Saturday, November 10, 2007
HELLO! Don't You Just Love A Good PUZZLE?
The Book Of Mormon is full of PUZZLES. These PUZZLES are neither Cross-Word puzzles nor Jigsaw Puzzles. They are PUZZLING questions; things that don't make sense. I found them over a period several years, and collectively they had something to do with me leaving the LDS (Mormon) Church and the LDS (Mormon) Faith. I hope you will find them equally helpful.
Friday, November 9, 2007
PUZZLE #1 - Abridgment
It's not the title page. It's the page after that. It's the first page with anything on it besides the title. What does it say in the first sentence of the first paragraph?
"Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi..."
What does that word 'abridgment' mean? It means that Mormon went through the original writings and made a condensed, shorter version. Presumably, this would mean that Mormon took out any non-essential words. Perhaps he removed whole phrases or even entire sentences. Certainly, he would not have removed anything important, but any redundant or wordy passages would have been rewritten to get down to the point where the idea was fully expressed in as few words as possible.
This then is our first PUZZLE. When we examine this abridgment of the record, we find the following passage:
"And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away." (4th Nephi verse 6)
What was the original passage like if this is Mormon's abridgment of it? I count 57 words in this verse, and what does it say? I could abridge the above passage down to six words:
"Twenty two more years passed away."
Isn't that a PUZZLE?
"Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi..."
What does that word 'abridgment' mean? It means that Mormon went through the original writings and made a condensed, shorter version. Presumably, this would mean that Mormon took out any non-essential words. Perhaps he removed whole phrases or even entire sentences. Certainly, he would not have removed anything important, but any redundant or wordy passages would have been rewritten to get down to the point where the idea was fully expressed in as few words as possible.
This then is our first PUZZLE. When we examine this abridgment of the record, we find the following passage:
"And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away." (4th Nephi verse 6)
What was the original passage like if this is Mormon's abridgment of it? I count 57 words in this verse, and what does it say? I could abridge the above passage down to six words:
"Twenty two more years passed away."
Isn't that a PUZZLE?
PUZZLE #2 - 3 Witnesses
We're not even into the body of the record yet. It's the last line of the "TESTIMONY OF THE THREE WITNESSES" that give us our second PUZZLE. It says;
"And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God? I believe that to be true, but Mormons don't. Neither do they teach this concept, commonly referred to as the Trinity.
Why does it say so here? This is not Mormonism, but it was the concept believed by all of the men associated with the Book of Mormon in 1830.
Show this to any Mormon and you will get only one explanation. They will say something like; 'It means that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all one in purpose."
Absurd. Perhaps they are thinking that it says that the three are "one". They will need to read it again. It says that the three "are one God", not that the three "are one."
Words have meaning so that we can use them to express ideas. "One God" means "one God", not "one in purpose." Here then is our second PUZZLE from the Book of Mormon: Why does the Book of Mormon teach something contrary to what Mormons believe and teach?
"And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God? I believe that to be true, but Mormons don't. Neither do they teach this concept, commonly referred to as the Trinity.
Why does it say so here? This is not Mormonism, but it was the concept believed by all of the men associated with the Book of Mormon in 1830.
Show this to any Mormon and you will get only one explanation. They will say something like; 'It means that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all one in purpose."
Absurd. Perhaps they are thinking that it says that the three are "one". They will need to read it again. It says that the three "are one God", not that the three "are one."
Words have meaning so that we can use them to express ideas. "One God" means "one God", not "one in purpose." Here then is our second PUZZLE from the Book of Mormon: Why does the Book of Mormon teach something contrary to what Mormons believe and teach?
PUZZLE #3 - Urim & Thummim
Under the heading; TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH we read:
"Also, that there were two stones in silver bows-- and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim--deposited with the plates; and the posession and use of these stones were what constituted Seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book."
Leaving alone the question of whether or not this is what the Urim and Thummim were used for in "ancient or former times", let's just examine the last phrase of the passage above; "that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book."
God prepared them for the purpose of translating the book? Which book? Answer: The Book of Mormon. God prepared the Urim and Thummim for the purpose of translating the Book of Mormon? Really?
Then we have yet another PUZZLE. If "God prepared them for the purpose of translating" the Book of Mormon, why didn't little old mortal man Joseph Smith use them for that?
There are several eyewitness accounts from the very people who acted as his scribes, as well as other, that Joseph used his seer stone rather than the Urim and Thummim to do the translating work.
"Also, that there were two stones in silver bows-- and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim--deposited with the plates; and the posession and use of these stones were what constituted Seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book."
Leaving alone the question of whether or not this is what the Urim and Thummim were used for in "ancient or former times", let's just examine the last phrase of the passage above; "that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book."
God prepared them for the purpose of translating the book? Which book? Answer: The Book of Mormon. God prepared the Urim and Thummim for the purpose of translating the Book of Mormon? Really?
Then we have yet another PUZZLE. If "God prepared them for the purpose of translating" the Book of Mormon, why didn't little old mortal man Joseph Smith use them for that?
There are several eyewitness accounts from the very people who acted as his scribes, as well as other, that Joseph used his seer stone rather than the Urim and Thummim to do the translating work.
PUZZLE #4 - Just One Word?
And it speaks volumes.
Reference: 2nd paragraph of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, last phrase.
November 9th, 2007, a change in wording for the introduction to the Book of Mormon was announced. Why? It's a PUZZLE to some but not to me, and not to many other people. Here is what the Salt Lake Tribune had to say.
"[Posted: 6:31 AM- The LDS Church has changed a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon, a change observers say has serious implications for commonly held LDS beliefs about the ancestry of American Indians.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe founder Joseph Smith unearthed a set of gold plates from a hill in upperstate New York in 1827 and translated the ancient text into English. The account, known as The Book of Mormon, tells the story of two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as the Nephites and Lamanites.
The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement:
"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites,
and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads,
"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites,
and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing."]"
The Salt Lake Tribune further quoted LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle as saying:
"[Many Mormons, including several church presidents, have taught that the Americas were largely inhabited by Book of Mormon peoples. In 1971, Church President Spencer W. Kimball said that Lehi, the family patriarch, was "the ancestor of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea."
After testing the DNA of more than 12,000 Indians, though, most researchers have concluded that the continent's early inhabitants came from Asia across the Bering Strait.
With this change, the LDS Church is "conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them," said Simon Southerton, a former Mormon and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church.
"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."
LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.
On the church's official Web site, lds.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."
Mormon researcher John M. Butler and DNA expert further argues that "careful examination and demographic analysis of the Book of Mormon record in terms of population growth and the number of people described implies that other groups were likely present in the promised land when Lehi's family arrived, and these groups may have genetically mixed with the Nephites, Lamanites, and other groups. Events related in the Book of Mormon likely took place in a limited region, leaving plenty of room for other Native American peoples to have existed."
In recent years, many LDS scholars have come to share Butler's belief in what is known as the "limited geography" theory. By this view, the Nephites and Lamanites restricted their activities to portions of Central America, which would explain their absence from the general American Indian genetics.
Kevin Barney, a Mormon lawyer and independent researcher in Chicago, welcomes the introduction's word change.
"I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon's] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture," said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."]"
Ah, isn't that refreshing? Some flunky from FAIR can disavow what has been deemed as good as scripture, and the conflict is supposed to go away. He must not have seen the words of Spencer W. Kimball, the man he sustained as Prophet, Seer and Revelator back in 1971, but, then, Mr. Barney probably wasn't alive back then, so, he doesn't have to believe what that 'previous' prophet of the Mormon Church said.
Here's the link for that article by Peggy Fletcher Stack.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990
It may be a PUZZLE to some, but the PUZZLE can be solved by simply looking what precipitated the word change. Did you see it as you read above? It says:
"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."
LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.
On the church's official Web site, lds.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."
Did you see the video/DVD about the DNA proving that the native Americans are not connected to any of the middle eastern peoples? That's what made this happen.
Why? If they have a prophet of God at the head of the LDS Church, why hadn't he already told them these things? Why did they wait until it was discovered by others? The answer is simple and final. The man/men at the head of the LDS Church are not prophets, seers nor revelators. 'Twas always thus, and thus 'twil always be.' Count on it.
Reference: 2nd paragraph of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, last phrase.
November 9th, 2007, a change in wording for the introduction to the Book of Mormon was announced. Why? It's a PUZZLE to some but not to me, and not to many other people. Here is what the Salt Lake Tribune had to say.
"[Posted: 6:31 AM- The LDS Church has changed a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon, a change observers say has serious implications for commonly held LDS beliefs about the ancestry of American Indians.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe founder Joseph Smith unearthed a set of gold plates from a hill in upperstate New York in 1827 and translated the ancient text into English. The account, known as The Book of Mormon, tells the story of two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as the Nephites and Lamanites.
The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement:
"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites,
and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads,
"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites,
and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing."]"
The Salt Lake Tribune further quoted LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle as saying:
"[Many Mormons, including several church presidents, have taught that the Americas were largely inhabited by Book of Mormon peoples. In 1971, Church President Spencer W. Kimball said that Lehi, the family patriarch, was "the ancestor of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea."
After testing the DNA of more than 12,000 Indians, though, most researchers have concluded that the continent's early inhabitants came from Asia across the Bering Strait.
With this change, the LDS Church is "conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them," said Simon Southerton, a former Mormon and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church.
"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."
LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.
On the church's official Web site, lds.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."
Mormon researcher John M. Butler and DNA expert further argues that "careful examination and demographic analysis of the Book of Mormon record in terms of population growth and the number of people described implies that other groups were likely present in the promised land when Lehi's family arrived, and these groups may have genetically mixed with the Nephites, Lamanites, and other groups. Events related in the Book of Mormon likely took place in a limited region, leaving plenty of room for other Native American peoples to have existed."
In recent years, many LDS scholars have come to share Butler's belief in what is known as the "limited geography" theory. By this view, the Nephites and Lamanites restricted their activities to portions of Central America, which would explain their absence from the general American Indian genetics.
Kevin Barney, a Mormon lawyer and independent researcher in Chicago, welcomes the introduction's word change.
"I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon's] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture," said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."]"
Ah, isn't that refreshing? Some flunky from FAIR can disavow what has been deemed as good as scripture, and the conflict is supposed to go away. He must not have seen the words of Spencer W. Kimball, the man he sustained as Prophet, Seer and Revelator back in 1971, but, then, Mr. Barney probably wasn't alive back then, so, he doesn't have to believe what that 'previous' prophet of the Mormon Church said.
Here's the link for that article by Peggy Fletcher Stack.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990
It may be a PUZZLE to some, but the PUZZLE can be solved by simply looking what precipitated the word change. Did you see it as you read above? It says:
"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."
LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.
On the church's official Web site, lds.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."
Did you see the video/DVD about the DNA proving that the native Americans are not connected to any of the middle eastern peoples? That's what made this happen.
Why? If they have a prophet of God at the head of the LDS Church, why hadn't he already told them these things? Why did they wait until it was discovered by others? The answer is simple and final. The man/men at the head of the LDS Church are not prophets, seers nor revelators. 'Twas always thus, and thus 'twil always be.' Count on it.
PUZZLE #6 - Brass Plates
Nephi states repeatedly that one of his main reasons for going back to get the records was to obtain the genealogical history of his ancestors. The records they retrieved showed that Lehi's lineage came from Jacob/Israel, through Joseph. Lehi found that the record-keeper, Laban, was also a descendent of Joseph.
Were these records kept so well for each of the people living in Jerusalem? Did they contain everyone's genealogy? Even if they didn’t, there would have been a
lot of records. Can you even imagine the genealogical records of the entire city of Jerusalem recorded on brass plates? How much would they have weighed, and how
bulky were they?
The records that the boys brought back were all on brass plates. Nephi tells us that those brass plates contained not only genealogies, but also the writings of the prophets from the beginning of time down to Nephi's day (1st Nephi 3:19-20), the Law of Moses (1st Nephi 4:16), and the records of the Jews from Adam to Lehi (1st Nephi 5:11-16). That’s a lot of records. That's a lot of brass plates.
Nephi supposedly carried those brass plates from the house of Laban to a place outside the city wall, all by himself, in the dark, with Zoram at his side. No one questioned them at the city gate? No one thought it was suspicious that Nephi, dressed as Laban, was carrying all those records to a point outside the city?
His brothers were waiting outside the city wall. With all those plates, how did Nephi get past the guards? In fact, how did he get into the city in the first place? The gates were closed at night. The city wall was not something that
you could just jump over or go around. It was a major barrier. That same wall would keep Nebuchadnezzar's army at bay during the three years of the Babylonian
siege of Jerusalem just a couple of years after these events supposedly happened.
If someone went in or out of the city, they had to go thru the gate and past the guards. No mention is made of any contact with the guards. Nephi makes it sound like he and his brothers just waltzed in and out of Jerusalem like you or I might enter and leave any major city today.
It is obvious that the author of this text never saw the city of Jerusalem. His description of Nephi passing in and out of the city shows a complete ignorance of the situation about which he was writing. The text was not written by a young man from Jerusalem, but by someone who had read just enough of the Bible to have a limited idea of the layout of the holyland in those days.
Lastly, Nephi had supposedly stolen the records of the Jews and killed the record-keeper. The Jews would have sent patrols out after the thieves the very next day, and they would have scoured the countryside along every trail leading from the city. Three boys on foot would not have escaped the mounted police. Isn't that a PUZZLE?
REF: Pages 6-11
Were these records kept so well for each of the people living in Jerusalem? Did they contain everyone's genealogy? Even if they didn’t, there would have been a
lot of records. Can you even imagine the genealogical records of the entire city of Jerusalem recorded on brass plates? How much would they have weighed, and how
bulky were they?
The records that the boys brought back were all on brass plates. Nephi tells us that those brass plates contained not only genealogies, but also the writings of the prophets from the beginning of time down to Nephi's day (1st Nephi 3:19-20), the Law of Moses (1st Nephi 4:16), and the records of the Jews from Adam to Lehi (1st Nephi 5:11-16). That’s a lot of records. That's a lot of brass plates.
Nephi supposedly carried those brass plates from the house of Laban to a place outside the city wall, all by himself, in the dark, with Zoram at his side. No one questioned them at the city gate? No one thought it was suspicious that Nephi, dressed as Laban, was carrying all those records to a point outside the city?
His brothers were waiting outside the city wall. With all those plates, how did Nephi get past the guards? In fact, how did he get into the city in the first place? The gates were closed at night. The city wall was not something that
you could just jump over or go around. It was a major barrier. That same wall would keep Nebuchadnezzar's army at bay during the three years of the Babylonian
siege of Jerusalem just a couple of years after these events supposedly happened.
If someone went in or out of the city, they had to go thru the gate and past the guards. No mention is made of any contact with the guards. Nephi makes it sound like he and his brothers just waltzed in and out of Jerusalem like you or I might enter and leave any major city today.
It is obvious that the author of this text never saw the city of Jerusalem. His description of Nephi passing in and out of the city shows a complete ignorance of the situation about which he was writing. The text was not written by a young man from Jerusalem, but by someone who had read just enough of the Bible to have a limited idea of the layout of the holyland in those days.
Lastly, Nephi had supposedly stolen the records of the Jews and killed the record-keeper. The Jews would have sent patrols out after the thieves the very next day, and they would have scoured the countryside along every trail leading from the city. Three boys on foot would not have escaped the mounted police. Isn't that a PUZZLE?
REF: Pages 6-11
PUZZLE #7 - A Josephite?
Consider 1 Nephi 5:14-16.
The boys had returned to camp with the plates of brass. In the record, Lehi found that he was descended from Joseph, who was sold into Egypt. He also found that Laban (the record keeper Nephi murdered) was of that same lineage. Notice; the verse says that Laban kept the records because he was of the lineage of Joseph.
Nine hundred years before Christ, the House of Israel seceded from it's union with the House of Judah. What had been the United Kingdom of Israel under the reign
of David and Solomon, became two separate nations. The two nations were often at war with each other. They were not exactly friends.
