FAQ 2

Bible: Although the exact site is unknown, the garden of Eden was probably in the Mesopotamian region by the Euphrates River.—Genesis 2:11-14.

Doctrine and Covenants: Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri, U.S.A.—Doctrine and Covenants 57, as explained by President J. F. Smith.

Bible: The soul dies.—Ezekiel 18:4; Acts 3:23.

The Book of Mormon: "The soul could never die."—Alma 42:9.

Bible: Jesus was born in Bethlehem.—Matthew 2:1-6.

The Book of Mormon: Jesus was to be born in Jerusalem.—Alma 7:10.

Bible: Jesus was begotten by holy spirit.—Matthew 1:20.

Journal of Discourses: Jesus was not begotten by holy spirit. He was begotten in the flesh by Adam’s having intercourse with Mary.—Journal of Discourses, Volume I, pages 50-1.

Bible: New Jerusalem to be in heaven.—Revelation 21:2.

The Book of Mormon: New Jerusalem, earthly, to be built by men in Missouri, U.S.A.—3 Nephi 21:23, 24; Doctrine and Covenants 84:3, 4.

Bible: Writers of the Bible were inspired to write God’s thoughts.—2 Peter 1:20, 21.

The Book of Mormon: Its prophets are said to have written according to their own knowledge.—1 Nephi 1:2, 3; Jacob 7:26.

Bible: Mosaic Law, including tithing, terminated by the death of Jesus. Contributions are to be voluntary, not under compulsion.—2 Corinthians 9:7; Galatians 3:10-13, 24, 25; Ephesians 2:15.

Doctrine and Covenants: "Verily it is . . . a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned (at his [the Lord’s] coming)."—Doctrine and Covenants 64:23.



Dear Bill
thanks for writing.
Regarding the garden of Eden like you wrote according to the Bible the exact site is unknown, according to the lds church is located in Jackson county Missouri, if by the Bible you could prove different you are welcome, when you write "probably" in Mesopotamian region has the same meaning for me like you are probably thinking for Jackson County. My question at this point is what is your problem here, knowing where the garden of Eden was, can it change your point of view regarding the Gospel ? I mean I don't understand what is could be the deal we have here our questionable point of view and on the other side all the other churches don't know where is the garden of Eden, so even though our opinion would be wrong we would be in the same positions of the other churches or not?

Regarding the souls, my friend if you believe in the resurrection you should maintain that the soul never die in the sense that our souls will live forever and if it is true what the Bible maintain (resurrection for everybody) tell me when the soul die. Have you ever read that Jesus was preaching the Gospel during the 3 days before to be resurrected, do you know where He was in that particular time? He was preaching the Gospel to the dead, so the soul never die. Thank you for the question.

Did you know that Bethlem is part of Jerusalem? I am born in Prato a little town ten miles away from Florence but when people ask me what city I am from I usually say Florence because it is know everywhere in the world, If I say Prato I should explain many other things, either when people ask me where I am living now usually I say Phoenix not Mesa. I am pretty sure that Joseph Smith knew perfectly that Jesus was born in Bethlemm everybody knows that so he didn't that mistake but it was just the way Lehi thought like I am thinking about my old city.

Regarding the New Jerusalem we believe that Melchisedec and his city were taken from the earth and we believe that at the end of days like the Zion of Enoch will be back on earth, so the New Jerusalem mentioned in 3 Nephi is just another one to be build on earth like place of gathering and it has anything to do with that one mentioned in Revelation. It is like you want answers for the book of Mormon or doctrine and covenants and you don't accept them, could an Hebrew accept the resurrection or Jesus by the new testament?

