Get your own Free Home PageTo go to the beginning, click here.
(2) King Mosiah II’s government was not a theocracy--at least not after “the church of Christ” was established. Mosiah II may have been the monarch of Zarahemla --but notice the “separation-of-church-and-state” that is obvious in Mosiah 26:8-12. A number of unbelievers rose from the “younger generation”. They began to stir up trouble within the church itself, flattering members of the church and causing some to sin. That type of thing had never happened in the church before, and Alma “became troubled” about the situation. Alma decided to take the case before King Mosiah II, saying: “...And they do not repent of their iniquities; therefore we have brought them before thee, that thou mayest judge them according to their crimes (Mosiah 26:11).” Mosiah II knew that unbelievers stirring up trouble within the church --that “iniquities” and “repentance”-- was a church matter, not a state matter. Therefore he answered Alma: “Behold, I judge them not; therefore I deliver them into thy hands to be judged (Mosiah 26:12).” Alma was the founder and high priest of the church. Church business was his responsibility, not the king’s. Thus, there was separation of church and state, not theocracy.
Later in Mosiah 27, the unbelievers sorely persecuted the believers, enough to threaten the civil peace of Zarahemla. (Probably discriminations, rude actions causing tempers to flare, and other public contentions.) The members of the church began to complain, and the complaints came before Alma. Alma brought the case before King Mosiah II. This time, the king saw that hostilities were threatening their civil peace. He consulted with his priests. A decision was made to send a proclamation throughout Zarahemla, stating that persecutions should cease. After the king’s proclamation was sent, a command was sent through all the churches (probably by Alma, as he was the high priest of the church) that persecutions should stop (Mosiah 27:1-3).
With the separation of church and state evident, it also appears that Mosiah II’s priests were a counseling body, not a church body. Before Alma came along with the “church of Christ”, a group of priests worked with the king to help reinforce and uphold the law of the land (the Law of Moses). After the “church of Christ” was established, religious matters were left to the church (as in Mosiah 26:8-12 above). Yet, the Law was still the law of the land. So, Mosiah II retained his priests as advisors, to continue helping him reinforce and uphold the law of the land. The council of priests (along with Mosiah II) kept to civil matters and stayed away from church matters. A thorough reading of the Book of Mormon, following the events therein, shows those things.
Only one order of priesthood existed among the Nephites (not two), that one order having been passed down from the time of Nephi (2 Nephi 5:26). As priesthood holders consecrated other worthy men, it created a chain of priesthood authority through the generations. The people of Zarahemla had been a predominantly righteous people for at least three generations, since the time Mosiah I led them out of the land of Nephi. Thus, the priesthood existed among the people of Zarahemla. [Note there were no Levites among the Nephites, so they did not have the Levitical Priesthood. They had the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Melchizedek Priesthood could be held by those not from Levi, since neither Melchizedek nor Yeshua were descended from Levi (Heb. 7:5-14).]
“Therefore they did assemble themselves together in different bodies, being called churches; every church having their priests and their teachers, and every priest preaching the word according as it was delivered to him by the mouth of Alma.” (Mosiah 25:21)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: The priests and teachers taught by an oral tradition, not by the Spirit. Then, quote, “Shall the Mormons then slam on other denominations for doing the same?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
Alma, as leader of the church, was telling the priests what to preach. But, just what was Alma telling them? To find out, one can further examine the Book of Mormon. Here is an example of what Alma told the church to preach:
Mosiah 18:19-23: “(19) And he [Alma] commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets. (20) Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people. (21) And he commanded them that there should be no contentions one with another.... (22) And thus he commanded them to preach.... (23) And he commanded them that they should observe the sabbath day, and keep it holy, and also every day they should give thanks to the Lord their God.” (Bold added by me.)
Those are the types of things he told the priests to preach. It looks like he told them to preach a variety of things, including the words of the holy prophets. Where were the words of the holy prophets? In records, similar to how we have the Bible today with the words of holy prophets. This was especially true among the people of King Mosiah II in Zarahemla. The people of Zarahemla had the Brass Plates of Laban containing words of holy prophets such as Isaiah plus they had the words of Nephi and other Nephite prophets written over the generations (Mosiah 1:2-5,15-16). Thus, when Alma and his church settled in Zarahemla, they had a wealth of that “which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets”.