In 721 b.c., the House of Israel fell victim to the empire of Assyria. The entire nation of Israel, the northern kingdom, was deported to Assyria to be slaves. They
never returned. They became the so-called lost ten tribes, and the ruling tribe among them was that of Ephraim, the younger son of Joseph.
At the time of the civil war, people of other tribes who wanted to stay near the temple were allowed to defect from their northern tribes and move into the territory of the kingdom of Judah. They abandoned their national heritage in the northern kingdom of Israel and dissolved into the kingdom of Judah.
The author has told us here that Lehi and Laban had lineage to Joseph. In Nephi's day, the northern kingdom had been gone to Assyria for more than 120 years, so, the
tribe of Joseph had been gone for more than 120 years. Lehi and Laban must have descended from people who had come down to live near the temple, at the time of the
civil war. Therein we find our next PUZZLE.
If your nation had been permanently divided in civil war and your half had been at war with the other half, off and on for two hundred years, would you have your records kept by someone from the other side? It would be unlikely, but notice what verse 16 says. It says that Laban was keeping the records of the Jews BECAUSE he was a descendant of Joseph. REF: Page 11 (1st Nephi 5:16)
This passage must have been written by someone who understood the nationality of the Jews to be that of all the tribes of Israel. Today, most people look at the nation of Israel, the Jews, as though they are all that's left of Israel. The author here had that same viewpoint. He didn't see any problem in having a Josephite be the record keeper for the Jews, but he even confused it more by saying that Laban kept the records BECAUSE of his lineage from Joseph. Isn't that puzzling?
Was the writer of this text ever a resident of Jerusalem. This author was confused on the tribal issue. Those who lived in Jerusalem would never have had a descendant of Joseph keeping their records.
The boys had returned to camp with the plates of brass. In the record, Lehi found that he was descended from Joseph, who was sold into Egypt. He also found that Laban (the record keeper Nephi murdered) was of that same lineage. Notice; the verse says that Laban kept the records because he was of the lineage of Joseph.
Nine hundred years before Christ, the House of Israel seceded from it's union with the House of Judah. What had been the United Kingdom of Israel under the reign
of David and Solomon, became two separate nations. The two nations were often at war with each other. They were not exactly friends.
In 721 b.c., the House of Israel fell victim to the empire of Assyria. The entire nation of Israel, the northern kingdom, was deported to Assyria to be slaves. They
never returned. They became the so-called lost ten tribes, and the ruling tribe among them was that of Ephraim, the younger son of Joseph.
At the time of the civil war, people of other tribes who wanted to stay near the temple were allowed to defect from their northern tribes and move into the territory of the kingdom of Judah. They abandoned their national heritage in the northern kingdom of Israel and dissolved into the kingdom of Judah.
The author has told us here that Lehi and Laban had lineage to Joseph. In Nephi's day, the northern kingdom had been gone to Assyria for more than 120 years, so, the
tribe of Joseph had been gone for more than 120 years. Lehi and Laban must have descended from people who had come down to live near the temple, at the time of the
civil war. Therein we find our next PUZZLE.
If your nation had been permanently divided in civil war and your half had been at war with the other half, off and on for two hundred years, would you have your records kept by someone from the other side? It would be unlikely, but notice what verse 16 says. It says that Laban was keeping the records of the Jews BECAUSE he was a descendant of Joseph. REF: Page 11 (1st Nephi 5:16)
This passage must have been written by someone who understood the nationality of the Jews to be that of all the tribes of Israel. Today, most people look at the nation of Israel, the Jews, as though they are all that's left of Israel. The author here had that same viewpoint. He didn't see any problem in having a Josephite be the record keeper for the Jews, but he even confused it more by saying that Laban kept the records BECAUSE of his lineage from Joseph. Isn't that puzzling?
Was the writer of this text ever a resident of Jerusalem. This author was confused on the tribal issue. Those who lived in Jerusalem would never have had a descendant of Joseph keeping their records.
PUZZLE #8 - His Genealogy
Having read the first five chapters of this book, we find that the story is about a family from Jerusalem who were told by god to leave Jerusalem and to journey into
the wilderness, toward an unknown destination, a promised land.
In the Old Testament book of 2nd Kings, we find that in the years just before Zedekiah became king, Jerusalem had been captured by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. Judah was no longer a sovereign nation. It was a possession of the Babylonian kingdom. It is just prior to this that we find Lehi and family making their departure under the close supervision of god.
Many days into the journey, their god tells them that they will need the records of the people, so back the boys go to get the 'plates'. No sooner do they return to their parents, than god realizes that the boys will require female partners if they are going to build a new nation somewhere. Back to the city the boys went.
What a short-sighted god they had, who would send them back twice to the city, rather than take care of these things before the left town the first time. Then, when they get back to their parents in the wilderness, the writer announces that he isn't going to give us his genealogy in his record, even though they went back specifically to get it (1st Nephi 3:3, 12).
In 43 lines Matthew (KJV) gives the genealogy from Judah (son of Jacob/Israel) down to Zedekiah at the time of the Babylonian captivity. Nephi claimed to be a descendant of Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel), Judah’s brother. Nephi also claimed that he himself lived in the days of King Zedekiah. Nephi would therefore have been contemporary with Zedekiah. Therefore, his own genealogy from Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel) should have taken about the same writing space as the genealogy from Judah (son of Jacob/Israel) that we find in Matthew, about 43 lines of print.
In 1st Nephi Chapter 6, Nephi says that he does not have room to include his genealogy, and he uses 31 lines to say so. He uses 3/4 of the space to tell us that he doesn't have enough room to include his genealogy, as it would have taken to include his genealogy. At least four other verses in 1st and 2nd Nephi repeat his refusal to include his genealogy from Joseph. This is our PUZZLE.
Why didn't he just include his genealogy? It would actually have taken less space.
Joseph Smith’s first 116 pages of text had been lost. Perhaps those pages had included a genealogy for Nephi and Lehi, but could Joseph remember the names he had
used in those lost pages? If the text were being fabricated extemporaneously, to include that genealogy in the replacement version would mean including the list of names exactly the same as the original. That would have put the authenticity of the entire book at risk. The pages that would replace the lost 116 could not be allowed to have the genealogy.
REF: Pages 11-12
the wilderness, toward an unknown destination, a promised land.
In the Old Testament book of 2nd Kings, we find that in the years just before Zedekiah became king, Jerusalem had been captured by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. Judah was no longer a sovereign nation. It was a possession of the Babylonian kingdom. It is just prior to this that we find Lehi and family making their departure under the close supervision of god.
Many days into the journey, their god tells them that they will need the records of the people, so back the boys go to get the 'plates'. No sooner do they return to their parents, than god realizes that the boys will require female partners if they are going to build a new nation somewhere. Back to the city the boys went.
What a short-sighted god they had, who would send them back twice to the city, rather than take care of these things before the left town the first time. Then, when they get back to their parents in the wilderness, the writer announces that he isn't going to give us his genealogy in his record, even though they went back specifically to get it (1st Nephi 3:3, 12).
In 43 lines Matthew (KJV) gives the genealogy from Judah (son of Jacob/Israel) down to Zedekiah at the time of the Babylonian captivity. Nephi claimed to be a descendant of Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel), Judah’s brother. Nephi also claimed that he himself lived in the days of King Zedekiah. Nephi would therefore have been contemporary with Zedekiah. Therefore, his own genealogy from Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel) should have taken about the same writing space as the genealogy from Judah (son of Jacob/Israel) that we find in Matthew, about 43 lines of print.
In 1st Nephi Chapter 6, Nephi says that he does not have room to include his genealogy, and he uses 31 lines to say so. He uses 3/4 of the space to tell us that he doesn't have enough room to include his genealogy, as it would have taken to include his genealogy. At least four other verses in 1st and 2nd Nephi repeat his refusal to include his genealogy from Joseph. This is our PUZZLE.
Why didn't he just include his genealogy? It would actually have taken less space.
Joseph Smith’s first 116 pages of text had been lost. Perhaps those pages had included a genealogy for Nephi and Lehi, but could Joseph remember the names he had
used in those lost pages? If the text were being fabricated extemporaneously, to include that genealogy in the replacement version would mean including the list of names exactly the same as the original. That would have put the authenticity of the entire book at risk. The pages that would replace the lost 116 could not be allowed to have the genealogy.
REF: Pages 11-12
PUZZLE #9 - Is God Evil?
In Genesis 1:28, God told Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the earth". It was a commandment from God, and these words are repeated in Moses 2:28 (Moses is a book from LDS text - The Pearl of Great Price). In Genesis 2:16-17, God forbade Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, words that are repeated in Moses 3:17.
They were two separate and distinct commandments from God to our first parents. Would there be any reason to believe that God would not have expected Adam and Eve to comply with both of these commandments?
1st Nephi 3:7 tells us that God gives no commandments to His children except He prepare a way for us to comply with them. The statement is all-inclusive; God would
never, ever command us to do anything without making it possible for us to obey Him. He would not require even the smallest thing of us if it were not possible for us to comply. REF: Page 6
To disobey God is to commit sin, and God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin (Alma 45:16 Page 321), yet in 2nd Nephi 2:22-23 (Page 59), the god of the Book of Mormon is shown to be a god that required Adam and Eve to commit sin.
This passage is the source of the Mormon teaching that Adam and Eve would have had no children had they not sinned against God by partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This passage teaches that they had to disobey one or the other of God's commandments. Here is the PUZZLE: What kind of god does the Book of Mormon present here? What are his character traits? What is his nature?
According to the Book of Mormon, god gave Adam and Eve no choice. They could choose to do nothing, in which case they would transgress god's requirement to have
children, or they could eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and transgress god's other commandment. Mormonism says that God gave them no way out of sin. Mormonism says that god caused them to commit sin.
The God of the Bible did no such thing. God gave these two commandments to Adam and Eve, and He wanted them to comply with both of them. They did not need to disobey one of God's commandments in order to obey the other. They did not need to eat of the tree to understand the mechanics of procreation any more than the animals
around them needed to eat from the tree for that purpose.
Nephi was right; God never requires us to do anything that we cannot do. He did not require Adam and Eve to violate His own law in order to comply with His commands. Such a doctrine would portray God as evil. Is that the nature of the god of the Book of Mormon? Do Mormons worship the one who "enticeth to sin"?
"Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually." (Moroni 7:12 Pages 521-522)
They were two separate and distinct commandments from God to our first parents. Would there be any reason to believe that God would not have expected Adam and Eve to comply with both of these commandments?
1st Nephi 3:7 tells us that God gives no commandments to His children except He prepare a way for us to comply with them. The statement is all-inclusive; God would
never, ever command us to do anything without making it possible for us to obey Him. He would not require even the smallest thing of us if it were not possible for us to comply. REF: Page 6
To disobey God is to commit sin, and God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin (Alma 45:16 Page 321), yet in 2nd Nephi 2:22-23 (Page 59), the god of the Book of Mormon is shown to be a god that required Adam and Eve to commit sin.
This passage is the source of the Mormon teaching that Adam and Eve would have had no children had they not sinned against God by partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This passage teaches that they had to disobey one or the other of God's commandments. Here is the PUZZLE: What kind of god does the Book of Mormon present here? What are his character traits? What is his nature?
According to the Book of Mormon, god gave Adam and Eve no choice. They could choose to do nothing, in which case they would transgress god's requirement to have
children, or they could eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and transgress god's other commandment. Mormonism says that God gave them no way out of sin. Mormonism says that god caused them to commit sin.
The God of the Bible did no such thing. God gave these two commandments to Adam and Eve, and He wanted them to comply with both of them. They did not need to disobey one of God's commandments in order to obey the other. They did not need to eat of the tree to understand the mechanics of procreation any more than the animals
around them needed to eat from the tree for that purpose.
Nephi was right; God never requires us to do anything that we cannot do. He did not require Adam and Eve to violate His own law in order to comply with His commands. Such a doctrine would portray God as evil. Is that the nature of the god of the Book of Mormon? Do Mormons worship the one who "enticeth to sin"?
"Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually." (Moroni 7:12 Pages 521-522)
PUZZLE #10 - The Temple
"...of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were IN GREAT ABUNDANCE" and "I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for THEY WERE NOT TO BE FOUND UPON THE LAND," (2nd Nephi 5:15-16 Page 66).
These two verses present one PUZZLE. Which is it? First precious ores are available in "GREAT ABUNDANCE", enough that he was teaching people to work with refined metals. But, then, the very next verse says there weren't any "precious things to build with. Were the precious things there or not? What was lacking?
Nephi was "exceedingly young" when he left Jerusalem (1st Nephi 2:16 Page 4). His older brothers weren't married when they left Jerusalem. What did Nephi know about building that he could have taught his people (2nd Nephi 5:15)? It's another PUZZLE. It was B.C. 588. They had all spent the last twelve years living in tents. What did this young man know about buildings?
For that matter, who was there to teach? Yet another PUZZLE. He says "my people". Which people? Anyone born since the day they had left Jerusalem behind would be under age 12. Lehi and Sarah were old. Verse 14 says that the Lamanites were already a separate people, living elsewhere.
That means that his "my people" consisted of Sam and Nephi, Ishmael and his wife and a bunch of kids under the age of 12. Are we supposed to believe that they could even build a temple, much less one like Solomon’s temple, with "exceedingly fine" workmanship?
The writer states that Nephi built a temple in the Americas. This temple would be used by these people, who he claims were Israelite. Nephi must have been special, indeed, to have been authorized to build God's earthly habitation. King David was not allowed to build the temple because he had Uriah killed. Nephi had killed Laban. Would God have allowed him to build a temple? It's another PUZZLE.
The Law of Moses was still in effect for all Israelites, so, the temple service was that of animal sacrifice. Killing animals, capturing their blood in vessels, burning their carcasses on the altar and doing all the work of the temple priests would keep any man busy. The entire tribe of Levi was needed to accomplish the work within the temple in Jerusalem. Nephi didn't have any Levites to help him. In fact, Nephi wasn't a Levite. He was a descendent of Joseph, not Levi.
Nobody in the group was a descendant from Levi, and no one was a descendant of Aaron. So, why were they allowed to be working in the temple? In Canaan, King
Saul, who was a Benjamite, once took it upon himself to make an offering in the temple. It cost him his kingdom.
God specifically stated that only the family of Aaron could function in that office, and He dedicated the tribe of Levi for service in His temple. No one else was ever
to be authorized. Nephi claimed to be a descendant of Joseph, and that tribe was not authorized to do temple work. There are many PUZZLES here.
These two verses present one PUZZLE. Which is it? First precious ores are available in "GREAT ABUNDANCE", enough that he was teaching people to work with refined metals. But, then, the very next verse says there weren't any "precious things to build with. Were the precious things there or not? What was lacking?
Nephi was "exceedingly young" when he left Jerusalem (1st Nephi 2:16 Page 4). His older brothers weren't married when they left Jerusalem. What did Nephi know about building that he could have taught his people (2nd Nephi 5:15)? It's another PUZZLE. It was B.C. 588. They had all spent the last twelve years living in tents. What did this young man know about buildings?
For that matter, who was there to teach? Yet another PUZZLE. He says "my people". Which people? Anyone born since the day they had left Jerusalem behind would be under age 12. Lehi and Sarah were old. Verse 14 says that the Lamanites were already a separate people, living elsewhere.
That means that his "my people" consisted of Sam and Nephi, Ishmael and his wife and a bunch of kids under the age of 12. Are we supposed to believe that they could even build a temple, much less one like Solomon’s temple, with "exceedingly fine" workmanship?
The writer states that Nephi built a temple in the Americas. This temple would be used by these people, who he claims were Israelite. Nephi must have been special, indeed, to have been authorized to build God's earthly habitation. King David was not allowed to build the temple because he had Uriah killed. Nephi had killed Laban. Would God have allowed him to build a temple? It's another PUZZLE.
