Question

[USNationalist]

havent posted here in a while... thought i would say hello.

.....so hello.

Also i have a question.

What was the point of God revealing the BoM to JS? There is not one shred of new doctrine in it. Nothing original, it could almost be a plagerism. It says all the same things as the new testitmont without a shred of additional doctrine. I thought JS was supposed to restore a lost gospel.... but that lost Gospel has nothing new in it- nothing! The only thing that has any changes is what He himself did (through revalations and such).

So then my question (just so i understand)... what was the point of the BoM? Couldnt he have just said he was a prophet and given new revalation? Or made the same claim to resoration without the BoM? If anything it would have given him more credibility with all the holes (lack of psyical evidence) the BoM has.

So yeh... my question is just "why?"

[Dravin]

Couldnt he have just said he was a prophet and given new revalation? Or made the same claim to resoration without the BoM?

I'm sure he could have, but if he was worried about credibly he would have not shared any of his experiences and lived his life out working the land.

[Blessed]

I have come to find that when we ask the question "why?"... more often and not there is no answer.

Sorry, but something I have noticed in life.

[Outshined]

You could say the same thing about much of the New Testament; the Gospels basically all say the same things, just in different words, so which are the ones we should keep? And parts of the NT are repeats of the OT, so which do we need?

[liahonagirl]

<span style='color:purple'>I think the key to why perhaps lies in the subtitle to the Book of Mormon itself . . . it is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" . . . an additional witness . . . </span>

[Dravin]

Originally posted by liahonagirl@Sep 17 2004, 07:42 AM

<span style='color:purple'>I think the key to why perhaps lies in the subtitle to the Book of Mormon itself . . . it is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" . . . an additional witness . . . </span>

While true, from my experience the commonly held belief in the Church is that the BoM contains more of the gospel than the Bible, am I mistaken in this?

For this to be true the Book of Mormon must contain some truths that are not contained in the Bible, not just 'simply' be another testimony. Sadly I am not overly familiar with both books and thus am not qualified to start quoting chapter and verse of stuff the Book of Mormon has but the bible lacks.

Being another testament does however explain similarity, as the Bible and the Book of Mormon are doing the same thing, testifying of Christ.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 17 2004, 10:25 AM

...from my experience the commonly held belief in the Church is that the BoM contains more of the gospel than the Bible, am I mistaken in this?

For this to be true the Book of Mormon must contain some truths that are not contained in the Bible, not just 'simply' be another testimony. Sadly I am not overly familiar with both books and thus am not qualified to start quoting chapter and verse of stuff the Book of Mormon has but the bible lacks.

Being another testament does however explain similarity, as the Bible and the Book of Mormon are doing the same thing, testifying of Christ.

No, we consider them equal. That's why we bind them together into one volume, or a quad. They are both the word of God, and are meant to be read together to learn and grow.

[Dravin]

That's why we bind them together into one volume, or a quad.

I hate those things, to unwieldly and harder to find coresponding scriptures (the whole footnotes thing).

I'm a Triple Combo and a Bible man myself.

[huma17]

Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember reading anything about Christ visiting the Americas, after his Resurrection, in the Bible? I don't know about you, but that one piece of 'new' information seems pretty original to me.

How about the fact that Jesus tells us not to use vain or repetitious prayers? That seems like new doctrine to me. In the Bible, you only have Jesus giving the Lord's prayer. In the BoM, he also gives the Lord's prayer, but is prefaced with new information. Or, how about the fact that he reveals that infants have no need of baptism? That, too, seems like some new doctrine not found in the Bible. He even goes on to give the exact prayer to use for baptizing. Speaking of exact prayers, you will find the prayers to be used for the Sacrament in the BoM, not in the Bible.

Seriously, are you asking because you have never read the BoM, or are you just a troll trying to 'plant a seed'? If you ARE a troll, then your going to have to do better than that.

By the way, though, the main purpose of the BoM is to be ANOTHER (meaning, like unto the first) testament of Jesus Christ - which has already been pointed out.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 17 2004, 02:17 PM

That's why we bind them together into one volume, or a quad.

I hate those things, to unwieldly and harder to find coresponding scriptures (the whole footnotes thing).

I'm a Triple Combo and a Bible man myself.

Yeah, but I was raised Baptist, so I recognize the value of having a heavy book handy in case a discussion gets out of hand...

[USNationalist]

<<How about the fact that Jesus tells us not to use vain or repetitious prayers? That seems like new doctrine to me.>>

-that is in the bible.

<<Or, how about the fact that he reveals that infants have no need of baptism? That, too, seems like some new doctrine not found in the Bible>>

-if baptising infants is of no use to them how can the dead benifit from baptism? And... the bible implies there should be no infant baptism- as baptism is something you do once your saved. So infant baptism being pointless is nothing new and is found in the bible.

<<He even goes on to give the exact prayer to use for baptizing.>>

-exact prayers.... does the idea seem a little "vain" or "repetitious" to you?

So lets say i give you the bennifit of the doubt that all 4 points you made were valid.... the only difference between the BoM and the Bible (aside from setting... which is irrelevent to the content of the gospel) is 4 things? 4 little things? Wow... he really restored so much lost information with the BoM gospel.

Your not very good at this game.

[Dravin]

if baptising infants is of no use to them how can the dead benifit from baptism?

Infants are without sin, the same can not be said of those who have come and gone (child deaths excluded).

So lets say i give you the bennifit of the doubt that all 4 points you made were valid.... the only difference between the BoM and the Bible (aside from setting... which is irrelevent to the content of the gospel) is 4 things? 4 little things? Wow... he really restored so much lost information with the BoM gospel.

