Plain And Precious Truths?

[Jason]

OK. First of all, thanks to the Mod team for removing my "moderated" status. Makes things much easier for me.

Now on to the purpose of this thread. What teaching has the Book of Mormon specifically restored that was not in the Bible? And how is this a plain and precious truth of the Gospel of Christ?

Thanks.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

A couple of thoughts off the top of my head:

1. The nature of the Trinity. The Bible is actually much more vague than the Book of Mormon on the question of whether Christ is actually God Incarnate, and how the members of the Godhead are one God. (Although Joseph Smith promptly confused everyone again with the Book of Abraham and King Follett discourse.)

2. The idea that the Christian gospel was known in detail among prophet-led Hebraic communities before the advent of Christ. The Book of Mormon contains accounts of prophets teaching the gospel of Christ with great specificity during the pre-Christian era, even going so far as to anticipate specific phrases from the writings of Paul. If the Book of Mormon is truly an ancient record, this indicates that Paul was drawing on a body of Hebrew Messianic literature that pre-dated Lehi's departure from Jerusalem in about 600 BC, which was lost in later versions of the Bible.

[Setheus]

All of our relationship to God and eachother. In the Bible Satan is refered to as only an angel who fell. In the Book Of Mormon we are reminded that he is a fellow child of God and this is a fact that many find hard to accept.

In the Book of Mormon we discover who the "other sheep" were.

The Book of Mormon and Bible wittness for each other. Something no one thing can do for itself.

and many more plain and simple truths

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 12:32 PM

OK. First of all, thanks to the Mod team for removing my "moderated" status. Makes things much easier for me.

Now on to the purpose of this thread. What teaching has the Book of Mormon specifically restored that was not in the Bible? And how is this a plain and precious truth of the Gospel of Christ?

Thanks.

That Jesus is the Mediator between all mankind and the Father. That he did all things in the name of the Father but that he is not as great as the father. Not just in the NT but the Old Testament as well. In other words man really did fall and is in need of a redeamer - For all men including the time of the Old Testament.

There was Baptism prior to the era of Jesus.

All men have fallen and Jesus is the only way, truth and the light.

Also that there are scriptures not included in the Bible.

That man does not have authority to create a Bible or say that the Bible contains all the word of G-d.

That scripture is secondary authority to servents called of G-d.

That the Anti Christ will critisize the real followers of Christ (servants called of G-d) - saying they are not Christian based on doctrine and not on their fruits(woops this is in the Bible) Sorry.

The Traveler

[Jason]

1. The nature of the Trinity. The Bible is actually much more vague than the Book of Mormon on the question of whether Christ is actually God Incarnate, and how the members of the Godhead are one God. (Although Joseph Smith promptly confused everyone again with the Book of Abraham and King Follett discourse.)

Ignoring the BoA (Who want's to explore that one?), when you have a chance, could you provide me with specific ref's that you feel support this?

2. The idea that the Christian gospel was known in detail among prophet-led Hebraic communities before the advent of Christ.

Is that unique to the BoM???

The Book of Mormon contains accounts of prophets teaching the gospel of Christ with great specificity during the pre-Christian era, even going so far as to anticipate specific phrases from the writings of Paul. If the Book of Mormon is truly an ancient record, this indicates that Paul was drawing on a body of Hebrew Messianic literature that pre-dated Lehi's departure from Jerusalem in about 600 BC, which was lost in later versions of the Bible.

Or it indicates that someone had already read Paul, and just copied his words...

Seriously though, Im not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that Paul's writings (unique as they are) were drawn from a Jewish body of liturature that the other Apostles were not aware of? And which ones specifically?

Thanks PD.

[Jason]

All of our relationship to God and eachother. In the Bible Satan is refered to as only an angel who fell. In the Book Of Mormon we are reminded that he is a fellow child of God and this is a fact that many find hard to accept.

Source please. As for Child of God, is there anything in the BoM that teaches that we are the literal offspring of God the Father?

In the Book of Mormon we discover who the "other sheep" were.

Well, even if the Other Sheep are not the Gentiles of the Roman Empire, Im not sure why you consider this as one of the "plain and precious" truths of the Gospel. Sure, it's possibly a neat thing to learn about, but how does this affect anyone's salvation? (Know what Im getting at here?)

The Book of Mormon and Bible wittness for each other. Something no one thing can do for itself.

