Replies

I’m confused. [Was Moroni] a Captain of the Nephites ... [or] an angel, who somehow missed out on going to Heaven, or is it Kolub?

I’m so confused.....

Welcome to the club!

Moroni is the name of two mythical characters invented by Joseph Smith in his Book of Mormon.

According to Joseph, the first Moroni was a Captain of the Nephites. The second Moroni was Mormon's son, one of the commanders of the last great battle, who finished and then hid the golden plates upon which the Book of Mormon text was written. Moroni supposed appeared as an angel to Joseph centuries after his death and led Joseph to the plates, etc. More on the tale HERE.

My comment concerning Moroni's lack of Sacred Garments pertains to the fact he is never portrayed in the clothing despite the fact their wearing is decreed as necessary following the temple endowments ... which Moroni surely went through like all other good Latter Day Saints. Mormons have never been able to tell me why the requirement was waived for him.

My comment concerning Moroni's status in the afterlife concerns his appearance to Joseph as an Angel rather than as a god. One would think that Moroni would have had his own celestial kingdom planet and harem of goddess wives by that point. Again, the Saints have no good answer.

Personally, I think that neither the garb requirements or the celestial kingdom had been invented by Joseph at the time he wrote the BoM. And personally, I find the mental image of a bunch of pre-Columbian aboriginal people running about in trap door long johns ... delightsome!

If I were going to design underwear to be worn by multiple wives, I think I’d come up with something - dare I say it? - a bit more kinky.

Moroni got his reward for not becoming a god by being nominated to stand on the steeples of all mormon temples cloaked in pure gold. I don't know why that is considered a "celestial" reward, but apparently Moroni does.

And personally, I find the mental image of a bunch of pre-Columbian aboriginal people running about in trap door long johns ... delightsome!

Speaking of garments. Why did my grandmother wear garments like these that covered neck to ankles and wrists because of sacred marks,

And mine look like this??? Aren't my ankles and wrists and neck as sacred as hers?

According to Joseph, the first Moroni was a Captain of the Nephites. The second Moroni was Mormon's son, one of the commanders of the last great battle, who finished and then hid the golden plates upon which the Book of Mormon text was written [Zakeet]

TO: ALL THREAD PARTICIPANTS, jUSTTHETRUTH, & Mormon lurkers...and those being hit up by Mormons to join them:

Please, when you encounter a Mormon truth claim -- like this one presented by a Mormon, JusttheTruth -- read the context.

I have.

The "context" for this first Moroni (as Zakeet distinguished) is found in the chapter that JusttheTruth is indirectly referencing via his post...Alma 46 in the Book of Mormon.

When I turn to Alma 46, I first look @ the bottom of the page to see when Joseph Smith said this was written. The date? B.C. 73 ... Now B.C. 73 was over 100 years before Jesus Christ' public ministry began at age 30.

In Alma 46, the stuff about how Moroni was supposedly girded, his supposed "rent coat," his "title of liberty" is all there in v. 13...Allow me to quote the last line of verse 13...and then continue to vv. 14-15:

Alma 46:13 (last line) --> 15: ...and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land -- 14. For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church. 15. And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.

Now LOTS of questions arise here!!!

Q1 Why would Jewish people in South America use Greek words? (Christ is Greek for "Anointed") Why didn't they use the word "Messiah?"

Q2 Same question re: "Church" -- which comes from the Greek word "ekklesia" The FIRST reference for "church" in the Bible comes during Jesus' public ministry -- Matthew 18...Well into the A.D. years...Yes, there were God's people in B.C. times; but there was no "church" (by name of a "church")

Q3 Likewise, there were no "Christians" (by name) in B.C. times. How do we know this? From the New Testament, the book of Acts: The disciples were called Christians FIRST at Antioch. (Acts 11:26) Why do Mormons have problems with such a simple word as "first?" Why do they denigrate Luke, the writer of Acts, as being in error here???

Now think about it. If it's truly B.C. times over 100 years before Christ's public ministry, you're not going to get 19th century language -- like what Joseph Smith used here twice -- "belong to the church." There was no church "membership" in B.C. times; that's a 19th century imposition upon history.

Frankly, nor would you get these 19th century heavily saturated patriotic concepts like "liberty" woven thruout a chapter in B.C. 73...
liberty is mentioned twice in v. 13;
"freedom of the land" in v. 16;
doesn't "land of liberty" in v. 17 sound like an a distinctly American conceptual phrase superimposed here?
"liberty" mentioned again in vv. 24,28
"cause of freedom" and "covenant of freedom" in v. 35
"standard of liberty" -- again a 19th century conceptual phrase superimposed within history in v. 36

To wrap this up...for all you Mormons who think that Alma 46 were "prophesies" about the future...note how Joseph Smith -- in Alma 46:39 -- got confused in his past vs. present tense renderings. Go ahead. Look it up yourself. If you were a "prophet" predicting some future redemption of Christ, you would phrase that with future tense grammar.

Instead...what do we find in Alma 46:39: And it came to pass that there were many who died, firmly believing that their souls WERE REDEEMED by the Lord Jesus Christ...

Instead of describing the cross as a future act; it is depicted in the past...Exactly how somebody writing all this in the 1820s would do...