50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (Answers 25, 26, and 27)

Because of the repetitive nature of the next three questions, I have decided to lump them into one post.

Tower To Truth Question:

25. Why does the Book of Mormon contain extensive, word-for-word quotes from the Bible if the LDS Church is correct in teaching that the Bible has been corrupted?


FAIR Answer:

It would be more correct to say that the Book of Mormon teaches that plain and precious things have been removed from the Bible 1_Ne. 13:28. The vast majority of that which has remained in the Bible is both true and valuable.

Latter-day Saints take two years of every four in Sunday School studying the Bible. They cherish it. They merely refuse to believe that the Bible is all that God has said, or can say. God can speak whenever He wishes.

To learn more: Bible basics

For extensive evidence that the Bible both underwent change and deletions in the very early years, see here.

To learn more: Biblical completeness

-------------------------------------

Tower To Truth Question:

26. Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV text by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries?

FAIR Answer:

The italics do indeed identify words added by the translators. They were "added" because they were necessary words for making sense of the translation: in Hebrew and Greek the words are sometimes implied, but necessary for English to make sense. (Italics can mislead us, however, in suggesting that there is such a thing as a word-for-word translation without interpretation, save for the italics.)

Thus, in some cases the italic words are necessary, and Joseph or another translator would have had to put them in. In other cases, Joseph removed the italic words. (It's not clear that Joseph even owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation era, much less that he knew what the italics meant.)

This is really a question about why the Book of Mormon text is often very close (or, in some cases, identical to) the King James Version. If Joseph was trying to forge a book (as the critics claim) then why did he quote from the Bible, the one book his readers would be sure to know?

To learn more: Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon

-------------------------------------

Tower To Truth Question:

27. If the Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James Version English?

FAIR Answer:

Because Joseph translated it as King James English.
Why do modern translations of the Greek and Hebrew Bible sound like modern English, even though the texts are hundreds or thousands of years old? Because that's how the translators translated them. It doesn't say anything about what the language is like on the original. (French translators make totally different translations than English translators, but the manuscripts remain the same!)

Do Christians condemn the Bible as an inauthentic record because their translations sound like 21st century English? This question is a good example of how insincere these "questions" from an anti-Mormon ministry are.

=====================================

My Response:

OK, we'll take the first one (Answer 25), since it is the simplest. It is simply another example of Mormon double-speak. They are basically saying, "We don't believe the Bible has been corrupted. We just believe some things have been removed."





Doesn't the "fact" (quote-unquote) that things have "been removed" (quote-unquote), by default, render something "corrupt?" The word "corrupt" comes from the Latin (through Middle English) "to break." In fact, according to Merriam-Webster, to "corrupt" means "to alter from the original or correct form or version" (See full entry here). So....if something was "removed," doesn't that, automatically, mean that it has been "altered from its original form?" But, this is, yet again, another example of a Mormon defining things differently than what they really mean. Oh, and, as usual, not a word about which of the "truths, plain and most precious" were removed. Yeah, good luck getting an answer on THAT.

Then there is the link that says, "For extensive evidence that the Bible both underwent change and deletions in the very early years." Of course, that link takes you to another FAIR page where they quote Blake Ostler. Oh, yeah, real unbiased work, there. **rolls eyes** Oh, and as far as trying ot use Vagany against the reliability of Scripture, let's look at the quote from FAIR:

"In AD 178 the secular writer Celsus stated in polemic against the Christians: some of the believers . . . have changed the original text of the Gospels three or four times or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics.' (quoted in Origen, Contra Celsum, SC 132, 2, 27).

Now, one thing you need to know about Celsus: he was a heretic. He vehemently opposed the Christians and went out of his way to disparage them. Which means he is exactly the kind of person FAIR will quote in order to defend their beliefs--a known heretic! Way to go, guys! I suppose that next, in order to "prove" the Bible was wrong about the creation account, they will probably be quoting Charles Darwin.

Oh, and by the way, here is the full quote from Origen (emphasis mine):

After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.

I suppose that is enough evidence to shatter FAIR's misuse of someone's quote. And, yeah, there are going to be differences in the various Hebrew manuscripts. It would be interesting if FAIR would live up to their acronym and share with us some of these differences from Tov's book. Oh wait......are those crickets I hear chirping in Utah? Yeah, I thought so.

-----------------

So, for the second (Answer 26), let's boil it down. Let's look at the main thrust of their response:

The italics do indeed identify words added by the translators. They were "added" because they were necessary words for making sense of the translation: in Hebrew and Greek the words are sometimes implied, but necessary for English to make sense.

RED FLAG ALERT!
RED FLAG ALERT!

