clbent04

Welcome @Word Chasing Good of you to have an open mind and consider what so many find special about the LDS church. I'm sure as a protestant chaplain you have a lot of valuable insight and your perspective would be appreciated here as you share and learn about Mormonism.

Results are as of 11/23/2018. Honorable mention to @my two cents @Midwest LDS @Grunt @Jane_Doe @zil @MormonGator . I will possibly be putting on a Fantasy-Football like competition where everyone submits 5 picks for which users they think will receive the most likes in a 2-week period. Thoughts? @my two cents @Midwest LDS @Grunt @Jane_Doe @person0 @zil @MormonGator @SilentOne @Carborendum @Blossom76 @Fether @LiterateParakeet @Snigmorder @mirkwood @Jojo Bags @anatess2 @mordorbund @askandanswer @CV75 @Sunday21 @Just_A_Guy @JohnsonJones @The Folk Prophet @Vort @MrShorty @NeuroTypical @Mike @estradling75 @NightSG @wenglund @omegaseamaster75 @Anddenex @clbent04 @prisonchaplain @Suzie @Traveler @Rob Osborn @pam @mikbone @the Ogre Likes to Posts Ratio 11-23-18.xlsx

For anyone who was a serious NBA fan during the Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant eras, I will be seriously impressed if you can answer this: Joe Dumars is to Michael Jordan, as __________ (fill in blank) is to Kobe Bryant

No. Agree. Agree. Disagree. Disproving the Book of Mormon would destroy the Church. Removing it's existence entirely would not. Agree.

Follow the thread and you’ll see my objective is to clarify my OP for you. You question the OP, I clarify it for you, then you tell me what I’m saying is obvious, but yet you keep pecking at the fact I said the Book of Mormon contains little essential doctrine on its own. You already said you agreed with me after I explained what I meant so why are we still here? Not sure why you want to continue partially quoting me or taking things I said out of context. If you don’t like the phraseology of saying “Some members over-romanticize the BOM by believing it’s the only book to contain the fullness of the gospel,” then get over it. It’s true.

I think we agree on all this, but then you partially quote me and it seems like we are at odds again. I only said the Book of Mormon is over-romanticized in the specific example of saying it’s the only book that contains the fullness of the gospel

Happy Thanksgiving Grunty Poo

hey ya ole Gruntster @Grunt. you ever get baptized or you still just teasing everyone along?

Doesn't need to be over complicated. My point is the Book of Mormon doesn't uniquely contain the fulness of the gospel. You quoting JS on his saying the BOM is the most correct book doesn't contradict that.

Yes, exactly. And is there more than one way to come unto Christ in this life? Absolutely. Members are often unsure of exactly what "the fulness of the gospel" means, and will over-romanticize the Book of Mormon as the only book deserving of such a prestigious honor.

Well that only took going back and forth 10x for you to say the very point I was trying to explain to you is obvious

Well at least you can see where some of the confusion stems. Since the intro to the Book of Mormon previously stated the Bible contained the fulness of the gospel, I molded my understanding of what the "The Fulness of the Gospel" is so that the Bible could fit in that bucket, probably like anyone else who thought that after 189 years they would have ironed out all the major inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon and we could rely on the plain reading of the text to be true. My understanding is the fulness of the gospel centers on the essential principles necessary for salvation: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring the to end, all of which are detailed in both the Bible and Book of Mormon. I don't think the fulness of the gospel includes knowing about Kolob, genealogy, wars, general history, or how many Kingdoms of glory we will be divided into.

Ok. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I beg to differ, sir https://askgramps.org/does-the-bible-contain-the-fulness-of-the-gospel/ https://gospeldoctrine.com/book-mormon/introductory-pages/introduction

Can you answer with a simple "yes" or "no" - do you think the Bible contains a fullness of the gospel?

It's not really just a case of wordsmithing here, Carb. Saying the Bible is comparable to the Book of Mormon is different from saying both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel.

hmm. that's called moving the goalpost. lol. guess you're right. what's weird is I could have sworn that yesterday I went to lds.org/scriptures to quote the intro. I wonder if the Church is backing down from it's previous position that the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel... Who knows. 3 hours one Sunday, then 2 hours the next. I think the Church would still support the idea of the Bible containing the fullness of the gospel. These guys describe my previous understanding to it well: https://askgramps.org/does-the-bible-contain-the-fulness-of-the-gospel/ https://gospeldoctrine.com/book-mormon/introductory-pages/introduction

Yeah, I'll have to ask them about it next time, thanks. I hate those dealer logos

You can do that? I'll have to make a similar request next time. What do they do, just paint over it? A lot of them are pre-stamped or the logos are even drilled into the body before they set them on the lot. Or are you just buying direct from the factory through the dealer?

Bingo

I was just trying to help you understand where I was coming from since you asked, and it looks like we agree

I’m not really leaping to conclusions here saying the Book of Mormon does not uniquely contain the fullness of the gospel unless you’re opposed to the first paragraph of the introduction to the Book of Mormon: “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”

I never was questioning the importance of the Book of Mormon. I was only pointing out it doesn’t uniquely contain the fullness of the gospel

Yes, agreed. That’s exactly what I’m trying to get at. The Book of Mormon hits on the plain and simple truths we know to be essential to salvation: Faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end. Are these ideas solely contained in the Book of Mormon? No. But they are expounded upon by additional examples, stories, and sermons.

Agreed, as stated in the OP. But not key to introducing a lot of essential doctrine that the Bible already contained.

I'm not downplaying it's significance. I'm focusing on where the emphasis of it's significance should be placed. Just ask yourself what would we have if we didn't have the Book of Mormon. Would our belief system cease to exist? Would we no longer have a path to follow? Would the Plan of Salvation be indiscernible? We do gain clarity from the Book of Mormon, but we gain little essential doctrine from what we already have. If tomorrow President Nelson traveled to Africa and was divinely directed to unearth another testament of Jesus Christ parallel to that of the Bible and Book of Mormon, would that change the essential doctrine of our religion or simply reinforce it?