The Book of Mormon: The Mormons’ Bible?

by
June 14, 2010

You know that book the Mormons read?

> Twilight?

No.  Try again.

> The Book of Mormon?

Yes, that’s the one.  How much do you know about it?

> It’s the Mormon version of the Bible.

Um, okay.  We need to talk.  This article is for you.

First, it’d be good to understand what the Bible is.  The Bible comes in two sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament.  I’ll use bullets to summarize as quickly as I can:

Old Testament

  • Begin date: “In the beginning…”
  • Moses writes about creation, Eden, the flood, the tower of Babel, Abraham, the establishment and exodus of Israel.
  • Law of Moses instituted for Israel.
  • Other prophets and historians write about Israelite conquests and generally the lineage history of the  house of Israel.
  • Stories of the Lord’s intervention, prophets foretell Israel’s captivity in Babylon.
  • Israel is taken captive by Babylon (around 600 BC), then eventually set free to rebuild; prophets foretell the coming of the Messiah.
  • End date: About 400 BC.

New Testament

  • Begin date: About 1 BC.
  • Jesus is born and hailed as the Messiah, he grows up and starts teaching and performing miracles.
  • Jesus is crucified for the world’s sins and is resurrected (33 AD); he establishes a Church on the shoulders of his Apostles.
  • An important Jew (Saul) hates this upstart Church and tries to destroy it; he is later visited by Jesus and becomes Paul, an important missionary.
  • Paul travels all over Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome teaching about Jesus; many NT books are letters to his followers.
  • Some writings from other Apostles (Peter, James, John, etc.).
  • Prophesies of the eventual return of the Messiah, Jesus.
  • End date: About 70 AD.

Mormons believe the teachings, visions, and prophecies in the Bible (both testaments) to be the word of God breathed to the prophets who served as scribes and mouthpieces for the Almighty.

> You’re kidding me.  Mormons read the Bible?  The same one I read?

Yup.  We English-speaking Mormons prefer the King James Version.

> So, how is the Book of Mormon any different?

Well, let’s examine the Book of Mormon.  It actually has two major sections, too.  The first one is the main story:

Lehites

  • Begin date: About 600 BC.
  • Israel is about to be taken captive by the Babylonians (see Old Testament, above); the Lord tells a prophet named Lehi to get his family out before it happens.
  • They travel away from Jerusalem, through the desert, to the sea and build a ship.
  • The Lord brings them across oceans to the American continent (they probably land in Mexico or Guatemala).
  • Lehi’s family breaks apart into Nephites and Lamanites.
  • A lineage history of the Nephites, their kings and the wars with the Lamanites.
  • Prophesies of their future and of the coming Messiah.
  • Signs testify when the Messiah is born (a new star, 1 BC), and when he dies (earthquakes, tempests, volcanoes, 33 AD).
  • The resurrected Jesus arrives and shows crucifixion nail prints in his hands and feet, teaches the gospel, performs miracles, and sets up a Church.
  • Peace reigns for centuries.
  • Wickedness returns.  The Nephite dynasty is destroyed.
  • Mormon summarizes everything by inscribing this whole story on thin sheets of gold, bound in book form (about 400 AD).
  • Mormon gives the gold plates to his son, Moroni, who adds the Jaredite history, journeys to a hill in New York, and buries them in a stone box.
  • End date: About AD 421.

Jaredites

  • Begin date: about 3,000 BC
  • Jared and family are led by the Lord to leave the tower of Babel; they move out and build barges to float to the American continent (probably Mexico).
  • Jared’s brother sees visions of the future and foretells the coming of a Messiah.
  • Lineage history of Jared’s descendants; wars, kings, important events.
  • Jaredites turn wicked and destroy themselves.
  • Ether summarizes the account on metal plates, they are recovered by the Nephites, and added to the gold plates by Moroni.
  • End date: about 600 BC.

> So, wait.  That’s not even the Bible stories or anything.  Instead of Moses and Paul you’ve got Nephi and Jared and Moroni.

Yes.  It’s vital to see the distinction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  They are about two completely separate groups of peoples on opposite sides of the globe.  That’s the main difference.  To put it simply:

Bible = Middle East

Book of Mormon = America

> But you mentioned Jesus.  Is that the same Jesus as in the Bible?  How does he show up in America?

Same Jesus, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth: the Son of God.  After he died and was resurrected, he appeared to the peoples of the Book of Mormon.

> I heard that the Book of Mormon replaces the Bible, and I’m not comfortable with that idea.

