The Book of Enoch and the Book of Moses

This isn’t my idea, but rather is borrowed from a poster at  Below are 21 similarities between the story of Enoch as found in the Book of Enoch and the Book of Moses.  The Book of Enoch was found and translated long after Joseph Smith published the Book of Moses.  It is remarkable, therefore, that there are so many similarities.  It is another evidence that Joseph Smith was called of God and had the gift to translate by the gift and power of God.

Number 1–Enoch sees Noah protected by the hand of God

Moses 7:43–Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came.

1 Enoch 67:2–At this time the angels are working with wood (making an ark) and when it is completed, I shall place my hands upon it and protect it.

Number 2–Enoch Sees All Things

Moses 7:67a–And the Lord showed Enoch all things, even unto the end of the world.

2 Enoch 40:1–Now therefore, my children, I know everything; . . . my eyes have seen from the beginning even to the end, and from the end to the recommencement.


Number 3–Enoch Sees Men’s Deeds

Moses 7:41–The Lord spake unto Enoch, and told Enoch all the doings of the children of men, wherefore Enoch knew.

2 Enoch 53:2–See how I have written down all the deeds of every person before the creation, and I am writing down what is done among all persons forever.


Number 4–Enoch Sees All Generations

Moses 7:4–(the Lord said to Enoch): Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations.

3 Enoch 45–And I saw Adam and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts (etc.) . . . And every deed of every generation, whether done or to be done in the time to come, to all generations, till the end of time.


Number 5–Premortal Existence

Moses 6:51–And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.

2 Enoch 23:4-5–You (Enoch) sit down and write–all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born, . . . For all the souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.


Number 6–The Earth Speaks

Moses 7:48a–Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children.

1 Enoch 7:6–(After a description of the wickedness on the earth) And then the earth brought an accusation against the oppressors.


Number 7–Enoch Weeps

Moses 7:44–And as Enoch saw this, he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren, and said unto the heavens: I will refuse to be comforted.

2 Enoch 41:1–And I (Enoch) sighed and burst into tears, and I said concerning their disreputable depravity, Oh how miserable . . ..


Number 8–Mahijuah/Mahujah

Moses 6:39-40–[W]hen they heard him (Enoch) . . . fear came on all them that heard him. And there came a man unto him (Enoch), whose name was Mahijah, and said to him: Tell us plainly who thou art and from whence thou comest?

Dead Sea Scrolls 4QEnGiants 1:20–[Thereupon] all the giants [and the nephilim] took fright and they summoned Mahujah and he came to them: And the giants asked him and sent him to Enoch […] saying to him: Go then […] and under pain of death you must […] and listen to his voice; and tell him that he is to explain to you and to interpret the dreams.


Number 9–Enoch a Lad at 65

Moses 6:31–Why is it that I have found favor in thy sight, and am but a lad?

2 Enoch 10:4–And the men answered me (Enoch), This place, youth, has been prepared for those who practice godless uncleanness on the earth.

3 Enoch 3:2–[Enoch] answered, I have seventy names; . . . however, my King calls me Youth.

3 Enoch 4:2–Why, then, do they call you Youth in the heavenly heights? He answered, Because I am Enoch, the son of Jared.

3 Enoch 4:10–Because I am young in their company (the holy angels) and a mere youth among them in days and months and years–therefore they call me Youth.


Number 10–Enoch Given Right to God’s Throne

Moses 7:59–[Enoch to God] Thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne.

3 Enoch 10:1-3–[Enoch speaking] The Holy One made for me a throne like the throne of glory . . . He placed it at the door of the seventh palace and sat me down upon it.


Number 11–The Lord’s House Shall Be Called Jerusalem

Testament of Levi 10:4 (quoting from an otherwise unknown Enoch source)–For the house which the Lord shall choose shall be called Jerusalem, as the Book of Enoch the Righteous maintains.

Moses 7:62b–For there shall be my tabernacle and it shall be called Zion, a new Jerusalem.


Number 12–God Gives Adam Free Will

Moses 6:56–And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves.

Moses 7:32b–In the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency.

2 Enoch 30:15–And I . . . called his name Adam. And I gave him his free will; and I pointed out to him the two ways–light and darkness. And I said unto him, This is good for you, but that is bad.


Number 13–Enoch In Possession of Adam’s Book

Moses 6:5, 8–Enoch quotes extensively from Book of Adam (Moses 6:51-68) that was kept by Adam and his posterity.

2 Enoch 33:11-12–[God to Enoch]–For I will give you an intercessor, Enoch; Michael, on account of your handwritings and the handwritings of your fathers–Adam and Seth. They will not be destroyed until the final age. For I have commanded my angels to guard them and to command the things of time to preserve the handwritings of your fathers so that they might not perish in the impending flood.


Number 14–Restoration of Book of Enoch Predicted in Enochic Literature

2 Enoch 35:1-3–And I will leave a righteous man (Noah), a member of your tribe, together with all his house, who will act in accordance with my will. And from their seed will arise a generation, the last of many, and very rapacious. And I shall raise up for that generation someone who will reveal to them the books in your handwriting and those of your fathers, by means of which the guardians of the earth will show themselves to the faithful men. And they will be recounted to that generation, and they will be glorified in the end more than at the first.

Moses 1:41–(God to Moses) And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men–among as many as shall believe.


Number 15–Enoch Clothed with Glory

Moses 7:3–As I stood upon the mount, I behld the heavens open, and I was clothed upon with glory.

2 Enoch 22:8-10–The LORD said to Micahel, Take Enoch, and extract (him) from the earthly clothing. And anoint him with the delightful oil, and put (him) into the clothes of glory. . . . And I gazed at myself, and I had become like one of the glorious ones, and there was no observable difference.


Number 16–Enoch Sees the Saints Arise

Moses 7:56–And I heard a loud voice; . . . and the saints arose, and were crowned at the right hand of the Son of Man, with crowns of glory.

3 Enoch 44:7–I saw the souls of the fathers of the world, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the rest of the righteous, who had been raised from their graves and had ascended to heaven.


Number 17–Enoch Sees the Return of Zion From Heaven

Moses 7:63–Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there, and we will receive them into our bosom, and they shall see us; and we will fall upon their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each other.

1 Enoch 39:1–And it shall come to pass in those days that the elect and holy children will descend from the high heavens, and their seed will become one with the children of men.


Number 18–A Prison Prepared for the Wicked

Moses 7:57–And as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on the right hand of God; and the remaineder were reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day.

1 Enoch 10:13-14–In those days they will lead them into the bottom of the fire–and in torment–in the prison where they will be locked up forever. And at the time…, those who collaborated with them will be bound together with them from henceforth unto the end of (all) generations.


Number 19–Chains of Satan

Moses 7:26–And he beheld Satan, and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness.

1 Enoch 53:3-4–So I saw all the angels of plague cooperating and preparing all the chains of Satan. And I asked the angel of peace, who was going with me, For whom are they preparing these chains?


Number 20–Enoch Acts as Intercessor for Mankind

Moses 7:49-50–Enoch . . . cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, . . . Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah? . . . I ask thee . . . that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed.

2 Enoch 18:7–And that is why God has judged them with a great judgment; and they mourn their brothers, and they will be outraged on the great day of the LORD. And I said . . ., I have seen your brothers and their deeds and their torments . . . and I have prayed for them.


Number 21–Lions (Wild Beasts) Roar

Moses 7:13–And …[Enoch] led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, … and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly.

4QEnGiants Frg 8–[Ohyah the enemy of Enoch) … by the strength of my power, [I had attacked] all flesh and I have made war with them . . . they live in holy abodes, and … they are more powerful than I. [Thereupon …] the roaring of the wild beasts came and the multitude of the wild animals began to cry out.

68 thoughts on “The Book of Enoch and the Book of Moses

  1. I think it would be interesting to compare the 1821 “Book of Enoch” by Laurence rather than the later version you are using and see if the same parallels can be found.

  2. I dont know much about mormonism but I do know this….the book od Enoch has been in existence way before the 1st century which makes your statement untrue “The Book of Enoch was found and translated long after Joseph Smith published the Book of Moses.”
    Jude quotes from the book of Enoch in Jude 1:9 (KJV) “8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
    9Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”

  3. Pascah,

    Thanks for visiting my blog! I hope that you take the time to read a little more around here and learn more about Mormonism.

    I think you misunderstood my statement about the Book of Enoch. I didn’t state that the Book of Enoch wasn’t in existence at the time of Joseph Smith, I said it was “discovered and translated” into English long after Joseph Smith published the Book of Moses. The former statement would have been untrue, the latter is indisputable fact. That’s precisely the point, the Book of Moses contains motifs and ideas that are found in the Book of Enoch (which is an ancient book!), and yet there is no way Joseph Smith had access to the Book of Enoch. Thus, it is another evidence that the Book of Moses is authentic and Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet.

  4. “The first English translation of the Bodleian/Ethiopic manuscript was published in 1821 by Richard Laurence, titled The Book of Enoch, the prophet: an apocryphal production, supposed to have been lost for ages; but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia; now first translated from an Ethiopic manuscript in the Bodleian Library.”

  5. I stand corrected! I guess the next question would be, how likely would Joseph Smith have had access to this translation of the Book of Enoch in rural United States in 1830?

  6. This is what I could dig up. I guess Quinn mentioned that, in 1825, Thomas Hartwell Horne’s four-volume work, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures was advertised in Palmyra’s newspaper and that apparently 1 Enoch appears mentioned in Horne’s section, “On the Apocryphal Books Attached to the Old Testament” (see Mormonism and the Magic World View, pg 191).

    Digging further, even before that was an 1813 publication- There was a very popular and common source for a summation of The Book of Enoch which was highly popular. The Book of Enoch was first discovered by James Bruce who published a highly popular travel narrative called Travels to discover the source of the Nile. The 1813 edition of this book has the following summary of the contents of the Book of Enoch:

    “The translation from the Greek, which is found in the Ethiopic bible, under the name of Metsahaf Henoc, is divided into 90 Kefel, or chapters. It begins with this preface: ” In the name of God, the merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and of great mercy and holiness. This book is the book of Henoch the prophet. May his blessing and help be with him, who loves him for ever and ever. Amen. Chap. I. The word of the blessing of Enoch, with which he blessed the chosen and the righteous, that were of old. May it be in the day of temptation a protection against all the evil and wicked. And Enoch lifted up his voice and spake, a holy man of God, while his eyes were open, and he saw a holy vision in the heavens, which the angels revealed to him. And I heard from them every thing, and I understood what I saw.” After this follows the history of the angels, of their having descended from heaven, and produced giants with the daughters of men ; of their having instructed these in the arts of war, and peace, and luxury. The names of the leading spirits are mentioned, which appear to be of Hebrew original, but corrupted by Greek pronunciation. The resolution of God to destroy them is then revealed to Enoch. These topics occupy about 18 chapters, which Mr Bruce had translated into English, but, weary of the subject, proceeded no further.

    “From the 18th to the 50th chapter, Enoch is led by Uriel and Raphael through a series of visions, not much connected with the preceding. He saw the burning valley of the fallen spirits, the paradise of the saints, the utmost ends of the earth, the treasuries of the thunder and lightning, winds, rain, dew, and the angels who presided over these. He was led into the place of the general judgment, saw the ancient of days on his throne, and all the kings of the earth before him.

    “At the 52d chap. Noah is said to have been alarmed at the enormous wickedness of mankind, and, fearing vengeance, to have implored the advice of his greatgrandfather. Enoch told him, that a flood of waters would destroy the whole race of man, and a flood of fire punish the angels, whom the deluge could not affect. (Chap. 59.) The subject of the angels is resumed. Semeiaza, Artukafa, Arimeen, Kakaba-el, Tusael, Ramiel, Danael, and others to the amount of twenty, appear at the head of the fallen spirits, and give fresh instances of their rebellious disposition. At Kefel (62), Enoch gives his son Mathusala, a long account of the sun, moon, stars, the year, the months, the winds, and like physical phenomena. This takes up eight chapters, after which the patriarch makes a recapitulation of what he had uttered in the former pages. The remaining 20 chapters are employed on the history of the deluge, Noah’s preparations for it, and the success which attended them. The destruction of all flesh, excepting his family, and the execution of Divine vengeance on the angels and their followers, conclude this absurd and tedious work.”….safari&pg=PA415

    Unlike Lawrence’s work this book was highly popular. While it does contain the whole story of the Book of Enoch, it does contain some of the more interesting tidbits.