Not always the writers of the Bible wrote by inspiration sometimes they wrote by their own opinion like the persons you mentioned I Corinthians 7:25 otherwise how it would have been possible to have so many mistakes in the Bible, if you want a list of them let me know.
Regarding the tithing there are two things that you should consider, first of all Jesus supported the Tithing and the law, it is true that part of the law was over but not all the law was terminated, even if you maintain that the tithing was part of the law terminated you should remember that The Tithing was not invented with the Law of Moses, Abraham was paying it before of the Law, so it was something extra law, even it was included in the law. Also have you ever read about the restoration of all things prophesied in the Bible before the second coming of the Lord?
Acts 3:20-21
probably you don't know but the Journal of discourses is not scripture for us and what you wrote about Adam and Jesus is not correct probably you should read the Bible because it is very clear on that Luke 1:35
see the scripture is saying that Jesus would be named Son of God, not son of the Holy spirit, think about it and please remember is in the Bible I am sure you accept the Bible, probably you forget that Jesus was pleased to refer Himself like Son of Man, instead of Son of God, because He knew what kind of being was His personal Father a glorified Man.


You assume LDS doctrine that all humans are sons and daughters
of God. But even honest LDS scholars have noted that the Bible does
not teach this.

Please quote scriptures for this idea.

Take, for instance, John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his NAME.

On my opinion here it is speaking for this life, after the fallen the mankind became selfish, sensual and devilish, in fact the scripture clearly declare even to them that believe on his NAME. anyway think about this John 10:33-36
Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.


question
You can read the LDS scholars in "Line Upon Line" published by Signature Books. In that volume it is noted that the typical LDS appeal to Acts 17, for example, is faulty. I am thankful to see some LDS admitting the inaccuracy of their traditional interpretations.

answer

Lds scholars are not the scriptures, I could quote different Protestants that interpret the scriptures in different way and that has nothing to do with the scriptures, opinions of the people, anyway I have found a very good scripture Acts 17:23-29 here Paul is speaking to the Greeks no to believers and his declaration is sharp
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Acts 17:24
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Acts 17:25
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

Acts 17:26
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Acts 17:27
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Acts 17:28
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Acts 17:29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Sorry but I guess this is final in the topic.
Question: Why some prophesies of Joseph Smith were not and  are not fulfilled?
I like your question I want to give some examples from the Bible 2 King 20:1
In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.

We have the sentence of God Himself, but the prophecy was not fulfilled because the King did something that made God change His mind. In the case of the Temple we have the answer in the same doctrine and covenants that the saint did something that made God change his mind. Probably you won't accept this idea and that is not a problem, I believe that one day the church will be the temple there, it is only a matter of time. I know probably you are smiling now but see sometimes the promises of God don't fulfill right away, neither His prophesies. I will give you something to think about. God promise to give the Palestine to Abraham. Did he possess that ground during his lifetime? Hebrew 11:8-13
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11
Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12
Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13
These all died in faith, NOT HAVING received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

But I have another case in which God Himself made a prophecy that what fulfilled about 500 years later.
Genesis 6:3
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

God made this declaration a lot time before of the flood, strangely before that this declaration became in force had to pass about 500 years, in fact Noah that was living at that time lived other 400 years, Sem about 500 years, Arpaxad that was born after the flood lived 438, Salah 433, Eber that lived after the death of Se and Abraham 464 Peleg 239 Reu 239 Serug 230 and Nahor 148 Terah 205 Abraham 175. Well are you ready to judge God Himself, my dear friend, Why His word was not in force right the way? Because His ways are not your ways or my ways. So my friend consider that many prophecies in the old and new testament are not fulfilled, consider that God like in the Case of Nineveh or the King Ezechia for certain reason can change his mind, sure because in the meantime something happens, you will say that God Knows the future and I agree, but He has to give to the mankind the way to repent or to be proven, so even though He knows what will happen He has to give us the opportunity to change our mind, like in the case of Nineveh (Jonas was angry for that) or in the case of Ezechia. If the saints were good surely they would be able to build the Temple like the Hebrew would have received the first set of tables. God is bound when the people do what he desire, but when they don't obey they lose all the promises.
Chester Kempston wrote
And I do
think that you should compare Joseph Smith to Jesus,
because He is the standard for living.  And if someone
does not live up to that standard then he cannot be a
Christian.
Dear friend
if I have to compare Joseph to Jesus, I should do that for everybody else,
do you know somebody that could be compared to Jesus? If yes please let me
know because I'd like to meet him or just to know about Him
Massimo
Hi Massimo

Just read one of your bibleman pages. Interesting stuff.

