Is there Scientific Proof of the Book of Mormon?

I cannot tell you how many times I have received this same question. As well as the kind words that Elder Ballard has mentioned here in this You Tube Video; I would caution those that ask this question to judge the Bible on the same standard from an Athiestic point of view. Can one PROVE without a shadow of doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, and accended to his father. A book unto itself cannot prove anything. It is ones faith in the accuracy of that information as testified by the Holy Ghost.

Why Don't Latter-day Saints Use Wine in Their Sacrament?

Latter-day Saints emphatically affirm our reliance on the atoning blood of Christ for the remission of sins, as attested to in the bible [Col 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7; Rev 7:14] and modern scripture [1 Nephi 12:10; Mosiah 3:7, 11; 4:2; Alma 5:21, 27; 21:9; 24:13; 34:36; Helaman 5:9; Esther 13:10; Moroni 4:1; 5:2; 10:33; D&C 20:40; 27:2; 76:69; Moses 6:62].

Even the sacrament prayer for the administration of the water affirms the symbolism of the atoning blood. It states in part ". . . bless and sanctify this water to the souls that drink of it, that they do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them" [D&C 20:79].

As to our use of water in place of the grape juice [new wine - see Isa 65:8], it is important to note that initially grape juice was used in the sacrament both in the early church [Matt 26:28-29] and in the latter-day Church [D&C 20:79, History of the Church 1:78]. As a precaution against the enemies of the Church poisoning or adulterating the grape juice sold to the Saints, a change was authorized by the Lord [History of the Church 1:106-08; Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:132; Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, p 55]. The Lord revealed "that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory- remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins" [D&C27:2]

It is interesting to note that the command throughout the scriptures was not to partake of the bread and the wine, but the bread and the cup [Matt 26:26-27; Mark 14:22-23; Luke 22:17, 19,20; 1 Cor 11:24-26]. It thereforeappears that it was not the wine that was being empathized but the "bitter cup" [D&C 19:18] of which Christ would partake [Matt 20:22-23; 26:39, 42; Mark 10:38; 14:36; Luke 22:20, 42; John 18:11; 1 Cor 10:21]. This also in conformity with the Old Testament usage of the term "cup" to symbolize suffering [Ps 11:6; 75:8; Isa 51:17, 22; Jer 25:15, 17, 49:12; see also Jesus the Christ, p. 620, note 8].

It is noteworthy that some early Christians used both water and wine in sacrament. Justin Matyr [ca 140 AD] recorded:

On Sunday we hold a meeting in one place for all who live in the cities or the country nearby. The teachings of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time is available. When the reader has finished, the president gives a talk urging the inviting us to imitate all these good examples. When then all stand together and send up our prayers. As noted before, bread wine and water is brought forth after our prayer. The president also sends up prayers and thanksgiving. The people unitedly give their consent by saying "Amen" The administration takes place, and each one receives what has been blessed with gratefulness. The deacons also administer to those not present . . . We all choose Sunday for our communal gathering because it is the first day, on which God created the universe by transforming the darkness and the basic elements, and because Jesus Christ - our Redeeming Savior - rose from the dead on the same day [First Apology, pp. 65-67; see also Vesal and Wallace, The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, p. 231].

This practice was also mentioned by Pope Julius I [337 AD] in a decree which stated: "But if necessary let the cluster be pressed into the cup and water mingled with it" [Gratian, De Consecratione, Pars III, Dist. 2, c. 7, as cited by Leon C. Field, Oinos: A Discussion of the Bible Wine Question, New York, 1883, p. 91, and Samuele Bacchiocchi, Wine in the Bible, pp. 109-10]. This practice of mixing wine and water may be related to the fact that both blood and water were shed on the cross. John recorded that "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forth-with came there out blood and water" [John 19:34]. John latter recorded that "there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one" [1 John 5:8]. In like manner baptism by water was also related by Paul to Christ's death [Rom 6:3-5].