The Book of Mormon was not written in Hebrew, or Greek! IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN IN REFORMED EGYPTIAN! So the argument that the italics were added to the Hebrew for insertion into the BOM is silly, because Isaiah was written in Hebrew while the BOM was written in a totally different language! BUSTED!! That would be like saying "The parts of the Bagavad Gita that were plagiarized from Das Kapital kept the italics to get the sense of what the Japanese meant." We're talking about completely different languages, so their answer on this point is moot.

--------------------------------

Finally, Answer #27. I would have to say this isn't much of an issue. Of course the gold-digger was going to translate it into the language of his day, so I really don't think that's any ground we need to cover.

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 22)

Tower To Truth Question:

22. Why does the Book of Abraham, chapters 4 & 5, contradict Alma 11 in stating that there is more than one God?

---------------------------

FAIR Answer:

The term "God" may be used in more than one way. Latter-day Saints are not Nicene Trinitarians, but still believe in "one God."

To learn more: Polytheism

---------------------------

My Response:

Note: Mormons are not, technically, polytheistic. They are more henotheistic, believing in the existence of many living gods, but only worshipping one.

The longer this series goes, the more flustered I become. It would be one thing if FAIR could formulate an answer that was more than 10 words long, and contained some kind of point. But it seems as though every answer they give is "No we don't, so do Christians, you're anti-Mormon." The answer they give to this question isn't even an answer. They are confronted with a fact--a contradiction in their "scriptures"--and they don't even bother to answer it. They just give some lame excuse about "the word 'god' can mean more than one thing." That's like me telling my waiter "I asked for my burger without onions" and he looks at me and says "Pickels aren't onions." So, here's the issue.

Alma 11:26-29--26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.

So, clearly, the Book of Mormon says that there is only ONE LIVING GOD. Now, let's see what the Ancient Egyptian pagan burial manual Book of Abraham says.

Abraham 4:1-4--1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.
3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.

Abraham 5:1-3--1 And thus we will finish the heavens and the earth, and all the ahosts of them.
2 And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will rest on the seventh time from all our work which we have counseled.
3 And the Gods concluded upon the seventh time, because that on the seventh time they would rest from all their works which they (the Gods) counseled among themselves to form; and sanctified it. And thus were their decisions at the time that they counseled among themselves to form the heavens and the earth.

Here's the thing: When FAIR tries to say that there is more than one meaning for the word "gods"--there is about a half a grain of truth in that. But, they are, in a sense, lying. Because what they mean by "Gods" is not what you or I mean when we say "gods" (Notice distinction between little 'g' and big 'G'). When the Book of Abraham talks about these "Gods," it is referring to those "Gods" who have attained godhood in Mormon theology. When you or I talk about "gods," we usually refer to mute idols, statues of wood or metal, that can do nothing.

What does all this boil down to? FAIR is not living up to their acronym. And I cannot imagine that this is something they were not aware they were doing. They know what they mean by "Gods," so to give the response they did is less than honest.

Oh, and if you want a good read, check out the link "Polytheism." Here is their response to this charge:

Usually the very same people who are pressing the case that Mormons are polytheists are some stripe of Evangelical Christians who claim to be monotheists. But Trinitarians are not Monotheists by definition (just ask a Jew or Muslim).

Ask a Jew or a Muslim!! Two groups that deny the deity of Christ!! In other words, to make their case seem more credible, they would have you go to people who would call Mormons blasphemers!! Now, we don't have time to give a thorough discussion of the Trinity here. Suffice it to say Mormons do not understand the Orthodox view of the Trinity. We do NOT worship three Gods. We worship Father, Son, Holy Spirit--who are One God.

And, once again, they throw out baseless accusations against influential christians, accusing them of worshipping many Gods--

Additionally, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various commonly accepted Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin.

Umm, yeah, would FAIR like to show us how they make this accusation? They won't, because they know that if they do, then someone who knows quite a bit more about these men will crush this statement under a pile of facts.

Apparently, FAIR only exists to give social Mormons a little relief in thinking that there are actually ways to resolve the spaghetti bowl that is Mormon theology. Because once you chase off the smoke and shatter the mirrors--they really have no answers.

Elder Ballard--"Hooked On A Feeling"

Scientific proof may not make people believe that the Book of Mormon is true. But it might get rid of a bunch of doubts.

Elder Ballard tries once again to finagle the truth, and apologize for the fact that the BOM has no basis whatsoever in the truth.

...and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent...

The blog over at Mormonism Research Ministries has an interresting post about "praying over the Book of Mormon" to get the proverbial 'burning in the bosom.' Basically, in order to get that "feeling", don't you have to believe the Book of Mormon is true in the first place?