  7. I would say guest writer 800+ pretty much just slaughtered your apologetic. As I was reading the blog, I was thinking. I’ve already seen hundreds of examples of Mormon historical revisionism and now I’m going to have to look into this as well, but thanks to the guest writer…. he did the work for me.

    This just makes it look like Joseph Smith was plagiarizing, not translating.

  8. Mike, not so fast, buddy.🙂 First of all, the 1813 summation (even if Joseph Smith had access to it, and there is no way of saying he did or didn’t) does not contain the clear direct parallels mentioned in the blog post. In other words, there is no way he could garner all of that information out of that short summation. So, that’s clearly not our source and can be ruled out. Horne’s work only mentions the Book of Enoch?! How, exactly, could Joseph Smith garner so much information simply out of a text he may or may not have had access to (based on a newspaper mentioning it) when the text doesn’t actually contain the Book of Enoch, but only mentions it?

    So, the question still remains as to whether he actually had access to the Book of Enoch itself after it was published. So far the only answer we have is that he could have read a newspaper article that MENTIONS a four volume book that MENTIONS the Book of Enoch. That’s a stretch for sure. The other possibility is that he could have read a two paragraph summation of the Book of Enoch and garnered all of the information out of that. That’s a stretch too. If Joseph Smith was plagiarizing, you’ve done a poor job at showing his source thus far.

  9. I agree that this is still an open topic. All I have shown is that translations had been done and discussions were being had about the Book of Enoch long before 1830. Perhaps some went into more specifics than the one I posted.

    Also, you are lessening the 1825 Palmyra publication too much. Quinn states: “Horne’s summary of Laurence’s book was on sale in Palmyra from 1825 onward…” So the book in Palmyra contained a summary of the translation of the Book of Enoch (presumably more thorough than the footnote summary I posted above).

    Combine an understanding of a few books of scriptures and the summary already posted, and you might end up with a lot of the parallels you have posted (and if it had been written a bit differently, you would have found different parallels, as parallels can be found between virtually any writings). However, I agree that Sidney or Joseph might have needed more than the quotes I have posted.

    The parallel that seems to have the most substance to me is the Mahijuah/Mahujah parallel that comes from the Dead Sea scroll. However, one thing that lessens that is a verse in Genesis that even links the name Enoch with one that seems awfully similar.

    “And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.” Gen. 4:18

  10. Guest Writter 800+, good comments. I still think the Horne’s summary of Laurence’s book being on sale in Palmyra and therefore accessible to Joseph Smith to be a stretch. Joseph Smith couldn’t even afford a Bible until well into or perhaps after the Book of Mormon translation. There is no record of which I am aware that Joseph Smith owned the book. He would have had accessed it somewhere else such, which I suppose wouldn’t have been impossible, but I’m not sure how probable it was. I guess somethings we may never know with any certainty.

  11. You must run in different circles than my father.🙂 It doesn’t matter if you own a book or not. In the Burned-over District, the topic of conversation would have been abuzz about what was in the Book of Enoch. Hours of conversation would have been had about what people had heard or read about it. The fact that summaries were to be had, meant that people would have been talking about it. At least, that’s the case of the circles my father affiliates with.

  12. Guest Writer 800+ and Mike Birkhead, if the Burned-over District was all abuzz about the Book of Enoch and Joseph Smith plagarized it, do you have evidence in period writing exposing the plagarism? How did Joseph Smith’s followers not become aware of the plagarism and declare him a fraud?

  13. That Joseph sure fooled us. Usually that is the goal of a con-man, to fool people 150 years in the future by using vague and obscure sources no one has heard of.

  14. You need to understand that the Book of Enoch which was first translated into English in 1821 is also called 1 Enoch. It is distinct from 2 and 3 Enoch. The portions or Enoch which you parallel with the Book of Moses are from 2 and 3 Enoch. Both 2 and 3 Enoch were translated into English long after Joseph Smith was dead. Therefore, there is no way Joseph had access to the elements of 2 and 3 Enoch that are so similar to what we find in the Book of Moses.

  15. I love that last quote by David which is supported by Hugh Nibley who discusses the topic at great length!

  16. Two and a half years later🙂. I find it incredible that Joseph had no access to 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, Book of the Giants and unlikely access to 1 Enoch and that there are these 21 similarities between these ancient sources and the Book of Moses. It seems the debate died suddenly after David correctly provided the timetable of when these Books of Enoch were available. 🙂

  17. I’ll just respond to myself. Here is another perspective on the matter by Cheryl Bruno in her article applicable to the discussion. She states:

    “Some Mormon writers continue to follow Nibley’s tradition of basing Smith’s prophetic status upon his ability to parallel the Enoch pseudepigrapha without having had access to these ancient writings. This view is problematic.”

    She further states in a footnote: “Many apologists argue that revelation is the only viable origin for Smith’s version of the Enoch stories, despite probable access by Smith to numerous contemporary resources. For representative apologist approaches, see Nibley; Bradshaw; see Cirillo for information on Enoch sources easily available to Smith.”

    Her theory discounts the Book of Moses as being received by revelation and makes her best case that it, the Book of Moses, is the product Joseph access to pseudepigrapha or even more likely Joseph’s access to “Masonic tradition rather than other sources for inspiration in his Enoch writings.”

    Interesting article.

  18. Nice comment Steve.🙂 I stated earlier that “I find it incredible that Joseph had no access to 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, Book of the Giants and unlikely access to 1 Enoch and that there are these 21 similarities between these ancient sources and the Book of Moses”. I am reading the Book of Moses again. It feels true!

  19. Another good comment old Steve. In addition to parallel number 8 Mahijah/Mahujah Bradshaw, i think, made this additional interesting observation; “In the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Bible, the variants MHYY [Mahijah] and MHWY [Mahujah] both appear in a single verse (with the suffix “-el”) as references to the same person, namely Mehuja-el. The KJV renders both variants identically. Moreover, the Joseph Smith versions of the name drop the “-el” suffix to the name thus differing from the Hebrew text of the Bible and in accord with its Dead Sea Scrolls  equivalent…” It is doubtful that Masonic oral history of Enoch providing this source to Joseph Smith. Keep them coming Steve.🙂

  20. Steve, Im glad you revived this. The earlier poster who said essentially that all these paralleles are nullified since “the book of enoch” was available before 1830 is astonishingly ignorant. The majority of these parallels, which happen to be the most impressive, come from 2 enoch, 3rd enoch, and the book of the giants found in 1948 along with all of the other dead sea literature. 2 and 3 enoch also have very late dates of discovery but dont remember them off the top of my head but can be found in Bradshaws article about the moses/enoch parallels found on Interpreters web site.

    The book of moses offers some of the best apologetic evidences of the lds church’s truth claims, i am suprised it is not used more often.

    Ps ive read a non-lds review of the article that claims josephs enoch knowledge came through masonic means. The reviewer, as was myself, was totally unimpressed.

  21. Andrew thanks for keeping your blog open and commenting, I was getting a little lonely. Russell , if you ever read this I would be very interested where the review of Cheryl’s article can be found.

  22. Hey Steve I have a comment on a little different subject. There is so much on the Mormon blogosphere about doubt and celebrating doubt. Nothing wrong with doubt but I prefer to celebrate faith. I also see a trend in discounting the importance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon and other restoration scripture like the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. In other words they (the BOM, BOA) can be19th century productions without losing their value as canonized scriptures. They can testify of Christ and can contain his words without being being historical. I am surprised with this argument, but respect those who hold this view. I’ll come back in several weeks and give my view of the many comments this will generate!

  23. Today in our Fast & Testimony meeting a member of the bishopric who is a very successful trial lawyer conducted. He bore his testimony that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record translated in our day. He testified that by reading that Book that one can gain a knowledge of its truthfulness. The Book of Mormon is an ancient record that is true, therefore there was a Lehi and a Sariah and a real Moroni. There really were gold plates and a seer who translated them. If there were no plates, no seer stones nor a real Mormon then the story is a fabrication. If the Book of Mormon is a fabrication then so is the First Vision. If there is no vision then there is no priesthood along with its exalting ordinances. As he and the others testified of the truthfulness of the Gospel I felt a peace and assurance of the truthfulness of what they said. How does one know the truth of spiritual matters? Paul taught that spiritual things are known through the spirit and Moroni said we can know the truth of all things through the power of the Holy Ghost.

  24. Hey Robert60 are you Steven Skabelund? One and the same.🙂 Maybe I’ll use still another name for my conversation.

  25. Steve, you may be interested in a recent comment by Ben Spackman on a Book Review of Adam S. Miller from the Common Consent blog. Ben S. that he “certainly take[s] issue with casually throwing in doubt as a spiritual gift, though I leave open the possibility that with the right definition and contextualization, it could be justified. (I can’t quite imagine what those might be, but leave it open.) But as this is apparently a loose translation (without explanatory notes?)” I understand he (Ben S.) is one of the authors of the Wheat and Tares blog.

    Earlier I said, “Nothing wrong with doubt but I prefer to celebrate faith.” I am sure we will continue to hear about much about doubt but without faith what good is doubt.

  26. I really should say nothing wrong nor good about doubt by itself, how we react to it can make it a positive or a negative feeling.

  27. “I guess the next question would be, how likely would Joseph Smith have had access to this translation of the Book of Enoch in rural United States in 1830?”

    I know the answer to that. It is between slim and none. The only known American copy of an earlier edition of Laurence’s “Book of Enoch the Prophet” in the New York area (an 1828 printing of the 1821 first edition) was acquired in the early 20th century by an institution in New York. That is too late for Joseph Smith to have had access to it.

    Furthermore, in the 1838 and 1883 revised reprint editions of the work, the scarcity of previous editions of the volume was discussed in the prefatory material. It was stated to be so rare in the previous editions that many had concocted the idea of a Church conspiracy that suppressed the volume from the public. And, that was in Europe where it was published! The 1838 edition denied the suppression and stated that that third edition was printed as a result of a large order from America. No previous orders from America are mentioned at all.

    In any case, I cannot imagine it being less rare across the ocean in upstate New York at the time of the previous editions published during the lifetime of Joseph Smith (the 1832 second edition is too late, too, since the Book of Moses was written from 1830-1831), and that would have been available to him to copy from in any way.

    So, yeah, between slim and none. Probably much, much closer to none.

  28. I loved the comment made one year ago today by me (I guess i am a little proud) . “I find it incredible that Joseph had no access to 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, Book of the Giants and unlikely access to 1 Enoch and that there are these 21 similarities between these ancient sources and the Book of Moses”. I am reading the Book of Moses again. It feels true!” The source for the Book of Moses is the same in 1830 as it was in 2014 and 2015. I find the analysis incredible. My guess is that the source (revelation) will also be the same in 2125. 🙂

  29. Today at our stake conference the visiting G.A. rhetorically asked why we hold Joseph Smith in such high regard. He answered that because of Joseph we know Jesus so much better. In the modern time Joseph saw Jesus along with His Father. The speaker then said yes the Father and Son were seen by Joseph — Joseph saw a Family! In a internet age when so much negative is written about Joseph this G.A.s witness rang so true to me. I felt it the truthfulness of his words like I have hundreds of times before as I have read, listed to and pondered the mission of Joseph Smith.

    Joseph brought forth the BOM by the gift and power of God. It is the second testimony of Jesus — it is written to convince the Jew and Gentile (all of us) that JESUS IS THE CHRIST. Its four principal authors Nephi, Jacob, Mormon and Moroni all saw Jesus. Did not Moroni speaking to our generation and say “And then ye shall know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked to me face to face…” HIs father Mormon in his 15th year “was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus. Over 900 years earlier Jacob and his older brother Nephi both saw Jesus.

    We so we sing praises to the man who communed with Jehovah. For it was Jesus that “anointed that Prophet and Seer” — even Joseph Smith.

  30. Interesting that truth is based on a feeling. The Taliban feels its gospel is true, Catholics feel their gospel is true, Baptists feel their gospel is true, Hindus feel their gospel is true, Warren Jeffs and all his nut bags felt their gospel was true….they cant all be true. Too bad there isn’t some evidence that Joe Smith didn’t just make all this up. If I was God and I wanted to restore my gospel on the earth I would make the message as believable as possible to save as many people as possible. Not give a treasure seeking boy with a reputation for deceiving people gold plates that he can never actually show to anyone……kind of fishy if you think about it logically and come out from under the spell of “I am right” and ” I know the church is true”.

