Plain And Precious Truths?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 05:18 PM

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.

#1 Peter had the keys - if those keys of the kingdom had remained so would have the Kingdom. The Orthodox kingdom is organized and established with different keys and operates more like a Roman or other such kingdom than the kingdom of the Jesus and his Apostles. The selection of Biblical Books is exactly which books and which version of ancient text? By who and when and changed how many times? What ancient version is correct?

The LDS operates very differently under the power and authority of a prophet that is chosen in the same manner as the Apostles were in the New Testament – not like Roman emperors.

#2 You may believe that the Bible contains EVERY word that has come from G-d but the LDS do not. I did not say that the Bible does not contain any words of G-d just that it does not contain them all. If the Bible has all truth why would the church Fathers have to add anything (even one word of clarification)? I also do not believe that the word of G-d comes in versions in our day or in ancient times. I do not believe the men inspired by the Holy Ghost would burn a man at the stake for translating and publishing a Bible into English and then change their mind and publish an English version based on his translation.

The Traveler

[Lindy]

I can't remember your history with the church, but only that you used to be LDS. Were you a convert for only a short time or were you well versed in LDS doctrine and history?

ExMormon-Jason

Born and raised, multi-generation, RM, Temple marriage, former seminary teacher, blah, blah, blah.

Born and raised...blah, blah, blah..... 1) being a RM doesn't cut much with me in this day and age...so many return with a sour outlook on the whole church experience because they were more or less pushed into going before they were ready. (if they were ever going to be ready)

Ok Jason, my question for you is....have you really sat down and read the BOM with an open mind LOOKING for the question you posed on this thread......"What teaching has the Book of Mormon specifically restored that was not in the Bible?" 2) Being born and raised LDS doesn't mean that you had developed a testimony for yourself. 3)Temple marriage....blah I'm single so it don't mean much to me right now. 4) Former seminary teacher....now you caught my interest.......were you a good teacher? Researched and planned your lessons for the ever questioning teenage mind? Not ever getting the chance to go to seminary myself....I can only rely on what I remember my children telling me about their classes.......and even now- they remember the seminary teacher who made them think, and research and find answers.

Your intelligent Jason.....research the BOM.... keeping the Bible and a pad of paper at your side. Read with an open mind, a curious mind, and maybe you can find some of the plain and precious truths of the Gospel of Christ. I really think you need to do some reading yourself, find some of the answers yourself.... just me thinking again

[Jason]

Traveler,

I think you have Roman Catholicism mixed up with Eastern Orthodoxy. I'll try to clear up the mistakes.

#1 Peter had the keys - if those keys of the kingdom had remained so would have the Kingdom.

Okay....

The Orthodox kingdom is organized and established with different keys and operates more like a Roman or other such kingdom than the kingdom of the Jesus and his Apostles.

First, how do you know they are not the same keys that the original Apostles held? Second, Eastern Orthodox have no hierarchy like Roman Cathlolics or Latter-day Saints. Every Bishop is equal, there are none above another. Some Bishops have larger jurisdictions geographically or numerically, but that's all the difference. In other words, we have no Pope or President. Christ alone is the Head of the Church.

The selection of Biblical Books is exactly which books and which version of ancient text? By who and when and changed how many times? What ancient version is correct?

The version of the Old Testament used by the Apostles was the Septuagent. That's been the official text of Eastern Orthodoxy since the beginning. But as to the selection, thus far there has been no official list of which books to include and which books to exclude (ie, 3 Maccabees & 4 Macabees, Odes of Solomon, etc.) Only the New Testament Canon has been decided on through the Oecumenical Councils.

The LDS operates very differently under the power and authority of a prophet that is chosen in the same manner as the Apostles were in the New Testament – not like Roman emperors.

So you draw lots? Last time I checked, it had more to do with outliving the next guy, than drawing straws.

#2 You may believe that the Bible contains EVERY word that has come from G-d but the LDS do not.

Orthodox do not believe that the Bible contains every word that has come from God. I hope that clears it all up for you. The Bible is the Canon or Rule of the Church. If someone teaches something contrary to the Canon, then they are ananthematized.

I do not believe the men inspired by the Holy Ghost would burn a man at the stake for translating and publishing a Bible into English and then change their mind and publish an English version based on his translation.

