(Continued from page 369)Doctrinal Errors Resulting!
Despite claims that errors in the 1830 Book of Mormon consisted of grammatical and spelling mistakes only (which actually defies the supposed perfect method of translation and printing, as stated by the 'witnesses'), the doctrinal errors are on record. These major differences appear in the original compared with the present edition:Why are most doctrines not contained in the Book of Mormon.
1 Nephi 11v18: 'Behold the virgin which thou seest is the mother of God'
This false Roman Catholic doctrine was supposedly held by the Nephites before the Papal Roman Catholic Church existed!
1 Nephi 11v21: 'And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea even the Eternal Father.'
Another false doctrine, making the Son and the Father one in personage is the Modalistic/Sabbelianistic heresy!
1 Nephi 14v10 - this tells us that there are only two choices - you are either in 'The Church of the Lamb of God' or the 'Church of the Devil.'
How did it take so long to get the LDS name 'correct' when 3 Nephi 27:8 has this passage:
'And how shall it be my church save it be called in my name' For if a church be called in Moses' name then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of man...'
When founded in 1830 the church was known as 'The Church of Christ.'
According to David Whitmer - one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon (in his 'An Address To All Believers in Christ', p.73) this was the name given by the Lord.
The church voted to change the name to 'The Church of the Latter-Day Saints' in 1834 (HotC, 2:63).
What happened to Christ's name then? Would the 'restored church' really have done this with a living 'seer and revelator' to correct such obvious errors?
In 1838 Joseph Smith had a revelation - strange that it should take so long when the Book of Mormon had apparently made it clear that this was important to God - that the name should be 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.'
How did it take so long - eight years - to get the name correct when 3 Nephi 27:8 has this passage which tells us that it was the church of man for all this time?
Why didn't Smith call his church by this name - 'The Church of the Lamb of God' (1 Nephi 14v10) - or didn't he believe the Book of Mormon?
Nowhere in the Bible is a church called with Christ's name on it. Believers are called ekklesia (or ecclesia - Greek for church) which means literally 'called out ones.' Paul addressed the believers in Corinth as 'the church of God, which is at Corinth,' Galatian believers were addressed as 'the churches of Galatia,' and the Thessalonian Christians were 'the church of the Thessalonians.'
If Paul had been incorrect surely Joseph Smith would have corrected the script in his 'inspired translation' of the Bible. But he didn't!
1 Nephi 18:25 25: And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.
The horse arrived with the Spanish in 16th century A.D. and, despite stories told by Mormon missionaries, only the remains of extinct miniature horses the size of dogs have been found in North American tar pits.
1 Nephi 13v32 - the 1830 edition reads: 'Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awful woundedness'
The 1963 edition reads: 'Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness'
1 Nephi 16v10 - a mariner's compass is described (cf. 1 Nephi 18v12,21; 2 Nephi 5v12; Alma 37v38). The date here is around 600 B.C. but the magnetic compass was first used by the Chinese around 1100 A.D. and in Europe shortly afterwards;
1 Nephi 20v1 - 1830 edition reads: 'And are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord' (p.52)
1963 edition: 'And are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord'
2 Nephi 5v15 (and Ether 7v9) - steel is mentioned, but is out of the time scale;
Alma 1v29; 4v6; Ether 9v17 - silk, fine linen and wool are mentioned, but these were not found in America until the European settlers arrived;
Alma 11v5-6 - the complex system of coins described in the Book of Mormon, such as a 'senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold....senum of silver, an amnor of silver, and ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver' have simply not been found. But we find that the coinage described in the Bible has been found all over the Middle East! Unfortunately the Book of Mormon's author didn't know that gold and silver were so common to the Aztec/Maya groups that they were not prized highly enough for every-day barter and trade. Instead jade and cocoa beans were used for this purpose!
Alma 18v12 - chariots are described, but the wheel came to America with the Europeans over 1,000 years later!;
Alma 29v4 - 1830 edition 'Yea, I know that he alloteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them Decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills.' (p.303)
1963 edition; 'Yea, I know that he alloteth unto men according to their wills.'
Why was this changed - because it made the doctrine of 'baptism for the dead' look ridiculous? Decrees that are unalterable clearly means that there are no second chances after death! The Mormon 'god' contradicts himself repeatedly! This also proves that the LDS claims that the corrections in the Book of Mormon are insignificant is patently untrue.
Ether 9v2 - 1830 edition reads: '....his sons and to his daughters, which were not, or which did not seek his destruction.' (p. 555)
1963 edition reads: '....his sons and to his daughters who did not seek his destruction.'
This is simply awful English (see later refutation of illogical excuses used by LDS leaders);
Ether 9v19: And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
Elephants are mentioned, but are native to India and Africa and have not been found on the American continent (mammoths have been reported in North America where the ice-straits would allow migration);
Ether 15v2 - describes two million men as being slain (and also their wives and children, making 5-6 million in total); slaughter on this scale would leave traces for archaeologists to find (as they have done with Spanish conquistadors' battles and many smaller battles in other parts of the world), but no such traces have been found;
Mosiah 9v9 - wheat, barley, flax and olives were brought to America by European settlers; none were present during the 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. period! The staples in Ancient America are known to be maize and cotton. The 'agricultural scene' in the Book of Mormon is remarkably like that of 1830 New York State - which would have the corn, barley, cows, oxen, asses, sheep and swine described here - and nothing like that of Ancient America!