I realize that Joseph Smith grew up with a Protestant background, but then as now, only a minority of Christians disavowed the Fathers as a secondary witness to the Holy Scriptures.

and many more plain and simple truths

Like?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Trav,

That Jesus is the Mediator between all mankind and the Father. That he did all things in the name of the Father but that he is not as great as the father.

Interesting. What's the Book of Mormon reference for this concept? And how do you reconcile that with Phillipians 2:6, in which Jesus is said to have considered himself equal with God?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ex (or "Ox", for "orthodox") --

When I have some more time, I'll post a quick list of Trinitarian Book of Mormon passages.

Or it indicates that someone had already read Paul, and just copied his words... 

Seriously though, Im not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that Paul's writings (unique as they are) were drawn from a Jewish body of liturature that the other Apostles were not aware of? And which ones specifically?

As I see it, there are three (maybe four) possibilities for how the Pauline material got into the Book of Mormon. The first is the one you mentioned -- Joseph Smith just plagiarized Paul. The second is that the Book of Mormon prophets actually did write the Pauline material, having had those precise words revealed to them centuries before Paul had them revealed to him. The third is that the Book of Mormon prophets were quoting passages they had taken with them to the New World, which remained in circulation among the Hebrews long enough for Paul to be familiar with them and quote them as well, but which disappeared from history shortly afterwards. That is, Paul and Mosiah, Nephi, etc. were all quoting from an ancient common source, kind of like the Evangelists are thought by higher-criticism scholars to have quoted from the lost "Q" document which predated all four Gospels.

The fourth possibility is that the process by which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon left a lot of the actual word choice to Joseph -- that is, the general message on the gold plates would be revealed to him, but not the actual language. When conveying the general Christian concepts revealed to him in his own language, he naturally turned to the expressions of those concepts with which he was already familiar because of his study of the Bible.

[Jason]

That Jesus is the Mediator between all mankind and the Father. That he did all things in the name of the Father but that he is not as great as the father. Not just in the NT but the Old Testament as well. In other words man really did fall and is in need of a redeamer - For all men including the time of the Old Testament.

I would like your BoM sources for the "Jesus is not as great as the Father" statement.

There was Baptism prior to the era of Jesus.

How is this a plain and precious truth? How does this add/amplify/diminish the gospel?

All men have fallen and Jesus is the only way, truth and the light.

That's in the Bible, Traveler. Im asking for something pertinent to the Gospel that's only in the BoM.

Also that there are scriptures not included in the Bible.

The Bible quotes several lost letters of Paul. And obviously there are things missing from the Original Apostles. But, as an Orthodox Christian, we accept the words of the Church Fathers as scripture equal to the words of the Original Apostles. Our Bishops, as successors to the Apostles, carry all the authority that Christ originally gave to them. Hence they have the authority to bind and loose, to direct the Church with His authority, etc.

That man does not have authority to create a Bible or say that the Bible contains all the word of G-d.

The Church does have the authority to determine which letters of the Apostles are true, and which are not true. Hence, establishing a canon (or rule) to determine the true from the false. The Orthodox Church has only closed the Canon on the New Testament. The Old Testament Canon is not fixed even to this day! As for the NT, closing it does not imply (as some RCC and Protestants unfortunately believe) that revelation from Christ has ceased. On the contrary, Orthodox teach that the Church Fathers continue to receive revelation and guide the actions of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

That scripture is secondary authority to servents called of G-d.

Your BoM source please? (As an aside, Orthodoxy places all (bible, tradition, authority) on the same level. There is no hierarchy seen here.)

That the Anti Christ will critisize the real followers of Christ (servants called of G-d) - saying they are not Christian based on doctrine and not on their fruits(woops this is in the Bible) Sorry.

BoM specific teachings please.

[Jason]

While not specifically dealing with the OP, I'd like to indulge just this once your comments:

As I see it, there are three (maybe four) possibilities for how the Pauline material got into the Book of Mormon. The first is the one you mentioned -- Joseph Smith just plagiarized Paul. The second is that the Book of Mormon prophets actually did write the Pauline material, having had those precise words revealed to them centuries before Paul had them revealed to him. The third is that the Book of Mormon prophets were quoting passages they had taken with them to the New World, which remained in circulation among the Hebrews long enough for Paul to be familiar with them and quote them as well, but which disappeared from history shortly afterwards. That is, Paul and Mosiah, Nephi, etc. were all quoting from an ancient common source, kind of like the Evangelists are thought by higher-criticism scholars to have quoted from the lost "Q" document which predated all four Gospels.