This is just another error on your part historically speaking. The Latin Church (Roman) left the Greek Church (EO's) when the Pope decided he ruled over all Bishops. It was a few centuries after this event that the Inquisition began. The Eastern Orthodox had nothing to do with this sad event.

[Jason]

Hi Lindy,

I'll try and respond as tactfully as possible, okay?

being a RM doesn't cut much with me in this day and age...so many return with a sour outlook on the whole church experience because they were more or less pushed into going before they were ready. (if they were ever going to be ready)

That's not the only reason. For me, it was the realization that the Church uses high-pressure marketing techniques to convert, as opposed to the spirit as is claimed. When someone is truly ready, they will ask for baptism. Who are we to tell someone when they are ready?

One of my many grievances about LDS missionary work.

Ok Jason, my question for you is....have you really sat down and read the BOM with an open mind LOOKING for the question you posed on this thread......"What teaching has the Book of Mormon specifically restored that was not in the Bible?" Being born and raised LDS doesn't mean that you had developed a testimony for yourself. Temple marriage....blah I'm single so it don't mean much to me right now.

Of course I have (in two languages no less). My real purpose here is to get you to think about it. What is so special about the Book of Mormon. I realize the the D&C and PoGP are unique, but if you had to throw the BoM away, what would you miss?

As for my "testimony," I would say that I had a testimony of Mormonism that exceeded the average Latter-day Saint. I believed in Mormonism even after reading about all the bad stuff. Even after reading about all the changes in doctrine and ritual. That takes a pretty good testimony if you ask me.

Former seminary teacher....now you caught my interest.......were you a good teacher? Researched and planned your lessons for the ever questioning teenage mind? Not ever getting the chance to go to seminary myself....I can only rely on what I remember my children telling me about their classes.......and even now- they remember the seminary teacher who made them think, and research and find answers.

I think I was a good one. I encouraged my students to look beyond the simplistic "happy happy joy joy" lessons and really study. The hard part came when they asked me questions to which I could not tell them the real answers (like "why did the LDS church stop practicing polygamy?" The real answer is political pressure, but the "official" answer is revelation from God).

Your intelligent Jason.....research the BOM.... keeping the Bible and a pad of paper at your side. Read with an open mind, a curious mind, and maybe you can find some of the plain and precious truths of the Gospel of Christ. I really think you need to do some reading yourself, find some of the answers yourself.... just me thinking again

The purpose of this little exercise is to get YOU to think. What's so great about the BoM? Thus far the reasons are few and relatively worthless.

Perhaps you have something you can contribute?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 2 2005, 05:32 PM

Traveler,

I think you have Roman Catholicism mixed up with Eastern Orthodoxy.  I'll try to clear up the mistakes.

Perhaps you will inform me why Eastern Orthodoxy refuses to release or allow to be translated or published the most complete and earliest collection of New Testament documents. Documents that were discovered at Mt Sinai over 150 years ago? If you are so interested in getting the word of G-d out to the world why are the most accurate documents known to exist being withheld? Is it because something that has been missing from the Bible that is in the Book of Mormon is also in these documents? Something simular to some of the manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls like the one that identifies the Son of G-d as the Messiah was know in ancient times prior to the advent of Christ?

The Traveler

[Lindy]

Hey Jason...it is always nice to hear from you

For me, it was the realization that the Church uses high-pressure marketing techniques to convert, as opposed to the spirit as is claimed.  When someone is truly ready, they will ask for baptism.  Who are we to tell someone when they are ready? One of my many grievances about LDS missionary work. 

I agree, they need to be ready..it shouldn't be a market ploy just for numbers

My real purpose here is to get you to think about it.  What is so special about the Book of Mormon.  I realize the the D&C and PoGP are unique, but if you had to throw the BoM away, what would you miss?

AHA! The plot thickens....and here I thought it was YOU really wanting to know some plain and precious truths for yourself....cunning, very cunning Jason I guess I could say that I would miss the stories about the lives and the faith of those who lived in another place and another time. To feel the love and the respect, the fear and the victory of the "other sheep".

The purpose of this little exercise is to get YOU to think.  What's so great about the BoM?  Thus far the reasons are few and relatively worthless. 

