’T. Putting “land” in front of “Jerusalem” when you do it for EVERYTHING ELSE means nothing. And if we use your argument, Jo’s words would be…
And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of Jerusalem.
The land of Jerusalem is the CITY OF JERUSALEM according to the context of the Book of Mormon. For example,
(who was… where? In the city of Jerusalem). At Jerusalem. At the City of Jerusalem.
This destroys your argument. Thank you.
cattyjane,
Why? Just a few to think about…
Malachi(context)
God was speaking of those that already knew His decrees and willingly turned away… This is not the same as someone who never before heard the word.
This is true for all men. That is how you “rid yourself”, by getting a “new heart” and a “new spirit”. God gives that to you, you can’t repent your way into it.
cattyjane,
Excellent discussion on the nature of man. What I think you are saying is that we aren’t dead in our sins but we are a little bit sick. A doctor will treat someone differently who is dead as opposed to someone who is sick. And there are degrees of being sick. We can have the sniffles or we can have a raging fever that makes us delirious.
There are babies who are born addicted to crack because of what their mothers were doing while carrying them in the womb. Some people get addicted later in life through their own choices. Are we born in sin or do we acquire that orientation?
I would encourage you to study the doctrine of the nature of man. It’s very interesting.
But I have to be honest with you. I can’t stop sinning. I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t a sinner. The bad news is that the Bible tells me if I commit one sin I’ve violated the whole law. Well that doesn’t seem fair.
Why in the world should I be guilty of something I’ve never done?
Perhaps a discussion about the nature of man is irrelevant since the Bible tells us that “all” have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. So whether we have a sin nature inherited through Adam and Eve or if we just are unable to avoid sinning for whatever reason, the fact is that we all sin and need a Savior.
If someone does believe, however, that we are not born in sin, then it would follow, I think, that it would be possible for someone to never have sinned…..other than Jesus that is. Much more then, it would be possible for us at some point to reach sinless perfection.
I hate to admit this but I’m not going to reach that pinnacle. I suppose I’ve disappointed some of my friends here in admitting that I am a sinner and I can’t stop sinning. I don’t know. Maybe it’s just a character flaw. I’ve sort of given-up the idea that I’ll ever reach sinless perfection.
Now on-the-other-hand, I am eternally grateful to God for seeing me as sinless and perfect. He has really cut me a break on the sin front. Jesus took all of my sins on Himself at the cross and died for me. He took the penalty that I deserved.
So I think it’s the right thing for me to walk in the Spirit, which I think I do. The sins that I just can’t shake? Let me give you one. I am incredibly judgmental and hard on Christians who are carnal and continue in habitual sin. Hard in the sense regarding what I think about them, not necessarily how I act towards them.
The reason this “sin” of mine is serious is because I’m not affording them the mercy that God is extending towards them. And the worst of it is that my attitude leads me to pride and listing all of the sins I don’t commit which these sinners do. I’m sure I’m not like them….sort of attitude. I think there was a guy in the NT who was up to that. Jesus condemned that attitude.
Being judgmental and full of pride. A real battle I fight.
grindael you said:
If I share the gospel to two men sitting in the same room and one believes the gospel, why is it that he believed and not the other? Was one more spiritual, have more love, have a better knowledge, originate a better thought? From where in his soul did he get the power to believe? Any answer other than God’s pure grace is saying that God choose us because of something right or good within us. Even if you believe that God initiates with grace (as a synergist), we still have to respond by drawing from something within our unregenerate nature. The Scriptures testify that the:
“… natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Cor 2:14
And
“…the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.” Rom 8:7
So in the end, I would argue, it is actually the synergistic dispensational view that is erroneously making additions to the pure gospel that says, “salvation is of the Lord.” They very beginning and desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to us through regeneration: does this belong to us by nature or is it a gift of grace itself, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness? If not then you have missed the point of the Scripture which declares, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, ” For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; (Eph. 2:8). Grace does not depend on the humility or obedience of man but it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, for the Scriptures testify “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10). By John Hendryx
As a former mormon who has recently left – this is an area that I am struggling to understand. I am hoping that you can help me out here. I’m not even sure how to ask my question… but I’ll try. 2 men hear the gospel one believes by the grace of God – doesn’t God give his grace to both? If no why not? If yes why don’t they both believe? I’m sorry if this seems like a dumb question but sometimes it is hard to shake off the mormon indoctrination and wrap my mind around the true teachings of the bible.
Gridael,
I hadn’t seen that Psalm 51:5 before.
Falcon,
I wish there was a little random blog room attached to this blog for when we stray off topic a bit.