The fourth possibility is that the process by which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon left a lot of the actual word choice to Joseph -- that is, the general message on the gold plates would be revealed to him, but not the actual language. When conveying the general Christian concepts revealed to him in his own language, he naturally turned to the expressions of those concepts with which he was already familiar because of his study of the Bible.

I'd say that the first and fourth possibilities are most likely. The Second is not impossible to accept, but the Third is highly unlikely. My reasons for this are that it doesn't seem likely that Paul alone would have access to this body of literature, and that we should see at least some resemblence of the Pauline literature in the writings of other contemporary authors (Christian or Jewish) which are absent.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 03:25 PM

There was Baptism prior to the era of Jesus.

How is this a plain and precious truth? How does this add/amplify/diminish the gospel?

You can argue if you like about the importance of Baptism. That you do not accept it as a precious truth is fine with me but Jesus was baptized - meaning he considered it precious. The importance of baptism as true principal is lost in the OT giving many Christians the impression that is is not necessary or that it does not matter who performs the baptism or how it is done. The fact that the vast array of Christias do not agree about the importance indicates how lost the truth is. Christians cannot even agree one the proper way to perform baptisms. Because of all the confusion from the Bible I can understand why you ask the question you do. It this truth was clear in the Bible there would not be any arguments about Baptism, but in case you have not noticed this particular doctrine caused a lot of Christians to treat other Christians in a very non-Christian manner during the 1600's.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 03:25 PM

All men have fallen and Jesus is the only way, truth and the light.

That's in the Bible, Traveler. Im asking for something pertinent to the Gospel that's only in the BoM.

I am glad you agree that Jesus is the only way - perhaps you would demonstrate how Moses received commandments from G-d without Jesus as the Mediator and the only way for such things. If he is the only way as you say - Why did not Moses recognize Jesus? It is because this important truth is missing.

The Traveler

[Jason]

You can argue if you like about the importance of Baptism.

I wasn't presenting an argument about the importance of baptism. I was asking how believing in baptism prior to the Christian era somehow is a plain and precious truth lost to humanity. The remainder of your post is wholly irrelevent to this discussion.

[Jason]

I am glad you agree that Jesus is the only way - perhaps you would demonstrate how Moses received commandments from G-d without Jesus as the Mediator and the only way for such things. If he is the only way as you say - Why did not Moses recognize Jesus? It is because this important truth is missing.

Traveller,

You still have yet to answer any of the questions I've requested of you. If you have no answer, then please just say so and the rest of us can move on with the discussion. Bringing up irrelevant topics does nothing to support anything you've claimed thus far.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 03:32 PM

While not specifically dealing with the OP, I'd like to indulge just this once your comments:

As I see it, there are three (maybe four) possibilities for how the Pauline material got into the Book of Mormon. The first is the one you mentioned -- Joseph Smith just plagiarized Paul. The second is that the Book of Mormon prophets actually did write the Pauline material, having had those precise words revealed to them centuries before Paul had them revealed to him. The third is that the Book of Mormon prophets were quoting passages they had taken with them to the New World, which remained in circulation among the Hebrews long enough for Paul to be familiar with them and quote them as well, but which disappeared from history shortly afterwards. That is, Paul and Mosiah, Nephi, etc. were all quoting from an ancient common source, kind of like the Evangelists are thought by higher-criticism scholars to have quoted from the lost "Q" document which predated all four Gospels.

The fourth possibility is that the process by which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon left a lot of the actual word choice to Joseph -- that is, the general message on the gold plates would be revealed to him, but not the actual language. When conveying the general Christian concepts revealed to him in his own language, he naturally turned to the expressions of those concepts with which he was already familiar because of his study of the Bible.

I'd say that the first and fourth possibilities are most likely. The Second is not impossible to accept, but the Third is highly unlikely. My reasons for this are that it doesn't seem likely that Paul alone would have access to this body of literature, and that we should see at least some resemblence of the Pauline literature in the writings of other contemporary authors (Christian or Jewish) which are absent.

Yes, I've never been all that impressed with argument no. 3. The early Christian writers went to great lengths to find references to Christ in Old Testament writings, sometimes finding a Messianic subtext in passages from Isaiah that are highly ambiguous, to say the least, and in a couple of cases seem very unlikely to be referring to Christ at all. If the original Hebrew canon contained references to Christ as explicit as those found in the Book of Mormon, the writers of the Gospels probably wouldn't have needed to go fishing around in Isaiah and Psalms for language to cram into the Messianic mold.