Samuele Bacchiocchi, a non-LDS scholar, has observed, "An investigation. . . of such Jewish Christian sects as the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the Elkesaites, and the Encratites, might provide considerable support for abstinence from fermented wine in the Apostolic Church. The fact that some of these sects went to the extreme of rejecting altogether both fermented and unfermented wine using only water, even in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, suggests the existence of a prevailing concern for in the Apostolic Church" [Wine in the Bible, p. 181]. It also suggests that early Christians understood that "it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when [partaking] of the sacrament" [D&C 27:2]

Catholic, at a much later period, also substituted the eucharist for the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, believing that it would literally be turned into the flesh and blood of the Lord. [See James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, pp. 235-50].

Although the later practice was introduced during a period of apostasy, it nonetheless shows that some Christians felt it was permissible to modify the observance of the sacrament service even without direction of the Lord. The LDS sacrament service, on the other hand, is always observed within the guidelines given by the Lord and as prescribed in the scriptures [see John 6:53-54; Acts 2:46; 20:7; 1 Cor 11:23-30; Moroni 4 and 5; D&C 20:75-79; 27:1-4; and additional information on the LDS reliance on Christ's atonement see Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth About "The God Makers", pp. 192-93].

Did Joseph Believe the Moon was Inhabited?

No original sources verifying this have been found of which I am aware. There however is an 1881 jounal entry, published in 1892 by Oliver B Huntington who claimed Joseph Smith said there were moonmen. Oliver Huntington would have been about 10 or 11 years old at that time if he had heard it from Joseph Smith directly. Indications are that Oliver Huntington heard this claim secondhand at best.


Reverend J.R. Dummelow described the authors of the Bible and I believe it to be the same with Joseph Smith:

Tough purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit, these men each had his own peculiarities of manner and dispostion - each with his own education or want of education - each with his won way of looking at things - each influenced differently from one another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of natural faculties; it did not even make them free from eathly passion; it did not make them into machines - it left them men.

Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries. [1]

Dummelow's description of the authors of Genesis is equally applicable:

His scientific knowledge may be bounded by the horizon of the age in which he lived, but the religious truths he teaches are irrefutable and eternal. [2]

Dummelow, who is not LDS is considered one of the foremost commentators on the Bible. Biblical prophets sometimes made errors but that does not mean they were not men of God.

Van Hale answered the detractors criticism in his pamphlet "How Could a Prophet Believe in Moonmen? One excerpt:

Did Joseph Smith believe in an inhabited moon? From the historical evidence now available the answer must be: Not Proven. But, all things considered, the possibility or probability, that he did cannot reasonably be denied For all others of that era the question seems quite insignificant, especially given contemporary beliefs. But in the case of Joseph Smith, he claimed to be a prophet. Some extremists contend that his claim demands that his knowledge in every area be superior to that of others in his era. If he believed any false notion of his day, so these critics say his credibility must be doubted. Others, not so demanding of infallible insight in a prophet, would be more comfortable with a description of God's revelation which allowed for the human and the divine.

The conclusion is that there is no direct proof that Joseph Smith said or believed that Moonmen inhabited the Moon but if he did so what. A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. This is supported by Dummelow a highly respected traditional Christian commentator concerning the Bible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
[1] J.R. Dummerlow, One Volume Bible Commentary, pg. cxxxv
[2] J.R. Dummerlow, One Volume Bible Commentary, pg. xxx

Adam, God and the StrawMan

by Wer62

Writers past current have practiced the art of creating the "straw man's argument". This type of argument is done in hopes that the reciepiant of the message will be confused and unable to respond or in extreme cases even come over to that persons way of thinking based on a false premise.

The straw man argument seems to be mandatory in attacks against the LDS Church. The Adam God Doctrine is one such example. According to this doctrine detrators of the LDS faith will tell you that Latter Day Saints worship Adam as God. If it were not for these detractors of the LDS faith there would be hardly anyone that would know of this doctrine. It is not taught in our scriptures or our lesson manuals. There is nobody that I know who has ever heard this taught and there is nobody that even knows somebody who even "thinks" this may have been taught or even believes it within the LDS membership.