Nowhere did he state those are the only differences.

Anyway, your question has been answered as to the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

Yeah, but I was raised Baptist, so I recognize the value of having a heavy book handy in case a discussion gets out of hand...

That's what your scripture case is for, you put it in there and the mass is the same if not a tad more. :)

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 17 2004, 05:14 PM

Yeah, but I was raised Baptist, so I recognize the value of having a heavy book handy in case a discussion gets out of hand...

That's what your scripture case is for, you put it in there and the mass is the same if not a tad more. :)

Oooooo! Good point!

[Dravin]

The handles also provide a surer grip so you can apply more force without having them slip out of your hand.

[Outshined]

I'm impressed by the amount of thought you've given this! I have a new respect for the Bible/Triple combination...

[Dravin]

I have a new respect for the Bible/Triple combination...

My work here is done.

[Kevin]

Or, how about the fact that he reveals that infants have no need of baptism? That, too, seems like some new doctrine not found in the Bible

-if baptising infants is of no use to them how can the dead benifit from baptism?

What? How are these two even closely related? The baptism of infants is wrong because infants havn't sufficient knowledge to sin.

And... the bible implies there should be no infant baptism- as baptism is something you do once your saved. So infant baptism being pointless is nothing new and is found in the bible.

You may be able to reason that its in the bible but it is not clearly stated and such a view is highly disputed - just consider the christian denominations that baptise infants i.e. sprinkling etc. The Book of Mormon is very clear on this doctrine such that there can be no reasonable dispute. Nice try though.

[Snow]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Sep 16 2004, 11:17 PM

What was the point of God revealing the BoM to JS? There is not one shred of new doctrine in it. Nothing original,

Interesting question... interesting that is if the premise upon which it was based were true - but it's not, not by a long, long shot.

Don't take my word for it. Try Alexander Campell whose enduring criticism (still in vogue today) makes the point that USNat obviously misses. In 1831 he writes that the Book of Mormon answered almost every single unsettled issue (by the Bible) that existed prior to the BoM's publication. Speaking of the BoM and Joseph Smith, Campbell said:

"He decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, pennance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general ressurection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even... the rights of man."

All of which proves my position that Church critics will take any position, mistate any fact, ignore any evidence to criticize the gospel.

[Snow]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Sep 17 2004, 03:17 PM

So lets say i give you the bennifit of the doubt that all 4 points you made were valid.... the only difference between the BoM and the Bible (aside from setting... which is irrelevent to the content of the gospel) is 4 things? 4 little things? Wow... he really restored so much lost information with the BoM gospel.

Your not very good at this game.

I have never heard - and I don't think that I am hearing it now - someone who can make this argument and avoid the hipocrisy inherrent in their position... namely do they really believe the point and therefore and ethically required to criticize the Bible on the same grounds.

Do we criticize Matthew because we heard it first in Mark?

Do we really need 2nd John?

What new doctrine do we get from the Song of Solomon?

Blah, blah blah, even I can't get too excite pointing out the flaws in the average Anti-Mormons thought process.

[Guest bat]

Feeling a little bit persecuted today, aren't we?

[Dravin]

I think it's more like bored, both sides simply repeat the same stuff over and over again for the most part, it doesn't take long until the repitition tends to wear down ones zeal. :shrug:

[USNationalist]

<<What? How are these two even closely related? The baptism of infants is wrong because infants havn't sufficient knowledge to sin.>>

-I was under the impression that in order to enter heaven you had to be baptised (from the LDS standpoint) reguardless of sin. I didnt know you viewed baptism simply as means of forgiveness for sin.

<<You may be able to reason that its in the bible but it is not clearly stated and such a view is highly disputed - just consider the christian denominations that baptise infants i.e. sprinkling etc.>>

-yeh, they are wrong. But it really doesnt matter or make a difference anyway. Just used it for my own point- infant baptism being pointless is already biblicaly implied.

And anyway- Snow gets the Gold. He answerd my question and so im done here. I wasn't looking to start a rigged argument. Simply had a question- for the means of correcting my false impression or finding out if my impression was valid and whatever excuse you may have. -And to be fair, Snow... its hard not to miss a point when you've never heard it made. Why do you think i come here if not to get the other perspective on LDS issues?

Have a good one.

[Snow]

Okay, guess I jumped to conclusions.

Regards.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 17 2004, 08:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 17 2004, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--USNationalist@Sep 17 2004, 03:17 PM

So lets say i give you the bennifit of the doubt that all 4 points you made were valid.... the only difference between the BoM and the Bible (aside from setting... which is irrelevent to the content of the gospel) is 4 things? 4 little things? Wow... he really restored so much lost information with the BoM gospel.

Your not very good at this game.

I have never heard - and I don't think that I am hearing it now - someone who can make this argument and avoid the hipocrisy inherrent in their position... namely do they really believe the point and therefore and ethically required to criticize the Bible on the same grounds.

Do we criticize Matthew because we heard it first in Mark?

Do we really need 2nd John?

What new doctrine do we get from the Song of Solomon?

Blah, blah blah, even I can't get too excite pointing out the flaws in the average Anti-Mormons thought process.

Yeah, see, yeah, if we're wrong, you're all wrong... yeah, that's the ticket. Ooops, but then, that might mean that if we're right, you're all right? Nah, we're right and you're all wrong. Yeah, see, that's how it is, yeah.

[almostsane]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Sep 17 2004, 12:17 AM

If anything it would have given him more credibility with all the holes (lack of psyical evidence) the BoM has.

i'd like to direct you Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

like the title says, it isn't 100% proof, but there is evidence that supports the validy of the Book of Mormon.