The Book of Mormon has Anti-LDS doctrines

Most LDS church members (mormons or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) aren’t aware that the Book of Mormon contains no LDS exclusive doctrines, and also explicitly forbids the adding of new doctrines. We (the authors) were once LDS church members, and were blind to this fact, as we suspect most mormons are. If readers of the Book of Mormon held to only what the Book of Mormon says, they wouldn’t be mormon. The Book of Mormon presents no doctrines that are uniquely mormon, and explicitly says that there should be no more doctrines than given in the book (3 Nephi 11:40), yet the LDS prophets came out with a whole new set of doctrines contained in their books of “Doctrine and Covenants”, “Pearl of Great Price”, and multitude of scriptural sermons including Journal of Discourses.

The Book of Mormon has Jesus quoted as saying:

“And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.”

That doesn’t seem to leave much room for additional doctrine, does it?

The Book of Mormon doesn’t even talk about the LDS’s biggest unique doctrine, their temple work! There is no even any mention of baptism for the dead, another of their unique doctrines. If the Book of Mormon were written “for the latter day”, as why wouldn’t they have any of the most differentiating mormon doctrines?

If there is no mention of uniquely Mormon doctrines in the Book of Mormon, then why do the LDS missionaries have potential converts pray about the book to determine whether the book is true?

President Ezra Taft Benson declared in general conference, “The Book of Mormon … was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us.” (Ensign, Nov. 1986, p. 6.)

If the LDS temple ceremonies are supposedly old ceremonies that were restored, why is there no mention of temple work in the Book of Mormon? The simple explanation seems to be that when Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon he hadn’t gotten the idea of the new temple ceremonies. Joseph Smith didn’t come up with baptisms for the dead until later, and he didn’t come up with the masonic based temple ceremony until less than 2 months after he became a Freemason. This also explains why much of the LDS temple ceremony is an exact duplicate of what is done or said in Freemasonry.

For more information about the connection between Freemasonry and Mormonism (including the identical match of symbols), please see:

https://ldsfacts.org/joseph-smith/joseph-smith-copied-freemasonry/

3 thoughts on “The Book of Mormon has Anti-LDS doctrines”

