The Book of Mormon is Correct?

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:461. See also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 194).

Joseph Smith made this bold claim about The Book of Mormon.  To be fair, if the Book of Mormon is true the way that Joseph Smith translated this book is only with the absolute power of God. 

The way that Joseph Smith translated the book is told in church history is by the method told below:

“The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote: ‘I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man’” (Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, July 1993, p. 61. Citing David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 12).

So looking over this, it is easy to say that the book of Mormon has to be from God. I mean if God showed easy word/letter to Joseph Smith, then How can it be wrong.

BUT WAIT…

If God helped Joseph translate the Book of Mormon,  then why is there more then 4000 changes to the Book of Mormon?  One would think that God would have got it right the first time.

These changes are not just to fix the grammar issues that was in the Book of Mormon (I guess God can’t spell), But was to also change theology.

One change that we can see is in 1Nephi 11:21 which now says; 21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

But the 1830 version says;  11:21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

So the new version makes the Lamb of God (Jesus) into the son of god, meaning the first begotten, spirit brother.

The 1830 version says that the Lamb of God (Jesus) is God, God in the flesh, the creator, The Word 100% God 100% man. 

So there seems to be a issue with The Book of Mormon in the changing of scripture. If the power of God really did gave Joseph Smith ever letter and every word then why would it need to be changed so much?  

Also it is important to point out that the Book of Mormon uses 27000 words directly from the King James Bible (1611).  If the Book of Mormon was first pinned between 600BC and 421AD how can it quote the King James Bible that was Written until 1000 years later? If the Book of Mormon was true and only came about when Joseph Smith found the golden plates, then why was the book “view of the Hebrews” so parallel to each other?

When you look at the evidence shown in how The Book of Mormon came to be, you will find that it was made by man and not given from God.  If the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God then there would not be over 4000 changes.  If the Book of Mormon was pinned between 600bc and 421ad it would not quote the King James Bible word for word. If the Book of Mormon it would not sound like another book that came out 7 years before the Book of Mormon.

Do the math…

King James Bible + View of the Hebrews +Joseph Smith  = Book of Mormon

END OF LINE…

Still waiting! 4th week in a row call out for any General Authority-Scott Gordon

Thanks Contend4theFaith1

Are Ancient Coins Mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

By Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson from www.mrm.org

There are a number of coins mentioned in the Bible, including the denarius, the lepton (widow's mite), and the shekel. While the nicer coins are marked at a premium, many are common coins and can be purchased for a few hundred dollars. For instance, there are hundreds of thousands of authentic widow's mite coins from 2,000 years ago; in fact, an authentic coin referred to by Jesus in Luke 21:2 can be purchased for just a few dollars in a coin shop or on the Internet.

Some have criticized the Mormon Church for its failure to provide evidence for any Nephite coins. But should we really expect the LDS Church to produce them? Coinage in the Western Hemisphere during the Book of Mormon time period was unknown. The use of coins did not become popular until the sixteenth century, more than a millennium after the last Nephite had allegedly died. However, the problem does not lie in a lack of Nephite coins. Rather, it lies in Joseph Smith's implication that such coins existed in the first place.

According to Smith, the Book of Mormon states in Alma 11:4, "Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value." Verses 5-19 list several measurements of gold (senine, seon, shum and limnah) and silver (senum, amnor, ezrom and onti). In lower numbers, there were shiblons (worth half a senum), shiblums (half a shiblon), and leahs (half a shiblum). This, according to Alma 11:20, was the measurement of money that the people received for their wages.

The introduction to Alma chapter 11 states that these are "Nephite coins and measures." This explanation comes to us via James Talmage, a Mormon apostle who was commissioned to add both chapter headings and footnotes to the Book of Mormon. James P. Harris, author of The Essential James E. Talmage, noted that Talmage "was customarily meticulous, making sure there were no errors or omissions" (p.xxix).

If these items are actually coins, shouldn't archaeologists expect to find evidence of them as places thought to be Book of Mormon lands are unearthed? In the many ruins uncovered in the Middle East, archaeologists are able to date their findings by the numerous coins they normally find in the same level of their dig.

However, since no Book of Mormon coins have been found, a common LDS response is to dismiss Talmage's explanation altogether.

BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson states,

"It is, alas, quite true that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Book of Mormon coins. Not even in the Book of Mormon itself. The text of the Book of Mormon never mentions the word 'coin' or any variant of it. The reference to 'Nephite coinage' in the chapter heading to Alma 11 is not part of the original text, and is mistaken. Alma 11 is almost certainly talking about standardized weights of metal—a historical step toward coinage, but not yet the real thing" (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5:55)

Mormon apologist Michael Griffith agrees. "Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is the use of coins even mentioned. The term 'coins' in the chapter heading to Alma 11 is a mistake of modern editing, not a part of the original text itself" (Refuting the Critics, p. 60).