In fact, several verses after the verse Br. Clif disputes, there is evidence the church was teaching words written by previous prophets -- not by Alma... Because some of the “rising generation” didn’t understand King Benjamin’s words about the Messiah, they became unbelievers and would not join the church: “(1) Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe in the tradition of their fathers. [Note: Benjamin, who was long dead by this time, had caused his words about the Messiah to written down for the people (Mosiah 2-5).] (2) They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ. (3) And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened. (4) And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church....” (Mosiah 26:1-4) Thus, the members of the church must have believed and understood the words of King Benjamin...which means they were preaching, studying and learning them. If they were preaching, studying and learning about the Messiah from King Benjamin’s writings, they were probably doing the same with the Brass Plates and other records. Thus, they were not relying on oral tradition.
Therefore, the priests were not just passing on an oral tradition. They were preaching and teaching from their scriptures. I’m sure they were relying on guidance from the Spirit as they did such preaching and teaching.
As far as the Mormons “slamming” other denominations for relying on oral tradition-- I’ve been around Mormons since 1967. I’ve been an active member of the LDS Church since 1988. I have never heard nor read of the LDS Church “slamming” another denomination for any reason. However, I realize some individuals --of any race, creed or religion-- might speak in way they shouldn’t. Therefore, it’s possible that some individual Mormons make comments and accusations they shouldn’t. Myself, I have never heard, nor seen, nor read about any Mormon “slamming” another denomination on the basis of oral tradition. In fact, one religion I know relied heavily on oral tradition was the Jews....The Jews and Mormons I’ve known and heard of have a healthy, friendly respect for each other.
“And thus, not withstanding there being many churches they were all one church, yea, even the church of God; for there was nothing preached in all the churches except it were repentance and faith in God.” (Mosiah 25:22)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: Alma forgot the words of Abinadi. The church Alma founded does not teach the Ten Commandments or the Law of Moses, as Abinadi preached. Also: The Book of Mormon shows a shallow understanding of the Torah, even though they had it in the Brass Plates -- which was supposedly in book form although the Codex/book was not invented until the 2nd or 3rd century. (5/98)
* * * * *
Faith in Father (and in Yeshua), repentance, the Ten Commandments and the Law are inseparably connected...How would the members of the “church of Christ” even know what to repent of, if they didn’t know and preach the Commandments and the Law?
For them to know what to repent of and how to repent, they needed to know the Ten Commandments and the Law. For them to preach and practice repentance, they needed to know the Law, what transgressed the Law, and what they needed to do to repent. Furthermore-- A main reason to keep the Commandments and the Law is because of faith in Father. Therefore, true faith in Father, true repentance, the Commandments and the Law (and the fulfillment of the Law through the Messiah) are inseparably connected. Faith and repentance is like a thread that runs through the Commandments and the Law, binding them together.
Therefore-- preaching repentance and faith in Father includes preaching about the Commandments and preaching about the Law. Also, preaching faith in Father and repentance includes preaching about the Messiah and the Atonement. Since they called themselves the “church of Christ”, I’m sure they did preach about the Messiah as connected to faith and repentance. ( !!! See King Benjamin’s speech thick with keeping the commandments, plus faith, repentance, the Messiah and the Atonement, in Mosiah 2-5, --which the church was preaching from as evident in Mosiah 26:1-4 !!! )
Therefore-- Alma and the “church of Christ” knew that faith and repentance were inseparably connected with the Commandments and the Law. They also believed in the Messiah, who was to come and fulfill the Law. Thus, Alma and the “church of Christ” had an EXCELLENT understanding of the Commandments and the Law (i.e. the Torah)! Furthermore, that same thread of understanding runs through the righteous peoples of the Book of Mormon, from the very beginning to the very end.
Now it’s time to look at what Abinadi preached while he was being questioned by Noah’s priests (including Alma). During the first part, Abinadi preached about the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses (Mosiah 12:25 - 13:27). The rest of his preaching --by far the largest amount of it-- centers around the fulfillment of the Law through the Messiah, the Atonement and the resurrection (Mosiah 13:28 - 16). Near the end of his preaching, Abinadi said: “And now, ought ye not to tremble and repent or your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved? (Mosiah 16:13).” Note Abinadi’s mention of repentance and his emphasis on the Messiah. Compare that with what Alma and the “church of Christ” was teaching, as stated above. Alma remembered Abinadi’s words full well.
