EVIDENCE FOR THE MORMON FAITH BEING FROM GOD
The Mormon Church thinks that the expression “their souls did expand” in Alma
5:9 is so odd that it could not have been invented by Joseph Smith. The
expression appears in Ugaritic and Akkadian sources. It’s Semitic. But it is not
much good as evidence for the Germans use the same expression. The Book of
Mormon makes it clear that the expression means rejoicing. We must remember that
in Christianity heart and soul are sometimes used interchangeably. An open heart
full of joy and generosity might have made the fairly simple Joseph to think you
could say the same of a soul thus he translated this into fancy King James
Version language so it became “their souls did expand”. It evidently means their
hearts overflowed or expanded with joy. Smith must have heard puppy loves saying
their hearts would burst if they loved any more? And all grammatical anomalies
in the way a person writes can be matched up to some ancient expression.
1 Nephi 2:9 supposedly says that the sea is a fountain of waters which is a Near
Eastern expression Smith did not know about. So the Church says. But when you
look at the verse you see that it was plagiarised from a verse in the gospel of
John which speaks of a fountain of living waters. It was just a coincidence.
Pity the Church never points out the blunders like 3 Nephi 13:13 having Jesus
teaching the Lord’s Prayer and saying, “But deliver us from evil”, while the
correct translation is, “Deliver us from the evil one”. The Book of Mormon just
used the incorrect version that was used in all Churches. Other blunders are
Jesus using words like raca and mammon which he used in Palestine in America to
a nation that would not have known what he meant.
Another Mormon boast is that at Qumran the ideas of baptism and several
doctrines similar to Christianity existed even before Christ meaning that the
Book of Mormon is proved plausible when it says that explicit knowledge of
Christianity existed before Jesus came in ancient America. But the similarities
are naturally explicable. For example, baptism was suggested in the Law of Moses
when it prescribed washing for uncleanness. The fact that paganism went further
than the Jews of Qumran at being closer to Christianity says a lot. There is a
huge difference between any prophecy in the Old Testament, and any parallel to
Christianity in the preceding religions and the too clear fore-knowledge of
Christ and his works that exists in the Book of Mormon.
The Mormons say nowadays that they believe every verse of the Bible. They know
fine well that the Church of Rome would not have removed the evidence of the
clear knowledge of Christ among the Jews before he came from the Bible and yet
it is absent from it.
If you compare the Bible with the Book of Mormon it shows that the prophecies in
the Book of Mormon closely match many verses from the New Testament. These Book
of Mormon portions then had to have been copied from the Bible by Joseph Smith.
The Mormon Church says that a line from the Book of Enoch was quoted in the Book
of Mormon before Enoch was discovered. But the Church translates the Enoch verse
in question in exactly the same English wording as the Book of Mormon has. So
the meaning is the same in both books but the Church translates Enoch to match
the Book of Mormon perfectly and that is dishonest. You could use that trick to
prove that Shakespeare was quoting Stephen King. The Book of Mormon does not
even claim to be quoting and it is unfair of the Mormons to say it is quoting.
And how would believers in ancient America be able to quote from books written
in other parts of the world that they had no contact with? The Book of Mormon
never said that it was quoting Enoch!
The Mormon Church which believes that it is the restoration of the true Church
of Jesus Christ says that when Jesus said two thousand years ago that the gates
of Hell would never prevail against his Church he meant the Church would never
fail but did not rule out men failing to keep up the Church and falling away. So
that allows them to say they can believe what Jesus said and still maintain
their traditional doctrine that the Churches have all apostatised from the true
faith. In context, Jesus said that he was founding his Church on a rock which
was certainly the faith of Peter but not Peter himself and this Church would
never die meaning that this community that holds the faith of the rock will
never die. But it could exist in Heaven not on earth when the earth apostatises
so it does not promise that the Church will always exist on earth.
In the Jeff Lindsay pages LDS FAQ, The Restoration, we read many things that
cannot be true.
The Mormon Church assumes that Matthew 13 with the parable of the sower says
that the Church founded by Christ would apostatise totally. Hugh Nibley the
Mormon apologist says that the parable which starts off by saying some seeds
were killed by the sun for having no root and others fell among thorns and
failed to grow and others brought forth great abundance describes three separate
eras. The last era is the seed growing after the Church is recovered from its
apostate condition. But there is no hint of this three eras stuff at all in the
parable. It says the seed was sowed once and the three things that happened to
it. For the Mormons to be right there would need to have been new seed sown for
the third era. The Mormons think that the parable of the vineyard in Luke 20
predicts the destruction of the faith of the Church but it only says that Israel
will reject the son and its privileges will be given to new nations.