Elder A. informed me that of course I would reach a negative conclusion if I doubted or wondered if the book might be false. He said the honest investigator must pray with an open mind, with no preconceptions regarding the validity of the Book of Mormon.

“But Elder,” I said, “what you suggest is impossible. In order to use the Moroni 10:4 test, an investigator must begin with confidence that the Book of Mormon is true and Moroni 10:4 is an actual promise from God. Therefore, he cannot pray as prescribed in Moroni 10:4 with a completely open mind while bearing no preconceptions about the validity of the Book of Mormon. He is unable to do that because he must already believe the book is true enough to impart true promises from God.”

Elder A. disagreed. He did not want to discuss the matter further, so we let it drop.

If you are a defense attorney, the evidence in your client's trial will point ot their innocence. But if you are a prosecutor, it points to his guilt. Likewise, if one has to pray about whether or not the Book of Mormon is true, then they have more than likely already made up their minds about the matter.

So, just where did the American Indians come from?

Apparently, the Mormon church made a slight--but significant--change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon that has flown under the radar but is raising red flags. Apparently, they just may have come to the conclusion that Ameican Indians aren't really descendants of Jewish immigrants after all (From the Mormon-run Deseret News):

A one-word change in the introduction to a 2006 edition of the Book of Mormon has re-ignited discussion among some Latter-day Saints about the book's historicity, geography and the descendants of those chronicled within its pages.

The book is considered scripture by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and many lifelong members grew up believing that American Indians are direct descendants of ancient people in the book called Lamanites, who the book says built a civilization in the Americas between about 600 B.C. and 400 A.D.

Past LDS Church leaders, particularly former church President Spencer W. Kimball, have made such statements, which have been supported by the introduction page in the Book of Mormon. Past editions of that page say all of the people chronicled in the book "were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction reads much the same, but says the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

The implications and ramifications of this are not small. They are much deeper than will be examined here, but this is a start.

The mormon church has, for years, asserted that most American Indians are descended from Lamanites, the "wicked" branch of the Lehi family tree, who wiped out the tribe of Nephi (ca. 400 AD), and became a "dark and loathsome" people (1st Nephi 12:23).

However, scientific research over the years has shown that American Indians did not originate from Jewish people (The point made in the video DNA vs. the Book of Mormon from Living Hope Ministries). While many Mormon apologists will try and claim a "limited geography" scenario for the event in the BOM, the Book of Mormon even says (all emphases mine):

• "And the people began to be very numerous, and began to scatter abroad upon the face of the earth; yea, on the north and on the south, on the east and on the west, building large cities and villages in all quarters of the land." (Book of Mormon, 1830, p.211-212, Mosiah 27:6).
• "...even to the land of Zarahemla: the whole face of the land having become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea." (Book of Mormon, 1830, p.518-521, Alma 2:27).
• "And thus it did come to pass that the people of Nephi began to prosper again in the land, and began to build up their waste places, and began to multiply and spread, even until they did cover the whole face of the land, both on the northward and on the southward, from the sea west to the sea east. (Helaman 11:20)

(Via Living Hope Ministries)

If the people of the Book of Mormon were scattered "from sea to sea", and over 230,000 men died in the "last battle" (Mormon 6:1-15), then this claim of "limited geography" is negated. Sea to sea and north to south and east to west is not a description of movement in a localized area, but a widespread migration. And the text of various BOM passages sems to indicate that the emigrants (from Israel) were the first ones to land in the area this supposedly took place. And since there is no record of these people intermarrying with emigrated Asians, and since it is only after they "dwindled in unbelief" that they became "dark and loathsome", then the next logical step is that these Lamanites were supposedly the progenitors of the American Indians of Central America.

However, this change to the BOM (Yes, it's only the introduction. I'll get to that in a moment) is particularly curious, becasue it opens up the question of whether they had anything at all to do with the beginnings of the Central American Indians. And if not, then what would be the deeper ramifications?

OK, I know what you're saying. "Well, it's just the intro to the BOM. And the 1981 intro was written by McConkie, and he had a habit of just talking off the top of his head" or something similar, right? Here's the problem: It isn't as though McConkie wrote it and then published it on his own. He wrote it, the elders of the LDS church examined it and approved it, and sent it out as such to their wards, stakes, temples, missionaries,and everybody else who wanted a copy!! That intro is in the BOM because that's what the LDS authorities approved!! Do you really think Kimball, et al., really let somebody put something into their precious Book of Mormon--which would be there for all the world to see--without their approval?? If you think they would, then, man, have I got a deal for you!