    I don’t think I would sing praises to a man that married and had sex with a 14 year old girl or lied to his wife about how many mistresses he was bonking, or commanded a newspaper be destroyed because he didn’t like the words it printed ….. by their fruits you shall know them…

  31. The Taliban have no gospel and they don’t base it upon a feeling. Hinduism has no gospel. Baptists do not pray to know the truth by the influence of the Holy Ghost, and neither do Catholics. Epic fails of an analogy. I cannot speak to Jeffs and his followers, however, not being familiar enough with their beliefs and practices. But, people also can be misled. There is no corner on that market and people are people and many people are suckers of one sort or another, bending their ears to the whispers of the evil one.

    Evideces that he didn’t make it all up? The internal evidences of the Book of Mormon are the splattering all over the book that can only be seen by careful study and application. Similar can be said about the Book of Moses, which is the subject of this thread. You explain how it was that Joseph Smith, knowing no Egyptian, got an Egyptian-styled phrase-name, with correct grammar and vocabulary and equivalent meaning, and put it into the Book of Mormon, and you might have a small point. That word? Irreantum. It is composed of the words jr, r [or jrrj, either answers to the correct form and meaning], nt(w), and (t)m. (Characters in the parentheses tend to get dropped in written Egyptian.) And, it is grammatically correct Egyptian. It’s literal meaning is “more than all bodies of water” or “more than all waters” and by interpretation into hebrew actually has a roughly equivalent meaning of “many waters.” There was nothing from which Joseph Smith could have gotten that. I have checked. The words nt(w) (“bodies of water”/”waters”) and (t)m (“all”) did not begin to appear in Egyptian lexicons until recent decades, being unknown in Joseph Smith’s time. Lucky guess?

    How did he get genuine Egyptian names (Anti, Ani, Parhoran, Kherihor, etc) into the Book of Mormon, knowing no Egyptian whatsoever? Lucky guesses? How many lucky guesses does there need to be before people sit up and take notice?

    I have checked the availability of the Book of Enoch to Joseph Smith as well. Something Quinn didn’t do was to check the acquisitiion date on the copy he claimed could have been available to Joseph Smith. It was acquired long after his death. The edition Quinn claimed could have been available was so rare in even Europe that it sparked conpiracy theories that its translator had pulled and destroyed all copies and no one could get one. What would be the likelihood that a single copy would make its way here to America for Joseph Smith to access in Harmony, Pennsylvania (no library nearby!), or Kirtland, Ohio, in the event of such rarity in Europe? It wasn’t until the 1838 edition of Launrence’s Enoch that a large order for the Laurence Book of Enoch was made available to America as a result of people being exposed to it in Europe and telling others about it in America. The translator of the book said so about these things himself, as did the introduction of the 1883 reprinting.

    How did Joseph Smith manage to get the name Alma correct as a male given name among Hebrews? You were aware that archaeology backs that up, weren’t you? Indeed it does. The name Alma son of Judah was found in Palestine in 1977. Lucky guess?

    How did Joseph Smith, knowing no Egyptian, get the very Egyptian idea of gods as gatekeepers into the Book of Mormon? This wasn’t know until the pyramid of Teti was discovered and the texts translated into English and made available in the Americas–long after Smith’s death.

    How did Joseph Smith, knowing no languages but English in 1828-1830, know that Egyptian that had been altered could potentially take up less room than standard Egyptian and Hebrew? How would he know that Egyptian could have been altered at all? It was, but how could he have known? There were Hieratic and Demotic forms, both of which became abbreviated and able to compress into smaller spaces. How would or could he also have possibly known that Egyptian has some very interesting properties in writing that could cause a person who knew Hebrew to stumble at the placing of words in the text. Again, Joseph Smith knew neither Egyptian nor Hebrew and yet he managed to correctly identify pitfalls to using Egyptian instead of Hebrew in written records. So, how did he do it?

    As to what God does and how he does it, consider that God often uses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. Look it up. It’s in your Bible. And, while on the subject, there are even pretty colorful stories about the various prophets and other characters in the Bible that are of interest if you think peceived misdeeds invalidate the whole, overall message.

    And, you have gotten some other facts wrong as well, but I am not surprised. He may have married a 14 year old but he did not consummate that marriage until years later. In addition, history in that time shows that marriage to what we now consider underaged was not unheard of in those days. People didn’t get all tied up in knots about it like they do today. In my own wife’s Scottish ancestry, there is a guy who married an 11-year old, and they weren’t LDS. Young marriage still happens in the rest of the world, even today. Ever read the Talmud? Marriage to a 3 1/2-year-old is OK by that book. Don’t believe it? Look it up for yourself. Not to say I agree with marrying that young but why not mention it, too, while on the subject of young marriage?

    And, Joseph Smith wasn’t “boinking” mistresses. They were wives. He married them. It was not until later that he would mention them to her because he wasn’t completely sure of her reaction to the news. When he finally did mention it to her she went nuts and he actually hid from his wife out of fear. In a letter he wrote to the family of one of his plural wives, he warned them that they could not be safe if Emma was around. So, yeah, I might have had a small problem telling her, too. That doesn’t make him any less of a prophet any more than the real misdeeds of the prophets and apostles of the Bible are invalidated by what they did during their lives.

    Finally, Joseph Smith did not give the initial order to destroy that press. The city council ordered him to order the constable to suppress the press as a public nuisance. Not only is it in the historical records, it is also in his own personal journal that he was ordered as Mayor to do what he did by the Nauvoo City Council. If you are going to attack the Church, its teachings, the Book of Mormon or Book of Moses, or even Joseph Smith himself, perhaps it might behoove you to get a little more learning about the subject matter under your belt.

  32. Oh, and one other thing. Joseph Smith did show the plates of the Book of Mormon to others. Even after being tossed out of the Church they still testified that they saw something (and actually handled the plates in the case of the eight witnesses, and so said even under pressure).

  33. An interesting thread. I have been entertaining Mormon missionaries for about 18 weeks now and have been earnestly seeking to determine the truth of things. I have read the Book of Mormon (all of it), some of the Doctrine and Covenants and some of the books contained in the Pearl of Great Price. I have listened to and read Mormon apologists and I have listened to the critics also including ex-Mormons. I have also fasted and prayed on the matter. I thought I had my mind made up but then this thread caught my eye and it seemed at first like plausible evidence for Joseph Smith having received spiritual inspiration for the Book of Moses rather than it having been compiled from earthly sources, so I have done some research.

    First, a word on 1 Enoch, in the preface to the 1938 (third) edition of Laurence’s English translation Laurence states that “…a very large order for more copies has been received from America”. The word ‘more’ suggests to me that earlier editions had been available in America and when the book sellers sold out they ordered ‘more’. It is possible, therefore, that reasonable numbers of the first edition were available in the New York area in the 1820s and thereby generated the interest for the “very large order” for the later edition.

    Secondly, it is clear that Joseph Smith was involved in free-masonry and the Freemasons have a strong tradition of Enochic legends in their secret rites. There is plenty on the internet about this which is openly discussed. We could speculate that there is much more that is not openly discussed and that the Freemasons may have had access to 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch long before they were more widely available.

    Thirdly, even if Joseph Smith did receive spiritual inspiration for these verses can we be sure it is of God. The Book of Enoch is not regarded as scripture by Christians and we have to be mindful of Paul’s warning in Galatians 1: 6-9 about not receiving another gospel even if it is from an angel.

    In the end, for me, it comes down to the whole picture of the doctrines, scriptures and behaviour of Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.

    Oh, and the plates, they only saw them with their spiritual eyes not physically.

  34. In the case of the copies available in America, the “more” did not refer to previous orders in America. The book would have been much more commonplace than it actually was, if that were so. The edition that made its way into the New York Library was acquired long after the death of Joseph Smith. I know because I checked when I found out about it. That edition was an 1828 second printing of the 1821 edition. The previous editions went so fast in Europe that conspiracy theories arose as to the reason for the book’s scarcity. Hardly any made their way to America because previous editions went so quickly in Europe. It was not until the just prior to the third edition that people in America began hearing about the book and trying to obtain copies, culminating in a large order from America for copies of said book. That resulted in the 1838 edition.

    Joseph Smith’s involvement in Freemasonry would not have helped him at all. Enoch traditions form part of the Royal Arch traditions in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (and its predecessor, the Rite of Perfection), and there was no Scottish Rite anywhere near Joseph Smith until 1846 (the Rite of Perfection having ceased to exist long by then), when an attempt was made to introduce it into Illinois. Joseph Smith was long dead by that time.

    In addition, Joseph Smith never went beyond the Sublime Degree of Master Mason (3rd Degree), having never belonged to any Appendant Body of Freemasonry, be it York Rite or Scottish Rite. Freemasons do not discuss 2 or 3 Enoch in meetings and never did, and these books formed no part of Masonic rituals or monitors, past or present. I know. I checked and I am also a Freemason in both York Rite (Knight Templar) and Scottish Rite (32nd Degree and Knight Commander of the Court of Honour). And, even if they had wanted to read 2 Enoch at that time they would have had to know Slavonic to read it, and would have had to have been among the few Russian scholars who knew about it (I can assure you that Joseph Smith could not read Slavonic and I know of no Russian scholars who were friends of Joseph Smith from the period). 2 Enoch was revealed to the world at large in 1892 and published in English in 1896. That’s 66 years after the Book of Moses was committed to writing and 52 years after the death of Joseph Smith.

    3 Enoch was written in Hebrew but very few Freemasons actually could read Hebrew at the time. Joseph Smith didn’t start to learn Hebrew until Winter 1835. That’s too late for the Book of Mormon or the Book of Moses. 3 Enoch was published in English in 1928. That’s 84 years after Joseph Smith was dead and 98 years after the Book of Moses was committed to writing.

    Certainly we can be relatively certain that his inspiration came from God. If we have it confirmed to us by reliance alone upon the Holy Spirit that he is a prophet, that is a no-brainer. While, it is true that 1 Enoch today isn’t regarded as scripture by most Christians, there are those Christians who would disagree with you relative to 1 Enoch. That book is part of the Bible canons of the Ethiopian Orthodox and Eritrean Tawahedo Churches. So also would the earliest Christians have disagreed with you. Bible manuscripts also contained at least part of the text in Greek (Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri among them), and Jude quoted from a Greek version available to him (Jude verses 14 and 15), as did several other early Christian writers before the third century quote it as an authority. And, since 1 Enoch and the Book of Moses aren’t gospels, Paul’s warning doesn’t apply.

    As to worrying about the behavior of prophets of God and how that affects your acceptance of them, I think you’d better read your Bible a little more carefully and reveal to yourself your double standard of rejecting Joseph Smith on the grounds of behavior while accepting ancient prophets who did similar or the same, or even worse things. Think about that for a moment. David in the Bible was identified as a prophet by early Christians, and he not only was a polygamist (but only because God had another prophet tell him that he gave him all his wives and would have given him more if he had just asked, 2 Samuel 12:8) but David the prophet-king also committed adultery and arranged to have her husband killed to cover up his errant behavior. You, in your double standard of judgment, would still accept David as a prophet while rejecting Joseph Smith? Seems that way from what I see of what you wrote. Perhaps you should rethink your decision.

    As to your claim of the witnesses seeing the plates with spiritual eyes only, you are mistaking the testimony of the three witnesses with the testimony of the eight witnesses. The Eight Witnesses not only saw with their eyes but they also handled the plates with their hands, and even after being tossed out and/or leaving the Church continued to maintain that they saw them and handled them when confronted under pressure. Fact is, there were two different kinds of eyewitness testimony, one spiritual and the other physical. That is an inconvenient fact that many critics of the Church tend to leave out in their publications. I hate to break it to you but you’ve been had!

  35. One other thing to add: Odeburg, in his first ever translation of the complete Hebrew or 3 Enoch into English, said regarding the text:

    “The complete Hebrew Book of Enoch has never been printed before. Most of the MSS. preserved also present 3 Enoch in a fragmentary form.”

