Contradictions between The BoM and the Bible?

[Hemidakota]

I do possess an elementary understanding of the tenets of Mormonism, but I must admit that I don't know much about the Melchizedek priesthood. Please feel free to give me the cliff's notes version, or I could look it up some other time.

Are you saying that it was a temporary commandment? At some point in the future, it would have been ok to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?

Are you Catholic?

[Maxel]

Regarding the nature of original sin, and being born in sin:

Original sin:

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the "original sin." In other words, we are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden.

Original Sin - LDS.org

Even though all men die in that they are afflicted by spiritual and physical death because of Adam's transgression, we are not culpable for said transgression, as it was not us who committed that transgression.

Infant Baptism:

From latter-day revelation, we know that little children are redeemed through the mercy of Jesus Christ. The Lord said, "They cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me"

Baptism - LDS.org; under 'Additional Information'

Little children, because of their innocent and pure nature, are alive in Christ. Though they may behave badly, it is through ignorance and not willful rebellion against God. Sin requires knowledge of what is right before committing a wrong act; transgression is done through ignorance of consequences and done in innocence.

Remember the Lord's words to His apostles:

Matthew 19:14

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Maxel

[Hemidakota]

Adam and Eve did not sin in the Garden of Eden - they transgressed...

[Justice]

I'm not sure. The PoGP does show that she later realized, in retrospect, that what she had done was a necessary thing. But isn't Paul very clear that Eve was, in fact, deceived at the time she partook?

Yes.

I just wonder what she was deceived about, specifically.

I have no doubt her mother instincts were strong, and she desired to fulfill the first commandment.

I have theories about what she may have been deceived about. There's every reason to suspect it revolved around child birth, since her punishment was based on it.

[Hemidakota]

Justice, have you taken out your temple endowments?

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Psalm 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

So you believe little children go to hell if they die before being "saved" or baptized? I'm glad I don't worship the god you do.

[Hemidakota]

I wondering whom will the Holy Ghost be born too in the coming millennium...:)

[rameumptom]

Please forgive me for my careless algebra mistake. My point still stands though. if b=b, then b cannot equal not b.

The BoM states that the inhabitants of the New World, the descendants of Lehi, continued to follow the Law of Moses. This was before there was anything to supersede the Law. Yet, they were descendants of Manasseh. Since there were no descendants of Aaron or Levi among them, they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.

This is actually one of the evidences that the Book of Mormon was correct. Since the Book of Mormon, scholars have determined that the portions of the Torah that insist on only Levites working the temple were interpolated into the Bible by the Deuteronomistic Josian Reformers. Several groups attempted to revise the Bible to fit their world and political view. These latter groups (known as D and P) insisted that the people could only worship at the temple in Jerusalem, under the guidance of the Aaronic priests.

However, many scholars, including Richard Friedman and Margaret Barker, have shown that others also were at one time with power in the temple. They explain there were also descendants of Moses and others who had power within and without the temple. To consolidate their power, the priests of Aaron destroyed the altars to Jehovah that were scattered in the wilderness.

Jeremiah condemned the temple priests, partially on these grounds. He brought in the Rekhabites, who lived in the desert tending sheep, and did sacrifice at altars in the wilderness, as a true example of followers of God. Lehi fits into this category perfectly.

Paul also noted that there was a higher priesthood than that of Aaron. He spoke of the priesthood held by Melchizedek, which had Abraham paying tithes to the great king. And if Abraham, the great-grandfather of Levi, was paying tithes to a non-Israelite, then obviously there is a greater priesthood power (Hebrews 5-7). We believe Lehi and his family performed under this same priesthood power, as did the Rekhabites.

None of this information was available in 1829, when Joseph Smith translated the plates. Yet, later scholarship has brought about our seeing that he was correct.

[rameumptom]

No, I assume that Lehi and his progeny did not hold the Aaronic Priesthood, the one given by God to Aaron and his seed to serve as priests to His people. Please do not put words in my mouth.

