Talking with Mormons
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact

It Doesn't Bite

7/19/2014

1 Comment

 
If you spend much time in a Mormon discussion, especially if it’s with missionaries, they’ll probably ask you to read the Book of Mormon. Missionaries quickly lose interest if you refuse to read their scripture. Don’t let this discourage you. Reading a bit of the Book of Mormon can make your discussion easier. Most Mormons will tune you out if you base your understanding of their doctrine on something you read on a website. But it’s a lot easier to ask questions based on strange verses you read. Here’s some I found while reading a few passages Mormons said were good places to start.

1 Nephi 6
 1 And now I, Nephi, do not give the genealogy of my fathers in this part of my record; neither at any time shall I give it after upon these plates which I am writing; for it is given in the record which has been kept by my father; wherefore, I do not write it in this work.

5 Wherefore, the things which are pleasing unto the world I do not write, but the things which are pleasing unto God and unto those who are not of the world.

6 Wherefore, I shall give commandment unto my seed, that they shall not occupy these plates with things which are not of worth unto the children of men.

Moses obviously thought recording the genealogy from Adam to Abraham was worthy for men to know. Matthew and Luke both felt it was pleasing to God to trace Jesus’ genealogy back to King David. Yet this author refuses to record any genealogy saying they’re just pleasing to men, but not of worth to men.

Genealogies may be boring, but they still play an important role. They help show the Bible is a record of real men who really lived. The genealogies in the Gospels help connect their story with the people and timeline of the Old Testament (OT). The Book of Mormon asks us to trust it without giving links to the OT. They mention Jerusalem and a few other people from the OT, but they don’t mention any specific events in the OT. Someone claims to be Christ later in the book, but he certainly doesn’t act like the Christ in the Bible. Look at the first thing they say Christ does when he visited the Americas.

3 Nephi
3 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof . . . that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea . . . that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth . . . the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk . . . and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof . . . , that great city Jacobugath . . . the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno . . . to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face . . . And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations.

So he destroyed at least 11 cities because of their sin. But the worst part is in the next verse. 

 13 O all ye that are spared because ye were more righteous than they.

To be clear, I’m not denying God did similar things in the Old Testament. The issue is Christ spent most of His ministry on earth reaching out to the worst types of sinners in the land. He forgave the people who killed Him. Any mention of human righteousness was a critique, often very harsh, of religious leaders. The LDS Christ is not the Christ in the New Testament.

3 Nephi 2
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

In other words, some Lamanites joined God’s people and their skin turned white. Basically, following God = white skin and sinning = dark skin. I don’t get it. Why aren’t there any examples of skin color changes in the Bible? Has anyone’s skin color changed when they joined the LDS church?
1 Comment
Mike
4/25/2015 13:44:46

(First point)
He said the genealogical account was already given in another book in the same set of works. There is no reason to include in every single book ever written. He's not saying that it is not important, he's just saying that that is not the goal of the book he was currently writing.

(Second point)
There is a certain level of sin that has to be reached before an entire city will be destroyed. Yes, Christ reaches out to people. He gives them every opportunity to come back to Him. But some people choose otherwise. Once they have reached a certain level where they are completely committed to what they are doing and will not ever become righteous again, there is no reason why they need continue in this mortal probation.

This life is a test to see what we will choose when we have the options available. They made their choice and stuck to it (and possibly even cast out or killed all the righteous people within, which is what happens a lot of the time). Their test is complete, they can go back to be judged now.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I can't say that I would know when a person is beyond saving, that matter is up to God. But, since those people were destroyed by the acts of God, we can surmise that they had reached that point.

The people that Christ forgave (that I remember about, correct me if I'm wrong) were not the leaders of the Jews who chose to persecute Him, but the guards or the common people. People who had good in them, but may have been led astray. People who didn't really know the full scope of what they were doing "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do". The people who know full well what they're doing, and still choose the darker path, they are not likely to be forgiven (I say not likely, because it is clearly not my call as to what their fate is).

(Third point)
"Basically, following God = white skin and sinning = dark skin."
No, that's not it. The people of the Nephites and the Lamanites were in a special time and under a specific circumstance. They Lamanites were usually far more wicked than the Nephites, so it was important to be able to keep the two group apart so the the righteous people were not corrupted and destroyed. This was part of the covenant to Nephi when he first arrived in the Promised Land. None of the other groups you speculate about have been under this covenant, so the same would not necessarily hold true. The mark was not always in the form of darker skin, there was a group of people who marked themselves with red on their foreheads and it was still a way to separate themselves from the Nephites. The mark was just an outward manifestation of their inner sins and iniquities. In this day and age, we do not have such obvious appearances of sin but have to judge by the spirit to know good from evil and righteous behavior from wicked behavior.

This would not be the first time such a type was used to teach a lesson about a deeper, spiritual meaning. Unless, perhaps, you are saying that the bronze serpent was used more than once in the scriptures, and is still used today to treat wounds from poisonous (or fiery) snakes?

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Dustin McNab

    I've talked to many Mormons over the past few years and I'd like to use this blog to share some effective responses I've found.

    Archives

    July 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.