Mosiah 14v2-5 - compare with Isaiah 53v2-4 (another example of italicized words from KING JAMES VERSION being introduced into Book of Mormon). Joseph Smith supposedly came up with identical translation from 'reformed Egyptian' that King James translators used (complete with added words to improve reading from Hebrew). If you read parts of Isaiah 53 quoted in the KING JAMES VERSION the wording varies considerably.
The chances of producing a translation from two languages into English and achieving the same wording are statistically monstrous! Other evidence clearly suggests plain plagiarism was used by Smith.
1 Nephi 22v20 - And the Lord will surely prepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.
Is this an attempt to exclude this 'prophet' from the tests of Deuteronomy 13 & 18, and Matthew 7v15-23, which clearly show Smith to be a false prophet?
Unfortunately, although written between 588 and 570 B.C., from Israelite Nephi reading from 'the books of Moses,' specifically Deuteronomy 18v15, 18-19 (1 Nephi 19v23), the Book of Mormon writer mistakenly has him reading this portion from Acts 3v22-23 instead (even though the book of Acts was not written until over 600 years later). If we compare these passages it is obvious which one is quoted in 1 Nephi.
2 Nephi 31v8,10 - this instructs believers to 'follow Jesus' (referring to baptism in the past) but is anachronistically about 600 years before the events;
Jacob 2v26-27 - 'But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.'Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.'
The Edmunds Act (1882) and 1887 legislation dissolving the LDS church, followed by 1890 Federal prosecutors convicting hundreds of Mormon men on anti-polygamy laws, resulted in the 'declaration' (not a revelation) of convenience by Wilford Woodruff. Thus the 'everlasting covenant' of D&C 132 was overturned by the 'law of the USA'!
Alma 58v40 - this is a copy of Galatians 5v1 and supposedly written in 62 B.C. - years before Paul born;
3 Nephi 13v14,24 - essentially a copy of Matthew 6v14,24 (words in Nephi from A.D. 34) and, again, virtually word for word from KING JAMES VERSION.
3 Nephi 15v17,21,22 is a copy of John 10v16. It is clear that the Jewish disciples were not expecting Gentiles (or Nephites) into the fold. Read Acts (10v45; 11v1-2) - which shows us that surprise and opposition greeted this idea. So this statement in the Book of Mormon: 'they supposed it had been the Gentiles' - was clearly later and known about in 1830 A.D., but not 'in Nephi's day,' and is therefore another anachronism;
Jesus said his sheep would 'hear His voice' - there is no reason to believe this would be literal (read John 18v37) unless you believe that He will literally speak out of heaven to every believer! This is obviously hearing in the sense of believing. Read Hebrews 4v7 - 'Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts' - where those who believe are compared with those who harden their hearts and 'believe not' (John 10v26-270 and are 'not my sheep' is compared with 'My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.'
3 Nephi 11:27 and 36 - are a direct paraphrase of 1 John 5v7 (in perfect King James Elizabethan English and in the order placed by the KING JAMES VERSION translators and 1200 years before there was such a translation)! The foolish deception of the false prophet Smith is exposed again, for the interpolation relative to the Trinity used by the KING JAMES VERSION translators in their version of 1 John 5v7 does not appear in the earlier Greek manuscripts which have been found since Smith's day and the KING JAMES VERSION translators' days! Now we know why God allows manuscripts to be preserved and only discovered in these latter days so, again, they confirm the authenticity of the Bible further after some thought all available evidence had been found. This ensures that scams of the Joseph Smith kind are unrepeatable.
3 Nephi 11:33-34 - this is almost a direct quote from Mark 16v16 which is a passage not appearing in the oldest Greek manuscripts which the KING JAMES VERSION translators (and Smith) did not have access to in their day! Again, these manuscripts expose deceivers such as Smith.
Mormon 9v8-9 - cf. Hebrews 13v8 and James 1v17;
1 Nephi 10v18* - contradicts the idea that God was once a man and progressed to be God.
Ether 1v33-37* - this contradicts Genesis 11v7-9 which says the Lord confounded the language of 'all the earth.'
Ether 15v29-31 - the warrior Shiz is described as being decapitated, but then struggles to breath and rise. This is medically impossible and there is no reason for it to have been miraculous!
Moroni 10v4 - cf. James 1v5 which is a message to believers. We are to test everything (see 1 Thessalonians. 5v21; Acts 17v11 - and the prophetic tests given earlier)
Within pages 1 to 25 of the original Book of Mormon, more than 500 changes are to be found - but we should not be too surprised about this as Smith carelessly 'lost' the first 116 pages. These pages were probably destroyed by Martin Harris' wife, who recognised that her husband was being conned into putting up the money to finance the printing of the first Book of Mormon. Doubtless she would also have known of Smith's widespread reputation as a deceiver who pretended to find buried treasure by putting a Seer Stone in a hat and 'reading' it by occultic divination (he also used this method when the 'Urim and Thummim' were 'taken back into heaven by God')!
One of the worst examples of errors in the Book of Mormon can be found in the 1830 edition of Mosiah 21:28 which lists King Benjamin as being alive when he had already died - see Mosiah 6:5! This was later changed to King Mosiah to remove the obvious contradiction.
Of almost 27,000 words plagiarised from the King James version many are copied almost word for word - e.g. 2 Nephi 12-24 is almost identical to Isaiah 2-14;
It is impossible to use the excuse that the KING JAMES VERSION translation was used to speed up writing the Book of Mormon. Why? Because the LDS have already claimed it to be polluted so, just as you wouldn't add polluted water to pure water, neither would you introduce supposed polluted material into a supposedly pure translation from God. You cannot have it both ways!