If Nephi was in compliance with the fundamental points of the Law, then why were there multiple temples, when the Israelites were clearly instructed to have only one? Did God forsake Jerusalem as the city he chose for his Name to dwell in?

There are multiple fundamental aspects of the Law that are never once mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

# "laver" (15 times in Bible)

# "incense" (121 times in Bible)

# "ark of the covenant" (48 times in Bible)

# "sons of Aaron" (97 times in Bible)

# "mercy seat" (23 in Bible)

# "feast of tabernacles" (10 times in Bible)

# "passover" (59 times in Bible)

# "house of the LORD" (627 in Bible)

They didn't hold the Aaronic Priesthood, as it is a subset of the Melchizedek Priesthood, which holds all power to perform all ordinances. Jesus was able to be the chief high priest in the temple, according to Paul, making the ultimate sacrifice, because he held the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 5-7). So the Aaronic Priesthood is not necessary to perform the temple rites, as long as the individual has a higher authority.

You presume there was only one temple of the Jews, because that is what the Deuteronomist Reformers insisted on writing in the Bible. In reality, the Jews had several temples, including one at Elephantine, and one in Samaria, which Jesus visited when he spoke to the woman at the well.

The Tabernacle of Moses was also used as a holy site, equal to the temple, until the Josian Reformers tore it down along with all other altars to Jehovah. So, it is due to political wrangling by the temple priests that the Bible seems to only show one temple.

The Feast of Tabernacles, while not mentioned by name, does appear several times in the Book of Mormon. Jacob's teaching at the temple, King Benjamin's sermons at the temple (where the people set up tents, or tabernacles), and other like-events are all tied closely to the Feast of Tabernacles. It was anciently known as a Year Rite, and celebrated by many Middle Eastern nations (including Egypt), where the king would go before the people and explain how he had saved them from the demon gods around them. In this case, the kings of the Nephites pointed them toward Jesus Christ, and how they would be saved through His atonement. But every other ancient particular is well handled in this rite.

Margaret Barker (Methodist minister and OT scholar) states that the temple rite was seriously changed by the Josian Reformers, who removed many key teachings and rites from the ceremony. These include the Tree of Life, angelic ministrations, etc. While no longer followed, believed, or practiced in the Jerusalem Temple, all of these lost events are found in the Book of Mormon (see 1 Ne 8-15 for a clear example). So, it may be that the important things that were rejected by the Jews in their temple are exactly the things still emphasized in the Nephite temples. Why would Nephi emphasize a rite that was changed from the original, causing it to lose its true focus, when he had the original meanings? The temple's purpose is to prepare us to enter into God's presence through our own personal theophany. This was discarded by the Jews, who looked beyond the mark of the Messiah, and replaced by a system of rites that were condemned by Jeremiah, and also condemned by Jesus centuries later.

Edited February 13, 2009 by rameumptom

[rameumptom]

I don't mean to change the subject, but I want to mention something, so that I do not forget it later.

Alma 7:10 "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 conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

Matthew 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,"

The "land of Jerusalem" is a term found in the Dead Sea Scrolls in connection with the prophet Jeremiah, which meant the city and the lands round about it. This would have included Bethlehem, which was only 12 miles away. In Lehi's time, Judea was greatly reduced in size, due to the conquests of the Assyrians and Babylonians. All that was left in 587 BC was a small patch of land surrounding Jerusalem. Both Jeremiah and his associate, Lehi, would have used the same term, especially since most non-natives of the area would not have known the smaller towns in the area.

Once again, this actually becomes evidence of the Book of Mormon being true. People have been questioning this phrase since Joseph Smith's time, but the Dead Sea Scrolls were not discovered until 1947, and the fragment having the phrase "land of Jerusalem" was not made public until the 1990s!! See Jeff Linday's article on it.

[rameumptom]

The Holy Ghost was bestowed on the Christians at the time of Pentecost.

Luke 24:49 "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father unto you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

Acts 2:1-4 " 1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. "

Yet the Book of Mormon claims that people received the gift of the Holy Ghost as early as 545 B.C.

2 Nephi 31:12-13 "And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father agive the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, bfollow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel."