Im not saying that we stop sinning altogether but we become more aware of our sin over time. I think that there are different degrees of sin. I wish I could explain better but because of the nature of this blog I dont feel comfortable doing that. I dont want to cause any confusion to anyone. I am deefinately not saying we overcome sin alone. We do have Gods help.
I am assuming that Rick B has your email. I will send him an email tonight explaining what I mean and he can forward it to you. If you want to reply than you are more than welcome to my email address. I just dont want to cross any lines on here if you know what I mean.
Grindael,
I see you completely ignored the major point of my response.
In the time of Lehi, the term “Jerusalem” was synonymous with “Judah” or the “Kingdom of Judah.”
That completely wipes away your protest and argument.
You are attempting to spin out of this “bull’s eye” of the Book of Mormon. And it merely shows how biased you really are.
To say that Jesus would be born “at Jerusalem” was perfectly accurate when that claim was made anciently in the Book of Mormon. None of your ridiculous distractions trying to change the context changes a thing.
Thank you!
Actually, FoF, it does wipe out the bulls eye. At best for you, you are left with a couple of options. One is you are right, the other he is right, but a third is that we are open to discuss and look at other evidence. Grindeal has provided other evidence, and it is solid evidence.
The way I view it is that it is a mess, and your argument seems a bit contrived to weasel into the bulls eye, to borrow your analogy a bit. Now, I understand why you use it. Its not a bad argument, but I just don’t feel it hold up against the weight of the rest of the evidence.
cattyjane,
See, I told you that you would make a good Catholic! You just keep giving me more evidence.
We had “mortal sin” which is a serious offense against God and “venial sin” which are lesser offenses against God. Those are the two main categories. If you commit a mortal sin and don’t ask God for forgiveness and you die, you go to hell. If you commit a venial sin and fail to ask God for forgiveness and die you don’t go to hell. If you commit a mortal sin and ask God for forgiveness, you are forgiven right away BUT you can’t take Holy Communion until you go to confession. I think it’s called being restored to a state of grace.
Now purgatory is a whole other matter. Everyone is going to spend some time there. It’s to burn off something, can’t remember the term, that is left even after sins are forgiven. That’s why we’d pay $10 for a High Mass and $5 for a Low Mass to be said on behalf of a departed soul to shorten their stay in purgatory. You can earn indulgences in different ways also to put them in your little bank, but I won’t go there.
For someone who is obsessive-compulsive like me, the only way I could get free from this religious torture was to become a heathen, which I did and was very good at for several years.
Once I came to Christ in faith, I needed to rethink the whole idea of sin and grace and forgiveness.
I’ve pretty much concluded that man is by nature sinful, not just that we sin. I believe in original sin and what was imputed to me by the sin of Adam and Eve. But I also believe that I was imputed with righteousness when I came to faith in Christ.
Here’s the good news. I don’t think it really matters if someone believes or doesn’t believe in original sin. I’m a bottom line guy. A person needs to recognize that they are a sinner in need of a Savior and that by coming to Jesus in faith our sins are paid for. I also believe that with faith comes a change of behavior but the chances of us ever defeating sin are pretty slim.
MJP- so the Book of Mormon referring to a geographic location (Bethlehem) in a term that was accurate back when the Book of Mormon claims to have made that referrence but not accurate in modern times is not a “bull’s eye?”
Once again, “Jerusalem” was synonymous with “Judah” or “the Kingdom of Judah” in ancient times when the Book of Mormon was originally recorded. So the text in Alma is equivalent to saying “He shall be born in “the Kingdom of Judah.” That was perfectly accurate at the time.
But anybody in modern times who knows anything about the Bible and Christianity knows that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. You guys want us to believe that Joseph Smith knew a tremendous amount about ancient Semitic names, Hebraic literary constructions, the nuances and meanings of the text of Isaiah, the ins and outs of the ascension or divine council motif and literature, yet did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. You guys are amazing.
And now, you and Grindael are trying to wave your hands to rid yourselves and us of the reality that the reference in the Book of Mormon to Bethlehem as “Jerusalem” was very accurate in the ancient world.
I read McKeever’s article on this matter. He bases his whole argument on the assumption that Lehi lived within the city of Jerusalem proper. He appeals to modern day leaders of the church to”establish” the fact that Lehi lived within the city of Jerusalem and not near it. What a joke. He first insists that the BOM itself be used as the authority, then immediately jumps ship and uses external statements from individuals who live 2,600 years after Lehi to read what he wants to into the text.