I mean, compare that vague Isaiah language about a young woman/virgin (it's not clear which one is meant) conceiving and bearing a son, vs. the Book of Mormon's specific prophesies about the birth of Christ, including details right down to Mary's name and skin tone. If the Gospel writers had had such detailed prophesies available, they'd have shouted them from the rooftops.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 03:25 PM

That man does not have authority to create a Bible or say that the Bible contains all the word of G-d.

The Church does have the authority to determine which letters of the Apostles are true, and which are not true. Hence, establishing a canon (or rule) to determine the true from the false. The Orthodox Church has only closed the Canon on the New Testament. The Old Testament Canon is not fixed even to this day! As for the NT, closing it does not imply (as some RCC and Protestants unfortunately believe) that revelation from Christ has ceased. On the contrary, Orthodox teach that the Church Fathers continue to receive revelation and guide the actions of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

.

If the Chruch has the authority as you say and that truth is in the Bible then I missed it. I do not see where in the Bible is says authority is given to determine what scriptures belong to a Bible. I find nothing in the Bible that indicates authority to create or define a connon. In fact, if I remember there is scripture that says - Man is to live by every word that comes from G-d - not by every word that comes from a church.

We were talking about truths that are not in the Bible - right?

Let me get this stright - in your church the authority of what is scripture comes from the men of the church. Does the existance of you church not come from authority of the word of G-d? You do realize the circular noncense of caliming that each exist from the authority of the other?

[Snow]

Jason,

You were so much less disputatious as a potential Roman Catholic.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 04:25 PM

You can argue if you like about the importance of Baptism.

I wasn't presenting an argument about the importance of baptism. I was asking how believing in baptism prior to the Christian era somehow is a plain and precious truth lost to humanity. The remainder of your post is wholly irrelevent to this discussion.

Is baptism a doctrine prior to the time of Christ? I see this as revelant and you deny that such baptisms existed. Is any thing that happened before the birth of Christ inportant or not. Why do you have a NT.

I really do not want to argue just point out that there are things that are true and important that are not in the Bible. If Baptism is true and important the only question is if it is missing from the Bible prior the Christ. This ball is in our court. Did it exist or not?

The Traveler

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 04:25 PM

You can argue if you like about the importance of Baptism.

I wasn't presenting an argument about the importance of baptism. I was asking how believing in baptism prior to the Christian era somehow is a plain and precious truth lost to humanity. The remainder of your post is wholly irrelevent to this discussion.

I think the LDS belief of baptism being practiced before Christ is considered important because it is in agreement with the LDS belief that the "fullness" of the gospel was introduced in Adamic times. LDS doctrine teaches that humanity lapsed into varying degrees of apostasy throughout human history.

[Jason]

Yes, I've never been all that impressed with argument no. 3. The early Christian writers went to great lengths to find references to Christ in Old Testament writings, sometimes finding a Messianic subtext in passages from Isaiah that are highly ambiguous, to say the least, and in a couple of cases seem very unlikely to be referring to Christ at all. If the original Hebrew canon contained references to Christ as explicit as those found in the Book of Mormon, the writers of the Gospels probably wouldn't have needed to go fishing around in Isaiah and Psalms for language to cram into the Messianic mold.

I mean, compare that vague Isaiah language about a young woman/virgin (it's not clear which one is meant) conceiving and bearing a son, vs. the Book of Mormon's specific prophesies about the birth of Christ, including details right down to Mary's name and skin tone. If the Gospel writers had had such detailed prophesies available, they'd have shouted them from the rooftops. 

I agree about the Gospel writers.

As for the Isaiah reference, it is my understanding that the Septuagent version (the only official version of the Orthodox Church) does use "virgin" as opposed to the Masoretic texts used by the KJV which says "young woman".

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 04:27 PM

I am glad you agree that Jesus is the only way - perhaps you would demonstrate how Moses received commandments from G-d without Jesus as the Mediator and the only way for such things. If he is the only way as you say - Why did not Moses recognize Jesus? It is because this important truth is missing.

Traveller,

You still have yet to answer any of the questions I've requested of you. If you have no answer, then please just say so and the rest of us can move on with the discussion. Bringing up irrelevant topics does nothing to support anything you've claimed thus far.

Come on my friend - you asked for things missing in the Bible - I have responded that Jesus is the only way - including for Prophets in the Old Testament.

