Let’s Call Mormons ‘Nontraditional Christians’

Regardless of your use of "traditional" and "non-traditional" you continue to run from the original question. Mormonism is not Christianity by any definition other than the one that Mormons want to give it. Mormonism does not believe that Jesus Christ has always been God, rather that He was "created" and that this planet and universe are simply his domain. Mormons also believe that some will eventually achieve the same deity level as Jesus and that they will, in effect, become a God over their own little universe.

As Dr. Mohler has stated, this is a gospel contrary to what Jesus taught his disciples and to what they preached when starting the church, it is contrary even to the Roman Church, the Greek Church, the Russian Church, and all the churches of the Reformation, i.e. Protestants.

You have continually refused to keep on track and the only thing I can conclude from this is that you are afraid, for whatever reason, to simply state that Mormons believe they have the "real" truth and that it is what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and those since have taught.

The final conclusion I have is that you believe that Mormonism cannot stand on its own without binding itself to the Christian Church, therefore you believe that you must connect yourself to the Christian Church in order to deceive others. If that is not the case, then why the desire to be connected.

NM: Regardless of your use of "traditional" and "non-traditional" you
NM: continue to run from the original question.

GS: Does he? It seems clear to me that his answer to the question of
GS: "Are Mormons Christian" is yes, but not orthodox ones. And there
GS: doesn't seem to be any honest way one can disagree with this
GS: without involving circular logic.

NM: Mormonism is not Christianity by any definition other than the one
NM: that Mormons want to give it.

GS: I don't think Mormons were the first or only ones to define
GS: Christianity as the worship of Jesus Christ as our savior.

NM: Mormonism does not believe that Jesus Christ has always been God,
NM: rather that He was "created" and that this planet and universe are
NM: simply his domain. Mormons also believe that some will eventually
NM: achieve the same deity level as Jesus and that they will, in
NM: effect, become a God over their own little universe.

GS: Indeed! And this makes our beliefs "nontraditional" if one were
GS: to judge it by orthodoxy.

NM: As Dr. Mohler has stated, this is a gospel contrary to what Jesus
NM: taught his disciples

GS: I don't think that is correct.

NM: and to what they preached when starting the church, it is contrary
NM: even to the Roman Church, the Greek Church, the Russian Church, and
NM: all the churches of the Reformation, i.e. Protestants.

GS: Possibly but beside the point.

NM: You have continually refused to keep on track

GS: You'd have to have a pretty tortured reading of Orson's essays to
GS: come to this rather bizarre conclusion.

NM: and the only thing I can conclude from this is that you are afraid,
NM: for whatever reason, to simply state that Mormons believe they have
NM: the "real" truth and that it is what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young,
NM: and those since have taught.

GS: I don't think that Mr. Card is "afraid" of stating that. More to
GS: the point is that it is tangential to the issue being discussed.

NM: The final conclusion I have is that you believe that Mormonism
NM: cannot stand on its own without binding itself to the Christian
NM: Church

GS: Again tangential. There is no need to "bind" or "stand alone",
GS: merely the need for clarification and edification.

NM: therefore you believe that you must connect yourself to the
NM: Christian Church in order to deceive others.

GS: There is no deception involved on the Mormon end.

NM: If that is not the case, then why the desire to be connected.

GS: I'm not sure how you are inferring a "desire to be connected" out
GS: a simple desire to have truth-in-advertising as it were.

Or maybe monotheistic Christians and polytheistic Christians, except for the really minor point that the former is redundant and the latter is internally inconsistent.

Bubba: Christians are monotheistic, not polytheistic. Trinitarianism is not tritheism. Try out John 17.3, 1 Cor 8.4, and James 2.19 for the views of Jesus and His followers. Mormons are admittedly polytheists.

Mike: There is no such thing as a non-creedal Christian, nor a non-creedal Mormon. Everybody has a creed. At least that's what "I believe."

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches split over the question of whether the Son "proceeds from" the Father or is eternally co-equal with Him. The condemnation of Mormons for believing God the Father has precedence over God the Son is a similar disagreement. It doesn't make Greek, Russian and Armenian Christians any less Christian.

The attack on Mormons for believing that God through the grace of Christ has the power to elevate some of His children to become like his Son in many ways is based on ignorance of the fact that divinization or theosis was the understanding of many early Christians about the nature of salvation and eternal life, and is still a central doctrine of the Orthodox Churches even today!

The claim that Mormons are "polytheists" because they worship the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three separate persons is silly, because the Nicene Creed says exactly that. It insists that they are three separate persons. Jews and Muslims call the Christian belief in the Trinity "polytheism", since it is clearly different from their belief that God is a single entity. If you think the Father and the Holy Ghost were identical with the Jesus who hung on the cross, you are committing a heresy that the Nicene Creed was specifically designed to oppose. If you think Jesus does not have a body, even though he was born of Mary and died and was physically resurrected, you are likewise taking a position contrary to the Nicene Creed.

It is in fact amazing how people who condemn Mormon beliefs as "non-Christian" don't really understand the full breadth of what is accepted as "traditional Christianity."

What is even more ludicrous is that so many Evangelical Christians assert that all they need to do to be saved is make a one-time declaration of faith in Christ. They believe that anyone who believes the Bible has all the authority that anyone can get to be a preacher and to baptise. Yet when it comes to Mormons, they suddenly start making up extra requirements for salvation that they don't apply to themselves. Nobody stands up at a Billy Graham crusade and tells people "You must be able to recite the Nicene Creed before you can be received as saved or be baptized". If Evangelical Christians' salvation depended on their ability to correctly explain what the Nicene Creed says, and what it means and does not mean, most of them would flunk.

For that matter, why accept the Nicene and Chalcedon Creeds, but reject so many others that were enacted by the Catholic Church before the Reformation? Is the theory that the Catholic Church was valid and authoritative in the 4th Century, but lost its way and its authority after that? If so, you basically agree with Mormons that Christianity got off track sometime before the Reformation. Furthermore, it is hypocritical of Protestants to claim that they somehow inherited the mantle of legitimacy from the Catholic Church, even though it was off track, and that Protestants are now in position to anathematize other later reform movements. If the Catholic Church is not completely authoritative, where does Protestant authority come from? How can legitimate authority derive from an illegitimate source? If anyone with a Bible can assert authority, then how can Protestants tell later formed churches who also embrace the Bible that they have no authority?

If Southern Baptists want to excommunicate Mormons from Christianity, what about Catholics? Orthodox? Coptics? Methodists? Presbyterians? Congregationalists? United Church of Christ? Episcopalians? Unitarians? Dr. Mohler recently said that Baptists should respond to Pope Benedict's affirmation of Catholic primacy by asserting Catholic illegitimacy. Dr. Mohler has such a narrow definition of even "traditional orthodox Christian" that it excludes all the pre-Reformation churches as well as the post-Reformation churches, as well as many of the Reformation churches!

What about the Evangelical theologians who are now asserting the simple truth that the Neo-Platonic, pagan concept about a God without emotions (e.g. LOVE) is simply contrary to the Bible and a man-made doctrine that distorts the message of the Gospel? Through simple logic and study of the Bible they have come to the conclusion that the Catholic church had already lost its way in 325, which is exactly what Mormons believe. Those theologians are teaching at Evangelical seminaries and universities, and are "Christians" in good standing, so why should that be a reason to deChristianize Mormons?

A more fundamental issue is whether the entire idea of depriving someone of their rights as citizens, including the right to be elected to office, is a legitimate position for a true Christian to take. the rulers of the world in which Jesus and the early Church operated were pagans, not Christians, yet Christ did not call the government illegitimate and oppose its ruler over that. He did not even call for the ouster of the corrupt high priests who led the Jews. Nor did Peter, Paul or John or James after him. The early Christian church was established and grew for three hundred years under a non-Christian government system. It was not a stated goal of Christians to replace the rulers with Christians. Christians have lived for millenia in countries not ruled by Christians, and did not seek revolutions because of that. When Britain and France and Italy conquered nations, they did not do so in an effort to establish Christian rule, per se. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" is Christ's call to have dual loyalties, one to God in our religious beliefs and the other to the rulers of the nation in which we live. There is simply no imperative in the Gospel to seek to place Christians in power. That was Constantine's idea, and the mixing of religious office with political power was the root of the corruption that propelled the Reformation in response.

Christians, even if they don't think Mitt Romney is Christian, have no charter in the Bible to keep him from being elected. When the question is simply stated, Will I be free to be the Christian I want to be under this man as president, the answer is clearly Yes! On every political issue affecting Christians as Christians, Mitt Romney supports their views on how society should be structured and the laws enforced.

Conclusion: The notion that only "Christians" should be elected to office is NOT a Christian teaching rooted in the Old or New Testaments, nor in any of the Creeds. That is a wholly man-made conceit, that is NOT Biblical and therefore should be rejected by Christians as a doctrine they owe any allegiance to.

Umm...Orson Scott Card is doing well in this debate because he is talking about the big picture while Dr. Mohler is going for the trees. It is clear that OSC is not a Theological Technocrat. He is, however, an excellent life commentator. If want Theological nuances and toe to toe scriptural references then probably you are looking for a debate with Religion Professor like Dr. Robert Millet or Dr. Richard Bushman.

I'm kind of coming in to this late, but I've read over the blog entries and comments. I think something non-Mormons may not realize (maybe it was mentioned?) is that Mormons believe in continually progressing and learning. That's why they believe in a new dispensation (beginning with Joseph Smith) that brought more knowledge and truth to common knowledge on the earth. Mormons believe that God has not revealed all there is to reveal (yep, there's even more - a lot more). Perhaps this is a big difference? Do other Christians believe all the truth and knowledge we get to have has already been given? This seems like a big difference to me that hasn't been highlighted. Mormons believe there is a lot more truth to learn other than what was revealed in the past or than has been revealed today. That is why a living prophet and new revelation and more scripture is so important - to learn more of the stuff there is to learn. Mormons believe that God's plan for his children involves more than what has been revealed - that it involves constant progression in righteousness and understanding of truth.

I'm not really sure what people are expecting from Mr. Card. If you want him to prove all his beliefs with only the Bible and some traditions, that seems pretty silly to me when Mormons believe they need more than the Bible to learn all truth. Why have a Book of Mormon or a prophet if you can get it all from the Bible or some traditions? The Book of Mormon speaks often, and not kindly, about following blindly in traditions, and I think Christ shattered a few traditions in his time on earth as well. Christ was anything but traditional - no tradition was safe around him.

Reading through the comments on the blog I think the biggest misunderstanding is that most Christians think when Christ died, everything was finished. Everything anyone needed to know would be in the Bible. If that is the case, they may not understand that Mormons don't believe that. That's the main reason I'm posting a comment. That might clear things up, because I just realized this big difference, so maybe non-Mormons don't know it yet. I hadn't really realized (correct me if I'm wrong) that other Christians thought that everything they would ever need is in the Bible. Oh, and in traditions, too, apparently. Although I'm foggy on that.

So maybe that will help. Maybe not.

To all you who want there to be a dark cloud over Mormonism. Observe the wagon train yonder, see how it goes! The cloud picking up at the feet of the wagons, the cloud forming behind!

You are merely placing a cloud behind the great church. The church rolls on with the destination as its drive. The stage and eveyone in it dont give two farthings about the cloud.

So said Joseph Smith, the great man ..'The standard of truth has been erected, and no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing..'

Bless this great man's life and purpose!

Jim:

"Christians are monotheistic, not polytheistic. Trinitarianism is not tritheism. Try out John 17.3, 1 Cor 8.4, and James 2.19 for the views of Jesus and His followers. Mormons are admittedly polytheists."

THAT'S RIGHT. You have misread me or I may have miswrote, but I was trying to make that point.

Christians ARE monotheistic, so calling us monotheistic Christians would be accurate, but redundant.

I do believe that Mormons are polytheistic, but calling them polytheistic Christians would be a contradiction in terms.

I found this on another website as a response to the "10 Amazing facts about Mormons" that has been going around. I found #1 particularly interesting. As a Jew I find it amusing that 2 Christian sects are arguing about whether one is polytheistic. In Judaism we consider all Christians polytheistic because of their belief in a trinity. I think I'm going to start referring to my Christian friends as "closet polytheists".

Ten Amazing Facts about Christians

1. They are, for all intents and purposes, polytheistic, believing in one big God they call Jehovah, and many demigods called angels, who fly around doing Jehovah’s bidding. There is also an evil demigod named Satan who goes around whispering in peoples ears trying to make them do naughty things.

2. Jehovah ordered the genocide of the Canaanites because he promised their land to his worshipers. He became angry with his worshiper when this genocide was not performed completely.

3. Jehovah became a human (blasphemy) by magically, without sex, impregnating an innocent virgin girl with himself.

4. They worship a magician named Jesus who they believe could walk on water, turn water into wine, multiply bread and fish out of thin air, and raise people from the dead in zombie like fashion.

5. This Jesus also had magic spit and could cure blindness by applying his saliva to the eyes.

6. Jesus was killed by crucifixion but came back to life after 3 days in zombie like fashion and showed himself to his worshipers and allowed them to feel the gory holes in his hands, feet and side.

7. They participate in a cannibalistic practice where they eat bread and drink wine that they believe actually turns into Jesus the Zombie God’s flesh and blood.

8. Jehovah/Jesus often takes on another form, “the Holy Ghost,” which sometimes possesses his followers and makes them speak in strange languages or babble incoherently.

9. They believe something called the “rapture” will someday occur where all worshipers of the Zombie-God-Jesus will suddenly, without warning, fly up into the clouds and play harps for all eternity. The non-believers will stay on earth to be punished.

10. They believe that a majority of the people who have ever inhabited the earth will spend all eternity burning in a lake of fire and brimstone because they either did not get a chance or refused to worship the Zombie-God-Jesus. All Pagans, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians who have ever lived will burn in this lake, no matter what kind of lives they have lead. A special place will be reserved for Mormons in this Hell because they misunderstood the nature of the Trinity.

Micah,

You're sick buddy. You seem to know a lot of Biblical facts, yet you know nothing of God; kinda like the blind man studying the eye and yet never able to actually see.

Faith my friend is beyond the tangible, scientific realm and until you exercise a particle of desire to find spiritual truth, you will forever remain in your physical ignorance.

With millions upon millions proclaiming the Diety of Jesus Christ, I would suggest you just try an experiment and start reading the Bible, but this time instead of looking for mere facts, stories, and fables with your mind, ask God to open your heart for spiritual understanding...you just might get the surprise of your life...

rotorhead,

The 10 amazing facts about Christians above weren’t my words. I found them at another blog:

papamarcsblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-on-10-amazing-facts-of-mormonism_14.html

It looks like the person who wrote it is a Christian himself who was trying to make the point that Mormonism is not the only religion that has weird beliefs. You can believe whatever you want and I respect that. Just don’t condemn Jews, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Moslems, or anyone else for having a different bizarre belief system than your own.

Micah,

Bravo...well said!

Let me point this out. Even at the basic level for being considered Christian, mormonism fails. Basically there needs to be a agreement with the Apostles Creed, and also the belief that the canon of scripture is what is essentially needed as far as information for salvation. Mormonism fails these tests completely. The book of mormon is more that a book of Doctrine that other denominations have, and also the incompatibility of thier beliefs with the tenants set forth in the Apostles Creed disqualify mormonism as being a part of the Christian family. Many faiths, even Islam could be called non traditionally Christian by the premise set forth by Mr. Card. Muslims believe in Christ, they believe also that he preached salvation, but the Koran supersedes the Old Testament and the Gospels to them, and alters Christianity. They also believe that Mohamed was the true last prophet, after Jesus. Incorporating Christian beliefs or having similarites in values does not make someone Christian. It is accepting the gift of salvation, which was paid for on the Cross by Jesus Christ, and accepting that Jesus was the one who could give that gift to you. In order to fully accept this gift from the father, you must know who the giver is, and accept the sacrifice of the son, and the Apostle's creed basically is the churches answer to that. There have been various historical heresies, and thus that is why this specific creed or statement of belief was developed centuries ago to boil down the faith to the minmum requirements:

believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Now in hopes to more further the debate and prevent it from going in circles. I have a truly honest question about the Protestant religions. From my experience talking to Protestant religions, they don't believe that there is one true church. But rather all the Protestant religions are true, and even Catholicism seemed to be in their list as well. (Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Muslims, etc... however are not included for some reason) Now I could just have been getting false concepts from these members, and I understand that. I also understand the notion that just because someone who isn't in a religion but truly believes in Jesus Christ and has faith will receive just as much mercy as anyone else. I am a firm believer of that too. However, I also believe that God has one set of commandments, and one way of doing things. This leads me to believe that two churches who argue over a doctrine cannot both be right. God would be contradicting himself in that case. I know that Protestant churches, at least over history had many issues over doctrine, that's why there are so many Protestant religions. So how can they be all right? And how can there not be "one" religion established by God?

I'm not asking this as a debate question really. I am honestly asking this for an answer to understand better. I apologize if my tone comes off wrong. You never know how someone is going to interpret your what you say when they can't hear your inflection of voice. Only interpret their own tone.

Bryan

P.S. I have grown to respect many people on this board through their responses and have learned a lot. I thank you all for that. Evangelicals and Mormons alike. I hope that if we met someday we would feel a brotherhood together and not have a rift of religious differences.

I am not a Mormon, but I attended BYU for 2 years. I was required to take a Mormon religion class every semester I was there. I aced every class. So, Mormons believe that if they are "good enough" in this life, they will become a god capable of starting their own universe. What part of this belief is Christian?

To all,

The question put forth on this thread is "Are Mormons Christians?" I think the answer to that question is up to God Himself, because He alone knows our hearts. I would not for one second put myself in a place to judge someone else who states that they follow Christ.

However, the real question is whether the doctrines of the LDS church are compatible with orthodox Christian doctrine. The answer to that question is no. Here is an example of Mormon doctrine that is definitely not Scriptural:

IS THERE MORE THAN ONE TRUE GOD?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

Having children that 'worship and pray' to their parents is blasphemy, for only God is worthy of worship and praise.

I hope that clears this up.

Chief,

Come on...if God can inspire one prophet with scripture, why can't He inspire two on separate ends of the earth? If I call up my African friend and tell him that the shiny orb in the night sky is called the moon and he writes it down, in his own language, and passes that knowledge on to his son, etc. Then years later I call my friend in Indonesia and tell him the same thing and he writes it down in his own language and passes it on from his son to son, etc., and then some day in the future by some chance the two meet and compare notes...?? Do you see where I'm going here?
The Book of Mormon covers a period of from around 600 B.C. to just after 400 A.D., a long time to be separated from the "Chosen" Israelites and their prophets preceding the New Testament...Fortunately, they had with them the available "scriptures of the day" up to 600 B.C. to build upon, and yes, further revelation from God was given! Remember this all started by two families who were separated out by God just before the land of Israel was overrun and its people scattered by invading armies.

Sorry, GB, but I am not buying what you are selling. It all begins, continues, and ends with the fact that the god that you worship is not the same God or the same Spirit revealed in the pages of Scripture. Why do I say this? God is a spirit, an 'unquenchable fire' who lives in 'unapproachable light.' Not someone who was once a man on another planet. He is the only God in the universe (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8), there are no other gods up there. I know that the missionaries I talked to liked to use I Cor 8 to justify belief in other gods, but notice that Paul says 'so-called gods.' They are not really gods at all, but people worshipped them just the same. Just like a golden calf in the desert; just because you call it a 'god' does not make it one.

Also, I can never become like God, no matter how hard I try, what commandments I keep, and how much money I give the church. The idea that we can 'become just like God' is the oldest lie Satan ever told, and men and women have been falling for it ever since. How do I know this? Isaiah 55: 8-9
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The idea that all people can be saved is also patently man-made; Scripture teaches plainly that the wicked will be cast into outer darkness, and even some who profess to believe in Jesus will be sent away (Matt 7). "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" It is a nice idea to believe that no one goes to hell, but that clearly is not what the Bible teaches.
Matt 7: 13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Joseph Smith was many things, but he was not a prophet, definitely not cut from the same cloth as Moses, Elijah, Isaiah et al. Placing faith in him is placing faith in the wrong person, because
Acts 4: 8-12
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

The LDS also teaches that it was a glorious thing that Adam and Eve sinned, to lay the groundwork for the salvation yet to come. Yet to the Lord it grieved His heart, and it was not all just a part of the plan. Also, nowhere in Scripture does it talk about Adam being the archangel Michael, yet this is also taught by the LDS.