I have had a Book of Mormon on my shelf for ages but never really read much of it. I was always puzzled by the fact that the record of these Hebrews was written in Egyptian. Everybody knows that the inhabitants of Jerusalem spoke Hebrew and had done so for generations.

Is there not a case for the BoM being a record of Egyptians rather than Hebrews ?


Steve.

Dear friend,
Thanks for your kind words.
Have you ever thought that the new testament was written in Greek, was there a time the Jews had spoken in Greek? Is there not a case that the Bible being a record of Greek instead of Jews?
Just a thought. Maybe if you want to be fair you shouldn't read the Bible too, right?
Massimo

Hi Massimo,

Thanks for your reply.

The Greeks invaded Palestine under Alexander the Great and remained there for some 300 years until the Roman invasion - approx 60BC. During this time of Greek occupation, Greek did become the language spoken by the Jews and there was a move towards Greek culture and lifestyle. There was of course, some resistance and the various wars of the period testify to that.

However, it was because of this Greek "occupation", for want of a better word, that Greek became the common language and the New Testament was then written in that language.

My point about the BoM being written in Egyptian was that the OT testifies that the language of the people of Israel and Judah was Hebrew. How come the BoM was then written in not just a language foreign to the Jews, but also that of one of their main enemies ?

As regards not having read the BoM - I have read parts of it, mainly 1 Nephi, but not for some time. I have not however read all of it. I like your frankness and openness. I do have some real questions about the BoM as I know the OT better and have great difficulty in linking the OT with the claims of the BoM, especially when it comes to some of the claims that are made. Maybe this is why I have never really read beyond 1 Nephi.

Best wishes.

Steve.

Thanks for your replay, so according to your idea the Romans were about 100 years in Palestine at the time of Christ, so maybe at that time The Jews were speaking Latin, or maybe the Romans were speaking Greek to make the Jews to feel better, I am sorry but for the text of the Bible is clear that they (Jesus and the Apostles were speaking just Hebrew Acts 2:5-11
So I am sorry but I never heard that Jesus and the APOSTLES were speaking Greek, they never spoken Latin for the same suggestion and they don't speak today nor Greek nor Latin, but because you like the idea just in the times of Christ they were.
speaking Greek

FROM THE revised edition of smith's bible dictionary A.J.HOLMAN COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA
The gospel according to Matthew. "There was been considerable discussion as to the language in which it was originally composed. Every early writer, HOWEVER, who mention that Matthew wrote a Gospel at all says that he wrote in HEBREW, THAT IS, in the Syro Chaldaic.

The Gospel of Mark was written in Rome and had some Latin in it and Hebrew too.
But the Romans didn't speak Greek, just Latin.
So the reason why we have a new testament in Greek is not the reason you wrote but another one. For me there is no problem, I was just pointing that out for your question on the Bom. If you want to be fair, on my opinion, you should reconsider your idea.
When you write" I have read parts of it, mainly 1 Nephi, but not for some time. I have not however read all of it." sorry but this is not matching with "(It is also interesting to note that the 1830 BoM does tend to support the trinity concept while later "translations" of the BoM make changes to deny it. Worth having a look if you can get a copy.)
To say that you "should" have taken a deeper look on it, otherwise you can't be fair. It seems that not only you read the whole book but even later "translations" . You wrote it no Massimo. ". Maybe this is why I have never really read beyond 1 Nephi."
See, I am sorry, but in my frankness, you don't seem very "trustful" in what you declare.
Have a great day.