They are two very different accounts of separate peoples.  They’re like cake and ice cream.  Neither one is meant to replace the other.  In fact, they are enhanced when used together.  Give me both!

> Okay, but wouldn’t the Bible have mentioned something about the Book of Mormon?

It does!  The Lord told the Bible prophet Ezekiel that the stick of Judah (the Bible) and the stick of Joseph (the Book of Mormon) will be joined together “and they shall become one in thine hand” (Ezekiel 37:16-17).  Also, Jesus Christ taught the disciples that he had other sheep, “which are not of this fold” whom he intended to visit (John 10:16).

In the Book of Mormon, an angel explained to Nephi that “These last records [the Book of Mormon] . . . shall establish the truth of the first [the Bible] . . . 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” (1 Nephi 13:40).

What they have in common is their devotion to the Savior of all men.  Jesus is the long-foretold Messiah.  We may be saved from our sins and crimes and from death itself through His holy name.  These books of scripture tell us how we can receive this precious gift.  I recommend you read both.  You may order a free copy of each from mormon.org (the official Church website).

> Alright.  I’m clicking on that link right now!

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

33 Responses to “The Book of Mormon: The Mormons’ Bible?”

  1. What! We don’t read Twilight?!? I’m so confused.

  2. Bus Gillespie

    Good summation of the scriptures, makes me want to get started reading!

  3. Joe

    I’m sorry…what? Ezekiel 37:16 had nothing to do with Joseph Smith…it was referring to the reuniting of the israelite tribes into one nation. The two sticks becoming one was an allusion to the tribal rod from Numbers 17:2.

    In John 10:16, when Jesus speaks of “sheep who are not of this fold,” he wasn’t talking about ancient Americans. He was speaking of the Gentiles, the rest of the world, who did not receive the Law of Moses or know of the prophecy of the Messiah.

    However, even though these two verses do not have anything to do with the Book of Mormon or the people who take it as truth, the Book of Mormon, and the LDS Church, ARE mentioned in the Bible in many places. Galatians 1:6-9 is a good example.

  4. alessia

    Amen Joe! So true Let Gods word be known, Im reading the things and i was so confused because im like this is not what the bible said

  5. Thaddeus

    Joe and alessia,

    We are happy to respond to your comments, but please be respectful. Take a look at our comment policy.

    Ezekiel 37 does refer to the gathering of scattered Israel, and latter-day saints understand that the gathering was to be initiated by the combining of the records of Judah and Joseph (the tribe of Israel, not Joseph Smith). The word stick is an unfortunate translation; the original Hebrew ‘ets can have many meanings, among them wooden tablet. For a fuller understanding of our position, see Ezekiel’s Sticks and the Gathering of Israel.

    And it’s interesting that you (Joe) suggest that Jesus meant the Gentiles when he talked about the “other sheep, who are not of this fold.” Did Jesus visit the Gentiles? Please read 3 Nephi 15-16 from the Book of Mormon for an LDS explanation of John’s scripture.

  6. alessia

    Jesus did mean the Gentiles and us he was speaking on those that werent Jews and Nephi is not in my bible and thats the only book I believe was divinely inspired by God. We cant jus take the word stick and translate it to whatever we want it so say and say God meant the book of Mormons? thats like the other religions saying God meant the Bible and the Quaran. THe bible nowhere mentioned the word mormon which is a nickname.
    Well i pray that God blesses us all i was just commenting on Joes comment because those were the same things God revealed to me and what his word means.
    Take care.

  7. Derrill

    The above comments are very interesting, but as time goes on, and people become more educated and have access to the internet, the entire development of the Bible become under critical examination. Not that I discount it mind you, it is the most accurate ancient writings that we have. BUT, people need to do some research about how the Bible came down through the ages – translated and re-translated – down through the dark ages, etc. etc. TODAY there are many re-writes of the KJV, each adding and subtracting. Many had their hand in the KJV and the JEWS that started the process were not the best examples of “Chrisianity”. The BOM however went through no such variations and re-writings. It does compliment the Bible, however you will never know unless you read it. DF

  8. Karen

    im a christian and believe you me the bible is completely true and the mormons have a book of there own does it not say in the bible you can not add or take away from the word of god and plus read above eh the bible was in the middle east and the book of mormon was in america come on people how hard is it to se and plus whio is this joseph smith like eh what did god then have two sons jesus and joseph yeah thats what it sounds like and i think he only had one son as it says in the book of GOD jesus was his son did this smith guy just suddenly appear from out of the blue

  9. Thaddeus

    Karen. Pause. Take a breath.

    does it not say in the bible you can not add or take away from the word of god?
    John said something like that in Revelation. So did Moses in Deuteronomy. Learn more here

    the bible was in the middle east and the book of mormon was in america come on people how hard is it to see?
    I’m a bear of very little brain; could you elaborate on why this detail is self-explanatory?

    who is this joseph smith like eh what did god then have two sons jesus and joseph? yeah thats what it sounds like
    Whoa whoa whoa. Wait.

