Drawing the Line for Mormons: A Closer Look at the LDS Church

Catholic Exchange ^ | October 17, 2005 | Mary Kochan

[Logophile]

BYU being a source on "reformed Egyptian?" . . . No thanks.

Why not? There are a number of competent scholars associated with Brigham Young University. Some, I am sure, know Egyptian and other ancient languages at least as well as you do. Why shouldn't their views count?

[Logophile]

As I've pointed out previously the word Nephilim is used in the Old Testament do designate Fallen Angels. The root of the word is indeed HEBREW not Egyptian as Church leaders will proclaim and it means fallen one. Did a "fallen angel" proclaim the doctrine of the LDS to Joseph Smith?

It is an interesting hypothesis, but one that fails on a number of points:

1. According to most commentaries I have read, Nephilim of the Old Testament were not fallen angels, but the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" (Genesis 6:4).

2. There are good reasons to believe that the name Nephi may be of Egyptian origin. See the article Internal Textual Evidence for the Egyptian Origin of Nephi's Name.

3. As we discussed earlier, the angel who delivered the plates to Joseph Smith was Moroni, not Nephi.

4. Three individuals named Nephi are featured prominently in the Book of Mormon. None of them is described as being a fallen angel; none fits the description given in Genesis 6. All three were prophets of God who bore strong testimony of Jesus Christ.

5. For me, the best argument against your hypothesis is provided by the Book of Mormon itself. The book's purpose, as stated on its title page,:

. . . is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever— And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

The rest of the book does indeed testify with great power of Jesus Christ. I submit to you that such a message would be a strange one for a fallen angel to proclaim.

[colorcountry]

As for my supposition that the Mormon Church publishes edited or changed versions of their scripture and history, I have used anti-mormon websites along with verification of my own.

In this instance (with the 3 witnesses) I posted a knee jerk reaction, based on past experiences, which I corrected almost immediately. I doubt if we need to go over the over 3000 changes in the Book of Mormon, or the D & C....as you've said before they are addressed on the Church website to your satisfaction, and on the Tanner's website for my satisfaction.

[Spiff]

Sorry - not using an "anti-Mormon" website.

I'm using hard-copy books. I have a large collection.

OK. Your anti-Mormon books have misinformation. If they were so wrong about Cowdery, Harris, and Whitmer, you've got to believe that they're wrong on other things. You know, I've never felt the need to go out and buy anti-Baptist, anti-Catholic, anti-Lutheran, or anti-faith of any kind. Why would people spend so much time trying to tear down someone else's faith?

There are frequent wandering recruiters from the Mormons, Adventists and Witnesses going through my neigborhood. At a minimum, I hope to save a few of these people when they come to my door.

Those representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are called Missionaries and your church has its own missionaries too. Young men spend 2 years of their early adulthood as Missionaries and they pay their own way to go out and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Mormon visits have only stepped up now that the absolutely odd-looking temple in Stone Oak went up.

Likely it is because of all the curiousity about the beautiful Temple that has been constructed in San Antonio.

As for "absolutely odd-looking", we can disagree of course, but it is a beautiful structure. Here's an artist's rendering and some exterior and interior photos for anyone who may be curious.

Artist's Rendering

Exterior Photo

Baptistry

Sealing Room

Celestial Room

[colorcountry]

3. The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, Spiros Zodhiates, Th. D.

“The term ‘giant’ from the Hebrew NEPHILIM (5303) is influenced by the Greek term GIGANTES in the Septuagint. Nephilim comes from the verb NAPHAL (5307) meaning “to fall” in general, but is often associated with violence, hence often translated ‘overthrow, fall upon.’ In Numbers 13:32,33 it is also noted that they were ‘men of great stature.’ Emphasis should be placed upon the fact that they were men of violence who had no respect for other men.”

The scholars of the NIV presume it is impossible for angels to have physical bodies. I challenge that assumption. There could be more spiritual paths and creations in heaven than we assume. Let’s also suppose that angels who enter our fallen world can become mortals because of sin, which sin causes death. According to the Bible, then, the “sons of God” or angels could logically fall. And thus, Nephilim, or the name of their children, would be a combination of “Naphlu”, meaning “they fell”, and “hipilu”, meaning they caused the downfall of the world. Interestingly, this interpretation of the word “Nephilim” is given by by Charles B. Chavel, a Jewish Rabbi, in Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary of the Torah. Although Chavel does not agree with my view on fallen angels, his interpretation of the word Nephilim fits perfectly. Of the six sources I quote, I believe the Jewish mind is a more credible interpretation.

The Nephilim had contaminated the gene pool, and they were spreading their false doctrine of spiritual genetics and spiritual evolution on earth, and therefore, God needed to send the flood to cleanse it. This view also explains why “giants” such as Goliath and others are mentioned in the Bible after the flood. It is probably that some of the genes were passed on through some of Noah’s children or through Ham. The Nephilim had so dominated the gene pool, that even after the flood, the genetic influence was still felt by human beings. (2 Sam 21:16-22; 1Chr 20:4-8; Job 16:14; Num 13:13; De 2:11,20; 3:11-13; Josh 12:4, 13:12, 15:8, 17:15, 18:16) Thus, the interpretation of immortal angels falling into sin and death gives a clearer explanation of genetic origin of the giants mentioned in the Bible repeatedly. Do we have a better explanation anywhere?