As discussed earlier, Smith began his work on the Bible in the spring of 1831 and, on July 2, 1833, the History of the Church records: 'We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures.' Plans were made to publish the translation (D&C, 94:10), but it failed to see the presses until 1867, when the Reorganised Church published it. However, as expected from a clearly fraudulent work, not one manuscript of the Old and New Testaments supports Smith's translation!
Smith also 'translated' the Book of Abraham which has been proven to be a fraud (and is in reality a copy of an Egyptian funeral service). The fakery was proven by many experts - including the Mormon's own man, Dee J. Nelson, who carried out extensive examinations showing the translation was impossible. He and his family quickly resigned from the church in protest at the deception and the use of such 'revelations' to practice racial discrimination! Shortly afterwards (June 9th, 1978) President & 'prophet' Kimball had his convenient revelation that the priesthood was now for all men including negroes!
A very revealing episode occurred in 1843, when Smith 'translated' the Kinderhook plates.
On Monday, May 1st, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote in his journal:
'I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook,...I have translated a portion of them, and found they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.' (HotC, 5:372)
Unfortunately for Smith local 'Gentiles' wanted to prove his worth as a translator so they 'engraved' some plates with acid, copying 'hieroglyphics' off a box of China tea! After ageing the plates artificially they buried them and then arranged for them to be discovered in the presence of a Mormon elder when searching for 'buried treasure.' Naturally they allowed the elder to take them to 'seer and revelator' Smith who declared them 'authentic.'
Experts have since confirmed that the one remaining plate is engraved with writing in the Lo language of China and dating experts place the age of the plate at the time of the perpetrated hoax! Surely only false 'seers and revelators' translate bogus plates? There is no point in trying the feeble arguments offered by Mormon missionaries, such as the desperate ploy that 'Joseph Smith was having a joke with the hoaxers'! The Mormon Church was deceived well enough to put the details in the Church History, but have also tried to amend other records to hide this deception.
At the end of the day the Book of Mormon is a mere shadow of the Bible, agreeing with all its major precepts and adding nothing of any substance whatsoever - so clearly nothing was 'lost' from the Bible! However, some ludicrous heretical views such as the 'modalistic/Sabbelianistic' view of the godhead have crept into a book clearly written by an uneducated and narrow mind.
As detailed on our web-pages - http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page52.html - orthodox Christian scholars claim not less than 98.33% (by computer analysis) for the New Testament (taking the worst possible cases - which we are not justified in doing) - and the Dead Sea Scrolls show absolutely minor variations from the Old Testament text already available. The Bible is recognised as the most accurate ancient book in history and the evidence for its authenticity simply increases as the years go by.
But now that the Book of Mormon is available on computer, a recent analysis shows embarrassing 'holes' in the passages corresponding to the missing 116 pages. These could not be filled in to the detail of the following text because Joseph Smith clearly could not remember what he had written - not having the advantage of a computer or even carbon paper and thus losing the complete first copy! Of course, God could have replaced them using Smith as 'Seer,' but this would have given an easy proof that he was a false prophet when he was unable to reproduce the pages exactly. The wife of Martin Harris is suspected of taking the missing pages, because of her suspicions about Smith's motives, and perhaps destroyed them. Of course, whoever took them, if they had been smart enough to retain them the production of the originals, and comparison with Smith's replacements, would have rapidly proven where the truth lay.
At the end of the day there is no need for any Scriptures if all previous revelations can be made null and void by the current prophet, as was the case when Smith was contradicting himself ad infinitum. Mormons will readily accept the instruction of yet another false prophet who attempts to conceal the deceit of his predecessors. Ezra Taft Benson made this declaration to try and silence those seeking the truth:
'Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.' (Ezra Taft Benson, '14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.' Press Copy, p.5)
It is obvious that if prophets of the God of the Bible were to constantly contradict each other it would be impossible to know when a prophet is a false prophet. It would contradict God's tests for a prophet and also make the statements that God is '....not a God of confusion' (D&C, 132:8) and 'God doth not vary' (D&C, 3:2 - cf. Alma 29:4 (1830 version); Alma 41:8; 1 Corinthians 14:33; James 1:17) a total nonsense.
These facts are an immense problem to the LDS church and the 'testimony test' given by the 'Prophet' Joseph Smith, for no amount of testimony can overturn the 'facts of history.' By this we mean facts that are solidly attested for by historical records - such as the writings of the Mormon church leaders. Another question to be asked regards the validity of the 'testimony test' - is the test Scriptural? And how can we know if it is from God? The answer is quite simple. Is God really going to give a test that overturns the tests He previously gave - which Smith's test clearly attempts? Obviously not!
The clear tests for a prophet are given in the Bible in Deuteronomy 13 and 18, Jeremiah 23v23-40, and Matthew 7v15-23. The test is very simple - a true prophet will not send believers after 'gods' they have not known and he will never make even ONE false prophecy. Does Joseph Smith pass these simple tests? If you read these Bible passages through carefully you can see that it really is that simple - if Joseph Smith gave one prophecy that failed then he is not a prophet of God and is not to be feared and we are not to take notice of him. Prophets of God are accurate in both their theology of God and their prophetic utterances.