    Stop.

    Did we really give you that impression? I apologize if what I wrote was confusing. We Mormons believe that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. Learn more about the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and then take a closer look at the modern prophet, Joseph Smith.

  10. John

    Hi Thaddeus; great summary, really interesting, I had no idea before what the book of Mormon was all about, but you explained it really well.
    I was wondering if there is any archaeological evidence of the Lehites and Jareites in North America, as I have not heard of them before?
    Are their ancestors still around today? This is something that could easily be checked via a DNA analysis, has there been a study done?
    Do the mormons still have the gold plates and the stone box they came in? Is it possible to go and see them?
    Thanks, JW

  11. Thaddeus

    Thanks for your questions, John. I wrote about some of the evidence supporting the Book of Mormon here and here. You can also find a vast trove of stuff at jefflindsay.com.

    I find the evidence to be strong and convincing. I invite you to examine all of it yourself and come to your own conclusions. The most direct evidence is the Book of Mormon itself. The archeology, DNA, and historical documentary evidence all play second-fiddle to the evidence of the book’s existence and message. Read it. Pray about it. That is how you will know.

  12. John

    Thanks for your reply, Thaddeus. It does seem to me that as the plates the book of Mormon is supposedly based on don’t appear to exist any more, the book copied/miraculously translated from these plates cannot be described as ‘direct’ evidence, only indirect evidence. The 5 bullet points you list as compelling evidence on the first link could all be described as ‘circumstantial’.
    I had wondered when I posted the original question why the Lehites and Jareites hadn’t appeared in any history book I had read about the region alongside the Maya and Aztecs, but it appears that the only real evidence for their existence is the book of Morman itself. No artefacts, writings, buildings or genetic trace seems to survive. That’s not to say they didn’t exist, or course, as one of the links you provide is at pains to point out the DNA evidence doesn’t ‘rule out’ the possibility. It doesn’t however make the evidential base for believing they did so tiny (compared to Maya, or any one many other ancient peoples) as to make the objective observer dismiss the possibility completely.
    The bible itself makes many mentions of other peoples; Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Philistines, etc, and for every one of these we have countless primary evidence of artefacts, writings, etc, to back this up. You would have to admit objectively that the peoples in the book of Mormon don’t have anything close to approaching this level of supporting evidence from the links you sent me? It seems perilously close to zero…
    As for reading and praying about the truth of the book of Morman; I am not a Morman, I’m not even religious at all. I’m sure a Muslim would tell me to do exactly the same thing with the Qu’ran. Faith alone is not a good way to decide the truth of religious doctrine; every follower of a religion would tell you to do the same thing. As they can’t all be correct, then you would have to come to the conclusion that at least a few believers in the world are convincing themselves of things in the name of ‘faith’ that a rational mind would reject. Entirely possible of course that the Morman view is correct and everyone else wrong, but it seems unlikely. Ask yourself this; what sort of God places that high an importance on ‘faith’ and why would that be?
     

  13. Thaddeus

    John, I had to look up the definitions of “circumstantial evidence” and “direct evidence” (because I’m not a lawyer). In my previous comment I wasn’t thinking in such technical terms. Thank you for your help.

    The Book of Mormon text exists today and it clearly claims to be anciently derived (Title page: “it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi [...] Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God”). That is direct evidence because the conclusion doesn’t require an inference. Just taking the text at face value will lead any reader to believe that it was compiled by a man named Mormon (among other authors) a few hundred years after Christ. Direct evidence may be called into question by other evidence (the label “direct” doesn’t make the conclusion irrefutable), but it is safe to say that the text qualifies as “direct evidence.”

    As for those bullet points, I agree that each of them individually qualifies as circumstantial evidence for the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. Circumstantial evidence requires an inference. For example, the existence of Hebrew-style chiasms in the Book of Mormon (an undisputed fact) requires us to infer that the reason they are there is because the book is ancient and has Hebraic origins. Thus, the presence of chiasms lends credence to this idea that it’s authentic, but doesn’t point to it directly (because there are other inferences that can be made to explain them).

