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.

Do Bible Teachings Contradict Modern Revelation Regarding the Need for the Priesthood?

Detractors of the LDS faith incorrectly assume that every Christian is automatically a member of the priesthood. They cite 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:4-6 and Hebrews 7:21 as proof texts, asserting that all Christians are now priests and that Christ is the one and only high priest forever. Some claim there is no official priesthood in the New Testament. They ask why we would need official priests now since Christ came and shed his own blood as a sacrifice for us. They also claim that there was no further need for a temple since blood sacrifices were done away with after Calvary.

We should first note that the above cited scriptures were not written simply to the general membership of the Church, but to the elect [1 Peter 1:2, 22-23], and especially to those called as priesthood bearers [Heb 3:1; 1 Peter 2:5; Rev 1:4; JST Rev 2:1]

Christ was "Called of God as a high Priest" [Heb 5:10; 6:20] but he was not the only one [Heb5:1]. Despite Protestant claims to the contrary, there are absolutely no scriptures stating that Christ was the last high priest. He was also a priest [Heb 7:15-17], a bishop [1 Peter 2:25], an apostle [Heb 3:1], and a prophet [Matt 21:11; John 4:19, 6:14; 7:40] - positions also held by other men. Paul wrote to the Hebrew saints after the Ascension of Christ into heaven: "the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity" [Heb 7:28]. "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices [not blood sacrifices]" [Heb 8:3]. John the Apostle also testified that Jesus Christ "hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father [Rev 1:6]

While there are few New Testament references to priests other than Jesus Christ and converted Levite priests [Acts 6:7], we should not assume that this office was abolished. The early church has priests along with bishops and deacons. Origen [ca 240AD] spoke of the church hierarchy in the 2nd century, describing the priest's office as being between that of the deacon and bishop [Jean Danielou, Origen, p 44-45, 49-50]. Eusebius [ca 300AD] clearly distinguished between those holding the priesthood [i.e. bishops, presbyters, or elders, deacons etc] and the lay members both men and women [Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:19, 23, 43, 7:30; 10:3, 4]

Eugene Seaich observers that "documents from the early Church show that the Aaronic Priesthood did not immediately disappear from Christianity. 1 Clement [ca 96AD] divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests, and Levites. The latter was also called "Deacons" and, according to Jusin's First Apology [ca 150AD], were responsible for passing the bread and wine to those attending service" [Ancient Texts and Mormonism, p. 59]. Though the title of "priest" was rarely used in the New Testament, so also were simular priesthood titles such as pastor [Eph 4:11], evangelist [Acts 21:8, Eph 4:11, 2 Tim 4:5], presbytery [1 Tim 4:14], and seventy [Luke 10:1, 7]

Perhaps this question is raised because those protestants who admit there was an official priesthood have a problem. They have no claim to authority by succession, since the Catholic Church long ago cut them off. On the other hand, if protestants can claim that the priesthood is legitimately inherent in Christianity, then this justifies their claim to authority. However, if the Protestant line of reasoning is correct, then anyone can start a new church and claim the authority. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened today as confusion reigns among the hundreds of Christian churches. This cannot be God's way, for his is a house of order, not of confusion [D&C 132:8].

There was definitely an official, unchangeable [Heb 7:24] and everlasting [Ex 40:15; Num 25:13] priesthood in the early church which was given to those called and ordained [John 15:16, Acts 1:22, 14:23; 15:22-23, 32; Eph 2:20; 4:11-12; 1 Tim 2:7, 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 1:5]by the laying on of hands [Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-3]. These priesthood holders referred to as elders [Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17 etc.] bishops [1 Tim 3:1, 2; Titus 1:7; Peter 2:25], deacons [Phil 1:11; Tim 3:8, 10, 12, 13], the presbytery [1 Tim 4:14], and other titles, accomplished healings [James 5:14-15] and other miracles [Mark 16:17-18] and led the Church [Acts 15:2-6].

In conclusion, one cannot claim priesthood authority out of thin air and without the laying on of hands by someone of authority. The doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" cannot be of God and definitely is not Biblically supportable based on their standard proof texts when applied to the rest of the scriptural support concerning the subject.

Some Say Temples Are No Longer Needed - What Are The Facts?