All that I can tell you, GB, is that when you look at the facts and doctrines of faith, Mormonism and Christianity are not the same, not even remotely. We use similar-sounding terms, but even the terms we use, like 'atonement' and 'salvation' do not mean the same thing for you and me. And those are not just errors or peculiarities of interpretation, but those definitions have eternal significance. Again, I am saying this in the spirit of love and bringing people back from the brink, because sincerely believing in a gospel that cannot save will not save. It's that simple. Again, many Mormons may have never heard of some of the peculiar doctrines espoused by the church headquarters, but they are there nonetheless, and I fear for the eternal salvation for any person who holds to them. Castigate me for that if you will, but I am motivated not by a spirit of 'you have to join my club to be saved' or 'i'm just anti-Mormon. I'm not, but I am opposed to teaching that is not scripturally sound, because it confuses the issues at hand and leads people out of saving relationship with the risen Christ. I don't care what church you belong to, just be sure of your salvation by believing in the One who can give it, not in 'gods' that cannot save.

Chief1989,

If you are sincere in your efforts of "...bringing people back from the brink"...then I say, read the Book of Mormon, then talk from a position of knowledge, not from a few talking points of anti-Mormon propaganda.

If you REALLY cared, I don't think you do, you would not be afraid of this challenge...

I've read the Bible, over and over and over and have found it wanting, beautiful, incomplete, peaceful, inconsistent, and I value it more than words can describe...I think I know what's there and I will drink mightily from it until I am no longer capable...God bless those whose sacrifice brought it to us!

GB,

I apologize for the tone of my last post. I do not want to get into a mud-slinging match. How I wish that we were in a position to discuss non-doctrinal issues like 'should we dance' or 'should we go to movies' or 'what kind of music should we play during worship service.' I also apologize if I have mis-stated anything about the book of Mormon. I want this to be an exchange of the truth, so I will be the first person to admit if I wrote something that was not accurate.

My purpose in reciting the BoM verses was not to discuss it's accuracy relative to the Bible. Interestingly, if all we were talking about was the Book of Mormon we might be having the discussions I pointed to above, because the BoM is more Christian than anything. The only doctrinal thing that I can really complain about is that the doctrine of works is set out in 2 Nephi 25, where the grace of God saves us "after all that we can do." I can't agree with that in light of Eph 2: 8-9. No, my purpose was to say that it speaks about things that were supposedly happening in North America that had not happened yet.

Now as I understand it, the Book of Mormon covers a time period from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. Yet it talks about scimitars in Mosiah 9:16 (curved swords did not appear anywhere in the world until 500 A.D.), horses in I Nephi 18:25 (horses did not appear in North America until the early 1500's), elephants in Ether 9:19 (elephants were also brought over from Europe and Asia in the 1600s-1700s), honey bees and swarms of bees in Ether 2:3 (honeybees were introduced into North America by the Spanish in the 1500s), and it also talks about the people having things made of steel and silk, which the Jews did not have at that time.

It is also peculiar that the book of Mormon sets forth some doctrines that Christians would find familiar but which later Mormon doctrine would refute:

There is only one God - Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21
God indwells the righteous - Alma 34:36
The Trinity is one God - Alma 11:44; Mosiah 15:5; 2 Nephi 31:21
God is unchanging - Mormon 9:9,19; Moroni 8:18; Alma 41:8; 3 Nephi 24:6
God is spirit - Alma 18:24,28; 22:9,11
Hell is eternal - Jacob 3:11; 6:10; 2 Nephi 19:16; 28:21-23.

Again, the above doctrines are taught by the Book of Mormon, but they have been changed by later discourses from Mormon prophets, apostles, and other leaders into the doctrines that we are talking about now:

There are many gods - Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5
The Trinity is 3 separate gods - James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 35. 1985.
God is increasing in knowledge - Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 120.
God has the form of a man - Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.
Hell is not eternal - James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55.

That is why we are having the discussion we are, GB. Instead of talking about should we baptize by sprinkling or immersion, or what color should the pulpit backdrop be, we are talking about issues that impact where we will spend eternity:

--Who is God, and what is He like?
--Who is Jesus, and what relationship does He have to God?
--Was Jesus Christ God come in the flesh?
--What do we believe about the Trinity?
--What does salvation mean?
--Where do works fit into the salvation question?

It breaks my heart, GB, that these issues divide us, not because I want them to, but because they do according to the Scriptures. And they are such pivotal issues when it comes to eternal destiny. According to the latest poll, 87% of Americans stated that they believe in god. Does this mean 87% of Americans will go to heaven? Do they believe in the same god, or are there all kinds of different 'gods' that people are holding onto? You see, that is such a vital question. To believe in God does not save you. James made that clear when he said "so you believe in one God? Good! Even the demons believe that-and tremble." You have to figure out who people mean when they say "God", and how does that belief impact or change the way they live their lives.

You are in my prayers, my friend, as are all people on this board. It says in Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

May that be the legacy of this board, that it encourages people to earnestly seek Him and his gift of grace and eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen

Chief1989,

If you would like to have a reasonable conversation with me, I would like nothing less. I would have thought by now that you would have realized that your anti-mormon sources are unreliable.

I don't have a lot of time to continually point out the error of your ways, as it seems you are doing an anti-mormon data dump. It is an old debate tactic to distract from the fact that one is losing.

We can have a reasonable conversation and still agree to disagree.

As far as "The idea that we can 'become just like God' is the oldest lie Satan ever told, and men and women have been falling for it ever since."

I disagree and here is why.

Gen 3:4 "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

That was the first lie. And then, as the devil is wont to do, he covered his lie with a truth.

Gen 3:5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

This part is true. We know this because of

Gen3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Notice that Adam and Eve were not condemned because they wanted to be as the gods, only because they transgressed the council of God.

Also notice that the plural "us" is used by God here to describe God. This is not the only place where the plural is used in the Bible to describe God.

I think a more fundamental question is this:

Does the Book of Mormon bring one closer to Jesus Christ or further?

Anyone who has read the book knows the amswer, and Chief clearly hasn't and doesn't.

Paul: The question begs to Be asked, what is the evidence for the book of Mormon to be true?

GB: What evidence do you have that Christ was resurrected? Do you believe the Bible because of “evidence” or because of the witness of the Holy Ghost? Some very good evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is the effect it has on the lives of people who study it and live by its principles. The only way for you to really know if it is true is you must; 1) read it, 2) ponder it in your heart, 3) ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if it is true. If you will ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, then he will manifest the truth of it to you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things.

Paul: Where is the archeological evidence?

GB: It is a religious book not a history book. Its purpose is for the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations. It also says that if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Here is some archeological evidence. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=255

Paul: Are there any manuscripts dating back anywhere close to the the time when these events supposedly took place?

GB: We only have the original “printer's” manuscripts and portions of the original translation manuscript as far as I know.

Paul: The entirety of the the Bible is meta-narrative meaning that it has one central theme from beginning to end one purpose one goal, and everything in the Bible points to that one person, that person is God.

GB: I stated above the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

Paul: Does the book of Mormon agree with the Bible in all respects?

GB: It agrees with the correct interpretation of the Bible in all respects.

Paul, I covered such questions form Chief over on the following thread:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/the-church-of-the-devil.html

This is also covered in detail at the following blogs and links:

www.truthrestored.townhall.com
www.fairlds.org
www.mormon.org

Chief,

Blogs I author or contribute to:

http://truthrestored.townhall.com/Default.aspx
http://angelslanding.townhall.com/Default.aspx

You are welcome to discuss these issues further there.

A wealth of evidence could be brought forth to prove
Mormonism is a man made religion, but one basic
premise stands out which is the very foundation of Mormonism,
the “apostasy.
Mormonism has its roots in the claim that a lone 14 year old boy, in search of truth, hikes into the woods near his home and is informed personally by Jesus Christ that there had been a universal apostasy and that God had chosen him to restore the true church.
The Mormon Church is built upon the idea there was a
total, complete apostasy from the truth taught by Christ and
His Apostles, and the true church along with any authority
from God had ceased to exist.
Mormon Scripture proclaims the LDS position by stating
that every church on the face of the earth is “wrong”; all their
creeds are an “abomination” in the sight of God; and all their
professors are “corrupt” (see Pearl of Great Price, Joseph
Smith History 1:19)."“I was answered that I must join none of them, for
they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed
me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his
sight; that those professors were all corrupt;...” (Joseph
Smith-History 1:19)
Apostle Orson Pratt, one of the original apostles of the
LDS church, defended the position of the Mormon Church
and said that worldly forces “prevailed” against the kingdom
of God and it ceased to exist:
“Jesus made his appearance on the earth in the
meridian of time, and he established his kingdom on the
earth. But to fulfill ancient prophecies the Lord suffered
that kingdom to be uprooted; in other words, the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of
God, established eighteen centuries ago, and they prevailed
against it, and the kingdom ceased to exist.”
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p.125)
This un-Biblical concept is refuted by the proclamation
and promise of the Lord Jesus Himself when he boldly
asserted, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell
SHALL NOT PREVAIL against it” (Math. 16:18).
I Corinthians 3:11 says, “For other foundation can no man
lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Can this foundation
collapse? Did Jesus tell the truth when He said He would
build His church?
Following Pentecost we find Jesus doing exactly what He
said He would do when 3,000 souls were saved after a single
sermon recorded in Acts, chapter 2. As the word spread, the
Lord “added to the church daily such as should be saved”
(Acts 2:47).
Although “some” would depart from the faith, the Apostle
Paul wrote, “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ
Jesus throughout all ages, world without end” (Ephesians
3:21).
The problem with Mormonism, is that the system teaches
that favor with God is only found in an organization. Membership,
baptism, etc., must be in this organization which is
the only one God endorses. The sad fact is that this encourages
people to seek the “true church” rather than to seek being right
with God.
The “true church” is not some denomination or organization,
but rather an organism, made up of Christians from all
ages. Those who have placed their trust in Christ and the
finished work at the cross are the ones who belong to the true
Church, which is the body of Christ. Only the Lord can add
to this Church and He is the one who builds and cares for it
(I Cor. 12:18, Eph. 1:22-23, & Eph. 5:29).
Since the very foundation of the Mormonism is in error,
it must be considered a man made religion and not from God.

References for the above quoted Chapter:

19 1 John 3:2.

20 "1 John," Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible, Vol. VI, (Chester, 1721), as found at http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/matthew-henry/mh-complete/MHC00000.HTM

21 Origen, "Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter I," The Anti-Nicene Church Fathers.

22 St. Irenaeus, "Adv Haer III IV:38:4," The Anti-Nicene Church Fathers: "We are not made gods from the beginning; first we are mere humans, then we become gods." St. Maximus the Confessor : "Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods." St. Athanasius, De inc.: "For the Son of God became man, that we might become God." St. Augustine: "He has called men gods that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance." St. Irenaeus, Adv Haer III: "The Word became flesh and the Son of God became the Son of Man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." St. Augustine of Hippo: "Let us applaud and give thanks that we have become not only Christians but Christ himself. Do you understand, my brothers, the grace that God our head has given us? Be filled with wonder and joy--we have become veritable Christs!" St. Thomas Aquinas: "The Only-begotten Son of God, wanting us to be partakers of his divinity, assumed our human nature so that, having become man, he might make men gods." St Basil the Great: "The highest of all things desired is to become God."

23 Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization" (master's thesis, Graduate Theological Union, 1998), 14

24 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 54.

25 Hans Küng, "Das Christentum, Wesen und Geschichte," C.II.6 (München: R. Piper GmbH & Co. KG, 1994): "Ja, wie soll die Erlösung des Menschen zu göttlichem Leben und die Gewissheit des Heils in Jesus gewährleistet sein, wenn Jesus nur ein Geschöpf [..] war? [..] Durch die Menschwerdung Gottes und die Gottwerdung des Menschen unterschied sich für Athanasios das Christentum sowohl vom Judentum wie vom Heidentum."

Paul said: This un-Biblical concept [the Apostasy] is refuted by the proclamation
and promise of the Lord Jesus Himself when he boldly
asserted, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell
SHALL NOT PREVAIL against it” (Math. 16:18).
I Corinthians 3:11 says, “For other foundation can no man
lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Can this foundation
collapse? Did Jesus tell the truth when He said He would
build His church?

Mike's response: Here are a few Scriptures that support the concept of an apostasy of the church after Jesus ascent into Heaven.

Apostasy of the Early Christian Church
Isa. 24: 5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa. 29: 13 this people draw near me with their mouth.
Isa. 60: 2 darkness shall cover the earth.
Amos 8: 11 a famine . . . of hearing the words of the Lord.
Matt. 13: 25 his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat.
Matt. 24: 5 saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.
Matt. 24: 24 shall arise false Christs, and false prophets.
John 6: 66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Acts 20: 29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you.
1 Cor. 11: 18 there be divisions among you.
Gal. 1: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him.
Gal. 3: 1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey.
2 Thes. 2: 3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first.
1 Tim. 1: 6 some having swerved have turned aside.
1 Tim. 4: 1 giving heed to seducing spirits.
2 Tim. 1: 15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.
2 Tim. 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred.
2 Tim. 3: 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power.
2 Tim. 4: 4 turn away their ears from the truth . . . unto fables.
Titus 1: 16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.
James 4: 1 From whence came wars and fightings among you.
2 Pet. 2: 1 false prophets also among the people.
2 Pet. 3: 17 being led away with the error of the wicked.
1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.
1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Jude 1: 4 certain men crept in . . . denying the only Lord God.
Rev. 2: 2 which say they are apostles, and are not.
Rev. 3: 16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot.
Rev. 13: 7 to make war with the saints.

In addition:
The link below is the table of contents of a Book on the Apostasy.
If you go to the link you can access each chapter of the Book. This outlines the reasons that Mormons believe that there was an apostasy.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/booksmain.php?bookid=42

Maxwell Institute Books

• Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, by Noel B. Reynolds
Acknowledgments, by Noel B. Reynolds
About the Authors
Introduction: What Went Wrong for the Early Christians?, by Noel B. Reynolds
Inheriting the "Great Apostasy": The Evolution of Latter-day Saint Views on the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, by Eric R. Dursteler
"A World in Darkness": Early Latter-day Saint Understanding of the Apostasy, 1830–1834, by Richard E. Bennett, Amber J. Seidel
Modern Revelation: A Guide to Research about the Apostasy, by John W. Welch
The Concept of Apostasy in the New Testament, by James E. Faulconer
The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity, by John Gee
The Introduction of Philosophy into Early Christianity, by Daniel W. Graham, James L. Siebach
Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christain Understanding of God, by David L. Paulsen
The Decline of Covenant in Early Christian Thought, by Noel B. Reynolds
Appendix A: Guide to Important Christian Documents and Writers for the Early Christian Church to the Reformation, by Barry R. Bickmore
Appendix B: Christian Councils, by Barry R. Bickmore, Adam W. Bentley
Appendix C: New Testament Evidences and Prophecies of Apostasy in the First-Century Church, by Noel B. Reynolds
Appendix D: Bibliographical Note on Latter-day Saint Writings on the Apostasy, by Ryan Christensen
Citation Index
Subject Index

Pau wrote:"A glimpse of the triune nature of God can be partially
understood by considering the states of water. Solid, Liquid,
and Gas. Each different, yet all share the same nature." Likewise,
Jesus is not “a God” but he is the “true God” (see John
1:1).

Read on in John, where he explains how we are to become "one" with God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost! We all share the same nature, yet we are all different! But to become like our Father, in attitude, understanding and behavior, is what our very purpose upon this earth is because of that divine nature born within each of us!

The Son is subservient to the Father. The Holy Ghost is subservient to the Father and the Son.

Never does the Son pray to the Holy Ghost or submit his will to the Holy Ghost. The Son however says he will send the 2nd comforter. The Son prays to the Father and no one else. It is clear that perfect triune nature is a fabrication.

Paul,

Wow !!! You can cut and paste from anti-mormon sources.

Paul: . . . Joseph Smith gave a revelation . . . .

GB:SECTION 115
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Far West, Missouri, April 26, 1838,

JS didn't "gave" the revelation, the LORD "gave" the revelation "through" Joseph Smith the Prophet.

Why do anti-mormons always have to distort things?

Paul: A very basic teaching in Mormonism is, Jesus was born
in a so-called pre-existence to a “heavenly Mother” . . . .

GB: I challenge you to show me the phrase "heavenly Mother" in any LDS canon of scripture. If it isn't in our canon then it isn't "a very basic teaching".

Paul: However, when examining older LDS publications that
are less protective, there can be no doubt that this can only
mean that Mary could NOT have been a virgin when she gave
birth to Jesus.

GB: Oh really? How about the oldest LDS publication, the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 11:13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

I think that these scriptures agree with what the Bible says about the matter.

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Any thing more or less than this is strictly OPINION, nothing more. So anti-mormons take OPINION and try to twist it into official doctrine. Anything they can use to make us look bad. Which you basically admit with the following.

Paul: Because this doctrine is so offensive to orthodox Christians,. . . .Even without instruction from the Bible, it seems it would
be difficult indeed to escape ones’ own conscience if such a
detestable doctrine was willfully embraced.

“Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a
virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an
immortal Father.” (Mormon Doctrine, 26th printing,
1979, p.822)
This teaching is presented even clearer in the same volume
under the title, “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”:
“These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the
only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words
is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten
means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten
by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal
men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine,
p. 546,547)
When Apostle McConkie states “in the same way”,
knowledgeable Mormons admit, (although frequently under
protest), that this means through the sexual act.

Paul: PS....No I have not read the entire book of Mormon ,

GB: Isn't it hypocritical to condemn a book you haven't read through. You apparently found no obvious contradictions or I am sure you would have let us know.

Paul: but I have read enough to gather that it is not from God.

GB: IF that were true, THEN you should be encouraging everyone to read it so that they can come to the same conclusion as you. After all His sheep will know His voice.

To All,

We are back where we started. The whole crux of the matter, as to whether Mormonism can be considered a Christian faith, is the Book of Mormon and whether Joseph Smith is a prophet or not. The whole of the matter resides there.

We have discussed those points, ad nauseum, and gotten nowhere, as far as I can see. We both can pull out verses from Scripture to support our views, and the differences between us lies in the context and interpretation that we give those verses.

I have to say it is encouraging to see so many people who are passionate about their beliefs. We live, I believe, in the last age of the church before the Rapture, and that is the Laodecean age. Christ said of that church in Rev 3 "15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." The hallmark of the church during this age is apathy, so it is good to see people who have passion and have the ability to defend their beliefs.

I wish all of you well. I do have a copy of the Book of Mormon on my bookshelf, and I have read parts of it, though not all of it. Suffice it to say that there are too many inconsistencies for me to put any trust into it. I listed some of those inconsistencies above, and no one answered me as to why this was. Here is a recap:

"Now as I understand it, the Book of Mormon covers a time period from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. Yet it talks about scimitars in Mosiah 9:16 (curved swords did not appear anywhere in the world until 500 A.D.), horses in I Nephi 18:25 (horses did not appear in North America until the early 1500's), elephants in Ether 9:19 (elephants were also brought over from Europe and Asia in the 1600s-1700s), honey bees and swarms of bees in Ether 2:3 (honeybees were introduced into North America by the Spanish in the 1500s), the Nephites had chariots in Alma 18:9 (over 1000 years before the wheel was introduced into the Western hemisphere), the word 'church' is used in 1 Nephi 4:26 in 600 B.C. ( about 650 years before the Day of Pentecost sermon by Peter), and it also talks about the people having things made of steel and silk, which the Jews did not have at that time."

If I have misrepresented any of these things, please let me know and I will issue a full public apology. There are other perplexing questions that I have (and I am not cutting-and-pasting from anti-Mormon sites, either!):

If the Book of Mormon is the 'restoration of the gospel', why does it not contain most of modern Mormon doctrine in it?
Why, indeed, is the BoM contradicted by Doctrines & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, and how do you reconcile those differences?
[For instance, the BoM declares that there is one God, that the polygamy of David and Solomon was an abomination to God, that God indwells the righteous, that hell is eternal, that God is a spirit, and that the Triune God is one God. All of these statements, which agree with the Bible, have been changed over the years into what is now accepted modern Mormon doctrine; there are many gods, man can become a god, that God does not indwell us, that hell is temporal, that God was once a man and has a body of flesh and bones like we do, and that there is not one god in the godhead but three separate gods).