During Jesus' ministry He spoke of His church as something in the future.

Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

However, the Book of Mormon claims the Christian church was established as early as 147 B.C.

Mosiah 18:17 "And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward."

We are talking about two separate places in the world, which did not have contact one with the other. The Jews were not even aware that there was another continent with people on it. Do you not think that God can send prophets to more than one place? Were there not prophets anciently in both the lands of Israel and Judah? Did God not speak through Balaam, who wasn't even an Israelite? I recommend you get to actually know the Bible, as you do not seem to know much more than what you are finding at some anti-Mormon site (and a poor one at that!). Study what the modern scholars say about the Bible, as your pastor seems to be rather ignorant of what it teaches and means.

Do you think that Moses didn't know about the Messiah? Or Isaiah? Since Isaiah prophecied of Christ's birth and life, would he be considered a Christian?

Did you know that the Essenes, the people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, were practicing baptism over a century before Christ's birth? Many scholars believe John the Baptist learned his role by growing up with them. Did you know they also practiced a holy supper of bread and wine, in honor of the coming Messiah? Doesn't that sound almost like a Christian thing to do? Father De Vaux, a leading Dead Sea Scroll scholar stated once that if he had to give the Community of Qumran a name they called themselves, it would be "Latter day saints", but he noted that name was already taken by the Mormons!

[Maxel]

After researching and learning about these 'contradictions' in the past, I long ago came to the conclusion that there are really no contradictions, and all seemingly contradictory areas between the BoM and the Bible ultimately prove as witnesses of the truth of the BoM instead of the falsity of it.

I think there's a reason most secular scholars haven't touched the BoM yet- it's full of historical truth, yet its origins lead one to accept one of two possibilities: it was inspired of God, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, how is there so much accuracy in it?

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Dymmesdale

I have prayed about and studied these things. I also believe that a burning in my bosom is more likely to be indigestion than divine assurance

Alas, if this were true, then we'd have to reject the witness of Christ. After his resurrection, when Jesus walked with the two men on the road to Emmaus, then disappeared after showing himself to them, they asked each other,

"30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? " (Luke 24).

So, if it is indigestion today, then it must have been bad bread and meat in their supper with Christ, too. You can't have it both ways. Either it works as it did anciently, or it never is true.

Please quit getting your stuff from anti-Mormon sites, as this is the only way you could have come up with all these issues without realizing that they have been already dealt with.

By now, you should realize that our explanations show that Joseph Smith knew what he was writing about. Either he was a genius, who had access to ancient records no one else did (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls), or he was inspired of God. For you to continue ignoring the answers given, just so you can continue throwing anti-LDS stuff at the list, in hopes that your shotgun blast will hit something, just won't work. All of these issues have been dealt with. And of the issues modern researchers have, there are evidences, as well. The key is that if we wait long enough, evidence comes up that demonstrates again and again that the Book of Mormon is correct.

And as with the men on the road to Emmaus, my heart has burned with a testimony of Jesus Christ and his Restored Gospel through modern prophets. I hope you will humbly consider that witness and actually READ the Book of Mormon (which I'm convinced you haven't done, otherwise you would see it does agree with the Bible) with a sincere heart and real intent. Otherwise, I fear that insincere people as yourself will one day stand before God having to answer for refusing to consider His modern revelations through modern prophets.

[Just_A_Guy]

I do possess an elementary understanding of the tenets of Mormonism, but I must admit that I don't know much about the Melchizedek priesthood. Please feel free to give me the cliff's notes version, or I could look it up some other time.

In short, Mormonism teaches that there are two orders of priesthood: the Aaronic, or Levitical priesthood; and the Melchizedek, or "higher" priesthood. (Paul hints at these in the book of Hebrews, though as I've said earlier we don't look exclusively to the Bible to justify our position here.)