Please don't allow anyone to persuade you that Jonah or any other prophet of the Bible prophesied falsely - it is easily shown that the examples used to try and prove this are false! Write to us if you do not believe it. Notice, too, that the Biblical test clearly allows for a false prophet to give some 'prophecies' that occur - and even cause signs and wonders to occur - but God will declare that 'He never knew them!' (Matthew 7v15-23).
Try comparing the gospel presented by the Mormon church with the Muslim faith. Their testimony is that an angel appeared to the 'prophet' Muhammad and led to God (Allah) giving him a series of revelations which became the Koran. Unfortunately, the Koran is full of doctrine which is contradictory to the Bible - contradicts its own doctrine - and is grossly historically inaccurate! Since Muhammad claimed these were revelations from the same God who gave the Old Testament it immediately became obvious to his contemporaries that he was a fraud. And how did he react to this? Islam hates us to broadcast it abroad, but he and his followers massacred all who would point out his errors. And, of course, the author Salman Rushdie received a death threat because he reminded those Muslims - who are familiar with Muhammad's contradictory doctrines - that he once said that believers could also worship the three daughter-goddesses of Allah! These verses of 'revelations' became known as 'The Satanic Verses' - because Muhammad admitted that they must have come from Satan!
Does this seem familiar to you? Do you know Smith's 'Toronto prophecy' concerning the sale of the copyright of the Book of Mormon? Though Smith claimed God had said it would be sold, the two men sent to perform the task came back having failed to do so (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, p.31).
As usual there have been attempts to avoid the issues behind this mission. Richard Lloyd Anderson (professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU in 'A Sure Foundation,' p.42) claimed that Whitmer was in error concerning this revelation and quoted Hyrum Page (one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon) as saying that Smith ordered them to go to Kingston - not Toronto! Anderson then appears to want to discount the entire record.
However, the Mormon historian B.H. Roberts, who would also like to believe that Whitmer's representation of some of the facts could be flawed wrote: '...his testimony may not be set aside' (Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:165). Roberts is quite correct to take this viewpoint - or we could argue that Whitmer's testimony to the Book of Mormon could be equally flawed!
Not surprisingly we find that LDS apologists hold to Page's account because it contains a condition for the sale of the Book of Mormon - that they were to sell it to purchasers 'if they would not harden their hearts.' Does this let Joseph Smith off the hook? Absolutely not - because when asked to give an explanation for this failure he was puzzled, asked the Lord concerning the matter, and then responded by saying:
'Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil' (An Address to All Believers in Christ, p.31).
If there was really a condition for the sale there would have been no need for Smith to apologise or attribute the revelation to man - or the devil!
This clearly puts Smith in the same league as Muhammad as an equally false prophet. Are Muslims and Mormons going to say that both are prophets of God - or neither are prophets of God?
Perhaps you are familiar with the account of 'The Emperor's New Suit'? Two swindlers claim to be tailors and able to make a 'magic suit' of clothes for the Emperor. Since no such suit exists, and they have done no work when their loom is inspected by the emperor's officials, they claim that the 'colours and patterns were not only exceptionally beautiful, but the clothes made of their material possessed the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who was unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid.' Since no one wants to be seen to be unfit for office or stupid they all go along with the deception and greet the Emperor's appearance in his underwear with loud praises and he eventually appears before the nation in his non-existent suit. Unfortunately, a young boy (who does not know what he is supposed to see) sees the Emperor appear in this state and cries out: 'But he has nothing on at all'. We can be like the boy's father who said: 'Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,' so that someone in the crowd whispered to another what the child had said until the whole people cry out: 'But he has nothing on at all.' The spell is broken and now no one can deny that the boy has declared that which his eyes can plainly see! No amount of deception can hide the facts! But we can also be like the emperor, who agreed that they were right but thought to himself, 'Now I must bear up to the end' - and continued to stride along with his courtiers in foolish dignity, as they 'carried' the train of the suit which did not exist.
This is exactly what the Joseph Smith testimony amounts to! It appeals to emotions and the sincerity of the one seeking the truth and not to the facts. Since no one wishes to appear insincere they are under enormous psychological pressure to accept Smith's test. But it is not a test from God - and in fact would cause a Bible-believing Christian to actually test God (which is sin!). The test is from a swindler promoting his own vehicle for belief in him and his gospel!
Smith's test actually fulfils the test given to the Pharisees by Jesus Christ Himself in John 5v41-47. The Pharisees denied Christ but would be willing to accept a man who came on his own authority - 'I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive' (v43). This is exactly what Joseph Smith has done! Smith also fulfils Jesus' words concerning those who would deny Him and His gospel - which is what all who accept Smith and his gospel do because they join him in rejecting the accuracy of the Bible and therefore the testimony of Moses 'For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me....but if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?' (v45-47)
How can I say the LDS reject Moses writings so clearly? Because they have allowed Smith to cast doubt on the whole Bible and to rewrite the writings of Moses in his supposed 'Inspired Version.' The real reason for Smith's 'translation' was so he could insert a prophecy concerning his own birth in his version?:
'And his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people salvation.' (Genesis 50v33, JST)
By adding substantially to Genesis 50 he inserts a supposed 'prophecy' about himself in a book that was written about 3,000 years earlier and therefore blasphemes the work of Christ by usurping the work of Jesus Christ in the declaration: '...the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people salvation.'
Christ alone brings us salvation - 'This is the stone which was set at nought by you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved' (Acts 4v11-12). Clearly this 'thing' brought forth by Smith is another, very different gospel (which we are warned of in Galatians 1v6-9) from that preached by Christ and the apostles.