The Law of Moses was still in effect for all Israelites, so, the temple service was that of animal sacrifice. Killing animals, capturing their blood in vessels, burning their carcasses on the altar and doing all the work of the temple priests would keep any man busy. The entire tribe of Levi was needed to accomplish the work within the temple in Jerusalem. Nephi didn't have any Levites to help him. In fact, Nephi wasn't a Levite. He was a descendent of Joseph, not Levi.
Nobody in the group was a descendant from Levi, and no one was a descendant of Aaron. So, why were they allowed to be working in the temple? In Canaan, King
Saul, who was a Benjamite, once took it upon himself to make an offering in the temple. It cost him his kingdom.
God specifically stated that only the family of Aaron could function in that office, and He dedicated the tribe of Levi for service in His temple. No one else was ever
to be authorized. Nephi claimed to be a descendant of Joseph, and that tribe was not authorized to do temple work. There are many PUZZLES here.
PUZZLE #11 - Black & White
2nd Nephi 5:21 (Page 66) tells us that God cursed these people with a "skin of blackness". In this book they are known as Lamanites. The Mormon Church teaches that these were the ancient ancestors of today's native Americans, to whom they lovingly refer as Lamanites. This passage is supposed to explain why their skin is not white.
Until 1981, a companion passage within the Book of Mormon promised that the Lamanites would regain the WHITE skin that they originally had, as soon as they became righteous enough. The words of 2nd Nephi 30:3-6 (Pages 111-112) used to say that after the Book of Mormon would be taken to these native Americans, they would turn to the Lord, and they would become WHITE and delightsome again.
You can read the old wording of this passage if you find a pre-1981 Book of Mormon. You should compare the wording of verse six in the two versions. [Pre-1981 copies are usually pretty easy to come by. They haven’t been recalled.]
If you look at 2nd Nephi 30:6 in a pre-1981 version you will notice that the old cross-reference to 2nd Nephi 5:21 has been removed. That cross-reference used to be next to the word white. Now it says pure, and the cross-reference to 2nd Nephi 5:21 has been REMOVED.
Most will soon forget that this book once said that the Lamanites would become righteous, and God would give them back their original WHITE skin. Mormonism now teaches that even though it used to say 'white' (pre-1981), it really meant purity of spirit.
Until 1981, a companion passage within the Book of Mormon promised that the Lamanites would regain the WHITE skin that they originally had, as soon as they became righteous enough. The words of 2nd Nephi 30:3-6 (Pages 111-112) used to say that after the Book of Mormon would be taken to these native Americans, they would turn to the Lord, and they would become WHITE and delightsome again.
You can read the old wording of this passage if you find a pre-1981 Book of Mormon. You should compare the wording of verse six in the two versions. [Pre-1981 copies are usually pretty easy to come by. They haven’t been recalled.]
If you look at 2nd Nephi 30:6 in a pre-1981 version you will notice that the old cross-reference to 2nd Nephi 5:21 has been removed. That cross-reference used to be next to the word white. Now it says pure, and the cross-reference to 2nd Nephi 5:21 has been REMOVED.
Most will soon forget that this book once said that the Lamanites would become righteous, and God would give them back their original WHITE skin. Mormonism now teaches that even though it used to say 'white' (pre-1981), it really meant purity of spirit.
PUZZLE #12 - His Name
"…as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name--should come among the Jews" (2nd Nephi 10:3 partial - Page 78)
Look at that phrase between the dashes again.
"for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name"
Why did the writer make this statement? That's our PUZZLE. Why didn't he just write; "...it must needs be expedient that Christ should come among the Jews"? What was he trying to clarify for us?
What word did the angel speak to Jacob that night? The angel didn't say "Christ" as we have it in English today. It had to be a word for the Savior that Jacob had not heard before, judging from his explanation in this verse. The people must not have heard this word before. In this verse it shows up as "Christ", but what was the actual word that the angel spoke to Jacob in his native Hebrew tongue?
‘Christ’ is the English transliteration of the Greek word ‘Kristos’. Why would the angel have transliterated this word into Greek for the writer? He didn't, of course.
In the Greek, ‘Kristos’ has the same meaning as the Hebrew word Mashiyack. They both mean messiah, redeemer, savior or anointed one. Did the angel say 'Mashiyack' (the Hebrew word) to Nephi? If he had, no explanation would have been necessary because Jacob knew the word Mashiyack and had used it before (2nd Nephi 6:13-14 Page 68-69).
If the angel didn't say Mashiyack, what word did he say? The angel spoke some word that Joseph Smith would translate as ‘Christ’, but a word which Jacob thought he needed to explain to us, since he had only been told the word for the first time “in the last night”.
Joseph Smith had already translated some 'reformed Egyptian' word into the word ‘Messiah’ in 1st Nephi 1:19; 10:4,5,7, 9,10,11,14,17; 12:18; 15:13 and in 2nd Nephi 1:10; 2:6,8, 26; 3:5; 6:13 and 6:14. The angel must have said something other than that word here; something new.
Would the angel have said 'Christ'? That’s what we say in English. Did Jacob then write 'C' 'h' 'r' 'i' 's' 't'? No. English wasn't invented yet.
Would the angel have given Jacob the Greek letters for Kristos; namely Kapa, rho, iota, sigma, tau, omicron and sigma again? No, again. Greek would not become the language of the world for another 600 years.
Once again we come back to the problem of the author knowing something of the Bible, but nothing of the time period about which he was writing. Had the text been written by some young resident of Jerusalem in B.C. 588, someone named Jacob, he would not have written what Joseph Smith wrote here.
The title ‘Christ’ would not have appeared in the text prior to the advent of that title in history. ‘Christ’ is a transliteration of the Greek word ‘Kristos’, a word that didn’t exist before the Greek language came into wide usage circa B.C. 300.
In all of the Old Testament, the name ‘Christ’ does not occur, because it did not exist. Perhaps Joseph Smith used it in his creative writing because he didn’t know any better? Perhaps the word 'Christ' slipped out of his mouth, and then he remembered that he was writing a story about people who lived before 'Christ' was used as the title of the Savior, but he knew his scribe had already heard him say it? What a PUZZLE!
Beyond this, the writer says: "that this [Christ] should be his name". 'Christ' is not the name of the Savior. It is his title. The angel would not have said; "that this [Christ] should be his name".
Look at that phrase between the dashes again.
"for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name"
Why did the writer make this statement? That's our PUZZLE. Why didn't he just write; "...it must needs be expedient that Christ should come among the Jews"? What was he trying to clarify for us?
What word did the angel speak to Jacob that night? The angel didn't say "Christ" as we have it in English today. It had to be a word for the Savior that Jacob had not heard before, judging from his explanation in this verse. The people must not have heard this word before. In this verse it shows up as "Christ", but what was the actual word that the angel spoke to Jacob in his native Hebrew tongue?
‘Christ’ is the English transliteration of the Greek word ‘Kristos’. Why would the angel have transliterated this word into Greek for the writer? He didn't, of course.
In the Greek, ‘Kristos’ has the same meaning as the Hebrew word Mashiyack. They both mean messiah, redeemer, savior or anointed one. Did the angel say 'Mashiyack' (the Hebrew word) to Nephi? If he had, no explanation would have been necessary because Jacob knew the word Mashiyack and had used it before (2nd Nephi 6:13-14 Page 68-69).
If the angel didn't say Mashiyack, what word did he say? The angel spoke some word that Joseph Smith would translate as ‘Christ’, but a word which Jacob thought he needed to explain to us, since he had only been told the word for the first time “in the last night”.
Joseph Smith had already translated some 'reformed Egyptian' word into the word ‘Messiah’ in 1st Nephi 1:19; 10:4,5,7, 9,10,11,14,17; 12:18; 15:13 and in 2nd Nephi 1:10; 2:6,8, 26; 3:5; 6:13 and 6:14. The angel must have said something other than that word here; something new.
Would the angel have said 'Christ'? That’s what we say in English. Did Jacob then write 'C' 'h' 'r' 'i' 's' 't'? No. English wasn't invented yet.
Would the angel have given Jacob the Greek letters for Kristos; namely Kapa, rho, iota, sigma, tau, omicron and sigma again? No, again. Greek would not become the language of the world for another 600 years.
Once again we come back to the problem of the author knowing something of the Bible, but nothing of the time period about which he was writing. Had the text been written by some young resident of Jerusalem in B.C. 588, someone named Jacob, he would not have written what Joseph Smith wrote here.
The title ‘Christ’ would not have appeared in the text prior to the advent of that title in history. ‘Christ’ is a transliteration of the Greek word ‘Kristos’, a word that didn’t exist before the Greek language came into wide usage circa B.C. 300.
In all of the Old Testament, the name ‘Christ’ does not occur, because it did not exist. Perhaps Joseph Smith used it in his creative writing because he didn’t know any better? Perhaps the word 'Christ' slipped out of his mouth, and then he remembered that he was writing a story about people who lived before 'Christ' was used as the title of the Savior, but he knew his scribe had already heard him say it? What a PUZZLE!
Beyond this, the writer says: "that this [Christ] should be his name". 'Christ' is not the name of the Savior. It is his title. The angel would not have said; "that this [Christ] should be his name".
PUZZLE #13 - Two Times Not
In 2nd Nephi 11:2 (Page 80), Nephi says that he is going to write some of the words of Isaiah into the record he is preparing. Chapters 12 through 24 of 2nd Nephi are taken directly from the King James text of Isaiah Chapters 2 through 14, though there are some words in these thirteen chapters which are not the same in the two texts.
The Mormons would claim that thee wording of 2nd Nephi chapters 12 through 24 differs from the wording of Isaiah chapters 2 through 14 because of additions, deletions and errors that occurred when the Bible was translated. Their belief is that these twelve chapters of 2nd Nephi are a perfect translation of Isaiah's original, handwritten Hebrew text.
Nephi 12:9 (page 81) appears to make more sense than does Isaiah 2:9. Both passages say; "therefore, forgive them not", but in 2nd Nephi 12:9, the word not occurs after the word boweth and after the word himself. Was this word taken out of Isaiah's original writings by the King James translators, as Mormonism claims, or did Joseph Smith add it to the text as he copied Isaiah's words into The Book of Mormon, his new book of 'scripture'? This an interesting PUZZLE, don't you think?
Don't be confused by the word mean; it just means average. In mathematics and in statistics, we still use the word that way today. Both texts are talking about the average men bowing down (or not) and the great men of Jerusalem humbling themselves (or not).
"And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not. (Isaiah 2:9)
If the average men were bowing down and the great men were humbling themselves, why would Isaiah have been asking God to; "forgive them not"? With the addition of the word not, as we find in the text of 2nd Nephi 12:9, God is being asked to "forgive them not" because they are NOT bowing down and because they are NOT humbling themselves. Doesn’t Joseph’s revision make the meaning clearer?
Doesn't this make it clear that the words of 2nd Nephi 12:9 are the actual words that Isaiah originally wrote telling God to "forgive them not" because they weren't
bowing down to Him nor humbling themselves before Him?
No, it doesn't. Isaiah WAS NOT talking about the people of Jerusalem bowing down and humbling themselves before God. He was talking about them bowing, humbling themselves and worshipping before IDOLS. Read the eight verses of chapter two which
precede verse nine.
“Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made: And the mean man boweth down, and the great man
humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.” (Isaiah 2:8-9)
Joseph Smith confused Isaiah’s original wording by adding the word not in the two places.
Why did he add the two words? Did he read the verse in Isaiah out of context. You can see that if you do that, the addition of the two words seems to make more sense. Is that what happened? It's a PUZZLE.
The Mormons would claim that thee wording of 2nd Nephi chapters 12 through 24 differs from the wording of Isaiah chapters 2 through 14 because of additions, deletions and errors that occurred when the Bible was translated. Their belief is that these twelve chapters of 2nd Nephi are a perfect translation of Isaiah's original, handwritten Hebrew text.
Nephi 12:9 (page 81) appears to make more sense than does Isaiah 2:9. Both passages say; "therefore, forgive them not", but in 2nd Nephi 12:9, the word not occurs after the word boweth and after the word himself. Was this word taken out of Isaiah's original writings by the King James translators, as Mormonism claims, or did Joseph Smith add it to the text as he copied Isaiah's words into The Book of Mormon, his new book of 'scripture'? This an interesting PUZZLE, don't you think?
Don't be confused by the word mean; it just means average. In mathematics and in statistics, we still use the word that way today. Both texts are talking about the average men bowing down (or not) and the great men of Jerusalem humbling themselves (or not).
"And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not. (Isaiah 2:9)
If the average men were bowing down and the great men were humbling themselves, why would Isaiah have been asking God to; "forgive them not"? With the addition of the word not, as we find in the text of 2nd Nephi 12:9, God is being asked to "forgive them not" because they are NOT bowing down and because they are NOT humbling themselves. Doesn’t Joseph’s revision make the meaning clearer?
Doesn't this make it clear that the words of 2nd Nephi 12:9 are the actual words that Isaiah originally wrote telling God to "forgive them not" because they weren't
bowing down to Him nor humbling themselves before Him?
No, it doesn't. Isaiah WAS NOT talking about the people of Jerusalem bowing down and humbling themselves before God. He was talking about them bowing, humbling themselves and worshipping before IDOLS. Read the eight verses of chapter two which
precede verse nine.
“Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made: And the mean man boweth down, and the great man
humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.” (Isaiah 2:8-9)
Joseph Smith confused Isaiah’s original wording by adding the word not in the two places.
Why did he add the two words? Did he read the verse in Isaiah out of context. You can see that if you do that, the addition of the two words seems to make more sense. Is that what happened? It's a PUZZLE.
PUZZLE #14 - The RED Way
Mormonism claims that the Bible was altered so much that we can't trust it, but that the Book of Mormon was hidden in a rock box on the side of a hill so that it would
be preserved for our day. God kept it from being changed by men, by keeping it away from men.
2nd Nephi 19:1 (Page 89) includes the word 'RED' in the name of a road, but the word 'RED' is not part of Isaiah 9:1 in the Bible. Did Isaiah write down the word 'RED'? Notice that this verse is a description of a place in northern Canaan, near the territories held by the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali in Old Testament times.
The 'way of the sea' is the via mares or the road along the sea. It is still the main highway passing thru the Holy Land connecting Syria with Egypt. You should find it on your Bible map.
This passage speaks specifically of Galilee. Isaiah was pointing to the spot where Jesus would begin His mortal ministry, and Matthew 4:15 quotes this verse. The 'way
of the sea' was a road that passed through Capernaum, where Jesus began His ministry. If there were a 'way of the Red sea', it would be along the Red Sea, which is 250 miles to the South, and it would a be a completely different road from the 'way of the sea'.
Why does the Book of Mormon tie this verse to the 'RED' sea? It's a PUZZLE. The RED SEA isn't where Jesus began His work. Had the author of these Book of Mormon words ever lived in Jerusalem? Did he know the difference between the Red Sea and the Sea of Galilee?
"Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in
the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 4:12-17)
As it turns out, there is no reason to believe that the word 'Red' was ever part of what Isaiah wrote down. 2nd Nephi 19:1 makes absolutely no sense when that word is inserted into it. Can we see that Joseph Smith was using the text of Isaiah, and altering it to make his new book look authentic? Did he add words here and there,
removing some and changing some, and then claim that the Bible had been altered by evil men? It's a PUZZLE alright.
There may come a time when the Mormon Church will change or eliminate this word, but until then, it will continue to prove that 2nd Nephi wasn't written by a Hebrew prophet. Anyone who had lived in Jerusalem would known the difference between the Sea of Galilee and the RED Sea.
be preserved for our day. God kept it from being changed by men, by keeping it away from men.
2nd Nephi 19:1 (Page 89) includes the word 'RED' in the name of a road, but the word 'RED' is not part of Isaiah 9:1 in the Bible. Did Isaiah write down the word 'RED'? Notice that this verse is a description of a place in northern Canaan, near the territories held by the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali in Old Testament times.