  1. You guys make my head spin with your lack of critical thinking. First, if we’re to be technical, we aren’t Mormons; the church is called, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.” Not Mormon, which is just a moniker derived from the book translated by Joseph Smith, “The Book of Mormon.” It has no mention of temple work because the temple work refered to was taking place on another continent and being recorded in The Bible. I suspect you know, the records kept by the those who left Jerusalem did not have any temple worship. Why the Bible didn’t explicitly go into the way ceremonies were performed would be a guess, but much like today, I suspect it is because it was sacred and not for everyone to scoff at. So, not any conflict in “new doctrines” there. The Nephites and Lamonites, as you pointed out, didn’t have the Book of Mormon as we have it today. You are correct. However, there was a record kept throughout the journeys and times of these people until Mormon, the last record keeper, abridged all the records into one book by revelation. Hence the Book of Mormon. He is a guy, not a religion or church. Again, this is a point at which they may have had temple ceremonies, but didn’t include it into the abridgment for all the world to see. Mormon may have left that out for specific reasons, I don’t know, I haven’t asked him. Again, just a moniker because it was a religion which had this specific record. The record is for us in the latter day because it is a companion to other records. The Bible is the same way. The people then didn’t have it. In fact, the King James Version (KJV), the most commonly used, wasn’t even published until 1611. By your logic, that means it can’t be true as well since the people never had that specific version. By the way, there have been over 30 changes/different versions of the Bible published since then including one this year, 2020. The only change in the Book of Mormon is format. To me having a Bible which was not only translated, leaving a lot of room for error since some languages don’t align, going through it being illegal to practice Christianity so different secret sects had different parts of the bible until Constantine allowed Christianity to be practiced, to the Nicean council, where the doctrines were argued between two major Christian groups, one winning and one losing, then to the break from England and the church in Rome (Catholic) because Henry VIII wanted a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, formerly his dead brother’s wife, because she couldn’t give him a male heir and he was just a skirt hound, thus having the creation of The Church of England (Protestant) created and the doctrines changed by a man named Thomas Cromwell, which allowed for divorce and Henry VIII to go after Anne Boleyn. Well, after his death, his daughter Mary (a stonch Catholic) takes the throne and starts killing all who remain Protestants, earning herself the name “Bloody Mary.” When she dies from illness, he half sister, the Virgin Queen Elizabeth takes the throne and practices Protestant teachings (Church of England) but also carries Catholic (Church of Rome) tokens and symbols. Pretty much causing confusion until 1611 when the first KJV was published. Sh*t, forgot the Spanish Inquisition. Look it up on your own. Has a role in doctrines in the Bible as well. Point being, the Bible was translated, changed by greed and lust, which have had different forms upwards of 450 different Bibles. The KJV’s last update was in the mid 1700s while the Book of Mormon has only one version in English, only changed in format (chapters and verse with summary at the beginning of each chapter) yet is scrutinized more than any other when it is a companion to the Bible. Without faith, logic still would stay you’d need something to serve as a companion to make sure you’re getting the correct meaning from the Bible. As for the rest, you are discounting revelation, visitations from heavenly Messengers, the keys of the priesthood being restored, and the logical thought that Christ doesn’t change, therefore, he wouldn’t stop having a prophet today, visiting and revealing his doctrines, and running his church as he did in ancient days. Why would anyone one put laws around what Christ can do with his church? Is he not at the head of his church? We don’t pray to Joseph Smith, Mary, or any saints; we pray to our Father in the name of Christ our savior as he taught. Missionaries asking people to get the ultimate answer for themselves? Haha, would you rather have blind sheep following a televangelist and paying money so he can wear Gucci? A personal relationship with God is what they and the church teaches. I pray about everything I hear from anyone in the church. I need to know for me. I’m not blindly following. My hell, I could write better anti-Mormon literature than this. Sorry you’re pissed at the church for something you went through and didn’t agree with, but Christ will always be at the head of the church. Man will always make mistakes. Not everything a prophet says is doctrine. There are some prominent people in Christ’s church who said and did some bad stuff, but that is also true of prophets of old, no? Peter, his most beloved, denied him three times while he was watching Christ suffer while hundreds looked on. The man who, as far as we know, was closest to Christ screwed up. One of his apostles betrayed him for money. Yet you think nowadays man is different? If someone who walked side by side and knew Christ in the flesh could make such mistakes, are we not allowed or even expected to make errors of equal magnitude? Peter wrote parts in the Bible! But your claims that imperfect men said things which are wrong or misinterpreted in things we don’t see as scripture proves “Mormons” are wrong? It is a silly thing to think that Christ selected only a certain people and a certain time to be present in people’s lives. Interesting how the Bible starts long before his earthly life as well. So, he can have prophets who recieve revelation before, during, and shortly after his life, but not now? My Brother doesn’t change. It is the lack of understanding which blinds people. The fact that your…whatever this is makes it more evident that you are afraid you know it is so. If not that, then why bother at all?

  2. Hi Travis,

    Thank you so much for taking the time to comment. We genuinely appreciate those people who stand up for truth, regardless of their opinions what truth is. I hope that you will also appreciate that we trying to stand up for truth and correctness of facts, regardless of whether you agree with us theologically. Above all, the facts is what this site is about.

    I’d like to answer some of your questions, and point you to some quotes and facts from LDS sources which contradict some of the claims you’ve made. I’ll respond to them by numbering them below with links so you can see the facts are clear.

    1. Travis, you said “we aren’t Mormons”, but for decades upon decades LDS church members have referred to them selves as Mormons. You can even see many, many LDS General Conference talks where leaders of the LDS church refer to themselves as “Mormons” and also refer to the LDS religion as “Mormonism”. Take this article for instance, which published by the LDS Church in 1975 which quotes an LDS Church leader not only referring to LDS Church members as “Mormons” but also he refers to the LDS religion as “Mormonism”. Even the very title of the article “The Roots of Mormonism” acknowledges this fact, which you can read directly on the LDS Church’s own site:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1975/04/the-roots-of-mormonism?lang=eng

