Scott's Reviews > The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ

The Book of Mormon by Anonymous
Rate this book
Clear rating

M 50x66
's review
Sep 23, 2007

did not like it
Recommended for: a person wishing for hell

What can I say I have read this book. It is supposed to be a new book thats Gods word for the fact the Bible was corrupted. Hum odd sounds like some one will get spanked for that. Ok for one this Book takes away from God. It states a plural of Gods. Is there not just one God? It has many mistakes in this Book such as one Book in this Book it says God Created Earth then a few books later it says Gods made the eARTH WHICH ONE IS IT. I have found that the people who hold it close to there hearts actually do not see the flaws in this book because it was slammed down there throat. Or to Question it would be a bad thing in there life.

Dont worry about questioning this book. Its a Fictional Novel that many have taken to far.
15 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Book of Mormon.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
January 1, 2004 – Finished Reading
September 23, 2007 – Shelved

Comments (showing 51-57 of 57) (57 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 51: by Erin (last edited Jun 05, 2009 08:15AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Erin Scott, why do you look at the world to find fault? What of Joseph Smith's prophecies are false? Please put EXAMPLES, or people do not take you seriously. No, I'm not trying to convert you, but back up your statements with FACT, or don't post at all.

message 52: by Linz (new) - rated it 5 stars

Linz I'm sorry, but you are not quite correct... The Bible is not corrupted; we don't believe that at all. It's ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST, as it says in the title. There is the Godhead, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Together they make one God. They are three separate beings, but they are the Godhead. We only worship one God. Jesus created the Earth, it was Heavenly Father's plan.

message 53: by Matthew (last edited May 28, 2010 12:24PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Matthew Carlson I must say I enjoy reviews written about literature the reviewer claims to have read but which reveal a palpable lack of familiarity with the text. First, this little bit:

“It is supposed to be a new book thats Gods word for the fact the Bible was corrupted.”

I suppose you just missed the title page which states specifically that the books purpose is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.” Even the contributor who provides the bit on the removal of plain and precious things states clearly “we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God.” Indeed in the very section you feel outlines the books alleged purpose the Book of Mormon records the following “These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Sure, they may also incidentally “make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them” but please, you read the book and this was the purpose you derived for its production?

Then you move on to specific objections to the content:

“Ok for one this Book takes away from God. It states a plural of Gods”

Oh really? Please cite chapter and verse for me. Most historically orthodox Christians actually have little objection to the Book of Mormon theologically so it seems an oddity to me that you identified what many seem to have missed.

But here’s a good question:

“Is there not just one God?”

Monotheism is a complex matter. If indeed it is understood as Merriam-Webster defines it then both ancient Israel and early Christians were far from being monotheistic. They certainly weren’t polytheistic but they were indeed henotheistic. So in general, yes, in the words of Paul, “to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Odd that of the “many mistakes” you allege are “in this Book” you can cite only “in this Book it says God Created Earth then a few books later it says Gods made the eARTH WHICH ONE IS IT.” It cannot be both? Isn’t God comprised of the three that are one, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? Is it a problem to use the term “God” collectively in one context and then to apply it individually in another? Remember that a contradiction is to state that a thing is both A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect.

Of course, unfortunately the Book of Mormon has little to say on the creation. More likely than not you are referring to the content of the Pearl of Great Price which is, I am afraid, not in “this Book” per se. Certainly the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price have been bound as a Triple Combination and thereby made available as a single volume but these are three separate books. It’s as if you were stating that the fictitious Battle of the Pelennor Fields is described in a book entitled The Fellowship of the Ring merely on account that the three volumes which comprise the Lord of the Rings (i.e. The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King) were bound together in a single volume.

I think it fascinating that you feel that “the people who hold it close to there [sic:] hearts actually do not see the flaws in this book because it was slammed down there [sic:] throats.” Precisely what does being “slammed down there [sic:] throat” consist of? Being invited to read it? Being encouraged to read it? Being tortured brutally until they read it? I detect the pungent odor of a double-standard lurking about this particular conjecture. If indeed being invited, encouraged, and even praised for reading the volume is to be considered coercive would not the same argument apply with equal force to any invitation, encouragement or praise relating to reading the Bible?

I think it quite healthy to question everything but I find that many of the questions asked by those who assert biblical sufficiency tend to cast stones from a proverbial glass house (this is not to say that these stones do not find their mark, but rather than they can be returned with equal injury). This is not to say that I reject the Bible (although I do not accept biblical sufficiency or inerrancy) but rather that many of the arguments against the Book of Mormon tend to militate against the Bible as well. I am curious what you would have me do if an argument you raise in relation to the Book of Mormon would with equal force impugn the Bible? Reject both? Accept both?