    (Hugo Odeburg, 3 Enoch or The Hebrew Book of Enoch edited and translated for the first time with introduction commentary and critical notes [London: Cambridge University Press, 1928], 17)

    As I stated before, the chances of likelihood of Joseph Smith having had contact with this text are between slim and none.

  36. Whoops! I inadvertently left out some additional facts. Joseph Smith did not become a Freemason until March of 1842. That is just under 11-12 years after the Book of Moses was committed to writing. So, Joseph Smith wasn’t a Freemason at the time of his composing the Book of Moses, and had no access either to 2 Enoch (he didn’t know Slavonic even if he could have had access to the 20 or so fragmentary manuscripts in Russia and environs (he didn’t)), or to 3 Enoch (it never was printed in full until long after his death and he couldn’t read Hebrew at the time, anyway, even if he had come across fragments in Rabbinical literature, not having begun learning Hebrew until the Winter of 1835, and even to read much of that literature he still would have had to have known both Hebrew and Aramaic since a lot of said Rabbinical literature is written in both of those languages set, at least in part, in a different font than that which most Hebrew readers would have been accustomed to in reading).

  37. D. Charles Pyle. If the fact that the New York Library only received a copy of 1 Enoch long after Joseph Smith’s death means that copies were not generally available in America until then it still does not preclude the possibility that Joseph Smith obtained a copy from some alternative means, for example, a gift from a friend returning from Europe.

    I obviously can’t compete with your knowledge of Freemasonry as I am not a Freemason but I am aware of the book by Robert W. Sullivan (also a Mason of the 32nd degree) which hints at ancient esoteric knowledge of Enoch held by the Freemasons and mirrored in the Book of Enoch. That Joseph Smith was not a Freemason until 1942 I do not dispute although I understand that he was instantly promoted to the third degree which suggests to me some foreknowledge or connection with Freemasonry.

    I agree that many early Christians may have viewed the Book of Enoch as scripture but there were many heresies in the early years. I don’t have a massively strong view on this but if we are to take God at his word that he will preserve his “word” then maybe the fact that the Book of Enoch is not in the Bible could be taken as an indication of its status.

    We do refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the four gospels but that is not an exclusive term for those four books. The word “gospel” means “good news” as I am sure you know. In Galatians 1: 6-9 Paul is talking about the good news of Jesus Christ meaning the doctrines that Paul has espoused so it can apply to any doctrines that contradict those. In fact, Paul wrote Galatians before any of the four canonical gospels were written so he cannot be referring to them specifically.

    Regarding the comparison between Joseph Smith and David as I understand it David repented of his sins and humbled himself before God.

    I know there are endless debates about polygamy but that is not the only thing that worries me about the origins of Mormonism. There are many things. Some things of particular concern to me are:

    In Mormonism God has been downgraded from the eternal Spirit who created everything to some exalted man who rearranged the eternal matter (so who/what created who/what?).
    The fall of man is not regarded as a disaster but rather something God planned all along (is Lucifer to be thanked?).
    Mormonism has promoted Lucifer from a fallen angel to a brother of Jesus (who is a part of the Godhead),
    Mormonisn teaches that people can be like God (that was how Lucifer tempted Adam and Eve)
    ((Jesus said “ye are gods” not “you can become Gods” – another discussion perhaps))
    In the Mormon temple ceremony account of the fall, the apron is an emblem of the symbols and power of the Luciferian priesthoods and those in attendance put it on over their other garments in obedience to Lucifer to hide from God (worrying symbolism)
    The LDS church shuns the cross of Christ (1 Cor 1:18) but decorates the Utah temple with the star of Baphomet.

    It is hard for me as a Christian to ignore these issues.
    God Bless You

  38. Again, your scenario of a gift from Europe has little to no support. It was so rare and unobtainable, even in Europe, prior to the publication of the 1838 edition that conspiracy theories arose about its suppression. What makes you think someone was going to have an easier time finding it in Europe and gifting it to Joseph in America?

    We also know about the books that Joseph owned because most of them were donated to the Nauvoo library, and a few continued in family, as well as books he actually cited or referenced at the time. We know that Joseph did not own a copy of Laurence’s Book of Enoch. There is zero evidence that he owned a copy or even had one close. The Manchester Library (near Joseph at the time the Book of Moses was committed to writing) didn’t even have one. There is zero physical evidence that he either had one or had access to one.

    I am aware of the book as well. I have not read more than a few snippets of it, however, but most of what I did read was pretty speculative and lean on real evidence. A lot of what is claimed to be in 1 Enoch by the author simply isn’t there on closer inspection, and there isn’t much of anything in 1 Enoch that I have seen in any Masonic ritual from Joseph Smith’s time or otherwise. One could get more Enoch lore that parallels Freemasonry from Josephus and other sources that were available than from 1 Enoch. What I have seen of the book you reference is that it engages in a form of parallelomania, wherein any connection could be made, no matter how tenuous and unsupportable. It even discusses seriously the symbol on the American $1 bill as being connected to Freemasonry–and that is a laughable claim, I am sorry to say. Would it surprise you to know that the symbol actually was designed by a non-Mason?

    The year was 1842, not 1942, but Joseph also wasn’t “instantly promoted” or anything the like. It wasn’t because of some foreknowledge or connections on his part, either. In many jurisdictions, there is a tradition of Grand Masters making Masons at Sight (or “on Sight” depending on jurisdiction), which entails using an abbreviated ritual and waving the traditional waiting periods between Degrees, nothing more.

    In Joseph’s time, it was the first time it was being done in Illinois, and two men were initiated, passed, and raised (Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon). It doesn’t require prerequisite knowledge or some connection to the Fraternity, and never did. The Grand Master did it as an honor to Joseph Smith, who was at that time a civic leader to whom that Grand Master was catering for future political support. Joseph thought it was a good idea because of the good that having some Lodges around could bring about.

    The Grand Lodge of Illinois took a disliking to the Nauvoo Lodges for continuing the practice of balloting on multiple people at once and initiating multiple people at the same time, and actually expelled the Nauvoo Lodges from Freemasonry by declaring them clandestine after they refused to comply with the requests of the Grand Lodge. Now, after all that, the Grand Lodge of Illinois uses a similar practice today. Nowadays we Masons refer to that practice of initiating several (or even many!) people at once in several Grand Lodge jurisdictions in the United States as a “one-day class.” Even the York Rite and Scottish Rite in the US are doing it!

    So, Jude was an heretic? His Bible manuscript had 1 Enoch in it. So, God was OK with it being in Greek Bible manuscripts for several centuries but then changed his mind? In addition, individuals such as Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus were not heretics. They were widely respected in the early, post-apostolic church. And, 1 Enoch still is in Bibles in at least two Christian churches (and one Jewish group) today.

    “Preserve his ‘word'”? That is a discussion in and of itself. I wish I could post pretty pictures here. What I could show you from the manuscripts of the Bible might shock you. Why do you think Bart Ehrman went agnostic the way he did? It is because after seeing the manuscripts for himself he lost his faith that God did actually “preserve” his word. There is a lot more I could say about that subject, such as that the 99.5% manuscript agreement, or preservation, or whatever variant of the claim regarding the manuscripts of the New Testament is presented, is pure mythology. There are actually more variant readings than verses of the entire New Testament, if you want to get technical.

    In addition, some of those changes, even in the Old Testament, actually are theologically significant, contrary to claims often made by Evangelicals. For example, the oldest reading of Deuteronomy mentioned multiple gods in heaven and sons of God. Some Bibles have started using that older reading since its discovery but most still do not. In any case, the older readings in the Bible are less monotheistic than those in most of today’s Bibles. And, there are even a few passages speaking of plural gods hidden in the current text by English translations! No translation translates even close to literally Genesis 20:13, in which Abraham speaks of plural Gods causing Abraham to wander from his father’s house. (Holy shades of the Book of Abraham!) Check your Hebrew text. Both the verb (hith’u, “they caused to wander”) and noun (‘Elohim, God/Gods depending on whether context and/or verb is plural) are plural.

    But, that discussion of textual transmission and translation is a lengthy topic and that is another reason why Mormonism is of benefit. We already knew that there would be potential problems with the Bible, and that leaves room for faith in the light of latter-day revelation.

    These decisions to keep and/or omit books from the Bible are the concerns and actions of men. Nowhere does God himself get a say on what is or isn’t canon when it comes to the Bible. That is one of the only reasons why it isn’t in a lot of Bibles. A group of men got together and decided it shouldn’t be. But, even the Bible itself cites books of scripture by name, yet nary a copy can be found today of most of these sources.

    Yes, I know that the term “gospel” has several uses in the early church. And, we do not know all the doctrines that Paul taught because 1) we are missing some of his letters, and 2) not everything he knew was comunicated openly to all believers. They had a wisdom that was spoken “in a mystery” to keep outsiders from knowing this wisdom-knowledge. (See, for example, the Greek of 1 Corinthians 2:6-8.) What do you suppose was part of that hidden knowledge? Do you really expect that it was written down if they went to the trouble to hide it? Consider also the several passages in even the Bible that show that Christ had things to teach that they could not bear at the time, that Paul had to teach milk because they couldn’t handle meat, and that there were things that were difficult to explain in writing but could only be communicated to mature Christians. Read your Bible very carefully to find those. They are there, I can asssure you. But, read them for what they say rather than for what people interpret into them via commentaries.

    And, do you honestly think that the four gospels were the only writings which Christians had and studied? There were others before the four gospels were written, almost none of which survive today. Luke refers to the things “many had taken in hand to set forth” but does not name them (Luke 1:1-2). Wish we still had them.

    And, what makes you think that Joseph didn’t repent of his shortcomings? Are you a time-traveling mindreader? Fact is, the prophets and apostles in the Bible did some pretty heinous things from time to time, sometimes paying for them with their lives. Does that invalidate their message? If not, why not? And, if not for them, why for Joseph Smith?


    Sure there are “endless debates” about polygamy. But, why should that worry you at all? It happened. They believed that God commanded it for a time. How do you know he didn’t? And, there still is the matter of God giving David all his wives and offering more for the asking. Did God, therefore, lead David into sin?

    Did you ever stop to think that man “upgraded” God to that status? The Bible doesn’t teach that God is an “eternal Spirit.” Would it shock you to learn that John 4:24 doesn’t actually teach that God is a spirit? John 4:24 refers to the action of God rather than his composition. Later Christianity made that reference into a rference of God being a Spirit. There is no scripture anywhere that says that God is bodiless. And, in fact, there are scriptures that directly state that God has form and shape, which also is an aspect of three dimensions and corporeality.

    As to being an “exalted man” isn’t the physical body of Jesus an “exalted man”? If it is no problem for Jesus why is it a problem for the LDS view for the Father also to have such? If Jesus is truly the exact representation of the Father’s nature (Hebrews 1:3), should not the condition of Jesus be that of his Father? Deep doctrine, I know, but supportable by a literal reading of the Bible, particularly in Greek.

    Now, consider also the words of Jesus himself. Jesus paraphrased the law of Moses in a passage but does not directly quote it. He states “the testimony of two men is true.” He then follows that with naming himself as one of those “men” and the Father as the other. Take that literally and what do you get? Why should I interpret the Bible less literally there or give up new revelation that agrees with the notion?

    As to eternal matter, why does anything have to create it? Why cannot it just be? Were you aware that the Bible does not teach creation out of nothing in its original language texts? It doesn’t. In fact, because it really doesn’t people in some Bibles had to reword a passage that doesn’t even talk about creation to make it an explicit “creation out of nothing” passage! The Apocrypha also shows the real view of creation, in agreement with the rest of the Bible, which is creation from formless matter (Wisdom 11:17, for example). And, even as late as Justin the Martyr he also held the doctrine that creation was from formless matter. “Creation from nothing” came about in the late 2nd Century. “Creation from nothing” was neither the view of Christianity nor Judaism before then. “Mormonism” sticks with the older view on the grounds of latter-day revelation.