    “Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence.” I think this is a better classification for the group of 5 bullet points: corroborating evidence.

    The Aztecs didn’t exist as a people until hundreds of years after Moroni closed the record. The ancient Maya were a conglomeration of many different peoples, including (according to some LDS anthropologists) the remnants of the Nephites and the Lamanites. The Jaredite nation lines up quite well with what we know of the Olmec civilization, which destroyed itself around 600 BC.

    I would hesitate to consider myself sufficiently educated on the culture of ancient America to intelligently weigh the evidence (and I suspect you may be in the same boat). If you would like to examine some professional scholarly research into this question, I recommend looking at John Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon and Brant Gardner’s Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon.

    Lastly, I’m disappointed that you are so eager to dismiss our hypothesis that you won’t even entertain the idea of testing it (reading and praying). That is the way God has outlined we can know for ourselves. It requires no academic degree, no formal training; it is accessible to all of His children. All it requires is a willingness to trust. Please reconsider and get yourself a copy of the book today. It will change your life.

  14. John

    As far as I understand it (and I have ordered your free book, so maybe I will understand a little better soon!) the book itself is direct evidence for the existence of the plates and the angel, not for Mormon, the Jaredites and Nephites. For it to be evidence for the existence of these ancient peoples, you have to infer this from the story of the plates and angels, as clearly the book that Mr Smith came up with does not itself come from that time. That book is primary, direct evidence for the possible existence of the plates and angel, as is Mr Smith’s testimony (and therefore secondary, indirect evidence for Jaredites, et al).
    Unfortunately, the only primary, direct evidence for whether the words in the book of Morman relate to actual facts would be the plates themselves, or other artefacts from the time you could strongly link to events in the book.
    If you are saying that Olmec = Jaredite then presumably there is plenty of primary evidence to back up the book, but I find it strange in that case that we are still calling them Olmecs if there is a scientific consensus on this…I suspect not (but as you suspected, my knowledge in this field could be written on one sheet atm).
    By the way, I’m not dismissing the idea that if you read and pray about something you might come to believe it. I passionately believe that you can convince yourself of anything if you pray about it long enough (look at suicide bombers, for example…). Just because you believe it, doesn’t make it true, however. I can see how faith is important for the existence of religions, but I would like to believe in a God who respects reason more than blind faith.

  15. John

    I know it’s only wikipedia, but this seems pretty damming of the idea of any old world origin for the Olmecs based on current knowledge:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec_alternative_origin_speculations
    Some things that we know Jaredites had that have yet to turn up in that period in America (never mind Meso America) are horses, chariots, silk, iron, elephants(!)…it would be logical to say until any of these things to turn up we can assume the Jaredites only exist in the book of Morman.

  16. Thaddeus

    There isn’t scientific consensus. I said there is evidence supporting the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.

    I wouldn’t say there is enough to convince any reasonable skeptic (present company included), but there is enough to make a good case for it. The evidence against authenticity (such as references to elephants) is also largely circumstantial, and can be understood with alternative inferences (such as loan-shifting). For more about ancient American elephants and other mentioned animals, look at this wiki.

    I’m pleased that you ordered the book! That’s the appropriate thing to do if you’re going to debate about it.

  17. John

    Thanks for this link, though I think it is coming more from the point of view of knowing the book of Morman is true and then finding excuses for the evidence, which is opposite to the normal scientific way of doing things.
    It seems strange to me that, as the plates were effectively translated by God, he would deliberately ‘loan shift’ in his translation? Why not simply state what the animal was actually called in English to avoid confusion? A mistake on God’s part perhaps, or do you think he deliberately did it to test people’s faith? In the same way he removed the plates from the earth; was this to test people’s faith too?
    It seems to me that if you take this argument to it’s conclusion then the ultimate test of faith is to have pretty close to zero evidence for a religion, then only the truly faithful would follow. On the flip side, you would lose the people who like evidence, but I guess it’s fine for them to go to hell. Obviously this is an extreme case, but it’s difficult for me to see why a loving God would deliberately punish rationality and play tricks like removing plates and mis-name things. Why not simply make things explicit and obvious if you want people to worship you? The faith ‘filter’ doesn’t weed out ‘bad’ people per say, just rational ones.

