Do you actually *appreciate* the Book of Mormon?

[Gaura Priya]

I am not a Latter-Day Saint or am part of the Latter-Day Saint movement (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Community of Christ, Church of Christ [Temple Lot], etc.), nor am I a Christian whatsoever.

However, I was raised as a Christian, and I do believe that the Book of Mormon is very inspiring and if not Scripture, an interesting Christian novel.

This site professes that the Book of Mormon is for EVERY Christian, and does not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and that what the LDS Church teaches and what the Book of Mormon actually teaches are two different things. Welcome to Book of Mormon Christian

Those missionaries are always giving out their Book of Mormon to many, and I am actually curious if any of you non-Saints actually appreciate the Book of Mormon, instead of denouncing it as false Scripture, or historically impossible and false narrative, etc.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Do you actually *appreciate* the Book of Mormon?

Honestly, no. I see it as unnecessary and invalid.

 

[Katzpur]

Honestly, no. I see it as unnecessary and invalid.

And you have read it, of course?

I'm assuming you believe it to be unnecessary because the Bible contains everything that God wants us to know. Of course the Bible doesn't actually make this claim, but that's irrelevant. And it's invalid because?

 

[Midnight Pete]

And you have read it, of course?

I'm assuming you believe it to be unnecessary because the Bible contains everything that God wants us to know. Of course the Bible doesn't actually make this claim, but that's irrelevant. And it's invalid because?

Beacuse the Bible is complete in and of itself.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."

--Rev. 18:18-19

 

[Circle_One]

Absolutely, I appreciate the Book of Mormon (and I have read it), just as I appreciate every sacred text and form of belief, held or believed by everyone.

Every sacred text has something significant and inspirational to say, and something to learn from and live by (whether as a religion, or simply as a general code of morals).

 

[McBell]

Beacuse the Bible is complete in and of itself.

So you think that Rev. 18:18-19 applies to the whole Bible?


Do you know anything about how the "Bible" came to be?
I ask because your post indicates that you have no idea.

 

[Katzpur]

Beacuse the Bible is complete in and of itself.

I'm sure you know that when John received Revelation, the Bible as we know it today did not exist. Consequently, the warning given in Revelation that no man should "add to this book" could not possible having been referring to the Bible as a whole but to the book of Revelation. As a matter of fact, most biblical scholars do not believe it was the last book of the Bible to be written; it was just placed last in the book. John wrote his own gospel account after he recorded Revelation. Do you think he'd have done that if he'd thought God was saying the words of Revelation were to be the last thing written. Besides, God way saying that man should not add to "this book." I'll admit it's a convenient cop-out, though, for people who believe it's time God stopped talking. Have you ever stopped to consider why the Jews would have nothing to do with the writings of the New Testament. They were convinced that the scriptures of the ages past were sufficient. Kind of sad from a Christian perspective, huh?

 

[Katzpur]

Here is my own personal observation from talking to countless non-LDS Christians. They object to the fact that the Book of Mormon exists more than they object to anything it actually says. The vast majority of them have never read it, but it has to be false because "it's not the Bible." When you ask them what it teaches that they don't believe is true, they'll mention something that is not even referred to anywhere in the book. With the possible exception of the Quran, I doubt there is another book anywhere that more people have completely dismissed as "false" without ever having opened it.

 

[Katzpur]

what the LDS Church teaches and what the Book of Mormon actually teaches are two different things.

Would you mind elaborating?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Beacuse the Bible is complete in and of itself.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."

--Rev. 18:18-19

Revelation is apparently dated to 90-95 CE. Does this mean you allow room for everything up to and including 3 Nephi, but not beyond that?

 

[Katzpur]

Revelation is apparently dated to 90-95 CE. Does this mean you allow room for everything up to and including 3 Nephi, but not beyond that?

Now that is a very interesting question!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now that is a very interesting question!

It's something I've thought about for a while now.