It would surprise many to learn that Brigham Young had this to say about the role of Joseph Smith in their salvation:
'No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith....every man and woman must have a certificate of Joseph Smith, Junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansions where God and Christ are...he reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.' (JoD, 7:289)
This blasphemous statement has to be accepted by Mormons who really have to believe that Smith has this power - and is ranked as supreme as Almighty God in any capacity!
So when a Mormon writes to us and makes preposterous statements of this kind:
Mainline Christians criticize us for believing that the Book of Mormon is more correct then the bible. They site our 8th Article of faith which states that 'We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; We also believe in the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.' (Articles of Faith 1:8) This is true actually, the Book of Mormon is a more perfect Book then the Bible. The reason why is because the Bible is a collection of books that were written by prophets, yet it was compiled by people who were not necessarily prophets.
We are totally confident that the facts above answer this fully. Prophets were never designated to be sole writers of God's Word!
When a Mormon claims:
In addition there are various editions of the bible, namely the Catholic edition, which contains books that the protestant edition doesn't. There's apocryphal books left out of the bible which may or may not be authentic.
we readily respond, for there are good reasons why the Apocrypha were not accepted as Scripture by the Church Fathers. It was the heretical Roman Catholic Council of Trent that accepted these books so they could have support for their false doctrines which were most definitely not orthodox Christian beliefs.
The Papal Roman Catholic Church's many problems in the area of soteriology begin in the same arena of authority as the Mormon Church. Orthodox Christians have one authority - the inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Papal Rome has two authorities - Scripture and Tradition - and the LDS have parts of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, D&C ('Pearl of Great Price'), Book of Abraham, JoD, Mormon Doctrine/Gospel Principles, and 'prophetic revelation.' Protestantism disagrees with both groups' understanding of authority and trust the Bible alone for doctrine.
Papal Rome placed twelve additional Apocryphal ('hidden, obscure, spurious') books within the Old Testament, namely, Tobit, Judith, the (six) Additions to the Book of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (known also as Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men (considered one work), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. How did this error come about? At the end of the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the most learned biblical scholar of his day, to prepare a standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate). In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and, by means of prefaces, called the reader's attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. In the preface to his Latin Version of the Bible Jerome, after translating the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament, says: 'Anything outside of these must be placed within the Apocrypha,' that is, within the non-canonical books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy Scriptures. At one of its prolonged sessions which occurred on April 8, 1546, with only fifty-three prelates present, not one of whom was a scholar distinguished for historical learning (consistent with the degree of non-biblical knowledge exhibited by Papal Rome theologians in Martin Luther's day) the Council of Trent decreed [in its 'Sacrosancta'] that the canon of the Old Testament includes these books. They excepted the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras but, of course, any reason they might have been able to give for this decision would have contradicted their reasoning for choosing the other books - but when has logic played any part in Papal Roman theology or doctrine? Once the cat was out of the bag and people like Luther were advertising the utter hypocrisy that Papal Rome had masqueraded behind for 1200 years, Trent was forced to anathematize any one who 'does not accept these entire books, with all their parts, as they have customarily been read in the Catholic Church and are found in the ancient editions of the Latin Vulgate, as sacred and canonical.' This decree was confirmed by Vatican I (1870) - and nothing has changed to this day. Subsequent editions of the Latin Vulgate text, officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church, contain these books incorporated within the sequence of the Old Testament books. Thus Tobit and Judith stand after Nehemiah; the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus stand after the Song of Solomon; Baruch (with the Letter of Jeremiah as chapter 6) stands after Lamentations; and 1 and 2 Maccabees conclude the books of the Old Testament. The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men is placed between Daniel 3:23 and 3:24; Susanna is placed either at the beginning of Daniel as an introduction to chapter 1 (this placement is that of the Greek text of Theodotian and the Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic versions) or at the end of Daniel as chapter 13 (this placement is that of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate); and Bel and the Dragon is placed either at the close of Daniel 12 in the Greek manuscripts of Daniel or at the end of Daniel as chapter 14 in the Latin Vulgate, Susanna being chapter 13. An appendix after the New Testament contains the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras, without implying canonical status - or reasons for non-canonical status!
Interestingly, these books themselves bear clear testimony to the assertion of the Jewish historian Josephus (Against Apion, 1.8) that 'an exact succession of the prophets' had been broken after the close of the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. Not only is the phrase, 'Thus says the Lord,' which occurs so frequently in the Old Testament, nowhere to be found in them but also divine authority is never claimed by their authors for these books and by some of them it is virtually disowned, as is suggested by the following citations:
1 Maccabees 9:27: '...there was great distress in Israel [in the time of the author], such as had not been since the time that prophets had ceased to appear among them.'
1 Maccabees 14:41: '...the Jews and their priests decided that Simon [Maccabeus] should be their leader and high priest in perpetuity, until a trustworthy prophet should arise.' (See also here 1 Maccabees 4:46: '...until there should come a prophet...')
2 Maccabees 2:23: 15:37-38: '...all this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyrene in five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book [that is, 2 Maccabees itself].. .So I too will here end my story. If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do.'
[This is reminiscent of the work of Joseph Smith who put similar excuses into the mouths of his supposed inspired writers of the Book of Mormon]
Moreover, Malachi, the last canonical Old Testament prophet, predicted that the next messenger God would send to Israel as the forerunner of the Messiah would be Elijah the prophet (Malachi 3:1; 4:5), which prophecy the New Testament teaches was fulfilled by the birth and ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 1:2; Matthew 11:10-14; 17:11-13).