Consider the fact that when the sons of Lehi went into the city of Jerusalem to get the brass plates from Laban and failed, they then “went down to the land of their inheritance.” (1 Nephi 3:22) That certainly implies the fact that their land of inheritance was not within the actual city of Jerusalem proper. Once they had gathered the precious things from their “land of inheritance,” they once again “went up again unto the city of Jerusalem.” (1 Nephi 3:23).
There can be no doubt that Lehi did not live in the city of Jerusalem proper. But the Book of Mormon repeatedly states that their fathers came from “Jerusalem.” And appropriately so because the whole kingdom of Judah was also called “Jerusalem.”
We would conclude from Mckeever’s argument that the Jews only lived in Jerusalem and not in any of the towns surrounding Jerusalem. What a weird argument. He uses statements from Christ and prophets who prophesy of the fall of “Jerusalem.” But consider the fact that when the Jews were taken away into captivity, they were not only taken from Jerusalem, but surrounding towns as well. So if anything, those prophesies from Christ and the prophets support the idea that “Jerusalem” referred the the city and its surrounding area and towns.
McKeever gives several passages from the Book of Mormon that use the term “at Jerusalem” to try to argue that “Jerusalem” refers specifically and only to the actual city of Jerusalem. And this fails miserably because all of those passages should be interpreted as meaning the Kingdom of Judah or the place of Christ’s “coming” and birth.” He is employing circular logic and it fails miserably. For some reason, he thinks that the textual claim that Jesus’ ministry and miracles would be “at Jerusalem” supports the idea that “Jerusalem” in the BOM refers specifically to the city proper. But does McKeever understand that Jesus’ ministry involved the smaller towns throughout the region? Again, what a weird argument.
I suggest you do some thinking of your own and not follow blindly the thinking of McKeever and others.
Thanks.
mapleleaf,
Great question. See “John Calvin” for one perspective.
These are things that are kind of fun to mull over and think about and a lot of it has to do with what we think about the sovereignty of God.
You could do the old TULIP run through for Calvin’s perspective.
Quite frankly I find these things interesting but not essential. Charles Spurgeon, the great English preacher of the 19th century believed on both sides of the equation and is said to have “embraced the tension”.
I do know something. For myself, I don’t have a chance without God. ZERO! I couldn’t even maintain my faith in Him without His grace.
Good luck in your search for answers but in the end trust in Jesus for your salvation. I haven’t found anything better than Him and the Word of God which guides me. BTW, I don’t need modern day prophets since I have God’s Word, His grace and the Holy Spirit indwelling me. I’m in the one true church. It’s called the Mystical Body of Christ made up of all of those who trust in Jesus for their salvation.
I didn’t ignore it, it is irrelevant to the argument since Jo used “land of” so many times there is no way for you or anyone else to distinguish why he did so. He liked the word. He used it a lot, sometimes three and four times in one sentence. I’ve destroyed your argument, which is no bull’s eye at all. And your “up and down” scenario. Please READ THE BOOK. For all your vaunted reading of the BOM you actually MISQUOTE IT.
9 And I, Nephi, and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness, with our tents, to go up to the land of Jerusalem.
10 And it came to pass that when we had gone up to the land of Jerusalem, I and my brethren did consult one with another.
11 And we cast lots—who of us should go in unto the house of Laban. And it came to pass that the lot fell upon Laman; and Laman went in unto the house of Laban, and he talked with him as he sat in his house.
They went to the “land of Jerusalem” which was the City of Jerusalem to Laban’s house. Here is the proof:
So, they to to the “land of Jerusalem” and directly to the walls and over them to the House of Laban, who lived where? In the “land of Jerusalem”, which was… where? INSIDE THE CITY! And, Genius, they weren’t IN the City, they were living in TENTS outside of it, because they fled. That is why they were going “up” and “down” in that instance. As for the “up and down” to get their property, they could have lived in a totally different part of the city, which is easily explained.
Jerusalem was a great walled city, people had lands within it. And Lehi says in verse 2: the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to Jerusalem. And… You add what is not there by saying ““went up again unto the city of Jerusalem.” It doesn’t say that, it says went up again to the house of Laban and they didn’t mention having to climb walls to get there, like they did when they were coming from OUTSIDE the city. Tsk, tsk, FOF, deliberately misquoting the BOM to make your argument? I’m horrified.
You’ve heard of Uptown and downtown, right? You have proven nothing.
Bye bye now.
FoF, I am not sure you understand my point: the slam dunk you think you have is brought into question by the points Grindael brings up, and the very grammar of the comment Smith made.
Like it or not, there is another side to the argument, one you don’t seem willing to understand exists.
And why did they go BACK to the CITY OF JERUSALEM which was to be destroyed?