Jacob, the Old Testament prophet, equated the "house of God" to "the gate of heaven". [Gen 28:17] Modern revelation affirms that in a very real sense, the highest kingdom of heaven can only be obtained through the ordinances of the temple. [D & C 131:1-2] Although most Christians today recognize the importance of the temple to ancient Israel, they seem to ignore references to temple worship in the New Testament church. They reason that temples were only for blood sacrifices and that when Christ became the final sacrificial "Lamb of God" , blood sacrifices and the need for temples were "done away". [see 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb 9:1-28; 10:1-20]

Those who hold that temples are no longer required ignore the biblical teachings that the Lord will return suddenly at the last day "to his temple" [Mal 3:1-2] and that the anti-Christ will reveal himself "in the temple of God". [2 Thes 2:4] We are also told by John the Revelator that those who "wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb" will serve God "day and night in his temple". [Rev 7:14-15] We might ask them who will build this temple and why will it be used "day and night" if the work is no longer needed?

We should also note that Christ and his disciples often taught and worshiped in the temple. Christ, according to all four gospels, "taught daily in the temple" [Matt 26:55; Mar 14:49; Luke 2:46; 19:47; 21:37-38; John 7:28; 8:20; 18:20] and would not allow men to defile it. [Matt 21:12-15; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17] There he taught his gospel [Luke 20:1] and healed the blind and the lame. [Matt 21:12-15; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17] After the resurrection, we find the disciples "continuing daily in the temple" [Acts 2:46] "praising and blessing God". [Luke 24:53] We also find the apostles teaching and healing at the temple as Christ had done. [Acts 3:1-26] Significantly, Paul was praying in the temple and was there visited by the Lord in his glory. [Acts 22:17-18] Later in his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul asks, "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? [1 Cor 9:13] How can we live of the things of the temple if there is no temple? If we trust our Bibles, the temple remained the center of Christian worship even after Christ's death. [NOTE: for additional information on early Christian temple rites see Eugene Seaich, Ancient Texts and Mormonism, pp 56-58 and Darrick Evenson, The Gainsayers pp. 79-92]]

The importance of temples and temple work will increase as we enter the millennial period of the earth's history. Bruce R. McConkie has stated:

"Salvation cannot be gained except thought baptism of water and of the Spirit, nor can exaltation be achieved except through temple endowments and the sealing of families together for eternity. These saving and exalting ordinances are performed vicariously in the temples for the worthy dead who did not have the opportunity to receive them in this life. We are commanded to go to with our might, collect all the accurate genealogical data we can, and perform these saving and exalting ordinances for our worthy ancestors. Obviously, due to the frailties, incapacities, and errors of mortal men, and because the records of the past ages are often scanty and inaccurate, this great work cannot be completed for every worthy soul without assistance from on high. The millennial era is the time, primarily, when this assistance will be given by resurrected beings,. Genealogical records unknown to us will then become available. Errors committed by us in sealings or other ordinances will be rectified and all things will be arranged in proper order. Temple work will be the great work of the millennium". [Mormon Doctrine, pp 500-01; see also Doctrines of Salvation, 2:251-52]

After the millennium there will come a day when temples will no longer be required, [Rev 21:22] but that day will not come until the end of the earth [Rev21:1] when God will dwell with his people. [Rev 21:3] Until that day the Lord's people have been commanded to build houses to his holy name [D & C 124:39] that we, therein, might receive his ordinances and the revelation pertaining to this dispensation. [D & C 124:40-41]

Trinity Doctrine Exposed! (A Brief Overview)

The first vision of Joseph Smith represents to Latter-daySaints the beginning of the revelation of God to man in the final dispensation. Knowledge pertaining to the nature of God - his character, personality, divine attributes, powers, and purposes - have been known to latter-day prophets, and some of the knowledge obviously stands in contrast to what many in the Christian world would believe about God and about man's relationship to Deity.

1: The Trinity - An LDS Belief? (Godhead):

The answer to this question depends entirely on the inquirer's definition of "trinity". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word trinity as "the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The Random House College Dictionary adds a second alternative to this definition which allows also "the threefold personality of one Divine Being". Although Webster's definition would be considered a valid LDS description of the Godhead, the second Random House alternative would be considered by Latter-day Saints to be an apostate view.

Today, some people assert that a belief in a mysterious unknowable Trinitarian god is essential to a claim of Christianity even though this requirement is not biblical. At times they use Colossians 2:9 as a proof text to support their Trinitarian concept: "in him[Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Though this scripture could appear to vindicate the belief in the trinity, the Greek text does not justify this interpretation. The Greek word translated as Godhead in this verse is "theotes." This word actually means "divinity" and is translated as such in many modern Bible translations. Accurately translated, this verse should read "in Christ the fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form" {See New International Version}. Therefore, the qualities of Godhead are manifest to us in Christ but Christ is not God the Father.