This is why the Palestinian Jews never accepted these Apocryphal books as canonical, their canon being essentially the same as that of the Protestant Old Testament today (see Josephus, Against Apion, 1.41; Babylonian Talmud, Yomah 9b, Sota 48b, Sanhedrin 1 la). We do not find Jesus or the New Testament writers ever citing from these books. Paul's declaration that the Jews possessed ''the oracles of God' (Romans 3:2), implicitly excludes the Apocrypha from those 'oracles'.
While it is true that the Septuagint served as the Greek 'Bible' of the early church and of the apostles in their mission to the Gentiles, there is no evidence that a New Testament writer cites from any of the Apocryphal books. It must also be noted that these books abound in historical, geographical, and chronological inaccuracies and anachronisms (q.v. Book of Mormon) which would not occur in divinely inspired documents. Consider the following historical inaccuracies:
In 1 Maccabees 8:1-16 the author describes the power of Papal Rome. His description contains many inaccuracies such as (1) his statement in verse 8 that Antiochus the Great surrendered Media and India to the Romans when in fact he kept Media - and India was not even part of Antiochus' domain; (2) his statement in verse 12 that the Romans 'kept friendship' with those who rely on them which simply was not true; (3) his statement in verse 15 that three hundred and twenty (actually three hundred, but this could be the author's 'rounding' of a number which should not be faulted) Roman senators deliberate daily in matters of government when in fact they met three times a month and on festival days; and (4) his statement in verse 16 that the Roman senate trusted one man each year to rule over them with no envy or jealousy existing among them when 'in fact, to prevent the concentration of power in one man's hands they elected two collegiate chief magistrates (consuls) year by year, each of whom had the right of veto over the others proceedings,' and envy and jealousy among them were constant.
Tobit 1:4-5 teaches that the division of the kingdom (under Jeroboam I in 931 B.C.) occurred when Tobit was a 'young man.' But Tobit is also said to be a young Israelite captive living in Nineveh under Shalmaneser in the late eighth century B.C. This would make him as a 'young man' almost two hundred years old at the time of the Assyrian Captivity and he lived into the reign of Esarhaddon (680-668 B.C.). But according to Tobit 14:1 1 he died when he was one hundred and fifty-eight years old (according to the Latin text, he died at one hundred and two).
Judith 1:1 declares that Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the Assyrians at Nineveh at the time that Arphaxad reigned over the Medes in Ecbatana. But Nebuchadnezzar did not reign over the Assyrians at Nineveh; he was the second king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire reigning at Babylon. Arphaxad is unknown.
These books also teach doctrines which are at variance with the inspired Scriptures. For example, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 teaches the efficacy of prayers and offerings for the dead. Papal Rome bases its doctrine of purgatory and Masses for the dead primarily upon this apocryphal passage, but a close examination of this passage shows that it does not support Rome's teaching. Rome teaches that at death only those Christians go to purgatory who have only venial and no unforgiven mortal sin against their souls. But the dead soldiers in the Maccabees context fell in battle because 'under the tunic of every one of the dead [were] found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia' (12:40) - so these men were idolaters (admittedly like Papal Roman Catholics and Joseph Smith who died with an occult talisman around his neck!) and thus guilty of violating the first commandment - a mortal sin! They would therefore have already been consigned to hell, and would not have been in purgatory! Ecclesiasticus 3:30 teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin and justifies cruelty to slaves (33:26, 28). The Wisdom of Solomon teaches the doctrine of emanation (7:25) and the Platonic doctrine of the pre-existence of souls (8:18-20).
History proves that Luther was not the first to have relegated the Apocrypha to non-canonical writings. The Dutch Bible published by Jacob van Liesveldt at Antwerp (1526) placed the Apocryphal books after Malachi and identified the section as 'the books which are not in the canon, that is to say, which one does not find among the Jews in the Hebrew.' The six-volume Swiss-German Bible (1527-29) placed the Apocryphal books in the fifth volume, the title page of which volume reads: 'These are the books which are not reckoned as biblical by the ancients, nor are found among the Hebrews.' Concerned to return to the sole authority of inspired, inerrant Scripture, Martin Luther in his German translation of the Bible (1534) also placed the Apocryphal books once again between the Old and New Testaments with the title: 'Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read.' Miles Coverdale's English translation of the Bible (1535) put them in the same position with the title: 'Apocrypha. The books and treatises which among the fathers of old are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are they found in the Canon of the Old Testament.' The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1562) state concerning the Apocrypha: 'And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.' And the Westminster Confession of Faith (1648) declares: 'The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings' (I.3).
Thus we see that every Protestant authority recognises the place of the apocrypha as outside inspired Scripture - just as Jerome did! But, because of its views on Tradition, Papal Papal Rome shares with Mormonism in rejecting most of the great attributes of canonical Scripture which Protestantism holds in the highest esteem, namely, Scripture's self-canonization, its inerrancy, its necessity, its self-attestation, its sufficiency, its perspicuity, and its finality. So historic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (and the Mormons) do not share the same Bible, either extensively as to the number of books or intensively as to the nature of Holy Scripture itself. For Protestantism the Bible alone (sola scriptura) is self-validating and absolutely authoritative in all matters of faith and practice; for Roman Catholicism its enlarged Bible (and this applies to any given statement in it) has only the meaning and thus the authority the Roman Church has determined to grant to it at any given moment - and Mormons tend to share this practice. Hence their shared ability to contradict what has gone before and prove to the world, never mind the Spirit-led born again child of God, that they have no special relationship with God at all!