You see, if we were just talking about the Book of Mormon, our differences would probably be fairly minor. It is what has been added to the BoM that sets us so very far apart. The god that your presidents/apostles/council of 12 has espoused over the past 100 years is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who declared in Isaiah 43:10 that there were no gods before Him or after Him, that He alone is God. The Jesus that the LDS church teaches is not the Jesus of the Bible, who claimed deity for Himself and that "the Father and I are one" and "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I AM." The salvation that the LDS church teaches is not the salvation spoken of in the Scriptures, which is a free gift of God and is accomplished by grace through faith in Christ alone. In Galatians 3 Paul writes, "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." Yet modern Mormon apostles have continued to promulgate the idea of 'we are saved by grace through faith, after all that we can do.' In Isaiah 64 it states that all of our righteousness is like "filthy rags" before the Lord. I can try to obey the Law with all of my being, and it will not bring me one iota closer to God. Without faith in Christ, it is impossible to please God.

That is the whole point from the beginning of this thread. "Are Mormons Christians?" Some are, who do not hold to the later teachings of the church and are following Christ alone for their salvation. If the later teachings and allegiance to Joseph Smith come into play, then I would have to answer in the negative. But because we disagree so plainly on the nature of God, the nature of Jesus, and the way of salvation, I cannot call the Mormon church a Christian church. Am I happy about that? Not in the least. Do I rejoice over that fact? No, it really breaks my heart, quite frankly. There are many things that we can agree on and work together on, but that is one where the Scriptures will not allow me any leeway. I know that will anger some, offend some, and for that I am profoundly sorry. There was a poster above who said he or she doubted that I cared, and that is not the case at all. I simply cannot reconcile the Bible with what the LDS church teaches doctrinally; they are not the same gospel, and there is nothing I can do about that but speak the truth and pray for people's hearts and minds to be touched.

May God grant each of us wisdom and discernment in finding and following His will for us.

Chief: "Now as I understand it, the Book of Mormon covers a time period from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. Yet it talks about scimitars in Mosiah 9:16 (curved swords did not appear anywhere in the world until 500 A.D.),
GB: Mosiah 9:16 And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows, with swords, and with cimeters, and with clubs, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons which we could invent, and I and my people did go forth against the Lamanites to battle.
Sorry no scimitars there. Nothing in the text indicates that “curved swords” were used.

Chief: horses in I Nephi 18:25 (horses did not appear in North America until the early 1500's),

GB: Horses in the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon mentions horses, yet these animals seem not to have been known to native Americans who greeted the Spaniards upon their arrival in the New World in the sixteenth century. Moreover, archaeological evidence for the presence of the horse in the pre-Columbian Americas is presently scant and inconclusive. How can this be explained? Careful consideration of this question begins with an examination of what the Book of Mormon says and does not say about horses.
Horses are mentioned only once in the land northward during the Jaredite period—that is, during the prosperous reign of King Emer around 2500 B.C. and before the great drought sometime in the third millennium B.C. (see Ether 9:19, 30–35). Since horses are not mentioned again in the Jaredite record, it is possible that they became extinct in the region north of the narrow neck of land following that time.
Horses were known to some Nephites and Lamanites from about 600 B.C. to the time of the Savior. They were found in the "land of first inheritance" during the time of Nephi, son of Lehi (see 1 Nephi 18:25), and in the land of Nephi during the days of Enos (see Enos 1:21). They were also utilized by at least some of the Lamanite elite during the days of King Lamoni in the same general region during the first century B.C. (see Alma 18:9–12). The text does not mention horses in the land of Nephi after that time. The only other region associated with horses was the general land of Zarahemla at the time of the war with the Gadianton robbers, just prior to the birth of Jesus Christ (see 3 Nephi 3:22; 4:4; 6:1). There is no indication in the text that horses were indigenous to that region. The Savior's reference to horses in 3 Nephi 21:14 is a prophecy of the latter days and need not be interpreted as referring to Nephite horses. In the Book of Mormon, horses are never mentioned after the time of Christ.
In short, the Book of Mormon claims only that horses were known to some New World peoples before the time of Christ in certain limited regions of the New World. Thus we need not conclude from the text that horses were universally known in the Americas throughout pre-Columbian history. Moreover, the Book of Mormon never says that horses were ridden or used in battle, although some passages suggest that at times they may have been used by the elite as a draft animal (see, for example, Alma 18:9; 3 Nephi 3:22).
Archaeological Considerations
Small herds of animals in a limited region sometimes leave no archaeological remains. We know that the Norsemen probably introduced horses, cows, sheep, goats, and pigs into Eastern North America during the eleventh century A.D., yet these animals did not spread throughout the continent and have left no archaeological remains.1 "It is probable," writes Jacques Soustelle, an authority on the Olmec, "that the Olmecs kept dogs and turkeys, animals domesticated in very early times on the American continent, but the destruction of any sort of bone remains, both human and animal, by the dampness and the acidity of the soil keeps us from being certain of this."2
Even if horses had been abundantly used and had been a vital element in the culture of Book of Mormon people (a claim never made by Book of Mormon writers), one cannot assume that evidence for this would be plentiful or obvious from the current archaeological record.
The study of fossilized animal remains from archaeological sites is known today as "zoo-archaeology." Zoo-archaeologist Simon J. M. Davis notes that the majority of bones found in archaeological sites are those of animals that were killed for food or other slaughter products by ancient peoples. It is rare to find remains of other animals in such locations. "Animals exploited, say, for traction or riding [such as horses], may not necessarily have been consumed and may only be represented by an occasional bone introduced by scavenging dogs." Thus "the problem of correlating between excavated bones and the economic importance of the animals in antiquity is far from being resolved."3 In fact, "One sometimes wonders whether there is any similarity between a published bone report and the animals exploited by ancient humans."4
The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation."5
The lack of archaeological evidence for the Hunnic horse is rather significant in terms of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. During the two centuries of their dominance, the Huns must have possessed hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare, notwithstanding the abundance of horses during the Hunnic empire, how can we expect abundant archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian horses in the New World, especially given the scant and comparatively conservative references to horses by Book of Mormon writers?
A parallel example from the Bible is instructive. The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region.6 Thus there is often a gap between what historical records such as the Book of Mormon claim existed and what the limited archaeological record may yield. In addition, archaeological excavations in Bible lands have been under way for decades longer and on a much larger scale than those in proposed Book of Mormon lands.
Possible Late Survival of Prehistoric Horses
Some native Mexican traditions suggest memory of the late survival of some species of horse in the New World. When Mexican peoples first encountered Spanish horses they compared them to deer. American Historian Hugh Thomas, in his seminal study of the conquest of Mexico, suggests that this association may have been partly based on native ancestral traditions that mentioned deer with tails and manes of hair. According to Thomas, "The Mexicans may have continued to think of these animals as deer. But perhaps some folk memory may have reminded them that there had once been horses in the Americas."7
Naming by Analogy
It is also possible that some Book of Mormon peoples coming from the Old World may have decided to call some New World animal species a "horse" or an "ass." This practice, known as "loanshift" or "loan-extension," is well known to historians and anthropologists who study cross-cultural contact. For example, when the Greeks first visited the Nile in Egypt, they encountered a large animal they had never seen before and gave it the name hippopotamus, meaning "horse of the river." When the Roman armies first encountered the elephant, they called it Lucca bos, a "Lucanian cow." In the New World the Spanish called Mesoamerican jaguars leones, "lions," or tigres, "tigers."
Similarly, members of Lehi's family may have applied loanwords to certain animal species that they encountered for the first time in the New World, such as the Mesoamerican tapir. While some species of tapir are rather small, the Mesoamerican variety (tapiris bairdii) can grow to be nearly six and a half feet in length and can weigh more than six hundred pounds. Many zoologists and anthropologists have compared the tapir's features to those of a horse or a donkey. "Whenever I saw a tapir," notes zoologist Hans Krieg, "it reminded me of an animal similar to a horse or a donkey. The movements as well as the shape of the animal, especially the high neck with the small brush mane, even the expression on the face, are much more like a horse's than a pig's [to which some have compared the smaller species]. When watching a tapir on the alert . . . as he picks himself up when recognizing danger, taking off in a gallop, almost nothing remains of the similarity to a pig."8
Other zoologists have made similar observations. "At first glance," note Hans Frädrich and Erich Thenius, "the tapirs' movements also are not similar to those of their relatives, the rhinoceros and the horses. In a slow walk, they usually keep the head lowered." However, when a tapir runs, its movement becomes quite horselike: "In a trot, they lift their heads and move their legs in an elastic manner. The amazingly fast gallop is seen only when the animals are in flight, playing, or when they are extremely excited." In addition, tapirs can "climb quite well, even though one would not expect this because of their bulky figure. Even steep slopes do not present obstacles. They jump vertical fences or walls, rising on their hind legs and leaping up."9 Tapirs can be domesticated quite easily if they are captured when young. Young tapirs who have lost their mothers are easily tamed and will eat from a bowl, and they like to be petted and will often allow children to ride on their backs.10
One could hardly fault Old World visitors to the New World for choosing to classify the Mesoamerican tapir as a horse or an ass, if that is what happened. Given the limitations of zoo-archaeology, and also those of other potentially helpful disciplines when probing many centuries into the forgotten past, it is unwise to dismiss the references in the Book of Mormon to horses as erroneous.
This Research Report was prepared by the FARMS Research Department and is based on the latest available scholarly research. It is subject to revision as more information on the subject becomes available. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of FARMS, Brigham Young University, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Report last updated August 2000
Recommended Readings
Hamblin, William J. "Animals." In Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): 193–95.
Sorenson, John L. "Animals in the Book of Mormon." In Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985, 288–99.
——— "Plants and Animals." In "Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!" Review of "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography," by Deanne G. Matheny. Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 342–48.
——— "Once More: The Horse." In Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch, 98-100. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992.
Notes
1. See Gwyn Jones, The Norse Atlantic Saga: Being the Norse Voyages of Discovery and Settlement to Iceland, Greenland, America, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 119; see also Erik Wahlgren, The Vikings in America (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 124.
2. Jaques Soustelle, The Olmecs: The Oldest Civilization in Mexico (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 23.
3. Simon J. M. Davis, The Archaeology of Animals (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1987), 24.
4. Ibid., 23.
5. S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267.
6. L. Martin. "The Faunal Remains from Tell es Saidiyeh," Levant 20 (1988): 83–84.
7. Hugh Thomas, Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés, and the Fall of Old Mexico (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), 178; see also Eugene R. Craine and Reginald C. Reindorp, eds. and trans., The Chronicles of Michoacán (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970, 63–64.
8. Quoted in Hans Frädrich and Erich Thenius, "Tapirs," Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, ed. Bernhard Grzimek (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company), 13:19–20.
9. Ibid., 20.
10. Ibid., 28–30.

Chief: elephants in Ether 9:19 (elephants were also brought over from Europe and Asia in the 1600s-1700s),
GB: The only place that elephants are mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Ether 9:19 in approximately 2500 B.C. Thus any elephants existing upon the American continents need not have survived past about 2400 B.C. The critics, however, assure that the “elephant is not a native of America and never was its inhabitant” (Hyde, 226). In my paper regarding the Book of Mormon’s use of the term “ horse,” I presented evidence that sometimes animals disappear without a trace even though they are attested to in written documents. I add to this evidence the observation of Dr. Nibley:
Any naturalist would assume that the elephant has been extinct in western Asia for hundreds of thousands of years, for all the evidence the creature has left of itself: it is from written history alone that we receive the assurances that large herds of elephants roamed the temperate lands of Syria and the upper Euphrates as late as the XVIII Egyptian dynasty, when the Pharaohs hunted them for sport, and that elephants were used by the war-lords of central Asia well into the Middle Ages. In late antiquity the wild variety disappeared without a trace, due perhaps to a change in world climate. (Nibley, 1980, p. 217.)
There is at least some support for the Book of Mormon’s usage of the term “elephants.” First we have traditions. Sorenson explains that some “North American Indians have recounted legends of ‘great stiff-legged beasts who could not lie down’ and of an animal with a fifth appendage, which came out of its head. Possibly, tribes transmitted through oral tradition some vague remembrance of encounters with these ‘elephants’” (Sorenson, 1985, p. 298). Other Indian stories have been preserved as well.
Strong... reproduced a Naskapi account concerning a creature called Katcheetohuskw.... “When asked to describe the Katcheetohuskw, the informants said he was very large, had a big head, large ears and teeth, and a long nose with which he hit people” (italics supplied). “His tracks in the snow were described in their stories as large and round.” (Johnson, 4.)

Even as late as 1560 “the Italian cartographer Paula de Furlani drew a map, which is preserved in the British Museum, depicting elephants in the region of the Mississippi Valley.... On the way to the New World, Columbus stopped at the Canary Islands and observed: ‘Other Canarieans also inhabit the wild regions extending from Mount Atlas through the sands of Lybia, places covered with black dust and filled with serpents and elephants’” (Cheesman, 1984, 55).
Besides the traditions, five elephant effigies have been found in ancient Mexico (Wirth, 51). Dr. Verrill, a well-known (non-Mormon) archaeologist describes one of these figures as “‘so strikingly and obviously elephantine that it cannot be explained away by any of the ordinary theories of being a conventionalized or exaggerated tapir, ant-eater or macaw. Not only does this figure show a trunk, but in addition it has the big leaf-like ears and the forward-bending knees peculiar to the elephants. Moreover, it shows a load or burden strapped upon its back. It is inconceivable that any man could have imagined a creature with the flapping ears and peculiar hind knees of an elephant, or that any human being could have conventionalized a tapir to this extent’” (ibid). In the early 1900s two stone slabs were found at a ruin in Arizona which dated to approximately 1100 A.D. These tablets contained a pictograph of an elephant (Cheesman, 1984, 144-5).
The oral traditions, written records, and artwork depicting elephants lends strong support for the claim that the elephant existed in ancient America. Even more substantial support-- actual remains-- have also been discovered. Today all scholars agree that mastodons and mammoths (which are unquestionably elephants to zoologists) once lived in the Americas. The dispute today is how late they lived. According to the Book of Mormon they need not have lived later than 2400 B.C. Within recent years archaeological evidence has demonstrated that the elephant could very well have survived to such a late date. Butchered mastodon bones were recently discovered at one archaeological site which dates to shortly after the time of Christ. Another site, dating to approximately 100 B.C. has yielded the remains of a mammoth, a mastodon, as well as a horse (Sorenson, 1985, pgs., 297-8).
Some scholars have suggested that the elephant (mammoth or mastodon) lived later than hitherto believed. Ludwell Johnson, in an article entitled “Men and Elephants in America” published in Scientific Monthly, wrote that “Discoveries of associations of human and proboscidean remains [Elephantine mammals, including, elephants, mammoths, and mastodons] are by no means uncommon. As of 1950, MacCowan listed no less than twenty-seven” including, as noted by Hugo Gross, a “partly burned mastodon skeleton and numerous potsherds at Alangasi, Ecuador” (Johnson, 1).
Johnson goes on to explain that “There can no longer be any doubt that man and elephant coexisted in America.... Probably it is safe to say that American Proboscidea have been extinct for a minimum of 3000 years” (Johnson, 2). If the elephants had died off at least 3000 years ago, they would still have been well within range of the Jaredite era. And as noted above, some evidence indicates that the elephant may have survived in limited numbers for centuries later.
Chief: honey bees and swarms of bees in Ether 2:3 (honeybees were introduced into North America by the Spanish in the 1500s),
GB: Among the supposed Book of Mormon anachronisms is the mention of “bees” (Ether 2:3). One critic claims that bees “were first introduced [in the New World] by Europeans” (Key, 1). It should be noted firstly that the Book of Mormons use of the term "bees" occurs in an Old World (Jaredite) setting, it is never used in connection with the New World, therefore the argument could simply end here. Did the Jaredites bring bees to the New World? We may never know. Some studies suggest, however, that bees were known in the ancient New World. Bruce Warren, for instance notes that there “are many references in the Maya region to honey bees in ancient times, and these references occur in ritual contexts, i.e., are of native or pre-Spanish origin” (Warren 1963, 94). Other New World scholars have observed that “not only was the domesticated bee in ancient America but that there were gods of bees and beekeepers . . . Honey was considered a real treat for the Indians. Equally important was black wax taken from the hives which was often traded for other commodities” (Wirth, pgs. 56-57).
Chief: the Nephites had chariots in Alma 18:9 (over 1000 years before the wheel was introduced into the Western hemisphere),
GB: So, you are saying that the wheel was “introduced” around 900 A.D. Who introduced it and what evidence do you have to support you assertion? Since Lehi and his family left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. (about the time of Jeremiah) they would have known about the wheel and chariots. After all they had large portions of the Old Testament including Isaiah.
Exodus 14:25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.
Jer 4:13 Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled.
Isa 5:28 Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind:
Chief: , and it also talks about the people having things made of steel and silk, which the Jews did not have at that time."
GB: Since there has been a lot of criticism by some anti-Mormons about the steel-using Nephites, it might be useful to see what the Book of Mormon actually says about iron and steel.
There are two major fallacies in discussions on this topic. First is the problem of the hermeneutics of hyper-skepticism. Applying the same hermeneutical standard to other ancient texts creates some obvious absurdities I will describe shortly. Second is the semantic fallacy, which consists of arguing about the meaning of words rather than the reality the words are trying to depict. A single ancient reality can be described in a number of different ways. Ancient peoples often described their perceptions of reality differently than we do. These fallacies are omnipresent among many anti-Mormons.
Steel in the Text
Steel is mentioned only five times in the Book of Mormon, once in the Book of Ether (7.9), and four times in the Nephite records (1 Ne 4.9, 1 Ne 16.18, 2 Ne 5.15 and Jar 1.8). Of these, two refer to Near Eastern weapons of the early sixth century B.C. 1 Ne 4.9 states that the blade of Laban's sword was "of most precious steel." Nephi's Near Eastern bow was "made of fine steel" (1 Ne 16.18). The next two references are to steel among generic metal lists. The first is to the time of Nephi, around 580 B.C.:
"work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores" (2 Ne 5.15)
The second is from Jarom 1.8, around 400 B.C.:
"workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war--yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war"
Notice that these two texts are what is called a "literary topos," meaning a stylized literary description which repeats the same ideas, events, or items in a standardized way in the same order and form.
• Nephi: "wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel"
• Jarom: "wood, …iron and copper, and brass and steel"
The use of literary topoi is a fairly common ancient literary device found extensively in the Book of Mormon (and, incidentally, an evidence for the antiquity of the text). Scholars are often skeptical about the actuality behind a literary topos; it is often unclear if it is merely a literary device or is intended to describe specific unique circumstances.
Note, also, that although Jarom mentions a number of "weapons of war," this list notably leaves off swords. Rather, it includes "arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin." If iron/steel swords were extensively used by Book of Mormon armies, why are they notably absent from this list of weapons, the only weapon-list that specifically mentions steel?
Significantly, there are no references to Nephite steel after 400 B.C.
Putting all this together, we find the following:
• The steel sword is a Near Eastern weapon. It is imitated by Nephi in the first generation-although we are not sure if this imitation is of function, form or material-or all three.
• Steel swords are never again mentioned in the Book of Mormon after this first generation.
• Steel is mentioned once more, in 400 B.C., in a literary topos list, which is notable also for its failure to mention swords, steel or otherwise.
The minimalist and tightest reading of this evidence is that Nephi had a steel weapon from the Near East. He attempted to imitate this weapon-whether in function, form, or material is unclear. His descendants apparently abandoned this technology by no later than 400 B.C. Based on a careful reading of the text of the Book of Mormon, there are no grounds for claiming-as anti-Mormons repeatedly do-that the Book of Mormon describes a massive steel industry with thousands of soldiers carrying steel swords in the New World.
Linguistics Layers and Steel
An historical Book of Mormon would have at least seven different linguistic layers:
1. early nineteenth century American English;
2. Jacobean English of the KJV Bible;
3. Fourth century A.D. language of Moroni (Morm 9.33-34);
4. Mesoamerican language(s);
5. Hebrew of the sixth century B.C.;
6. Egyptian of the sixth century B.C.;
7. Jaredite language.
Even a person who rejects the historicity of the Book of Mormon must agree that linguistic levels one and two are found in the Book of Mormon. The one linguistic category we know was not used in the production of the Book of Mormon English text is twenty-first century scientific terminology, since this version of English did not exist in the 1820s.
A fundamental fallacy of critics of the Book of Mormon is that they ignore this linguistic complexity, conflating twenty-first century English categories and concepts with those of these other linguistic layers. If you want to make a serious argument against the Book of Mormon you must argue from pre-twenty-first century linguistic categories, or you are begging the question. It is quite pointless to argue that because the Book of Mormon does not correlate with early twenty-first century linguistic categories, that is somehow evidence that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical.
An important question is what, precisely, is meant by "steel" in the Book of Mormon. Based on linguistic layer two (Jacobean English of the KJV Bible), "steel" translates "nechushah/nechosheth" which is copper or bronze (often "brass" in KJV). Certainly the Book of Mormon does not refer to twenty-first century "steel," since the Bessemer steel process upon which modern steel-making is based was not invented until 1846.
By the time of Joseph Smith there was already serious linguistic disjunction between Hebrew, Jacobean English, and early nineteenth-century American English. In the KJV, the Hebrew nechosheth (and various cognates) translates into brass (or cognates) 144 times, fetters or chains 8 times (i.e to be "placed in copper" is a Hebrew idiom to be placed in fetters of nechosheth), steel 4 times, and copper once. The Hebrew term nechushah/nechosheth can describe copper or any largely copper-based alloy (Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Brill, 2001] 1:691). Note-and this is important-there is no single English term that can accurately translate Hebrew nechushah/nechosheth; furthermore, the Hebrew term covers at least three distinct categories in modern English: copper, bronze (copper and tin alloy) and brass (copper and zinc alloy). Note, finally, that in Joseph Smith's day there is a conflation between brass and bronze.
An interesting key to the problem is Nephi's steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a "steel bow" in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or it is ancient.) The phrase "bow of steel" occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as "bronze." There is one other reference to "steel" in the KJV at Jer 15.12, also referring to bronze. The metal is apparently called "steel" in the KJV because bronze is "steeled" (strengthened) copper through alloying it with tin or through some other process. Likewise steel did not necessarily mean an iron-making process in Joseph Smith's day; its base meaning is hard or strong. Among the meanings of "steel" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is "extreme hardness." For the verbal form, one of the meanings is "to make hard or extremely hard," while one of the meanings of "steeled" is "hardened," "steeliness" means "great hardness," one of the meanings of "steeling" is "hardening," and one of the meanings of "steely" is "hard, firm." The term steel is still used this way in modern English, such as saying someone has "steely eyes" or a "will of steel." The concept of "steel" (the metal) seems to derive from "steel" meaning hard or strong, not the other way around.
At any rate, it is clear we should not necessarily presume that Book of Mormon steel is related to modern steel. Once again, it is necessary to examine these issues in their original linguistic, textual and cultural context to understand what the text is saying.
Steel in the Near East
According to R. Maddin1 there were two forms of ancient "steeling" iron:
• quenching
• carburizing through taking heated iron and hammering it and folding it so carbon molecules from the charcoals were beaten into the iron.
"By quenching, a process in which hot [note: not melted] iron is plunged into cold water, the iron could be made hard."2
Anciently, iron was never melted or cast in the Near East. The earliest known examples of casting liquefied iron are from China in the fourth century B.C. "Due to its high melting point (1540 degrees C), iron was never worked as a molten metal during the [Near Eastern] Iron Age… Iron had to be hammered, the blacksmith first having to consolidate a hot, spongy bloom of iron mixed with slag. By hammering out the slag he was able to produce a usable lump of iron. In order to use that iron, however, it was necessary to reheat the lump of iron and forge the hot metal to the desired shape."3
Note that the term "smelt" is never used in the Book of Mormon. This, again, is a modern conflation of ancient and modern concepts and practices.
Steel Among the Jaredites
Ether mentions making "steel" only once (Ether 7.9), only a few generations after Jared. It does not say how many swords were made. Anti-Mormons often assert that this necessitates a large-scale iron and steel industry. This interpretation is not required by the text. Ether does not make this claim in any explicit form. This is a classic example of the fallacy of hyper-skepticism. Considering a counter-example will help to illustrate the absurdity of this fallacy.
In the royal shaft graves at Alaca Hoyuk (Turkey) {circa 2500-2200 B.C.), a roughly nine-inch iron dagger with a gold handle was discovered.4 Tutankhamun (fourteenth century B.C.) had an iron dagger in his tomb. Applying the anti-Mormon fallacy (that insists a single example necessitates universal use) we would be required to insist that all Near Eastern soldiers from 2300 B.C. to 1300 B.C. had iron daggers.
The reality, however, is that these two daggers are unique before the eighth century B.C.5 Furthermore, "iron does not appear to have been produced in Egypt on a large scale until the end of the Third Intermediate Period."6
Thus, the assumption that a single reference to "steel swords" in Ether necessitates that all Jaredite soldiers in all ages had "steel swords" would, if consistently applied to the Near East, likewise require that these two examples of iron daggers mean that all soldiers in the Near East in all ages would have to also have iron daggers. But this was not the case. Critics employing the hyper-skepticism fallacy ignore the concept of elite weapons vs. common weapons and the issue of transformation of weapon types through time.
Imagine if we had not discovered the tomb of Alaca Hoyuk in Turkey, where an iron dagger from the twenty-third century B.C. was found. Imagine, further, that Tut's tomb had been plundered in antiquity, as had nearly all other pharaonic tombs. The result would be that there would be no archaeological evidence for iron/steel weapons before the eighth century B.C. Yet this would clearly be wrong. There is a single known Bronze Age royal iron dagger in Egypt when all other soldiers had weapons of bronze or flint, and that was discovered by sheer luck. Why should we reject the possibility of the existence of similarly unique or very rare royal metal weapons in Book of Mormon times when most of the commoners used stone weapons? To reject this possibility is blatant anti-Mormon special pleading.
Furthermore, Near Eastern peoples used hematite, magnetite and meteoritic iron, along with other types of iron ore. Did they have different words for what we in modern scientific English would consider different types of iron? As far as I am aware, they did not. Indeed, the earliest Egyptian word for iron was: "bi3 m pet" or "copper from heaven." That is to say, in archaic times they didn't even distinguish between copper and iron. For the early Egyptians, iron was a type of copper! Later they used the word "banpi" or "benpi" (which are probably contractions of "bi3 m pet"), and this term lasts until Coptic times in the word "benipe." Hebrew and other Near Eastern languages are precisely the same. There is only one term for all types of iron in the entire Bible, "barzal," which is cognate with Aramaic "parzal." Both of these are derived from the Akkadian "parzillu."
Thus, anti-Mormons insist that the Book of Mormon must be evaluated on the basis of modern metallurgical terminology and science, which has categories and distinctions completely foreign to ancient peoples such as the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews, who had a single term covering what now is divided into many different categories. If the failure of the Book of Mormon to match modern semantic categories on types of iron proves there were no Nephites, shouldn't the failure of the Hebrews and Egyptians to match modern semantic categories likewise demonstrate there were not Hebrews or Egyptians? Or is there a better alternative?
Another possibility is that Ether 7.9 is a "mythical" text, a recollection of an ancient heroic "golden age" when men had weapons of steel or iron. An example of this type of phenomenon is found in the Pyramid Texts (PT) of Egypt (circa 2400 B.C.) that describe thrones and implements of iron, which no pharaoh ever actually had. According to these texts, gods in heaven sit upon an "iron throne" which the king shares in the afterlife,7 the king receives an "iron scepter,"8 and the god Horus wears "iron bands on [his] arms."9 In the resurrection the king's bones will be made of iron,10 strong and everlasting, and the gates to the gods' celestial castle are protected by "doors of iron."11 Since we know the Egyptians in 2400 B.C. lived over a thousand years before the Iron Age, what are we to make of this? Should we insist, following anti-Mormon hyper-skeptical methodology, that the Egyptians didn't exist because they describe the widespread use of iron which archaeologically we know they did not possess? Or is this a tale of a great cultural hero miraculously making a unique weapon out of celestial materials-the "metal from heaven" (meteoric iron)?
Note, finally, that the Olmecs did, indeed, work iron. Several tons of worked iron have been discovered.12
Notes
1 R. Madden, "How the Iron Age Began," Scientific American 237 (October 1977): 131.
2 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 2 (Oxford University Press, 2000): 182.
3 Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 3:1514-1515.
4 Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, 83 #111.
5 There may be an iron dagger from Tell Asmar (Eshnunna) in central Iraq that may be from this period, but I haven't been able to track down the precise data yet.
6 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 2 (Oxford University Press, 2000): 183.
7 PT 21, 424, 461, 483, 509, 536, 610, 667, 667A, 669, 689.
8 PT 665C.
9 PT 214.
10 PT 570, 684, 724.
11 PT 469.
12 See Richard A. Diehl, The Olmecs: America's First Civilization (Thames & Hudson, 2004), 93-94.