Lehi dwells AT JERUSALEM “all his days”. He prophesied that the CITY of Jerusalem would be destroyed. Then he says if he had tarried AT JERUSALEM (the City) he would have PERISHED with his brethren, because the CITY OF JERUSALEM was to be destroyed. Jesus was to be born AT JERUSALEM, the same place that Lehi lived, in the CITY OF JERUSALEM. This my friends, is a slam dunk.
Falcon,
Lol. Thats funny! I dont really knnow much about Catholic beliefs but it sounds like we have a lot in common. I guess since you already put a lot out there im just going to share my basic views without going into a lot of detail and see what you think.
Basically I think there are three categories of sin.
1. Sins against God.
2. Sins against another person.
3. Sins against ourselves.
I think the worst sin is one that is done in direct rebellion to God. This is when we know the truth about Him, understand His laws and directly defy them and grieve His spirit and provoke Him to anger.
A transgression is where a person just does what they want, not out of direct rebellion but out of desire. And some people sin due to a lack of understanding of Gods laws and commands. All require repentance and all result in the spirit of God removing himself from us. Some sins just grieve His spirit more than others. For example murder would be a direct breaking of the covenant law between us and God.
So Im interested to know if this is also a catholic belief? Ive been reading some theology books, not catholic, and that is where I have come to these conclusions. Im just shocked in how close they are to the catholic.
Fof F’s latest comments have been interesting . I’m weighing his latest comments about Jerusalem
against the other things he has testified too on this blog , the doctrinal issues . I personally just
can’t take his latest comments to far because he has failed much to often in defending important
doctrines of Mormonism up to now , and Grindael and others here have proved very efficient at
refuting those . I personally never really thought that the Book of Mormon could greatly aid me
to live a more Christ like life or knowing a vital truth about God that I needed to know above
that which I embrace in the Bible . But I learned years ago that the key to evaluating Mormonism
was to test the teachings of it’s ” modern day ” prophets /apostles — what have they taught about
God/ Jesus and what’s necessary to receive eternal life ever since they arrived on the scene ?
Since Jesus’ apostles warned about false teachings being introduced by men claiming to be
be directed by Jesus , especially in the latter days , I followed their counsel in evaluating any
“modern day” prophets/apostles in order to be safe spiritually Matt 24:11; Gal.1:8 ; 2Tim 4:1-4 ;
1 Jn 4:1 . By the scriptural record and a witness from the Spirit of truth I had to dismiss the
teachings of Mormon apostles . I’m satisfied , and safe , in worshipping Jesus , the Jesus I found
in the Bible and who I bent my knee to many years ago in simple faith . Heb 7:25 .
One last comment . Fof F said to MJP : ” I suggest you do some thinking on your own and not
follow blindly the thinking of McKeever and others .”
What makes it so ridiculous is that it comes from someone who follows a modern day prophet
who alone claims exclusive right to hear from God and thus provide sound doctrine to his
followers . Any rank and file member who criticizes him is said to be showing signs of a
spiritual sickness , and those who entertain thoughts that he may be as likely to be wrong as
he is right on doctrinal matters is succumbing to Satan’s favorite game !
This is why so many sincere LDS are afraid to question their prophet’s teachings. May God help
them to see that there is a better way —free from blindly submitting to a modern day prophet
who does’nt deserve their allegiance .
Grindael,
I am amazed at the evidence you have presented! Thanks! It cant be denied that JS made a serious mistake in a very crucial piece of information.The BOM is a flat out lie and everything that vame after that as far as doctrine and teachings has just been bigger lies. My personal opinion is that if a person chooses to incorporate religion and God into their lives than why pick a lie to do it with? Why not choose truth if truth is available? I think anything else is just a waste of time, money and effort. Because step one is getting in touch with the True God and from what I know about the Mormon god it gets a wrong god stamp all over the place. So maybe that little false god was born in jeruselem according to its little lying tounge.
LDS Members
So for all you LDS out there keep praying to your lds god, keep baptising to your lds god, keep receiving lds false god blessings and callings, keep preaching your false god doctrine and in the world to come when the LDS god does not appear and plead your case before the True God of Isreal, just remember Kings 18:27-29 to shout louder because he might be in deep thought, or busy, or traveling, or sleeping. After all of that be prepared for the True God of Israel to reveal himself to you as He did when Elijah called upon Him one time and said Kings 18:37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again. And when this happens you will respond with Kings 18:39 The Lord-He is God! The Lord-He is God!
