Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[roli]

Roli, this is a loooong post and will require a few posts. (I hope you read it all carefully).

There are so many scriptures in the Book of Mormon that address salvation, repentance, the atonement, and what it means to “come unto Christ” that it’s hard to decide which few to use right now. But here goes…

This passage establishes the need to be baptized, to receive the Holy Ghost, and to follow Jesus by keeping his commandments:

2 Nephi 31: 5-13

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.
9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.
10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?
11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.
12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow 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.

(Other passages teach that authority is necessary to baptize).

I appreciate very much your response and work involved in quoting these verses.

I find it so very interesting how verses from both New Test. and Old alike are intertwined within the Mormon Bible.
I mean they are so woven together that it's almost like a work of "cut and paste" of course coupled together with a myriad of thoughts from the authors.

KAtz made a sarcastic remark when I said this,

What do you think they should sound like? The whole purpose of the Book of Mormon is to teach about Christ, to testify that He is our Savior, and to witness to His divinity. I'm wondering how you think it ought to sound?
Okay, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly... You're saying that when a Mormon is speaking to a non-Mormon (and therefore a potential convert), we teach doctrines that sound essentially biblical. I believe we'd plead guilty to that charge.

What I'm saying is that the doctrine you have shown today is basically what every Christian believe's because it is so identically repeated in the verses found in the bible . It's just reworded .....alot! Now whether or not Joseph Smith and his predecessors plagiarized these writings while mixing there own thoughts and opinions into the brew is....well, another thread, but not one I'm willing to get into.


I mean talking to a Mormon on the street, they quote and confess the Christian bible and identical doctrinal beliefs...but when alone and a mormon is probed to further explain these doctrines we eventually find the differences of doctrines.

I guess my question to you is, where are all the Mormon doctrine that contradict scripture. Have the discrepancies down through the ages have all been fabricated by the Christians.

 

[Katzpur]

I mean they are so woven together that it's almost like a work of "cut and paste" of course coupled together with a myriad of thoughts from the authors. Katz made a sarcastic remark when I said this.

I'm not sure what you expect, roli. You make unfounded accusations about the authorship of the Book of Mormon and I respond by pointing out how ludicrous these accusations are. You condemn the Book of Mormon for sounding a lot like the Bible, for using similar wording and teaching basic Christian doctrines and then you express surprise that I respond by agreeing with you. The two books were both inspired by the same God, both authored by prophets to whom He spoke, and both written with the purpose of bringing people to Christ and to reconcile them with God. Why wouldn't they be similar? If they were vastly different, wouldn't you be criticizing the Book of Mormon for being so unlike the Bible?

What I'm saying is that the doctrine you have shown today is basically what every Christian believe's because it is so identically repeated in the verses found in the bible . It's just reworded .....alot! Now whether or not Joseph Smith and his predecessors plagiarized these writings while mixing there own thoughts and opinions into the brew is....well, another thread, but not one I'm willing to get into.

How about some specific examples? And while you're at it, maybe you could explain how something that looks like a "cut and paste" and "so identically repeated" can also be "reworded... alot."

I mean talking to a Mormon on the street, they quote and confess the Christian bible and identical doctrinal beliefs...but when alone and a mormon is probed to further explain these doctrines we eventually find the differences of doctrines.

I guessed you missed my previous response. Allow me to restate what I already said:

The Apostle Peter once told Clement of Rome, "The teaching of all doctrine has a certain order: there are some things which must be delivered first, others in the second place, and others in the third, and so on, everything in its order. If these things be delivered in their order they become plain; but if they be brought forward out of order, they will seem to be spoken against reason." We start with the doctrines on which we agree with traditional Christianity. We make sure we're all on the same page. Sometimes we are; at other times we're not. A good example of what I mean is the doctrine of "once saved, always saved." In another thread, I surmised that you believed this doctrine. You said you didn't. A lot of Christians do. Your belief and mine may be more similar in this regard than I had initially suspected. Once we know where we stand in terms of those doctrines that we hold in common, we introduce doctrines that we believe to have been lost in during the Apostasy which took place shortly after the deaths of the Apostles. It's not a matter of our trying to hide these initially. It's just as Peter told Clement, we teach one principle at a time and present our unique doctrines in the context in which they would be best understood by our listeners.

I guess my question to you is, where are all the Mormon doctrine that contradict scripture. Have the discrepancies down through the ages have all been fabricated by the Christians.

Good question? Where are they? I haven't even figured out yet what they are! Seriously, roli, if you were to make the effort to learn what we really believe and teach instead of what uninformed sources would have you think we believe and teach, you would find far less to be critical of. We don't believe that any of our teachings contradict scripture (I use the word "scripture" as I believe you are using it -- to mean "the Bible" alone). We believe everything the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ, about our Father in Heaven and about God's plan for the redemption of His children. We don't reject any of it. The Book of Mormon touches on doctrines that the Bible doesn't make absolutely clear. Let's take infant baptism, for instance. Within traditional Christianity, there are a variety of teachings about whether or not babies and small children should be baptized. Any non-LDS Christian professing to have a belief concerning this practice has at his disposal two sources of information: (1) the Bible (which does not either specifically support or condemn the practice, and (2) Sacred Tradition, that teaches infant baptism, but which many Christians to not believe to be a valid source. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, makes a clear statement about this practice. Does that mean it "contradicts" scripture? You may feel that it does. I don't. I don't believe it's possible to "contradict" a teaching that isn't more than very vaguely addressed.