Massimo.
Btw regarding John 19:20
there were Hebrew and Latin too, why? If they were talking just Greek why they put these two FIRST then Greek LAST ONE?
I forget to tell you this. Have you ever heard about the Dead Sea Scrolls? They were written in the same period of the Gospels, they are the most old handwritings of the Jews and they are written In Hebrew not in Greek, if you want to see some copies I can refer to you a lot of them and these are not just opinions but real things. Anyway like I wrote to you it doesn't bother me at all this fact, I was just mentioning to you that because, on my personal opinion, it shouldn't bother you if the book of Mormon was written in Egyptian reformed, but anyway you can keep your concern, it is not my problem. Hoping to have jumped this little thing, I mean the Greek problem.
Your friend
Massimo
for further light on this topic go at Was the New Testament written in Hebrew?
Lorna Bolongia wrote: The majority of the Christian assemblies believe that the day of the
prophet
is not over. What generally happens in prophecy is that God tells them
what
he is about to do. He does not generally give them a revelation that he
had
 (past tense) performed something 1000 + years before (such as visiting the
American Indians on a stopover while ascending to heaven.) New light is
 only new to us and not to God. New light never contradicts present light.
My answer

Well Peter explained that Jesus was three days in the spiritual world. Just
another stop over. Sorry but your idea is clearly a bluff Peter received
knowledge about a stop over in the past.
have a great day and try harder.
Massimo
Can a prophet be deceived? A prophet is a man with his weakness connected to this state. Only God can know the heart and the thoughts of mankind. President Hinkley was deceived by Hoffman with the Salamander's letter. But how this can happen/ This question is simply another way of asking why prophets aren't infallible, specially in human matters. It is doubtful that those asking the question suppose themselves obligated to be faultless. Why, then, do they suppose others must be? We do not believe in the infallibilities of missionaries, or Bishops or stake presidents. At what point do we suppose infallibility must begin?
In a revelation dealing with the lost one hundred and sixteen pages of the Book of Mormon the Lord told Joseph Smith:" But as YOU CANNOT ALWAYS judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the World concerning the matter." D&C 10:37 If Joseph Smith had a weakness in this particular case it was in being too trusting. We have the assurance that the man standing at the head of the Church will never lead it astray. The notion of infallibility, however, is not a part of our theology. In His preface to the doctrine and covenants the Lord said:" These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. An inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. D&C 1:24-28
What was the reason why these men were in some way deceived? Joseph Smith and president Hinkley had a strong interest in old documents, because they knew that these documents could be found. The prophet Joseph Smith had a sure testimony because he saw the golden plates and translated them and also he had the scrolls of the book of Abraham. he couldn't be skeptic, if he was probably it would have been a proof that he didn't believe in these kind of artifact. His genuine interest is a proof that for him such things were natural. Even the museum that had the Kinderhook plates accepted them as genuine. Anyway the different attitude that Joseph had regarding those plates is a proof that he was not completely deceived. When he saw the scrolls of the book of Abraham, he asked to the church to do every effort to buy them, in this case no attempt was done and no interest shown. It doesn't seem to me that the person who made the trouble had an interest to try the prophet in his calling, in fact this story came out only about thirty years later and not to mock the prophet. they probably presented their artifacts to him hoping to sell him the plates. No problem was raised, no claim was done from them at that time. The thing was silenced and no one had to remark nothing. It was just an insignificant incident. Probably the prophet gave his opinion when he said that probably he could translate them, but why should he say different? He had already translated the book of Mormon and the scrolls. From the history of the church his only interest was in commenting that they could confirm the reality of the golden plates. Isaac was a prophet of God but his wife was able to deceive him when she introduce Jacob to be blessed instead of his brother. Israel was a prophet of God but he was deceived from his own sons when they said that Joseph was killed. God intervenes when the deceivers could obtain some advantages in God's plan, in these cases the deceiving was helping God's plan. In the case of Joseph God's help was not necessary: Joseph didn't translated the plates, he just gave his opinion but it appears that he didn't study them accurately but just superficially.
1 Kings 13:11
11 ¶ Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father.

1 Kings 13:12
12 And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen what way the man of God went, which came from Judah.

1 Kings 13:13
13 And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon,

1 Kings 13:14
14 And went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak: and he said unto him, [Art] thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I [am].

1 Kings 13:15
15 Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread.

1 Kings 13:16
16 And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place:

1 Kings 13:17
17 For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.

1 Kings 13:18
18 He said unto him, I [am] a prophet also as thou [art]; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. [But] he lied unto him.