All those scriptures I just posted are in 1 Kings. Sorry bout that.
cattyjane,
I don’t know why Jo did what he did. But the whole story is fascinating, because he has left such little evidence. (which he did purposefully). He reportedly said, when he put the original BOM manuscript in the base of the Nauvoo House that he had had enough trouble with it. It was like he wanted it to all go away. A lot of Mormons aren’t aware of much of their own history, but there are a lot that are. I recently made a very important discovery that has to do with a very important early Mormon document that has to do with the Book of Mormon, and this will soon be published in the Journal of Mormon History. I’m working closely with Mormon historians and I have the utmost respect for them. Our views about the church are divergent, but that isn’t a big deal. When you get into the world of people like Mike Marquardt, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalf, Don Bradley, Chris Smith etc. who truly understand the early church and it’s documents and history, it is a lot easier to have constructive conversations. I think a lot of Mormon scholars realize that the Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be, (like the Book of Abraham) but to many, it doesn’t matter. I simply don’t believe Jo based on evidence. Others reinterpret the evidence in a different way, and some believe the “official” versions that are far from the truth. It is mostly with the latter, that I have little patience with, because they can’t accept that evidence. New things are being discovered all the time. I think it’s only a matter of time before the Utah Church abandons the historicity of the Book of Mormon and accepts it like the Reorganization. But that won’t come until the men at the top of the corporation change their ways or new apostles, who really care about truth more than image, get seniority.
Grindael,
It is obvious, you even state as much, that your whole argument is based on the assumption that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. You are employing circular logic, my friend. You are, in essence, saying that Joseph Smith got the whole Jerusalem thing wrong because he used the word “land” so many times in other places. But you know nothing about the significance of that word and term in ancient times. Circular logic. Simply repeating over and over the text that says Lehi dwelt at Jerusalem proves nothing. My whole point is that “Jerusalem” does not refer only to the city proper of Jerusalem. And everything including the statements from scholars demonstrates that in Lehi’s day, this was true.
And then you insist that “Jerusalem” only refers to the city proper because Jerusalem was destroyed as prophesied. How uninformed and short-sited is that? Yes- Jerusalem was destroyed as prophesied. But do you not know that when the Babylonians came and took the Jews captive, they destroyed cities and took prisoners from the entire kingdom of Judah? The passages you cite only support my argument. Jerusalem is equivalent to Judah. Nebuchadnezzar placed Gedaliah, a Jew, in a submissive, subservient role as overseer of Judah after the destruction and carrying away of the Jews. Jerusalem was destroyed. Yes. So were other towns, including Mizpah, 7 miles from Jerusalem. The entire kingdom of Judah was taken captive. Jerusalem equals Judah. How many times does this need to be pointed out to you?
MJP- it sounds like you are jumping ship and stating that there are other reason to disbelieve the Book of Mormon and so you don’t have need to really get to the bottom of this whole “Jerusalem” issue. That is fine. But what I find routinely is that the critics, like yourself, will do this consistently so that they never really have to fully engage and deal with the evidences that are immediately in front of them. They are perpetually point to someplace else where the immediate attention is not focused. And I think this would be a very unsatisfying way of going about making conclusions about the Book of Mormon and the church. But to “each man his own.”
Grindael- your statement about “many LDS scholars” not believing the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be is nothing more than propaganda and rhetoric. You are trying to give the impression that the LDS members are behind the ball and those leading them don’t really believe it. But that is what the critics do- they try to employ the mob mentality to get people to follow what everybody else is doing. Or at least what they want to portray as what everybody is doing. “The church is falling apart.” “Everybody is leaving.” “Even the leaders don’t believe.” And on and on. It is psychological manipulation that appeals to the weak part of people. Very weak.
Thanks.
faithoffathers,
Wow. So do you consider me to be weak because I left the church? If I was able to share more on this blog about what my beliefs are now compared to what they used to be, I think I would be in a better position to call you weak. The lds church ordinances and rituals are just wasted efforts not based historically on any biblical religious practice. The scriptures scream Our God is One and Hes from everlasting to everlasting, Deut 6:4 Psalm 90:2yet you make Him many and raise man to become a God when the scriptures state that God is not a man and is without form Numbers 23:19. That is worthy of repentance in so many ways!
LOL. It’s not circular logic because it’s true. Jo used the word over and over again. Of course one of those times might have ramifications later. It is called being VAGUE. With that, you can apply anything to anything after the fact, and that is EXACTLY what you are doing.