The 'way of the sea' is the via mares or the road along the sea. It is still the main highway passing thru the Holy Land connecting Syria with Egypt. You should find it on your Bible map.
This passage speaks specifically of Galilee. Isaiah was pointing to the spot where Jesus would begin His mortal ministry, and Matthew 4:15 quotes this verse. The 'way
of the sea' was a road that passed through Capernaum, where Jesus began His ministry. If there were a 'way of the Red sea', it would be along the Red Sea, which is 250 miles to the South, and it would a be a completely different road from the 'way of the sea'.
Why does the Book of Mormon tie this verse to the 'RED' sea? It's a PUZZLE. The RED SEA isn't where Jesus began His work. Had the author of these Book of Mormon words ever lived in Jerusalem? Did he know the difference between the Red Sea and the Sea of Galilee?
"Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in
the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 4:12-17)
As it turns out, there is no reason to believe that the word 'Red' was ever part of what Isaiah wrote down. 2nd Nephi 19:1 makes absolutely no sense when that word is inserted into it. Can we see that Joseph Smith was using the text of Isaiah, and altering it to make his new book look authentic? Did he add words here and there,
removing some and changing some, and then claim that the Bible had been altered by evil men? It's a PUZZLE alright.
There may come a time when the Mormon Church will change or eliminate this word, but until then, it will continue to prove that 2nd Nephi wasn't written by a Hebrew prophet. Anyone who had lived in Jerusalem would known the difference between the Sea of Galilee and the RED Sea.
PUZZLE #15 - It's Still A Lie
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:17)
Lucifer told Eve that God was a liar. Then he told her that she and Adam could "be as Gods". Would you have believed Lucifer then? Do you believe his lie now?
"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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." (Genesis 3:3-5)
Lucifer had fallen from the grace and from the presence of God, and he wanted mankind to do the same. It is only logical that he would use his own favorite aspiration as the bait with which he tempted them. He told them that they too, could "be as gods", because he had wanted to 'be as God', as we read in 2nd Nephi 24:12-14 (Pages 88-89).
Then 24:15 tells us what Lucifer got because of his desire to be like God. "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." There will never be other gods.
Why should we believe Lucifer now? It's a PUZZLE why anyone believes they will one day be a god. Is it good to want what he wanted? Do you think that godhood is your destiny? Are you really the stuff that gods are made of? You need to know that those who have that aspiration are bound for the same place as Lucifer. God said several times that there are to be no other gods, other than Him.
The idea of a man becoming a god has been around since Lucifer first pitched the idea to Eve. It was a foundational doctrine of the pagan religions and of the nations of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Rome. That this idea is found in these United States of America is not at all surprising, when you realize who first had the aspiration of becoming a God.
Consider the following passages from the text of Isaiah in which we find that God disallows any other gods.
Isaiah 43:10-12; 44:6-8; 45:5-7,12; 46:9-10
There have never been, and there never will be, any other gods. God says it over and over again. Why do you suppose He does that? People believing that men could become gods was common even in the days of Isaiah, and God denounced it, as we see here. When He said that He was the first and the last, He was saying that He was /is the first, last and only God. You will not ever 'be as God' in all of eternity.
Lucifer told Eve that God was a liar. Then he told her that she and Adam could "be as Gods". Would you have believed Lucifer then? Do you believe his lie now?
"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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." (Genesis 3:3-5)
Lucifer had fallen from the grace and from the presence of God, and he wanted mankind to do the same. It is only logical that he would use his own favorite aspiration as the bait with which he tempted them. He told them that they too, could "be as gods", because he had wanted to 'be as God', as we read in 2nd Nephi 24:12-14 (Pages 88-89).
Then 24:15 tells us what Lucifer got because of his desire to be like God. "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." There will never be other gods.
Why should we believe Lucifer now? It's a PUZZLE why anyone believes they will one day be a god. Is it good to want what he wanted? Do you think that godhood is your destiny? Are you really the stuff that gods are made of? You need to know that those who have that aspiration are bound for the same place as Lucifer. God said several times that there are to be no other gods, other than Him.
The idea of a man becoming a god has been around since Lucifer first pitched the idea to Eve. It was a foundational doctrine of the pagan religions and of the nations of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Rome. That this idea is found in these United States of America is not at all surprising, when you realize who first had the aspiration of becoming a God.
Consider the following passages from the text of Isaiah in which we find that God disallows any other gods.
Isaiah 43:10-12; 44:6-8; 45:5-7,12; 46:9-10
There have never been, and there never will be, any other gods. God says it over and over again. Why do you suppose He does that? People believing that men could become gods was common even in the days of Isaiah, and God denounced it, as we see here. When He said that He was the first and the last, He was saying that He was /is the first, last and only God. You will not ever 'be as God' in all of eternity.
PUZZLE #16 - No Can Do
"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace
that we are saved, after all we can do. (2nd Nephi 25:23 Pages 99-100)
We must 'believe in Christ' in order to be 'reconciled to God. This passage starts out as a statement of salvation by grace, much like the words of Paul's letter
to the church at Ephesus.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)
2nd Nephi 25:23 starts out with the truth, but those last five words of the verse cause an irreconcilable contradiction within the verse itself, and they creat a PUZZLE. Which is it?
Is our reconciliation to God based on our belief in Christ, or is it based on "all we can do". This verse presents the idea that the grace of God comes into play only after we have done everything we can do. What kind of grace is that supposed to be?
The grace presented here is contingent upon us first doing everything we can do; it is grace that we can earn, grace that we can merit by doing something on our own. It is not grace at all. Grace is when we are shown favor in spite of the fact that we have not earned favor.
This passage teaches a contradiction much like the contradiction expressed in the third Article of the Mormon Faith, which says;
"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ' all mankind may be saved' by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."
Again, it's a PUZZLE. Which is it? Are men saved by obedience to laws and ordinances or by the Atonement of Christ? If we could have been saved by obedience to laws and ordinances, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement for us. He atoned for us because we cannot be saved by obedience to laws and ordinances.
The passage here would be more accurate if we added one word to the ene of the verse so that it reads as follows:
'For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace
that we are saved, after all, we can do nothing.'
God does not expect us to do 'all we can do' before His atonement can save us. He saves us while we are still sinners, and then He changes us.
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
that we are saved, after all we can do. (2nd Nephi 25:23 Pages 99-100)
We must 'believe in Christ' in order to be 'reconciled to God. This passage starts out as a statement of salvation by grace, much like the words of Paul's letter
to the church at Ephesus.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)
2nd Nephi 25:23 starts out with the truth, but those last five words of the verse cause an irreconcilable contradiction within the verse itself, and they creat a PUZZLE. Which is it?
Is our reconciliation to God based on our belief in Christ, or is it based on "all we can do". This verse presents the idea that the grace of God comes into play only after we have done everything we can do. What kind of grace is that supposed to be?
The grace presented here is contingent upon us first doing everything we can do; it is grace that we can earn, grace that we can merit by doing something on our own. It is not grace at all. Grace is when we are shown favor in spite of the fact that we have not earned favor.
This passage teaches a contradiction much like the contradiction expressed in the third Article of the Mormon Faith, which says;
"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ' all mankind may be saved' by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."
Again, it's a PUZZLE. Which is it? Are men saved by obedience to laws and ordinances or by the Atonement of Christ? If we could have been saved by obedience to laws and ordinances, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement for us. He atoned for us because we cannot be saved by obedience to laws and ordinances.
The passage here would be more accurate if we added one word to the ene of the verse so that it reads as follows:
'For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace
that we are saved, after all, we can do nothing.'
God does not expect us to do 'all we can do' before His atonement can save us. He saves us while we are still sinners, and then He changes us.
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
PUZZLE #17 - White to Pure
Most faithful Mormons would tell you that the only changes to the Book of Mormon have been in punctuation, spelling or grammar, but in 1981 the word white in 2nd Nephi 30:6 was replaced with the word pure. One single word. With that one little change an entire doctrine was removed from the teachings of the Mormon Church.
Even today, older Mormons will tell you that someday, the native Americans are going to become white again. It is a doctrine that these people were taught from childhood. They still believe it. Most Mormons are not even aware that this change was made to 2nd Nephi 30:6.
Mormons who have been made aware of this change quickly claim a similarity between the word white and the word pure, and they may even say that the meaning of the verse is unchanged. They might tell you that in the spiritual realm, white and pure are practically the same idea.
"And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and delightsome people." 2nd Nephi 30:6 (1981 version) [emphasis mine]
"And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." 2nd Nephi 30:6 (pre-1981 version) [emphasis mine]
While it may be true that in the spiritual realm 'white' is practically the same as 'pure', the pre-1981 text, which I will paste in here, did not speak of anything spiritual. This passage is about skin color.
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." 2nd Nephi 5:21 [emphasis mine]
With 2nd Nephi 30:6 reading the way it did (pre-1981 above) for more than a century, the cross-reference used to send you to 2nd Nephi 5:21. Do you believe that the words skin of blackness in 2nd Nephi 5:21 are speaking about the spiritual condition of these people? Of course not. 2nd Nephi 5:21 remains unchanged as yet (2007).
Read 3rd Nephi 2:12-15, and you will find that when one group of Lamanites (whose skins were dark from the curse) repented and became sufficiently righteous, their skin color reverted back to white. 3rd Nephi 2:15 says:
"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;" (3rd Nephi 2:15)
It was taught from every pulpit and in every Mormon Sunday school and seminary classroom; The Lamanites of our day (supposedly the native Americans) would one day become righteous and turn white. Even today, many Mormons will point to some group of native Americans or to some native American who they know and make a remark about how they are actually becoming whiter.
It was easy for the writers of the Book of Mormon to have the ancient Lamanites become white. Nobody could prove that they hadn’t. Getting today's native Americans to turn white is beyond man's capability, and as far as the Mormon Church goes, it is apparently beyond the capability of their god. What he could do in the text of 3rd Nephi, he cannot do today, so the text had to be changed. In 1981, it was changed.
Perhaps the LDS church has found that, in the 21st century, the native Americans don't want a change of skin color. They are proud of who they are, and their skin color is part of their connection to their rich heritage as a people.
Even today, older Mormons will tell you that someday, the native Americans are going to become white again. It is a doctrine that these people were taught from childhood. They still believe it. Most Mormons are not even aware that this change was made to 2nd Nephi 30:6.
Mormons who have been made aware of this change quickly claim a similarity between the word white and the word pure, and they may even say that the meaning of the verse is unchanged. They might tell you that in the spiritual realm, white and pure are practically the same idea.
"And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and delightsome people." 2nd Nephi 30:6 (1981 version) [emphasis mine]
"And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." 2nd Nephi 30:6 (pre-1981 version) [emphasis mine]
While it may be true that in the spiritual realm 'white' is practically the same as 'pure', the pre-1981 text, which I will paste in here, did not speak of anything spiritual. This passage is about skin color.
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." 2nd Nephi 5:21 [emphasis mine]
With 2nd Nephi 30:6 reading the way it did (pre-1981 above) for more than a century, the cross-reference used to send you to 2nd Nephi 5:21. Do you believe that the words skin of blackness in 2nd Nephi 5:21 are speaking about the spiritual condition of these people? Of course not. 2nd Nephi 5:21 remains unchanged as yet (2007).
Read 3rd Nephi 2:12-15, and you will find that when one group of Lamanites (whose skins were dark from the curse) repented and became sufficiently righteous, their skin color reverted back to white. 3rd Nephi 2:15 says:
"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;" (3rd Nephi 2:15)
It was taught from every pulpit and in every Mormon Sunday school and seminary classroom; The Lamanites of our day (supposedly the native Americans) would one day become righteous and turn white. Even today, many Mormons will point to some group of native Americans or to some native American who they know and make a remark about how they are actually becoming whiter.
It was easy for the writers of the Book of Mormon to have the ancient Lamanites become white. Nobody could prove that they hadn’t. Getting today's native Americans to turn white is beyond man's capability, and as far as the Mormon Church goes, it is apparently beyond the capability of their god. What he could do in the text of 3rd Nephi, he cannot do today, so the text had to be changed. In 1981, it was changed.
Perhaps the LDS church has found that, in the 21st century, the native Americans don't want a change of skin color. They are proud of who they are, and their skin color is part of their connection to their rich heritage as a people.
PUZZLE #18 - One God Again
2nd Nephi 31:21 does not say that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are 'one in purpose', and it does not say that they are 'one'. It says that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are 'ONE GOD'. The Book of Mormon teaches the tri-une God, but Mormonism does not. What a PUZZLE this is. Mormonism teaches that Father and Son are two separate Gods with physical bodies and that the Holy Ghost is a third God, a personage of spirit.
You will want to read some other passages from the Book of Mormon which teach that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ONE GOD. Mosiah 15:1-5 (Pages 175-176); Alma 11:26-29, 38-39, 44 (Pages 235-237); Mormon 7:7 (Page 480) Also, the last line of "The Testimony of the Three Witnesses" near the front of the Book of Mormon. Also read Doctrine and Covenants: 20:28
Most Mormons will respond that these passages simply mean that the three are one in purpose. I like to tell them that I have two brothers. Sometimes people might describe us as being 'one' or as being 'one in purpose', but never does anyone describe the three of us as being "one brother".
Each Book of Mormon passage listed above describes Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being ONE GOD. If they were three separate Gods, the text would NOT call them ONE GOD. Additionally, NOWHERE in the Book of Mormon will you find even one verse that says that they are three Gods, as Mormons believe.
Was the Book of Mormon written by a team of men who lived in the eastern part of the United States of America in the early 1800s? Were they Christians? Was their theology Christian theology?
Smith, Harris, Cowdary. Each of these three men came from a Christian background where he would have been taught that the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost are all one and the same God. Did each of these men contribute his understanding and skills to the project?
Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon by himself. He contributed his vivid and well-exercised imagination. He was a skilled story teller, as documented in his own journal and that of his mother.
Oliver Cowdery was skilled in both reading and writing. Probably more important was his acquaintance with, Ethan Smith, author of a book entitled; "A View Of The Hebrews." In 1820, "A View Of The Hebrews" was in its 2nd printing. It was the research and thesis of Ethan Smith, addressing his theory that the American Indians
were descended from Hebrews, who came to this continent centuries before the time of Jesus Christ. This theme became the claim and story of the Book of Mormon. Was that just a coincidence? It's a PUZZLE.
You will want to read some other passages from the Book of Mormon which teach that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ONE GOD. Mosiah 15:1-5 (Pages 175-176); Alma 11:26-29, 38-39, 44 (Pages 235-237); Mormon 7:7 (Page 480) Also, the last line of "The Testimony of the Three Witnesses" near the front of the Book of Mormon. Also read Doctrine and Covenants: 20:28
Most Mormons will respond that these passages simply mean that the three are one in purpose. I like to tell them that I have two brothers. Sometimes people might describe us as being 'one' or as being 'one in purpose', but never does anyone describe the three of us as being "one brother".
Each Book of Mormon passage listed above describes Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being ONE GOD. If they were three separate Gods, the text would NOT call them ONE GOD. Additionally, NOWHERE in the Book of Mormon will you find even one verse that says that they are three Gods, as Mormons believe.
Was the Book of Mormon written by a team of men who lived in the eastern part of the United States of America in the early 1800s? Were they Christians? Was their theology Christian theology?
Smith, Harris, Cowdary. Each of these three men came from a Christian background where he would have been taught that the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost are all one and the same God. Did each of these men contribute his understanding and skills to the project?
Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon by himself. He contributed his vivid and well-exercised imagination. He was a skilled story teller, as documented in his own journal and that of his mother.
Oliver Cowdery was skilled in both reading and writing. Probably more important was his acquaintance with, Ethan Smith, author of a book entitled; "A View Of The Hebrews." In 1820, "A View Of The Hebrews" was in its 2nd printing. It was the research and thesis of Ethan Smith, addressing his theory that the American Indians
were descended from Hebrews, who came to this continent centuries before the time of Jesus Christ. This theme became the claim and story of the Book of Mormon. Was that just a coincidence? It's a PUZZLE.