The truths that I found in the Book of Mormon wouldn't be your truths Jason, or anyone elses for that matter, they are MY truths, the truths I needed to find for my life. And the reasons (or the truths) that others have given are what THEY found to be important ...they may not be of much worth to you, but like I said...the truths that others find for themselves are important to them....doesn't mean that they are worthless. They may be worthless in the sense that they were not what you were looking for.... but "worthless" just jumped right at my throat

As for my "testimony," I would say that I had a testimony of Mormonism that exceeded the average Latter-day Saint.  I believed in Mormonism even after reading about all the bad stuff.  Even after reading about all the changes in doctrine and ritual.  That takes a pretty good testimony if you ask me. 

I am glad that you had a good testimony Jason, somewhere in life it will help you. (I'm pretty sure of that)

[Amillia]

Jason,

Charity is the power of God. Without it worlds were not created. Charity isn't just any kind of love, nor is it understood correctly by any other church.

[speedomansam]

jason, so you acknowledge there are truths in the BoM, you simply refuse to acknowledge/see them as precious because you don't believe them.

but, you quoted Joseph Smith:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth...and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

and then said

So far, this claim has not been substantiated by any of the believers of this Book.

in AP English, we just started studying logical fallacies, and your viewpoint seems like a fallacy. point out if I'm misunderstanding you, but this seems to essentially be your stance: "to draw closer to God through the BoM than any other book, the BoM must be proven to contain different precepts than other books".

that is non-sequitur, a logical fallacy.

Different precepts are not needed (though you admitted there are at least two), they merely need to be available in more clarity and not be altered by man. if you ask the world what precepts are in the Bible, you'll get a host of different answers. if you ask the world what precepts are in the BoM, you'll get the same answers (if you ask the part of the world who has actually read it). Thus, because the precepts in the BoM are plain, it will be much easier for a man to draw closer to God because they are easier to understand.

consider this: even if it was true that the BoM had nothing differeren than the Bible, which we just proved is not, the fact that the BoM lays out these truths in 1/3 the pages would make it considerably easier for a man to find and understand all the precepts in it, thus making it easier for him to draw near to God.

consider this: the precepts of the Bible have been changed over time--there is no denying that. whether by mistranslations or by intentional alterations, changes have been made. the BoM, on the other hand, is directly translated from God (arguments that there have been changes in the BoM since first publication are not relevant here as the quotation you are concerned about came before them, these changes are merely grammatical and for slight clarifications, and even if you don't believe that, the records of all changes made are available). Thus, which book is one going to get closer to God by--one that is or is not the altered word of God? one that is less or more correct?

by the way, the BoM teaches that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. that's quite the precept not specifically in the Bible. taking this further, the existence of the BoM directly connotes a restoration of the gospel. so, in context, a precept of the BoM directly includes the revelations that Joseph Smith, and subsequent prophets, received from God.

[Jason]

Perhaps you will inform me why Eastern Orthodoxy refuses to release or allow to be translated or published the most complete and earliest collection of New Testament documents. Documents that were discovered at Mt Sinai over 150 years ago? If you are so interested in getting the word of G-d out to the world why are the most accurate documents known to exist being withheld? 

First, I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to enlighten? Second, how do you know they are the most accurate documents if nobody's ever read them?

[Jason]

Lindy,

The truths that I found in the Book of Mormon wouldn't be your truths Jason, or anyone elses for that matter, they are MY truths, the truths I needed to find for my life.

I disagree. Following Smith's quote, these truths are for all mankind, and apply to all. While you may gain unique personal insight that helps you personally, we should all gain benefit. (Sorry about the worthless comment, poor choice of words.)

[Jason]

Charity is the power of God. Without it worlds were not created. Charity isn't just any kind of love, nor is it understood correctly by any other church.

Charity is a function. Power is the action. And Christ's words about the greatest form of Charity (laying down one's life for one's friend) clearly outweighs your personal theory.

As an aside, has any GA backed up your theory here, or are you just floating this?

[Jason]

speedoman,

Let me clear up a few things:

jason, so you acknowledge there are truths in the BoM, you simply refuse to acknowledge/see them as precious because you don't believe them.

Not exactly. I once accepted them, but later realized that they weren't precious.

in AP English, we just started studying logical fallacies, and your viewpoint seems like a fallacy. point out if I'm misunderstanding you, but this seems to essentially be your stance: "to draw closer to God through the BoM than any other book, the BoM must be proven to contain different precepts than other books".

that is non-sequitur, a logical fallacy.

Not my argument. What Im saying is that there is nothing unique about the BoM (or very little) that even necessitates it's very existence. Thus far we have found two (2) unique teachings from the BoM. I wanna know em all.