    Yes, and part and parcel of that fall scenario is that God provided a Savior, the Lamb of God, “slain from the foundation of the world.” (See, for example, Revelation 13:8.) That means that God knew the whole time what was going to take place and provided for it. It was no surprise move to God on the part of the Devil. What is more, it set in motion an entire plan that was in place from the beginning. according to the Book of Moses (the subject of the original posting), Lucifer did what he did not knowing the mind/plan of God. But, God had planned for this from the beginning, or foundation of the world. Did you not ever notice that Adam and Eve did not have children the entire time they were in the garden? Think about it. How long do you think it would have taken for Adam to name the animals that God created? Why do you think that was? Not enough time? And, why thank Lucifer for setting into motion what God planned for all along? If it weren’t for him, someone else would have done it. More interesting still, why do you think God sent Lucifer here rather than, say, sending him to Mars and keeping him away from this creation so as not to mess things up? It was deliberate and God did it do give man agency to choose his path in life and eternity.

    Mormonism takes literally the passage that God is the “Father of our spirits” (Hebrews 12:9) and that we “are the offspring of God” (Acts 17:28). That includes Lucifer, ourselves, and the Son of God, all of whom are/were spirits. If God is the Father of the spirit of Jesus and the spirit that is Lucifer, that makes them brothers. Funny thing about that is that such a thought as “brotherhood” didn’t seem to bother Lactantius, who also referred to them as brothers. You take the fullk teaching out of context when you spoiut off that oft-spouted “spirit-brother-of-Lucifer” canard. Indeed, even Paul speaks of the entire family of God in heaven and on earth. (See, for example, Ephesians 3:14-15) Just because Lucifer fell doesn’t invalidate the doctrine as a whole, and not the just the part you like to sensationalize.

    Lucifer actually told it straight two out of three times. He told Eve three things would happen if they ate the fruit: 1) they would not die, 2) their eyes would be opened, and 3) they would be like God, knowing good and evil. Now, with that in mind, please read Genesis 3:7 and 3:22. We know that Adam and Eve both died. That was the only lie that Lucifer told them. The rest was the truth. And, even worse for your position, the Bible itself teaches that we will become like God! (Read 1 John 3:2-3, very carefully and out loud to yourself).

    Now, were you aware that the Bible also teaches that we would not only be like God but also have the same glory as Jesus Christ? (See for example, John 17:22 and 2 Thessalonians 2:14.) Were you aware that the Bible also teaches that we can participate/share in the divine nature, the very nature that makes God what he is? (See, for example, 2 Peter 1:3-4.) That those who overcome will sit on the throne with God and that we will judge/rule angels and the world? (See, for example, Revelation 3:21; 1 Cointhians 6:2-3.) Those are the kinds of things God does, and faithful Christians who overcome will do the same. There is much, much more that could be said about this. I provide you a link for further consideration but even that paper is by no means exhaustive (hope the link comes through):

    Yes, deification certainly is another subject that could take a long time to hammer through. See my above paper and read it carefully. Then, take a look at 2 Corinthians 8:9. The fist part of that verse refers to Christ’s “emptying” himself and taking on the nature of humanity in Philippians 2:6-8. If that is so, to what does the second part of the verse refer, comparing that to Philippians 2:9 and to Matthew 23:12?

    I see you are under the influence of Schnoebelen and Decker. The apron actually symbolizes two things (the literal aprons of Adam and Eve, and the aprons worn by the ancient priests of Israel), depending upon when one wears it during the ceremony neither of which is that it itself is the symbol of Lucifer’s anything. That interpretation on which you relied is a false interpretation taken by conflating the ritual together and twisting it around like a pretzel. It also helps when the creators of that interpretation are consummate liars. Again, you’ve been had.

    We do not shun the cross of Christ. We prefer instead remember his life and to do as he commanded to remember his death, which is to participate in sacrament/eucharist/Lord’s supper, etc. Show me one passage where Jesus commanded us to display the cross on churches on in clothing accessories in rememberance of him. Just one will do. Until then you really have a moot point. And, “star of Baphomet” on “the Utah” temple? Really??? I see you’ve been had again. Ever hear of the Star of Bethlehem symbol? It is a symbol of the birth, and by extension, the incarnation of Christ. The star of Baphomet is an interlaced, five-pointed star, point upwards. There isn’t one of those on any temple in Utah. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. Oh, and did I mention that you’ve been had again?

    I just don’t know. I just don’t see your concerns particularly worrisome, and I am a convert to the LDS faith from a previous Christian background. (Father is Southern Baptist and mother Lutheran.) I once left the Church becuase of the same concerns you raise and more, but later returned and confirmed my stay via the Spirit and by doing extensive research over a period of decades. This post has grown longer than intended so will end here.

  39. Just noticed that a couple parts of my post didn’t make it through correctly and that my spell-checker failed me. I cannot correct that so will leave as is, except here to add that even if we could prove that Joseph Smith knew of 1 Enoch and its contents, there still is zero tangible, physical evidence that Joseph Smith actually had access to, much less actually made use of 1 Enoch.

    But, that still does not distract from the problems that 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch give to those who postulate that Joseph Smith must somehow have had access to these. Neither of those latter works were available to him, and even if fragments of them had been available to the backwoods of frontier America at the time, Joseph Smith could neither read Slavonic nor Hebrew at the time, and Joseph Smith never learned to read Slavonic. English translations of these latter works would come too late to be of any benefit to him.

    The only Library close to him at the time was the Manchester Library, and copies of neither 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, nor 3 Enoch, were available there at the time he was anywhere near. He in 1830 lived in Harmony, Pennsylvania and they were a small rural community (that no longer exists) that had no infrastructure nor library.

    Other institutions that (on a very, very slim, unproven chance) might have had something were hundreds of miles away, round trip, a journey that at that time and place, and with available travel methods in that region, would have taken nearly a month to accomplish, or even more time if on foot. The likelihood of him using something like even 1 Enoch was, as I said regarding the use of books of Enoch, from slim to none, leaning much closer to none, particularly the case for 2 Enoch or 3 Enoch.

  40. Had to step away for a moment before finishing my posting for the day. The other thing I wanted to say but which did not make it into the above response for whatever reason, was that the passage in 1 John 3:2-3 is even stronger in meaning in the Greek. Not only do I know that from my own personal knowledge of the text, I also saw it on the face of a native-Greek speaking Evangelical when we were having a discussion on the very subject of deification, or, as the Mormons call it, the doctrine of eternal progression.

    He claimed it was impossible for the doctrine to be true in any form and that is was blasphemy to believe any part of it, and that there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that states in any way that we could become “like God” or share his glory and nature. During the discussion, he asked me to show him just one passage of scripture that said anything like we would become “like God.”

    He brought up the same passage in Genesis that you did, and more, and then I asked him if he read Koine Greek (the dialect of New Testament Greek). He said that he did, so I pulled out a bilingual Greek New Testament (ancient Greek and Modern Greek in side-by-side columns) and handed it to him, and asked him to read 1 John 3:2-3. (I was actually surprised to learn earlier that he didn’t do most of his reading in Greek in light of what he then admitted.)

    At any rate, he read the passage once silently, handed it back to me, and said that it was no big deal and that it didn’t really say what I was suggesting. I said, “No, look again, and this time read it out loud. Oh, and this column, not the Modern Greek one.” He took it from my hand and began reading out loud. He never got past the first half of the Koine Greek text when he stopped reading aloud, whispered a word, and went suddenly silent for several seconds, while a look of fear and intense, open-mouthed dread came over his face and his body tightened up at what he had just read.

    He stopped on the Greek word translated “like” in most English Bibles but which really carries the underlying meaning of sameness, or close similarity in nature, in that passage. I even heard him say the word ‘same’ in that whisper from his lips before his subsequent silence. He was stunned for a few moments and just stared at the passage trying to make what he just read go away. He couldn’t.

    Finally, he hurriedly handed it back to me and changed the subject to something else that had little relation to the subject we were discussing. The discussion went downhill from there and didn’t last too much longer. But, it was additional evidence that I was on the right track in understanding the passage as I did.

  41. OK, here is what I found in the equivalent verses in the 1821 edition of Laurence’s Enoch the Prophet (numbered as presented above) even if it could be proven (it hasn’t and so far there is exactly zero physical, confirmable evidence) that he actually had access to this at the time very rare text (Laurence has differing chapter and verse divisions than the scholarly editions):

    Number 1:

    Now then shall the angels labour at the trees; but when they proceed to this, I will put my hand
    upon it, and preserve it. (1821 Laurence 66:2)

    No mention of the ark here in this translation but I suppose a very careful read might possibly suggest it.

    Number 2:

    Then the earth reproved the unrighteous. (1821 Laurence 7:15)

    Here in this translation the earth reproves rather than complaining about or bringing accusations against men. In another translation I have (Knibb), and in the footnote in the edition of 1 Enoch I am in process of preparing for publication, it reads this way: “Then the earth complained about the unrighteous ones.” That is a better parallel, but it is too late.

    Number 17:

    In those days shall the elect and holy race descend from the upper heavens, and their seed shall then be with the sons of men. Enoch received books of indignation and wrath, and books of hurry and agitation. (1821 Laurence 39:1)

    This one is the best parallel yet, assuming Joseph actually could have gotten access to this (at the time) very, very rare book (again, zero physical, verifiable evidence of that, thus far).

    Number 18:

    Then shall they be taken away into the lowest depths of the fire in torments; and in confinement shall they be shut up for ever. Immediately after this shall he, together with them, burn and perish; they shall be bound until the consummation of many generations. (1821 Laurence 10:16-17)

    No mention of the actual prison for spirits, or the term ‘prison,’ just mention of being shut up and of confinement.

    Number 19:

    I beheld the angels of punishment who were dwelling there, and preparing every instrument of Satan. Then I inquired of the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, for whom those instruments were preparing. (1821 Laurence 52:3-4)

    No mention of chains here.

    I’ll leave it for the readers to decide for themselves what they want to think about any of the examples from the 1821 edition of Laurence’s Enoch the Prophet.

    Note: Apologizing in advance if the font formatting doesn’t come through like it went awry in a previous post above.

  42. Hi, D. Charles Pyle, I’m not ignoring your posts. I don’t have time right now to respond. Hope to reply Sunday. Respect for the amount of work.

  43. No worries. Just also wanted to let you know that I searched the entire record of the Nauvoo Library and Literary Institute. Not a single copy of Laurence’s Enoch the Prophet, in any edition, was listed among the holdings and/or donations.

  44. Also searched the entire Manchester Library holdings as well. No copies of 1 Enoch there, either.

  45. And, finally, I ran a complete search through all the early periodicals of the Church. There are but two references to a Book of Enoch: one of which refers to the quote in Jude, and the other actually referring to Laurence’s Enoch the Prophet, although not by name. The latter actually is a quote from another Newspaper called the New York Star. Here they are for interested readers.

    The Lord is not in a hurry, neither is he slack: His work goes on, and though his way is past finding out, while a time for repentance to man is granted, and any are spared from the consumption decreed, some will turn to the words of eternal life, for life and salvation, whether they are found in the old bible, book of Mormon, lost book of Jasher, or the book of Enoch, mentioned by Jude. Though men are afraid of the books of God, or afraid that God will suffer any more to be in the world, I expect that when the dead, small and great, stand before him, that the books will be opened; even the books of Jehovah, and men will be judged according to what is written in the books.

    (Messenger and Advocate I.9:130 ¶4)

    Not useful to Joseph Smith, being too late a reference and too non-specific. Also dated June 1835.

    Recently the Book of Enoch has been discovered, translated from the Ethiopic, and published in England. Professor Stewart has lately reviewed it.

    (Times and Seasons I.8:127 ¶5)

    Too late. Dated June 1840. Also expresses excitement over its discovery.

    Searching through these early periodicals is a waste of time, by the way, nothing dating to the time of the Book of Moses. But, I wanted to be thorough and cover the proverbial bases.🙂

  46. Apologies for the long post but you raised a lot of points in your 7 posts.

    Regarding 1 Enoch, there may be no physical evidence nowadays that would lend weight to the proposition that JS had seen a copy of the 1821 translation of the Book of Enoch and you may say that it is very, very unlikely but the fact that the book existed in 1821 means that it is not impossible.

    There is, of course, no physical evidence for the gold plates nowadays either – sorry could not resist that one. Where are the gold plates now?