It is important to note the word "trinity" does not appear anywhere in the King James Version nor any other reputable translation of the Bible. The present Trinitarian concept cannot be derived from an impartial reading of the Bible. Justification of this doctrine using citations of biblical verses is weak and inconclusive at best. The term Godhead, on the other hand, is an accepted biblical term {Acts 17:29; Rom1:20; Col. 2:9} and the preferred title in the LDS Church.{1} References to the Godhead as the trinity are found in LDS Church literature {2} but such usage clearly denotes a three-person Godhead and not a one-being concept.The latter concept of the trinity, now held by much of "mainstream Christianity", seems to have originated under the influence of the Greek and other oriental philosophies during the period of apostasy following the death of the apostles. {3} A study of Christianity prior to 325AD reveals that the LDS interpretation of the Godhead was then the prevailing belief. Church fathers such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Athanasius, and others argued that the Godhead consisted of separate Beings. {4} The first person to use the term trinity appears to have been Tertullian in about 200AD. He used the term to refer to ideas which mentioned three and one.

Over a century later, in 325AD, the Roman Emperor Constantine convened a delegation composed of about one-sixth of the bishops from throughout the Roman Empire. The stated purpose of the Council of Nicea as it was called, was to achieve unity among the factions that existed then. Three major groups with differing views regarding God's nature at length became two factions. The eastern (Arian) Christian view favored a three-God concept while the western (Roman) view favored one supreme God to whom all others were subordinated. Under extreme intimidation by the emperor, the Arian group was compelled to yield to the Roman view. Araus and the bishops and priests who opposed the Nicean Creed and the "one substance" terminology adopted by the council were exiled. Constantine, in order to ensure future unity, also commanded that the writings of these men be burned. {5}

The Nicean Creed stated that there was "one God and one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God" who was "one substance with the Father." The Athanasian creed, which was an outgrowth of the Nicean Creed, typifies the modern "orthodox" concept of the trinity. It speaks of an "incomprehensible" God which is completely foreign to Christ's teachings. Jesus taught that "this life eternal that 'we' might . . . know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom God had sent"{John 17:3; see also Jeremiah 31:34; John 8:19; 14:7-9, Hebrews 8:10-11, 1 John 2:3-4, and 1 John 3:1-2, 6; 5:20}

Thus, the accepted Trinitarian concept of deity is the result of a compromise achieved without the benefit of apostles, prophets, or revelation and arrived at only when extreme pressure was exerted by a then pagan emperor. The true concept of God is not that of an "unknown" or unknowable God {Acts 17:23} but one whose offspring we are {Acts 17:28-29} and in whose image we were created {Gen 1:26-27}. Our Heavenly Father loves us and wants us to know him and become like him {Matt 5:48; John 3:1-2}

Conclusion - The trinity that "mainstream Christianity" follows today of the three in one concept is not of God and never was. It doesn't follow scriptural references in the Bible and was not brought forth through apostles or prophets and therefore is doctrines of men. The LDS get hammered with accusations of following the doctrines of men but in reality those that judge do not look in their own scriptures to find out if the doctrine preached is actually truth.

---------------------------------------
Footnotes:
{1} History of the Church, 6:473; Lectures on Faith, Lecture 5; pp 58-59
{2} Articles of Faith, pp. 39-41; Journal of Discourses, 6:95; History of the Church, vol1, Intro., pp 80-81
{3} History of the Churh, vol 1, Intro. pp 82-87
{4} see J.D.N Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 93, 96, 129, 233
{5} James K. and Rose Seastrand, Journey to Eternal Life and istratios Along the Way, p 132; History of the Church vol 1, Intro., pp 79-90

The Eleven Witnesses Seeing Things - Your Kidding Right?

Detractors of the LDS faith in their quest to attempt to prove Mormonism false have sought creative ways to attack the Church and its doctrine. One such area that these detractors attempt to attack is the eleven witnesses of the Gold plates. They question the testimony of the witnesses because the record was shown unto us by the power of God and angle came down from Heaven and laid before our eyes the plates. These detractors stated the following: It is clear that the witnesses were not bearing witness to an actual physical seeing and handling of the gold plates, but to a mythical event of the same kind as visions of angelic beings and visits from god-men. [1]

The first problem I see is that the person who is making the claim either does not understand or does not want to understand that there are two kinds of experiences that the witnesses had. 1st the three special witnesses had what was described as a mythical experience, Mythical being described by the dictionary as fictitious. The problem comes in that if the experience is false because of angelic beings it doesn't cover the entire eleven witnesses that they are claiming to invalidate.

