Here's a helpful site I found that deciphers the many assertions made by Mormons. As a disclaimer: I like Mormons. I've always had pleasant talks with them. And if Gov. Romney is the GOP candidate, I will support him with much élan. These theological observations are not intended to be attacks ad hominem. That said, here's a good place to start the discussion:
The Book of Mormon fails on three main counts. First, it utterly lacks historical or archaeological support, and there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that refutes it. Second, the Book of Mormon contains none of the key Mormon doctrines. This is important to note because the Latter-Day Saints make such a ballyhoo about it containing the "fullness of the everlasting gospel." (It would be more accurate to say it contains almost none of their "everlasting gospel" at all.) Third, the Book of Mormon abounds in textual errors, factual errors, and outright plagiarisms from other works.
If you’re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use.
We read that Jesus "shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers" (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).
If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town.
Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.
The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.
Tell the Mormon missionaries: "Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God."
http://www.catholic.com/library/problems_with_the_book_of_mormon.asp
The problem isn't that Joseph Smith wasn't a naturalist; it's that you're assuming too much from a flawed reading of the Book of Mormon.
ReplyDelete1) Honey bees aren't mentioned in a New World context. Its reference is at least four years before the Jaredites left Asia for the New World.
2) "At Jerusalem" is different than "in Jerusalem." You noted that Christ was born "in" Bethlehem rather than "at." The latter preposition means "in the vicinity of" as in "parking at the library" is not parking in the library. Additionally, the land of Jerusalem is a historically accurate designation for all of the communities within the political domain of the city of Jerusalem--including both Bethany and Bethlehem. Check out the el-Amarna letters.
Not to mention the fact that the same people that get worked up over the "Jerusalem" problem also claim that the Book of Mormon has thousands of changes made to it.
ReplyDeleteWhich is it? Seems like "Jerusalem" would be a pretty easy fix if it was the key reason to discount the other 500+ words in the book.