Says you. I know way more about it than you do. Again, you misapply those quotes of yours. They were SPECIFIC, specifically identifying a town on the outskirts of Jerusalem that they said was WITHIN the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Jo did nothing of the kind. He just generically applied the word “land” to Jerusalem, AS HE DID WITH EVERY OTHER PLACE IN THE BOOK OF MORMON. He specifically said AT JERUSALEM, and context shows that this meant IN THE CITY, not outside of Jerusalem. You just don’t get this. It seems to be beyond your comprehension. But that is par for the course with you. You quote things that you know nothing about. You don’t understand context, and it’s painfully obvious in every one of your posts.
The problem with this is that Jo was taking specifically about LEHI, and about the CITY. It’s IN THE QUOTES. You are the one who actually MISQUOTED THE BOOK OF MORMON. Some authority you are. Jerusalem does not equal Judah when you are talking about a SPECIFIC PLACE within the Kingdom of Judah. And Jo said it was the CITY OF JERUSALEM which he used synonymously with “land of Jerusalem”. You must read the CONTEXT of what he says, which you refuse to do because you can’t face the truth that the BOM is fiction.
It’s not “propaganda and rhetoric” because I personally know many. So there. Most of the membership of the Mormon church ARE behind the ball. Mob mentality? LOL. The only mental case here is you who understand neither context nor common sense. I know it bothers you, but the facts are the facts and you have none on your side. Slowly but surely, more and more Mormons are realizing this. I have time to wait. I’m not worried as you seem to be, all frantic and such. Wait and see. You’ll see that I’m right, as I’ve been all along in every conversation with you. You are hostile and misinformed, and I have little patience for people like you. But I’m not going to allow you to come on this blog and not challenge your Church correlated propaganda and misinformation.
Here is why FOF should not be given any credence here. He doesn’t read the sources. Here is what the Bible says about the siege of Jerusalem,
11 And the residue of the people that were left in the city, and those that fell away, that fell to the king of Babylon, and the residue of the multitude, did Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carry away captive. 12 But the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen.
Not everyone was destroyed and carried away. But everyone who was IN THE CITY, was. This is exactly what God supposedly told Lehi. If you stay IN THE CITY, you will be destroyed. He got his possessions OUT OF THE CITY, because it was going to be destroyed. They went back to the HOUSE OF LABAN because he lived IN THE CITY (AT JERUSALEM – exactly the same place that Jo said Jesus would be born) and his possessions would have been destroyed. But context and true understanding mean little to FOF.
FOF then blunders on…
What I DO KNOW, Genius, is what the Bible says.
Here we learn two things, 1.) it says nothing about Mizpah being destroyed. It actually says that the appointed Governor took up residence there and so did many others. 2.) They didn’t go to a destroyed town. If Babylon carried off the “entire Kingdom of Judah, then why are there people still in Mizpah, 7 miles away? Those of JUDAH? FOF is Full OF Falsehoods.
Now, was Mizpah destroyed later? NO. Something else happened, and it wasn’t the Babylonians that did it:
Now, cross reference Jeremiah 40-41:
What people? FOF said they were all gone, that everything was destroyed! Read on,
Mizpah was NEVER DESTROYED. Nor other towns in close proximity to Bethlehem (and probably not Bethlehem either). How in the world does FOF get that all of Judah was carried off and everything destroyed? THE BIBLE DOESN’T SAY THIS. It is all in FOF’s imagination. It even says that those that fled Mizpah in fear of what Ishmael had done, “went on, stopping at Geruth Kimham near Bethlehem on their way to Egypt to escape the Babylonians. It seems that those towns were intact and people fled through them to hide! These people were raising crops and getting on just fine. God kept his REMNANT.
In fact, the Babylonians were quite nice to Jeremiah also, (a real prophet who stuck around). Lehi would have been safer outside the city, as I’ve shown here. He may not have even been harmed at all if he stayed since he too, was prophesying about the destruction of the city. What happened to Jeremiah, shows how silly the whole premise of the Book of Mormon really is. It is silly because Jeremiah told the remnant who stayed (Chapter 42) that they should not leave Judah. They didn’t listen to the Lord’s TRUE prophet. God would not have sent Lehi away. Judah was the promised land. Those that fled and came back, DIDN’T LISTEN TO THE TRUE PROPHET. This is explained in Jeremiah 42:
God had those that did evil carried off. He left a remnant in Judah. He protected his remnant. He dealt with Ishmael. He didn’t want any of them to leave AND SETTLE IN OTHER PLACES, especially Egypt because of their problems with idolatry. He left behind a real Prophet to guide them. God even contrasts them to those who were destroyed “in Jerusalem”.
FOF does not know what he is talking about. He misquotes the Book of Mormon in his arrogance. He misquotes the Bible in his arrogance. He can’t be trusted in anything he says. Why would anyone here want to listen to him?