The Law of Moses was administered under the Aaronic Priesthood only. However--and here's the sticking point--the Melchizedek Priesthood encompasses all of the authority and rights of the Aaronic Priesthood. Any ordinance that may be performed by a member of the Aaronic Priesthood may also be performed by a member of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Joseph Smith taught that while the Melchizedek Priesthood was not widely held in Mosaic times, most of the major prophets did hold it. Lehi (the Book of Mormon patriarch) could have gotten it by the hand of Jeremiah (his contemporary in Jerusalem), or by some other means of which we know nothing.

Thus, while Nephi may not have been entitled to officiate in temple ordinance by virtue of the Aaronic priesthood (which he could theoretically not get because of his lineage, though I note Rameumptom's argument to the contrary), it would have been a moot point because his father more than likely ordained him to the Melchizedek Priesthood which gave him the same--indeed, more--authority.

Are you saying that it was a temporary commandment? At some point in the future, it would have been ok to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?

I believe so, yes. My opinion is that Adam's transgression was not partaking of the fruit per se, but partaking of it before the appointed time to do so had arrived.

[Islander]

I think Dymmesdale has been reading in the other sites. Her questions are not that of one with only "basic understanding of the tenements of Mormonism" as she claimed.

[Elgama]

I just don't see why we need to reconcile differences between Book of Mormon and Bible isn't that what President Monson is for? to provide clear direction and an Iron Rod by which to study the scriptures with? Surely only Non LDS need to reconcile the differences in which case what is the point?

-Charley

[Dymmesdale]

Knowing the outcome of King David, I would go with Prophet Moroni since David was clearly wrong. We are not BORN INTO SIN nor any children are accounted for until that year of accountability. Now, one man is hell awaiting for judgment and the other is already resurrected. Hmm...which is right?

As I read the other misinterpreted references, I won't bother since this may cause a SPARK that would be hard to put out.

The outcome of King David was that he was a successful and godly king. I assume you are referring to his sin with bathsheba and her husband. If any of you are guiltless, let him throw the first stone. David was called a man after God's own heart.

Are you Catholic?

I am Anglican.

Regarding the nature of original sin, and being born in sin:

Original sin:

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the "original sin." In other words, we are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden.

Original Sin - LDS.org

Even though all men die in that they are afflicted by spiritual and physical death because of Adam's transgression, we are not culpable for said transgression, as it was not us who committed that transgression.

Infant Baptism:

From latter-day revelation, we know that little children are redeemed through the mercy of Jesus Christ. The Lord said, "They cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me"

Baptism - LDS.org; under 'Additional Information'

Little children, because of their innocent and pure nature, are alive in Christ. Though they may behave badly, it is through ignorance and not willful rebellion against God. Sin requires knowledge of what is right before committing a wrong act; transgression is done through ignorance of consequences and done in innocence.

I agree wholly with your statement about original sin. We are not accountable for the discrete sin Adam committed in the garden, but as a result of that sin, we are slaves to sin and death, being thus sinful in nature. There are numerous scriptures that spell this out very clearly. I can provide a few if you would like.

As for infant baptism, I believe that we are sinful at birth, and should receive the sacrament of Baptism for the remission of sins.

Adam and Eve did not sin in the Garden of Eden - they transgressed...

What is the difference between sin and transgression?

Yes.

I just wonder what she was deceived about, specifically.

I have no doubt her mother instincts were strong, and she desired to fulfill the first commandment.

I have theories about what she may have been deceived about. There's every reason to suspect it revolved around child birth, since her punishment was based on it.

She was deceived by the serpent. The serpent told her that if she ate the fruit, she would not suffer any consequences, but that God was guarding the knowledge of good and evil like a dragon guards its treasure. She believed the serpent, and was deceived.

So you believe little children go to hell if they die before being "saved" or baptized? I'm glad I don't worship the god you do.

I believe that if a child dies before it is baptized, God will see that there are extenuating circumstances, and by His grace, and His prerogative, does not send them to Hell. And even if He does, who are we to judge God? It's not like we really deserve anything else in the first place. He is jjust, and he is almighty. I also happen to believe that he is merciful and full of grace.

