PROBLEMS WITH THE BOOK OF MORMON?

To go to the beginning, click here.

“And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.” (3 Nephi 11:15)

The problem Br. Clif finds is: There were a lot of people for each of them to come up to the Savior, one by one. He uses a verse found several chapters later, 3 Nephi 17:25, to decide the multitude must have totaled about 2500 persons. Doing some math, he figures if each person was given a mere 20 seconds to touch the Savior, it would have taken 13 hours, 53 minutes and 20 seconds for him to show himself to the multitude. He comments that 20 seconds per person would not be a satisfactory amount of time, quote: “Personally, I wouldn’t be satisfied with 20 seconds in the presence of a woman I loved, much less the Savior.” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)

* * * * *

I think nothing is impossible for Yeshua the Only Begotten of the Father. Furthermore, I’m sure each person knew there were many others who needed to witness Yeshua. Thus, they respectfully moved along instead of requesting their own way. Everyone was to receive equitable time. It’s not a matter of what each person wanted or “demanded” to have regardless of the others around them-- That smacks of selfishness. It is crucial to love Yeshua...But Yeshua was their Lord and Master, the Only Begotten...not their sweetheart. It was a matter of equity, unselfishness and obedience. I’m sure Yeshua is an expert in crowd management and knew perfectly how to address and pace each individual. And I’m sure each person was obedient to his wishes.

While each person may have been given little individual time with Yeshua during that first visit, he probably stood where he could easily address the multitude...which also means the multitude could probably see him and bask in his presence. Furthermore, 3 Nephi 11:15 records only the initial appearance. It’s my opinion that Yeshua taught among them for a period of several days, minimum (for reasons stated later). So, there was more time later for people to be with him, personally talk with him, and experience his presence. 3 Nephi 11:15 was so the people would, on that initial visit, all be able to witness that it was really him who was there among them.

In my opinion, the visits recorded in 3 Nephi 11-28 occurred over a minimum of several days. I claim that mainly for three reasons: First, the resurrected Yeshua appeared to his disciples in Judea over a period of 40 days. It’s reasonable to think he spent a generous amount of time with his disciples in Central America as well. Second, Yeshua’s daily comings and goings were not the important part of the record -- The fact that he did come visit them and teach them was the important part. This is in agreement with the New Testament. Yeshua’s ministry among the Jews lasted around three years, but one wouldn’t tell it just by looking at the teachings and events in the NT. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as short as they are, certainly don’t give a full three years worth of ministry events. Again, his daily comings and goings were not what was important. The fact that he was born and taught and was crucified among the Jews was the important part. If the book of Matthew (at 54 pages long in my footnoted KJV and only 20 pages long in my NIV) summarizes Yeshua’s earth life over a time period of around 33 years....then it’s possible that 3 Nephi 11-28 (at 36 footnoted pages long) summarizes Yeshua’s teaching in Central America over a period of several days, minimum. (If someone knows a verse in the Book of Mormon which specifically states the number of days he taught there, please e-mail it to me.) Third, Mormon wrote: “And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;” (3 Nephi 26:6) Comparing that statement to 3 Nephi 11-28, Yeshua had to have spent a substantial amount of time among them.

It probably took a long time for a multitude of people to come up, one by one, to see Y’shua and feel the marks in his hands and feet. There can be as much as 16 hours of useable daylight during a day, depending upon the season. Yeshua probably did spend a sizable chunk of a day showing himself to the people during his initial visit. As stated above, there would be many more days where they could have additional one-on-one time with him.

Nothing is impossible for Yeshua. He is an expert in crowd management. A multitude of people going up to see Yeshua one-by-one may be an amazing feat, but not an impossible one. If he could feed 5,000-plus with 5 loaves and two fishes (Matt. 14:15-21), I’m sure he could show himself to a multitude.

“And they did all, both they who had been healed and they who were whole, bow down at his feet, and did worship him; and as many as could come for the multitude did kiss his feet, insomuch that they did bathe his feet with their tears.” (3 Nephi 17:10)

The problem Br. Clif finds is: The multitude worshipped Yeshua, even after they were commanded to pray to the Father in his name. He concludes that the Book of Mormon must teach the Trinity, which Mormons reject, therefore Mormonism is a false religion. Other verses he gives are 3 Nephi 18:19,21,23-24; 19:6,18,22,24-25,30.