Different precepts are not needed (though you admitted there are at least two), they merely need to be available in more clarity and not be altered by man. if you ask the world what precepts are in the Bible, you'll get a host of different answers. if you ask the world what precepts are in the BoM, you'll get the same answers (if you ask the part of the world who has actually read it). Thus, because the precepts in the BoM are plain, it will be much easier for a man to draw closer to God because they are easier to understand.

You haven't sat through a Gospel Doctrine class yet, eh? The teachings of the BoM are just as debated as the Bible, through dozens of various Mormon denominations, and by all the members therein. (The book of Jacob is a prime example, whether or not it allows for the practice of polygamy.)

consider this: even if it was true that the BoM had nothing differeren than the Bible, which we just proved is not, the fact that the BoM lays out these truths in 1/3 the pages would make it considerably easier for a man to find and understand all the precepts in it, thus making it easier for him to draw near to God.

Is that the point then, speedoman? Making it easy to find God? If it was just meant to be that easy, why not remove all the redundancy in the BoM (especially the parts lifted from the KJV) and reduce that sucker down to a nice, lengthy Section 76?

consider this: the precepts of the Bible have been changed over time--there is no denying that. whether by mistranslations or by intentional alterations, changes have been made.

I deny that. While the Western Christian Churches may have made changes, the Eastern Orthodox still use the same version of the LXX that the Apostles used.

  the BoM, on the other hand, is directly translated from God (arguments that there have been changes in the BoM since first publication are not relevant here as the quotation you are concerned about came before them, these changes are merely grammatical and for slight clarifications, and even if you don't believe that, the records of all changes made are available). Thus, which book is one going to get closer to God by--one that is or is not the altered word of God? one that is less or more correct?

Well if we're just offering our opinions here, I believe you can get closer to God by studying the four Gospels than by anything else. I believe that you could throw away everything else and just keep those four books, and you'd be just fine.

by the way, the BoM teaches that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. that's quite the precept not specifically in the Bible. taking this further, the existence of the BoM directly connotes a restoration of the gospel. so, in context, a precept of the BoM directly includes the revelations that Joseph Smith, and subsequent prophets, received from God. 

Ok. We'll add Smith to the list. That makes three (3).

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 3 2005, 11:48 AM

Charity is the power of God. Without it worlds were not created. Charity isn't just any kind of love, nor is it understood correctly by any other church.

Charity is a function. Power is the action. And Christ's words about the greatest form of Charity (laying down one's life for one's friend) clearly outweighs your personal theory.

As an aside, has any GA backed up your theory here, or are you just floating this?

Well, FARMS agrees with me.

Love is power. It isn't just an act. That is the difference between your teachings and mine.

[Jason]

Well, FARMS agrees with me. 

hahahaha.

You know what they say about farms? That you're always knee deep in s$!#!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 3 2005, 01:31 PM

Well, FARMS agrees with me. 

hahahaha.

You know what they say about farms? That you're always knee deep in s$!#!

Yeah, but I think it is just a matter of perspective. Those who don't understand what me and Farms are talking about, prefer to refer to it as @#$%

But we all know it's just jealousy which makes them do it.

[speedomansam]

ok, so this is your argument:

there is nothing unique about the BoM (or very little) that even necessitates it's very existence.

the book of mormon is evidence that God loves his children as it proves he still speaks to man. it proves there is a prophet on the earth today, that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. it proves that God is no respector of persons for people that die without a knowledge of the Gospel (and hence are not baptized) are not damned. it elaborates on life after death and the resurrection (as you were wondering about this earlier, check Alma 40-41). it proves that the apostasy which both history and scripture witness is over. it marks that we are indeed in the dispensation of the fulness of times. it's existence proves that priesthood authority is on the earth today with a direct and documented line to Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon proves the Bible is the word of God, just like the Bible proves the Book of Mormon is the word of God. The doctrines in the Bible are clarified in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has a unique promise that if one prays, in faith, on the name of Jesus Christ, they will receive a witness of its divinity from the Holy Ghost.

if these things don't strike you as powerful and unique, there's nothing further worth discussing.

[Jason]

the book of mormon is evidence that God loves his children as it proves he still speaks to man.