We are talking about two separate places in the world, which did not have contact one with the other. The Jews were not even aware that there was another continent with people on it. Do you not think that God can send prophets to more than one place? Were there not prophets anciently in both the lands of Israel and Judah? Did God not speak through Balaam, who wasn't even an Israelite? I recommend you get to actually know the Bible, as you do not seem to know much more than what you are finding at some anti-Mormon site (and a poor one at that!). Study what the modern scholars say about the Bible, as your pastor seems to be rather ignorant of what it teaches and means.

Do you think that Moses didn't know about the Messiah? Or Isaiah? Since Isaiah prophecied of Christ's birth and life, would he be considered a Christian?

Did you know that the Essenes, the people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, were practicing baptism over a century before Christ's birth? Many scholars believe John the Baptist learned his role by growing up with them. Did you know they also practiced a holy supper of bread and wine, in honor of the coming Messiah? Doesn't that sound almost like a Christian thing to do? Father De Vaux, a leading Dead Sea Scroll scholar stated once that if he had to give the Community of Qumran a name they called themselves, it would be "Latter day saints", but he noted that name was already taken by the Mormons!

Surely the prophets knew about the messiah, but they worshipped without the knowledge of him that we have today. Christ came to fulfill those prophecies and set up a new church, built on himself as the foundation. One cannot accurately say that the prophets were members of Christ's Church, since he set it up himself, designating Peter, and the succession of apostles to carry it out.

I have read the Bible, and I think I am pretty familiar wih it. Do you know my pastor? I haven't said anything about him, and I don't think it's fair for you to judge his knowledge and training if you know nothing about him.

I just don't see why we need to reconcile differences between Book of Mormon and Bible isn't that what President Monson is for? to provide clear direction and an Iron Rod by which to study the scriptures with? Surely only Non LDS need to reconcile the differences in which case what is the point?

-Charley

I ask Mormons to explain to me how the differences are reconciled because you have a better understanding of the BoM than I do, and I don't know how they are reconciled with my own knowledge.

Many people in this thread have brought up the historical veracity of the Book of Mormon, even from a secular point of view. If we want to get into that topic, I have some questions about that too, but I will keep them to myself if the consensus is that they would only lead to more personal attacks and wouldn't be useful to further my understanding.

Oh, and by the way I am a he, not a she.

EDIT: fixed a typo.

[cjmaldrich]

Surely the prophets knew about the messiah, but they worshipped without the knowledge of him that we have today. Christ came to fulfill those prophecies and set up a new church, built on himself as the foundation. One cannot accurately say that the prophets were members of Christ's Church, since he set it up himself, designating Peter, and the succession of apostles to carry it out.

I would like to say some things about the first part, but I have to leave before I'd have a chance to type up a decent argument...

But as for the second part (which I've italicized and bolded), though this is off of the original subject, I ask you in what ways are the church of the New Testament different from the Old Testament? The main difference that I can see is that we no longer are commanded to perform live animal sacrifices. It seems that just about everything else Christ did was correcting the doctrines which had become corrupted by the Pharisees and Sadducees. I'm suggesting that there is little difference between the church that Christ "set up" and the one that Moses "set up." To me, Christianity (as Christ taught, not as is currently accepted) is little more than modified Judaism. The huge differences as we see them now didn't come up until after the Apostles were all dead and the doctrines became corrupted again by the Catholics, Protestants, and the various sects that came from those two. Hence the need of a restoration through Joseph Smith.

[Elgama]

I ask Mormons to explain to me how the differences are reconciled because you have a better understanding of the BoM than I do, and I don't know how they are reconciled with my own knowledge.

I am not sure the differences can always be reconciled or as a Latter Day Saint its necessary for that to happen, Often it requires more than the basic knowledge required to get back home. So it could be possible for them never to be reconciled in your own knowledge. or even in mine.

A lot of being a Latter Day Saint requires personal study, revelation and listening to the current prophet for understanding, and there is room for one Latter Day Saint to have one view and another to have a completely different view we are all learning of God and are at different stages,.

