Question

[Setheus]

You know Snow, if there were no BOM and the Church claimed that Jesus taught the people in the Americas and that there were prophets on this side of the ocean the FIRST thing people would think to question would be, "Well where is THEIR scripture? If that is true then why didn't they get the word of God? Where is the book?"

And for those of you who don't see the "new" truths in the BOM then look at it this way. The BOM is ANOTHER testement of Jesus Christ. And what is better than one sorce to varify a truth (Bible)....TWO sorces (BoM). Two testements of the same Man from across the world in a time when there was no communication across the ocean.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Sep 18 2004, 12:36 AM

-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.

Baptisim is a covenant with Christ and God. You explain to me how an infant can have even a fathom of what making a covenant is.

Even "man" knows this principle by making it illegal for minors to enter into a contract.

Remember the words of the prophet "Keep It Simple Stupid." (KISS)

[srm]

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

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?"

adam fell that man might be; men are that they might have joy

An understanding of the Atonement a'la 2 Ne 9

;christian' beliefs and doctrines long before the first coming of Christ

Telling the seed of Lehi that they ARE of the house of Israel

Evidence that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Golly this list could go on and on. But, I would wager that US Nat isn't interested in such facts.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by srm@Sep 18 2004, 05:29 PM

Telling the seed of Lehi that they ARE of the house of Israel

Evidence that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Golly this list could go on and on. But, I would wager that US Nat isn't interested in such facts.

Those are "facts"? You and I must have a different understanding of the word.

[srm]

Originally posted by bat+Sep 18 2004, 06:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Sep 18 2004, 06:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Sep 18 2004, 05:29 PM

Telling the seed of Lehi that they ARE of the house of Israel

Evidence that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Golly this list could go on and on.  But, I would wager that US Nat isn't interested in such facts.

Those are "facts"? You and I must have a different understanding of the word.

You are missing the point.

The question that I was answering was what new or different teachings come from the Book of Mormon that can't be found in the Bible.

I'm not claiming that the teachings are facts, rather that the teachings are, in fact, new or different from the Bible.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by srm+Sep 18 2004, 11:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Sep 18 2004, 11:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bat@Sep 18 2004, 06:55 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--srm@Sep 18 2004, 05:29 PM

Telling the seed of Lehi that they ARE of the house of Israel

Evidence that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Golly this list could go on and on.  But, I would wager that US Nat isn't interested in such facts.

Those are "facts"? You and I must have a different understanding of the word.

You are missing the point.

The question that I was answering was what new or different teachings come from the Book of Mormon that can't be found in the Bible.

I'm not claiming that the teachings are facts, rather that the teachings are, in fact, new or different from the Bible.

I think that i see your point.

H2G2 has teachings that can't be found in the bible. That is a fact.

The teachings of H2G2 aren't therefore necessarily facts.

I wonder what the H2G2 apologists consider mice to be. Humans with pointy noses perhaps?

[Kevin]

-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.

Not so. LDS doctrine is that those who die before the age of accountability (8) are saved in the Kingdom of God.

I'm glad you are able to get your questions answered here.

[USNationalist]

a set number? I wouldnt have imagined God would do it that way- As some i would imagine would reach it faster then others. Like the 21 year old drinking age- that number is set high to be on the safe side- so less people that are still just old kids arent allowed to leagaly drink.

What about mentaly handicaped?

Do aborted babies go to heaven?

If they go to heaven doesnt that defeat the purpose of life? I thought we were here for a reason- if all that can be skiped- why make earth?

[huma17]

The main reason we are here, '...is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.' Just as you pointed out, things aren't the same for everyone. I still need to learn patience, and to control my temper. Maybe, a child that dies at one, needed only to gain a body.

You see, many things pertaining to the Gospel are symbolic. We do them soley because we are commanded to. The Lord wants to see if we will be obedient.

The age of accountability is set at eight, because that would be the easiest thing to do. Let's say that the Lord says accountability is dependant upon a certain amount of knowledge gained - who would test for it? And how? The Lord knows all, the HG can testify to all truth, but the INDIVIDUAL must be in accordance with the spirit to receive it, or to know the Lord's will. If a judge in Israel is corrupt, how will the Lord be able to let him know if an individual is accountable or not, based upon the criteria I stated earlier. Accountability is set at eight to avoid any controversy, there is no debate.

Do you not think that the Lord knows each of us? Do you not think that the Lord will take into account the circumstances that you stated (such as mentally ill)? Why do you trouble yourself with things that you have no control over, nor understand? Leave those things to the Lord - he is the judge.

In my opinion, I think children that are not born (mis-carriages, abortions), will be able to come here at a later time. Of course, I do not KNOW.

As for my response to your original question - You said there was not 'ONE SHRED' of new doctrine/information in the BoM, than in the Bible. Then you go on to 'credit' me with four (4) points. You finally chide me for 'only' giving you four, when you only asked for one (1)!? Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? You give credit to Snow, for answering your question, when I already had?

Now, who's not good at what?

[USNationalist]

your no good. Your points werent that good an were unsastisfactory. And coverd jsut 4 points. Snows answer was much broader and gave me an acceptable and reasonable answer.

Anyway- I dont believe in the soverignty of God to the extent you do i guess. I dont believe he has his hand in everything always controling it. I dont think events are defined by his will. I think the world happens and through our prayer or Gods whim- he sometimes interveens. I believe the book of our life is something he has full access to and has read front to back and he knows everything that will happen. But i dont think he penned it himself- We did, hes more of a reader.