The Bible is evidence that God loves his children, and every answered prayer proves he still communicates with man.

it proves there is a prophet on the earth today, that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

The key word here being "a prophet". Whether or not you accept him as a true prophet is beyond the purpose of this thread. As for the evidence of God being the same yesterday, today, and forever, I think it only muddles and complicates that statement. All of a sudden, God has approved a "new" promised land, outside the bounds of the Abrahamic Covenant. Which, as I see it, only turns God into a changable being, much like His creation.

it proves that God is no respector of persons for people that die without a knowledge of the Gospel (and hence are not baptized) are not damned.

Funny thing about that statement, is that it was a Roman Catholic doctrine that didn't surface until the 1400's. Wonder how Moroni encountered 15th century Roman Catholics in his 4th century America?

  it elaborates on life after death and the resurrection (as you were wondering about this earlier, check Alma 40-41).

It says that after death those who were good go to Paradise, and those who are bad go to Outer Darkness. (Notably missing is the three degrees of heaven later taught by Smith...) As for resurrection, it does nothing to explain it, other than that it could be one resurrection, two resurrections or three resurrections and that it doesn't matter. How does that clarify anything?

it proves that the apostasy which both history and scripture witness is over.

History doesn't bear out this theory, and apostasy is part and parcel of the Church of Christ. Though admitedly, the BoM does teach that "compete apostasy" is possible, as opposed to the Bible which does not.

So we have #4!

it marks that we are indeed in the dispensation of the fulness of times.

Was there ever any doubt? The last days began with the life of Christ, and continue to this time. Christ did not live in the "meridian of time" but in the last days as the Bible teaches.

  it's existence proves that priesthood authority is on the earth today with a direct and documented line to Jesus Christ.

No it doesn't. The BoM is silent about the events surrounding Smiths claim to ordination from "spirits". As for a direct and documented line to Christ, you might check out Orthodoxy. We can actually prove our lineage, you don't need "faith" to do it!

The Book of Mormon proves the Bible is the word of God, just like the Bible proves the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

The Bible doesn't need the Book of Mormon to prove it's of God anymore than it needs the Q'uran, speedoman. It stood on it's own for thousands of years before 1830, and will continue to do so.

The doctrines in the Bible are clarified in the Book of Mormon.

Thus far, this seems to be a false statement. The Book of Mormon has a few "doctrines" that the Bible does not. How does the Book of Mormon differ from the Book of Concord? Both claim to be the result of God's inspiration?

  The Book of Mormon has a unique promise that if one prays, in faith, on the name of Jesus Christ, they will receive a witness of its divinity from the Holy Ghost.

A promise that God has apparently failed to fulfill for many.

if these things don't strike you as powerful and unique, there's nothing further worth discussing.

If you say so.

[Amillia]

  The Book of Mormon has a unique promise that if one prays, in faith, on the name of Jesus Christ, they will receive a witness of its divinity from the Holy Ghost.

A promise that God has apparently failed to fulfill for many.

I heard a talk given by a preacher of a Lutheran Church say that those who don't receive answers to their prayers, haven't put enough into his worship of God.

He says that they put in a dime and expect a quarters worth. (using money as a medium for example) He was saying that whatever you put your heart, mind, and stregth to, is who you should go to to get your prayers answered.

Like if you love Sports and put them first, or money, or whatever your passion is other than God, is where you will have to take your prayers to, because until you make God your passion, you might as well be praying to the wind.

I believe it. I hear so many X-MOs say they didn't ever get answers or spiritual comformations. So I don't believe God or the church can really be blamed.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 3 2005, 10:46 AM

Lindy,

The truths that I found in the Book of Mormon wouldn't be your truths Jason, or anyone elses for that matter, they are MY truths, the truths I needed to find for my life.

I disagree. Following Smith's quote, these truths are for all mankind, and apply to all. While you may gain unique personal insight that helps you personally, we should all gain benefit. (Sorry about the worthless comment, poor choice of words.)

So, did you find ANY truths in the BofM for yourself? Any at all? I agree that everyone will gain unique personal insight ( I like that phrase), and with that insight....wouldn't benefits for that individual...and for all mankind be right behind? I believe that there are people who find peace and joy in the Book of Mormon, and the same people can find joy in the Bible, while others may not (can't or won't) find any insights in either one. I guess that it depends a lot on IF you want to find those insights, or truths.

[Jason]

There was Baptism prior to the era of Jesus.