PUZZLE #19 - David's Wives
Consider the following passage found in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a book containing 'revelations' that Joseph supposedly received from God.
"David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;"
(D & C 132:39)
It says that David was given his many wives and concubines by God. Compare that idea with the following one the book of Jacob, in the Book of Mormon.
"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." (Jacob 2:24, Page 121)
David's many wives were an abomination to God.
Anyone with their eyes open can see that these two passages say exactly opposite things. Seeing the two verses of LDS scripture right next to each other presents us with a real PUZZLE. Which one is the truth? The first one says that David's wives were not only okay with God, but that He gave those women to David. The second one
says that God saw David's polygamy as an abomination. Which, if either, can you seriously consider to be the word of God? Which passage came by way of a prophet?
This is not a question of WHEN polygamy might have been okay with God. This is not a question of WHERE polygamy might have been okay with God. This is not a question of WITH WHOM polygamy might have been okay with God. This is about the polygamy of one man, King David, in biblical times, in the kingdom of Israel. Both passages are about the polygamy of the very same man, in the very same place, at the very same time in history, and the two passages contradict each other. What a PUZZLE.
It was 1830 when Joseph Smith and his associates presented the Book of Mormon to the world. The words of Jacob 2:24 were long since forgotten by the time that Joseph Smith brought polygamy to Mormonism. Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants now justified his own polygamy as well as the polygamy of many Mormon men. Was verse 39 there to insinuate that God approved of Mormon polygamy?
Whether or not God ever approved of men being married to more than one woman is not up for debate here. The only thing we need to observe is the absolute and direct contradiction of two documents, each of which Mormonism claims to be the Word of God, scripture.
What does this contradiction mean about the claims of Mormonism? Did a prophet of God give them to the world? Was he a prophet? What is the actual source of this confusion, contradiction and chaos? Is it of God? No. I think it is not.
"David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;"
(D & C 132:39)
It says that David was given his many wives and concubines by God. Compare that idea with the following one the book of Jacob, in the Book of Mormon.
"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." (Jacob 2:24, Page 121)
David's many wives were an abomination to God.
Anyone with their eyes open can see that these two passages say exactly opposite things. Seeing the two verses of LDS scripture right next to each other presents us with a real PUZZLE. Which one is the truth? The first one says that David's wives were not only okay with God, but that He gave those women to David. The second one
says that God saw David's polygamy as an abomination. Which, if either, can you seriously consider to be the word of God? Which passage came by way of a prophet?
This is not a question of WHEN polygamy might have been okay with God. This is not a question of WHERE polygamy might have been okay with God. This is not a question of WITH WHOM polygamy might have been okay with God. This is about the polygamy of one man, King David, in biblical times, in the kingdom of Israel. Both passages are about the polygamy of the very same man, in the very same place, at the very same time in history, and the two passages contradict each other. What a PUZZLE.
It was 1830 when Joseph Smith and his associates presented the Book of Mormon to the world. The words of Jacob 2:24 were long since forgotten by the time that Joseph Smith brought polygamy to Mormonism. Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants now justified his own polygamy as well as the polygamy of many Mormon men. Was verse 39 there to insinuate that God approved of Mormon polygamy?
Whether or not God ever approved of men being married to more than one woman is not up for debate here. The only thing we need to observe is the absolute and direct contradiction of two documents, each of which Mormonism claims to be the Word of God, scripture.
What does this contradiction mean about the claims of Mormonism? Did a prophet of God give them to the world? Was he a prophet? What is the actual source of this confusion, contradiction and chaos? Is it of God? No. I think it is not.
PUZZLE #20 - Body or Spirit
"And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth."
(Mosiah 15:4 Page 176)
The writer is speaking of our Eternal Father in heaven. Notice the phrase 'they are one God'. The word 'they' refers back to verses two and three where it is speaking of the Father and the Son. It says that THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE GOD. It doesn't say that they are one in purpose. We've seen this PUZZLE before, haven't we?
It adds that the God that 'they are' is the 'ETERNAL FATHER OF HEAVEN. It doesn't say that there are two Gods, and the one is the son of the other, and the son would be coming to earth to redeem his people. It says that the one who would come to earth to redeem us, would be the ETERNAL FATHER.
It is a beautiful passage of the true relationship between Jesus Christ and our Father in heaven. Verse one says that 'God himself' would come to earth to 'redeem his people'. Verse two says that He would be called the Son of God because 'He dwelleth in flesh'. He, our Eternal Father in heaven, would dwell in a body of flesh and be known as the Son of God.
That means that our Eternal Father in Heaven doesn't have a body of flesh. It's the body that the Son has that distinguishes him from the Father in this passage. Did Joseph Smith understood their relationship in this way when he wrote this passage, and when he wrote his 'Lectures on Faith'? A segment of Lecture #5 is presented as follows:
"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space - They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;... and is called the Son because of the flesh." (Joseph Smith, Feb 17th, 1835)
After viewing these two documents from the pen of Joseph Smith, one is led to ask why Mormonism teaches a doctrine so completely opposite. Perhaps this is why:
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." (D & C Sec. 130:22)
In 1843, section 130 was added to the Doctrine and Covenants. In the 1843 version, God the Father would have a body that He hadn't had in previous editions of the book. He would have the body that was absent when Joseph wrote the Lectures on Faith back in 1835. Did God change? It's a PUZZLE.
Of particular interest should be the phrase; "a personage of Spirit". In the 1835 Lectures on Faith, this phrase is applied to God the Father. In the 1843 revelation recorded as Section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants, this phrase is applied to "the Holy Ghost".
(Mosiah 15:4 Page 176)
The writer is speaking of our Eternal Father in heaven. Notice the phrase 'they are one God'. The word 'they' refers back to verses two and three where it is speaking of the Father and the Son. It says that THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE GOD. It doesn't say that they are one in purpose. We've seen this PUZZLE before, haven't we?
It adds that the God that 'they are' is the 'ETERNAL FATHER OF HEAVEN. It doesn't say that there are two Gods, and the one is the son of the other, and the son would be coming to earth to redeem his people. It says that the one who would come to earth to redeem us, would be the ETERNAL FATHER.
It is a beautiful passage of the true relationship between Jesus Christ and our Father in heaven. Verse one says that 'God himself' would come to earth to 'redeem his people'. Verse two says that He would be called the Son of God because 'He dwelleth in flesh'. He, our Eternal Father in heaven, would dwell in a body of flesh and be known as the Son of God.
That means that our Eternal Father in Heaven doesn't have a body of flesh. It's the body that the Son has that distinguishes him from the Father in this passage. Did Joseph Smith understood their relationship in this way when he wrote this passage, and when he wrote his 'Lectures on Faith'? A segment of Lecture #5 is presented as follows:
"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space - They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;... and is called the Son because of the flesh." (Joseph Smith, Feb 17th, 1835)
After viewing these two documents from the pen of Joseph Smith, one is led to ask why Mormonism teaches a doctrine so completely opposite. Perhaps this is why:
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." (D & C Sec. 130:22)
In 1843, section 130 was added to the Doctrine and Covenants. In the 1843 version, God the Father would have a body that He hadn't had in previous editions of the book. He would have the body that was absent when Joseph wrote the Lectures on Faith back in 1835. Did God change? It's a PUZZLE.
Of particular interest should be the phrase; "a personage of Spirit". In the 1835 Lectures on Faith, this phrase is applied to God the Father. In the 1843 revelation recorded as Section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants, this phrase is applied to "the Holy Ghost".
PUZZLE #21 - Born In A Coma
Let's overlook the fact that the story in Mosiah 27 (Pages 200-201) looks remarkably similar to that of the conversion of Saul/Paul in the New Testament. Many stories in the Book of Mormon look like the familiar stories of the Bible. Were they just patterned after Bible accounts? That's a PUZZLE for another time.
Notice what happened to Alma in Mosiah 27:23-24. In one moment he is persecuting the believers, and in the next, he is on the ground, unconscious. He is out cold for a few days, and when he revives, he declares that he has "repented", he has been "redeemed of the Lord" and he has been "born of the spirit".
When did he get baptized in water? That's part of this PUZZLE. Mormonism demands that a water baptism proceeds being born of the spirit. Mormonism teaches that John 3:5 is talking about two baptisms, the first in water, and the second in and by the Spirit. It also claims that the spiritual baptism cannot happen unless men of authority lay their hands on your head to confer it as a gift.
When did these things happen to Alma? The text here states quite clearly that he jumped up and began to speak, and what he said was that he was "born of the spirit".
We should notice that the same thing happened to Paul, but after he had been born of the Spirit, he was told to go and be baptized in water. His water baptism was a proclamation of his faith in and identification with the Lord, and it followed his spiritual rebirth. Let's look at what Jesus told Nicodemus, seeing as how we brough it up and being as how the Mormons believe that it mandates the order of these things.
"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2) The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:1-6)
It is clear that this passage from the gospel of John is speaking of two births, not two baptisms. The first birth (of the water) is our birth into this world from the bag of water in our mother's womb. The second birth is "of the spirit", and it needs neither the 'laying on of hands' nor a previous baptism in water.
The birth of the spirit comes when, as Paul, we repent and accept Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. Our baptism in water often follows as we publicly proclaim
what has happened within us.
Notice what happened to Alma in Mosiah 27:23-24. In one moment he is persecuting the believers, and in the next, he is on the ground, unconscious. He is out cold for a few days, and when he revives, he declares that he has "repented", he has been "redeemed of the Lord" and he has been "born of the spirit".
When did he get baptized in water? That's part of this PUZZLE. Mormonism demands that a water baptism proceeds being born of the spirit. Mormonism teaches that John 3:5 is talking about two baptisms, the first in water, and the second in and by the Spirit. It also claims that the spiritual baptism cannot happen unless men of authority lay their hands on your head to confer it as a gift.
When did these things happen to Alma? The text here states quite clearly that he jumped up and began to speak, and what he said was that he was "born of the spirit".
We should notice that the same thing happened to Paul, but after he had been born of the Spirit, he was told to go and be baptized in water. His water baptism was a proclamation of his faith in and identification with the Lord, and it followed his spiritual rebirth. Let's look at what Jesus told Nicodemus, seeing as how we brough it up and being as how the Mormons believe that it mandates the order of these things.
"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2) The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:1-6)
It is clear that this passage from the gospel of John is speaking of two births, not two baptisms. The first birth (of the water) is our birth into this world from the bag of water in our mother's womb. The second birth is "of the spirit", and it needs neither the 'laying on of hands' nor a previous baptism in water.
The birth of the spirit comes when, as Paul, we repent and accept Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. Our baptism in water often follows as we publicly proclaim
what has happened within us.
PUZZLE #22 - The Two Sticks
"And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, \who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren." Alma (10:3 Page 232)
For years, LDS missionaries have called the Bible and Book of Mormon they carry their 'Sticks'. This endearing term comes from the Mormon view of Ezekiel 37:16-18. But in that passage Ezekiel says;
"Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon
it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand."
For Mormons, the first stick, the one for Judah is the Bible. The second stick, the one for Joseph is the Book of Mormon, and the writing on each of the sticks is the written word of God. Is this interpretation of the passage really valid? A simple look at the rest of the chapter shows us that the Mormon view cannot be what was
intended by the author. Ezekiel 37:24 states:
"And David my servant shall be king over them;".
The Mormon view would have David being king over two books. It's a PUZZLE.
It also says "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim". Does the Book of Mormon fit this criteria? Nephi, Mormon and Lehi were descendants of Joseph, but through the
older son, Manasseh, not through Ephraim, the younger son. Look at Alma 10:3. For this reason the patriarchal blessing of the native Americans given in the Mormon Church always gives their lineage through Manasseh, not Ephraim.
Not only do the supposed authors of the Book of Mormon never claim lineage thru Ephraim, but they do claim it through his brother Manasseh. Jacob/Israel gave the birthright blessings to Ephraim who was the younger brother of Manasseh. If the Nephites and Lamanites had been of Ephraim's lineage, they would have laid claim to those birthright blessings and it would have been part of their record.
Other than in the passages of Isaiah which the writer copied into 2nd Nephi, the only occurrence of the name Ephraim is as a hill named by the Jaredites in Ether 7:9 (Page 499), many centuries before Jacob, Joseph and Ephraim were even born.
Ezekiel's prophecy tells how God will reunite Judah and Ephraim, the divided kingdoms of Israel, and make them into one kingdom again. Ezekiel's sticks were only a visual aid that he used to explain God's prophecy concerning that reunion as he was speaking to the people of his day. The Book of Mormon isn’t the stick of Ephraim.
For years, LDS missionaries have called the Bible and Book of Mormon they carry their 'Sticks'. This endearing term comes from the Mormon view of Ezekiel 37:16-18. But in that passage Ezekiel says;
"Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon
it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand."
For Mormons, the first stick, the one for Judah is the Bible. The second stick, the one for Joseph is the Book of Mormon, and the writing on each of the sticks is the written word of God. Is this interpretation of the passage really valid? A simple look at the rest of the chapter shows us that the Mormon view cannot be what was
intended by the author. Ezekiel 37:24 states:
"And David my servant shall be king over them;".
The Mormon view would have David being king over two books. It's a PUZZLE.
It also says "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim". Does the Book of Mormon fit this criteria? Nephi, Mormon and Lehi were descendants of Joseph, but through the
older son, Manasseh, not through Ephraim, the younger son. Look at Alma 10:3. For this reason the patriarchal blessing of the native Americans given in the Mormon Church always gives their lineage through Manasseh, not Ephraim.
Not only do the supposed authors of the Book of Mormon never claim lineage thru Ephraim, but they do claim it through his brother Manasseh. Jacob/Israel gave the birthright blessings to Ephraim who was the younger brother of Manasseh. If the Nephites and Lamanites had been of Ephraim's lineage, they would have laid claim to those birthright blessings and it would have been part of their record.
Other than in the passages of Isaiah which the writer copied into 2nd Nephi, the only occurrence of the name Ephraim is as a hill named by the Jaredites in Ether 7:9 (Page 499), many centuries before Jacob, Joseph and Ephraim were even born.
Ezekiel's prophecy tells how God will reunite Judah and Ephraim, the divided kingdoms of Israel, and make them into one kingdom again. Ezekiel's sticks were only a visual aid that he used to explain God's prophecy concerning that reunion as he was speaking to the people of his day. The Book of Mormon isn’t the stick of Ephraim.
PUZZLE #23 - On His Name
Consider Alma 11:40-41 (Page 236-237)
Verse 40 explains that Christ would be coming to earth to provide eternal life for those who "believe on his name". The last part of that verse tells us that salvation
and eternal life are not going to be had by all people. It says; "these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else."
Verse 41 then tells us about those who are not saved and do not gain eternal life. It refers to them as "the wicked" and it says they will "remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death." The only effect that Christ will have on these people is that they will resurrect, "loosing of the bands of death", but they are not among those who get salvation and eternal life.
The passage divides humanity into two groups, the saved and the wicked; those who gain eternal life and those who will only be resurrected. The dividing line is also stated clearly. Those who will be saved and gain eternal life are those who "believe on his name".
There are millions who do not believe on Him. The entire muslim world knows all about Him, but they also believe that to die while murdering Christians will take them straight to heaven. They do not believe on His name, and neither do the vast peoples of the rest of the world.
This passage correctly teaches that those who "believe on his name" are no longer wicked; they are redeemed, and that is because He has taken upon Him "the transgressions of those who believe on his name". At the point in time when they believed "on his name", He took their transgressions from them, and they no longer have them. He came "into the world to redeem his people", and He did just that for all those who "believe on his name".
Now the PUZZLE here is that this is not what Mormonism teaches.
Redemption is an act of payment. Christ came to earth "to redeem his people" by making the payment for their sin. It does not say that He came to redeem all people, although He makes that offer to all of us. It says that He came to redeem "his people", and those who do not believe on Him are not His people. He wants us all to become His people by believing on His name, but sadly, multiplied millions do not; and multiplied millions will not believe on His name. They will not be redeemed, but will be those which this verse calls "the wicked". What's in store for them?