1 Kings 13:19
19 So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water.

1 Kings 13:20
20 And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back:

1 Kings 13:21
21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee,

1 Kings 13:22
22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which [the LORD] did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.

1 Kings 13:23
23 ¶ And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, [to wit], for the prophet whom he had brought back.

1 Kings 13:24
24 And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcase.

1 Kings 13:25
25 And, behold, men passed by, and saw the carcase cast in the way, and the lion standing by the carcase: and they came and told [it] in the city where the old prophet dwelt.

1 Kings 13:26
26 And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard [thereof], he said, It [is] the man of God, who was disobedient unto the word of the LORD: therefore the LORD hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake unto him.
Kinderhook Plates
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, KINDERHOOK PLATES
In April 1843 some alleged New World antiquities were presented to Joseph Smith for his opinion. The six 2 7/8-by-2 1/4-inch bell-shaped brass plates with strange engravings were reported to have been excavated in Kinderhook, Illinois, about seventy miles south of Nauvoo (HC 5:372-79). They were shown to Smith because of his claim to have translated the Book of Mormon from ancient gold plates taken from a New York hill in 1827.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, KINDERHOOK PLATES
The Kinderhook plates created a stir in Nauvoo; articles appeared in the Church press, an illustrated handbill was published, and some Latter-day Saints even claimed Joseph Smith said he could and would translate them. No translation exists, however, nor does any further comment from him indicating that he considered the plates genuine. After his assassination in June 1844, the incident was largely forgotten. Decades later two of the alleged discoverers announced that the plates were a hoax; an attempt to discredit Smith. By then, however, the Church was headquartered in Utah and little attention was paid to these strange disclosures.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, KINDERHOOK PLATES
Interest was kindled again in 1920 when the Chicago Historical Society acquired what appeared to be one of the original Kinderhook plates. Later the Chicago plate was subjected to a number of nondestructive tests, with inconclusive results. Then in 1980, the Chicago Historical Society gave permission for destructive tests, which were done at Northwestern University. Examination by a scanning electron microscope, a scanning auger microprobe, and X-ray fluorescence analysis proved conclusively that the plate was one of the Kinderhook six; that it had been engraved, not etched; and that it was of nineteenth-century manufacture. There thus appears no reason to accept the Kinderhook plates as anything but a frontier hoax.
Illustration