See I can cut and paste too.

What I find to be the most intriguing facet of this whole debate (I will admit I haven't read all 900 and some odd posts) is this:

WHAT IS AT STAKE IF MORMONISM ISN'T CHRISTIANITY?

Or to say it positively:

WHY DO MORMONS INSIST ON IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS CHRISTIANS?

This seems to be a fundatmental question, which nobody is discussing. We can argue all day long about whether or not "we are saved by grace after all we can do" (2 Nephi), or whether we are saved by grace apart from works (Ephesians 2).

The most important thing to me is answering the questions above because in it, it explains what in fact is at stake. If Christianity is TRUE then of course any deviation from the truth is now a false religion. If Christianity is NOT TRUE, then who gives a rip, right?

What I find fascinating is that both Mormons and Orthodox Christians start with the presumption that Christianity is the TRUE religion. The problem, however, is that both have very different sets of beliefs (and yes, I am an evangelical and have talked extensively with Mormon missionaries...they always agree with you on everything you say but always with a twist...ALWAYS).

I don't beleive any rational person would claim that Mormonism is not a deviation from Orthodox Christianity. Most thinking Christians and Mormons would also challenge their claims of the scriptures (which there are plenty of deviations from this as well). A deviation from the truth is no longer truth...it no longer serves as an exact representation and as such cannot be held up as a proponet of its teaching.

Now, this shouldn't matter to the Mormon but if in fact they want to classify themselves as Peculiar Christians, this is futile. The fact is, they continue to INSIST that they are Christians, instead of Mormons who believe in Jesus...WHY???

In the name of scholarship, we cannot discount that Orthodox Christianity IS Christianity...there is no other form of Christianity. It is organic and has grown from infancy and had its pains but its truth's have been stated over and over again here, namely that the Old Testament was the Old Covenant, the New Testament, the New Covenant, a continuation. After which there were apostles and churches and creeds and councils, THIS IS CHRISTIANITY, there was never another form of Christianity that didn't contain these elements.

I will use a very practical analogy to explain what I am talking about. Christianity is a continuation of Judeaism (some may say a cult, spin off, whatever word you want to use, it doesn't make a difference). The reality is...I AM NOT CLAIMING TO BE A JEW, I AM CLAIMING TO BE A CHRISTIAN. The apostles weren't trying to make themselves Jews, in fact dying at the hands of Jews for claiming something other than Judeaism.

It is important to understand this paradigm...I am sold out that Christianity is true and not Judaeism, which makes me a Christian. I beleive that what Jesus said was true, in fulfilling the Old Testament. I do not follow the Laws of Moses, I follow the law of Grace as expressed through Jesus. I am sold out that Christianity is the TRUE religion.

Why doesn't Mormonism have this same conviction? Why do they continually insist on being Christians (with a different set of beliefs). The reality is they are Mormons, not Christians and they SHOULD be proud of that fact. But they are not, they continually try and reason how they can claim to be Christians. This is beyond me, as a sold out Christian, I don't understand this futility.

Mike,

From dictionary.com

Chris·tian
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

Since Mormons by these definitions are Christians, why do you want to exclude them? To do so is a distortion of the language and a deception on your part. Why do you want to do that?

Sonia,

As I understand it, there are 4 canons that you have pointed out to the Mormon faith. What I find puzzling is why doctrines laid down in the 'main' canon, the book of Mormon, have been changed in the later canons, the D & C, pearl of great price, or articles of faith. Also, some of the core teachings of the church cannot even be found in the BoM. Maybe someone can explain it to me, but it is very peculiar to say the least.

As for the question Is Mormonism Christianity, let me use this analogy. I am a white male, as caucasian as they come. Let's say one day I want to be known as an African-American, perhaps to get access to a minority loan or grant, or to get a scholarship for one of my kids that is open to minority students only. So I call myself something that I'm inherently not. Now why can't I classify myself as an African-American? Because fundamentally, in my genetic makeup, I am not one. No matter how badly I want to be one, to tanning myself or painting myself with dark pigment, no matter how I act or where I go, nothing I do can change the fact that I am not an African-American, nor will I ever be.

Mormonism and Christianity are different fundamentally at their core. Now, as I have said before, salvation is a personal matter that is decided one-on-one with God. So if you, Sonia, as an individual person, ask me if you are a Christian or not because of your beliefs, I would say, 'you know, you certainly seem to be one to me. The Lord knows your heart, so He knows if you are or not.' If you can say in your heart of hearts that you believe He is Lord, you have confessed His name before men, and you believe that God raised Him up from the dead, then you are saved according to the Scriptures. Now you say, 'OK, then why can't you admit that Mormons are Christians?' And the reason is precisely this: the god and the jesus that the historical church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints worships are NOT the same God and Jesus that Paul is talking about in Romans 10 here. No matter how badly they want to be called Christians, they are not because of the doctrines held and studied and worshipped by the LDS church, which are far different that the doctrines held by Christians the world over, as to the nature of God, the nature and divinity of Jesus, the meaning and attainment of salvation, and the concept of sin and punishment. Those doctrinal differences are so great that we cannot say we worship, praise, and seek after the same things. Also, nowhere in the Bible is allegiance to Joseph Smith vital for salvation, but it is in the LDS teachings.

Now, most of the Mormon members who have been blogging will object to this. The several pairs of missionaries that I have spoken to over the last year certainly did (they keep sending new ones out; I wonder why the same guys don't come back?). They insisted that we were all talking about the same things. After all, don't we use the same terminology? Except they got very flustered when I said, OK, let's discuss what we mean by words and phrases like 'salvation', 'grace', 'atonement', 'deity of Jesus', 'is God man or spirit', 'heaven and hell', 'prophet', 'apostle', 'authority', 'priesthood', and what do things like justice, mercy, and judgment mean to believers. When we first start talking, and I identify myself as a Christian, they go right along and say things like 'we agree with everything you just said.' However, when we start talking about heavier doctrines, they go back to Moroni 10: 3-5 - it's like home base, I guess - and just ask if I would read the BoM and pray to see if it's the truth. When I start talking about Joseph Smith and let's examine his record, they go back to Moroni 10 - read, pray, and if the BoM is true, then obviously JS is a prophet, no matter how his personal history reads. Well, I have examined the callings of a number of the OT prophets, and I encourage all of you to do the same. Look at Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Samuel, Amos, Obadiah, Habbakuk, Joel, Jonah, Daniel, David, Zechariah, Malachi, Joshua, et al. Look at how they were called into service by the Lord. They either start their books out "In such and such a year, when so and so was king of Judah, the word of the Lord came to me, son of so and so." In Moses case, God spoke to him through a burning bush, which was unusual, but the reality is that GOD SPOKE TO HIM. He did NOT tell him to wait a few years then go dig up some plates that will be written in a language ('reformed Egyptian', of which no Biblical or secular scholar has EVER found an example of, by the way) you do not know. Translate them and restore my church and my priesthood. That is a totally peculiar calling from how the Lord called ALL OF HIS OTHER PROPHETS over the 4,000 years of recorded religious history. When God wants someone to accomplish His purposes, especially when you look at prophet history, He uses more direct methods than what occurred in the life of JS. Also, another one of JS's translations, the Book of Abraham, has been proven, by the recovery of the papyrii sheets and subsequent translation by Egyptian heiroglyphics experts, to not be a book inspired by God but some text from a Book of Breathing, which is a modernised version of the Book of the Dead, a pagan document. Yet, it is still included in the Pearl of Great Price as a canon of Mormon scripture.

In any case, I do not care what the Mormon church calls itself, really, as long as it does not call itself a Christian church, because it most decidely is not. Why do I care about making this point? Because if someone wants to know the pathway to life, I share the Gospel with them, then tell them to get involved with a Bible-believing church so that their faith can be fed and grow and bear fruit for the kingdom. If they say, 'Hey, I'll go to this church, it says it's Christian' but it preaches a false gospel, I have done harm, maybe irreparable harm, to that person. So if that person asked me if it was OK to go to the Mormon church, I would have to point him to another church, because to me the Mormon church is not a Christian church. It uses the same words and some of the same scriptures as Christian churches, but the words and deities are different in their meanings, and those changes are significant enough to cause Christians to have to deny that Mormonism equals Christianity. It simply isn't so.

And GB, people were first called Christians because they were "Christ followers." That is the historical definition. But if the Christ I proclaim and the Christ you proclaim are fundamentally different, as the Jesus' of Christianity and Mormonism are, then that definition loses meaning. Again, I can call myself an African-American, and if I color myself darker, I can actually look more like one. But fundamentally, in the core of my being, I am not one. You can look and sound like a Christian, but if the Jesus worshipped is not the Christ revealed in Scripture the definition becomes meaningless.

[A footnote - if you look at the early presidents and apostles of the Mormon church, the word "Christian" was a dirty word to them, one that they wanted no part of:

Journal of Discourses 5:73--"When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was groveling in darkness."

Journal of Discourses 8:99--"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."

Journal of Discourses 6:25--"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast."

Orson Pratt (Mormon Apostle)--"..all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives baptism of the Lord's supper from their hands highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people" (The Seer, pg 255)

Heber C. Kimball (First Counselor to Brigham Young)--"Christians - those poor, miserable priests Brother Brigham was speaking about - some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth..." (Journal of Discourses 5:39)
--------------------------

Again, I truly wish we were talking about cosmetic differences, and that in doctrine and beliefs we had unity. But if you study Mormonism for long, you will find that its beliefs are not compatible with orthodox Christianity, or with being called 'Christian' at all. They just do not worship the same deities, no matter how hard they protest. Mormonism actually has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity:
-Only one God
-Salvation by works
-Founder visited by an angel to receive the 'scriptures'
Joseph Smith - the angel Moroni
Mohammed - the angel Jabreel
-Followers believe in Jesus, but the latest prophet is the most important.
-Have the Bible as one of their scriptures, but both believe scriptures have been corrupted and later book (BoM and Quran) are more 'accurate'

I know that no one likes to have their beliefs questioned or assailed. I have been on the receiving end as well, and it is normally not a pleasant experience. In the end, all I can say is this; there is only one person who will sit in judgement of us all, and it is not me. I only ask that people look at all of the facts and evidence, search the scriptures for answers, and don't rely on a 'testimony' to see if what they are following is true. Our feelings can lie, and just because something seems right to me doesn't mean it is. Truth is found in the words of Scripture and in the person and works of Jesus Christ, and nowhere else.

May God bless us, every one...

Chief: What I find puzzling is why doctrines laid down in the 'main' canon, the book of Mormon, have been changed in the later canons, the D & C, pearl of great price, or articles of faith.

GB: That is a bald assertion. You should provide examples so that they can be discussed.

Chief: And the reason is precisely this: the god and the jesus that the historical church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints worships are NOT the same God and Jesus that Paul is talking about in Romans 10 here.

GB: That is a bald assertion. You should provide examples so that they can be discussed.

Chief: When God wants someone to accomplish His purposes, especially when you look at prophet history, He uses more direct methods than what occurred in the life of JS.

GB: Do you even know how God made the initial contact with Joseph Smith? Apparently not.

Chief: Also, another one of JS's translations, the Book of Abraham, has been proven, by the recovery of the papyrii sheets and subsequent translation by Egyptian heiroglyphics experts, to not be a book inspired by God but some text from a Book of Breathing, which is a modernised version of the Book of the Dead, a pagan document. Yet, it is still included in the Pearl of Great Price as a canon of Mormon scripture.

GB: You source for this is way behind. This canard was refuted back in 1968.

Chief: In any case, I do not care what the Mormon church calls itself, really, as long as it does not call itself a Christian church, because it most decidely is not.

GB: So what do you say one must do/say/believe to be Christian? Since you apparently have usurped the throne of God and become the judge in this matter.

Chief: Because if someone wants to know the pathway to life, I share the Gospel with them, then tell them to get involved with a Bible-believing church so that their faith can be fed and grow and bear fruit for the kingdom.

GB: The LDS church meets that criterion.

Chief: And GB, people were first called Christians because they were "Christ followers."

GB: The LDS church meets that criterion.

Chief: They just do not worship the same deities,

GB: You have yet to show that we don't believe in and only worship God, the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost, which is One Eternal God (One as in united in purpose and perfection, see John 17).

Just because we, like Paul of old recognize the existence of lesser gods doesn't mean that we worship them, because we don't. And nowhere in our canon of scripture (that includes the Bible) does it say or indicate that we do.

Chief: I only ask that people look at all of the facts and evidence, search the scriptures for answers, and don't rely on a 'testimony' to see if what they are following is true.