Only "the wicked" will stand before God and be judged according to their works. When God looks at the redeemed, He sees no sin because their sin was taken from them. It is no longer a burden for them. Christ carried it to the cross and paid the price for it. He paid for all the sin of all humanity. He invites all of us to
"believe on his name", be saved and receive eternal life.
Verse 40 explains that Christ would be coming to earth to provide eternal life for those who "believe on his name". The last part of that verse tells us that salvation
and eternal life are not going to be had by all people. It says; "these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else."
Verse 41 then tells us about those who are not saved and do not gain eternal life. It refers to them as "the wicked" and it says they will "remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death." The only effect that Christ will have on these people is that they will resurrect, "loosing of the bands of death", but they are not among those who get salvation and eternal life.
The passage divides humanity into two groups, the saved and the wicked; those who gain eternal life and those who will only be resurrected. The dividing line is also stated clearly. Those who will be saved and gain eternal life are those who "believe on his name".
There are millions who do not believe on Him. The entire muslim world knows all about Him, but they also believe that to die while murdering Christians will take them straight to heaven. They do not believe on His name, and neither do the vast peoples of the rest of the world.
This passage correctly teaches that those who "believe on his name" are no longer wicked; they are redeemed, and that is because He has taken upon Him "the transgressions of those who believe on his name". At the point in time when they believed "on his name", He took their transgressions from them, and they no longer have them. He came "into the world to redeem his people", and He did just that for all those who "believe on his name".
Now the PUZZLE here is that this is not what Mormonism teaches.
Redemption is an act of payment. Christ came to earth "to redeem his people" by making the payment for their sin. It does not say that He came to redeem all people, although He makes that offer to all of us. It says that He came to redeem "his people", and those who do not believe on Him are not His people. He wants us all to become His people by believing on His name, but sadly, multiplied millions do not; and multiplied millions will not believe on His name. They will not be redeemed, but will be those which this verse calls "the wicked". What's in store for them?
Only "the wicked" will stand before God and be judged according to their works. When God looks at the redeemed, He sees no sin because their sin was taken from them. It is no longer a burden for them. Christ carried it to the cross and paid the price for it. He paid for all the sin of all humanity. He invites all of us to
"believe on his name", be saved and receive eternal life.
PUZZLE #24 - The Great Spirit
Those who are acquainted with the race of people who lived on the American continents since before the white men came here, you may call them Indians or native Americans, know that they refer to their supreme being as the 'great spirit'. This is their expression for what the white man calls 'God'. Why is that? Why don't the
native Americans refer to him as 'great exalted man'? Do they believe that God is a spirit?
The primary claim of the Book of Mormon is that the origin of these native Americans is a Hebrew family transplanted here by an act of God. In time that family was split into two factions, one wicked, and the other righteous. The wicked ones (Lamanites) were cursed with a dark skin, later became today's native Americans. The righteous (Nephites) were allowed to keep their white skin, but the story says that they were exterminated by the Lamanites.
In two passages (Alma 18:26-28 Page 255 & Alma 22:9-11 Page 264), the missionaries speak to two prominent members of the Lamanite race, trying to teach them about God. In each account, the missionary allows his listener to continue in the belief
that God is a Spirit. Neither missionary explains that God is really an exalted man with a body as tangible as man's. Isn't that a genuine PUZZLE, given that Mormonism believes that God is an exalted man, not a Spirit?
If the two missionaries had believed (as the Mormons do) that God is an exalted man, why didn't they correct that errant concept? Did the missionaries ever tell them that God wasn't really a 'spirit'? No.
When Joseph Smith and his associates produced the Book of Mormon, they still believed that God is a Spirit. They had been raised as Christians, knowing the text of John 4:24. As late as 1835, Joseph Smith was still teaching that God the Father is a personage of Spirit. This can be seen in his vivid description of God in Lecture #5 of the Lectures on Faith (see post entitled "Body or Spirit" elsewhere in this blog).
In 1843, section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants was published, and it said that God had a body as tangible as man's, but in 1835, the God that Joseph Smith worshipped was still a Spirit.
Is it possible that Joseph Smith never saw God in 1820 or any other time? Is it possible that God was the 'Great Spirit' for the Alma's native Americans because the writer believed Him to be a Spirit? Is it possible that because Joseph Smith believed that God was a Spirit, and because the native Americans believed that God is a Spirit, that Joseph wrote these two passages into his Book of Mormon in 1830, in order to link together the Lamanites of his book, the native Americans of his day, and the Hebrews of the Old Testament?
He had the Lamanites learning something about God that he believed was true. He had them learning that God is a Spirit, just like Jesus said in John 4:24. Unfortunately, that is not what Mormonism teaches.
native Americans refer to him as 'great exalted man'? Do they believe that God is a spirit?
The primary claim of the Book of Mormon is that the origin of these native Americans is a Hebrew family transplanted here by an act of God. In time that family was split into two factions, one wicked, and the other righteous. The wicked ones (Lamanites) were cursed with a dark skin, later became today's native Americans. The righteous (Nephites) were allowed to keep their white skin, but the story says that they were exterminated by the Lamanites.
In two passages (Alma 18:26-28 Page 255 & Alma 22:9-11 Page 264), the missionaries speak to two prominent members of the Lamanite race, trying to teach them about God. In each account, the missionary allows his listener to continue in the belief
that God is a Spirit. Neither missionary explains that God is really an exalted man with a body as tangible as man's. Isn't that a genuine PUZZLE, given that Mormonism believes that God is an exalted man, not a Spirit?
If the two missionaries had believed (as the Mormons do) that God is an exalted man, why didn't they correct that errant concept? Did the missionaries ever tell them that God wasn't really a 'spirit'? No.
When Joseph Smith and his associates produced the Book of Mormon, they still believed that God is a Spirit. They had been raised as Christians, knowing the text of John 4:24. As late as 1835, Joseph Smith was still teaching that God the Father is a personage of Spirit. This can be seen in his vivid description of God in Lecture #5 of the Lectures on Faith (see post entitled "Body or Spirit" elsewhere in this blog).
In 1843, section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants was published, and it said that God had a body as tangible as man's, but in 1835, the God that Joseph Smith worshipped was still a Spirit.
Is it possible that Joseph Smith never saw God in 1820 or any other time? Is it possible that God was the 'Great Spirit' for the Alma's native Americans because the writer believed Him to be a Spirit? Is it possible that because Joseph Smith believed that God was a Spirit, and because the native Americans believed that God is a Spirit, that Joseph wrote these two passages into his Book of Mormon in 1830, in order to link together the Lamanites of his book, the native Americans of his day, and the Hebrews of the Old Testament?
He had the Lamanites learning something about God that he believed was true. He had them learning that God is a Spirit, just like Jesus said in John 4:24. Unfortunately, that is not what Mormonism teaches.
PUZZLE #25 - Out Of Time
Alma 34:35 (Page 295) says that if you have not repented at the time of your death, the devil "doth seal you his". Verse 34 tells us that he is talking about the death that takes us "out of this life". He is speaking of the time when we die, at the end of our mortal life on earth.
Verse 34 says that our spirit won't change when we die, and verse 33 says; we "cannot repent" after we die; it will be too late. It says that when we get to that day, we cannot claim that we want to repent. The time to repent will have passed us by. This passage in Alma teaches that dead people cannot repent, and that because their spirit will not change, they won't want to.
That is reall PUZZLING!
Temple work (baptism, endowment, temple marriage) is regularly done for the deceased relatives of devout Mormons. Mormonism teaches that after they die, they can accept the saving ordinances, done for them. It teaches that someone still living on earth can do ordinances for those who are dead. It teaches that the dead can accept or reject the works done for them. Isn't that called repentance? Wouldn't it be part of that "no labor performed" clause at the end of verse 33?
Which is true? Is the doctrine true that is taught here in Alma, or is the doctrine taught by the Mormon Church the true one? Both cannot be true. Either you can repent, or you can't. It's a PUZZLE.
The teaching on this subject by most of today's Christian churches is that when we die, the time allocated for us to repent has run out. At the moment of death, our fate is sealed. There is no continuation of mortal probation beyond the moment of our physical death.
We see that Alma 34:33-36 teaches this same doctrine, consistent with what is taught within mainstream Christianity, but Alma 34:33-36 flies in the face of the concept of vicarious work for the dead taught in Mormonism and practiced by countless thousands of LDS people.
How can this be? How can someone read the Book of Mormon and believe it, but still participate in the ordinance work for the dead, taught by Mormonism. How can they read in Alma; 'after this life there can be no labor performed', and then go to the temple and perform labor for those who are dead? Alma says that the dead cannot repent.
The Mormon Church touts this book as the most accurate and truthful book ever presented to the world; and yet, they advocate and encourage vicarious ordinance work to be by their members for those who are dead, in direct contradiction to Alma's words. Why is that?
God is not the author of confusion, but confusion has an author, and his name is Lucifer. Where you find confusion, you can be sure it's Lucifer's work.
Verse 34 says that our spirit won't change when we die, and verse 33 says; we "cannot repent" after we die; it will be too late. It says that when we get to that day, we cannot claim that we want to repent. The time to repent will have passed us by. This passage in Alma teaches that dead people cannot repent, and that because their spirit will not change, they won't want to.
That is reall PUZZLING!
Temple work (baptism, endowment, temple marriage) is regularly done for the deceased relatives of devout Mormons. Mormonism teaches that after they die, they can accept the saving ordinances, done for them. It teaches that someone still living on earth can do ordinances for those who are dead. It teaches that the dead can accept or reject the works done for them. Isn't that called repentance? Wouldn't it be part of that "no labor performed" clause at the end of verse 33?
Which is true? Is the doctrine true that is taught here in Alma, or is the doctrine taught by the Mormon Church the true one? Both cannot be true. Either you can repent, or you can't. It's a PUZZLE.
The teaching on this subject by most of today's Christian churches is that when we die, the time allocated for us to repent has run out. At the moment of death, our fate is sealed. There is no continuation of mortal probation beyond the moment of our physical death.
We see that Alma 34:33-36 teaches this same doctrine, consistent with what is taught within mainstream Christianity, but Alma 34:33-36 flies in the face of the concept of vicarious work for the dead taught in Mormonism and practiced by countless thousands of LDS people.
How can this be? How can someone read the Book of Mormon and believe it, but still participate in the ordinance work for the dead, taught by Mormonism. How can they read in Alma; 'after this life there can be no labor performed', and then go to the temple and perform labor for those who are dead? Alma says that the dead cannot repent.
The Mormon Church touts this book as the most accurate and truthful book ever presented to the world; and yet, they advocate and encourage vicarious ordinance work to be by their members for those who are dead, in direct contradiction to Alma's words. Why is that?
God is not the author of confusion, but confusion has an author, and his name is Lucifer. Where you find confusion, you can be sure it's Lucifer's work.
PUZZLE #27 - No Other Way
"O remember, remember, my sons, the words which king Benjamin spake unto his people; yea, remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, who shall come, yea, remember that he cometh to redeem the world." (Helaman 5:9 Page 377, Also see Alma 38:9 Page 305)
What does it mean to you when it says that there is no other way nor means whereby a man can be saved, apart from by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ? Does it mean that there are some other options? Does it mean that you
can be saved by doing some other things? Does it mean that there are some other ways to help guarantee your salvation? Does it mean that there is something more
that you must do because the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ was just not enough to cover you?
There is no other way to bring about your salvation other than making the atoning blood of Jesus applicable to your specific case. There is just no other way, and that is because of what is the just reward for sin, death. The Bible teaches this important truth:
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6:23)
The one collateral in which the payment for sin may be made is death.
If you want to pay for your own sin, God will let you do so. Many people will select that option. They will be the ones to pay for their own sin, but there is one really bad feature to that option; it is beyond their capacity to return from spiritual death. Unlike Jesus, they will not be able to regain full fellowship with God, and so they remain permanently separated from Him. That is damnation, not salvation.
God wants to have us with Him, and so He paid the penalty for us, and He did that 2,000 years ago. The only thing we need to do is trust Him; trust that He can and will do what He said He would and could do. That's hard for us if you are so arrogant that we think we can do it for ourseves. Just know you can't.
It's also hard to do if you think of Jesus as just another one of us humans, or if you think that he is just one of God's spirit children, like you and me and Lucifer, as is taught in Mormonism. When you realize that Jesus Christ was actually God, not just a God, but the only God, then you can understand how He could pay the price for our sins.
Trying to make the teachings of Mormonism on this subject and the clear statements in the Book of Mormon is a PUZZLE for me.
Jesus Christ is God, the same God that you call God the Father. His atonement covered all your sin, and you can add nothing to what He has already done all by Himself. He's just waiting for you to take Him up on His offer and receive His free gift of eternal life.
What does it mean to you when it says that there is no other way nor means whereby a man can be saved, apart from by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ? Does it mean that there are some other options? Does it mean that you
can be saved by doing some other things? Does it mean that there are some other ways to help guarantee your salvation? Does it mean that there is something more
that you must do because the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ was just not enough to cover you?
There is no other way to bring about your salvation other than making the atoning blood of Jesus applicable to your specific case. There is just no other way, and that is because of what is the just reward for sin, death. The Bible teaches this important truth:
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6:23)
The one collateral in which the payment for sin may be made is death.
If you want to pay for your own sin, God will let you do so. Many people will select that option. They will be the ones to pay for their own sin, but there is one really bad feature to that option; it is beyond their capacity to return from spiritual death. Unlike Jesus, they will not be able to regain full fellowship with God, and so they remain permanently separated from Him. That is damnation, not salvation.
God wants to have us with Him, and so He paid the penalty for us, and He did that 2,000 years ago. The only thing we need to do is trust Him; trust that He can and will do what He said He would and could do. That's hard for us if you are so arrogant that we think we can do it for ourseves. Just know you can't.
It's also hard to do if you think of Jesus as just another one of us humans, or if you think that he is just one of God's spirit children, like you and me and Lucifer, as is taught in Mormonism. When you realize that Jesus Christ was actually God, not just a God, but the only God, then you can understand how He could pay the price for our sins.
Trying to make the teachings of Mormonism on this subject and the clear statements in the Book of Mormon is a PUZZLE for me.
Jesus Christ is God, the same God that you call God the Father. His atonement covered all your sin, and you can add nothing to what He has already done all by Himself. He's just waiting for you to take Him up on His offer and receive His free gift of eternal life.
PUZZLE #28 - Alpha & Omega
Do you know what the words alpha and omega mean? We live in the 20th century. English is the spoken language of our world, but 2,000 years ago, the Greek language had that honor. Today, we know that these two words are the Greek equivalent of our letters A and Z. They are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet.
You can find the expression alpha and omega in four places within the book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. John used these words as he quoted the Savior. They expressed His all-encompassing nature; A and Z, from Alpha to Omega, and everything between. John used these words because he wrote his book (Revelation) in the spoken language of his day, Greek.
When the King James scholars translated the New Testament into the English of their day, they did not translate these two words; they transliterated them. When they saw these Greek letters, they didn’t write down A and Z. They expressed the Greek letters in English words; hence alpha and omega show up in our Bible, rather than the letters A and Z.
To John's readers, the meanings of the letters alpha and omega were clear. They all knew these letters just like we know our letters A and Z. These were just two more Greek letters in a whole book of Greek words, the New Testament.
The Greek language is at the root of our English language. French and Spanish have that same root. Americans, are familiar with many of the old Greek letters. We can pull them up on most word processing programs (but not this one).
It's a PUZZLE to me why Jesus would say the following words to a bunch of people who communicated either in Hebrew or in so called 'reformed Egyptian'?
"I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." 3rd Nephi 9:18 (Page 425)
Just exactly what did these words mean to the Nephites? I can just see them all standing there, looking dumb and asking each other what Jesus had said. These words were not transliterated by Joseph Smith in 1830. They were not Reformed Egyptian words nor letters. Nor were they Hebrew words.