One of the Kinderhook Plates, a forgery used to try to embarrass Joseph Smith.
Decorative and Industrial Arts Department, Chicago Historical Society.
Bibliography
Kimball, Stanley B. "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax." Ensign 11 (Aug. 1981):66-74.
Diane E. Wirth, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.210
In order to debunk Joseph Smith’s abilities as a translator, the authors bring up the old Kinderhook controversy (p. 56), which has been settled once and for all as a forgery by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith’s supposed statement that the Kinderhook plates were authentic and that they were the “records of the descendants of Ham,” came from the journal of William Clayton, who wrote in the first person, as though from the mouth of Joseph Smith. A first-person narrative was apparently a common practice of this time period when a biographical work was being compiled. Since such words were never penned by the Prophet, they cannot be uncritically accepted as his words or his opinion.3
Diane E. Wirth, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.252
Williams then turns to the Kinderhook plates, which are now lost except for one. Apparently uninformed regarding the Church’s more recent determination of these plates, he claims Joseph Smith translated the inscription and never refers to the 1981 Ensign article which explains the history of the Church’s role concerning the plates.3 It was quite some time before it was positively acknowledged by scholars, through an electronic and chemical analysis, that the one remaining plate is a hoax. More important, contrary to popular articles written by anti-Mormon writers, Joseph Smith did not make a translation of the fraudulent plate. The translation attributed to him has proven to be an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. In fact, after viewing the Kinderhook plate, Joseph Smith never showed any interest in it.
When Joseph saw the scrolls of the Book of Abraham he asked the church to buy it. Here he did different just ignored them.
B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.3, p.64
Of this presentation of the matter it is only necessary to say that it is a little singular that Mr. Fugate alone out of the three said to be in collusion in perpetrating the fraud should disclose it, and that he should wait from 1843 to 1879--a period of thirty-six years--before doing so, so, when he and those said to be associated with him had such an excellent opportunity to expose the vain pretensions of the Prophet--if Fugate's tale be true? For while the statement in the text of the Prophet's Journal to the effect that the find was genuine, and that he had translated some of the characters and learned certain historical facts concerning the person with whose remains the plates were found, may not have been known at the time to the alleged conspirators to deceive him, still the editor of the Times and Seasons--John Taylor, the close personal friend of the Prophet--took the find seriously, and expressed at once explicit confidence in an editorial in the Times and Seasons, of May 1st, 1843, that the Prophet could give a translation of the plates. And this attitude the Church, continued to maintain; for in The Prophet (a Mormon weekly periodical, published in New York) of the 15th of February, 1845, there was published a facsimile of the Kinderhook plates, together with the Times and Seasons editorial and all the above matter of the text. How easy to have covered Joseph Smith and his followers with ridicule by proclaiming the hoax as soon as they accepted the Kinderhook plates as genuine! Why was it not done? The fact that Fugate's story was not told until thirty-six years after the event, and that he alone of all those who were connected with the event gives that version of it, is rather strong evidence that his story is the hoax, not the discovery of the plates, nor the engravings upon them.
History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.19, p.372
I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.
How do we know that Jesus rose from the dead?
well leaving aside the testimony of the people who lived at His time and the testimony promised by Jesus regarding the Holy Ghost who will teach everything I have found a very interesting explanation in the word of Frank Morrison. he was an agnostic journalist. He tried to write a book to confute the resurrection of Jesus. After much investigation, he changed his mind and become a believer in Jesus. Why?
From his words:
"This study is in some ways so unusual and provocative that the writer thinks is desirable to state here very briefly how the book came to take its present form. In one sense it could have taken no other, for it essentially a confession, the inner story of a man who originally set out to write one kind of book and found himself compelled by the sheer force of circumstances to write another. It is not the facts altered, for they are recorded imperishable in the monuments and in the pages of human history. But the interpretation to be put on the facts underwent a change" (Who moved the stone? Preface, Zondervan 1971.
Morrison discovered that Jesus was publicly put in the tomb on Friday, but on Sunday morning the body was missing. If didn't rise from the dead, then someone took the body. There are three interest groups that could possibly have taken the body: the Romans, the Jews or the disciples.
The Romans would have had no reason to steal the body, since they wanted to keep the peace in Palestine. The idea was to keep the provinces as quiet as possible, and stealing the body of Christ would not accomplish this goal.
The Jews would not have taken the body, because the last thing they wanted was a proclamation of the resurrection and according to the Gospel they asked for some guards to check the tomb according t Matthew 27.
The disciples of Jesus had no reason to steal the body, and if they did, they later died for something they knew to be untrue. Moreover, the religion which they proclaimed emphasized telling the truth and not lying. Their actions would have been inconsistent with that which they knew to be true and commanded others to follow.
The only reasonable explanation is that Jesus has risen, and the eyewitnesses make it plain this is the case. Surely they knew the difference between someone who was dead, like Jesus on the cross and someone who wasn't. As Simone Peter said. " For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we make known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His Majesty." 2 Peter 1:16 NASB
Long Nguyen wrote
And the notion of God, the perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, God, having another God is hard to swallow. Well Jesus is just a proof of that according to John the word is God but Jesus taught that the Father was greater than Him, so you have two Gods here one bigger than the other one, make sense?
I need some Biblical references to support the concept "As God is, man may
become and as man is, God once was.  This is a sticking point for my son in
law.

Joyce Adams Brannan

If Jesus is God and He is our brother having the same Father it is
consequential that we are
like Jesus said and remarked that the scriptures CANNOT BE BROKEN, just to
make sure His point
34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture
cannot be broken;
There are many other references in which is promised that we will inherit
the same things of Jesus so....if there are families in heaven who are them?
Your friend
Massimo