GB: I only ask that people look at all of the facts and evidence, search the scriptures, ponder them, and pray for the witness of the Holy Ghost, the Testator of truth.

Billy,

Why don't YOU 'jettison' the idea that "...the Holy Bible self-testifies as sole authority..." or at least have the courage to show where it says it is infallible...

Mike,
The dictionary is certainly a valid means of defining the term Christian, a group of learned men looking at traditional as well as current usage of the word. You're defining it by a traditional Christian creed, a group of learned men determining the meaning via debate and the use of philosophic language. The point of Joseph Smith's epiphany was for God to reveal to modern man knowledge that had been lost, especially the nature of He and His Son. To get the nature of God completely wrong was an abomination, because it is necessary to know God in order to follow his edict of becoming perfect as He is.
In Joseph Smith's time there were numerous, "restorationists," those who were seeking to restore Christianity to its former truths, authority and ordinances. Joseph Smith, at the age of 14, was not seeking to restore Christianity, he wanted to know for himself which of the denominations he should join. His vision was a remarkable answer to a prayer of faith, a vision he recounted simply a number of times over the ensuing years, and was treated with derision by some, acceptance by others and ignored by most. He was not seeking to become a prophet, but was called to it by God, just like prophets in the OT.
The real question here is not whether the LDS can be lumped together with other Christian denominations, but did Joseph have his first and subsequent visions restoring truth, authority and ordinances in the modern era. Was he directed to an ancient record by another heavenly messenger and were those plates translated by the gift and power of God into what is known as the Book of Mormon. If these things are true then traditional Christianity does not contain the fullness of the gospel and Christians everywhere need to re-think there belief systems. It's a hard thing and hence the resistance we see here.
When I read the posts of Mike and Chief1989, among others, I see the same things that have been written for 180 years about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the LDS church, the same tired things I heard regularly in southern California 30+ years ago when I served my mission there. In the meantime the LDS church continues to grow and move forward. I've often asked myself the question, "Why can't the Christian churches leave the LDS alone and go about promoting there own faith in a positive manner?" It has occured to me that the answer to that may be economic. Mike and Chief have formed their opinions about the LDS church, not from the LDS church, but from those who earn a part, if not all, their income by attacking the LDS faith. A cottage industry has grown up around anti-Mormonism, and it's often fed by pastors, ministers, etc. who stand to lose members of their flocks to the active proselyting by LDS missionaries. Each member of a congregation lost to the LDS church is a drop in income for that church and minister. Thus, the long-held tradition of anti-Mormonism among many Christian denominations, but especially the Evangelicals.
And what has been the response to the ongoing anti-Mormonism by the leadership of the LDS church? Silence. There are no official rebuttals from Salt Lake City, no organized debates or other forums to bash the attackers.
Just the continued, consistant growth of the church worldwide by delivering the message of the restoration. That message is, God speaks again to man through prophets, His authority is restored, a church has been organized to administer the ordinances, and at the heart of all this is a testimony of Jesus Christ, that He lives and invites all who choose to come to Him. We don't worship Joseph Smith anymore than you worship the apostle Paul, we worship God and His Son, Jesus Christ. We recognise Joseph as the instrument God used to restore lost truth and authority.
Do we have differences with traditional Christian dogma, absolutely, the basic disagreement is the truths we hold to be correct with regards to the nature of God and Jesus Christ have come to man in our time by revelation, not debate.
Regards,
BW

I have another question:

A large part of this blog has been spent trying to say who or what is a Christian. Fine. I get that. Mormons accuse Christians of trying to disenfranchise them from the moniker "Christian." However, if all Mormons want to be known as Christians, why do the missionaries continue to attempt to proselytize even after you've identified yourself as a Christian? If you are Christians and we are Christians, once we've identified ourselves, shouldn't your missionaries say, "Amen, brother! Keep spreading the faith, and we will, too. See you later!"? Why do they continue to try and get me to read the Book of Mormon if we are all Christians, and I have already indicated to them that I follow Jesus?

I think some of you are going overboard with the 'persecute the poor Mormons' complex.

Paul,

Thanks! I enjoyed that. I and all Christians owe an unpayable debt of gratitude to these hero's. I am sure there are countless others, unknown, who likewise gave their all for the "cause of Christ"! I honor their memories and pray daily to live worthy of their legacy of faith, and hope I too will have the courage of conviction to stand for truth in my lowly sphere of influence.

The fact remains, neither Tindale, Wycliff, Bede, Erasmus, Coverdale, nor Cromwell, et al, nor the Bible itself, declared the Bible infallible. That is a modern day Christian dogma designed to close the heavens.

Paul,

That is all very interesting but the fact remains, the Bible doesn't declared itself to be infallible. And Calvin isn't infallible either.

Apparently Joseph Smith isn't infallible either. Because Joseph gave varying and conflicting versions of his First Vision experience.

I guess the fact that the Bible claims to be the Word Of God means nothing 2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Inspiration in the mean original Hebrew literally means God Breathed.

There are some things in this world that require faith in the the Living God who is Jesus Christ

Paul,

You seem to be lost in a never ending loop...

Of course Joseph Smith was infallible...he was a man. Only Jesus Christ was (is) infallible.

2Tim 3:16. If that's the best you can come up with to show the Bible is infallible, then I rest my case. The Bible, unfortunately has some error in it, missing scripture as originally given and yes, through whatever intent, it has some "changed" doctrine.

1. I refer you to Genesis 6:6. Why would an all knowing (Omnipotent) God ever have need to "Repent"? Did He not know man was going to become evil and corrupt and therefore He would need to destroy the earth with a flood? Or was He just winging it?

2. If the "Trinity" (a word not found in the Bible) were a true doctrine, then I would have to ask, Who was minding the universe when Jesus was a little baby in Mary's arms? Did your "three in one" (solid, gas and liquid) separate?

3. Luke 3: 21-22 "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the HOLY GHOST descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." Can you explain this manifestation of THREE separate beings all at the same time as being "ONE" God? In your world can God appear together as three separate entities and still be ONE?

Again, we are suffering from a lack of logic and a desire to be contentious. I find it startling that I have been accused of so many things personally, I haven't gotten into personal attacks on this blog, the problem is that everyone here is overtaken with emotion and can't comprehend the LOGIC.

To Mike Bennion who claims that because the Nazarenes wanted to be known as Jews, they are therefore Jews (to be honest, I wasn't quite sure what he was trying to say in these statements but am quite confident that they are not Jews because they simply want to be), I say again that Judaeism is defined by the thousands of years of tradition and history associated with it. If there is a deviation from these facts, they no longer can claim to be building on what has been laid as the "foundation" of Judeaism.

The real problem is, Mormons seem to have a problem with this! I am not being viscious in my reasoning here, read these postings and you will see that it is not enough to believe in the Mormon tradition. All I am trying to explain is that by associating yourself as a Christian, it NECESSARILY entails that you are building on the foundation of those who have gone before you, who are ALSO Christian (this is where the term Orthodoxy is relevant).

The question is again, Does Mormonism Build on This Same Foundation? The answer is NO. As an Orthodox Christian, do I care, YES. The reason is that your doctrines are a deviation from traditional Christianity. This is a matter of tradition and history and theology for that matter. You believe in Christ through the Mormon tradition NOT the Christian tradition. That is a simple fact.

I will use another anology (and try not to talk in circles like other anologies I have read, which seem to not have a definitive POINT). If I all of a sudden decide I want to be and Arab Muslim but decide not to pray 5 times a day, don't learn Arabic, don't face Mecca (I am not praying anyway), decide not to travel to Mecca (Haj). Can I really claim to be an Arab Muslim? By what standard are we as a people supposed to evaluate my claim? On the basis of tradition, culture, the Qu'ran, etc...

I will say again, there is nothing with my personal belief that I am in fact and Arab Muslim, but I should not react indignant when someone who was raised in that tradition decides to question my claims.

What is more, to the gentleman who claims that there is an economical facet to this argument I will simply say, as a layperson, I have no stake in the economy of the church, and especially (since I attend a non-denominational church) have no stake in my church "losing money". This is absolutely absurd to make a general statement like this. My motivation is purely theological and soteriological. I genuinely believe (as you do), that you are wrong in your theology.

I should also ask the question, is your motivation for doing mission economical in nature? Are you simply trying to win people for the sake of money? If so, you should reevaluate whether that is Biblical and Book of Mormonical. If not, why the charge that all we care about is money, while you too are suffering from the same desires, namely to spread what you perceive to be the truth irregardless of economical concerns (which is absurd). If economical concerns were true, why is the gospel growing in the most poor places in the world? (you must be able to substantiate your claims...just for the future...it doesn't work to make assertions, that is what they call "drive-by", and while it gets people on here to say AMEN, YEAH, WHOOHOO, it really doesn't add to the intelligent conversation).

Sorry that should read "You still didn't answer the question . . "

GB,

In fact I have answered that question OVER and OVER again. My motivation is that I perceive the Mormon view of Christ as a perversion of the traditional/foundational/historical/theological and is subsequently deficient in its claims to be "Christian". In life there are unfortunate realities, one of them as that there are "absolutes" when it comes to determining and evaluating claims. They must be based on every one of those tenets I mentioned above and more. A claim is made, fine, we must back it up. My contention is that Christianity is not simply believing in some FORM of Christ, it is an adherence to the faith tradition upon which his church was built (not Church traditions, faith traditions, and all the mess that went with it, just as any growing organism has its trials).

My motivation (I will say it again) is theological and soteriological (I get the feeling you don't read the posts with any scholarship as I have made this abundantly clear many times). If salvation differs in one from another (which we would agree that they do, otherwise we will fall back into the "Mormons" trying to convert "Christians" TO "Christianity", which is a self-defeating approach), then there has to be a distinction made in terms of order to avoid confusion, this seems to me a basic principle.

What is more, since there is a difference in SUBSTANTIVE teachings between the traditions, this is where I am confused on the insistance of Mormons to be identified as Christians. In the same way, my substance is different than that of the Jews and therefore will not desire to be associated as a Jew.

Further, the practical reasons abound for wanting a distinction and my whole argument is that BOTH SIDES ALREADY HAVE ONE but the Mormons maintain that Christians are just persecuting them. It is never occured that THIS IS THE REASON. The persecution is in scholarship, and if it is carried out any differently, I cannot condone that, however, I will continue to fight the scholarly battle of logic for the sake of educated reasoning and a desire for standards to be upheld so as to not confuse truth with perversity (on all levels, not just in this argument).

Very Interesting Arguments Indeed; however, The major points concerning the Trinity, Faith Alone, and so forth are very misrepresented here.

1/ Do the mormons believe in the Trinity the way the Bible teaches it?

The answer would have to be no, since mormons do not believe in the Deity of Christ. They believe that Jesus is a God, but not The God. This statement goes back way before Christians, but back to the Jews. "Here O Israel, The Lord our God is One Lord." There are numerous verses in the bible to support the fact that Jesus is The God, not just a god. The issue goes deeper and shows a misunderstanding of what man is and his nature. If Jesus was not God, but a created being He could not have died and paid for the sins of His people (True Christains not just professing.) If Jesus is not God, we are still damned. Only God himself can fulfill His own Law, and pay the price for it. God's law demands eternal punishment, therefore only an eternal being could pay for it on behalf of others. The mormon misinterpretation of the Bible in John 1 is on purpose, and no reputable Greek Scholar would back up the position. The same in Matthew when Christ is tsalking to the Pharisees about Abraham rejoicing to see His day. "Before Abraham was, I AM" is the correct interpretation. The tense and verbage that the mormon church uses has been stated by Greek Scholars as Non-existent. to say "Before Abraham Was, I have Been" is a major twisting of scripture, and the words "ego eimi" have been translated in all other instances to I AM, but in this one case is not is foolishness.

The whole biblical narrative of the Jews and Christ also support the fact the Jesus is God. The whole reason they crucified Him was because according to the preceeding passage in Matthew, when He made that statement, they knew what He meant, they knew He was saying that He was the same God who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush. That is why they crucified Him, for blasphemy.

2/ The mormon doctrine of 2 Nephi 25:23: "It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." is not what Christ taught.

Works has never been, nor ever will be a way of salvation, whether it be fully works, or Christ and works. Eph 2:8 "By grace you have been saved by faith, not of works unless any man shall boast." so what should I believe? The Bible or Joseph Smith? a proven liar and cheat.

First. What work could I do? Second. When Isaiah says all of my work are like filthy rags, how can I then rely on my works? Third. Working for salvation makes God my debtor.

Romans 4:4 "Now to him who works, his wages are not counted as a gift, but his due." God is debtor to no man. God owes no man anything. Man deserves Hell, but has been given a gift by the grace of God, how can he then work for it. Ten thousand eternities could never pay it off. It even states that if we work for it we will get our wage. The wage could never repay the debt of one sin. So God will not be owing to any man and the man who works will get the reward of his works, and the works are filthiness, what good are they? They have their place which I will show later.

Romans 4:5 "And to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." By these two scriptures alone I am to believe that I cannot work to be justified, but must believe, and the alone added 6to faith alone, simply states Nothing else, not works, not good living, not not doing anything wrong.

Romans 3:10-18 would also disprove "after all we can do" because it plainly says we can't do anything anyway.

Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Rom 3:13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips."
Rom 3:14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
Rom 3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Rom 3:16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
Rom 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known.",
Rom 3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

This no-one and all means everyone, you, me, everyone. 3:12 "no one does good, not even one." So what is the all I can do?

3/ Having disproved works as a base for salvation, do they have their place? Yes - How?

Good works are only done by True Christians, not just those who say they are Christians. What is a True Christian? Ah the crux of the matter. A True Christian is a regenerated person, led by the Holy Spirit to become a child of God. A Christian is not someone who says they are a Christian, but exhibits the characterstics the Bible says a True Christian is.

What good is a profession of "I am a Christian?" Nothing!!!! It is the actions that are the proof of Christianity, but not just all actions. not the actions made in the flesh, but with the fruits of the Spirit. Galatians 5 lists them, Love, Joy, Peace..... The mormon doctrine (and some others) that we are all God's Children is not biblically correct either. Rom 8:14 "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

Most so-called Christians today (my term Christian is what the bible says a Christian is)
Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"
Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Most people who call themselves Christian today, are not Christians in the sense of this passage. The profess, but don't confess. If 75% of Americans are Christian, why do we have abortion on demand? Why do we not have the death penalty for murderers? Why do we have the gay marriage debate? Why do we not allow prayer in schools? Why do we not allow the ten commandments in schools? why are Christian beliefs excluded while muslim and other beliefs are allowed reign? Simple, What the people call Christian today is not Christian! but even more important than moral, is if mormons are Christians in the true sense of the word, why do they not believe in the deity of Christ? why do they believe you can work for your salvation? Why do they believe in polygamy? why do they misinterpret and publish scripture to fit their beliefs? Why do they add a new testament or covenant to Jesus Christ who in Hebrews is the mediator of one covenant, a new covenant, a new covenant in His blood.

The cantradictions are numerous between the Bible and the book of mormon. Which can you believe. the Bible has been around longer, and every day more of its statements are proven true historical fact. The satetemtns of Joseph Smith himself contradict what God says about certain things. Joseph Smith said He had a vision of the Father and the Son; however, John 1 says no man hath seen the Father at any time, save the Son who declares Him. Not even Moses could see God, only his hindparts, and he glowed so that he had to cover his face, how then should I believe Joseph Smith? The mormon church even says that they are the true church after the church had been corrupted. Yet Christ himself say the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, so how could it have been corrupted?

4/ Hebrews says that "God in times past and in various ways spoke to us through the prophets, but in these last days has spoken to us by His Son." If God's Son has spoken, who can speak after Him? Who can bring out something new after God? Why would God use all of the prophets then spoken himself, why would He go back to using prophets after He spoke himself?

Conclusion:
The mormon religion can not be called Christian because they do not hold to what the bible simply and plainly says about what we are to believe concerning God. How Salvation is accomplished and applied. Who God is.

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel (MARONI) from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone (Jospeh Smith)is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

It is a different Gospel and is not Christian, and should not be called Christian even if they try to use the same terminology Christians use.

CRI.org

Final, I have no doubt in my mind that some are decieved by the teachings of the mormon church and are sincere in their beliefs, but to be sincere in what is wrong is to be sincerely wrong. I will pray for myself that I am not deceived, and for those that are."

TwentyFirstCenturyPuritan

I am open to talk or converse with anyone on this or any other Theological matter. My only rule is if you cannot support your beliefs by the Holy Bible, I would not waste yours or my time.

robertdhall3@hotmail.com

Twentyfirstcenturypuritan,

You need to "read" all that has been written in this trail of postings, then you will see that your major points have already been addressed, ad nauseum...

I also suggest that if you want to "Preach to the Choir" because you choose not to converse with others who believe the Bible fallible, you've come to the wrong forum...you need to go back to your Sunday school class and have them admire your profound knowledge of theological demagoguery...

Otherwise, buck up and take your lumps with the rest of us!

RD,

I notice that you are quick to point out how Puritan's points have been discussed ad nauseum, however, nobody has even attempted a criticism of my points. Perhaps you can enlighten me with your wisdom on these matters, or at least address the issues I have brought to light over the last 2 days.

Everyone seems to argue that those who bring up the same points should take time to read but then they too regurgitate the same points over and over again. My goal was to come at it from another angle, and nobody seems to want to have a civilized argument on these points.

Just want to get some dialogue going on logical matters instead of emotional ones.

The Spaulding Theory Debunked By: Russell Anderson

Many Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have claimed that Joseph Smith used a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding as the basis for the Book of Mormon. In making this claim, these Critics have resorted to the wrongful use of parallels in historic analysis, thus undermining their credibility as serious, and objective, analyzers of history and religion. In fact, Fawn Brodie, an avowed critic of the LDS Church, in her book, "No Man Knows my History", gives several good reasons why she thinks the theory has no basis.

The theory was originally given credance by "Doctor" Philastus Hurlbut who collected affidavits from residents of Ohio who had heard Spaulding read his manuscript and they thought the Book of Mormon sounded similar. When Spalding's manuscript was shown to them, they could see that there were major differences, so then they claimed that Spalding wrote a later manuscript. Spalding's manuscript was lost for many years. When it was found and published in 1884 it was obvious that the only way the theory could be maintained was to maintain that there was a second manuscript.

Dr. Walter Martin, another avowed critic of the LDS Church, takes the Spaulding theory one step further. He was so convinced that the Spalding manuscript was the source of the Book of Mormon that he has supported the outlandish effort to prove that an unknown scribe of the Book of Mormon was actually Spalding. His assertion will also be dealt with below.

I will review the theory in 8 areas:

1. The Original affidavits
2. 
   Non-Hurlbut affidavits
3. 
   Spalding's Manuscript
4. 
   "Second" Manuscript and connection
   to Book of Mormon
5. 
   Manuscript found in Hawaii
6. 
   Conclusive Proof that 1884 find is the "Second"
   manuscript
7. 
   Handwriting Analysis Blind Alley
8. 
   Appendix B from No Man Knows My History

The Original Affidavits The Spaulding theory for the source of the Book of Mormon was started by "Doctor" Philastus Hurlbut. He heard that citizens of Ohio thought they recognized similarities between the Book of Mormon and an earlier manuscript prepared by Dr. Solomon Spaulding. Affidavits from these residents were published in Mormonism Unvailed in 1835. Fawn Brodie and Lester Bush have commented about those statements.

It can clearly be seen that the affidavits were written by Hurlbut, since the style is the same throughout. It may be noted also that although five out of the eight had heard Spaulding's story only once, there was a surprising uniformity in the details they remembered after twenty-two years. Six recalled the names Nephi, Lamanite, etc.; six held that the manuscript described the Indians as descendants of the lost ten tribes; four mentioned that the great wars caused the erection of the Indian mounds; and four noted the ancient scriptural style. The very tightness with which Hurlbut here was implementing his theory rouses an immediate suspicion that he did a little judicious prompting. (Brodie 1963, 423-4)

The most striking aspect of the early claims unquestionably related to the proper names. Here, however, the coincidence of memory was even more suspect. Of some 300 potential names, Hurlbut's witnesses all used the same handful of specific examples. Most cited "Nephi" and "Lehi." Two witnesses (John and Martha Spalding) added "Nephites" and "Lamanites," and only three additional names were mentioned even once-"Laban," "Zarahemla" and "Moroni," (The last two by the witness who remembered the humorous passages). Despite the elapsed decades, all recalled identical spellings for these odd-sounding names, spellings which matched exactly those found in the Book of Mormon. A corollary claim that Spalding wrote in a "scripture style" was illustrated with the same unanimity. Everyone who recalled specific wording cited "and it came to pass," with "now it came to pass" a distant second. Not surprisingly, nearly everyone acknowledged that his memory had been refreshed by a recent reading of the Book of Mormon.(Bush 1977, 44)

Non-Hurlbut Affidavits If these sources where influenced by Hurlbut, what about statements from people who had seen or heard the manuscript who were not interviewed by Hurlbut. What do they say?