  18. Thaddeus

    Science uses a free marketplace of ideas in which the status quo is open to questioning and basic assumptions are critically examined. Alternative hypotheses to the standard model have to account for all of the evidence, and this is precisely what FAIR is doing with their wiki. They are motivated to defend this alternative hypothesis because the prevailing model’s attempts to explain the Book of Mormon (as a 19th century composition) make questionable inferences regarding evidence used in support of an ancient composition. This is standard practice. Any scientist proposing a new paradigm would do the same.

    I think the implication of loan-shifting is being made on the Nephites when they arrived in the New World. Nephi saw a tapir, and thinking it resembled a donkey in many respects, gave it the Hebrew name for donkey. Then, when translating the Hebrew/reformed Egyptian to English, God (or the Holy Spirit, or the angel in charge of translating) chose to keep closely to the Hebrew, especially since the concept of ‘tapir’ was unfamiliar to 19th century New Englanders.
    You bring up some good questions about the translation process. I have often wondered how a perfect being would make a translation between two seriously flawed human languages. Translation involves a lot of decisions and compromises: Do I adhere more to word-for-word translation or focus on the whole meaning even if it means saying things the original author did not say? Do I translate into current or future English vernacular or would scriptural language ‘match’ better with the King James Bible? Should I try to explain the cultural context of this idiomatic phrase? Do I avoid making any editorial remarks and let the original writer’s voice (right or wrong) come through?
    What can we expect from a divine translation?

    I actually don’t have much stomach for the “you have to have faith” explanation of mysteries, either, John. It feels like a cop-out for clergy to avoid addressing distressing topics. As I wrote at the conclusion of my article on the witnesses to the gold plates, when God enacts a miracle he provides reasons to believe it. When He brought forth the Book of Mormon, He provided witnesses to the gold plates. When He sent His Son, He allowed for water to be turned to wine and the dead to rise. When you receive your copy of the Book of Mormon, read Moroni 10 (the last chapter; Moroni is concerned we won’t believe the book is authentic): it doesn’t just say “you have to have faith,” it outlines a test for you to find out if it’s true.
    Now, part of the test does involve faith: faith in Jesus Christ. This doesn’t mean, “believe what you’re told.” It means “trust Him.” And that, I think, is the real filter. Those who trust Him (rational or not) are those He can trust.

  19. Kassie

    A question about the tapir for horse hypothesis. Excuse me, but this makes no sense. The BOM uneqjuivocally states that the Nephites and Lamanites rode on “horses with chariots into battles!” They could NOT have ridden tapirs into battle. Sorry folks. They had to have had real horses or some other animal the size of a horse.

  20. Alexander

    Uh, no it doesn’t. The Book of Mormon only references chariots on a couple of occasions: with reference to traveling in the case of King Lamoni, and once briefly in passing in conjunction with Lachoneus’ evacuation of the Nephites. The rest of the time chariots or only mentioned either in biblical quotations or with reference to the gentiles. Sorry.
    http://lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&type=verse&query=chariot&testament=bofm

  21. Ivan

    So what if the stories in the book of mormom are not true so what if the nephites, lamenite, ect never really existed. If you would take the time to read it you find that the most important thing it says is absolutely true and that is that Jesus Christ is God only begotten son and that salvation comes through him. It has led countless people to Christ and to me that makes it ok. I belong to a Baptist church but I own a copy of the BOM and I feel God speak to me when I read it and it reafirms my belief that Jesus is the Messiah. I also enjoy it as a history book the stories in it are really quite amazing. Every Christian should at least give it a shot and then pray and ask God if is true he will answer you.

  22. Kassie

    If you are a Baptist and you say “if you ask God if it is true He will answer you” did you receive an answer that it was NOT true and that is why you remain a Baptist? Just curious!!!!

  23. Alexander

    Who, me? I’m Latter-day Saint and the Book of Mormon is true.

  24. ivan

    Kassie, no I was not saying that Gad told me the Book of Mormon was not true. I say in that post that I feel God speak to me when I read it meaning in a positive way. I go to a Baptist church because I really get a lot out of the pastors sermons there. But I do not consider myself Baptist I am a Christians. I hope and pray that one day there won’t be a Mormon,Baptist,Methodist,Penacostal,Catholic churches but only a Christian church so that we can quit fighting each other over petty doctirnal issues and get on with the job Christ gave each of us before a went back to his fathers house and that is to bring God’s kingdom to this earth. To the author of this site I say your doing a great job of spreading the good news about Jesus and keep it up.