Peterson and Griffith's analysis seems to understand how damaging it would be if Alma had been referring to actual coins. Commonly used coins in any culture always have a way of showing up. They don't just disappear entirely from the face of the earth. This compels the Mormon apologist to say that these references were merely weight measurements and would not be something that could be discovered on an archaeological dig. But there are several serious flaws with this rationale.

First, the LDS Church has seen no reason to delete or modify the introduction to Alma 11 despite the protests from the above–named laymembers. It reads the same today as it has since 1920. If coinage is not meant, it seems strange that the church would continue to print this particular heading. On this point alone, the LDS apologist's conclusion seems presumptuous since this introduction to Alma 11 was obviously approved by the LDS First Presidency.

Second, for decades this passage has been understood by Latter-day Saints to speak of coins. For example, B.H. Roberts, a highly respected LDS Seventy and church historian, wrote, "In addition to these words we have also a number of names of Nephite coins and the names of fractional values of coins…" Roberts proceeds to explain the different values, often using the term "coins" to describe them. Though Roberts says "we have no means of obtaining specifically the value of these coins in modern terms," he adds that "there is stated a system of relative values in these coins that bears evidence of its being genuine" (A New Witness for God, 3:145).

Finally, we disagree with Dr. Peterson's claim that no variant of the word coin is used in the text. Taking his advice that Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language is perhaps "our best source for the language of Joseph Smith and his contemporaries" (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5:8) we find that under the word "piece" (the word Smith used in Alma 11:4), there are several definitions. However, none of them have any meaning that would fit Alma 11:4 until the eighth definition: "A coin; as a piece of eight." The meaning for "piece" in Joseph Smith's day was coin.

Click on image to view full size

This rule is followed in the 1979 Book of Mormon Student Manual - Religion 121-122 when a subheading asks students "How Valuable Were the Nephite Pieces of Money?" Showing that "pieces" meant "coins," the manual presents a chart to show "the relative value of silver and gold coins under the system set up by Mosiah" (p.229).

Conclusion

History shows that there was no coinage in the Western world during the supposed time of Nephites and Lamanites despite the fact that there should be if the Book of Mormon is an actual history of real people and real events. Mormon apologists can haggle over the absence of the word "coin" all they want, but the fact remains that the language of Smith's day and how these passages were understood clearly show that Alma 11 is referencing ancient Nephite coins. This issue of coinage is just one of a number of areas that can be used to show that the Book of Mormon is a product of Joseph Smith's nineteenth century world and not an ancient document.

View of the Hebrews-1823 Book of Mormon-1829 very very similar stories

My Top Ten Questions For Mormons

Update…

After looking over my top 10 question, I came to find that some of them may be taken the wrong way.  Because of this I wanted to update them so that members of the LDS church would not get upset with me or offended.  I only ask these questions because over the year the LDS church has asked non-LDS to ask these kinds of questions to learn more about the Mormon faith.  I will still keep the old questions up so that people can see the changes and answer them as well.

__________________________________________________________

NEW

1. Do you believe the Bible has been corrupted?

2. If the Bible is corrupted, then why does the LDS church still use the King James and not the Joseph Smith Translation?

3. Do you believe you can become a god?

4. As a paid clergy, do you believe I am paid by the Devil?

5. Looking at the chart below and if you agree with it, do we worship the same God?

One God of the Bible	Plural Gods of Mormonism
God The Father
Infinite	Finite
Always God	Became God
Absolutely Holy	Achieved Holiness
All Knowing	Achieved Knowledge
Eternal Perfect	Achieved Perfection
All Powerful	Attained Power
Only Creator	One of Many Designers
The Son (Jesus)
Eternal	Procreated by God and Wife
Creator	Our Brother
The Holy Spirit
Eternal	Procreated By God and Wife
Creator	A Spirit Brother
Human
Created on Earth	Same Species as God
Spiritually Adopted Children	Born to God and Wife

6. Moroni 8:18 says; for I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; he is unchangeable from eternity to all eternity.

My question is: If God is from eternity to all eternity, how can he have once been a man born by another God and wife on another planet?