As for the Brass Plates-- I found nothing in the Book of Mormon saying they were in book form when Lehi and Nephi had them between about 600 to 540 B.C. I know some artists render the Brass Plates in book form in their pictures of Lehi and Nephi....but I think that’s their mistake in interpretation (...no offense meant to any of you artists out there...). It is more probable the Brass Plates were kept as collection of unbound plates, stored in a bag/pouch/wrapping of some sort. There’s the quote, “Necessity is the mother of invention.” Perhaps through the centuries, as Nephites continued to make and keep records, they sought an easier way to handle them. Perhaps that caused someone to eventually discover binding plates in book form. Then seeing how much easier it was to handle records that way, they eventually bound the Brass Plates in book form. Perhaps it was Mormon, while abridging the collection of plates between approximately 345 and 385 A.D., who discovered it was easier to handle plates bound in book form.
“And then I will confess unto them that I never knew them; and they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Mosiah 26:27)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “’Departing into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ goes against the Mormon doctrine of salvation for all, with no Hell (Hades).” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
WHAT??? Bro. Cliff claims the LDS Church teaches everyone is saved and there’s no “Hell”???
Here, in plain print, I will show the LDS Church teaches that “Hell” does exist.
Here are quotes from the book Gospel Principles which is an official publication of the LDS Church-- “Those who reject the gospel after it is preached to them in the spirit prison suffer a condition known as hell.” (Gospel Principles, page 280.) -AND- “...They denied the truth and defied the power of the Lord. It would have been better for them if they had never been born...They will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with Satan and his angels forever and ever (see [Doctrine and Covenants] 76:28-35, 44-48).” (Gospel Principles, page 286-287) ( All emphasis added by me.) That last quote certainly sounds like “Eternal Hell” to me. It also agrees with the verse Br. Cliff disputes, Mosiah 26:27 above. ....It certainly does NOT sound like salvation!!!
(The problem I find is this: How can Br. Clif claim he was a Mormon missionary and persecute the LDS Church....and yet he doesn’t know doctrine as basic as this?!?! My 9-year-old son knows there’s a “Hell”, because he’s been taught so at home and in LDS Primary!!!)
Br. Clif claims the LDS Church teaches salvation for all with no “Hell”. Here is plain evidence that the LDS Church does teach there is a “Hell”, and that some people will be cast into it forever (...which is definately not a doctrine of “salvation for all”). Br. Clif’s claim, therefore, is FALSE. (...See Lev. 6:2-5; Prov. 19:5,9; Rev. 21:8....Br. Clif knows who the father of falsehood is...)
What would most people call a person who makes and spreads false statements? What has Br. Clif, himself, accused the LDS Church and apostles of doing? Most importantly, what does Father think of that type of behavior...as He has known about it since the day Br. Clif first typed his half-truths and false witnesses, and put it on the Net for thousands of people to read, and encouraged them to print it out and spread it to others??? However, I am not like most people. I believe in the words of Yeshua: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...(John 8:7)”. It is in that spirit that I relate the following.... Br. Clif claims the Quorum of Twelve doesn’t have the guts to “ex” him. I have a different opinion about the excommunication process, from personal experience.
I spent the first 8 years of my life living around the LDS Church, and the next 12 years as an “inactive member”. As a result, I didn’t understand much about the LDS Church. However-- I was somewhat familiar with the Bible, I did know the Commandments....and I knowingly trampled on them. After a time I saw the error of my ways (...some of us learn the hard way...) and decided I wanted to change my life for the better. The first step I took was going back to church. Then came getting on the road to repentance.... confessing to Father and asking for forgiveness through the Atonement of the Savior, and counseling with my bishop about the repentance process. I had committed sins that were grounds for excommunication. I knew it. My bishop knew it. The only reason he did not call a council was my lack of knowledge and understanding of the basic LDS doctrines. Instead of calling a hearing, he gave me time to get my life turned around and in line with the Commandments, and to learn about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It took time, but with help from above, I did it. That was in the late 1980’s. As I write this over a decade later, I’m an active member in full-standing, with a current temple recommend--and have been so for several years. Now, following the example of Alma the Younger, I will stand for my faith. I think that is evident in these pages.
I won’t claim to know why Br. Clif hasn’t been “ex’d” yet (as of May 1998). And it’s none of my business to know why. However, I do have a guess about it. As many of my Solutions show, Br. Clif (1) didn’t grasp the basic flow and chain of events in the Book of Mormon and (2) doesn’t know some of the most basic doctrines of the LDS Church. It is my hunch that’s why he hasn’t been “ex’d” yet. It’s not because the Twelve are “gutless”. It’s because it’s obvious Bro. Clif lacks knowledge about some doctrines of the LDS Church, and it doesn’t make sense to cut him off from something he didn’t thoroughly learn about. It’s my hunch he may being given time, similar to the way I was given time. However, since I don’t know about Br. Clif’s situation (and it’s none of my business to know), I may be wrong.