You have not pointed out anything in the scriptures Scott and I have posted that you disagree with. So far, your argument against the validity of the Book of Mormon rests on your observation that it sound a lot the like Bible.

 

[Theocan]

I feel like this question has one intent and one intent only to convert people to LDS.

To answer your question, I feel that each denomination of a religion claims to be the "one truth" and therefore why is it necessary to go out and seek truths from other places if it is right in front of you? The same reason goes for why Christians do not read the Qur'an, even though the Qur'an reinforces many Christian principles.

While I don't go by or advise that kind of thinking. I want everybody to be open to all sets of ideas and thoughts. While I'm still in process of reading the Book of Mormon (well its more put on the side since I'm reading other things as well) - I also plan on rereading the Bible, Qur'an, some Buddhist and Hindu teachings. I will pray and meditate when I'm done and come up with my own conclusion. But in the mean time I will remain a Catholic until otherwise.

 

[Katzpur]

I feel like this question has one intent and one intent only to convert people to LDS.

I think the question is stupid myself and actually kind of insulting to the 13 million Christians who do accept the Book of Mormon as valid. Since the OP was started by one of these 13 million Christians, I can't help but wonder how he sees himself. Anyway, I disagree with you as to the intent of the question. As poorly as it was phrased, I think the concept is worth discussing. I would have said something more along the lines of "What teachings in the Book of Mormon do you, as a non-LDS poster, believe to contradict the doctrines about Jesus Christ that are taught in the Bible?" I would not pose such a question in an attempt to convert someone to Mormonism, but to encourage people to stop and consider what the Book of Mormon really teaches. Most people who actually take the time to read the book in an honest attempt to see what it has to say will not find anything in it that they would consider to be objectionable.

While I don't go by or advise that kind of thinking. I want everybody to be open to all sets of ideas and thoughts. While I'm still in process of reading the Book of Mormon (well its more put on the side since I'm reading other things as well) - I also plan on rereading the Bible, Qur'an, some Buddhist and Hindu teachings. I will pray and meditate when I'm done and come up with my own conclusion. But in the mean time I will remain a Catholic until otherwise.

That sounds like a pretty darned reasonable game plan to me.

 

[Theocan]

I feel like this question has one intent and one intent only to convert people to LDS.

I think the question is stupid myself and actually kind of insulting to the 13 million Christians who do accept the Book of Mormon as valid. Since the OP was started by one of these 13 million Christians, I can't help but wonder how he sees himself. Anyway, I disagree with you as to the intent of the question. As poorly as it was phrased, I think the concept is worth discussing. I would have said something more along the lines of "What teachings in the Book of Mormon do you, as a non-LDS poster, believe to contradict the doctrines about Jesus Christ that are taught in the Bible?" I would not pose such a question in an attempt to convert someone to Mormonism, but to encourage people to stop and consider what the Book of Mormon really teaches. Most people who actually take the time to read the book in an honest attempt to see what it has to say will not find anything in it that they would consider to be objectionable.

That sounds like a pretty darned reasonable game plan to me.

Okay that clarifies it more. - When I'm done reading the Book of Mormon, I'll get back to you.

 

[Scott C.]

I appreciate very much your response and work involved in quoting these verses.

My pleasure.

I find it so very interesting how verses from both New Test. and Old alike are intertwined within the Mormon Bible.
I mean they are so woven together that it's almost like a work of "cut and paste" of course coupled together with a myriad of thoughts from the authors.

I think it's remarkable how the Book of Mormon relates the Old Testament to the New and explains the correlation between the Mosaic Law and the Gospel.

I mean talking to a Mormon on the street, they quote and confess the Christian bible and identical doctrinal beliefs...but when alone and a mormon is probed to further explain these doctrines we eventually find the differences of doctrines.

I love the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I'm reading the New Testament once again now. I'm in Mark, but I started at the back and I'm reading the chapters in reverse order, just to do it a different way this time. So, I'm almost finished.

I guess my question to you is, where are all the Mormon doctrine that contradict scripture. Have the discrepancies down through the ages have all been fabricated by the Christians.

I'm not sure I understand your question. As a Mormon, I don't believe that my scriptures contradict the Bible. I do recognize that there are some significant doctrines taught by my church, which many Christians don't accept. I'll go into those, if that's what you're asking.

 

[roli]

I'm not sure what you expect, roli. You make unfounded accusations about the authorship of the Book of Mormon and I respond by pointing out how ludicrous these accusations are.

Are you serious...! I am certainly not alone here,have'nt christian theologians , preachers, teachers and bible scholars alike found discrepancies as well with your docrtines.
Are you saying these scholars of Christian theology and biblical doctrine down through the ages were all misguided and ignorant as well.
What do you think their basis was for establishing such discrepancies ?
Maybe the precedence the fathers of the LDS set in motion, but if I understand correctly, their views are not accepted anymore, it's the new prophet on the scene that set's the order of what is or is'nt accepted.

You condemn the Book of Mormon for sounding a lot like the Bible, for using similar wording and teaching basic Christian doctrines and then you express surprise that I respond by agreeing with you.

Well, if an organisation is to maintain christian principals it's no surprise they bring in the bible....but than there are all the other writings that apparently are dismissed or not accepted, IE: D& C , MD (McConkie) Teachings of Joe Smith.
You said earlier that many of that was opinion, but I beg to differ.