And i also hold the opinion of soul recycling. But its just an opinion with no foundation on anything but what seems right to me.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 16 2004, 11:54 PM

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.

Al contrare--JS was used to being able to con people. Remember the money digging schemes? I guess he figured people were easy to con--he had done it before.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 17 2004, 02:18 AM

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?

The NT does indeed repeat much of the OT, but it is a definite departure in many ways. It repudiated the old Sabbath rules, does away with "eye for an eye" and other doctrines.

[Dravin]

Al contrare--JS was used to being able to con people. Remember the money digging schemes? I guess he figured people were easy to con--he had done it before.

I thought the point was obvious, it's rather disappointing that it apparently went right over your head.

[Cal]

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>

How can it be a testament of anything when the only way you can know it is true is to get a revelation. If you can get a revelation, why do you need a testament?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Dravin+Sep 17 2004, 09:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dravin @ Sep 17 2004, 09:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

One thing the BoM does explain is that JS was very familiar with the Bible.

[Dravin]

How can it be a testament of anything when the only way you can know it is true is to get a revelation. If you can get a revelation, why do you need a testament?

So you are saying that the Bible is not a testament?

[Cal]

Originally posted by huma17@Sep 17 2004, 01:55 PM

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.

The BoM does address questions not addressed in the NT. However, those question bear striking similarities to religious controversies of the day in JS's community. I find it hard to imagine the native americans trying to decide whether they should baptize their kids. I'ld like someone to show one shred of evidence that the native americans ANYWHERE did any thing "christian" during the time period claimed in the BoM.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Sep 27 2004, 05:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Sep 27 2004, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Dravin@Sep 16 2004, 11:54 PM

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.

Al contrare--JS was used to being able to con people. Remember the money digging schemes? I guess he figured people were easy to con--he had done it before.

You are putting yourself way out on a limb.

If Joseph Smith was just doing it for the con (easy money), then he failed miserably, and if that was his drive, he would have quit while he was still somewhat ahead. I don't think con men are into getting tarred and feathered, and thrown into jail at regular intervals, and stick around for more. You gotta come up with a better story.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 27 2004, 05:52 PM

Al contrare--JS was used to being able to con people. Remember the money digging schemes? I guess he figured people were easy to con--he had done it before.

Well Cal, who did Joseph Smith con is a money digging scheme. Got an actual victim?

Josiah Stowell who hired him had more confidence in Smith abilities than Smith did.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 27 2004, 05:58 PM

How can it be a testament of anything when the only way you can know it is true is to get a revelation. If you can get a revelation, why do you need a testament?

So you are saying that the Bible is not a testament?

Uhh..the word testament (testamentum) as used with regard to the Bible means "Covenant." The Old Testament (covenant) and the New Testament (covenant) The Adamic covenant and the Messianic covenant. The Book of Mormon being "Another Testament (covenant) of Jesus Christ' would presumably be the Lehi Covenant.

[USNationalist]

What curvette just said sounds about right.

[Dravin]

Originally posted by curvette@Sep 27 2004, 09:41 PM

Uhh..the word testament (testamentum) as used with regard to the Bible means "Covenant."  The Old Testament (covenant) and the New Testament (covenant)  The Adamic covenant and the Messianic covenant.  The Book of Mormon being "Another Testament (covenant) of Jesus Christ' would presumably be the Lehi Covenant.

Consider myself elucidated.

I guess we (or at least I) read either book and you got Prophets (and even Christ himself) testifying of the Messiah that the more common definition comes to the forefront of ones mind.

Well, it seems that were I failed you prevailed, the position seems to have been rebutted most effectivly.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 27 2004, 05:58 PM

How can it be a testament of anything when the only way you can know it is true is to get a revelation. If you can get a revelation, why do you need a testament?

So you are saying that the Bible is not a testament?

There is actual physical evidence that 1) the records of the jews were kept, that scrolls and records were actually written 2) the names and places describe, for the most part were actual, not fictional and 3) the jews did have a culture and history that is pretty much consistent with the biblical account---not that everything in is accurate, but at least there is some historical and physical evidence of consequence that the bible describes things that actually happened. You can't call something a testament if there is nothing tangible to testify about.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Sep 27 2004, 06:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Sep 27 2004, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Sep 27 2004, 05:52 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Dravin@Sep 16 2004, 11:54 PM

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.

Al contrare--JS was used to being able to con people. Remember the money digging schemes? I guess he figured people were easy to con--he had done it before.

You are putting yourself way out on a limb.

If Joseph Smith was just doing it for the con (easy money), then he failed miserably, and if that was his drive, he would have quit while he was still somewhat ahead. I don't think con men are into getting tarred and feathered, and thrown into jail at regular intervals, and stick around for more. You gotta come up with a better story.

I think he may have come to believe his own con.

As to failing miserably, you have obviously not read his history. He ended up quite well off.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 27 2004, 06:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 27 2004, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 27 2004, 05:52 PM

Al contrare--JS was used to being able to con people. Remember the money digging schemes? I guess he figured people were easy to con--he had done it before.

Well Cal, who did Joseph Smith con is a money digging scheme. Got an actual victim?

Josiah Stowell who hired him had more confidence in Smith abilities than Smith did.

Now you are being coy. Why do you think Josiah Stowell had confidence in him? And your comment about Stowell having more confidence in JS than he had in himself is nothing but evidence that JS knew he was a fake! Though I think that he came to believe in his own cons.