To me this is the Achilles Heel of the historically orthodox Christian critic: equity.

message 54: by Matthew (last edited May 28, 2010 12:27PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Matthew Carlson In reading through this thread I noticed post #11 authored by the intrepid “Doc Ronny” who “absolutely love[s:] convincing someone of the Truth.” This post is an excellent example of what I like to call the everything and the kitchen sink fallacy. Rather than discuss a single matter or even keep the topic relevant to the text at hand the critic deluges his opponent with an overwhelming mass of quotations, alleged errors, supposed inconsistencies, and the like. The obvious intent of this overwhelming onslaught is to attempt to demonstrate, through sheer quantity, that the matter under discussion it hopelessly mired in error. Of course, it also has the handy effect of rendering any further discussion quite difficult as it creates the impediment of a massive clot of data which must first be addressed before one can move on.

I might suggest a single quotation (or if need be a few if more than one is required to make a point) and then an accompanying objection or argument. This will prevent misconceptions or assumptions regarding any given matter. We can address them one at a time.

Of course, after multiple quotations which he apparently feels provide sufficient warrant to impugn LDS belief he moves on to “Errors in the Book of Mormon.” These consist of “2 Nephi 25:23,” “Mormon 9:9,” “Helaman 12:25-26,” “Alma 36:17,” “Mosiah 21:28,” “Jacob 7:27,” “2 Nephi 3:11-16,” “Mosiah 26:25-27,” “Jacob 3:11” and “Jacob 6:10.” The first, second and fifth items are absurd and easily dismissed through the very argument provided in post #12 by Anna. I am not sure “Doc Ronny” is even conversant with the “translation” process. It’s not as if Joseph sat down at a table, bellied up to the edge and with his magic spectacles poised upon his nose and as he gazed at the plates supplying a word for word translation. Even the word “translation” had a broader meaning in Joseph’s day than it does today.

The third is the recitation of a recollection not some careful theological treatise. Alma is not here indicating to Helaman that there is indeed more than one “Son of God” although within LDS theology this isn’t necessarily problematic as we believe that we are all sons and daughters of God although Jesus stands alone as the Son of God in the flesh. Rather, he is merely recounting the fact that his father at one point taught “the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.” At no point does Alma assert here or elsewhere that there is another “Son of God” who should “atone for the sins of the world” so I don’t see the point of focusing on the matter.

The issue of King Mosiah versus King Benjamin has been dealt with ad nauseum. See for instance or FAIR is certainly not an official organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but they do reflect fairly well the consensus of LDS apologists on most matters.

The seventh matter demonstrates a rather facile grasp of the text. Nephi is recounting a prophecy of Joseph, the son of Abraham, not Joseph, the son of Lehi. Not incredibly convincing when "Doc Ronny" doesn’t even grasp the clear meaning of the text.

As for the Book of Mormon teaching of an eternal hell, I am unsure what his point might be. Perhaps that the Doctrine and Covenants tends to explain the matter a little differently? That “Endless is my name. Wherefore—Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment” perhaps? He isn’t explicit. Still I see little problem. D&C 19:10-12 is an elaboration, the revealing of a “mystery of godliness” which expands upon the understanding of hell possessed by Book of Mormon prophets. It certainly doesn’t constitute a contradiction.

Needless to say I find his objections to the text no more convincing than Scott’s.

Michaela Larsen You are wrong on so many levels. Please do some more research. You can begin by reading the introduction to the Book of Mormon which relates what the book actually is.

Raphael For those who believe avidly in the perfect translation of the Bible, here is one example of an error:
Daniel 5:25-28
"25. And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
26. This the the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
27. Tekel; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to Medes and Persians."
Why does UPHARSIN suddenly become PERES? This is certainly not a world-ending change, but it proves the point that the text was imperfectly translated. The LDS church's position on the Bible is not that it is evil or sinful, but that, over nearly 2,000 years, it has become inaccurate. For evidence, you need look only the the hundreds of versions of the Bible available today.

Another point that people often mistake the church's position on: we do not believe that everyone not of our church is going to Hell. We simply believe that our church has the truth. Those who truthfully seek to do good and follow Christ will still be saved, regardless of their religion, the LDS church simply believes that the Book of Mormon helps us follow Christ.

In response to Scott's most recent comment regarding Christ visiting the Americas. Does the Bible give a minute by minute account of Jesus' ministry after his death? Could he not have gone to the Americas during the same thirty days? Could he not have ascended to Heaven, and then came down again? Jesus Christ does not lie, and indeed cannot, as He is the only sinless person ever to live on this Earth, but The Book of Mormon account of his ministry in no way says he is lying.

Lastly, people often say that Mormons are not Christian. This is something I've never understood. We believe in Christ and his teachings, as revealed through his prophets, what else does it take to be Christian?

Betsy Ok, it says gods plural because us Mormons believe that when we die, we have the power to become gods and live with our Heavenly Father (god) in his kingdom. They're not referring to multiple gods.

« previous 1 2 next »
back to top