* * * * *

Quotes from Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, which I will refer to later:

“pray...1a: a solemn and humble approach to Divinity in word or thought...”

“worship...1: to honor or reverence as a divine being....2: to regard with respect, honor, or devotion: ADORE...”

First: Worship and prayer are not necessarily the same thing. If Yeshua appeared here, now, I certainly would bow down at his feet in respect, gratefulness and reverent adoration. But that does not necessarily mean I’d be praying to him. There’s a difference, as shown above. Thus, when the record says the multitude worshipped him, it probably means they honored him with reverent adoration.

Second: Keeping in mind that Yeshua is a Divine Being... As the multitude was gathered around him, revering and adoring him, their hearts and minds were probably filled with gratitude and praise toward him. I think such actions fit with the above quoted definition of prayer. [...Mormons don’t reject the Trinity. They just have a somewhat different view of the Trinity than most others do. Mormons do believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as the Godhead. They simply don’t believe that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all the same Being. (See also Solution 22.) Yeshua, as a resurrected and perfected Personage, given ultimate power and glory by the Father, and a member of the Godhead, certainly is Divine. Thus the thoughts and words of the multitude toward him could be called prayer.]

Does the Book of Mormon really teach the traditional Trinity of Father and Son as the same Being? (A) Note that in 3 Nephi 17:4, Yeshua says: “But now I go unto the Father...” (also 3 Nephi 18:35). If Yeshua and the Father were the same Being, Yeshua would be going unto himself, which doesn’t make sense. Yeshua was going unto the Father because Father was in a different location than Yeshua was, which makes them two separate Beings. (B) Also note that Yeshua prays to the Father in 3 Nephi 17:14-18. Then in 3 Nephi 19:17, Yeshua commands the Nephites to pray. As a result, the Nephites pray to Yeshua, verse 18. (Why? See verse 22 below.) So right after the Nephites begin praying to Yeshua (after he commanded them), Yeshua begins to pray to Father: “(19) And it came to pass that Jesus departed out of the midst of them, and went a little way off from them, and bowed himself down to the earth, and he said: (20) Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost unto these whom I have chosen; and it is because of their belief in me that I have chosen them out of the world. (21) Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words. (22) Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them. (23) And now, Father, I pray unto thee for them...” (3 Nephi 19:19-23; Bold added by me, because...) Not only did Yeshua bow himself to pray to Father, he also thanked Father and asked him to give people the Holy Ghost. If Y’shua and Father are the same Being, he would have been bowing to himself, praying to himself, thanking himself and asking himself...which doesn’t make sense. The manner and words of Yeshua’s prayer clearly show he is subservient to Father, and a separate Personage. (See also 3 Nephi 19:27-29,31 where Yeshua prays twice more to Father.) Therefore, no, the Book of Mormon does not teach the traditional Trinity.

50. The verses are:

“(28) And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it; (29) For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him. (30) Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.” (3 Nephi 18:28-30)

The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “This smacks of transubstantiation, a doctrine Mormonism attacks. Another contradiction in their teachings?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)

* * * * *

[Transubstantiation a doctrine Mormonism attacks? Disagrees with, yes. Refutes, yes. Attacks, no. There’s a difference. “Attacks” is an aggressive word, as the one who attacks is the instigator. In the 30 years I’ve been around the LDS Church, I’ve never known it to be an aggressor against transubstantiation. Br. Clif’s use of the word “attacks”, in my opinion, is a bit misleading.]

Transubstantiation is the doctrine that during the sacrament of the Eucharist the bread and wine literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Thus, partakers believe they are consuming the actual body and blood of Christ. The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox church teach transubstantiation. [I used to be puzzled when anti-Christians persecuted Christians because of a belief in “ritual cannibalism”... Calling transubstantiation “cannibalism” may be over-zealous, but at least now I know where it comes from.] Not all Christian churches teach transubstantiation. There are opposing views practiced by various churches, such as consubstantiation among the Lutherans.

If 3 Nephi 18:28-30 “smacks of transubstantiation”, then Matt. 26:26-28 and John 6:53-54 certainly do also: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; This is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament...”(Matt. 26:26-28) -AND- “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;...” (John 6:53-54) (Bold added by me.)