    There are numerous other instances throughout LDS church official literature where the term “Mormons” is used to refer to LDS Church members, and “Mormonism” is used to refer to the LDS religion, so to say that this term is not correct seems rather disingenuous. Here are some more references, just to be thorough:

    A BYU professor uses the terms “Mormons” and “Mormonism” multiple times in the official LDS church magazine:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1972/03/islam-and-mormonism-a-comparison?lang=eng

    Here is an article from an LDS Church manual which uses the term “Mormons” and “Mormonism” to refer to LDS Church members and acknowledge “This is a commonly used term for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” which you can see on the LDS Church official website here:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/mormons?lang=eng

    If LDS Church leaders can speak to a group of members and refer to them as Mormons, and use the term in their own manual, then why can’t we? If you have any other single word term, I’d be happy to use it, but I don’t know of any. For clarity though, I’ve updated this article to spell out the full name of the LDS Church. For conversational brevity though, I’ll continue to use the term Mormons or LDS Church members, just as the LDS church has used for itself for many decades.

    2. Travis, you said said “I suspect you know, the records kept by the those who left Jerusalem did not have any temple worship.” If there was no temple worship, then why did they have a temple? Why was it also constructed after the “manner of Solomon”, if it was not to be used for worship According to 2 Nephi 5:16?

    See link here:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5.16?lang=eng&clang=eng#p15

    3. Travis, you said “Why the Bible didn’t explicitly go into the way ceremonies were performed would be a guess, but much like today, I suspect it is because it was sacred and not for everyone to scoff at.” Actually, the Bible goes into painstakingly great detail about the ceremonies performed in the temple. Solomon tells us himself that the temple is for “the continual shewbread, and for burnt offerings” (2 Chronicles 2:3), and how God asked to have those ordinances administered is described in great detail in Exodus 25 – 31. Multiple chapters are used to describe the ordinances, and how they were to be done as directed by God. The only problem for Mormonism is that the ordinances described were the not the ones done in the LDS Temples today. Instead, the ordinances done in LDS temples today bear a striking resemblance of Masonic rituals. Even the signs on Mormon garments are the same as the signs on a masonic lodge.

    Please see the details in our article:
    https://ldsfacts.org/category/mormonism-freemasonry/

    4. Travis says “In fact, the King James Version (KJV), the most commonly used, wasn’t even published until 1611. By your logic, that means it can’t be true as well since the people never had that specific version.” This specific version doesn’t matter. What matters is it’s theological content and instructions, which remain unchanged for multiple millennium, for example see the Dead Sea Scrolls which date back to the 2nd century BCE, which validates the fact that the message oft he bible remains the same and was correctly translated.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

    5. Travis, you said “By the way, there have been over 30 changes/different versions of the Bible published since then including one this year, 2020. The only change in the Book of Mormon is format.” This is not true. The Book of Mormon has over 3,000 changes, many of which include theological changes, not just formatting. Please see our article on the subject, which you can also see an LDS Bishops’s story of discovering the truth for him self by purchasing an original copy of the Book of Mormon from Deseret Book, an LDS Church owned book company. There are many doctrinal changes in the Book of Mormon which changed the very nature of it’s description of God:
    https://ldsfacts.org/book-of-mormon/changes-to-the-book-of-mormon/

    This is all I have time to respond to now, but I hope you can start to see how you may have been misinformed by the LDS Church, who likes to hide the facts:
    https://ldsfacts.org/mormon-church-history/lds-church-hides-historical-facts/

  3. Would it be possible to start a new thread on quotes from the Book of Isaiah in LDS scripture? Many people know that the Book of Mormon (BOM) quotes extensively from the Book of Isaiah. Far fewer know that Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) does as well.

    When I was on my mission over 40 years ago, I noticed that the BOM and D&C quotes from Isaiah were not identical. I pondered how two books of LDS scripture, both claiming to be divinely inspired, could quote the same verses of Isaiah differently.

    Much is said in the Mormon Church about believing the Bible to be the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly” (8th Article of Faith). Well, here was the chance, in the BOM and D&C to put out the correct translation. Unfortunately, what we get from LDS scripture are two conflicting versions of Isaiah. Talk about a lost opportunity to set the record straight!

    I’ve never seen this topic discussed anywhere. Can we start a new thread on it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.