The view of fallen angels in Genesis 6:1-5 is not from my own limited ex-LDS perspective, but it has been in the mind of scholars for thousands of years and this view is recognized by Bible commentaries such as the notes in the NIV Study Bible:

This is from another website that shows a different view and does NOT contain Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint propaganda.

http://www.nccg.org/nefilim/ch25.html

[colorcountry]

Now before you slam me for quoting a website of questionable intent and origin......let me tell you, it probably IS questionable.

My real point in posting it is:

Why would you accept as truth the teachings of one man, who started a religion. Why would you use as proof, information that comes ONLY from those who follow and subscribe to the teachings of that man.

Why would you look only at information from the LDS Church to verify it's veracity. Even the scholars of the Church are out to prove one thing and one thing only and that is, THAT THE CHURCH IS TRUE.

All Mormon scholars who dare to say otherwise are no longer LDS, and their findings are not publicized by the Church. The only place you'll see them is by research. But don't take my word for it.

[AlaninSA]

They're not anti-Mormon, Spiff. They're pro-Catholic.

[AlaninSA]

You can add to that the convenient "revalations" received whenever enough attention is payed to their rules that violate societal norms.

Such as...

The "revelation" that polygamy was no longer to "be enjoyed on earth" but was to be saved for the "celestial kingdom."

Or the "revalation" that racial discrimation would no longer be required by the LDS organization (as originally written by Smith in "Doctrines and Covenants."

[colorcountry]

Yes, you can add the convenient revelations also.

There are layers upon layers, precepts, upon precepts that point to the fictitiousness of the LDS Church.

And those in the LDS faith will say the same about it's truthfulness. The problem is, they are the only ones who'll say it.....there is no outside evidence of anything they say. NONE

[Spiff]

They're not anti-Mormon, Spiff. They're pro-Catholic.

Well, there you go. You have to admit that accuracy is an issue with those books, apparently.

[Logophile]

Now before you slam me for quoting a website of questionable intent and origin......let me tell you, it probably IS questionable.

I was not intending to slam you. (I am sorry if you think I did before: that was not my intent.) Quite the contrary. I think the information you posted about the Nephilim is interesting.

However, the Nephilim seem an unlikely source for the Book of Mormon, for the reasons I gave before.

Why would you accept as truth the teachings of one man, who started a religion. Why would you use as proof, information that comes ONLY from those who follow and subscribe to the teachings of that man.

No one should accept the unsupported word of one man. That is why I urge everyone to study the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is right.

Why would you look only at information from the LDS Church to verify it's veracity. Even the scholars of the Church are out to prove one thing and one thing only and that is, THAT THE CHURCH IS TRUE. . . . All Mormon scholars who dare to say otherwise are no longer LDS, and their findings are not publicized by the Church. The only place you'll see them is by research. But don't take my word for it.

I have personally known some of the scholars who have been excommunicated from the LDS Church. For the most part, they have not merely rejected Mormonism in favor of some other branch of Christianity; they have rejected religion entirely. They propose a naturalistic interpretation of religion that leaves no room for the supernatural. They would explain away everything—God, angels, miracles, revelation, the resurrection—as myth or metaphor. Moreover, some have rejected the moral teachings of the Church. One wonders why they should want to remain members of the Church whose teachings they so thoroughly oppose.

[Mikey]

"...the magical underpants. "

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[colorcountry]

Thanks for your polite answers. I didn't mean to imply that you have "slammed" me, it's just that the site I posted is very um, well, slammable! It is not a site that I support or ascribe to, I'd conclude it is spurious.

When I left the LDS faith I was Godless for almost 15 years, much like some of the Church detractors. What I was implying is not to look to them specifically for information, but look at other sources also (than just the Church and a burning in the bosom or acknowledgement from God)

I prayed to God for answers and recieved confirmation the the LDS was NOT the "true" religion. I fought it for years thinking if I just prayed harder or studied more, God would answer me. Then I realized he HAD answered me and his answer was NO.

[tiki]

I'm a Catholic and I agree with you.

[Logophile]

I prayed to God for answers and recieved confirmation the the LDS was NOT the "true" religion. I fought it for years thinking if I just prayed harder or studied more, God would answer me. Then I realized he HAD answered me and his answer was NO.

Then it would seem that you have your answer. You have to do what you believe God wants you do.

[colorcountry]

Thank you - that's the first time I've ever heard that from a Latter Day Saint.

I've been on the defensive for so long now, I guess it's time to go on with God's plan. You too are in the same position...to go on with what you believe God wants you to do.

Maybe we'll meet and have a laugh over this in Heaven!

[Colofornian]

To repent means not to repeat the behavior. If I repeat the sin, then I need to repent again, and work hard not ot repeat the sin.

Boy, you're really up a creek, here. The statement above is not what one of your former president/prophets has written. Kimball, in his book, The Miracle of Forgiveness, clearly states that if you commit a sin over again then you have never really repented of the sin in the first place. So, according to the authority of general authorities, any repetitive sin is only indicative that you never got to "first base" to begin with; if you never get to first base, then you cannot simply go back & tag up to try to advance at some future point.

Just think of some of the most obvious sins in the minds of the avg. man. Now apply Kimball's standard to that and you can see what I mean about being up a creek.