Polycarp said the light went out when the apostles died but he only means that
the era of revelation had closed for he certainly did not think of himself as an
apostate. But the Mormons say he meant the Church apostatised soon as they died.
Jesus did say the Church would not stay loyal but he did say a handful would
stay true.
The Gospel of John makes it clear that though it wants people to believe in
Jesus the apostasy had already happened for though Jesus tried to establish a
Church it kept failing. Even the Mormons who use John to prove the Christian
Church left the faith don’t go that far for they want to believe in the
apostles. But Jesus himself in John complains that despite his following and
baptising nobody believes in him (3:32). We know he meant the apostles for the
gospel portrays them as traitors. No effort was made to show they had to be
exceptions. The believers only believed in his powers but not in what he said
(John 2:23-25; 6:36). The gospel says that the apostles will remember the
sayings of Jesus but never says they will believe in them. Some of the apostles
were brothers of Jesus and John says his own brethren did not believe in him
(7:5). It does not say the apostle ones were exceptions. It does not say some of
his brothers. It just says his brothers. John 14:7 accuses the apostles of
apostasy. Jesus said he was the light of the world as long as he was in the
world (John 9:5). But the light had to be transmitted through the apostles. He
was saying when he would die the light would be extinguished. The Mormons accept
the pessimism of St John’s gospel and then they are so positive about their own
huge cult. Surely if loyalty is so difficult and unnatural then chances are the
Mormon Church is apostate?
In Matthew 17:22 Jesus told the disciples that they would long to see Jesus just
for one day again in the future and learn from him and it would not happen and
then he warned because of this they must not run after other Christs. They would
only want a new Christ and to learn from him if they had departed from the old
one.
The Mormon Church has no business using Isaiah 24:5,6 which says that the whole
earth lies destroyed and only a few men are left after a destruction by fire
which God has sent because of transgression and because the covenant has not
been kept as evidence of apostasy for it has not been fulfilled yet. Also, no
religion should be allowed to incite the Osama Bin Ladens of this world to
destroy the planet by fire under the belief that this is God’s will despite the
evil example of Jesus who had himself killed for religious reasons.
Mormonism is led by apostles. Lindsay says that the need for a continued
apostolic office in the Church an office of Twelve Apostles was shown when
Matthias was pulled in to take the place of Judas in Acts. But the apostles were
just for functioning as full-time witnesses to the resurrection and as prophets
of God in the full sense. The Mormon apostles have not seen Jesus. There is no
evidence that the Mormon Church is right to have twelve apostles.
Mormonism says the apostate Church which became Catholicism done away with the
office. No apostate Church would have done that had the office existed. It
wasn’t in its advantage to. Besides, it followed something that was similar in
all essentials with a system of bishops and priests representing the apostles
but not being apostles themselves and which regarded itself as beneath them in
authority.
Mormonism says only validly ordained Mormon priests can baptise. Why did the
apostate Church depart from the doctrine that a priesthood alone could confer
water baptism for the Church loved priestcraft and the power it brought? The
Mormon Church holds that this priesthood power is of supreme value in the Church
and the main part of the restoration of the gospel. Even the Book of Mormon is
no use without it. So the priesthood then is more important than the Book of
Mormon. John the Baptist supposedly ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to
a priesthood which Smith to Cowdery’s horror later said was the Aaronic
Priesthood for he wanted to introduce a new priesthood called the Melchizidek
priesthood. Cowdery said it was just the priesthood not Aaronic or Melchizidek
priests and that there could be no new Aaronic priests for that was a mimic of
the Aaronic priests of the Bible who had to belong to the tribe of Levi. Later
Peter, James and John ordained them to the Melchizedek priesthood. Then why do
we not have a stronger and better in quality and quantity witness to these
events than what we have? The Book of Mormon speaks of priests but it does not
say that they have to be ordained by an apostolic succession – that is, nobody
can ordain a priest but a priest. Why could we not have the neighbours seeing
three men laying their hands on them but not knowing that they were supernatural
beings? Why does God who supposedly does not want to force people to believe not
present the evidence to some in a natural way – perhaps by preventing their eyes
from seeing the glory - so that they do not know that something supernatural has
happened though it has? If God gave as much evidence for Mormonism as Mormons
say then why could he not give more in the important things instead of
scattering it about?
Isaiah 2 is supposed to predict the Mormon Church headquartered in the Rocky
Mountains! To read the prophecy is enough to show how improbable that is!
It is a disgrace that the Mormon faith regards the
following as divinely inspired: "Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be
expedient that Christ...should come among the Jews, among those who are the more
wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him...and there is none other
nation on earth that would crucify their God?" (2 Nephi 10:3). "For I, Nephi,
have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their
works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations" (2
Nephi 25:2). That is pure anti-semitism and should not be tolerated.