The two books were both inspired by the same God

,
That depends if your god is a god of flesh and bone and who was created
I know you may not accept this reference, but if you could address the point, that would be great.
Mormon belief about god
References for Mormon and Biblical Beliefs about God
1. The Mormon church teaches that "God is only one of many gods", because human beings can progress to become gods and godesses in the celestial kingdom (see: Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball , pp.28, 51-53).

• Mormon founder Joseph Smith describes the creation of the earth: "And they (the Gods) said, 'Let there be light'...And the Gods pronounced the dry land...And the Gods organized the earth...And the Gods planted a garden in Eden" (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 4:3,10,25; 5:8). A reference to a plurality of 'Gods' occurs at least 43 times in the book of Abraham.
• According to Joseph Smith: "The doctrine of a plurality of Gods is prominent in the Bible. The heads of the Gods appointed our God for us...you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.370-372, 346).
• Mormon Apostle and leading apologist Bruce McConkie states: "Three separate personages---Father, Son, and Holy Ghost---comprise the Godhead...As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us...these three are the only Gods we worship" (Mormon Doctrine, p.576-577).
• Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt wrote "there are more gods than there are particles of matter" (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.345).
• Mormon Prophet Brigham Young wrote: "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods" (Journal of Discourses v.7, p.333).

Are these quotes from your founding fathers, or not ?????

Both authored by prophets to whom He spoke, and both written with the purpose of bringing people to Christ and to reconcile them with God.

There are many religions out there that have said the same thing, but have added to or taken away from the underlying truth of God's word.
So are you saying we are both right and that LDS is just an extension of God's word.
That there are no differences of key essential doctrines?

Why wouldn't they be similar? If they were vastly different, wouldn't you be criticizing the Book of Mormon for being so unlike the Bible?

I wonder who Jesus , Paul ,Peter all meant when they said there will be many false teachers, prophecy, and doctrines in the world.

How about some specific examples? And while you're at it, maybe you could explain how something that looks like a "cut and paste" and "so identically repeated" can also be "reworded... alot."

Old test ,quotes mixed with New Test almost made to look like one thought, but Jesus who referenced the Old in the NEW always said, it was said of the prophet and quoted the prophet.
The way it is worded in the LDS doctrine makes it look like one thought from the author himself.

Good question? Where are they? I haven't even figured out yet what they are! Seriously, roli, if you were to make the effort to learn what we really believe and teach instead of what uninformed sources would have you think we believe and teach, you would find far less to be critical of.

There have never been opposing doctrines than, is this what your saying.

We don't believe that any of our teachings contradict scripture (I use the word "scripture" as I believe you are using it -- to mean "the Bible" alone). We believe everything the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ, about our Father in Heaven and about God's plan for the redemption of His children. We don't reject any of it.

And you should'nt or you would'nt be able to call yourself christian

The Book of Mormon touches on doctrines that the Bible doesn't make absolutely clear.

The BoM is more clarity than?

Let's take infant baptism, for instance.

Let's take the topic of God & Jesus ,where did they come from, who are they.
Was one of them created, is God flesh and blood, Did god have a father.
The Holy Spirit is he a person or a force ?

You have not pointed out anything in the scriptures Scott and I have posted that you disagree with. So far, your quote]argument against the validity of the Book of Mormon rests on your observation that it sound a lot the like Bible.

That's because your not showing the underlying beliefs about Mormonism, that have been openly exposed by so many throughout the history of your religion..., but your surprised that I imagine such a thing.

 

[roli]

This is not an isolated view but one shared by many of the fathers of your faith:

Do the LDS on this forum believe this doctrine ..or not ?
"As man is, God once was: as God is, man may be"

And do you share the view these men hold on other doctrines?
Joseph Smith taught: "I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is...God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345);
Joseph Smith continues: "God himself...is a man like unto one of yourselves...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth...You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves" (Times and Seasons, vol.5, pp.613-614); "Here then is eternal life---to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you...To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.346-347).
Brigham Young taught: "He [God] ...was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being...It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God was once been a finite being" (Journal of Discourses, vol.7, p.333); "The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself" (Journal of Discourses, vol.3, p.93).
Here is Joseph Smith's revelation about Mormons attaining to the celestial kingdom: "These are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized...who have received of his fullness, and of his glory...they are gods" (Doctrine and Covenants 76: 51-58).
James Talmage explains: "We believe in a God who is Himself progressive...whose perfection consists in eternal advancement...a Being who has attained His exalted state"(A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.430, 1952).
Heber C. Kimbal wrote: "We shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still farther back, and so on" (Journal of Discourses, vol.5, p.19); "our God is a natural man...where did he get his knowledge from? From his father, just as we get our knowledge from our earthly parents" (Journal of Discourses, vol.8, p.211).
Orson Pratt wrote: "The Gods who dwell in heaven...were once in a fallen state...they were exalted also, from fallen men to celestial Gods" (The Seer, p.23); "our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; "He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another" (The Seer, p.132).
Milton R. Hunter wrote: "God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became a God" (The Gospel Through the Ages, p.104);"there was a time when the Deity was much less powerful than He is today...He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became a God by absolute obedience..." (The Gospel Through the Ages, p.114-115).
Bruce McConkie states: "God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorious, exalted, immortal, resurrected man" (Mormon Doctrine, p.642-643); "God...is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man...an anthropomorphic entity" (Mormon Doctrine, p.250); "as the Prophet [Joseph Smith] also taught, 'there is a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'" (Mormon Doctrine, p.322, 1966).
Joseph Fielding Smith stated: "God is an exalted man...our Father in Heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man...The Prophet [Joseph Smith] taught that our Father had a Father and so on...promises are made to us that we may become like him" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, p.10-12).