The same will go for the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon, when you know its right because that revelation is from God, the historical basis is second to the spiritual one. I know I for one find the only really convincing one is the box that Joseph Smith found the plates in, he certainly found and described the first of its kind to be discovered.

-Charley

[Islander]

I had tried to make this point elsewhere on another thread. Revelation is the only way to reconcile what appears to be "differences" in terms of doctrine or theology.

Acts 15 is the perfect example. There was a "discrepancy" among the disciples about whether one needed to be a Jew to become a Christian. Even Peter (the chief Apostle, mind you) got caught up in a controversy about eating and then not eating with gentiles. The issues was resolved with revelation. New doctrine emerged from that meeting. It seems inconsequential to us and completely transparent today what needed to happen but it was not so then and it did caused controversy.

Those who oppose revelation do so in order to protect their own theological and theocratic position. By far, the Christians of 1-2 century AD were persecuted by the Jews, the Sanhedrin as well as other local religious leaders. They were obviously protecting their position.

[Dymmesdale]

I am not sure the differences can always be reconciled or as a Latter Day Saint its necessary for that to happen, Often it requires more than the basic knowledge required to get back home. So it could be possible for them never to be reconciled in your own knowledge. or even in mine.

A lot of being a Latter Day Saint requires personal study, revelation and listening to the current prophet for understanding, and there is room for one Latter Day Saint to have one view and another to have a completely different view we are all learning of God and are at different stages,.

The same will go for the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon, when you know its right because that revelation is from God, the historical basis is second to the spiritual one. I know I for one find the only really convincing one is the box that Joseph Smith found the plates in, he certainly found and described the first of its kind to be discovered.

-Charley

The reason that I think it's necessary for the BoM to agree with the Bible for them to both be true is that God does not lie. He doesn't make mistakes. He is never factually wrong. If the BoM is inspired, then everything in it should be factually correct.

[Islander]

The reason that I think it's necessary for the BoM to agree with the Bible for them to both be true is that God does not lie. He doesn't make mistakes. He is never factually wrong. If the BoM is inspired, then everything in it should be factually correct.

But here you are assuming there are no factual errors in the bible. It is a man-reproduced book that has gone thru hundreds of iterations across 4000 years. There are inaccuracies, names misspelled, geographical mistakes and time line errors. That was not the work of God. It was the hand of man. Many times a certain account is recollected from tradition and oral history a hundred years after the fact. Such inconsistencies are unavoidable. We continue to hold that the bible is the word of God to his servants inspired and faithfully written down to the best of their abilities.

The doctrine in the Book of Mormon is pristine, correct, accurate and un-deviated from the Gospel of Christ. In fact, there is no text under the sun with a witness of Christ presented with the clarity, exactness, precision and contentedness of the Book of Mormon. Why we needed the Christ, how He would come and where; what His ministry would be like and how he would die and be resurrected is never depicted anywhere with the precision of the Book of Mormon, even 600 years before the facts. After you read it you may not agree with what it says but there would be no question that it is a Christ centered testimony and that His role is critical to mankind. The saints of antiquity did not have such a great advantage.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Islander

[Cydonia]

The phrase "be fruitful and multiply" keeps getting thrown around as synonymous with "reproduce."

But what is that phrase actually a translation of? What were the original words? (I'm really just curious, not trying to prove any point about anything.)

[pam]

The phrase be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth was the first commandment given to Adam and Eve.

Cyndonia there is a talk given by one of our past Prophets Spencer W. Kimball on the plan for men and women that brings up this phrase.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Lord’s Plan for Men and Women

[Janice]

Dymmesdale,

I am confused as to your motives in this thread. What are you hoping to accomplish? Do you want us all to say, "Wow. Thanks. I never realized how wrong the Book of Mormon is. Sure is a good thing you came along so we can all stop living in ignorance."

What is it you want from us?

While you are doing your Google searches, perhaps you could do one on contradictions within the Bible itself, and start a new thread with all of the flaws that exist in the Bible.

You can keep going with this current angle if you want... pointing out more of your perceived problems with the Book of Mormon, but in case you have not yet noticed, nobody here seems to be biting.

Janice