When you write:
There now still finding scrolls which were writings of the prophets and apostles of old. At the same time with all of this evidence, mainline Christians are willing to tell us that the Bible is the fullness of truth, the absolute word of God, containing everything we need.
As we have shown on our referenced web-pages, not one manuscript has been found which contradicts the Bible (Old and New Testament), as we already had it, in a single statement or doctrine.
Regarding your statement:
In its perfect form the bible would contain every single book that was written by any apostle, prophet, or seer anywhere on earth. However the proven existence of other writings negates the contention that the bible is the fullness of doctrine.…
we have proven logically and factually that no books are missing from the Bible. We presume that you are talking about the prophets of the One True God of the Bible when you make this first statement, for adding the writings of every so-called 'apostle, prophet, or seer' is obviously not recommended even by the Mormon Church! We have no evidence that any books by servants of the One True God are missing from the Bible and, of course, clear statements in the Bible warn of those who would add to the word already given (Revelation 22:18-19):
22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
We are obviously familiar with the standard Mormon reply that this couldn't possibly mean what it clearly says, because we read in Deuteronomy 4:1-2:
1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
and in Deuteronomy 12:32:
12:32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
The argument that these verses negate the meaning of Revelation - or mean the following 61 books should not have been added - are clearly bogus because these verse in Deuteronomy simply forbid men from adding anything of themselves to God's inspired Word while the Revelation passage is specifically about adding prophecy or words to that book. We do not believe that Revelation has been accidentally placed at the end of the Bible. While some scholars argue that John's gospel and three epistles were probably written after Revelation, it is impossible to be dogmatic about the point. However, what is clear is that adding or subtracting from the book of Revelation is forbidden and, in his 'inspired' translation of the Bible, these are the very sins that Joseph Smith is guilty of committing! We have also shown good reasons why the additions of Joseph Smith should be rejected as Scripture from doctrinal, historical and factual points.
In truth the bible does not contain the fullness of the truth as even understood by the apostles.
All of the doctrines of Mormonism were practiced by the Apostles of old, and the bibles they used, were so incredibly different from the ones that we now use, it is amazing to even comprehend.
are completely unprovable. We have shown the foolishness of challenging the accuracy of the Bible, so claiming that the apostles followed other doctrines read from 'different' Bibles is pure speculation. We challenge any Mormon to try and prove otherwise with facts.
We have also proven your next statement to be utterly groundless:
The book of Mormon is a group of books written, and translated, and compiled by prophets of god. Therefore, while it may have had grammatical errors to it. It has absolutely no doctrinal errors at all. It thus is a perfect witness of the divinity of Christ, and as Joseph Smith described, 'The most perfect book on the face of the Earth.'
It is also easy to prove, by logic and fact, that Joseph Smith cannot be excused his clear multitudinous errors in the Book of Mormon by claiming that 'it may have had grammatical errors to it'. We answer this after your next inaccurate statement on this matter.
You next attempt to answer the question:
Simple, the Book of Mormon was never intended to contain all of the doctrines of the true Christian Church. Instead it was to act as a perfect witness of Christ. The fullness of doctrine would come during the restoration of the Gospel by the Prophet Joseph Smith, through the Doctrine and Covenants. The Doctrine and Covenants does contain the fullness of Doctrine. That's why things such as, the three kingdoms of heaven, are not contained in the Book of Mormon.Changes in the Book of Mormon.
SEE (Mormon Doctrine Pages 97-99)
Unfortunately, your attempt to explain away the later doctrinal additions contradicts the very meaning and claims of the early LDS leaders, such as Smith and Young. 'Fullness' was clearly intended to mean 'complete' and the sermons of Young (quoted earlier) prove that he believed the Bible alone was sufficient for any believer to reach heaven. Arguing along the lines that 'he was only talking about basic salvation and not full exaltation as 'a god'´ will also be fruitless for, as we see next, one of the central doctrines of Mormonism is polygamy - and this was done away with very soon after the US government applied overwhelming pressure on the LDS church, despite the earlier boasting by Mormon leaders that this would never happen because of the utter importance of the 'doctrine'!
Finally, you try and explain away:
The Prophet Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon as the most Perfect book on the face of the earth. Yet mainline Christians point out the fact that there have been over three thousand changes to it. The reason why is because they were all simple grammatical changes, or word order changes. The phrases have always been understood the way they are now, however Joseph Smith was no grammarian.
Remember that Moses couldn't talk in public (Exodus 3:11-13), therefore Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are afforded the right to be bad grammarians.
We have proven that the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon contains spelling, grammatical, textual & doctrinal errors, plagiarisms, historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.
There are many reasons why your excuses for 'Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery' simply don't wash (ref. our web-page ):
The claimed nature of the delivery of the translation of the 'gold plates' of the Book of Mormon.
"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 the principle scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character 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." (ref. "Translation of the Book of Mormon") We have no doubt that Smith was using an early 'magic lantern' or similar device to pull off this supposed translation but, regardless, the point is clear - the words remained there until the scribe, Oliver Cowdery, had written them down exactly. Only then would the words disappear so that the next set of words could be 'translated.' Therefore, there is no excuse for errors to occur in the translation at this point.