 

[Katzpur]

Are you serious...!

Entirely.

I am certainly not alone here,have'nt christian theologians , preachers, teachers and bible scholars alike found discrepancies as well with your docrtines.

Calm down. My statement had nothing whatsoever to do with "discrepancies" concerning doctrine. I was saying (and this is the third time now that I've said it), that it is "ludicrous" to you can't find fault with the Book of Mormon for sounding like the Bible and for teaching Christian doctrines. That is the criticism I was referring to. You can't criticize it on one hand for sounding like a "cut and paste" of what's in the Bible and in the very next breath condemn it for making major changes to biblical doctrine. It can't be plagiarism of biblical doctrine and a huge departure from biblical doctrine at the same time.

Are you saying these scholars of Christian theology and biblical doctrine down through the ages were all misguided and ignorant as well.

I don't know what you're talking about. If we're talking about theology and doctrine, let's stick to that subject. If we're talking about the origin and authorship of the Book of Mormon, let's stick to that. If you could stick to one topic instead of jumping back and forth from one topic to another, every time a new thought crosses your mind. I thought we were supposed to be comparing the Book of Mormon's teachings on salvation to the Bible's. Is there some reason you don't want to do so?

What do you think their basis was for establishing such discrepancies ?

Which discrepancies? Are we talking about salvation or aren't we? What did you find in Scott's and my quotations from the Book of Mormon on salvation that you believe to be false (besides the fact that they come from the Book of Mormon )?

Maybe the precedence the fathers of the LDS set in motion, but if I understand correctly, their views are not accepted anymore, it's the new prophet on the scene that set's the order of what is or is'nt accepted.

It's true that we do believe in continuing revelation and in living prophets, but as long as you're going to continue to quote from non-doctrinal sources and insist that they were once doctrinal, you're going to continue to get the same answer from me and every other Latter-day Saint on the forum: "That's not doctrine."

Well, if an organisation is to maintain christian principals it's no surprise they bring in the bible....but than there are all the other writings that apparently are dismissed or not accepted, IE: D& C , MD (McConkie) Teachings of Joe Smith.
You said earlier that many of that was opinion, but I beg to differ.

The "Teachings of Joe Smith"? Cute. Go ahead and beg to differ all you want. It doesn't change a thing. Every religion in the world has the right to define its own doctrines -- with the exception of Mormonism. What in heaven's name do you think gives you or any other non-Mormon the right to say what is or is not official Mormon doctrine?

That depends if your god is a god of flesh and bone and who was created
I know you may not accept this reference, but if you could address the point, that would be great.

Yes, we believe that God has a physical form like ours, that we are created in His image, after His likeness. We believe that He has endowed His sons and daughters with the potential to someday become like Him. Jesus Christ commanded us to be perfect, as our Father in Heaven is perfect. We don't believe that He would command something of us that we could not possibly do. We believe that God has the power to do anything He wishes with us. If He wishes to use that power to share His divine nature with us, He is capable of doing so. The Bible teaches that He is the God of gods. That's what we believe. That's how I would explain the quotes you have posted. Considering the fact that we have already told you countless times that the sources you continue to post from are not part of the LDS canon, I believe my comments to be sufficient.

Are these quotes from your founding fathers, or not ?????

Our founding fathers? Most of these individuals were at one time or another part of the LDS leadership. Some of them lived much too recently to be considered "founding fathers" -- if we even used that term.

There are many religions out there that have said the same thing, but have added to or taken away from the underlying truth of God's word.
So are you saying we are both right and that LDS is just an extension of God's word.
That there are no differences of key essential doctrines?

We believe that there is much truth in all denominations of Christianity. We also believe that certain doctrines were lost or misinterpreted as a part of the Apostasy prophesied of by Paul. They have since been restored, as Paul also prophesied would happen. The key doctrines of your faith and mine are, unless I am mistaken, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He is our Savior and Redeemer and that it is only through His atoning sacrifice on our behalf that we may be reconciled to God and live again with Him. Or were you thinking of something more essential?

I wonder who Jesus , Paul ,Peter all meant when they said there will be many false teachers, prophecy, and doctrines in the world.

No you don't. You don't wonder at all, because you are convinced you already know. False teachers, prophets and doctrines have existed almost since the beginning. Why do you believe that Paul stressed the need for Apostles and Prophets to be a part of Christ's Church until we all came into a unity of the faith? He said that without this foundation in place we'd be "as children, tossed about by every wind of doctrine." I've got news for you, roli. This happened a millenia and a half before Joseph Smith was even a glint in his parents' eyes.

Old test ,quotes mixed with New Test almost made to look like one thought, but Jesus who referenced the Old in the NEW always said, it was said of the prophet and quoted the prophet.
The way it is worded in the LDS doctrine makes it look like one thought from the author himself.

You lost me. How about some examples?

There have never been opposing doctrines than, is this what your saying.