At the time I wrote this (May 1998), Br. Clif was encouraging people to print the “truth” of his web page because he didn’t know how much longer the “financially superior Mormon church” was going to allow his web page to exist. 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-- Bro. Clif’s web page condemns itself.
[BTW--The Greek view of Hades and our modern view of Hades are often different. Their view of Hades was a neutral netherworld where the dead continued to live. Their Hell, a place of eternal torment for the wicked, was called Tartarus. In the modern KJV New Testament, the Hebrew-based “Geenna/Gehenna” and the Greek “Hades” are both translated as “hell”. In the modern KJV Old Testament, the Hebrew “Sh’owl/Sheol” is translated as “hell”.]
“And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need--an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.” (Alma 1:29)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Where did the silk come from?” If they were importing silk worms from China, they would have mentioned engaging in trade with such a distant land. (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
Yes, Alma 1:29 mentions silk. ....And Numbers 23:22; 24:28, Job 39:9-10, Psalm 29:6; 92:10 of the KJV all mention a unicorn. Today, since we know much more about the language, culture and areas of the Bible, we know that “unicorn” was actually a wild ox. Not only was it a wild ox, it was a two-horned animal -- not quite today’s qualification for a unicorn. Yet, that “unicorn” has been in the authorized KJV Bible for centuries. Does that make the Bible fake? Of course not. Does it shake my faith in the Bible? No.
In North America, we call a yellow kerneled cereal grass “corn”. Yet, our “corn” is not another people’s “corn”. “Corn” refers to the cereal grain most common in a region. “Corn” can be used to describe wheat in England, oats in Ireland and Scotland, or maize (Indian corn) in Australia, Canada, and the U.S. Thus, “corn” can even mean something different to people who speak the same language! --“Ears of corn” in the British-English of the KJV Bible would more correctly be called “heads of grain” in the U.S. Indian corn (maize) was known and used only in the Western Hemisphere before the “discovery” of America -- Thus, it is not the corn of the KJV Bible, although the KJV Bible expressly states “corn” (such as Gen. 27:28 & 37; 41:5 & 35 & 49 & 57). What one nation writes as “corn” is not necessarily another nation’s “corn”.
It’s possible that Nephite cloth is not what we consider silk...but “silk” was the closest English word for whatever it was, so it was used in the translation process.
“(14) Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. (15) And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also. (16) And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed. (17) And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and his seed.” (Alma 3:14-17)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Where are these words?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
The exact wording in Alma 3:14-17 is not found in any other part of the Book of Mormon. However, 2 Nephi 5:20-23 says basically the same thing as Alma 14-15 (underline added by me):
“(20) Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. (21) And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. (22) And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. (23) And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.”
Nephi wrote about the curse in his small plates (the “these plates” in Solution 4) which became part of the Gold Plates (Book of Mormon). Nephi also had a larger set of plates (the “other plates” in Solution 4). Nephi wrote more details about the history of his people in the larger set. Therefore, he would have written more details about the curse as pertained to their history on that larger set. Nephi’s large set of plates was not included in the Book of Mormon.
Nephi’s two sets of plates were passed down from generation to generation (see Solution 4). Alma II, who wrote Alma 3:14-17, was the custodian of those plates during his generation. Therefore, he had access to all of Nephi’s writings. Alma could have quoted Nephi from Nephi’s large set of plates, which could explain why the quote source isn’t found in the Book of Mormon. However, we don’t have Alma’s exact words, either...
The majority of Nephi’s writings were left out of the Gold Plates. Plus, Alma’s writings were abridged by Mormon. Therefore, the Gold Plates were the “edited, condensed version” (loosely comparable to changes that occur between a full-length novel and it’s “Reader’s Digest condensed version”). Because of the abridgment process, we don’t have the exact words of Alma and we don’t have all the words of Nephi. That abridgment process could be why the exact wording in Alma 3:14-17 is not found, word for word, in any other part of the Book of Mormon.
Viewing the Bible with the same scrutiny: Matthew 2:23 says: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” However, no such saying of the prophets is found in any of the Old Testament books, not even a possible paraphrase source! Somehow over the centuries, during the processes that brought us the Bible, the scripture containing that verse was not even included in the Bible. Does that make the Bible a fake? No. A similar circumstance with the Book of Mormon does not make it a fake either.
Get your own Free Home Page