    Having not read the Robert W. Sullivan book in any detail and not being a Freemason either I can’t comment further on whether there is any esoteric knowledge of any of the books of Enoch in Freemasonry that would have aided JS, however, in ‘The Mormon Church and Freemasonry (2001)’, Terry Chateau writes: “[The Joseph Smith family] was a Masonic family which lived by and practiced the estimable and admirable tenets of Freemasonry. The father, Joseph Smith, Sr., was a documented member in upstate New York. He was raised to the degree of Master Mason on May 7, 1818 in Ontario Lodge No. 23 of Canandaigua, New York. An older son, Hyrum Smith, was a member of Mount Moriah Lodge No. 112, Palmyra New York.” So although Smith and Rigdon were not made members until 1942 there was clearly a conduit to JS for such esoteric information should it actually exist.

    It strikes me as odd though that JS embraced Freemasonry given the Book of Mormon’s condemnation of the Gadiantons and their “secret combinations”.

    You say that the Bible was put together by men. It was, but they were men inspired by God. If that can be true of Mormon literature it can be of the Bible (more so in my opinion). You sate, “… the Bible itself cites books of scripture by name, yet nary a copy can be found today of most of these sources.” Can you cite any examples – it’s just that I can’t think of any?

    1 Cor 2:6-8. The hidden knowledge was hidden in plain sight (in the Old Testament), i.e. that the Messiah would come and be killed for the sins of the world “for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

    John 4:24 – I have no clue as to how you are reading this. I have read it in several translations, including Young’s Literal Translation, and they all say, “God is a Spirit”. I shouldn’t really quote the Book of Mormon as I don’t believe it is true, however, take a look at Mosiah 3:5. It talks about the eternal God (so can’t be the Mormon Jesus or the Mormon God-the-Father for that matter as neither were eternally God according to Mormon doctrine) dwelling in a tabernacle of clay.

    Jesus is fully man and fully God. He was fully God before being born on earth as a man. In Mormon doctrine how did Jesus become a God without a physical body?

    Creation from nothing is the widely held Christian view and fits best with Gen 1:1 (void), Psalm 33:6, Psalm 148:5, John 1:3 (“All things” includes matter and energy), Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 11:3 and The Big Bang Theory.

    In the formulation of its doctrines I think Mormonism has taken quite a few biblical verses out of context; taken literally what should be taken metaphorically and vice versa and ended up with Lucifer as the spirit brother of Jesus. Consider what Jesus meant when he said, “You are of your father the devil” John 8:44.

    Gen 3:22 – not sure what point you are trying to make. They ate and knew good and evil.

    1 John 3: 1-3, include verse 1 when you read it – note ‘love bestowed’, should be ‘called’ the sons of God, NOW we are …, hope in Him purifies us like Him. Also, there are the many biblical verses showing that we are adopted into God’s family through faith in Jesus e.g. Ephesians 1:5. Actually, I agree that we are all God’s children but perhaps not in the literal way you understand it.

    Lucifer’s apron, “emblems of his power and priesthoods” Go to 23 min on this You Tube video of the endowment ceremony and listen. Hope the link works.

    The Star of Baphomet: look it up on the internet, and look up the Star of Bethlehem and look up the symbols on the temples in Nauvoo and Salt Lake City. Was the LDS church commanded to show these symbols or did it choose to show them rather than the cross? I’m not suggesting that the average Mormon is in league with the devil, far from it, but I think an objective look at the origins and early years of the LDS organization would be worthwhile.

    Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things.

    Best Wishes

  47. Here is the thing, when people make claims they need to back them up. People have made the claim that he had access to the text, and, to date, no one has been able to make that case with any physical evidence.

    Did you look at the examples from 1 Enoch I actually posted from the 1821 edition? How many of them are actual, close-to-exact matches in that edition? We get better matches from modern translations of 1 Enoch than from the 1821 edition. So, even if he had access to that very, very rare and scarce English text, of what use was it to him if the parallels are better in modern translations than in the 1821 edition of Laurence? You need to think that through a bit.

    I expect that the plates are with Moroni since he is the one tasked with keeping of the plates. But, there actually is physical evidence of their existence. The box that Joseph used to keep them in actually has trace amounts of gold particles embedded in the wood panels of the box. There was gold in the box. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough remaining to do a full chemical and other analyses to determine age, and other descendents used it afterward. We can only determine that actual gold was present in the box. How much gold could Joseph Smith afford, if any, in 1828-1829? He couldnt afford lead much less gold at that time when the box was in use.

    And, there is recorded, firsthand, eyewitness testimony that confirms that they actually existed. He had plates and 8 others saw them physically. Even under pressure they never went against their collective testimony that they had seen plates that had the appearance of gold and that they had engravings on them. His wife rubbed her fingers along the edges while it was wrapped, and it made a metallic sound, and they weighed around about 60 pounds according to other eyewitness testimony.

    Sure, Joseph’s father and brother were Masons. Have no issue with that. And, again, however, there is no connection of Freemasonry with the Enoch literature in such a way that would have been of use to Joseph, and the rituals and monitors of Freemasonry contained nothing that could have been of use to Joseph Smith in composing the Book of Moses. Nothing. I’ve looked and found nothing. And I have access to said materials as well as copies of such in my collection.

    There is no conduit. You honestly think that Masons would break their solemn vows to confide esoteric information to an uninitiated youth? In that time period? Not on your life! But, again, it is a moot point since nothing of the Enochian traditions in Freemasonry would have been of assistance to him to create the Book of Moses. I know, and I have already stated why I know.

    There is nothing odd about it. “Secret combinations” in the Book of Mormon are not referring to Freemasonry. Freemasonry isn’t like the Gaddianton Robbers and the Robbers are nothing like the Fraternity of Freemasonry. You claim to have read the Book of Mormon all the way through and you are making such a suggestion?

    Only the inspired writers were inspired by God, not the people who put the Bible together, unless you want to credit the councils of the Catholic Church with inspiration of the Holy Spirit in how they decided what should go in the Bible, and later Protestant actions after that. Most Evangelicals aren’t willing to go that direction as to Catholics. Are you? And, the inspired men who wrote the texts didn’t compile them into a Bible. That compilation didn’t happen until long after the deaths of the writers of the individual texts. Here are a few examples of books named and/or quoted, but which no longer exist:

    Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14)
    Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18)
    Book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41)
    Book of Gad the Seer (2 Chr 29:29)
    Book of Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9:29)
    Prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29)
    Book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12:15)
    Acts of Abijah in the story of the prophet Iddo (2 Chr. 13:22)
    Book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34)
    Sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19)
    Rest of the Acts of Uzziah by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22)
    A previous epistle to our 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9)
    Epistle from Laodicea (Col. 4:16)

    There are others. In addition, the Book of Jonah that we now have is much shorter than that which once existed. What we now have is but a fragment of what once was. We know this because a prophecy of Jonah that is mentioned cannot be found in what remains of his book (2 Kgs. 14:25). See if you can find such a prophecy in the Book of Jonah. The interesting thing about the above examples is that in several places the reader is referred to the various books for further information.

    That quote of yours from 1 Cor. 2:6-8 is a rather bad misinterpretation of what the Greek text actually says. Check the word musterion in a copy of the more honest A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. The passage has nothing to do with the content of the Old Testament, whether hidden in plain sight or otherwise. That interpretation you provided is nothing more than a kind of copout of someone wanting to avoid the fact that Christians had hidden wisdom that was communicated in such a way that outsiders couldn’t recognize or learn of the information. In addition, why do you think Jesus taught in parables? He taught in the open with those so that most of the people wouldn’t learn of the actual meanings in most cases.

    I am reading it out of the Greek, and from what I know of Greek grammar and its significance. All of those translations you referenced are wrong. Period. Well, that is unless you want to admit that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is correct in translating John 1:1c as “and the word was a god.” (It isn’t.) The word for “spirit” in the Greek of John 4:24 is the predicate, just as the word for “god” in John 1:1c also is the predicate. It is making an assertion regarding the nature of the subject, not identifying or describing composition. The anarthrous predicate has a characterizing effect.

    By the way, C. H. Dodd also states that translating the phrase as “‘God is a Spirit’ is the most gross perversion of the meaning.” (See C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958], 226)

    A decent, fairly literal rendering is “God is spirit.” However, even that literal translation doesn’t actually give us the meaning underlying the passage. That passage still does not describe the composition of God. the predicate neither identifies nor describes composition. So, it cannot be actually saying that God is a spirit being or a spirit. It is referring to the God who acts. God is no more a spirit than are the words of Jesus or those born of the Spirit who walk in the flesh are (See John 3:6; 6:63), or that God is a kind of light (1 John 1:5) or made of love (1 John 4:8, 16). But rather, God is Spirit because he gives us his Spirit that begets us anew, just as God is light because he gave us the light of the world, and that God is love because he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. Raymond E. Brown was right about this in his commentary volumes on John. They are references to the God who acts not descriptions of his composition.

    You certainly do not understand Mormon doctrine. In LDS doctrine both the Father and the Son were God before this earth existed. In addition, you don’t understand the actual meaning of the words for “eternal” in both Hebrew and Greek. I suggest that you consult Gesenius. The Greek usages of the words derive the same meanings from the Hebrew, and these do not have the meanings that western theologians have attached to them. In fact, if you check the actual usages in the Hebrew, you will find that the same word is used to discuss things that we know had beginnings. For example, we read of the “everlasting hills” in Genesis 49:26. Yet, God created them. They had a beginning. Yet, they are called “everlasting” or “eternal.” “Eternal” simply means a long duration of indefinite time in the original Hebraic thinking. Why do you think many Jews use the phrase “time immemorial” to render the passages in scripture and in their prayers? the very same Hebrew word also is used to describe the time Jonah spent in the belly of the whale, which was three days. I can go on and on about this.

    Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. More precisely, Jesus’ physical body (the man part) is an exalted man. No issue with that, and again, if you really understood Mormon doctrine, you would know that both Father and Son were God before this earth and universe were created. Having a body isn’t required to receive godhood for all individuals, just us mortals. Both the Son and Holy Spirit were God before the creation and before Jesus ever set foot as a mortal on this earth. Jesus is the Lord Jehovah, the God of Israel in the Old Testament in most all instances, and that is Mormon doctrine. Sorry to say it but you’ve been had again. You also cannot possibly have read the Book of Mormon all the way through if you didn’t know that. Jesus was the God of Israel before he set foot on earth in his kenosis. So says the Book of Mormon and so says official “Mormon” doctrine. See also the Doctrine and Covenants as well.

    Creation from nothing may be the widely held view but it isn’t the original Christian view. We prefer the original view, and our scriptures support that view.

    The scriptures you give do not support your view. “Void” is a mistranslation. The passage concerning the earth being the way it was really should be “empty and desolate.” But, even the term “create” is a synonym of other Hebrew terms. It involves taking something already there (visible and invisible) and making it into something new. Its cognates show that it by no means creation from nothing.

    Psalm 33:6 saying that the heavens and their host were made says nothing about the methodology or that creation was out of nothing. Psalm 148:5 does nothing like what you suggest.

    Interpreting “matter and energy” as part of the all things is just that, an interpretation. The Bible doesn’t actually say that. And, if God really is light, he is also substance and energy. Since he pre-existed the universe that would mean that matter and energy existed before the universe.

    “All things” also doesn’t really mean that in the Bible. Jesus is said to know all things, yet he doesn’t know the time of his coming. I can multiply examples, if necessary, but it shouldn’t be necessary. Anyone who reads his/her Bible with care would know and learn this.

    Colossians 1:16 also doesn’t say what you claim it to say. While you are at it, see Colossians 1:20 and its use of the phrase “all things.” Do you really believe that even Satan will be reconciled to God? Wouldn’t he be under the umbrella of “all things”? Or, does the Greek technical term mean something else? I see it as a technical meaning “the universe” and I am not alone. That, by the way, is how the Greeks saw it. And, the Greek New Testament was written in Greek so that Greeks could understand it.

    Your citation of Hebrews 11:3 is the worst of all. The Greek word in that passage (katartizo) is used in every single passage it is used throughout the entire New Testament to refer to something already there and making it better, etc., not creating something out of nothing.

    You also have no idea about what the Big Bang Theory entails. A singularity isn’t “nothing.”

    Yes, Jesus did use metaphorical language when referring to those men as having their father the Devil. But, that doesn’t get rid of the literal meanings of various other passages nor the meaning of the Greek. Paul quoted a philosopher and the Greek really does mean “offspring of God” in that genos in that passage really means “descendents of a common ancestor.” Again, see the Greek-English Lexicon mentioned above. And, the wording of the passage in Hebrews 12:9 certainly isn’t metaphoric. God is the Father of our spirits. There isn’t anything metaphoric about that. And, if God is the Father of our spirits, and he is our common ancestor, and God has a family both in heaven and on earth, what is the issue?

