Book of Mormon: True of False?
Mormons believe in the Bible. Their preferred translation is the King James Version (KJV). Many other Christian churches use this translation today. I would say that this is probably one of the worse translations to get these days. If you want to know a little more about that, please refer to What Version of the Bible Do You Use?
We are not here to look at the Bible today, however. The Book of Mormon is what we are focusing on in this particular post. The Latter Day Saints look at this book as their primary historical book. This is the book that supposedly came from golden plates that Joseph Smith translated. Mormons refer to the Book of Mormon as their Bible. Know lets look at what it says…
I do not have the time to get into too extensive detail, but here are some issues historically with the Book of Mormon.
- 1 Nephi 18:12 - the use of a compass
Nephi tells the story of when some Jewish people first came over the to the Americas taking place right around 575 BC. The compass was not used as a navigation tool until 1000 AD (read about it here). The times here are just not matching up. - 1 Nephi 4:9 - use of a steel sword
Steel was not used in Rome until the 4th century BC. Africa may have produced steel as far back as 1400 BC, but for Jews to have used this form of metal that early is HIGHLY unlikely. - Jacob 7:27 - French speakers
The last word of this book is ‘adiue.’ It is French for farewell. For information regarding the date of this word, look here. This book took place as late as 421 BC, but this word did not even exist until the 1400’s AD. - Almah 20:6 - Horses in the Americas
Horses have been around since creation, obviously. So when the book of Almah took place, around 90 BC, horses existed. Just not in the Americas. It was not until the 15th century when Spaniards brought horses on this land, so yet another issue (historically) with the Book of Mormon.
There are also talks of two great people in the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites and the Nephites. There have been ABSOLUTELY NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS to prove these two people groups even existed.
In short, there are just too many rough spots with this book. Besides, why do we not see either of these groups mentioned in the Bible if they are so important (are real)?
This is the last of the reasons I wanted to look at the Mormons as a cult. They look at the Book of Mormon as an authoritative writing more than the Bible. They believe in more than one God (polytheism). I do not wish to get into the practices that are not Christian (like baptism for the dead or the eternal progression). Bottom line, stay away from Mormon theology. They are clever and use much of the same language as Christianity, but they are not Christian. God bless.
Filed under: Cults |
Tags: Book of Mormon, Christianity, Cults, Latter Day Saints, Mormonism, Religion
6 Responses to “Book of Mormon: True of False?”
Leave a Reply
Search
You are currently browsing the the Blog of Mick weblog archives.
“This is the last of the reasons I wanted to look at the Mormons as a cult.”
If you classify anything with a holy book that is false as a cult, shouldn’t all religions be classified as cults (or, if you belong to one, all but the one you belong to)?
Good question. If you were to look back at the post “The Meaning of ‘Cult,’” you would find the definition. The main thing about a cult is that they are posing as a religion, while not sharing the basic principles of that religion. One of those basic principles is the authoritative writings.
The Book or Mormon is not in line with Christianity, so that is why it is one of the reasons it is looked upon as a cult.
How does Mormonism not share the principles of Christianity? They still believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the New Testament.
“The Book or Mormon is not in line with Christianity, so that is why it is one of the reasons it is looked upon as a cult.”
The New Testament is not in line with the old, so I guess it should be seen as a cult. At the very least, it should have been seen as a cult back when it started as an off-shoot from Judaism.
“Cult: a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false”
Note the “generally considered to be [...] false” part. I’m not sure what this means - there is no religion which is generally considered to be true, and for any given religion, the majority of people on Earth believe it to be false.
You would be correct on Christianity being a cult if we claimed to be Islam, however, we do not. Islam is Islam, Christianity is Christianity. Though Christianity springs from Islam in that we believe Jesus is the fulfillment of all the prophecies, we are not claiming to be something we are not.
Mormonism, on the other hand, is claiming to be something it is not. If it were to look at itself as another religion, that is an entirely different issue, but that is simply not the case.
It does not share the basic principle of Christianity as such:
a) Mormonism is polytheistic (believing in more than one god). Christianity is monotheistic (believing in only one God).
b) The Holy Bible is not the main authoritative source, the Book of Mormon is.
Censoring me? That’s cool. Anyone who reads your last comment and has any knowledge with realize you don’t have any.
Yeah, I am gonna have to agree with Mick on this one. The reason Mormonism is classified as a cult is because they claim to be Christian.
Important to realize here is that CULT and OCCULT are two different things though. Often people confuse the two words, mostly because they look and sound very similar, but they do mean two entirely different things. A Cult group, such as Mormonism, claims to be another religion (in this case Christian), but lacks several of the definitive elements of that religion (Christianity). An Occult group, is a group that would focus more on paranormal things, such as demon worship or the like.
I can only assume from your reaction Tommy that you were confused between the two. Because Mick makes a good point here. Mormonism claims to be Christian, but differs in several critical areas, and that can’t really be argued. Therefore, they fit the definition pretty much perfectly.