Grindael,
I am really glad that you are on here to provide soo much proof. I know how easily scripture can be twisted to make it appear like truth. Im sure there are some people reading this and becoming very upset that things arent fitting together the way they want them to. That is a horrible spot to be in but also a wonderful spot to be in because the truth is the light at the end of that dark tunnel. They just have to choose to step out into it and let go of the lies.
Grindael,
You could be a case-study in cognitive dissonance. Whether it be the thread about Elizabeth Smart or anyl thread since, you consistently tweak the context of any given text or quotation and confuse almost every one of your arguments. But I will commend you for taking these things further than most critics.
Your current argument about the usage of the term “land of….” and “at Jerusalem in the Book of Mormon” is no different. If I understand you correctly, you insist that because the word “land” occurs in front of place-names many times in the Book of Mormon, we should dismiss the fact that in ancient times, the “land of Jerusalem,” “Jerusalem,” and “Judah” were synonymous, making the passage in the Book of Mormon which says that Christ will be born “at Jerusalem” perfectly accurate in an ancient context.
If people are willing to follow your logic and argument, God’s speed. But please don’t claim to have any relationship to scholarship, reality, or objectivity in your argument.
My argument is based on the following facts:
1. In ancient times, “Jerusalem” referred to both the city Jerusalem proper and the Kingdom of Judah as whole. Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary states that:
“The Amarna Letters from Late Bronze Age Egypt (fourteenth century b.c.), written in the Akkadian language, include the name Urusalim. In Assyrian and Babylonian texts relating to the kingdom of Judah, Ursalimmu or a similar form appears.”
In their discussion of this text, Eisenmann and Wise elaborate on the significance of the phrase “land of Jerusalem,” which they see as an equivalent for Judah (Yehud):
“Another interesting reference is to the ‘land of Jerusalem’ in Line 2 of Fragment 1. This greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or ‘Yehud’ (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs.”
In his commentary on Haggai and Zechariah, David L. Petersen says of Jerusalem’s destruction, “In sum, the lament on behalf of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah points to a regional notion of community, not simply an exclusive urban focus on Jerusalem.”
In his book, “Divine Providence in the Bible: Meeting the Living and True God Old Testament,” John H. Wright states, “The restoration of Jerusalem looms so large in Second Isaiah that not only does Jerusalem become synonymous with Judah more than thirty times in the Book of Consolation, but an idealized Jerusalem takes on the characteristics of an eschatological expectation.”
Many passage of the Old Testament show this relationship between a named city and the surrounding “lands” and towns. Jeremiah 34:1 speaks of those who “fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities thereof.” In other words, “Jerusalem” included many surrounding towns.
2. The Armana letters include a reference to Bethlehem specifically as a “town of the land of Jerusalem.” In other words, Bethlehem was considered within “the land of Jerusalem.
3. Dozens of prophesies in the Old Testament foretell of the destruction of “Jerusalem.” The fulfillment of these prophesies include the destruction of surrounding towns. In other words, “Jerusalem” included the surrounding towns in holy writ.
4. The Book of Mormon passage in Alma states of Christ that He “shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” This occurs 500 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. The ultimate question to be answered is what was the meaning of the reference at that point in time. If you think people 500 years and 10,000 miles removed from Lehi in Jerusalem retained a precise geographical understanding of the city Jerusalem proper and its surrounding towns, you indeed have a very unrealistic perspective on history and geography.
And notice that Jerusalem is qualified as the “land of our forefathers.” So the reference includes the “at” and “land of” in the text. Very important.
5. The usage of the term “land of” and given place-names in the Book of Mormon is consistent with that of the ancient near east. The term “land of Jerusalem” is not found in the Bible, but in multiple ancient extra-biblical texts from the region. The argument that Joseph simply copied the pattern of the Bible doesn’t work because the phrase is not used in the Bible. Grindael is now trying to argue that because the phrase “land of” occurs before several place names in the Book of Mormon that that is somehow proof that Joseph Smith was the author. And this is absolutely ridiculous and employs nothing but circular logic. You are making your conclusions before considering any evidence. Nothing is new.
In Alma 50:14, we read that “They called the name of the city, or the land, Nephihah.” This shows the interchangeable nature of “land of…” and the actual name of the city. In other words, cities included the surrounding “lands.”