That is what I am saying. Doctrines are eternal. They don't change. Policies and procedures do change over the years. When you get right down to it, probably well over 95% of LDS doctrines were restored through Joseph Smith. By the time he was martyred in 1843, the gospel of Jesus Christ had been restored. Since then, there have been only a few new doctrines introduced. Every single solitary doctrine that has been introduced to the Church since Joseph Smith's time can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants. All of the sources you continue, ad nauseum, to cite, are the opinions and interpretations of men. Some of them are fundamentally on target and can be substantiated by the LDS "Standard Works" (the books I previously listed as being canonical). Some of them are a little more speculative and are not as clearly straight down the doctrinal line as others. A few have been pointed out as absolutely incorrect by the LDS General Authorities.

The BoM is more clarity than?

Yes. (See my next post. I had to cut my post short because it was too many characters in length.)

Let's take the topic of God & Jesus ,where did they come from, who are they.
Was one of them created, is God flesh and blood, Did god have a father.
The Holy Spirit is he a person or a force ?

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God. He was with His Father in the beginning. He was a personage of spirit in His premortal life and was born to a Virgin, at which time He gained a physical body. Jesus Christ is in the image of His Father's person. They both have glorified immortal bodies of flesh and bones. I have no idea whether God had a father or not. Repeat after me: "That's not doctrine." The Holy Ghost is the third personage of the Godhead. He is a spirit whose power is able to be everywhere at once, but who is also able to communicate one-on-one with men and women who seek God.

That's because your not showing the underlying beliefs about Mormonism, that have been openly exposed by so many throughout the history of your religion..., but your surprised that I imagine such a thing.

Exposed? Our beliefs have been exposed? Darn. We've been trying so hard to keep them a secret.

 

[Katzpur]

The Book of Mormon on infant baptism:

Moroni 8:8-18 teaches: Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach -- repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity, for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism." (Moroni 8:8-18)

 

[roli]

The Book of Mormon on infant baptism:

Moroni 8:8-18 teaches: Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin;

I'm sorry but your so very wrong here accroding to scripture:
This verse is taken out of context for the furtherence of your teaching

wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach -- repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity, for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism." (Moroni 8:8-18)

If the teaching on baptism for the dead in D&C 128 and this teaching on infant baptism proves a requirement for salvation than Christ died in vain,at least according to these and a myriad of other scriptures
Rom 4:5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Tts 3:5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Eph 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Rom 3:20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:27Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 5:1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


God ,no where in scripture saves any of us by baptism,nor does he or any apostle teach on the baptism for the dead. And no,Paul is not teaching or endorsing it in 1 Cor 15 it ,as a matter of fact , reading in context where he is including himself among the believers in prior verses, he than at this verse makes a distinction and excludes himself as part of those who did baptise for the dead by speaking twice of "they" and "if they"
Rom 4:3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The word is not contradicting or sending a mixed message, but James is making a distinction that faith without works is dead. Works don't save you, but complete the faith which saves you. Abraham believed and acted on on faith to God's command to offer his son, because he trusted in God's provision and his promise of offspring and of Abraham being a father of many nations.
It's when I believe in God,I demonstrate my faith by obedience to his word ,I don't work to gain salvation, I'm justified by faith alone ..first!
Jam 2:21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Rom 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Jhn 1:13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jhn 1:12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
Jhn 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God
Jhn 3:36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jhn 5:24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Jhn 6:29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Jhn 20:31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Jhn 11:25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Jhn 6:35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
....do you see the requirement for salvation.

 

[Katzpur]

If the teaching on baptism for the dead in D&C 128 and this teaching on infant baptism proves a requirement for salvation than Christ died in vain,at least according to these and a myriad of other scriptures
Rom 4:5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Tts 3:5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Eph 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Rom 3:20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:27Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 5:1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.


God ,no where in scripture saves any of us by baptism,nor does he or any apostle teach on the baptism for the dead. And no,Paul is not teaching or endorsing it in 1 Cor 15 it ,as a matter of fact , reading in context where he is including himself among the believers in prior verses, he than at this verse makes a distinction and excludes himself as part of those who did baptise for the dead by speaking twice of "they" and "if they"
Rom 4:3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The word is not contradicting or sending a mixed message, but James is making a distinction that faith without works is dead. Works don't save you, but complete the faith which saves you. Abraham believed and acted on on faith to God's command to offer his son, because he trusted in God's provision and his promise of offspring and of Abraham being a father of many nations.
It's when I believe in God,I demonstrate my faith by obedience to his word ,I don't work to gain salvation, I'm justified by faith alone ..first!
Jam 2:21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Rom 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Jhn 1:13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jhn 1:12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
Jhn 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God
Jhn 3:36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jhn 5:24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Jhn 6:29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Jhn 20:31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Jhn 11:25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Jhn 6:35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
....do you see the requirement for salvation.

Roli, every single solitary time I have ever tried to have a rational diaglogue with you, it ends up this way. If you think that God would condemn little babies who die without baptism to an eternity in Hell, that's your perogative. You asked what the Book of Mormon says on the subject of infant baptism and I told you. All of the scriptures you quoted state the necessity of a belief in Jesus Christ. Well, I have news for you. A ten-day-old baby cannot possibly have faith in Jesus Christ. According to the scriptures you've posted, if that baby dies, he cannot be saved. Is that what you really believe? For your sake, I hope you never lose a child in infancy. It would be hard enough to have that happen if you believe that child is going to be in Heaven when you get there. I can't imagine how difficult it would be for someone who thought that his child would end up in Hell because he didn't believe in Christ.