7. Have you read the whole Bible or at least the New Testament? (Not the Joseph Smith Translation)

8. In the Bible when it talks about “He being pierced because of our transgression” and “we are healed by His wounds”, Evangelical Christians see this as refereeing to Jesus on the cross (Isaiah 53:5). Why Does the LDS church believe that Jesus paid for our sin in the Garden of Gethsemane?

9. If Jesus was the only begotten son of God, then how are we spirit sons and daughters of God and his wives as well?

10. If you came to find out that the Mormon faith was not true, would you leave it?

__________________________________________________________

OLD

1. How can the LDS church clam that the Bible has been corrupted when there is proof that shows it is not? Things like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.

2. If the Bible is corrupted, then why does the LDS church still use the King James and not the Joseph Smith Translation?

3. Do you believe you can become a god?

4. As a paid clergy, do you believe I am paid by the Devil?

5. If now the LDS members and bishops and other high up officials claim that we are all Christians, then how can the LDS church be the one and only true church and the rest and their creeds be an abomination?

6. Moroni 8:18 says; for I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; he is unchangeable from eternity to all eternity.

My question is: If God is from eternity to all eternity, how can he have once been a man born by another God and wife on another planet?

7. Have you read the whole Bible or at least the New Testament? (Not the Joseph Smith Translation)

8. Why in the Bible when it talks about “He being pierced because of our transgression” and “we are healed by His wounds”, refereeing to Jesus on the cross (Isaiah 53:5). Why Does the LDS church claim that Jesus paid for our sin in the Garden of Gethsemane?

9. If Jesus was the only begotten son of God, then how are we spirit sons and daughters of God and his wives as well?

10. If you came to find out that the Mormon faith was not true, would you leave it?

If you plan on giving an answer to any of these question, please make then more then 1 to 2 word answer on all but number 7.

3rd week in a row invitation and still waiting to hear from Scott Gordon or any General Authority.

Invitation still open to appear on the show.

Is Mormonism Christian?

From Dr. James White

Teachings of Thomas S. Monson (part 4)

“The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suf­fered the loss of many plain and precious parts. ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.’ (The A of F 1:8.) Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfor­tunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter days. The most reliable way to measure the accu­racy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day rev­elations.” (Presi­dents Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas Mon­son, “Letter Reaffirms use of King James Version Bible,” Church News, June 20, 1992, p. 3)

Now in this post I have used a quote not found in Thomas S. Monson’s book but never less it is scripture because he said it or wrote it.

“Those who listen to and follow the counsel of living prophets and apostles will not go astray. The teachings of living prophets provide an anchor of eternal truth in a world of shifting values and help avoid misery and sorrow” (Preach My Gospel, 2004, p. 75).

But in his book I was only able to find one spot that he talks about The Bible and that was in the section about scripture on pages 275-276. Now I do have to say the quote in his book on the bible was a very great quote and one I believe in as well. I know this seems strange that I would be saying this but read the quote and tell me what you think.

The Holy Bible is an inspiration to me. This sacred book has inspired the minds of men and has motivated readers to live the commandments of God and to love one another. It is printed in greater quantities, is translated into more languages, and has touched more humans hearts than any other volume. (“My Brother’s Keeper,” Ensign, May 1990, 46) (“Teachings of Thomas S. Monson,”2011, 276)

See what I mean, that is a good quote but it seems to go ageist the fist quote that I posted today. Anyone who has study the LDS church or is LDS you know that the bible is said to have mistakes and is only good as far as it’s translated correctly. Between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which one is more reliable?

Let us look at the know manuscripts for the Bible:

Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now. Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.

Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.

In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).
The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.

The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.

A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.
The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible.
Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work.

These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work.
The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy (http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html)

Now that seems pretty good for the bible not changing. It has also been noted that when changes are found in the manuscripts they are very very small and no significance. Things like “Jesus Christ to Christ Jesus” and so one.

But to be fair let’s take a look at the early manuscripts for the Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon= None

The first printing and sale of the Book of Mormon was in 1830 and before then Joseph Smith calmed that he was shown where some golden plates which had the history written on them in reformed Egyptian. Then he returned the plates to the angel.

1^st No manuscripts/ No golden plates

2^nd there is no languages as Reformed Egyptian

Now I know that Mormons clam that reformed just means changed and that it’s a forum of Egyptians written by the people in the book of Mormon but again there is no other proof of this, just what Joseph Smith claimed.

Mormons would have to agree with me that it would be nice to have some evidence of your book to be true, you know like God gave evidence with the Bible. Cities, people, wars, coins and so one, I’m just saying.

Let me end with this, when looking to see which book is true or translated right it is easy to look at the evidence but you must also believe it as well.

END OF LINE…