    My point is that the devil doesn’t just lie, he told the truth as twice as well as lied once in that passage. That is the point. They became like God in knowing good and evil in that passage.

    You are entirely missing the point of 1 John 3:2. The Greek word referring to us becoming “like God” carries the underlying meaning of “sameness of nature.” Adding verse 1 to that doesn’t detract from the meaning of the Greek underlying the passage.

    I do not discuss precise details of the temple ceremony, or even of Masonic ceremonies, and I certainly have no intention of watching that video. I know what it is you refer to but your understanding of the meaning is flawed from the beginning. The apron used by the people in the temple ceremony has zero reference to Lucifer. What his apron means is nothing to the rest of the ceremony. In point of fact, the ancient priests of Israel wore aprons. We do the same. It has no more nor less significance that that with the exception that it represents the literal aprons of Adam and Eve at one point in the temple. By the way, he nowhere says “Hey, go and make aprons just like mine with the same meaning.” It couldn’t have the same meaning because at that time Adam did not have the priesthood conferred on him. Please stop trying to twist it into something it isn’t just because Decker and Schnoebelen lie that it is.

    I know exactly what the so-called “star of Baphomet” is and that star isn’t on any LDS temple anywhere, Utah, Nauvoo, or otherwise. You need to look more carefully at the actual “star of Baphomet” (hint: it’s on his forehead) and note that it is point-upward and interlaced. The star of Bethlehem isn’t, stars on our temples aren’t, and the inverse pentagram on the upper windows of the Nauvoo temple isn’t interlaced, either. That’s important. Plus, it’s the wrong direction to be the “star of Baphomet.” It also is a symbol of Christ. Please stop trying to equate modern satanism and occultism with the original meanings of the symbols we use (the satanic/occultic meanings didn’t originate until 1852 and the Nauvoo temple was originally built in 1842-1846; we used the original window symbols when we rebuilt it). You’ve been had, and now you know the actual meanings of the symbols on our temples. Continued misuse of them for sensationalistic effect will make you one who makes and loves a lie (Revelation 21:27; 22:15).

    In addition, I explained to you that we do not display crosses because Jesus was very specific as to how to be in rememberance of his death, and he nowhere said to put crosses up everywhere to do it. We prefer to think of the living Christ, not the dead one. The cross is the symbol of his death, not his life. Besides, a number of our buildings actually are shaped in the form of a cross. Isn’t that good enough for you? Why do we need to put it anywhere on the buildings or on walls inside of them to reminds us of him when he told us specifically how to remember him? What is more, which cross do you think we should use, the tau cross, crux commissa, which? No one uses the actual shape of the actual cross of Christ, anyway, I dare say not even your church.

    Sure the heart is deceitful. That is why the Lord searches and tries the hearts. But it also doesn’t stop him from giving the Holy Spirit to those who ask him. But, that is only one rendering. Know how the translators of the Septuagint read it, the way they saw it in the older copies of the Hebrew text they translated? Their text actually said: “The heart is inscrutable [or, “deep”] beyond all things, and it is man, and who can know him?” Notice the difference? It goes along better with the context of the rest of the verse to translate it as they read it from the Hebrew.

    But, again notice that the quotes I provided above from the 1821 edition of Enoch the Prophet are less close than the more modern translations of 1 Enoch.

  48. I think I understand why it is that you are not understanding what it is that I am saying. Here, let me offer the following to assist you in understanding:

    Like the four-pointed star, the five-pointed star symbol in Christianity is also known as the Star of Bethlehem and represents Jesus’ birth and incarnation.

    Also known as the Epiphany Star, it is used especially for church decoration during the Advent and Christmas seasons.

    I think you are confusing that star with the Moravian multipoint versions that are found in clipart all over the internet. You also should know that I am in possession of an item that came from Israel. It is an incense holder and it has the Christian seals of both Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The star that appears on the Bethlehem side is the very same star seen on LDS temples in Utah.

    By way of contrast, here is the so-called “star of Baphomet” on the head of this picture out of the works of Eliphas Levi, (whose works I have read). I post the following picture (hopefully the link works):

    Notice that it is the wrong direction and that the star on the forehead is interlaced. That is the star of Baphomet, and there is not a single one of those on any LDS temple, not even Nauvoo. Again, you’ve been had.

  49. Sorry, the image linking did not work. Here is the direct link instead. Again, pay very close attention to the star on the forehead of this image from Levi’s works.

  50. No time right now to respond to your other comments but that picture may be Eliphas Levi’s impression of Baphomet but it is not the STAR of Baphomet. Maybe the terminology is confusing things somewhat. I used the term ‘Star of Baphomet’ for convenience as that is what it is often called these days and maybe I should have used a more neutral term like ‘inverted 5 pointed star’. By inverted I mean with two points upwards.

    A star with one point upwards is generally regarded as ‘good’ like on a general’s uniform or the US flag or lots of other examples. A five pointed star with two points up has generally been regarded as a symbol of evil for centuries.

    So it is an issue for me that the LDS church has those doctrines I mentioned that redefine who God is, who Lucifer is, who Jesus is, what Jesus achieved and has the inverted star on its temples.

    I will try to respond to your other comments later.

  51. You should never use incorrect terminology for any reason, convenience or otherwise. Just because a star is inverted doesn’t mean that it represents evil. You seem to be unaware that inverse stars also appear on uniforms and other objects in the US military.

    You also seem to be unaware of the inverse five-pointed star on the Amiens Cathedral, or the one on a Lutheran church in Hannover, Germany, or even of the ancient seal of Jerusalem, which is inverse five-pointed star within a circle, with the letters for Jerusalem written between the points. Even the star of Bethlehem on occasion is displayed inverse with point downward, with or without elongation on the downward point.

    I just tried to post images of each of these but the post was censored. So, I’ll just tell you about them and let you look them up for yourself.

    We also do not redefine who God is, who Jesus is, who Lucifer is, or what Jesus achieved. Nicaea redefined God. The God of the Bible, however, isn’t the God of Nicaea, more particularly in the older readings of the Bible. The Bible also doesn’t contain everything that God ever caused to be written. Councils of men decided the contents of the Bible, and the various canons of scripture, not God.

    And, having inverted stars on temples is not an issue at all, especially when interpreted in light of the meanings of the symbols to those who built the temples. That is where you need to look, not to some sources from clueless people who lie for a living.

  52. Just considered something. Seeing people take an old symbol that meant something good and back-interpret it as something evil because that’s how everybody sees it today would be akin to someone telling Hindus that they shouldn’t have swastikas on their temples or anywhere else because the Third Reich took the symbol and they and later people applied their own meanings to it. Not the way to go in religious studies or dialogues.

    But, back to the subject of the thread. Comparing the 1821 edition of Laurence’s Enoch the Prophet to the above shows that most of what are better parallels to the Book of Moses in newer editions of 1 Enoch were not as good parallels and/or not good parallels at all in the 1821 edition. That points away from that edition as being a source for the Book of Moses.

    There were no other sources of Enoch literature that Joseph Smith could have made use of in composing the Book of Moses, and this is even more the case for 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. There weren’t any English editions available. 2 Enoch wasn’t available at all in America, and even if it had been it was written in Old Church Slavonic, a language that Joseph Smith never learned. It only recently became available in fragments of a text written in Coptic, another language Joseph couldn’t read. 3 Enoch was only available in fragments in Rabbinical literature that Joseph Smith could not have read until after 1836, when he would have learned enough Hebrew to read portions of those fragments of the text. That’s too late for the Book of Moses, which was set to writing in the period from 1830 to 1831.

  53. Due to other commitments this will be my last post on this subject, so you will have the privilege of the last word. I have no doubt that you will take full advantage.

    I feel that you are ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ somewhat. You say that the Book of Mormon is from God but the Bible was compiled by men and then try to use it to prove your point, except where it doesn’t and then you say it is a mistranslation.

    You say Jesus was a God from the beginning, but the Mormon missionaries tell me that it is necessary for me to have a physical body in order to be challenged and to choose between good and evil so that I can progress. If I am essentially the same as Jesus, although obviously currently much less holy, how come Jesus was able to become God without a physical body? Why wasn’t that way open to me?

    As for Jesus is Jehovah, please read Psalm 2 (LORD = Jehovah).

    I searched for “inverted” 5 pointed starts on US military uniforms and I found one reference to US navy uniforms with inverted stars – bad choice is all I can say. In the end, I guess it does depend on what the temple builders intended by the symbols, although we non masons will never know why the LDS church chose, stars, sun, moon, beehive, square and the all seeing eye over the cross of Jesus.

    Just picking up, very briefly, on a much earlier point, does Moroni have the plates or are they in a cave in the hill Cumorah like Brigham Young says? If it is the latter then there is a good chance that they can be found with modern technology.

    Back to the subject of the thread. I can’t prove that Smith copied any texts from any of the books of Enoch for the Book of Moses so, for the sake of argument, let’s say that he didn’t and that he received revelation. That still brings us back to Galatians 1: 6-9.

    As for people who lie for a living:-
    In the 1835 version of Doctrine and Covenants, Section C1, p251 it states, “In as much as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife……….” Now if this is meant to be an inspired writing it seems a bit odd that God would command this writing and then command polygamy round about the same time.

    “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers” History of the Church, vol 6, p411. Joseph Smith, Sunday May 26, 1844, at the time he had over 25 wives.

    You keep saying I have been had, well one of has, but I don’t think it is me.

  54. Sorry, but this will be lengthy. It often is easier, and uses fewer words, to make an objection in various instances than it is to answer it with as few words. So, I will be as brief as is possible considering the subject matter, but again, it will be lengthy.

    You complain about my statements of fact regarding the Bible, when they are statements of fact? The Bible was compiled by men after councils voted on what would be in it. That is a fact. Not all churches agree on canon in the Bible, and that also is a fact. The Bible also has translation and transmission issues, whether you are willing to acknowledge them or not. That also is a fact. If it weren’t true, why are so many people trying to bring forth so many differing translations? (Why engage in textual criticism to try to recover the original readings, for that matter?) It is because they take issue with translations previous to theirs.

    I do not use the Bible to try to prove my point, only to show that its underlying strata actually supports a lot of what Mormons have been saying all along. I would rather cite modern-day revelation to support my points but for people like yourself it sometimes is necessary to cite the Bible and it is useful for such.

    I see no issue with pointing out translation issues and problems, and even problems with the transmission of the text (such problems do exist) when necessary. And, portions of what you cited were translation problems. Why not point them out? Usually some critic says that Mormons just say that there are translation errors but then cannot point them out. Well, I can point them out because I can read Greek, as well as Hebrew and Aramaic, and because I am familiar with the relevant literature, and all that combined allows me to point them out. “God is a spirit” indeed is a mistranslation. C.H. Dodd agrees. Seems like you did not consult him. By the way, I have seen two formats of text in that book. One is a longer page format and the other a shorter page format. If you did try to look up the reference but didn’t find it on page 226, try page 225. He flat out states in the footnote that “‘God is a spirit’ is the most gross perversion of the meaning.” And it is. “Spirit” is the predicate, and thus isn’t identifying what God is. It also isn’t saying anything about God’s composition. So, you cannot use the passage to prove that God is an “eternal spirit.” It doesn’t say that and any Bible that does state that “God is a spirit,” when the underlying text says no such thing, has a faulty translation. Again, “God is spirit” is better, but in Greek it still doesn’t describe his composition.

    On that subject, I see you left off discussing the entries in the Lexicon that I mentioned. Did you even bother to consult them? I suspect not, but perhaps you have and you did not like what you saw and don’t wish any longer to discuss them further. I wouldn’t blame you. Sometimes the truth can be bothersome, and sometimes painful.

    But, you ask as to why it is that Jesus was God before coming to earth but you don’t get that opportunity? It is rather simple. It is because it pleased the Father for all the fulness of deity to dwell in Christ. The Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants all say the same thing about that. In addition–and this is important while on the subject of older Bible readings–he was “born that way.” The older reading in the oldest manuscripts of John 1:18 refers to Jesus as the “only begotten God.” Who are we to argue with God the Father about how he does things? Irenaeus also considered that question. He simply said:

    For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest.” But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, “But ye shall die like men,” setting forth both truths, the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves. For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to Himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil.