I have tried to be patient in discussing my beliefs with you, but you are making it pretty darned difficult. You obviously have no desire to understand LDS doctrine. You are so convinced that it's wrong that you're not listening to anything any of us say. You're not pointing out legitimate flaws in our doctrine at all. All you did by raising the issue of "Are we saved by faith or by works?" is poke a hole in your own logic. If all we have to do to be saved is have faith in Christ, if our obedience to His commandments counts for nothing, then every person who died before having the mental capacity to have faith in Christ is doomed. You go with a God who would treat His children that way. I want no part of Him.

 

[Watchmen]

The only thing I'd like to add is that some posts ago, Roli referred to the Book of Mormon as the "Mormon Bible". There is no such thing. The Book of Mormon is the Book of Mormon. The Bible is the Bible (Old and New Ts).

 

[roli]

Roli, every single solitary time I have ever tried to have a rational diaglogue with you, it ends up this way. If you think that God would condemn little babies who die without baptism to an eternity in Hell, that's your perogative.

I'm sorry, but I never said or implied any such thing,you may have very well jumped to conclusion though. I merely pointed out that the bible does not say either way regarding infant baptism, that is your doctrine.
But Jesus is clear on who will enter heaven and it's not based on proxy, baptism, marriage, law or any such work man can contrive, period. That is according to scripture.
..and that little children who die under the age of accountability or the age when the conscience knows right from wrong are going to hell, is not for me to say.
I don't believe God would send those who are morally or mentally underdeveloped, but that is not my job.

You asked what the Book of Mormon says on the subject of infant baptism and I told you. All of the scriptures you quoted state the necessity of a belief in Jesus Christ. Well, I have news for you. A ten-day-old baby cannot possibly have faith in Jesus Christ.

I appreciate that you responded, but make no mistake, the scriptures don't elaborate on infant baptism, but your doctrine seems to express such a emphasis on it that it begs the question, why is baptism such an essential doctrine LDS? .
Your view and emphasis of infant baptism certainly sets the stage for adult baptism and proxy baptism for the dead as a means to be saved. Which again is not in scripture in the context LDS have professes.

According to the scriptures you've posted, if that baby dies, he cannot be saved.

On that day you stand before God, you ask him , but in the mean time, you can take the emphasis off me as if I'm the one responsible for the enumerable scriptures that declare the same message over and over and over again.


[

QUOTE]. You're not pointing out legitimate flaws in our doctrine at all.

Show them to me that we may discuss them!!!

If all we have to do to be saved is have faith in Christ,

kATZ,do you relaise what your actually saying here ?
This is the delemma that many down through the ages have wrestled with,.... that being the simplicity of believing the power of the gospel message to be save.
But the intellectual asks, what can I do, what must I do, it's not as simple as that...????
As a matter of fact Jesus in his speaking of children said, unless you be converted and become as little children you cannot enter the kingdom.
Obviously he was'nt talking about becoming a child again, impossible, but maybe the faith of child, what do you think he meant here?

if our obedience to His commandments counts for nothing,

1Jo 2:3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
There is a knowing (which is an intimate knowledge) and is brought about by a spiritual conversion that precedes the doing.

then every person who died before having the mental capacity to have faith in Christ is doomed. You go with a God who would treat His children that way. I want no part of Him

If salvation is or was based on any form of works, than Christ died in vain and our faith is void:
Gal 2:21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 3:21[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 5:4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Might I suggest you read what Paul wrote in Galatians and Romans 7, here is a man who was under law and thought that it brought life, but in essence brought death.

Katz, when a person has faith in Christ and he is in him and Christ is in him, they can't but not follow in obedience to God's law.Before Christ we were all under law
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Gal 3:10Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
They have come out from under the law which was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, but Christ is the end of the law and yet fulfills all law at the same time.
To put the cart before the horse and work to attain saint hood or inheritance into the kingdom ,well is a salvation by works as in the verse I quoted above.

What do you actually think Paul is saying
Tts 3:5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Eph 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Rom 3:20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:27Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 5:1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him

 

[roli]

The only thing I'd like to add is that some posts ago, Roli referred to the Book of Mormon as the "Mormon Bible". There is no such thing. The Book of Mormon is the Book of Mormon. The Bible is the Bible (Old and New Ts).

Sorry, but to be literal,the word "bible" actually means "a written book" in the greek

 

[Watchmen]

Sorry, but to be literal,the word "bible" actually means "a written book" in the greek

Sorry, but to be literal, we're speaking English not Greek.

The English definition of "Bible" per yourdictionary.com:

1. the sacred book of Christianity; Old Testament and New Testament: some Roman Catholic versions also include all or part of the Apocrypha

This is not the Book of Mormon, which is a separate sacred writing. In my experience the only people who insist on referring to the Book of Mormon as the "Mormon Bible" are those anti-Mormons who seek to bring down the Mormon Church, usually by twisting our teachings and words of our prophets. But that's not you, is it?

 

[Katzpur]

I merely pointed out that the bible does not say either way regarding infant baptism, that is your doctrine.

That's what you pointed out? No, roli, that's what I pointed out. The Bible is not clear on the need for or validity of infant baptism. For this reason, the various denominations of Christianity are at odds with each other as to whether it's required, optional or not to be performed. I gave the doctrine of infant baptism as an example of something the Book of Mormon makes a definitive statement on. The point of that example was not to provide you with yet another doctrine to take issue with.

But Jesus is clear on who will enter heaven and it's not based on proxy, baptism, marriage, law or any such work man can contrive, period. That is according to scripture.

If Jesus was clear on who will enter Heaven, then why are Christians other than Mormons divided on the subject? Why can't they all agree on something that is supposedly a no-brainer?