The Mormons replied with books and pamphlets of their own, such as Parley P. Pratt's Mormonism Unveiled in 1838 and Benjamin Winchester's The Origin of the Spaulding Story in 1840. Winchester quoted another of Spaulding's neighbors, one Jackson, who had read Spaulding's manuscript and maintained "that there was no agreement between them; for, said he, Mr. Spaulding's manuscript was a very small work, in the form of a novel, saying not one word about the children of Israel, but professed to give an account of a race of people who originated from the Romans, which Mr. Spaulding said he had translated from a Latin parchment that he had found." (Brodie 1963, 427)

And an early historian of western New York, writing in 1851, said: "It is believed by all those best acquainted with the Smith family and most conversant with all the Gold Bible movements, that there is no foundation for the statement that the original manuscript was written by a Mr. Spaulding of Ohio." (Brodie 1963, 430)

Spalding's Manuscript Hurlbut obtained the manuscript and showed it to Spaulding's neighbors. "This old M.S. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found." (Howe 1834, 288)

Brodie comments, "This surmise may have been true, though there was no signed statement swearing to it. But it seems more likely that these witnesses had so come to identify the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding manuscript that they could not concede having made an error without admitting to a case of memory substitution which they did not themselves recognize." (Brodie 1963, 424-425)

"Second" Manuscript and connection to Book of Mormon The solution to a correct understanding is contained in the fact that Spalding moved to Pennsylvania in 1812. If Solomon started another manuscript he would have had to started it before he left Ohio, since they claim to have heard a different story than was contained in the manuscript which Hurlbut found. In fact Rev. Abner Jackson goes so far as to say, "about the beginning of the year 1812, commenced to write his famous romance called by him the Manuscript Found." (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 61) We can also be assured that anyone who was acquainted with the manuscript in Pennsylvania would be dealing with this "second" manuscript.

Two people closely associated with Spaulding in Pennsylvania have supplied affidavits about the similarities between his manuscript and the Book of Mormon. They made some latter statements which are suspect because they greatly enlarged their memory of the manuscript. However, if we ignore those statements and stick with what they first reported we can be more sure that they are not influenced by continued association with the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding controversy. First of all from Joseph Miller who spent "spent many evenings in the Spalding home (tavern), often listening to the retired preacher read his novel." (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 67)

These papers were detached sheets of foolscap. He said he wrote the papers as a novel. He called it the "Manuscript Found," or "The Lost Manuscript Found." He said he wrote it to pass away the time when he was unwell; and after it was written he thought he would publish it as a novel, as a means to support his family.

Some time since, a copy of the book of Mormon came into my hands. My son read it for me, as I have a nervous shaking of the head that prevents me from reading. I noticed several passages which I recollect having heard Mr. Spaulding read from his "Manuscript." One passage on the 148th page (the copy I have is published by J. 0. Wright & Co., New York) I remember distinctly. He speaks of a battle, and says the Amalekites had marked themselves with red on the foreheads to distinguish them from the Nephites. The thought of being marked on the "forehead with red was so strange, it fixed itself in my memory. This together with other passages I remember to have heard Mr. Spaulding read from his "Manuscript."

Those who knew Mr. Spaulding will soon all be gone, and I among the rest. I write that what I knew may become a matter of history; and that it may prevent people from being led into Mormonism, that most seductive delusion of the devil. From what I know of Mr. Spaulding's "Manuscript" and the book of Mormon, I firmly believe that Joseph Smith, by some means, got possession of Mr. Spaulding's "Manuscript," and possibly made some changes in it and called it the "Book of Mormon." (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 67-69)

Here we have Mr. Miller relating to us his strongest recollection of what he remembered was in both the Book of Mormon and the Spalding manuscript. And what is that? That the Amlekites marked themselves with a red mark. If we found the real Spalding manuscript we would expect to find a passage somewhere that describes a warring people that marked themselves with a red. Redick McKee who also lived in Amity, Pennsylvania had a similar remembrance about the Spalding manuscript.

I recollect quite well Mr. Spalding spending much time in writing on sheets of paper torn out of an 0ld book, what purported to be a veritable history of the nations or tribes, who inhabited Canaan when, or before that country was invaded by the Israelites under Joshua. He described with great particularity, their numbers, customs, modes of life, their wars, strategems, victories, and defeats, &c. His style was flowing and grammatical, though gaunt and abrupt; very like the story of the ' Maccabees" and other apochryphal books in the old bibles. He called it "Lost History Found," -- "Lost Manuscript," or some such name; not disguising that it was wholly a work of the imagination, written to amuse himself, and without any immediate view to publication. I read, or heard him read, many wonderful and amusing passages from different parts of his professed historical records; aud was struck with the minutences of his details, and the apparent truthfulness and sincerity of the author. Defoe's veritable Robinson Crusoe, was not more reliable! I have an indistinct recollection of the passage referred to by Mr. Miller, about the Amelekites making a cross with red paint on their foreheads to distinguish them from enemies in the confusion of battle, but the manuscript was full of equally ludicrous descriptions. After my removal to Wheeling in 1818, 1 understood, that Mr. Spalding had died, and his widow had resorted to her friends in northern Ohio, or western New York. She would naturally take the manuscript with her. Now it was in northern Ohio, probably in Lake or Ashtabula county, that the first Mormon prophet, or imposter Jo. Smith lived, and published what he called the "Book of Mormon," or the "Mormon Bible." It is quite probable therefore, that with some alterations, the "Book of Mormon was in fact the "Lost Book," or "Lost History Found," of my old landlord, Solomon Spalding, of Amity, Washington County, Pennsylvania. (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 77-78)

Here again we have a witness and the best detail he can remember about the Spalding manuscript was "making a cross with red paint on their foreheads." These two witnesses would definitely have heard the correct Spalding manuscript, but their affidavits don't have the benefit of judicious prompting from someone like Hurlbut. Manuscript found in Hawaii The Spalding manuscript was found among the paper of L. L. Rice in Hawaii in 1884. Hurlbut had given the manuscript to Howe who described it in "Mormonism Unvailed." It was among his papers when he sold his business to Rice and followed him to Hawaii. On a blank page was the following statement which refers to the Hurlbut's original witnesses.

The writings of Solomon Spalding, proved by Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith, John N. Miller and others. The testimonies of the above gentlemen are now in my possession. D. P. Hurlbut (Spalding 1885, 9)

The critics of the Book of Mormon have maintained that this manuscript was not the "second" manuscript which is more similar to the Book of Mormon. But we can examine the contents. Does it contain the information that Miller and M'Kee remembered in Pennsylvania? We find the following in chapter III of the published Spalding Manuscript: "Their clothing consisted of skins dressed with the hair on, but in warm weather only the middle part of their bodies were incumbered with any covering. The one half of the head of the men were shaved & painted with red and the one half of the face was painted with black." This manuscript has the very characteristic required by the actual Spalding manuscript. Conclusive Proof that 1884 find is the "Second" manuscript This by itself would not be enough to proclaim for certain that there was only one Spalding manuscript. However the manuscript provides one other piece of irrefutable evidence that the manuscript that has been found and publish was the only manuscript and the one that was being worked on in Pennsylvania. Remember that Solomon supposedly started working on the second manuscript in 1812 before he moved to Pittsburgh. About three-fourths of the way through this manuscript Solomon used the back of a letter for a page of the manuscript. That letter is as follows:

Fond Parents
I have received two letters the 10th jan 1812 the last mentioned Mr. Kings dismission from you, which no doubt is great trial to you Christian Minister is great loss to any to any people - - - - teaches us the uncertainty of all sublinary enjoyments & where to place our better trust & happiness (Spalding 1885, 105)

This letter's placement within the manuscript firmly establishes that the part of the manuscript which comes after this was written after 1812. This in combination with the witnesses from Pennsylvania confirms that there was only one Spalding manuscript. This manuscript bears only a slight resemblance to the Book of Mormon. Mr. Rice commented on this manuscript:

This Manuscript does not purport to be "a story of the Indians formerly occupying this continent'" but is a history of the wars between the Indians of Ohio and Kentucky, and their progress in civilization, &c. It is certain that this Manuscript is not the origin of the Mormon Bible, whatever some other manuscript may have been. The only similarity between them, is, in the manner in which each purports to have been found -- one in a cave on Conneaut Creek -- the other in a hill in Ontario county, New York. There is no similarity of style between them. As I told Mr. Deming, I should as soon think the Book of Revelations was written by the author of Don Quixotte, as that the writer of this Manuscript was the author of the Book of Mormon. (Spalding 1885, 7)

Handwriting Analysis Blind Alley Dr. Walter Martin who never wanted to give up on the idea of Spalding as the source for the Book of Mormon, supported Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. Davis & Donald R. Scales in resurrecting the theory with an even more unfounded claim that one of the authors of the Book of Mormon manuscript was Solomon Spalding. This is a really crazy because that same unknown author also wrote the 56th section of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1831. That would be hard for a man who died in 1818. Of the three handwriting experts employed to examine the handwriting, two of them concluded that Solomon Spalding definitely did not write the manuscript page of the Book of Mormon.

From Henry W. Silver: "Based upon that examination, it is my conclusion that the handwriting of the twelve pages from I Nephi of the Book of Mormon (the unknown scribe) is definitely not the same as that of Solomon Spaulding." (Brown 1984, 20)

From Howard C. Doudler: "As I stated in my report dated March 4, 1977 of some writing similarities and letter charateristics appeared both in the manuscript and the Book of Mormon. I now contribute these similarities to the writing style of that century. I have found writing and letter dis-similarities that are unexplainable and are not attributed to individual writing variations of the same writer. It is my conclusion the handwriting in the name of Solomon Spalding is NOT the author of the unidentified pages, listed as Q-1 thru Q-9 in this report of the Book of Mormon" (Brown 1984, 37)

Gerald Tanner, a Mormon critic also viewed the original documents and stated, "After looking carefully at the revelation [D&C 56], I became convinced that it was probably written by the same scribe who wrote the 12 contested pages in the Book of Mormon manuscript. Both manuscripts in turn differed from Spalding's work in important features." (Brown 1984, 32)

The Spalding theory will probably never die. It has no basis in fact and will be discarded by anyone who seriously examines the issue. Fawn Brodie made a study of the theory and concluded that it had no basis. She listed the whereabouts of Sidney Rigdon during the period before the Book of Mormon was published. But, because she didn't account for every single month, some authors have used this as a pretense to give the theory some life. I am including the following appendix from Brodie's book, No Man Knows My History.

Appendix B from No Man Knows My History APPENDIX B

THE SPAULDING-RIGDON THEORY

THE SPAULDING RIGDON theory of the authorship of the Book of Mormon is based on a heterogeneous assortment of letters and affidavits collected between 1833 and 1900. When heaped together without regard to chronology, as in Charles A. Shook's True Origin of the Book of Mormon, and without any consideration of the character of either Joseph Smith or Sidney Rigdon, they seem impressive. But the theory is based first of all on the untenable assumption that Joseph Smith had neither the wit nor the learning to write the Book of Mormon, and it disregards the fact that the style of the Book of Mormon is identical with that of the Mormon prophet's later writings, such as the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, but is completely alien to the turgid rhetoric of Rigdon's sermons.

Protagonists of the theory do not explain why, if Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon, he was content to let Joseph Smith found the Mormon Church and hold absolute dominion over it throughout the years, so secure in his position that he several times threatened Rigdon with excommunication when Rigdon opposed his policies. But most important, there is no good evidence to show that Rigdon and Smith ever met before Rigdon's conversion late in 1830.There is, on the contrary, abundant proof that between September 1827and June 1829, when the Book of Mormon was being written, Rigdon was a successful Campbellite preacher in northern Ohio, who if conniving secretly with Joseph Smith, three hundred miles east, was so accomplished a deceiver that none of his intimate friends ever entertained the slightest suspicion of it.

The Spaulding theory was not born until 1833, four years after the Book of Mormon was completed. In June 1833 Philastus Hurlbut was excommunicated from the Mormon Church in Kirtland, Ohio. Shortly afterward he learned that some citizens of Conneaut, Ohio, had detected in the Book of Mormon a resemblance to an old manuscript written more than twenty years earlier by Solomon Spaulding, a Dartmouth College graduate and ex-preacher, who had hoped to publish it and solve his financial embarrassments. Huribut interviewed these people in August and September 1833. They told him that Spaulding, now deceased, had lived in Conneaut from 1809 to 1812, and that he had written a historical novel about the American abcrigines from which he had occasionally read them extracts. Spaulding had moved to Pennsylvania, where he died in 1816.

From Solomon Spaulding's brother, John, Hurlbut obtained an affidavit, of which the significant portion read as follows:

I made him a visit [in 1813)... and found that he had failed, and was considerably involved in debt. He told me that he had been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts. The book was entitled the "Manuscript Pound," of which he read to me many passages. It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so com\mon in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought 'into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found various parts of North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprise I find nearly the same historical matter, names, etc. as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every other sentence with "and it came to pass" or "now it came to pass;' the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. I am unable to determine. JOHN SPAULDING

Martha, wife of John Spaulding, corroborated her husband's account:

I was personally acquainted with Solomon Spaulding, about twenty years ago. It was at his house a short time before he left Conneaut; he was then writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and warlike people. He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question. The lapse of time which has intervened, prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings; but the names of Nephi, and Lehi are yet fresh in my' memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale. They were officers of the company which first came off from Jerusalem. He gave a particular account of their journey by land and sea, till they arrived in America, after which, disputes arose between the chiefs, which caused them to separate into different bands, one of which was called Lamanites and the other Nephites. Between these were recounted tremendous battles, which frequently covered the ground with the slain; and their being buried in large heaps was the cause of the numerous mounds in the country. Some of these people he represented as being very large. I have read the hook of Mormon, which has brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spaulding; and I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than twenty years ago. The old obsolete style, and the phrases of "and it came to pass," etc., are the same. MARTHA SPAULDING

Six of Spaulding's neighbors made additional statements, of which the most important extracts are given below:

I formed a co-partnership with Solomon Spaulding for the purpose of rebuilding a forge. . . . He very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which was entitled the "Manuscript Found.". . . This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, their contentions and wars, which were many and great. One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as he read it to me then. Some months ago I borrowed the Golden Bible. . . . I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Spaulding had read to me more than twenty years before, from his "Manuscript Found." Since that time, I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found." I well recollect telling Mr. Spaulding that the so frequent use of the words "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass," rendered it ridiculous. HENRY LAKE

I boarded and lodged in the family of said Spaulding for several months. I was soon introduced to the manuscripts of Spaulding, and perused them as often as I had leisure. He had written two or three books or pamphlets, on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found." From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company present. It purported to be the history of the first settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus. He brought them off from Jerusalem, under their leaders, detailing their travels by land and water, their manners, customs, laws, wars, etc. He said that he designed it as an historical novel. . . . I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solcmon Spaulding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with Scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." Many of the passages in the Mormon book are verbatim from Spaulding, and others in part. The names of Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, and in fact all the principal names are brought fresh to my recollection by the Gold Bible. When Spaulding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla. They were marched about the country for a length of time, in which great wars and great bloodshed ensued, he brought them across North America in a northeast direction. JOHN N. MILLER

I first became acquainted with Solomon Spaulding in 1809 or 10, when he commenced building a forge on Conneaut Creek. When at his house, one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their descendants. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon, excepting the religious matter. The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spaulding, more than twenty years ago; the names more especially are the same without any alteration. . . . Spaulding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate. In conclusion, I will observe, that the names of, and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me before I read it as most modern history. AARON WRIGHT

All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country. He said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America, give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common to this country. During the time he was at my house, I read and heard read one hundred pages or more. Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading characters, when they first started for America. Their main object was to escape the judgments which they supposed were coming upon the old world. But no religious matter was introduced as I now recollect. . . When I heard the historical part of it [the Book of Mormon] related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spaulding. Soon after, I obtained the book, and on reading it, found much of it the same as Spaulding had written, more than twenty years before. OLIVER SMITH

I have lately read the Book of Mormon, and believe it to be the same as Spaulding wrote, except the religious part. He told me that he intended to get his writings published in Pittsburgh. NAHUM HOWARD

The following is from the unsigned statement of Artemus Cunningham:

Before showing me his manuscripts, he went into a verbal relation of its outlines, saying that it was a fabulous or romantic history of the first settlement of this country, and as it purported to have been a record found buried in the earth, or in a cave, he had adopted the ancient or scripture style of writing. He then presented his manuscripts, when we sat down and spent a good share of the night in reading them, and conversing upon them. I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase, "I Nephi," I recollect as distinctly as though it was hut yesterday, although the general features of the story have passed from my memory, through the lapse of 22 years. He ~attempted to account for the numerous antiquities which are found upon this continent, and remarked that, after this generation had passed away, his account of the first inhabitants of America would be considered as authentic as any other history. The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spaulding had written its outlines before he left Conneaut.*

It can clearly be seen that the affidavits were written by Hurlbut, since the style is the same throughout. It may be noted also that although five out of the eight had heard Spaulding's story only once, there was a surprising uniformity in the details they remembered after twenty-two years. Six recalled the names Nephi, Lamanite, etc.; six hcld that the manuscript described the Indians as descendants of the lost ten tribes; four mentioned that the great wars caused the erection of the Indian mounds; and four noted the ancient scriptural style. The very tightness with which Huribut here was implementing his theory rouses an immediate suspicion that he did a little judicious prompting.

However, the affidavits were arresting, and Huribut knew it. He visited Spaulding's widow in Massachusetts and offered her half the profits for permission to publish the manuscript. She told him that "Spaulding had a great variety of manuscripts" and recollected that one was entitled the "Manuscript Found," but of its contents she "had no distinct knowledge." During the two ears she had lived in Pittsburgh, Spaulding had taken the manuscript to the office of Patterson and Lambdin, she said but whether or not it had been returned was uncertain.

She gave Hurlbut permission to examine Spaulding's papers in the attic of a farmhouse in Otsego County, New York; but he found there only one manuscript, which was clearly not the source for the Book of Mormon. This was a romance supposedly translated from twenty-four rolls of parchment covered with Latin, found in a cave on the banks of Conneaut Creek. It was written in modern English and was about 45,000 words long, one sixth the length of the Book of Mormon. It was an adventure story of some Romans sailing to Britain before the Christian era, who had been blown to America during a violent storm.

Hurlbut showed this manuscript to Spaulding's neighbors, who, he said, recognized it as Spaulding's, but stated that it was not the "Manuscript Found." Spaulding "had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates and writing in the Old Scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient." This surmise may have been true, though there was no signed statement swearing to it. But it seems more likely that these witnesses had so come to identify the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding manuscript that they could not concede having made an error without admitting to a case of memory substitution which they did not themselves recognize.

Hurlbut, at least, was certain that Spaulding had written a second manuscript. Eber D. Howe, Hurlbut's collaborator, now wrote to Robert Patterson, the Pittsburgh printer mentioned by Spaulding's widow. He replied "that he had no recollection of any manuscript being brought there for publication, neither would he have been likely to have seen it, as the business of printing was conducted wholly by Lambdin at that time." The partnership of Patterson and Lambdin had not in fact been formed until January 1, 1818, two years after Spaulding's death.

Disappointed in this source, and unable to get any confirming evidence from Joseph's neighbors in western New York, Hurlbut had to be content with insinuating that Sidney Rigdon, who had once lived in Pittsburgh, was somehow responsi ble for getting the Spaulding manuscript into Joseph Smith's hands.

Howe now purchased Hurlbut's affidavits for five hundred dollars and published them in his Mormonism Unvailed. At once the Mormons challenged Howe to produce the Spaulding manuscript, but he did not even produce the one Hurlbut had uncovered, which shortly disappeared. Some writers insinuated that Hurlbut had sold it to the Mormons for a fabulous sum; actually it lay buried in Howe's files, which were later inherited by L. L. Rice, who followed Howe as editor of the Painesville Telegraph. Rice eventually went to Honolulu and there discovered the manuscript among his papers. He forwarded it to Joseph H. Fairchild, president of Oberlin College, who placed it in the college library. The manuscript contained a certificate of its identity signed by Hurlbut, Wright, Miller, and others, and bore the penciled inscription "Manuscript Story" on the outside. Its discovery was jubilantly hailed by the Mormons, who held that the Spaulding theory was now proved groundless. The manuscript was first published by the Reorganized Church in Lamoni, Iowa, in 1885.