Propping up the straw man is usually done by quoting some Mormon leader as supporting or making a supportive statement concerning a piece of doctrine. Quoting someone living of course is totally out of the question and the longer they have been dead the better off the detrators are concerning proving their point. If we use the Bible in this same fashion we can come up to some pretty funny conclusions. In Genesis we are told that Jacob made an agreement with Laban that his wages for tending Laban's herds would be the speckled and spotted catle, sheep and goats. Jacob then induced the herds to give birth to speckeled and spotted offspring by having them look at a striped stick when they concieved. [See Genesis 30:31-40]

Since the Jewish community believes in the Book of Genesis it stands to reason that they believe that what ever impresses the mind of the female at the time of conception will have a corresponding influence on the mind or body of the fetus. Since most Jews do not know they believe this it is up to us to get the word out. The advantage of not having Jacob with us is obvious.

When it comes to Christians and the New Testament, if Paul said something then they are duty bound to believe and follow it. If you take this preface then women are to keep silent in church [see 1 Corinthians 14:34], are not allowed to teach [see 1 Corinthians 11:15] and should have long hair. [see 1 Corinthians 11:15]

While these illustrations are ridiculous it is no more ridiculous than telling the LDS that they believe Adam is God. If an honest person is looking into what Christ taught would that person go to the Pharisees or Saducees? For more information please read What is Considered LDS Doctrine

Do the LDS Conspire to Change History?

The problem with the conspiracy theories concerning the LDS Church is that the detractors of the LDS faith do not accept history unless it fits their preconceptions. An honest reading the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants as well as LDS Church history reveals there was no effort to cover up anything. For example, if I had been writing the Bible I might have attempted to cover up the following;

• The Lies of Abraham
• The Anger Fits of Moses
• The Sins of David
• Paul and Barnabas not being able to get along and having to part ways

I might have had a “public relations office” cover up all of these things. The fact remains that the Bible uses such events as teaching opportunities as well as to teach us that even those who have authority are not perfect. So it is with LDS Church history and scripture.

have studied the Early 1st and 2nd century Church as well as LDS Church history for the last 10 years and I am amazed at what is recorded about some of the key leaders that we regard so highly in history of both the ancient church and the modern restored church. These histories tell stories of authorized leaders and their short comings, sins, and failures. It is laid right out there in a most honest way. Just as it was with the ancient Church leaders so it is with the Modern Church leadership. They learn as we do line by line precept by precept. [1]

Often times what is drawn from Church leaders of the past is, like the matter of blood atonement, misquoted, misrepresented, or taken out of context. Not everything that was ever spoken or written by the Prophets and Apostles is part of what we teach today. Can a prophet have a personal opinion? Did Prophets and Apostles past and current make mistakes? I think that is established in my earlier comments on Moses, Abraham, Paul and Barnabas as well as others like Jonah. We as LDS do not believe a prophet or apostle is perfect. We love and sustain them as authorized by the Lord. Just as Paul made mistakes we admire his boldness and dedication and treasure his epistles. James pointed out that Elijah "was a man subject to like passions as we are" [James 5:17]. Joseph Smith taught "a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.[2] On one occasion the prophet Joseph Smith declared: "I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities" [3] Lorenzo Snow commented; if he does not know everything I know... I saw the... imperfections in [Joseph Smith]... I thanked God that He would put upon him... for I knew that I myself had weakness, and I thought there was a chance for me. [4]

The detractors of the LDS faith somehow think that history is a plot or conspiracy to hide and manipulate truth. Truth has a way of emerging on top especially in light of such opposition. After all just because there is a lot of opposition does not make the LDS Church any less true especially in light of all the materials that the LDS church makes available. What these same detractors do not realize is that the Sadducee’s and Pharisee’s attempted to squash or twist the eternal truth of Jesus Christ in Christ’s day and these same type of detractors are doing the same thing now calling on the traditions of men instead of an authorized priesthood. True messengers of God are builders—not destroyers. We send our missionaries into the world to teach and to assist people in receiving truth line upon line until the fullness of the gospel is received. [5]

My opinion is that detractors of the LDS faith seem to have an over active imagination claiming some history is doctrine of the LDS church that simply isn't so and twisting good doctrine into unrecognizable forms. One has to wonder why so much effort is put into attempting to discredit the LDS faith.