Going by the chronology given in the Book of Mormon, much of dates back to centuries before Christ. When non-Mormons drag out this "the Bible says you can't add to the Bible" argument (false as it is), it has an inherent assumption: it can only be used to throw out works that are dated later than either (depending on your view) the closing of the Biblical canon or the writing of Revelation. It only works if the person making the argument has assumed a priori that the Book of Mormon was written later... IOW, that the BoM is false. If the person then uses this argument as their justification for why they believe the entire Book of Mormon is false, then they're engaging in circular reasoning.

 

[tomato1236]

Beacuse the Bible is complete in and of itself.

Aside from the problems of listed by other responders regarding the time of the writing of Rev. and the subsequent compilation...

By "anyone" does that include God or God through a prophet? Can God not call another man to write His words? You seem to presume a lot of power to determine what God can and cannot do.

 

[tomato1236]

It is also notable that there is a similar message in Deuteronomy 4:

2 Ye shall not aadd unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

You might argue that this is not referring to the bible, but rather to instruction from God, to which I would reply, so is the statement in Revelations.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not a Latter-Day Saint or am part of the Latter-Day Saint movement (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Community of Christ, Church of Christ [Temple Lot], etc.), nor am I a Christian whatsoever.

However, I was raised as a Christian, and I do believe that the Book of Mormon is very inspiring and if not Scripture, an interesting Christian novel.

This site professes that the Book of Mormon is for EVERY Christian, and does not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and that what the LDS Church teaches and what the Book of Mormon actually teaches are two different things. Welcome to Book of Mormon Christian

Those missionaries are always giving out their Book of Mormon to many, and I am actually curious if any of you non-Saints actually appreciate the Book of Mormon, instead of denouncing it as false Scripture, or historically impossible and false narrative, etc.

As literature, it sucks. As Mark Twain called it, chloroform in print. Did you manage to finish it?

 

[Autodidact]

Here is my own personal observation from talking to countless non-LDS Christians. They object to the fact that the Book of Mormon exists more than they object to anything it actually says. The vast majority of them have never read it, but it has to be false because "it's not the Bible." When you ask them what it teaches that they don't believe is true, they'll mention something that is not even referred to anywhere in the book. With the possible exception of the Quran, I doubt there is another book anywhere that more people have completely dismissed as "false" without ever having opened it.

I tried, honestly, but it was so god-awful I couldn't make myself waste valuable time reading much of it.

As far as "false," it's clearly false. Nothing it says happened, actually happened, and that is easily demonstrated.

 

[Autodidact]

It's something I've thought about for a while now.

Going by the chronology given in the Book of Mormon, much of dates back to centuries before Christ. When non-Mormons drag out this "the Bible says you can't add to the Bible" argument (false as it is), it has an inherent assumption: it can only be used to throw out works that are dated later than either (depending on your view) the closing of the Biblical canon or the writing of Revelation. It only works if the person making the argument has assumed a priori that the Book of Mormon was written later... IOW, that the BoM is false. If the person then uses this argument as their justification for why they believe the entire Book of Mormon is false, then they're engaging in circular reasoning.

The Book of Mormon is false because it can be shown to be false. The events it described clearly did not happen, unless for some reason God went behind the Nephites and Lammanites and magically erased all evidence of their existence.

 

[Midnight Pete]

So you think that Rev. 18:18-19 applies to the whole Bible?


Do you know anything about how the "Bible" came to be?
I ask because your post indicates that you have no idea.

I don't know what you're talking about. This is just Mestemia being Mestemia.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't know what you're talking about. This is just Mestemia being Mestemia.

You don't know what he's talking about? It was a very straightforward question, Pete. Do you know how the Bible came to be? You couldn't possibly have had a hard time understanding the question. I'm really curious as to what your answer is -- and I'm looking forward to your explanation, not just a one word, i.e. "yes" or "no" answer.

 

[tomato1236]

You don't know what he's talking about? It was a very straightforward question, Pete. Do you know how the Bible came to be? You couldn't possibly have had a hard time understanding the question. I'm really curious as to what your answer is -- and I'm looking forward to your explanation, not just a one word, i.e. "yes" or "no" answer.

Well God wrote it, right?