Many writers, however still believed that a second Spaulding manuscript was the true source of the Book of Mormon, and labored indefatigably to prove it. Before examining their evidence, it should be noted that if, as seems most likely, there was only one Spaulding manuscript, there were certain similarities between it and the Book of Mormon which, though not sufficient to justify the thesis of common authorship, might have given rise to the conviction of Spaulding's ncighbors that one was a plagiarism of the other. Both were said to have come from out of the earth; both were stories of colonists sailing from the Old World to the New; both explained the earthworks and mounds common to western New York and Ohio as the result of savage wars. John Miller had spoken of "humorous passages" in Spaulding's work, which would certainly apply to the "Manuscript Story," but not to the utterly humorless Book of Mormon.

Other features, like the scriptural style, the expression "it came to pass," and the proper names, seem too definite to be questioned. But it should be remembered, as President Fair-child pointed out in his analysis of the problem, that "the Book of Mormon was fresh in their minds, and their recollections of the 'Manuscript Found' were very remote and dim. That under the pressure and suggestion of Hurlbut and Howe, they should put the ideas at hand in place of those remote and forgotten, and imagine that they remembered what they had recently read, would be only an ordinary example of the frailty of memory.

It is significant that five of Hurlbut's witnesses were careful to except the "religious" matter of the Book of Mormon as not contained in the Spaulding manuscript, and the others stated that "the historical parts" were derived from the Spaulding story. The narrative Hurlbut found had no religious matter whatever, but the Book of Mormon was permeated with religious ideas. It was first and foremost a religious book. The theology could not have been wrought by interpolation, since practically every historical event was motivated either by Satan or the Lord.

If, on the other hand, Hurlbut was right and there were actually two Spaulding manuscripts, one might reasonably expect stylistic similarities between the Book of Mormon and the extant manuscript, since the latter was full of unmistakable literary mannerisms of the kind that are more easily acquired than shed. Spaulding was heir to all the florid sentiment and grandiose rhetoric of the English Gothic romance. He used all the stereotyped patterns - villainy versus innocent maidenhood, thwarted love, and heroic valor - thickly encrusted with the tradition of the noble savage. The Book of Mormon had but one scant reference to a love affair, and its rhythmical, monotonous style bore no resemblance to the cheap cliches' and purple metaphors abounding in the Spaulding story.

After the publication of Howe's book, affidavits popped up here and there, usually solicited by preachers anxious to discredit Joseph Smith. The Mormons replied with books and pamphlets of their own, such as Parley P. Pratt's Mormonism Unveiled in 1838 and Benjamin Winchester's The Origin of the Spaulding Story in 1840. Winchester quoted another of Spaulding's neighbors, one Jackson, who had read Spaulding's manuscript and maintained "that there was no agreement between them; for, said he, Mr. Spaulding's manuscript was a very small work, in the form of a novel, saying not one word about the children of Israel, but professed to give an account of a race of people who originated from the Romans, which Mr. Spaulding said he had translated from a Latin parchment that he had found."

Spaulding's widow was visited again in 1839, when she was seventy years old, by a preacher named D. R. Austin, who published her signed statement in the Boston Recorder on April 19 of that year. She showed an astonishing enlargement of memory over her previous statement to Hurlbut, relating that the historical romance written by her husband had been given to his "acquaintance and friend" Robert Patterson, who was "very much pleased with it" and promised to print it. She stated also that Sidney Rigdon was connected with the press at this time and had every opportunity to copy the manuscript.

Rigdon's angry denial was published in the Boston Recorder on May 27, 1839: "If I were to say that I ever heard of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding and his hopeful wife, until Dr. P. Hurlbut wrote his lie about me, I should be a liar like unto themselves. Why was not the testimony of Mr. Patterson obtained to give force to this shameful tale of lies? The only reason is, that he was not a fit tool for them to work with. . .

Two Mormons, Jesse and John Haven, now interviewed Spaulding's widow, who denied having written the letter and stated that Austin had merely asked her a few questions, taken notes, and apparently written the letter himself. Both Spaulding's widow and daughter admitted in this interview that the manuscript they knew was an "idolatrous" not a religious story.

When Spaulding's daughter was seventy-four years old, she was interviewed, and stated that she remembered vividly hearing her father read his manuscript aloud, although she was only six years old at the time. "Some of the names that he mentioned while reading to these people I have never forgotten. They are as fresh to me as though I heard them yesterday. They were 'Mormon,' 'Maroni,' 'Lamenite,' 'Nephi.'" One is led to doubt the reliability of this memory, however, by another statement in this interview: "In that city [Pittsburgh] my father had an intimate friend named Patterson, and I frequently visited Mr. Patterson's library with him, and heard my father talk about books with him." Patterson, it will be remembered, denied knowing Spaulding at all.

Spaulding's daughter remembered seeing the manuscript in her father's trunk after his death, and stated that she had handled it and seen the names she had heard read to her at the age of six. She admitted, however, that she had not read it.

If the evidence pointing to the existence of a second Spaulding manuscript is dubious, the affidavits trying to prove that Rigdon stole it, or copied it, are all unconvincing and frequently preposterous.

First there is no evidence that Rigdon ever lived in Pittsburgh until 1822, when he became pastor of the First Baptist Church. Robert Patterson, Jr., son of the Pittsburgh printer, conducted an exhaustive research among the old settlers of the vicinity to try to establish the truth of the Spaulding theory. This was in 1882, sixty-six years after Spaulding's death. Many were familiar with the theory and believed it, he said, but few could give first-hand information. Rigdon's brother-in-law, not a Mormon, and Isaac King, an old neighbor, swore to him that Rigdon did not go to Pittsburgh before 1822. Mrs. Lambdin, widow of Patterson's partner, denied any knowledge of Rigdon, as did Robert P. DuBois, who had worked in the printing shop between 1818 and 1820.

One woman, who had worked as mail clerk in Patterson's office between 1811 and 1816, stated that she knew Rigdon and that he was an intimate friend of Lambdin's, but that this was clearly untrue is evidenced by the statement of Lambdin's widow that she had never heard of Rigdon. Another old settler claimed that Spaulding told him the manuscript had been spirited away and that Rigdon was suspect, but this statement is in conffict not only with the facts of Rigdon's life, but also with the accounts of Spaulding's wife and daughter, who made no mention of a lost manuscript and held that the "Manuscript Found" had been carefully preserved in the trunk.*

Patterson senior never left any statement that incriminated Rigdon, although the two men knew each other casually in Pittsburgh after 1822. In the 1870's and 1880's, when anti-Mormonism was most bitter in the United States, there was a great outcropping of affidavits such as those solicited by the younger Patterson. All were from citizens who vaguely remembered meeting Spaulding or Rigdon some fifty, sixty, or seventy years earlier. All are suspect because they corroborate only the details of the first handful of documents collected by Hurlbut and frequently use the very same language. Some are outright perjury.

James Jeifries wrote on January 20, 1884: "Forty years ago I was in business in St. Louis. . . . I knew Sidney Rigdon. He told me several times that there was in the office with which he was connected, in Ohio, a manuscript of the Reverend Spaulding, tracing the origin of the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. The manuscript was in the office several years. He was familiar with it. Spaulding wanted it published, but had not the means to pay for the printing. He (Rigdon) said Joe (Joseph) Smith used to look over the manuscript and read it on Sundays. Rigdon said Smith took the manuscript and said, 'I'll print it,' and went off to Palmyra, New York." (Wyl: Mormon Portraits, p. 241) Forty years previous to 1884 would have been the year of Smith's assassination. Rigdon never lived in St. Louis, nor did Joseph Smith ever visit Ohio before 1831.

The tenuous chain of evidence accumulated to support the Spaulding-Rigdon theory breaks altogether when it tries to prove that Rigdon met Joseph Smith before 1830. There are ambiguous references to a "mysterious stranger" said to have visited the Smiths between 1827 and 1830. But only two men ever claimed that this was actually Rigdon. Abel Chase on May 2, 1879 (fifty-two years after the event) stated that in 1827

-- "as near as I can recollect" -- when he was a boy of twelve or thirteen, he saw a stranger at the Smith home who was said to be Rigdon. And Lorenzo Saunders on January 28, 1885 (fifty-eight years after the event) stated that he had seen him in the spring of 1827 and again in the summer of 1828.: Yet Saunders himself admitted his recollection came only after thirty years of puzzling over the matter and hunting for evidence. And it is highly probable that both men were actually remembering Rigdon's first appearance in Palmyra in late 1830. No other of Joseph's neighbors ever made any effort to connect the Ohio preacher with the Book of Mormon events. And an early historian of western New York, writing in 1851, said: "It is believed by all those best acquainted with the Smith family and most conversant with all the Gold Bible movements, that there is no foundation for the statement that the original manuscript was written by a Mr. Spaulding of Ohio."

Rigdon's life between 1826 and 1829 has been carefully documented from non-Mormon sources. It is clear from the following chronology that he was a busy and successful preacher and one of the leading figures in the Campbellite movement in Ohio. Until August 1830, when he broke with Alexander Campbell over the question of introducing communism into the Campbellite Church, he was orie of the four key men of that church. It cannot be held that Rigdon rewrote the Spaulding manuscript before 1827, since the anti-Masonry permeating the book clearly stemmed from the Morgan excitement beginning late in 1826.

ACTIVITIES OF RIGDON, NOVEMBER 2, 1826-NOVEMBER 14,1830
 

1826

November 2

Marriage of Smith and Giles (performed by Rigdon

December 13

Above marriage recorded.

1827

January

Held meeting at Mantua, Ohio.

February

Funeral of Hannah Tanner, Chester, Ohio.

March

Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

April

Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

 

(gap of possibly one month and half)

June 5

Marriage of Freeman and Waterman.

June 7

Above marriage recorded

June 15

baptized Thomas Clapp at Mentor, Ohio.

July 3

Marriage of Gray and Kerr

July 12

Above marriage recorded

August 10

Above marriage recorded.

August 23

Met with Mahoning Association, New Lisbon, Ohio.

 

(gap of one month and a half)

October 9

Marriage of Sherman and Methews.

October 20

At Minsiterial Council, Warren, Ohio.

November

Held meeting at New Lisbon, Ohio.

December 6

Marriage of Wait and Gunn

December 12

Above marriage recorded.

December 13

Marriage of Cottrell and Olds.

1828

January 8

Above marriage recorded

February 14

Marriage of Herrington and Corning.

March 31

Above marriage recorded.

March

Instructed theological class, Mentor, Ohio.

March

Visited Walter Scott at Warren, Ohio.

April

Conducted revival at Kirtland, Ohio.

May

Met Campbell at Shalersville, Ohio.

June

Baptized H. H. Clapp, Mentor, Ohio.

 

(gap of possibly two months)

August

At Association, Warren, Ohio.

September 7

Marriage of Dille and Kent,.

September 18

Marriage of Corning and Wilson

October 13

Above marriages recorded.

 

(gap of possibly two months and a hlf)

1829

January 1

Marriage of Churchill and Fosdick.

February 1

Marriage of Root and Tuttle.

February 12

Above marriages recorded.

March

Meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

April 12

Meeting at Kirtland, Ohio.

May

Baptized Lyman Wight.

 

(gap of possibly one month and a half)

July 1

Organized church at Perry, Ohio.

August

Baptized Mrs. Lyman Wight.

August 7

Met with church in Perry, Ohio.

August 13

Marriage of Strong and More.

September 14

Above marriage recorded.

September 14

Marriage of Atwater and Clapp.

September

Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

October 1

Marriage of Roberts and bates.

October 7

Last two marriages recorded.

October

At Perry, Ohio.

November

Held Meeting at Wite Hill, Ohio.

December 31

Marriage of Chandler and Johnson.

1830

January 12

Above marriage recorded.

 

(gap of possible two months)

March

At Mentor, Ohio.

 

(gap of two months)

June

At Mentor, Ohio.

July

Held meeting at Pleasant Valley, Ohio.

August

Met Campbell at Austintown, Ohio.

 

(gap of two and one half months)

November 4

Marriage of Wood and Cleaveland.

November 11

Above marriage recorded.

November 14

Rigdon baptized by Oliver Cowdery.

The above chronology is a rearrangement of one compiled by the Reorganized Church and appearing in the Journal of History, Vol. III, pp. 16-20, with additional information from Hayden: Early History of the Disciples in the Western Reserve.

Alexander Campbell, who knew Rigdon intimately, described his conversion to Mormonism with great regret in the Millennial Harbinger, attributing it to his nervous spasms and swoonings and to his passionate belief in the imminent gathering of Israel. But of the authorship of the Book of Mormon he wrote bluntly: "It is as certainly Smith's fabrication as Satan is the father of lies or darkness is the offspring of night."

Rigdon denied the Spaulding story throughout his life. When his son John questioned him shortly before his death, he replied: "My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that book was that Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story, and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and that an angel had appeared to him and directed him where to find it. . . ."

Chief said:
You say that millions have proved that the BoM is true to themselves. Let me ask you a question: in Mormon 9:9, the angel Moroni "reads" Heb 13:8 and James 1:17, but how could he when the NT never reached America? Remember, the BoM is supposed to fill in the years between Malachi and Matthew, but the NT hadn't even been written yet and Moroni is reading it?
Also, Helaman 12:25-26, written 6 B.C. says, "we read," quoting 2 Thess. 1:9 and John 5:29, 90 years too early. Again, the Scripture passages cited were not even written yet.

Again, I cannot put credence in a book that is not historically or theologically accurate

Mike's Response: Several Possibilities

1. The Spirit of God can speak the same words to people in different locations.

2. Jesus himself brought New Testament concepts and language to the Nephites when he appeared to them. (see 3rd Nephi) The New Testament writers would have heard these things from Jesus and so would the Nephites.

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi manuscriprts have shown that many of the phrases and themes that were thought to be original to Paul and the other apostles cmae from older sources, that would have been available to Book of Mormon writers throught the Brass Plates that they took with them.

Support for this is in the link below:

http://www.mormonfortress.com/bible5.html
"Matthew Roper who reviewed the Tanner’s list of so-called New Testament plagiarism concludes that most of the Book of Mormon texts cited by the Tanners could just as easily be drawn from the Old Testament by the Nephites. In fact many of these citations are equal to or closer to Old Testament passages than New Testament passages. (Roper, 1991, 174-81.)"

"Several years ago the critics claimed that the phrase “faith, hope, and charity” from Moroni 7:44-46 was lifted from 1 Corinthians 13:13. Dr. Nibley, however, demonstrated that THE WHOLE PASSAGE, which scholars have labeled “the Hymn to Charity,” was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) TO HAVE ORIGINATED NOT WITH PAUL AT ALL, BUT TO GO BACK TO SOME OLDER BUT UNKNOWN SOURCE: Paul is merely quoting from the record. (Nibley, 1989, 216.)"

Eyewitness accounts by many of those who scribed for Joseph or watched the process state that JOSEPH HAD NO WRITTEN MATERIALS OR NOTES IN THE ROOM when he translated. When one considers the feat of Joseph Smith writing 534 pages of material without notes, his memory would have had to be more than phenominal indeed. See a quote form the same link as above:

"The scholars at FARMS have observed the “extensive, intricate consistencies within the Book of Mormon. Passages tie together precisely and accurately though separated from each other by hundreds of pages of text and dictated weeks apart.” (FARMS Updates, Oct. 1987.) FARMS notes for example that Alma 36 quotes 21 words verbatim from 1 Nephi 1:8, and that Helaman 14:12 quotes 20 words from Mosiah 3:8. And of course as many a critic has noted, the Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah at length. SUCH INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND LENGTHY QUOTES WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITH QUICK MEMORIZATIONS OF SELECTED BIBLE VERSES, such a feat would require either inspiration or a fantastic memory."

and this:
It is a well-known fact that 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon quotes virtually the same teachings of Isaiah as recorded in the Bible. The TWO RECORD ARE NOT EXACT MATCHES, however, the Book of Mormon does have some variant readings of the Isaiah text. If Joseph Smith was simply copying from the KJV, then when the alterations? Hebrew scholar, John Tvedtnes, has studied these changes and has demonstrated that the BOOK OF MORMON VARIENTS ACCORDS WELL WITH OTHER ANCIENT ISAIAH TEXTS, and often provide a superior reading to our KJV Bible (Tvedtnes, 1984, 165-77). Tvedtnes notes, for instance, that the longer 1QIsa, scroll from Qumran (DEAD SEA SCROLL) “SUPPORTS THE BOOK OD MORMON ISAIAH TEXT IN A NUMBER OF CASES.”

Too bad I can't spell

Mike,
I went back a ways on this thread and found what I think is your first post and you asked the question: WHY DO MORMONS INSIST ON IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS CHRISTIANS?

GB: The simple answer is because we believe in Jesus Christ and to claim that we are not Christians gives the false impression to the world that we don’t believe in Jesus Christ. I for one, don’t like to give that false impression.

You go on for a bit then you state this;”In the name of scholarship, we cannot discount that Orthodox Christianity IS Christianity...there is no other form of Christianity.” I think this could be classified as an assertion.

And what about this one; “After which there were apostles and churches and creeds and councils, THIS IS CHRISTIANITY, there was never another form of Christianity that didn't contain these elements.” This also is an assertion.

Then there is this one;”Christianity is a continuation of Judeaism.” That is your opinion. But I disagree.

Mike: The apostles weren't trying to make themselves Jews, . . .

GB: They didn’t need to because they were already Jews.

Mike: . . . in fact dying at the hands of Jews for claiming something other than Judeaism.

GB: I disagree. They were being killed because they claimed that Judeaism had fallen into apostasy and that Christ not only restored true Judeaism but was also the fulfillment of messianic prophesies.

Mike: I beleive that what Jesus said was true, in fulfilling the Old Testament. I do not follow the Laws of Moses, I follow the law of Grace as expressed through Jesus. I am sold out that Christianity is the TRUE religion.

GB: I agree (with a minor caveat that our understand of the “law of grace” may be different).

Mike: Why doesn't Mormonism have this same conviction?

GB: We do (again with a minor caveat that our understand of the “law of grace” may be different).

Mike: Why do they continually insist on being Christians (with a different set of beliefs).

GB: We believe that we have the true “Christianity” as taught by Jesus Christ. We understand that you believe in Jesus Christ as you understand him, so we would never try to deny you the title of “Christian”. We expect the same courtesy from you.

Mike,

I have started reading the book of Mormon cover to cover, and I will be finished with it in a few days. I will attempt to do this with an open mind.

I am intrigued by a couple of things that are said right off the bat. In the introduction, it is said that both the Nephites and Lamanites are part of the civilization that came over from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. The Lamanites survived, and became the 'principal' ancestors of the American Indians.

Then, Moroni, who was a man and the son of Mormon, appeared to Joseph Smith as a 'glorified and resurrected being.' Several people on this thread have identified Moroni as an 'angel.' What is he, exactly? In the Scriptures, angels are created beings, the 'heavenly host' that is separate from the creation of man.

Questions that a scholar more intelligent than I would think of in reading this introduction are these: Is there DNA evidence to link Jews to Native Americans? (This would be necessary if the Lamanites, who came over from Jerusalem, were principal ancestors.) And why would the plates be inscribed by Moroni, a Nephite and a Jew, in ancient Egyptian heiroglphics? Wouldn't he have used Aramaic or Hebrew as the language?

Chief: . . . . What would be your advice to him?

GB: I would advise him (and help him) to find the closest LDS congregation and their meeting time. I would recommend he attend a service, and after which request to be put in contact with the missionaries. I would also make myself available to answer questions and to help in any way possible.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose you have a co-worker that lives in a different city than you do. He states that he recently has become interested in God, but is confused about what church to go to to figure things out. What would be your advice to him?

This question wasn't to me but I felt like answering anyway
The first thing I would do is tell him to go to the Bible.
The next thing I would do is share with him my personal testimony about how Jesus died on the cross for my sin, so that I could have a personal relationship with God. I would also tell him that God desires a personal relationship with him but sin prevents that, but God out of the abundance of his love for him died on the cross to pay the price for his sin and then rose three days later, and in order to have that personal relationship with God you must place your faith and trust
in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross.

Hi Other Mike,

Actually, knowing GB as I do, he wouldn't say, "Cause I say so"
He would asy that he asked God and God told him it was that way.

I would say the same thing. James 1:5 would say the same thing
Jesus says the same thing, "seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you, Waht man is there who if his son doth ask for bread will give him a stone, how much more will the Father in Heaven give unto them that ask him."