..and that little children who die under the age of accountability or the age when the conscience knows right from wrong are going to hell, is not for me to say.
I don't believe God would send those who are morally or mentally underdeveloped, but that is not my job.

I think you already did say, roli. You said Jesus is clear on who will enter heaven. If this is true, and if the Bible spells it out as explicitly as you insist it does, you don't even have to wonder. If it's not for you to say, then tell me what Jesus said. What did He say about children who die before reaching an age at which they can be held accountable?

I appreciate that you responded, but make no mistake, the scriptures don't elaborate on infant baptism, but your doctrine seems to express such a emphasis on it that it begs the question, why is baptism such an essential doctrine LDS?

I'll give you a hint. Jesus said that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. We do tend to put an emphasis on obedience. I hope that answers your question.

Your view and emphasis of infant baptism certainly sets the stage for adult baptism and proxy baptism for the dead as a means to be saved. Which again is not in scripture in the context LDS have professes.

I disagree. Why do you believe Jesus commanded His apostles to baptize all who accepted Him as their Savior if it wasn't important to Him? Do you see it as merely a suggestion and not a commandment?

Show them to me that we may discuss them!!!

No, roli. You're the one making the accusation. You provide the evidence. When you do, I'll gladly refute it.

kATZ,do you relaise what your actually saying here ?

I do. Apparently you're still pretty much in the dark about it, though.

This is the delemma that many down through the ages have wrestled with,.... that being the simplicity of believing the power of the gospel message to be save. But the intellectual asks, what can I do, what must I do, it's not as simple as that...????

I see. It's a dilemma, and an issue that has divided Christians through the ages, and yet the Bible is absolutely clear on the matter. It's not just the Mormons who are confused then, but pretty much anyone who doesn't share your perspective.

As a matter of fact Jesus in his speaking of children said, unless you be converted and become as little children you cannot enter the kingdom.
Obviously he was'nt talking about becoming a child again, impossible, but maybe the faith of child, what do you think he meant here?

I believe He meant the faith and the innocence of a child.

1Jo 2:3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
There is a knowing (which is an intimate knowledge) and is brought about by a spiritual conversion that precedes the doing.

So now we do need to do something after all? It's necessary to have faith, but faith alone is not enough? Are you saying that we also have to keep His commandments, and that if we don't, our profession of faith in nothing but a lie?

If salvation is or was based on any form of works, than Christ died in vain and our faith is void.

Christ died in vain if He expects us to be faithful to Him by obeying His commandments? Is that what you really believe?

Katz, when a person has faith in Christ and he is in him and Christ is in him, they can't but not follow in obedience to God's law.

I recall quoting something from the Book of Mormon that said much the same thing. In Mosiah, one of my favorite books within the Book of Mormon, a prophet speaks of the Holy Ghost as bringing about "a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually." This is not to say, though, that the adversary will not continue to try to persuade us to forsake our faith and disregard the promises we have made to keep our Savior's commandments.

They have come out from under the law which was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, but Christ is the end of the law and yet fulfills all law at the same time. To put the cart before the horse and work to attain saint hood or inheritance into the kingdom ,well is a salvation by works as in the verse I quoted above.

Nobody is putting the cart before the horse, roli. The cart and the horse work together.

What do you actually think Paul is saying?

I believe he is saying that we do not have the ability to save ourselves. We have all sinned and are all in need of a Savior. There is nothing any of us could conceivably do to be forgiven of our sins without the Atonement of Jesus Christ, which is His gift of perfect love to us. I'm sure you'll find something in that to find fault with. I'm just waiting with baited breath to hear what it is.

 

[roli]

Calm down. My statement had nothing whatsoever to do with "discrepancies" concerning doctrine.

Katz,could you refrain from the dramatics,I assure you I am extremely calm

I was saying (and this is the third time now that I've said it), that it is "ludicrous" to you can't find fault with the Book of Mormon for sounding like the Bible and for teaching Christian doctrines. That is the criticism I was referring to. You can't criticize it on one hand for sounding like a "cut and paste" of what's in the Bible and in the very next breath condemn it for making major changes to biblical doctrine. It can't be plagiarism of biblical doctrine and a huge departure from biblical doctrine at the same time.

Katz,do you believe that the BoM is more accurate than the bible?
Do you believe it to be the fullness of the everlasting gospel ?
Is the present prophet of LDS the final line of authority and can he overturn any past prophets teaching?

I don't know what you're talking about. If we're talking about theology and doctrine, let's stick to that subject

What does the D&C have to say on the matter of salvation ?
Is the D&C basically a revision or should I say, a book of recent revelations?
Does the D&C have authority over the BoM

. If we're talking about the origin and authorship of the Book of Mormon, let's stick to that.

Authorship, why certainly,Joseph Smith claimed that the BoM was the most correct book on earth, why are there so many mistakes, revisions,errors, inaccuracies in the archaelogical and historical end .
Your probably saying, show them to me, which ones.
Have you ever used a search engine on this topic, it's too vast to show, but if your really in the dark about the history and validity of the BoM OR any of these errors etc, which I highly doubt you are, than

If you could stick to one topic instead of jumping back and forth from one topic to another, every time a new thought crosses your mind. I thought we were supposed to be comparing the Book of Mormon's teachings on salvation to the Bible's. Is there some reason you don't want to do so?