6. The text of the Book of Mormon says that Nephi and his brothers “went up unto the land of Jerusalem” to get the brass plates from Laban. After being rejected, they “went down unto the land of their inheritance” to get their precious things to exchange for the plates. This failed, and Laban cast them out. The fled “into the wilderness” and later came back to the walls of the city. It really makes no sense for Nephi and his brothers to leave Laban’s house “unto the lands of their inheritance” and still be within the walls of the city Jerusalem. This really strains credulity. But almost all of your arguments do as well.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that the Book of Mormon statement that Christ would be born “at Jerusalem in the land of our forefathers” was very accurate in ancient times but would have been very difficult to get right in the 19th century. But the critics will always strain and spin to get out of facing reality. Cognitive dissonance on display.
It is estimated that the walled city of Jerusalem included 500 acres at that time.
Grindael,
You srem pretty knowledgeable, maybe you can answer the question I asked Aaron earlier. He referenced in his video that people who leave the LDS church usually end up atheist, buddist or something that doesnt include JC. I asked him if he had a theory as to why that happens but I dont think he ever saw my post. Do you know why that might be?
Cattyjane,
You see how it is. Accused of circular logic because there is so much evidence that Jo invented the BOM. Jo invented the BOM to explain a premise: Where did the Indians come from. In the 19th century, his answer (Lehi & The Jaredites) seemed perfectly plausible to many people. Today, it is plausible to only a small minority of people. If “all the western tribes of Indians” like Jo conjectured, came from Jerusalem, what better time to have Jews come over here. It fit in with what Christians were believing, that the Indians were part of the lost tribes of Israel or part of some scattered at the time of the Babylonian Captivity. But according to the Bible, it doesn’t work. It also doesn’t work anymore because of science and archaeological and DNA discoveries. The whole premise of the BOM is faulty, God didn’t want his chosen people to settle elsewhere. He wanted them close to His Temple. That is why he brought them back from Babylon, and why they are gathered today. Mormons tried to make “the gathering” apply to themselves, but they aren’t the Jews. They could not hold on to Missouri, and the time passed for Jo’s “prophecies” about the 12 Stakes and the 1890 appearance of Jesus. Like so many from that era who thought they knew what God wanted, Jo failed, and so did his followers who uttered prophecy after prophecy that failed, like Parley P. Pratt, Wilford Woodruff and Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Moses Thatcher, and a lot of others.
As for your post about becoming an atheist, I can speak from experience. I became an atheist for 25 years after I left the church. Why? Because of the expectations that Mormonism generates in people. I had a long time to be bitter about how I thought God had fooled me. But I was wrong, I had fooled myself. It is sometimes easier to blame God than yourself. I had nothing to do with Mormonism or any other religious body for all those years. I never thought twice about Mormonism. It was only after being saved 7 years ago, when Mormon Missionaries happened to knock on my door, that I began to revisit my experience with the church. I had that same conversation with Missionaries in 2008, “hey come back, we’re Christians too”. It woke me up.
FOF,
You can’t even quote the Bible correctly, nor the Book of Mormon. It’s kind of cheeky of you to judge what scholarship, reality, or objectivity is. You have no idea what those words mean. As for the rest of your argument, been there done that. I’ve already PROVED that you are wrong. The Bible gives the standard:
The cheap imitation BOM doesn’t even come close. Those 12 miles are everything. And notice folks, how FOF has to make excuses for the Mormon God:
Gee FOF, Jo Smith said he saw in vision lots of things, he even described the Apostle Paul, right down to his “whiney voice”. Your argument here is ridiculous and is endemic of Mormon “scholarship”. The real God told his real prophet the exact name of the town. The God of Alma couldn’t even do that, because his God and Alma, are fictitious.
This is NOT what the Bible says and it is NOT what happened according to the very Bible you obviously never read. I’d tell you to stick to the BOM, but you can’t even quote that correctly.
Grindael, I noticed in the verses you cited the word ” remnant ” . That reminded me of how
Mormon leaders have introduced their ridiculous doctrine of a complete /universal apostasy
from the true gospel of Jesus , that Christianity died off after the death of Jesus’ apostles . Then
supposedly 1700 years later salvation again available thru a Mormon prophet. Sadly but this
doctrine fails common sense . There have always been a people who have been forgiven , saved ,
and worshiped the true God , even though perhaps only small in number —-Matt 18:20 .
Mormons have stumbled at this beautiful truth because they render unhealthy allegiance
to latter days imitation apostles .
Grindael,
Wow I didnt know you were former lds. Thats awesome. I almost let go of all faith in religion and God when my little lds beliefs started crumbling down but I couldnt do that because of my daughter. I felt that my daughter had to be raised in some form of spirituality. I almost stayed just for that but I figured there had to be something that was true out of all the mess and id rather teach my daughter truth than lies. Im just glad that I kept searching for the truth. Im glad that you did as well.