They are letters from the Greek language of the first century after Christ, a language that did not even exist when the Lehites left Jerusalem. In 1830, these words were coppied right out of the book of Revelation by Joseph Smith.
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Revelation 22:13)
To John and the Greek speaking world, alpha and omega meant something. Joseph Smith did not take into account that the Nephites didn't speak nor understand Greek. He has Jesus using two Greek words as he speaks to them. That would be like having Jesus say to you; I am pjvqr and lkxzy, the beginning and the end. Would HE do that? Absolutely not!
You can find the expression alpha and omega in four places within the book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. John used these words as he quoted the Savior. They expressed His all-encompassing nature; A and Z, from Alpha to Omega, and everything between. John used these words because he wrote his book (Revelation) in the spoken language of his day, Greek.
When the King James scholars translated the New Testament into the English of their day, they did not translate these two words; they transliterated them. When they saw these Greek letters, they didn’t write down A and Z. They expressed the Greek letters in English words; hence alpha and omega show up in our Bible, rather than the letters A and Z.
To John's readers, the meanings of the letters alpha and omega were clear. They all knew these letters just like we know our letters A and Z. These were just two more Greek letters in a whole book of Greek words, the New Testament.
The Greek language is at the root of our English language. French and Spanish have that same root. Americans, are familiar with many of the old Greek letters. We can pull them up on most word processing programs (but not this one).
It's a PUZZLE to me why Jesus would say the following words to a bunch of people who communicated either in Hebrew or in so called 'reformed Egyptian'?
"I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." 3rd Nephi 9:18 (Page 425)
Just exactly what did these words mean to the Nephites? I can just see them all standing there, looking dumb and asking each other what Jesus had said. These words were not transliterated by Joseph Smith in 1830. They were not Reformed Egyptian words nor letters. Nor were they Hebrew words.
They are letters from the Greek language of the first century after Christ, a language that did not even exist when the Lehites left Jerusalem. In 1830, these words were coppied right out of the book of Revelation by Joseph Smith.
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Revelation 22:13)
To John and the Greek speaking world, alpha and omega meant something. Joseph Smith did not take into account that the Nephites didn't speak nor understand Greek. He has Jesus using two Greek words as he speaks to them. That would be like having Jesus say to you; I am pjvqr and lkxzy, the beginning and the end. Would HE do that? Absolutely not!
PUZZLE #29 - Carry My Stuff
Consider these two texts:
"And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (3rd Nephi 5:41)
"And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (Matthew 5:41)
(3rd Nephi 5:41 is on page 433 of the Book of Mormon)
Times were tough; the Roman empire held the holyland, and Roman troops freely moved through the streets and through the countryside. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus spoke to the Jews and to the Galileans, giving them hope and encouragement, as well as practical ways of dealing with their situation.
It is no wonder that the Book of Mormon story contains exactly the same message of hope and encouragement. In fact, as we see here, the words of most of the verses
are exactly the same as those that we find in Matthew's account. We must surmise that Jesus had the message memorized, after all, He had given the sermon on the
mount just a short time before he supposedly came to America.
Is that really what happened, or did the 1830 authors of the Book of Mormon just copy the words out of the Bible? If that's what they did, we would find this kind
of verbatim quoting, and we might even encounter such things as these verses being numbered the same.
We might also find things in the Book of Mormon that don't fit for the people of that story. Such is the case of 3rd Nephi 12:41.
Roman law, governing the Roman empire and the people of Rome's subjugated nations, made requirements of those people. One of Rome's laws stated that a Roman soldier
could compel any person on the street to help him carry his gear. A Roman soldier, weighted down with heavy armor, could get some relief as he walked along the way.
This law had one limitation; the Roman soldier could only compel a person to help him carry his things for one mile, and hence, Jesus' admonition to the Judean people. He told the people that they should do more than they were required to do, and when he used this situation as an example, the Judean people understood His meaning.
What could the words of Matthew 5:41 have meant to the Nephites? That's a PUZZLE. I imagine them standing there wondering what in the world Jesus was talking about; being compelled to help someone carry their things? What did He mean? It is an obvious indication that this passage was but copied from the Bible in order to lend validity to the fake text and perhaps even fill up some more pages after they ran out of ideas.
Was the Book of Mormon written by people living two millennia ago in the Americas?
"And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (3rd Nephi 5:41)
"And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (Matthew 5:41)
(3rd Nephi 5:41 is on page 433 of the Book of Mormon)
Times were tough; the Roman empire held the holyland, and Roman troops freely moved through the streets and through the countryside. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus spoke to the Jews and to the Galileans, giving them hope and encouragement, as well as practical ways of dealing with their situation.
It is no wonder that the Book of Mormon story contains exactly the same message of hope and encouragement. In fact, as we see here, the words of most of the verses
are exactly the same as those that we find in Matthew's account. We must surmise that Jesus had the message memorized, after all, He had given the sermon on the
mount just a short time before he supposedly came to America.
Is that really what happened, or did the 1830 authors of the Book of Mormon just copy the words out of the Bible? If that's what they did, we would find this kind
of verbatim quoting, and we might even encounter such things as these verses being numbered the same.
We might also find things in the Book of Mormon that don't fit for the people of that story. Such is the case of 3rd Nephi 12:41.
Roman law, governing the Roman empire and the people of Rome's subjugated nations, made requirements of those people. One of Rome's laws stated that a Roman soldier
could compel any person on the street to help him carry his gear. A Roman soldier, weighted down with heavy armor, could get some relief as he walked along the way.
This law had one limitation; the Roman soldier could only compel a person to help him carry his things for one mile, and hence, Jesus' admonition to the Judean people. He told the people that they should do more than they were required to do, and when he used this situation as an example, the Judean people understood His meaning.
What could the words of Matthew 5:41 have meant to the Nephites? That's a PUZZLE. I imagine them standing there wondering what in the world Jesus was talking about; being compelled to help someone carry their things? What did He mean? It is an obvious indication that this passage was but copied from the Bible in order to lend validity to the fake text and perhaps even fill up some more pages after they ran out of ideas.
Was the Book of Mormon written by people living two millennia ago in the Americas?
PUZZLE #30 - That Prophet
The person speaking in 3rd Nephi 20:23-24 (Page 449) is claiming to be the "prophet" about whom Moses had prophesied, namely Jesus Christ. He is quoting Moses' words to the children of Israel before they were to enter the promised land. See Deuteronomy 18:15-22.
This discourse purports to have been given by our resurrected Lord after His passion and during a supposed visit to the Americas. He could easily have quoted the passage from Deuteronomy, as indicated by the cross reference (next to the words 'a prophet' in verse 23 on Page 449). That cross-reference takes you to Deuteronomy 18:15-19. Is this passage simply the Lord paraphrasing what He had said through Moses in that passage from Deuteronomy? That is what we are supposed to believe.
The exact wording in 3rd Nephi is PUZZLING to me.
Take a look at Acts 3:22-26, where Peter was speaking to the Jews in Jerusalem about that same speech made by Moses. Peter was also speaking in the year following the resurrection of Jesus. His paraphrase of Deuteronomy 18:15 ends in verse 23. The words of verse 24 are those of Peter himself.
For this reason, he speaks of Samuel and other prophets of whom Moses would not have
spoken because they lived after Moses lived. Don't you think it is just too much of a coincidence that the words from 3rd Nephi 20:24 are practically the same as the words in Acts 3:24?
It is highly probable that the words of 3rd Nephi 3:22-25 were plagiarized from the text of Acts 20:22-25, puting Peter's words in Jesus' mouth, before Peter even said them himself.
The top line of each pair is from Acts 3:22-25
the bottom is 3rd Nephi 20:22-25.
A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of
A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of
your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things
your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things
whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to
whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to
pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet,
pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet
shall be destroyed from among the people.
shall be cut off from among the people
Verily I say unto you,
Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that
yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that
follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise
follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified
foretold of these days. (Acts 3:22-25)
of me. (3rd Nephi 20:22-25)
This discourse purports to have been given by our resurrected Lord after His passion and during a supposed visit to the Americas. He could easily have quoted the passage from Deuteronomy, as indicated by the cross reference (next to the words 'a prophet' in verse 23 on Page 449). That cross-reference takes you to Deuteronomy 18:15-19. Is this passage simply the Lord paraphrasing what He had said through Moses in that passage from Deuteronomy? That is what we are supposed to believe.
The exact wording in 3rd Nephi is PUZZLING to me.
Take a look at Acts 3:22-26, where Peter was speaking to the Jews in Jerusalem about that same speech made by Moses. Peter was also speaking in the year following the resurrection of Jesus. His paraphrase of Deuteronomy 18:15 ends in verse 23. The words of verse 24 are those of Peter himself.
For this reason, he speaks of Samuel and other prophets of whom Moses would not have
spoken because they lived after Moses lived. Don't you think it is just too much of a coincidence that the words from 3rd Nephi 20:24 are practically the same as the words in Acts 3:24?
It is highly probable that the words of 3rd Nephi 3:22-25 were plagiarized from the text of Acts 20:22-25, puting Peter's words in Jesus' mouth, before Peter even said them himself.
The top line of each pair is from Acts 3:22-25
the bottom is 3rd Nephi 20:22-25.
A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of
A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of
your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things
your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things
whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to
whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to
pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet,
pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet
shall be destroyed from among the people.
shall be cut off from among the people
Verily I say unto you,
Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that
yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that
follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise
follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified
foretold of these days. (Acts 3:22-25)
of me. (3rd Nephi 20:22-25)
PUZZLE #31 - Son vs Sun
Consider the word Son in 3rd Nephi 25:2 (Page 456)
"But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall."
The heading tells us to compare this with Malachi, chapter four, in the Old Testament. Let's do just that. In Malachi 4:2, we encounter the word Sun rather than Son as it appears in 3rd Nephi.
"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall." (Malachi 4:2)
Why? It's a PUZZLE. The Mormon Church would have us believe that we cannot depend on the Bible because it has been translated so many times, resulting in many textual errors, of which this is but one. Truly, both words cannot be correct. It must be Son or Sun. One is completely correct; the other is completely wrong.
The 3rd and 4th chapters of Malachi were copied into the Book of Mormon with only minor changes, this word Son being the most obvious change? Those who did the copying replaced the word Sun with Son, thinking that it must have been mistranslated when the Hebrew word was converted to English. After all, the two English words are almost the same, but is that really what happened?
In Hebrew, the word for Sun is Shehmesh which also means sun rising, east and brilliant. It is a picture of that big ball of fire that shows up along the skyline
every morning. The Hebrew word for Son is Bane, from which the Jews get Ben. It means the male child of a father. The two Hebrew words are not at all alike. Only in English are the two of them similar.
Joseph Smith did not understand Hebrew when he wrote 3rd Nephi. He thought that because Malachi said "with healing in his wings", that the passage was talking about
some man. Mormonism says that the word Son, in Malachi 4:2, is a translation error, which is corrected in the pure text of the Book of Mormon. The two English words
are almost the same, but in Hebrew, their differences would have disallowed the inadvertent or accidental use of one in the place of the other.
In the Hebrew, the attributive adjective for all objects is either male or female. They have no word like 'its'. In English, we would have said; healing in its wings, but the Hebrew uses the masculine attributive adjective his, and Malachi 4:2 reads; "healing in his wings". Check it out elsewhere in the Old Testament. You will find this to be the case. A quick look at these verses may help you understand. Genesis 1:11-12; 1:21-25 and Joshua 3:15
If the text of the Book of Mormon had really come from ancient writings, and had actually been translated by God, this substitution of one English word for another word that looks the same but means something entirely different, would never have occurred. This book was neither authored nor translated by the power of God.
"But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall."
The heading tells us to compare this with Malachi, chapter four, in the Old Testament. Let's do just that. In Malachi 4:2, we encounter the word Sun rather than Son as it appears in 3rd Nephi.
"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall." (Malachi 4:2)
Why? It's a PUZZLE. The Mormon Church would have us believe that we cannot depend on the Bible because it has been translated so many times, resulting in many textual errors, of which this is but one. Truly, both words cannot be correct. It must be Son or Sun. One is completely correct; the other is completely wrong.
The 3rd and 4th chapters of Malachi were copied into the Book of Mormon with only minor changes, this word Son being the most obvious change? Those who did the copying replaced the word Sun with Son, thinking that it must have been mistranslated when the Hebrew word was converted to English. After all, the two English words are almost the same, but is that really what happened?
In Hebrew, the word for Sun is Shehmesh which also means sun rising, east and brilliant. It is a picture of that big ball of fire that shows up along the skyline
every morning. The Hebrew word for Son is Bane, from which the Jews get Ben. It means the male child of a father. The two Hebrew words are not at all alike. Only in English are the two of them similar.
Joseph Smith did not understand Hebrew when he wrote 3rd Nephi. He thought that because Malachi said "with healing in his wings", that the passage was talking about
some man. Mormonism says that the word Son, in Malachi 4:2, is a translation error, which is corrected in the pure text of the Book of Mormon. The two English words
are almost the same, but in Hebrew, their differences would have disallowed the inadvertent or accidental use of one in the place of the other.
In the Hebrew, the attributive adjective for all objects is either male or female. They have no word like 'its'. In English, we would have said; healing in its wings, but the Hebrew uses the masculine attributive adjective his, and Malachi 4:2 reads; "healing in his wings". Check it out elsewhere in the Old Testament. You will find this to be the case. A quick look at these verses may help you understand. Genesis 1:11-12; 1:21-25 and Joshua 3:15
If the text of the Book of Mormon had really come from ancient writings, and had actually been translated by God, this substitution of one English word for another word that looks the same but means something entirely different, would never have occurred. This book was neither authored nor translated by the power of God.
PUZZLE #32 - Lost Church?
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (read Matthew 16:13-18)
Regardless of how you want to interpret the word 'rock' in verse eighteen the Son of God said that the very gates of hell would not prevail against the Church that He would establish. Was the Son of God wrong? Did He make a bad judgment call? Was He mistaken?
Mormonism teaches that the Church which Christ built was destroyed. They teach that the twelve apostles had authority, which they had to confer upon others in order for the Church to continue, and that because the apostles were all killed before that authority could be transferred, the Church fell. They also claim that this same authority was restored in the early 1800's, through the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith.
In the New Testament, we find that there were Christians in local churches in many cities, and Jesus said that even the gates of Hell would not take His Church under. Was Jesus wrong?
MORMONISM ANSWERS WITH A RESOUNDING 'YES'. Well, that's a PUZZLE to me.
In order to believe that Christ's Church needed to be restored and that it was restored in the 1800's, you have to accept the idea that the Son of God was in error when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. You would have to believe that the Son of God just didn't understand Satan well enough to know the power of the adversary. Are you ready and willing to make that claim? Are you going to accept that uninformed view of His omnipotence and omniscience?
3rd Nephi 28:9 (Page 461) says that three Nephite apostles were allowed to stay on earth and bring souls to Christ until He would return in His second advent. (The heading of Moroni 2 (Page 518) says that they were apostles.) Mormonism teaches that they are still here today, the day you are reading this.
Didn't those apostles have authority to keep the Church going? The apostles of the Mormon Church today have that authority. If not, why did they stay on earth? Mormonism teaches that bringing souls to Christ means bringing souls into His Church. If His Church was lost, how did these three apostles ever bring any souls to Christ? If it wasn't lost, why does Mormonism claim that it had to be restored? This is a PUZZLE to me.
God is not the author of confusion. He does not write contradictory verbiage. The Book of Mormon was not prepared nor produced by Him. It was prepared by someone trying to generate a new book that would look like the Bible. Mark Hoffman would fit right in with the authors of the Book of Mormon.
Regardless of how you want to interpret the word 'rock' in verse eighteen the Son of God said that the very gates of hell would not prevail against the Church that He would establish. Was the Son of God wrong? Did He make a bad judgment call? Was He mistaken?