  25. Ivan

    I found this today while I was reading the third book of nephi in the 11th chapter. This is Jesus speaking by the way.
    [33] And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
    [34] And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
    [35] Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
    [36] And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
    [37] And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
    [38] And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
    [39] Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
    [40] And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
    [41] Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth

    This is the point I was trying to make about fellow christian churches fighting over doctorine only I found where Jesus explained much better, big suprise there right.

  26. Ivan

    Maybe I should have gone on to say I think that Jesus was saying that as long as the beadrock of your faith is  salvation through the name of Jesus that he is of and in that church and that church is of and in him.

  27. DeAnn

    twilight! hahaha…. 
     
    I just think it all sounds fishy… God allows his people to live in sin because the rest of his Word is buried in a hill? The Bible has been around since before Jesus walked on the Earth, heck the Old testament was around Before this says these people left for the Americas… If they are people of God, then how come there has never been record of a Bible in olden day Meso America?

  28. Thaddeus

    DeAnn, thanks for your comments.

    God allows his people to live in sin because the rest of his Word is buried in a hill?

    You could ask the same thing about the New Testament or the writings of Isaiah. Were Noah and Abraham allowed to live in sin because the rest of his Word wasn’t yet written?

    In some Christian groups, the Bible represents the sole and complete source of divine knowledge. Mormons view the Bible as one (very valuable) source among many. We have faith in the pattern the Lord established from the beginning: follow the living, ordained prophet and learn from the deceased prophets (scriptures). Ask and seek through faithful prayer, and receive answers personally through the Holy Spirit.

  29. Karen

    Hmmm….Thaddeus, you state that,  “Mormons view the Bible as one (very valuable) source among many.”
    I view the Bible as the word of the one and only true God. 
    I guess that pretty much says it all.
    No other book should be used in place of it or written to enhance it or alter the meaning of it. If you are supporting the concept that the guys who started the Mormon Church wrote a book to help bring people to discover the true Bible, or wrote a book based on the Bible for the purpose of creating historic documentation to develop the basis for a new religion in their efforts to bring more of mankind to God and Jesus Christ our Lord then I can go along with that.
    But to use the Book of Morman as the primary book of your Church and delegate the Bible as a”‘source among many” as if listing it with other sources in a footnote at the bottom of a page doesn’t work for me.
    However, I will always support those good of heart and intentions who seek and pray to God, Our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Our Lord and Savior. May the path they choose be one that brings them into the blessed forgiveness of our sins and the loving grace of our Lord.
     

  30. Thaddeus

    Karen, thank you for that kind benediction.

    You are okay with the thought of a book written to bring people to the Bible and you are uncomfortable with the idea that the Bible could have peers (other books that contain the word of God). Is that right?

  31. The Book of Momrons was the creation of a man who at best was delusional or at worst was visited by a dark angel to help bring about a church based on lies and deception.

    The Book of Momrons was claimed to be the TRUE book upon its initial printing, yet it has been modified nearly 4000 times since then. The Book of Momrons claimed that polygamy was required, that was until political presure forced the church’s leader to adapt or suffer the consequences. This same mentality came again into play when the “cursed” people (those with dark skin) were suddenly found to be pure enough to enter the church as members although their fate is still very clearly defined as still being slaves within the Celestial Temple.

    The Book of Momrons is one lie after another meant to lure people into an organization that enslaves the mind and accumulates weath and resources; pretends to be good through donations and support while performing evil behind the scenes in destroying families and lives.

    There are many good people within that organization, alas it is a whole where lies and deception are the pillars and lead many kind hearted people to do work that leads to wrong, and even evil.

  32. Jodie

    Scott,

    You seem to have some very strong feelings about our church. I’m concerned about where you are getting your information, though. Would you mind sharing? I ask because I’ve read the Book of Mormon and attended the temple. Neither of them teaches these things…

  33. Michael White

    Dear John… From what I have been told, and I have been born Catholic self converted to Mormon, the plates where given back to God for 2 reasons;

    1. The plates where never Joseph’s in the first place. God had let him use them for translating and had to return them afterwards… like a loan.

    2. When had done the first book and the Book of Mormon he gave it to his friend so he could show his wife cause she was really annoyed that she couldnt see what her husband had invested so much time and money into. He lent her the finished original (and only copy) to her and she lost it. God was angry and banned him from translating. After a while he was allowed to continue but was instructed not to repeat the first book because people would alter the original copy and say he wrote one thing the first time and the second time it would be diffrent. Hence making it all seam like he made it all up, but people would not know that they had altered it to be diffrent. So he had to skip the first book in order for it to saved.

    I hope that clears a little bit up for you mate.

    Cheers,

Leave a Reply