Wer62

__________________________________________________
Footnotes:
[1] Isa 28:10, 13, 17
[2] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 278
[3] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 268
[4] Lorenzo Snow, as cited in Maxwell, Conference Report October 1984, 10
[5] Elder Carlos E. Asay, as cited in Sunday Afternoon session October 4, 1981

The LDS Worship Joesph Smith - Oh Really?

by Wer62

It has been posed by detrators of the LDS faith that the LDS membership worships Joesph Smith. One such detractor asked made the following statement and asked a question:

The year 2005 is the 200th anniversary of the LDS Prophet Joseph Smith's birth. Latter-day Saints are using this anniversary year to honor their Prophet in special ways; but, according to the Chicago Tribune, this admiration is being "downplayed for fear that outsiders would mistake their reverence for the prophet as if they were worshipping him as a God."

In practical terms, how does LDS reverence for the Prophet Joseph Smith differ from LDS worship of Jesus Christ?

The article stated it plainly. We reverence Joseph Smith and we worship Jesus Christ. The difference is in the terminology and as such we need to define the terms of reverence and worship: [1]

rev-er-ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rvr-ns) n.
1. A feeling of profound awe and respect and often love; veneration. See Synonyms at honor.

2. Reverence Used as a form of address for certain members of the Christian clergy: Your Reverence

wor-ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wurshp)n.
1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.

2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.

We honor Joseph Smith and his accomplishments no different that those who reverence Moses in his day, but we worship Jesus Christ as our deity. Immense difference!

We do not pray to Joesph Smith to save us, we do not expect Joesph Smith to save us. We pray through Jesus Christ and believe He is our mediator with the Father. We are taught to close our prayers "in the name of Jesus Christ". Does this sound like a religion that prays to Joesph Smith?

We admire all the Joseph Smith accomplished. He under the direction of Christ restored Christ's words, orginized a Church, built entire cities that were so nice they were taken away sometimes by threats of exterminiation orders by those who were jelious of those accomplishments. It is true that Joseph Smith accomplished a lot in his lifetime, more than most. That stated we do not pray to him and therefore by defintion do not "worship" him.

___________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

[1] Meriam Websters Online Dictionary

Outrageous Claims Concerning LDS Doctrine of Forgiveness

An LDS Reply to those who seek to shake the faith of others:

Written by Wer62

Evangelical religious groups often times will hunt for hard questions for LDS members to answer in order to shake the faith of those who may not be as secure as others. One such question was posed based on Spencer W. Kimballs book "Miracle of Forgiveness"

A central teaching in the LDS Church is that forgiveness from God is available, but it is conditioned upon repentance.* LDS Prophet Spencer W. Kimball taught that human beings are required to forgive others even though they be unrepentant.**

How is it that man is able to forgive the unrepentant, while it is "impossible" for God to do so? Is man above God in that he can forgive even the unrepentant?

*See Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 165-166; Mormon
Doctrine, Forgiveness, p. 292** See Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 282

In order to answer this question one must have a good understanding of judgment, repentance and forgiveness. God has an obligation by his own words to judge mankind so that no unclean thing may enter into heaven. We must follow those laws, ordinances, and commandments that God has set before us as well as following the Lord's judgment. (Lev 18:4) It is all too clear that judgment is God's and not man's to perform. We are to do no unrighteousness in judgment of our fellow man. (Lev 19:15-18)

We know that each man's judgment comes from the Lord. (Prov 29:26) We also know that there is a real danger when performing judgment against our fellow man for if you judge your fellow man you will be judged by the same measure. (Matt 7:1-2) The Lord's Prayer and explanation sums up forgiveness and judgment especially on judgment of man by man. You will be forgiven if you forgive those who trespass and debt against you. (Matt 6:9-15) It does not matter if the offending party has repented or not as judgment is not for man against man. We are to forgive.

This however does not negate repentance for those who humble themselves before the Lord in repentance shall have salvation. (2 Cor 7:8-10) Those who don't repent will parish. (Luke 13:5) We must repent of our sins before God. God has made it abundantly clear that judgment belongs to him and that we are to forgive our fellow man. In conclusion while this may be a hard task for us as mankind to perform I see no contradiction between the statements made by Spencer W. Kimball concerning repentance and forgiveness. Does this make man above God? No as we have not learned how to righteously, lovingly judge like God.