We asked. God answered. We know. You can ask too. You don't have to take our word for it. You don't have to ask. You can go on claiming that we are wrong. You can say and do anything you like. that doesn't change the fact that GB and I and others like us have asked God and God has answered us. Do what you want.

GB,

If by straw man you mean a summation of the logic of your comments, then yes, it is a straw man.

Forget that I put GB:, in front of the comments, mine was supposed to be a mock discussion, much in the form of Plato's writings. It was illustrative of what you were saying in your post.

For what it is worth, I appreciate that you must attack my methods and not the contect because:

there is no arguing on the point that Mormonism is not built on the foundation of Christianity as it has been established over thousands of years.

there is no arguing that Christianity proper and Mormonism have differing beleif systems

there is no arguing that the traditions of each establishment are different

there is no arguing that the interpretation of Biblical doctrines differ

there is no arguing that Christianity is not Judaism, nor does it want to be and serves to illustrate the same difference between Mormonism and Christianity

there is no arguing that merely claiming to be a Christian does not make you one

there is no arguing that Christianity was established for 1,800 some odd years before this supposed truth was revealed to Joseph Smith

It is on these points, and many many others, that an argument can very easily be posited and won that Mormonism is NOT Christianity.

I am fairly confident that we can have a theological argument as well, but since everyone in here continues to try and fight out those ideas, I wanted to discuss these issues and nobody here has a defense other than to say,

Mike: WHY DO MORMONS INSIST ON BEING CALLED CHRISTIANS

Everyone else: Because I am one and because I believe that my form of Christianity is the true form, even though it goes agaist all historical/theological and foundational evidence to the contrary, I still believe in the Jesus of the Bible (and subsequent books, oh and the Bible is not accurate)

You have not convinced me otherwise, and I like you will continue to try and convert those people I have interaction with, to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you sat down at the dinner table and had butter and margarine sitting in front of you, you may think they are one in the same. Until you taste them, one is the original and the other is fake, passing itself off as the other. And only one has the buttery goodness that you are seeking. Margarine may look like butter but it is is nothing but a bunch of scrap, formulated by an industry trying to market it as the next best thing. I prefer the goodness of butter. And I won't ever conclude that they are the same because they look like it.

Mike: there is no arguing on the point that Mormonism is not built on the foundation of Christianity

GB: an assertion.

Mike: there is no arguing that Christianity is not Judaism, nor does it want to be and serves to illustrate the same difference between Mormonism and Christianity

GB: another assertion.

Mike: there is no arguing that merely claiming to be a Christian does not make you one

GB: Not sure what you mean there.

Mike: there is no arguing that Christianity was established for 1,800 some odd years before this supposed truth was revealed to Joseph Smith

GB: another assertion.

It sounds like your mind is closed. So why would I want to engage you in conversation?

This is one long blog, fun, exciting, frustrating, no one answers questions even when they think they do. Here's my opinion (and yes, I've read the blog and dredged through the cut and paste, re-cut and paste, re-re-cut and paste, 70 X 7, but I forgive you), all religions that believe in Christ are christian, except one. That of the Church of Joseph (oops, sorry) Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And the only reason they are not christian is obvious, it makes them too much like real christians. Real christians go about their business quietly, saving themselves quietly until a false christian (mormon) comes up, then they can rant and rave and announce their impending doom without letting them get a word in edgewise (to do that would be disasterous, do you know how long dem mormons can talk?!) But I digress. Only one thing, I read in here, from both sides, that God is unchanging. So, unchanging means one truth. I'm pretty sure one truth means one gospel. One gospel means one church. In the old and new testament God gave gospel and lead his church through prophets and apostles. So, let's find the church that preaches an unchanging God, one with apostles and prophets. Oh yeah, and that church has to accept Christ as the only one who can save. There is only one truth, so let's all pray, as James admonishes, that we can find His truth and His church, so we can be true followers of Christ. I am a nontraditional christian.

-Matt crackback

Those are not assertion, what it is with you and this assertion bit...I have been asking all along for somebody to ASSERT a viable argument against my assertions, without which, I claim them to be facts. You see the problem is when one makes assertions, which of course that is what I am doing, you are making assertions when you argue points, the difference is I am doing it in a context of a LOGICAL PROGRESSION. You seem not to like the logic because it proves you wrong.

I would like for you discount any one of those points, with a logical argument and then we will debate on whether my ASSERTIONS are right or not, the thing is, nobody has yet, everyone just keeps playing the "because I said so" card.

And what am I close minded about? The idea that Mormons are Christians? Of course I am...that is why they call this a debate, I am not here to preach tolerance of perverse thought and inclusion of all ideas in order to make people feel warm and fuzzy. I am here to debate why I think Mormonism is a perversion from Christianity and shouldn't referred to as Christians.

If you have a problem with this idea, I guess that is the first step in saying we can't have a debate. I don't mind, however, I thought the purpose of this interaction was to have a dialogue on why you should be referred to as a Christian. The problem is there is something called the 'burden of proof', you may have heard of this, it is a philosophical term. It means that if you are making a claim (that goes against what the standard assumption of whatever truth claim you are positing) then you must PROVE that your position is true. I haven't seen that being done, in fact, you haven't even engaged the content of these assertions, you just keep saying that you either agree or disagree. You have the burden of proof, I am simply waiting for someone to refute the things that you keep saying I am asserting, with something other than, "I don't agree".

How do you debate without making assertions? I am making a claim, and asking you to respond. Your responses have been lacking, that is my whole point, I have rebutted you each time you have responded to my claims, and never has their been a substantive answer. Again, I take that as a victory, you see it as being assertive, I take that as a compliment.

Mike,

You're digging yourself in a hole buddy...

You have made the BOLD assumption that the Bible is true...PROVE it?

If you take away the element of "Faith" you missed the boat! Paul says, "Now faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb. 11:1

And Faith in Jesus Christ, my friend, is what this is all about! That He came to earth, atoned for the sins of mankind, was crucified, and rose on the third day a glorified and victorious Savior...Can I PROVE it, nope, but I know it with all my heart!

Chief,

I'm sorry, I wasn't going to post again, but I just couldn't keep away. You see, it would be absurd for Hinckley, Kimball, Young and the others to NOT claim to be prophets, because God called them. No, no, not on the phone, silly (though that would be something, wouldn't it, to get a call on the phone from.... oh, sorry, just reminiscing...), called them through revelation (that thing that those prophets received a long time ago, remember, God=no change). Sorry, I'm way off topic, that's why this is my last post. Ummm, GO CHRISTIANS!!!!
Matt Crackback

Mike,

Ok...you got me! I guess I was a bit confused by your earlier posting that YOU wanted only to talk points that could be PROVEN...like the Bible? (Sorry for being facetious here).

Anyway, unless someone from the "orthodox Christian" community can answer the "infallibility of the Bible" question...there really is nothing more to discuss and I will end my postings. You are quick to condemn Mormons belief in continuing revelation from God because it is unprovable, yet hold tenaciously to the unproven presumption of the Bible's infallibility, in fact, you MUST believe it infallible to maintain your orthodoxy, otherwise, your entire world would crumble!

Fianlly, the sum total difference between YOU and US is that WE do not depend entirely upon the Bible for God's teachings, although We appeal to it to prove that the truths received through the restoration of the gospel are the same yesterday, today, and forever. YOU believe in a God that WAS, and WE believe in a God that IS!!

Stay well my friends...

Chief1989 posted:
"There are huge problems with Joseph Smith and the way he was called (was any other prophet in the entirety of Scripture called in such a weird way?)"

Hmmm. I can think of several. Moses out tending his flocks and the Lord appears to him in a "burning bush." Zacharias seeing an angel in the temple and being struck dumb. Or maybe when Saul sees the Lord on the road to Damascas, and those with Saul do not see Him. What about events in the lives of prophets that may have had little to do with the way they were "called," but that they claimed happened to them? Jonah getting swallowed by a big fish, the Lord telling Noah to build an ark. The list goes on.

Josh Knight,

Thanks for you comments, Josh. I made the comment a number of posts ago that, while some prophet's callings were unusual, the Lord spoke directly to them (out of the burning bush came the Lord's voice, Jesus appeared directly to Saul and gave Him the gospel, angels appeared to Gideon and Zacharias and gave them the word of the Lord, etc.). He never asked them to go find His word and dig it up. He did not ask them to come back once a year for four years while He delivered the same message to them, then deliver some plates written in an unfamiliar language that would need translating, and then those plates were to be given back and taken out of this world. The Lord spoke to Moses, to Abraham, to Noah, to Samuel, to Isaiah, to Jeremiah, to Amos, to Jonah, etc. directly, without using such a roundabout way to deliver His message. That was why I was confused by the circumstances surrounding the events regarding Smith. It just seems so much more secretive and circuitous than the Lord revealed in the Bible normally operated.

Anyway, I come to this thread today with a little different perspective than before. My wife was diagnosed with cancer, so when something like that happens, it kind of changes the way you look at things, and things you thought were important do not seem so pressing now. I find that I don't want to get caught up in things like priesthood and authority and things that, in the greater cosmic scheme of things, probably don't matter that much to God nowadays and won't really determine whether someone goes to heaven or not. I find that I want to think about these kinds of things:

Hebrews 10: 19-23
19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.

James 4: 8a
8Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.

James 4: 10-12
10Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
11Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 12There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Philippians 4: 6-8
6Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Ephesians 6: 18
18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

Romans 8: 26-28
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. 28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Everyone here on this board is in my prayers, and I ask that you include me and my wife Jill in yours. May God bless you all and keep you this day, sealed by His Spirit until the glorious return of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Question for Mormons

Does special revelation from God have greater authority than written Scripture or do they have the same authority?

Because it seems to me that if you have to have special revelation from God to know whether the Book Mormon is true or not, then that special revelation from God has greater authority than the Scripture itself.
After all you do believe in continuing revelation right?

A friend of mine has seven children, and he is always admonishing them "do not do anything that will soil the family name. Wear our name with pride, and do not do anything that would bring it shame."

Believers in Christ wear the name "Christian", and are sealed with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, let us make sure that we are not and won't be doing anything that will bring dishonor to that name.

I leave you with this:

Revelation 22
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Amen and amen

Chief, My prayers are with you and your wife. I understand the gravity of the situation. My son-in-law is undergoing open heart surgery next Thursday to repair or replace two valves. He is 22 and he and my daughter were married last December.

I am comforted by the knowledge God has given me that families are forever.

God bless you,

Mike

Question for Mormons

Does special revelation from God have greater authority than written Scripture or do they have the same authority?

Because it seems to me that if you have to have special revelation from God to know whether the Book Mormon is true or not, then that special revelation from God has greater authority than the Scripture itself.
After all you do believe in continuing revelation right?

Mike's response: Yes we do. The Bible is in accord with this as in James 1:5.

http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Open_canon_vs._closed_canon

God is superior even to His Word

The Bible is an important record of God's message to humanity. However, the Bible—or any other written text—cannot be the focus of the Christian's life or faith. Only One deserves that place: God.

One non-LDS Christian author cautioned believers from placing the Bible 'ahead' of God:

It is possible, however, to stress the Bible so much and give it so central a place that the sensitive Christian conscience must rebel. We may illustrate such overstress on the Bible by the often-used (and perhaps misused) quotation from Chillingworth: “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestantism.” Or we may recall how often it has been said that the Bible is the final authority for the Christian. If it will not seem too facetious, I would like to put in a good word for God. It is God and not the Bible who is the central fact for the Christian. When we speak of “the Word of God” we use a phrase which, properly used, may apply to the Bible, but it has a deeper primary meaning. It is God who speaks to man. But he does not do so only through the Bible. He speaks through prophets and apostles. He speaks through specific events. And while his unique message to the Church finds its central record and written expression in the Bible, this very reference to the Bible reminds us that Christ is the Word of God in a living, personal way which surpasses what we have even in this unique book. Even the Bible proves to be the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit working within us attests the truth and divine authority of what the Scripture says. Faith must not give to the aids that God provides the reverence and attention that Belong only to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hope is in God; our life is in Christ; our power is in the Spirit. The Bible speaks to us of the divine center of all life and help and power, but it is not the center. The Christian teaching about the canon must not deify the Scripture.[1]
To argue that the canon is closed effectively seeks to place God's written word (the Bible) above God Himself. Some have even called this practice "bibolatry" or "bibliolatry." Critics are effectively ordering God not to reveal anything further, or refusing to even consider that He might choose to speak again.

Closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine

The idea of a closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine. The Bible bears record that God called prophets in the past. Why could He not—indeed, why would He not—continue to do so?

Ironically, it would seem that the only way to know that there can be no extra-Biblical revelation is via revelation: otherwise, decisions about God's Word are being made by human intellect alone. Yet, since the Bible does not claim that it is the sole source of revealed truth, the only potential source of a revelation to close the canon would be extra-Biblical. Thus, those who insist on a closed canon are in the uncomfortable position of requiring extra-Biblical revelation to rule out extra-Biblical revelation![2]

Throughout Biblical history, the canon was clearly not closed. New prophets were called, and new authoritative writing was made. It would seem strange for this to cease without revelatory notice being given that God's practices were about to change.

Scriptural interpretation requires revelation

Even if one were to grant that the Bible contains all necessary teachings, it is clear from Christian history that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways by sincere readers. What else but additional, on-going revelation can settle legitimate questions of interpretation and application of God's word? Are we to rely on human reason alone to do so? Does this not in essence turn to an extra-Biblical source for information about divine matters?

Conclusion

The doctrine of a closed canon and the end of authoritative revelation is not found in the Bible. To insist upon this doctrine is to place a non-Biblical doctrine in a place of pre-eminence, and insist that God must be bound by it. Such a doctrine would require the very revelation it denies to be authoritative. Even the proper interpretation of Biblical teachings requires authoritative revelation, which are necessarily extra-Biblical.

Critics are free to hold these beliefs if they wish, but they ought not to criticize the LDS for believing extra-Biblical doctrines when they themselves insist upon the non-Biblical closed canon.

Endnotes
Floyd V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible? (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), 20–21.
Joseph Smith made this observation in Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 61. ISBN 087579243X.

non-Mormon Mike:
It is unfortunate that people like Rotorhead come into this forum and spout the same propaganda that they accuse the other side. He gives no reasoning why "the other side" needs to prove the Bible is true in order to have a conversation, especially since not one point in my argument was dependant upon this supposed truth. While I do agree that the Bible is infallible, the issue at hand is whether or not, in light of the tradition, that is Christianity, that Mormonism can be recognized as Christian. And again, no response.

Mike Bennion:
Rotorhead is simply suggesting that the same difficulty in proving the Book of Mormon is true, cna be demonstrated by attempting to prove the bible true. After all is said and done, there must still be a leap of faith in both cases. There has been enough written by the LDS posters here to demonstrate the “plausibility” that the Book of Mormon could be true. If we have missed something, and I’m sure we have, the links we listed cover those assertions. We are happy to show the evidence. But in the final analysis. Whether one wishes to learn the truth of the Bible or the Book of Mormon, or the lack thereof, One must still consult a higher power, the author of the Book, God. You can ridicule this. You can call it “running to Mama” as Chief did. But the gift of Faith is not proof to anyone but the person who receives it.

The Bible tells us to ask, to seek, to knock, to pray, and promises answers.

non-Mormon Mike:
The burden of proof is a heavy thing, and one in which I understand you wouldn't want to address because, you simply cannot and shouldn't want to, it is a losing battle.

Mike Bennion:
I don’t need to. I only need to present the evidence the best I can. Testify that I have been given the truth, and then ask you to Ask God about it. If you choose not to, then it is your responsibility and not mine.

Non-Mormon Mike:
In the meantime, us Evangelicals will continue to refer to you are you truly are, Mormons, because you beleive in Christ through the Mormon tradition and there is a difference. If you continue to be ashamed of being Mormons, you must resolve that in your own conscience.

Mike Bennion:
Oh I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as restored through Joseph Smith. It is the power of God unto Salvation. Yes there is a difference. But I will not denigrate your belief by saying that you are not a Christian. You believe that Jesus Christ is God and that he died for our sins, and that we are saved by his mighty works. I call htat Christian. You call me whatever you want. It doens’t change my love for or personal relationship with my Savior.

non-Mormon Mike:
I am frustrated by this continued logical suicide evident in these arguments and an insistence on circling the issues with emotional arguments and unsubstanitiated attacks and reasoning.

Mike Bennion:
Oh Pulease! I don’t think that I have made one post that isn’t documented. And substantiated by multiple sources. If I recall, you wanted Mormons to stop quoting the same things over and over. And use ” logic”. And then when Mormons stopped quoting and used “logic” you complained that their post were “unsubstantiated” and emotional. Maybe if you would answer and acknowledge the assertions and the sources we would stop quoting them. And telling you that the Bible tells us to Pray and ask God for answers is not emotional. It is a fact that the Bible recommends asking God when we seek wisdom.

Non-Mormon Mike:
My hope was to have a dialog and while you charge us "evangelicals" of being so hateful and stubborn,

Mike Bennion: Show me where I have charged you or any evangelical of any such things. If you make assertions that challenge my beliefs I will defend them. I will not hestitate to tell you that I disagree with you, but I will not call your character into question.

Non-Mormon Mike: I have had no real dialogue but rather continued attack, not dealing with the issues.

Mike Bennion: and I have had no real replies to the many lengthy posts and links that I have posted, so you want dialogue?. Please be my guest. We can do it here, or at my Blogs.
www/truthrestored.townhall.com or www.angelslanding.townhall.com

non-Mormon Mike:
Good luck fighting this fight in this manner, I don't think you will ever win.

Mike Bennion:
I’m not fighting to win. I am testifying as I have been commanded to do. You can do whatever you want with what I tell you.

Mike: Exactly my point all along, Jesus didn't claim a "new" religion but the the Apostles and subsequent founders of the faith did not insist and calling themselves JEWS!

GB: Did you really mean that?

Without Grace we cannot be saved. I don't think there are any Mormons who would disagree to this. To say that we can live our lives in any way shape or form without regard to laws and commandments makes a mockery of everything Jesus taught.

If we don't live our lives the way that Jesus taught (i.e. obeying his commandments) would we be comfortable in his presense after this life?

I feel if a person truly has faith in God and in the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, he would live his life according to "Christian Principles."

What sense would there be if a terrible person who has "faith" makes it to heaven, when a truly charitable one goes to hell? Where's God's mercy in that?

Paul,

Read John Chapters 14= 17 carefully, paying particular attention to those who are Branches of the Vine (Christ) If they do not do his will they are cut off from the vine and have no life in and of themselves. Jesus and his Apostles spend much of their time teaching what is necessary to abide in the vine. These are works that are the fruit of faith. They are centered in the vine, Christ, because it is he who commands them and his will and the Father's which we pray to do.

A true Christian will obey the commands of God.
God has said that those who do not his will shall be cut off of the vine by the Father. It is very clear that the works are necessary, Centered in Jesus and our Fatih in Him, yes, but one does not remain on the vine (i.e. Christian and able to draw nourishing Salvation form Christ) without them. This seems like a clearly stated requirement
by Jesus himself.

Jesus teaches how we are saved

1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. (John 15:1-4 NIV)

Jesus says that the branches that are cut off are those that "bear no fruit" that is, they do not do the works Jesus commands. Even those disciples that do his works will be tried and tested to allow them to grow and do even more. Once a branch is cut off from Christ, due to a lack of faith manifested by failing to keep his commandments, it cannot live or bear fruit apart from him.

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John 15:5-8 NIV)

The Bible: John 15:5 Without me you can do nothing.

Mike Bennion: Agreed

Paul:This is the conclusion and application of the whole parable.

Mike Bennion: Yes

Paul: So long as we are separate from him, we bear no fruit that is good and acceptable to God, for we are unable to do anything good.

Mike Bennion: The key words "without him" Jesus says:
4REMAIN in me, and I will REMAIN in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. (John 15:4 NIV)

You not only extenuate this statement, but destroy its substance, and, indeed, altogether evade it; for, though in words you acknowledge that we can do nothing without Christ, you foolishly imagine you possess some power, which is not sufficient in itself, but, being aided by the grace of God, co-operates that is, works along with it; you cannot endure that man should be so much annihilated as to do nothing of himself. But these words of Christ are too plain to be evaded so easily as they suppose. Your doctrine is, that we can do nothing without Christ, but that, aided by him, we have something of ourselves in addition to his grace. But Christ, on the other hand, declares that we can do nothing of ourselves. The branch, he says, beareth not fruit of itself; and, therefore, he not only extols the aid of his co-operating grace, but deprives us entirely of all power but what he imparts to us. Accordingly, this phrase, without me, must be explained as meaning, except from me.

These verses just prove what I stated earlier