    (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1: Irenæus, Against Heresies IV.38.4; bold emphasis mine)

    And, yes, a number of early Christian writers wrote and taught similar things, as you would have seen had you consulted my paper linked above in a previous post.

    Yes, I am familiar with Psalm 2. You also could have quoted Psalm 110, had you wished. All this would prove, even if we did not have evidence that the texts of the Bible have been rewritten and the divine name put in places where it wasn’t in the older readings, and that Jewish scribes rewrote portions of the Bible into munged together scriptures that originally mentioned multiple gods changed into just one, we might have an example of where the Father also is called Jehovah. It’s meaning basically is “he who is” or “the eternal.” Both meanings apply equally to Father and Son in relation to their creation.

    Genesis 19:24 also mentions two Jehovahs. Were you aware of that? One Jehovah rained fire and brimstone FROM another Jehovah. That is two persons named Jehovah; one supplying the fire and brimstone, and the other raining it down on Sodom and Gomorrah. Even in LDS scripture there is a passage where the Father is named Jehovah (Doctrine and Covenants 109), followed by the next section that plainly speaks of the Son while speaking of his voice being that of Jehovah (110). For LDS is just is easer to refer to Father as Elohim and Son and Jehovah.

    Compare your Bible reading with the older one that now appeared in the NRSV after being discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls’ biblical texts. Here is the older reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

    When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided mankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD’s [Hebrew: Jehovah’s] own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

    This text implies a separation of Most High and Jehovah. The later reading merged the two into one. Several texts when considered in the older readings were less monotheistic than the later readings that arose. Deuteronomy 32:43 similarly mentions multiple gods in heaven ordered to worship God (note the parallelism if you look that verse up in the NRSV). With such evidence, it is not hard to see that such kinds of modification could also have happened in the Psalms, and in point of fact comparing manuscripts also shows that in places they disagree between themselves as to where to place the divine name, Jehovah.

    And, worse for you, again I turn to the older readings of the Bible. See Jude 5. Your Bible might read a little differently, but my Greek text says the following (which I translate here for the readers):

    I will put you in remembrance, though you once knew all (these) things, that Jesus, having saved (the) people out of the land of Egypt, the second time destroyed those (of them) who did not believe.

    (Jude 1:5, translated from the UBS 5 Greek text)

    In the Old Testament, Jehovah did that. Turn to 1 Corinthians 10:9. If you have a current Bible you will note that Christ was put to the test and destroyed Israelites using serpents. Turn to Numbers 21:4-7, and you see Jehovah being put to the test and sending serpents. The whole section preceding 10:9 speaks entirely of Christ, and calls him the Rock of Israel in so many words. We know from the “Hebrew Bible” that Jehovah is the Rock of Israel and that he alone was Israel’s Rock.

    Turn to John 12:39-41, and you have John quoting a passage in Isaiah, and then stating that he made certain statements after seeing the glory of Jesus, to whom the context of the text referred. Turn to Isaiah 6:1-10 and you see that Isaiah was referring to Jehovah. It was Jehovah whom Isaiah had seen. According to the Greek text of Isaiah it was indeed the glory of Jehovah that Isaiah had seen, and then he made the comment in verse 10 and which John then quotes as a response to seeing the glory of Jesus.

    So, it looks like Mormons are in good company. And, you really should read the writings of Justin the Martyr. He very clearly and unmistakably stated in his writings that Jesus was the same God who did what he did in the Old Testament. I wish you could read his text in Greek. He is even closer to LDS doctrine than you know in the Greek text.

    Oh, you missed the Medal of Honor? Also an inverse five-pointed star. And, “bad choice” how? Were you not aware that the inverted star is also the symbol of the epiphany, and of the Eastern Star, both symbols of Jesus and also ancient symbols of honor? No? I figured as much. You still are bent on the idea that inverted stars are evil when originally they were not considered such until 1852 and afterward, when modern Satanists took it and ran with it. But, their misuse of the symbols certainly does nothing to get rid of the original meanings of these symbols, which originally were Christian symbols of Christ.

    And, which cross should we use? Crux commissa, crux immissa, Presbyterian cross, or which??? Why should we use it at all? We already have used many old symbols of Christ on our architecture. Again, we prefer the living Christ to the dead Christ. What is the issue with that stance? The cross is the symbol of the dead Christ. And, we obey the specific command of Jesus to remember and show his death by means of the Sacrament/Eucharist/Lord’s supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Why do we need to go beyond what Jesus commanded to be acceptable to you and your traditions? Again, where did Jesus actually say that we need to use the cross on our architecture to remember his death? You have yet to answer that question I have asked multiple times.

    Curiously, you do not seem to have looked up the inverted star in the window of the Amiens Cathedral. You also do not seem to have looked up the inverted pentagram on the Lutheran church in Hannover, Germany that I mentioned above. Why not? At least, if you had, you do not wish to discuss them. Here is the thing. You falsely claimed above that the inverse star and the inverse pentagram were considered evil symbols “for centuries.” Yet, if that were true, why did the Christian builders put these symbols into the structures of their Christian churches so many centuries ago? I see you in an unenviable position, between a rock and a hard place, in attempting to answer that one cogently.

    And, it certainly does depend upon what those who built the temples understood by the symbols they put on the walls. Glad you admitted as much, as that is what the evidence actually shows. But, you also seem to be very unaware that Masons borrowed all of the symbols you mentioned from Christianity. All of these symbols appeared on old Christian artwork and architecture and predated Freemasonry by centuries. Of course, you weren’t aware of that, were you? Most under the influence of paid liars don’t, and that is sad.

    Moroni has the plates under his control and possession, no matter where he keeps them. It is no different from me stating that I have a certain thing in my possession even though I am not present with the object where I keep said object. A- for effort on trying to establish a contradiction but F on result. You left out the rest of the statement of Brigham Young that they were directed to put the plates where they did by the angel himself. Here is the text you (or rather, your source) omitted:

    Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did.

    (Brigham Young, “Trying to Be Saints” in Journal of Discourses 19:38; bold emphasis)

    Joseph Smith would say of the plates:

    But by the wisdom of God, they remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand. When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.

    (Joseph Smith—History 1:60)

    Joseph Smith stated the circumstances and Brigham Young stated specifics as to how Joseph delivered up the plates.

    Sure, I expect that it might be possible for modern technology to find them but only if God wants them to be found. You honestly don’t think he has the power to hide them from the modern technology of man? Your God isn’t very powerful, is he?

    As to people lying for a living, you cited something that isn’t and wasn’t an inspired writing or revelation. You seem blissfully unaware of the historical context of this item. Joseph Smith had nothing to do with its insertion. Oliver Cowdery waited until Joseph Smith was away and then had the council vote on and include the text in the Doctrine and Covenants. Thing is, the general Church weren’t practicing plural marriage. At that time (1834-1835) only Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage, so even if Joseph Smith had wanted it in the Doctrine and Covenants, it was completely accurate as to the entire rest of the Church. Again, an epic fail of an example on your part.

    As to your lame second example of claimed lying, you (or, rather, your lying source) have taken the text out of its historical context. At that time Joseph Smith was being accused of adultery. You only can have adultery if you aren’t married to the other women with whom you have relations. (Otherwise, you have the sticky situation of God having given all the wives that David had to David, and that he would have given more to him if he had just asked instead of committing adultery with Bathsheba. Did God lead David into sin by giving him all those wives? You never answered that question above.)

    In addition, Joseph also mentioned another event that happened in his past wherein he was accused of something and was relating the past even with the accusation in his present, that of adultery. The “seven wives while only finding one wife” claim applied to the early restoration period of the Church prior to when Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage. At that time he really did only have one wife. Both were false accusations in their respective times, and when seen in light of the fact that he was referring to two completely different events in his history and of being innocent both times, it completely undermines your claim. Not lying but referring to two completely different charges in a stretch of 14 years. He was comparing his current history with his previous history.

    He really was innocent both times. The first time he was charged with something (having seven wives), he only had one wife but unscrupulous people started a rumor that he had seven when at the time he only had one. The second time, the time he was speaking in 1844, he was being accused of adultery (he also had been accused of that a few years in the past by Oliver Cowdery but that was put to rest in a previous Church High Council). He wasn’t committing adultery, at least not any more than was David when God gave him all those wives he had. (See again 2 Samuel 12:8, and again, did God lead David into sin?)

    But, because your source omitted the fuller context that would have shown that he was referring to two separate events on that occasion, you would not have seen that.

    Yes, I keep saying you’ve been had. One of us has been had, and that definitely remains you. But, thanks for playing.

    Back to the subject of the thread, it is true that you cannot prove that Joseph Smith had access to any books of Enoch. No one has been able to do so to date, and people have tried very hard to do so. Many of them rely on suckers who won’t check out what they do with the sources. And again, Galatians 1:6-9 doesn’t apply. Paul was speaking of specific individuals falling for and teaching specific teachings, as the context of the verses will show you if you read carefully. You Evangelicals like to twist that to refer to anything outside Paul’s specific reference. Still doesn’t mean it applies or even that it is meaningful to anything related to Joseph Smith. The revelation Joseph got for the Book of Moses didn’t even come through an angel! Got something better?

  55. I post the following so that readers can see the Christian churches, to which I referred above (hopefully the images come through and aren’t censored).

    Amiens Cathedral

  56. This is the ancient seal of Jerusalem that I mentioned in an above post:

    See the paleo-Hebrew letters of the name Jerusalem. The spelling and form of the characters show that this seal was originally very, very old.

  57. Oh, and there was one thing more I wanted to state but forgot. Know who the creator of the pentagram really is? You may not have guessed it but it is God himself who created it. Surprised? You see, given the relative positions of Earth to Venus, in the places where God placed them in his creation, Venus will trace the pattern of a rotating pentagram in the sky over a certain period. Here is an image depicting that which can be traced from the points where Venus will appear relative to Earth in conjunction.

    In addition, Venus also is referred to as the Star of the East, Daystar, and Morning Star, and these are symbols of Christ; and Jesus himself is the Great and Morning Star according to no less than the Bible. Glory to God in the highest!

  58. Something else came to mind as I was walking away from the computer. Had to hurry back and post it before I forgot what occurred to me while discussing this side subject. It would be just like the Adversary of our souls to take and twist something of beauty (created by God himself in the heavens to witness of him and his Christ. and which we put onto our sacred temples to represent Christ), turn it into something ugly, and then to have his children adopt this twisted view of a symbol of God’s own creation, and use its existence on God’s Church’s architecture as a means to attack God’s Church. Go figure.

    But, then the Adversary is always in the habit of twisting things around so as to try to discredit revelation through God’s servants the prophets. Nothing is more apparent from the above and from what critics have tried to do with the Book of Moses, a witness of the divine calling of Joseph Smith, his prophet of the latter-days, in his obtaining for us additional revelation about Enoch that is preserved fragmented in texts for which there is no physical evidence that Joseph Smith ever had recourse to any of it to give us this new revelation for our day. The actual evidence points to revelation rather than some naturalistic phenomenon.

  59. I was informed that I didn’t fully answer a question in my response above. That question was:

    …although we non masons will never know why the LDS church chose, stars, sun, moon, beehive, square and the all seeing eye over the cross of Jesus.


    1. Actually, yes, we can know what they were thinking and what the symbols meant because the designers, architects and builders of the temples left behind their thoughts regarding the symbols in writing and they can be read either directly or through the publications of other members of the Church who quoted the original writings. It is better to get it direct from the horse’s mouth than from some other source written by someone who knows little to nothing on the subject matter, or, worse, from someone who lies for a living.

    2. Which cross of Jesus? No one today really knows what it looked like. And, if it was the typical cross used to execute state criminals it probably would have had at least two or three cross beams, the beam for the arms (patibulum, the part that was carried), the suppedaneum, and the sedulum. Only the cross used in the Greek Orthodox Church would come even close to that setup, meaning that your cross isn’t the cross of Jesus, anyway (unless you are Greek Orthodox). And, was it the crux commissa (tau cross) or the crux immissa (the one seen on or in many Christian churches) combined with those three parts (if the crux commissa then even the Greek Orthodox cross is wrong)? So, as I asked above, which cross? How can you prove it? What would be the point of putting something on a building when we don’t really know its true form?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s