In case any Mormon attempts to claim interference occurred at some other point in the translation, consider the testimony of your own leaders: Mormon President W. Arid MacDonald, in his "Address on the Book of Mormon" said: "....it is the only book in the world out of all the millions of books in the libraries of the world, which was brought to the earth by an angel from the throne of God. That makes it different from all other books. The angel made fifteen trips to this planet from the throne of God to see that this book was properly translated and printed, so that it might be given to the world." Mormon writer James E. Talmage, in "The Vitality of Mormonism," (p. 127), stated unequivocally that Mormons make "no reservation respecting the BOOK OF MORMON on the ground of incorrect translation" because to do so would be to "ignore attested fact as to the bringing forth of that book." Talmage also reiterated that Joseph Smith expressly declared the translation was affected through the power of God and "is in no sense the product of linguistic scholarship." "Prophet" Joseph F. Smith reiterates this view - yet LDS scholar Dr. Sidney B. Sperry (Professor of Old Testament Languages and Literature at BYU) claimed (in "Our Book of Mormon", p.79-80): Regarding Mosiah 2:16-18: "The homely English of this Scripture could be much improved, particularly the first sentence" and of 2 Nephi 6:2: "This is a very poor English sentence parallels of which can be found many times over in the Book of Mormon. "Sperry even says that "the Prophet lacked the skill of the King James translators." Sperry is being illogical, for when we consider the manner in which the BOOK OF MORMON was supposedly translated we know that it should have been 100% accurate but in fact 116 pages were lost immediately, i.e. about 18% of the book, and never reproduced in case the originals were found and an embarrassing comparison made. No reservations may be made about the BOOK OF MORMON on the grounds of incorrect translation since it was supposedly effected through the gift and power of God and even had an angelic overseer through translation, scribing and printing - according to the testimonies of President's of the LDS church and witnesses such as David Whitmer.
The usual excuse offered by Mormons is that the errors were caused by the printer. Again, this excuse fails because we have the testimony of the printer in the front of the copy of the 1830 reprint of the Book of Mormon kindly supplied by faithful Mormon, Wilford C. Wood at our web-page - where we have the following introduction:
The photocopy below is reproduced from the 1830 edition of the 'Book of Mormon.' Our grateful thanks to Wilford C. Wood, a faithful member of the Mormon Church, who painstakingly prepared and published the book 'by photo-offset method from uncut sheets' and in doing so successfully exposed the fraudulent claims of the 'Latter-Day Saints.' We include, from the front of the book, the memorandum of the printer, John H. Gilbert, who attested to the fact that the manuscript supplied by the Mormons contained grammatical errors which he corrected! Gilbert also attested to the fact that Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and Hyrum Smith read through the manuscript and proofs and therefore had ample opportunity to correct any errors but did not correct 'the most correct book of any book on earth' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.194)! Gilbert's overall testimony is very revealing
The excuse 'that Moses couldn't talk in public (Exodus 3:11-13), therefore Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are afforded the right to be bad grammarians' fails because this poor logic is an attempt to compare chalk with cheese. Moses said to the LORD, "O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue."' (Exodus 4:10). God was angry with Moses for his unbelief (v14) but remedied the situation:
14 So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and He said: "Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And look, he is also coming out to meet you. When he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. 15 Now you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth. And I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach you what you shall do. 16 So he shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God. 17 And you shall take this rod in your hand, with which you shall do the signs."
By using Aaron as spokesperson (v15) the problem was dealt with and the necessity for Moses to address Pharaoh was therefore never an issue. God also promised Moses to 'be with your mouth and with his mouth' and to 'teach you what you shall do'. If Moses had spoken for God and failed to make Pharaoh understand then you might have been able to make some comparison with the failings of the Mormon founder. However, when we read the accounts we find that Aaron and Moses spoke, first to the people of Israel (v27-30):
27 And the LORD said to Aaron, "Go into the wilderness to meet Moses." So he went and met him on the mountain of God, and kissed him. 28 So Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which He had commanded him. 29 Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel. 30 And Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses. Then he did the signs in the sight of the people.
And then the team of brothers spoke to Pharaoh (5:1):
Afterward Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'Let My people go, that they may hold a feast to Me in the wilderness.'
Thus the method supplied by God was not deficient in any way and was not affected in any way by the admitted inadequacies of Moses which contrast dramatically with the arrogance of Joseph Smith (Numbers 12:3 - 'Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.').
In the case of the deception of Smith and Cowdery, the method was supposedly supplied by God and the text only 'disappeared' when it had been written down correctly. Since it was thereafter supposedly protected by 'an angel of God' through every stage of its production until it appeared as a bound book, the Mormon Church is left without excuses. Anyone thinking that the later use of a 'Seer Stone,' when God had 'removed' the magic spectacles ('Urim and Thummim') because of Smith's disobedience, meant that inadequate 'translating tools' were now in use and led to errors are pathetically accusing God of allowing His Word to be translated in a deficient manner. This is, of course, exactly the kind of excuse used by Smith to try and explain away the failings of his ancient writer, Moroni, in the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:33).
Careful reading of these pages will show that we have dealt with this matter and many other attempted excuses commonly used by Mormons:
21. Whereas Joseph Smith's King Mosiah managed to translate a language akin to that spoken by Adam and Eve (despite the confusion of the tongues at Babel) - presumably by supernatural means - we have Moroni claiming that he could have written them in Hebrew also if his plates had been big enough (Mormon 9v33).
It is amazing how lax the Mormon 'god' is in his dealings with the Mormon Church, for time after time he fails to prepare properly. The Mormon excuses might wash with ignorant folk accosted at their doors by missionaries, but in the cold light of day simple facts and logic destroys them all.
(Continued on page 371)