Thus, the Bible also “smacks of transubstantiation”. Yet, most Protestants do not believe in transubstantiation. If Bro. Cliff is going to point to the Book of Mormon and persecute Mormons because they don’t believe in transubstantiation....then he might as well point to the Bible and persecute a host of Protestants and reformers also-- including Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, various other reformed and evangelical denominations, John Wyclif and John Calvin. I have read Protestant writings against transubstantiation, so surely they “attack” it just as much, if not more so, than Mormons do. John Calvin denounced transubstantiation as absurd fictitious superstition (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 18). [Non-LDS web pages refuting transubstantiation include: http://www.hutch.com.au/~rlister/cath/cath1e.htm , http://www.hhs.net/evangout/communio.htm (URLs correct as of May 1998).]

Yeshua taught through symbolism. The Mosaic Law was highly symbolic. The Jews used symbolic and figurative language extensively. Yeshua was born a Jew. He likewise used symbolic and figurative language. Take Yeshua’s words in John 15:1-5: “I AM the true vine...” Taking those words literally is absurd. Taking them symbolically, they are full of beautiful meaning. There are various other examples of Yeshua using symbolism and figurative speech, like John 15:8. ...The emblems of the sacrament are symbolic. Thus, when Yeshua spoke about sacrament in Matt. 26:26-28, John 6:54, and 3 Nephi 18:28-30, he was again using symbolism and speaking figuratively.

“(3) And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat. (4) And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.” (3 Nephi 20:3-4)

The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Note in verse 3 that the bread is blessed, but in verse 4 it is not.” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)

* * * * *

The bread mentioned in verse 4 was blessed. The disciples had already been commanded to bless bread in conjunction with breaking it.

The above sacrament account is recorded in 3 Nephi Chapter 20. Previously, in Chapter 18, Yeshua had taught them how to break bread: “(3) And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded they should eat. (4) And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude. (5) And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto his disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name. (6) And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.” Thus, after they had been shown and commanded to bless the bread in conjunction with breaking it, they did not need to be commanded to do so again.

People do the same in daily life. Once something had been demonstrated and learned, the details of a procedure become a given part of doing it. Math instructors are familiar with that, when teaching students step by step processes. Once the students master certain material, the step-by-steps become a given part of working the problems. Similarly-- In 3 Nephi 20:3-4, the sacrament bread was blessed as a given part of breaking it, since they had previously been taught to do so.

“And it came to pass that he commanded them that they should write the words which the Father had given unto Malachi, which he should tell unto them. And it came to pass that after they were written he expounded them. And these are the words which he did tell unto them, saying: Thus said the Father unto Malachi--Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts.” (3 Nephi 24:1)

The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Notice that here it is the Father that gave these words to Malachi, not ‘Jehovah,’ who is ‘Jesus,’ according to Mormon doctrine. Remember that Mormonism teaches the two are separate personages.” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)

* * * * *

In Solution 22, I showed how YHWH was a title applied to the premortal Yeshua. To avoid being too lengthy, I won’t go into detailed cross-referencing-- However, the Bible shows the name YHWH was applied to: (1) The Father [Deut.18:15 (who will raise up a Prophet (Yeshua) like unto himself); Ps. 110:1 (Father seats Yeshua at his right hand)]; (2) the premortal Messiah [Ex. 13:21-22 & Num. 21:5-7 (with 1 Cor. 10:1-4,9 )]; (3) even angels [Gen.19:18 (19:15-18)] The Being who mediated with Israel, titled YHWH, was the premortal Messiah--as taught in the LDS Church. Yet the Father and angels were also called YHWH.

Examining Exodus 23:20-23: “Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. (21) Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. (22) But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. (23) For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off....(25) And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.” (Bold added by me for future reference.)

Going to the Hebrew, an “angel” (mal’ak) was actually a messenger. So, who was that Messenger who accompanied the Israelites to Caanan; who had the name of YHWH in him; who spoke on behalf of YHWH; who would bless the Israelites’ bread and water? A cross-study of: Ex. 13:21 + Ex. 14:19 + 1 Cor. 10:1-4, and Judges 2:1, and Num. 21:5 + 1 Cor. 10:9, and Ex. 3:2-6 + Acts 7:30,35; Ex. 19:20-21 + Ex. 20:1 + Acts 7:38; plus John 12:49 shows that the Messenger was the premortal Yeshua, who also bore the name YHWH. Yeshua has been Elohim’s Mediator with mankind since ancient times. Now, take those verses along with Ex. 33:14 + Deut. 4:37 + Isa. 63:9... Thus premortal Yeshua, who carried the name YHWH, was also known as the Angel of His Presence, or rather, the --”Messenger of Elohim’s Presence”--. Compare that with John 1:18: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” -and- John 12:49 where Yeshua says: “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” It all fits together (...and it fits with LDS doctrine...).

