by

The Jesus of Mormonism was not born in Bethlehem.

If someone prophesied my birthplace as being New Jersey but I was actually born in New York, would they have been wrong?

If someone prophesied my birthplace as being Ft. Lauderdale but I was actually born in Miami, would they have been in error?

If someone prophesied my birthplace as being San Francisco, but I was actually born in Oakland, would that be a false prophecy?

Any reasonable person using any degree of logic (and, if necessary, a map) would say, “Of course, you’re wrong on all three occasions.”

What if someone prophesied Jesus was to be born in Jerusalem, only for Him to be born in Bethlehem? This is exactly what Mormonism has done. Mormons follow a Jesus so foreign to the Bible–so different from the real Jesus Christ–that their Jesus wasn’t even born in the same place.

And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. Alma 7:10 Book of Mormon

To be intellectually honest, you would have to apply the same standard, reasonableness, and critical thinking to this Book of Mormon error as you did the examples I cited above.

Dare I suggest that Salt Lake correct Alma 7:10, making this change number 3,914 to the Book of Mormon?

14 thoughts on “The Jesus of Mormonism was not born in Bethlehem.”

  2. Just one more reason we can say, in all honesty, that Mormons worship a false Christ. I mean, if I said that I believed in the same Christ as you do, but I just believe that He started out as a duck who was born in Hoboken, would I really be serving the same Christ?

    Like

  4. Isn’t it funny how the Mormons seem to run from their own doctrine?
    Satanist are more coherent than these people.
    I’m not even going to bring up the garments they buy at Josephs Secret.

    Like

  5. Pingback: The Jesus of Mormonism was not born in Bethlehem! « Jesus Christology

  6. You all sound like a bunch of gossipy old crones with nothing better to do. It seems to me that if Smith wrote the book himself, he would have put Bethlehem in. Everyone knew it was Bethlehem. Why would he deliberately make a mistake?

    People, you need to get a life. This is sad.

    Like

  7. Walker:
    “deliberately make a mistake” ?
    You mean like deliberately having an accident?

    Neither makes sense. That’s the essence of a mistake, (and an accident), they’re unintentional.

    Joseph Smith made an error because he was not “translating” anything but just making up his fiction book. Just one of the countless mistakes found in the book of Mormon. If it was truly inspired it would not have required 3,913 documented changes.

    Like

  8. He didnt make a mistake, as the lds text says, “which is the land of our forefathers” its just talking about a geological area, for instance “North america” its not a city or a country, its just a general area. When it says Jerusalem its not talking about the city just the area.

    Like

  11. The bible says the same thing. I guess it is false too.

    2 Kgs. 14: 20
    20 And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.

    Was he buried in two places, Jerusalem and Bethlehem (the city of David)?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. The Bible is not in error. 2 Kings 14 is referring to Jerusalem where the kings of Judah were buried. Jerusalem was proclaimed the city of David when he seized control of it from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5:7-9). That is why Bethlehem was specified in Luke 2 when it used the phrase “city of David” as the birthplace of Christ, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah 5.

    If Joseph Smith would have written the more ambiguous “city of David” instead of “Jerusalem” he would have gotten by with it. Apparently he neglected the passages in Luke 2 and Micah 5 which resulted in his error being apparent.

    Like

  13. This discussion is much ado about nothing. Here are a few things to consider with this passage.

    1. The passage is referring to the land of Jerusalem. In other words, the area of Jerusalem.

    2. Bethelem is approximately 6 miles from Jerusalem.

    3. This passage is being uttered from somewhere in the Western hemisphere, which gives even greater insight into why one might refer to the land of Jerusalem. After all, Jerusalem was the center of the universe for the people of the Old Testament. If you were thinking of Bethlehem and Jerusalem from thousands of miles away, you would view them as pretty much the same area. I grew up in Lakewood, CA, a small suburb of Los Angeles. Actually, it’s about 15 miles from the actual city of Los Angeles. I now live in a different state, and when people ask me where I’m from, I usually just say LA, because that is the greater point of reference. Am I confused about where I grew up? No.

    4. I should also point out that the argument I am making is the same argument Christian apologists use to explain apparent geographical errors in the Gospel of Mark.

    In light of all of this, I have no problem with the passage.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Jigglewick,

    Would you hang your eternity on what we’re calling error, and what you call imprecision? Would you trust a doctor who was so imprecise?

    How much more important is your soul, my Mormon friend?

    The list of LDS (blatant) errors, false “prophesies”, and doctrinal re-writes is extensive.

    Nothing to trust your eternity with, to be sure.

    In Christ Jesus, the Eternal One, the Alpha and the Omega,
    – His servant Jeff H

    Like

Tell us what you think:

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