If Jesus is the only way why is it that no prophet in the Old Testament recognizes Jesus. The Book of Mormon indicates that all the prophets - encluding those of the Old Testament testified of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon testified of Jesus by name prior to his birth. Do you claim that no Prophet of the Old Testament knew of Jesus and his importance to man?

This is a truth missing from the Old Testament which is part of the Bible - now you must agree that it is missing - provide a Old Testament reference or admit that Jesus really is not important to everybody. You tell me - Which is it???

The Traveler

[Jason]

If the Chruch has the authority as you say and that truth is in the Bible then I missed it.

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (St. Matthew 16:19)

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (St. John 14:26)

Through Christ's authority, and the Holy Spirit's guidance, the Church can make authoritative decisions on what is part of the Gospel, and what is not.

I believe that your church does the same thing, Traveller.

In fact, if I remember there is scripture that says - Man is to live by every word that comes from G-d - not by every word that comes from a church.

Well, Traveller, Orthodox believe that the Bible is the word of God. And the last time I checked, most Mormons believe that as well.

We were talking about truths that are not in the Bible - right?

Yep. But let me clearly state that there is no truth that is not in the Bible.

Let me get this stright - in your church the authority of what is scripture comes from the men of the church.

As inspired by the Holy Spirit and empowered by Christ the Son.

  Does the existance of you church not come from authority of the word of G-d?

The Authority comes from God through the Son and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

You do realize the circular noncense of caliming that each exist from the authority of the other? 

I don't believe I said that. I stated that Orthodox do not place Scripture above Tradition (eg Church Fathers). They are equal. That's not circular reasoning.

[Jason]

Is baptism a doctrine prior to the time of Christ?

Certainly before his Ministry began. But you still haven't answered the question: Is baptism before Christ a "plain and precious" truth?

I see this as revelant and you deny that such baptisms existed.

No I don't. I don't see it as relavent, and you haven't proven it so at this point.

  Is any thing that happened before the birth of Christ inportant or not. Why do you have a NT.

Everything is important. But are the sacrifices of Solomon's temple a "plain and precious" Christian truth that is necessary for a man to get closer to God? That's the question I want you to answer. If Im a Christian living in 3rd century siberia, and I'll I know is Christ, will not knowing Solomon somehow keep me from Him?

I really do not want to argue just point out that there are things that are true and important that are not in the Bible. If Baptism is true and important the only question is if it is missing from the Bible prior the Christ. This ball is in our court. Did it exist or not?

It doesn't matter if it existed or not. We know from the Bible that it's is incumbent on all Christians to be baptised. That is truth. That's all we need to know.

Do you understand what Im telling you?

[Jason]

I think the LDS belief of baptism being practiced before Christ is considered important because it is in agreement with the LDS belief that the "fullness" of the gospel was introduced in Adamic times. LDS doctrine teaches that humanity lapsed into varying degrees of apostasy throughout human history.

I see your point, but what does it have to do with a "plain and precious" truth of the Gospel? We know, as I just explained to Traveller, that Baptism is necessary from the words of Christ. It is a truth found in the Bible. What can knowing whether or not it was done by Adam add to the already known Gospel?

Does anybody get what Im saying here? Baptism is a teaching found in the Holy Bible. The Book of Mormon has not added anything to that knowlege. Therefore it has not contributed to the understanding of the Gospel as preached by Christianity for 2000 years.

[Jason]

Come on my friend - you asked for things missing in the Bible - I have responded that Jesus is the only way - including for Prophets in the Old Testament.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (St John 14:6)

In case you didn't notice, the "Gospel of St. John" is in the Bible. What part of that is missing?

If Jesus is the only way why is it that no prophet in the Old Testament recognizes Jesus. The Book of Mormon indicates that all the prophets - encluding those of the Old Testament testified of Jesus Christ.

Ever heard of Isaiah? You don't think that he's just a BoM writer, right?

The Book of Mormon testified of Jesus by name prior to his birth.

No, the Book of Mormon called Him by his Greek name, Jesus. His Aramiac name (Eashoa') was not mentioned. It is not my purpose with this thread to explore that problem with the BoM.

Do you claim that no Prophet of the Old Testament knew of Jesus and his importance to man?

Nope. And to my knowledge, no Christian of any sect makes such a claim.

This is a truth missing from the Old Testament which is part of the Bible - now you must agree that it is missing - provide a Old Testament reference or admit that Jesus really is not important to everybody. You tell me - Which is it???

Okay:

"But the LORD will still give you proof. A virgin is pregnant; she will have a son and will name him immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)