So in John 12:49, Yeshua says he does not speak for himself, but for the Father who sent him. Note in the next verse, Yeshua says: “...whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” Going back to Ex. 23:22, about the Messenger: “...obey his voice, and do all that I speak...”. Thus, whether it was from the mouth of Elohim, or from the mouth of Yeshua, it was the same.

Yeshua represents Father and speaks what Father tells him. Yeshua could have said he was giving the words he had spoken. However, it was more appropriate to indicate they were words from Father. That’s how, in 3 Nephi 24:1, Yeshua could say Father gave the words to Malachi.

So, those are my Solutions to Br. Clif’s “Problems”.

Br. Clif concludes his web page with 2 Nephi 1:26-27, interjecting “I”, “me” and “my” and crucial points, quote: “...[my] sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of [Elohim], which was in [me]; and that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which is in [Elohim]...” He asks readers to reproduce and distribute his web page, because, quote: “... I do not know how long the financially superior Mormon church will allow this page to exist.” (When I first saw his web page in November 1997, it stated his information had been on the web for about a year-and-a-half. That statement was still on his page in May 1998, in “Problem” 8. If the Mormon Church was going to do something to his page, they’d have done it by now.) Then he ends with some “comforting words” for Mormons who are hurt by his “truth”. ....The power of Elohim in him? His web page as truth? If you’ve read through all 52 Solutions, you already have an idea of his truth--See Solutions 9, 17 and 44 for a refresher. When our pages are mutually linked, it will be even easier for you to contrast and compare. Decide for yourself how much the power of Elohim is with him, and how true his page is. My opinion is this: There’s no need for the LDS Church to try to remove his web page from the Net. For anyone who knows the Book of Mormon, for anyone who doesn’t believe everything they read and tests the claims of others, or for anyone willing to search and investigate for themselves-- Br. Clif’s web page condemns itself. ....Unfortunately, there are people not willing to thoroughly investigate...who will assume his Problems are valid and happily distribute them to others.

I also think it’s interesting how Br. Clif has posted some of the responses to his web page. As of May 1998: With messages that disagree with him-- he picked apart the message, plus posted the sender’s e-mail address. With messages that agree with him-- he did not post the e-mail address to “protect the allegedly innocent”. If he is going to edit out the addresses of one group, he should edit out the addresses of the other. One who is right, who publishes truth, does not need to be a respector of persons.

Consider this a free booklet. Feel free reproduce and distribute these pages any way possible--as long as you do not change the words and do not charge money for them. You may even translate them into a different language, as long as they are translated correctly with the original meaning intact. Ways you can obtain copies of this page are: (1) download the zip file (I typed this with MS Works95); (2) print these pages straight off the Web--but make sure you get all 10 pages (the GeoCities editor only allowed x-number of “pages” per page, so I had to break the page up); (3) postal mail. I’m also willing to send multiple booklets through postal mail, if you’re willing to pay the postage--e-mail me (myriad@oocities.com) to discuss it. [If you came here from the first page, and wish to return there, click here.]

One final note: I’ve seen some of the responses Br. Clif has received about his web page. Unfortunately, some are “fluff” and some are just plain rude. In my opinion, Br. Clif is boldly contending for his faith, and boldly contending against something he believes is wrong. If you have seen his web page, or plan to see it...and decide to respond...Don’t send him empty comments. Open up a Book of Mormon, study it, follow the events, research his claims and send him the results. Present people with solutions, options and possible paths...and let them decide which they will choose. The consequences of their choices will be eternally their’s. The consequences of your choices will be eternally yours.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, official web site http://www.lds.org/Main.html

Barry’s Early Christianity and Mormonism Page http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bbickmor/EC.html

Latter-day Saints: FAQ http://athena.athenet.net/~jlindsay/LDSFAQ/FQ_index.shtml
Visit his “Questions about the Book of Mormon” section.

Rabbi Yosef’s “Jewishness of the Book of Mormon” http://www.itstessie.com/jewishbom/

Click here to go to the first page...

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page