I ran across a statement today made by Bishop St. Ignatius of Antioch (30-117 AD), who writes:

"For the Son of God, who was begotten before the ages, and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, and the seed of David, and by the Holy Spirit.  For [the Scripture] says, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and and He shall be called Immanuel.'  He was born and was baptized by John, that He might ratify the institution committed to that prophet."  (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, Chp 18.) 

I would seem (if Im reading this properly) that baptism was first instituted by St. John the Baptist. Since St. John and our Lord were contemporaries, that would invalidate Traveller's statement above.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Feb 28 2005, 04:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Feb 28 2005, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

Interesting how the BoM is very specific about things that happened BEFORE JS and contains virtually nothing prophetically specific AFTER JS. Makes one go HUMMMMM?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 18 2005, 03:56 PM

There was Baptism prior to the era of Jesus.

I ran across a statement today made by Bishop St. Ignatius of Antioch (30-117 AD), who writes:

"For the Son of God, who was begotten before the ages, and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, and the seed of David, and by the Holy Spirit.  For [the Scripture] says, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and and He shall be called Immanuel.'  He was born and was baptized by John, that He might ratify the institution committed to that prophet."  (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, Chp 18.) 

I would seem (if Im reading this properly) that baptism was first instituted by St. John the Baptist. Since St. John and our Lord were contemporaries, that would invalidate Traveller's statement above.

I don't agree. It only invalidates it for those that lived in Biblical times that recorded those incidences. If it happened in another time and place, those living in Jerusalem would not be the ones recording it. For example, BoM baptisms wouldn't be recorded in the Bible because those people did not live those experiences. God reveals things at different times to different people depending on their spiritual receptiveness to those beliefs/practices.

[Jason]

I don't agree. It only invalidates it for those that lived in Biblical times that recorded those incidences. If it happened in another time and place, those living in Jerusalem would not be the ones recording it. For example, BoM baptisms wouldn't be recorded in the Bible because those people did not live those experiences. God reveals things at different times to different people depending on their spiritual receptiveness to those beliefs/practices.

So to make sure I understand, you believe that baptism existed in the Americas previous to Christ and John, but not in the old world. Right?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 18 2005, 06:21 PM

I don't agree. It only invalidates it for those that lived in Biblical times that recorded those incidences. If it happened in another time and place, those living in Jerusalem would not be the ones recording it. For example, BoM baptisms wouldn't be recorded in the Bible because those people did not live those experiences. God reveals things at different times to different people depending on their spiritual receptiveness to those beliefs/practices.

So to make sure I understand, you believe that baptism existed in the Americas previous to Christ and John, but not in the old world. Right?

Well, let me see. If I say "Yes", then I would be implying that I don't believe in the modern-day revelation that states to the contrary. If I say "No", then you would say, prove it to you in the Bible. Right?

I can understand your position. Sort of. After all, if it isn't in the Bible, than it can't be true. Right?

BUT ................................ What about what the OC's over on CF have been saying about God introducing sacrifice right off the bat with Adam and Eve, even though there is nothing recorded about such an important concept as that? And I don't buy that saying God provided skins for them to wear as "proof" of sacrifice. That is a looong stretch.

So .......................... I go with "No". I do believe that baptism occurred in the old world prior to Christ.

[Jason]

Well, let me see. If I say "Yes", then I would be implying that I don't believe in the modern-day revelation that states to the contrary. If I say "No", then you would say, prove it to you in the Bible. Right?

Nope. Im going to be kinder at this point. Just wanting your view.

I can understand your position. Sort of. After all, if it isn't in the Bible, than it can't be true. Right?

Not necessarily. EO's believe there's a difference between extra-biblical and anti-biblical. We accept the teachings of our "Fathers" as much as the words of Scripture. We call these teachings "Sacred Tradition".

BUT ................................ What about what the OC's over on CF have been saying about God introducing sacrifice right off the bat with Adam and Eve, even though there is nothing recorded about such an important concept as that? And I don't buy that saying God provided skins for them to wear as "proof" of sacrifice. That is a looong stretch.

I don't know about "right off the bat". Certainly Abel and Cain were offering sacrifices, so that at least put's Sacrifical laws in the Age of Adam.

So .......................... I go with "No". I do believe that baptism occurred in the old world prior to Christ.

Okay. Do you base this belief on something recored in the Biblical record (or even an allusion of some kind), or something from your restoration movement?