For those that bother to read the Book of Mormon know that in the front of every Book of Mormon is the testimony of the 3 Witnesses and the testimony of the 8 witnesses. It is clear to even the most discriminating mind that the eight witnesses did not see any angels or god-men.

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer; Jacob Whitmer; Peter Whitmer, Jun; John Whitmer; Hiram Page; Joseph Smith, Sen; Hyrum Smith; Samuel H. Smith

These witnesses simply saw the plates. One has to ask how the statement above about visions of angelic beings invalidates these witnesses statement. It is clear that in their account that they physically saw the plates. In fact to quote it; Joseph Smith, Jun the translator of this work has shown us the plates of which he has spoken. This clearly shows a physical action by people and has to contain a solid artifact to show. These witnesses even handled the plates by their testimony.

The detractors however by their statement attempt to invalidate the three witnesses instead of all eleven. That stated one has to ask if these same detractors are willing to invalidate all Biblical scripture based on the same type of claim the this is a "mythical" experiance. One has to ask do these detractors have "first hand knowledge" of the events? If not then they can only go by thier feelings in this matter. We as LDS do understand the difference in the witnesses statements, meaning the difference in the three special witnesses and the eight other witnesses. I believe the Lord did this by design so that detractors that bring up these types of arguments against his church have to deal with both.

Wer62

The Bible Fraud

The Bible is the most misused and misunderstood book ever written. It has been used to justify all manner of impropriety, wickedness, and falsehood. Every spiritual fraud ever prepetrated in the history of Judaism or Christianity has claimed support from the Bible. On the authority of the Bible the Jews crucified Christ, stoned Stephen, and imprisoned and beat the Apostles. With the Bible as justification put Christians "unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women" (Acts 22:4). After the death of the Apostles the Bible was taught by authority of the whip and the sword. To the Reformers it became the source of priesthood authority and the final will and testament of their mute God.

A knowledge of what the Bible does and does not claim for itself is important in protecting against its misrepresentations and misuse. Let us consider one of five common frauds perpetuated in the guise of loyalty to the Bible.

The Bible is Not Infallible

The fundamental error of the Bible cultists is the doctrine of Bible infallibility. This tenet holds that the Bible must be "completely authoritative and trustworthy in all that is asserts as factual, whether in matters of theology, history, or science." [1] The Bible, it is held, "does not contain error of any kind." [2]

It has to be significant that the Bible makes no such claim for itself! There is not a single passage of scripture that can properly be used to sustain such a view. Nor is there any agreement among those maintaining such a position as to what verion of the Bible should be used or what the Bible is saying on a host of matters.

The argument simply is that the Bible cannot be trusted in all things. Because of endless textual and translation problems, many scholars concede error in our modern Bible while maintaining the infallability of the original manuscripts as written by their authors. The position is secure since none of the original manuscripts exist and no one would have to accept them even if they were found.

It is helpful to ask why the fundementlists in the Protestant word find it so necessary to argue for an infallible Bible. The answer is the Bible is all they have. They have no living prophets, they have sealed the heavens to revelation, and even if they were to find some ancient manuscript written by one of the new testament writers, they have locked themselves into a postion that would prevent them from adding it to the canon of scripture. The Bible is all they have, and as such it becomes the sole source of their authority. From the Bible they claim priesthood authority, doctrine, and the commission to preach and teach. Without it they have NOTHING. We as LDS seek the word of God not a book that has been mistranslated, misrepresented and ultimately misused by men of all centuries.

Stone, leaves, bark, skins, wood, metals, baked clay and pypyrus were all used anciently to record inspired messages. Our concern with the ancients is not the perfection with which messages were recorded but the inspiration of those messages. More importantly, we are interested in the fact that the heavens were open to them, that they had such a message to record. Knowing as we do that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the fact that he spoke to them, however poorly they preserved it, witnesses that he can speak to to us. After all, the Bible is only black ink on white papper until the spirit of God manifests its true meaning to us; if we have obtained that, do we need to quibble over the Bible's suitability as a history and science text?

Wer62

________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

[1] Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan 1982], pg 19

[2] Haold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible [Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan, 1976], pg 18