Mormonism teaches that the Church which Christ built was destroyed. They teach that the twelve apostles had authority, which they had to confer upon others in order for the Church to continue, and that because the apostles were all killed before that authority could be transferred, the Church fell. They also claim that this same authority was restored in the early 1800's, through the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith.
In the New Testament, we find that there were Christians in local churches in many cities, and Jesus said that even the gates of Hell would not take His Church under. Was Jesus wrong?
MORMONISM ANSWERS WITH A RESOUNDING 'YES'. Well, that's a PUZZLE to me.
In order to believe that Christ's Church needed to be restored and that it was restored in the 1800's, you have to accept the idea that the Son of God was in error when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. You would have to believe that the Son of God just didn't understand Satan well enough to know the power of the adversary. Are you ready and willing to make that claim? Are you going to accept that uninformed view of His omnipotence and omniscience?
3rd Nephi 28:9 (Page 461) says that three Nephite apostles were allowed to stay on earth and bring souls to Christ until He would return in His second advent. (The heading of Moroni 2 (Page 518) says that they were apostles.) Mormonism teaches that they are still here today, the day you are reading this.
Didn't those apostles have authority to keep the Church going? The apostles of the Mormon Church today have that authority. If not, why did they stay on earth? Mormonism teaches that bringing souls to Christ means bringing souls into His Church. If His Church was lost, how did these three apostles ever bring any souls to Christ? If it wasn't lost, why does Mormonism claim that it had to be restored? This is a PUZZLE to me.
God is not the author of confusion. He does not write contradictory verbiage. The Book of Mormon was not prepared nor produced by Him. It was prepared by someone trying to generate a new book that would look like the Bible. Mark Hoffman would fit right in with the authors of the Book of Mormon.
PUZZLE #33 - Unchangeable
"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18 Page 526)
God is not a being which changes. He is unchangeable FROM all eternity TO all eternity. FROM all eternity in the past, TO all eternity in the future, He is an
unchangeable being. He does not change. He has always been God, and He will always be God.
Mormonism teaches that our God was once a man, and that their god progressed over time until he became A god. That doesn't agree with this passage from the Book of Mormon which emphatically states that God has never changed, and never will. How can Mormonism teach that God was once a mortal man, while their Book of Mormon teaches that He has always been God and never anything but God? It's a PUZZLE to me.
Can this doctrinal discrepancy just be pushed aside and ignored? Ask yourself and your friends how this contradiction can be rationalized. This verse is not vague. Its meaning is clear. God has always been God, from eternity past to now, and He will continue to be God for eternity into the future. Unchangeable is unchangeable. Unchangeable is not a word you can use to present the Mormon idea of God having once been a man.
The Book of Mormon was first in a series of texts which Joseph Smith and associates produced and presented to the world under the guise of divine authorship. It put
Joseph Smith into the self-proclaimed office of "The Prophet". Revered as such by his followers, he used his later 'revelations' to subdue and manipulate the people by claiming that God was the one giving directions.
Leaving behind decidedly 'Christian' ideas and doctrines found in the Book of Mormon, he moved with confidence into such bizarre doctrines as polygamy and communal ownership of property. Those who got in the way were swept aside with the words, 'thus saith the lord'. The doctrines found in the Book of Mormon were faded
memories, and few Mormons ever noticed that his new ideas were visibly at odds with the earlier, more Christian doctrines of Mormonism.
Today, nothing has changed. Point to a contradiction between the doctrines of the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Mormon church, and most Mormons will tell you that it doesn't matter because they have a living prophet of God at the head of their church.
Would that be a prophet of the God who is unchanged FROM eternity TO eternity, or a prophet of A god who was once a man? For which god (if any) does the Mormon prophet work?
God is not a being which changes. He is unchangeable FROM all eternity TO all eternity. FROM all eternity in the past, TO all eternity in the future, He is an
unchangeable being. He does not change. He has always been God, and He will always be God.
Mormonism teaches that our God was once a man, and that their god progressed over time until he became A god. That doesn't agree with this passage from the Book of Mormon which emphatically states that God has never changed, and never will. How can Mormonism teach that God was once a mortal man, while their Book of Mormon teaches that He has always been God and never anything but God? It's a PUZZLE to me.
Can this doctrinal discrepancy just be pushed aside and ignored? Ask yourself and your friends how this contradiction can be rationalized. This verse is not vague. Its meaning is clear. God has always been God, from eternity past to now, and He will continue to be God for eternity into the future. Unchangeable is unchangeable. Unchangeable is not a word you can use to present the Mormon idea of God having once been a man.
The Book of Mormon was first in a series of texts which Joseph Smith and associates produced and presented to the world under the guise of divine authorship. It put
Joseph Smith into the self-proclaimed office of "The Prophet". Revered as such by his followers, he used his later 'revelations' to subdue and manipulate the people by claiming that God was the one giving directions.
Leaving behind decidedly 'Christian' ideas and doctrines found in the Book of Mormon, he moved with confidence into such bizarre doctrines as polygamy and communal ownership of property. Those who got in the way were swept aside with the words, 'thus saith the lord'. The doctrines found in the Book of Mormon were faded
memories, and few Mormons ever noticed that his new ideas were visibly at odds with the earlier, more Christian doctrines of Mormonism.
Today, nothing has changed. Point to a contradiction between the doctrines of the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Mormon church, and most Mormons will tell you that it doesn't matter because they have a living prophet of God at the head of their church.
Would that be a prophet of the God who is unchanged FROM eternity TO eternity, or a prophet of A god who was once a man? For which god (if any) does the Mormon prophet work?
PUZZLE #34 - For The Dead
Consider Moroni 8:22-23 (Page 526)
Two groups of people are identified in the first sentence; Group A is "little children", Group B includes "also all they that are without the law". Group A, little children, are those who cannot comprehend the law, and group B, are those who have no law to comprehend. This verse makes a statement about the redemption of the people in both of these two groups.
The second sentence proclaims that "the power of redemption cometh on all them who have no law". It defines their condition as "not condemned" and those who are under "no condemnation". Those who do not have the law are in the group who are under "no condemnation"; they do not have the law available to them, hence, it cannot condemn them. Verse 22 says that the people of these two groups "cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing".
This verse specifically precludes any capability of repentance and any need for baptism for the people in these groups. They don't need baptism. It says that "the power of redemption" is theirs without repentance and baptism. It teaches that when people of either group A or group B die, they will have redemption through the "mercies of Christ", and they will be "alive in Christ".
Verse 23 tells us that baptism for the people of either group is a "mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works." Baptism of little children (who can't understand the law) and baptism of people who don't have the law is a mockery before God, and it "availeth nothing".
With this definition from the pages of Moroni, one is then led to ask; Why do Mormons practice baptism for the dead? Every year, Mormons are baptized for and in
behalf of people who are dead. The names of thousands, if not millions of people who have passed on, are used in the Mormon temples, and a vicarious baptism is done on their behalf. The names are taken from public records, or census reports or from any other record that gives names of deceased people.
Those countless people who are dead never had the law (Mormon gospel) in the first place. The Book of Mormon says that they don't need baptism. Wouldn't such a baptism qualify as “a mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works"? Why baptism for the dead, when it says that people who die without the law are redeemed "the power of the redemption cometh on" them, and that their "baptism availeth nothing"?
It's a PUZZLE to me how Mormonism can function so actively in conradiction to their own supposed scripture?
Two groups of people are identified in the first sentence; Group A is "little children", Group B includes "also all they that are without the law". Group A, little children, are those who cannot comprehend the law, and group B, are those who have no law to comprehend. This verse makes a statement about the redemption of the people in both of these two groups.
The second sentence proclaims that "the power of redemption cometh on all them who have no law". It defines their condition as "not condemned" and those who are under "no condemnation". Those who do not have the law are in the group who are under "no condemnation"; they do not have the law available to them, hence, it cannot condemn them. Verse 22 says that the people of these two groups "cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing".
This verse specifically precludes any capability of repentance and any need for baptism for the people in these groups. They don't need baptism. It says that "the power of redemption" is theirs without repentance and baptism. It teaches that when people of either group A or group B die, they will have redemption through the "mercies of Christ", and they will be "alive in Christ".
Verse 23 tells us that baptism for the people of either group is a "mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works." Baptism of little children (who can't understand the law) and baptism of people who don't have the law is a mockery before God, and it "availeth nothing".
With this definition from the pages of Moroni, one is then led to ask; Why do Mormons practice baptism for the dead? Every year, Mormons are baptized for and in
behalf of people who are dead. The names of thousands, if not millions of people who have passed on, are used in the Mormon temples, and a vicarious baptism is done on their behalf. The names are taken from public records, or census reports or from any other record that gives names of deceased people.
Those countless people who are dead never had the law (Mormon gospel) in the first place. The Book of Mormon says that they don't need baptism. Wouldn't such a baptism qualify as “a mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works"? Why baptism for the dead, when it says that people who die without the law are redeemed "the power of the redemption cometh on" them, and that their "baptism availeth nothing"?
It's a PUZZLE to me how Mormonism can function so actively in conradiction to their own supposed scripture?
PUZZLE #35 - Ask___ IF
"...when ye shall read these things,...ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true;..." (Moroni 10:3 & 4 partial Page529)
Have you followed this directive given by Moroni? Did you read the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is true?
Each part of Moroni’s instruction is important. Have you read and studied the words and teaching of this book? Have you paid attention to what the book says? Have you formed questions in your mind regarding any of the things you read? Did anything said in this book make you question its claim to divine authorship?
What did you do when you read the words of the three witnesses, which said that the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all one and the same God? Did you just brush that aside? Why is it that 2nd Nephi 31:21, (Pages 114-115), Alma 11:26-39 (Pages 235-237) and Mormon 7:7 (Page 480) all teach this doctrine, while Mormonism teaches that there are three separate and distinct Gods in the godhead? Why is it that D&C 20:28 says the same thing? It's a PUZZLE of great magnitude.
What did you do when you found that the claim of Jacob 2:24 (Page 121) is an absolute and direct contradiction of D&C 132:39? Did you just brush it aside? Did you say that it doesn't matter? Doesn't it? Your life through eternity is at stake.
Perhaps if these contradictions within Mormon doctrine are not of any concern to you, and if you are able to brush them aside and say that they don't matter, perhaps you have decided that the Book of Mormon is true.
Did you ask God IF "these things are not true"? That is Moroni's counsel. Did you follow it? Did you ask God IF the things you had read are true, or did you just brush them aside because they conflicted with what you already believe? That's not what Moroni said to do.
Perhaps you read the book and asked God to convince you of its truthfulness? That's not what Moroni said you should do either. He says to ASK God IF these things are true. (Actually, he says to ask God if these things are NOT true, but we won't go into that.)
Perhaps you asked God to convince you of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon so that you could 'know' what all your associates at church seen to 'know'; i.e. that the Book of Mormon is true? If you did that, you may have come up with a 'feeling' that you have defined as God's witness to you on this issue. Sorry, that's not what Moroni has 'exhorted' you to do either. He plainly says; ASK God IF it is
true.
If you want it to be true, you will convince yourself, and you won't need any input from God. Please, ask IF.
Have you followed this directive given by Moroni? Did you read the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is true?
Each part of Moroni’s instruction is important. Have you read and studied the words and teaching of this book? Have you paid attention to what the book says? Have you formed questions in your mind regarding any of the things you read? Did anything said in this book make you question its claim to divine authorship?
What did you do when you read the words of the three witnesses, which said that the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all one and the same God? Did you just brush that aside? Why is it that 2nd Nephi 31:21, (Pages 114-115), Alma 11:26-39 (Pages 235-237) and Mormon 7:7 (Page 480) all teach this doctrine, while Mormonism teaches that there are three separate and distinct Gods in the godhead? Why is it that D&C 20:28 says the same thing? It's a PUZZLE of great magnitude.
What did you do when you found that the claim of Jacob 2:24 (Page 121) is an absolute and direct contradiction of D&C 132:39? Did you just brush it aside? Did you say that it doesn't matter? Doesn't it? Your life through eternity is at stake.
Perhaps if these contradictions within Mormon doctrine are not of any concern to you, and if you are able to brush them aside and say that they don't matter, perhaps you have decided that the Book of Mormon is true.
Did you ask God IF "these things are not true"? That is Moroni's counsel. Did you follow it? Did you ask God IF the things you had read are true, or did you just brush them aside because they conflicted with what you already believe? That's not what Moroni said to do.
Perhaps you read the book and asked God to convince you of its truthfulness? That's not what Moroni said you should do either. He says to ASK God IF these things are true. (Actually, he says to ask God if these things are NOT true, but we won't go into that.)
Perhaps you asked God to convince you of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon so that you could 'know' what all your associates at church seen to 'know'; i.e. that the Book of Mormon is true? If you did that, you may have come up with a 'feeling' that you have defined as God's witness to you on this issue. Sorry, that's not what Moroni has 'exhorted' you to do either. He plainly says; ASK God IF it is
true.
If you want it to be true, you will convince yourself, and you won't need any input from God. Please, ask IF.
PUZZLE #36 - The Final Exam
Have you held yourself up against the criteria for sanctification given by Moroni 10:32-33 on page 531?
"...and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace
ye may be perfect in Christ;"
That's a big IF isn't it? Have you denied yourself of all ungodliness? Is there anything in your behavior or in your thoughts, which is ungodly? Have you successfully eliminated from your life everything that is ungodly ? If you have, Moroni says that the grace of God is sufficient for you, but if you haven't, Moroni says the grace of God isn't enough for you.
Sadly, those who believe that they have conquered all the ungodliness in their lives, are deluding themselves. Those around them know the truth. Hopefully, each
of us know ourselves well enough to realize that we are not Gods in an embryonic form. We are the fallen men that Alma describes (Alma 42:14 Page 312).
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Romans 3:10-12)
Moroni says above that if you have not denied yourself of all ungodliness, the grace of God can't help you. Moroni says that God's grace is sufficient for you only IF you have denied yourself of all ungodliness. Is there someone who has been able to do that? Well, no. I think not.
The purpose of the atonement was to save mankind from his own fallen state. If we could have pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps, there would have been no need for a Savior. The key idea of the atonement is that God knew that we couldn't save ourselves. He took the penalty Himself because he knew that we couldn't change
ourselves, and He didn't wait to see how we would do before He made that payment for us.
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Romans 5:8-9)
"We are justified by his blood", not by making the corrections ourselves. Then God sees us as though we were clean, and His Holy Spirit moves in with us. The Spirit starts slowly cleaning us up, until one day we are fully sanctified.
His grace is sufficient. Nothing else is needed. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
"...and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace
ye may be perfect in Christ;"
That's a big IF isn't it? Have you denied yourself of all ungodliness? Is there anything in your behavior or in your thoughts, which is ungodly? Have you successfully eliminated from your life everything that is ungodly ? If you have, Moroni says that the grace of God is sufficient for you, but if you haven't, Moroni says the grace of God isn't enough for you.
Sadly, those who believe that they have conquered all the ungodliness in their lives, are deluding themselves. Those around them know the truth. Hopefully, each
of us know ourselves well enough to realize that we are not Gods in an embryonic form. We are the fallen men that Alma describes (Alma 42:14 Page 312).
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Romans 3:10-12)
Moroni says above that if you have not denied yourself of all ungodliness, the grace of God can't help you. Moroni says that God's grace is sufficient for you only IF you have denied yourself of all ungodliness. Is there someone who has been able to do that? Well, no. I think not.
The purpose of the atonement was to save mankind from his own fallen state. If we could have pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps, there would have been no need for a Savior. The key idea of the atonement is that God knew that we couldn't save ourselves. He took the penalty Himself because he knew that we couldn't change
ourselves, and He didn't wait to see how we would do before He made that payment for us.
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Romans 5:8-9)
"We are justified by his blood", not by making the corrections ourselves. Then God sees us as though we were clean, and His Holy Spirit moves in with us. The Spirit starts slowly cleaning us up, until one day we are fully sanctified.
His grace is sufficient. Nothing else is needed. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)