Is there some reason why you don't bring in the other writings that teach on the subject as well, we both know that the D&C trumps the BoM,...that is according to your prophets.

Which discrepancies? Are we talking about salvation or aren't we? What did you find in Scott's and my quotations from the Book of Mormon on salvation that you believe to be false (besides the fact that they come from the Book of Mormon )?

Let's bring in the other writings that are suppose to support what you believe about such a doctrine

It's true that we do believe in continuing revelation and in living prophets, but as long as you're going to continue to quote from non-doctrinal sources and insist that they were once doctrinal, you're going to continue to get the same answer from me and every other Latter-day Saint on the forum: "That's not doctrine."

so I ask you, were they doctrine back in their time and now they are considered opinion because they were trumped by new prophets coming on the scene.
Were they always opinions?

The "Teachings of Joe Smith"? Cute. Go ahead and beg to differ all you want. It doesn't change a thing. Every religion in the world has the right to define its own doctrines -- with the exception of Mormonism. What in heaven's name do you think gives you or any other non-Mormon the right to say what is or is not official Mormon doctrine?

Jesus gives us the right to examine and test the spirits.
You have had so many prophets through the years that come on the scene and revise the doctrines, is there any wonder your doctrines are questioned

Yes, we believe that God has a physical form like ours,

"God is flesh and bone" is that what your trying to say?

Our founding fathers? Most of these individuals were at one time or another part of the LDS leadership. Some of them lived much too recently to be considered "founding fathers" -- if we even used that term.

The new leaders make void all other teachings from previous leaders..am I right

 

[Katzpur]

Katz,could you refrain from the dramatics,I assure you I am extremely calm.

That's good to know. My statement was in response to your comment, "Are you serious!!' It appeared as if you were getting a little excited, that's all.

Katz,do you believe that the BoM is more accurate than the bible?

We believe that the original texts of the Bible and the original text of the Book of Mormon are equally accurate. The Bible has been translated multiple times by different people, and every time God involves human beings in a project, they seem to mess up to one degree or another. The original text of the Book of Mormon was better preserved than the various writings from which the Bible was compiled. Thus, the Book of Mormon we have today is a more faithful rendering of the original than any of the Bibles we have today. As I already stated, however, the original texts are equally accurate in what they teach.

Do you believe it to be the fullness of the everlasting gospel ?

Yes, we believe it to contain the fullness of the everlasting gospel. That does not mean it contains every doctrine associated with that gospel.

Is the present prophet of LDS the final line of authority and can he overturn any past prophets teaching?

Not as simply as your question suggests. The living Prophet is the individual through whom the Lord communicates His will for His Church here on earth. If He wanted to communicate something of a doctrinal message to the Church as a whole, He would go through the Prophet, as has been the case since Old Testament times. When this happens, the revelation is received first of all, through the Prophet. The Prophet would meet with the Twelve Apostles and would relay God's message to them. They would then pray about it, individually and collectively and would listen to the witness of the Holy Ghost that this teaching had been revealed by God and was His will. It would then be presented to the membership of the Church for their sustaining vote. Once this had taken place, it would be considered doctrine.

What does the D&C have to say on the matter of salvation ?

My time is limited right now. I'll have to get back to you when I have a little bit more time to devote to giving you the answer the question merits.

Is the D&C basically a revision or should I say, a book of recent revelations?

It's a book of revelations given to latter-day prophets. Most of these revelations were received by Joseph Smith. A few were received by prophets who led the Church after his martyrdom.

Does the D&C have authority over the BoM.

To us, that's like asking, "Does gospel according to Matthew have authority over the gospel according to John?" or "Does Exodus have authority over Genesis?"

Authorship, why certainly,Joseph Smith claimed that the BoM was the most correct book on earth, why are there so many mistakes, revisions,errors, inaccuracies in the archaelogical and historical end .

There aren't.

Your probably saying, show them to me, which ones.
Have you ever used a search engine on this topic, it's too vast to show.

Yes, it's too vast to show, but you don't need to look very far to see that 99% of these anti-Mormon sites are repetitions of the others. Most of the issues they raise have been addressed on multiple occasions by LDS scholars. That's what makes the whole thing so frustrating. People say, "Well what about such and such evidence?" LDS scholars respond with an answer but nobody listens. Pretty soon, someone else says, "Well what about such and such evidence?" and raises exactly the same question all over again.

Is there some reason why you don't bring in the other writings that teach on the subject as well, we both know that the D&C trumps the BoM,...that is according to your prophets.

I haven't brought in other writings on the subject because the topic of the OP is the Book of Mormon. Why do you continue to try to ignore that? Since you apparently know more about which of our Standard Works "trumps" the others, why don't you give me a quote from one of our prophets stating that this is the case.

Let's bring in the other writings that are suppose to support what you believe about such a doctrine.

Let's start a new thread. Hasn't this one strayed far enough from the OP to suit you?

so I ask you, were they doctrine back in their time and now they are considered opinion because they were trumped by new prophets coming on the scene.

They were never doctrine unless they were in the Standard Works, which they weren't.

Were they always opinions?

Yes.

Jesus gives us the right to examine and test the spirits.

He not only gives us the right, he gives us the obligation.

You have had so many prophets through the years that come on the scene and revise the doctrines, is there any wonder your doctrines are questioned

It's little wonder that people are so likely to be down on those things they aren't up on. None of our doctrines is subject to "revision" because they are all eternal. God may reveal additional information to us as we are ready to receive it, but truth does not change over time.

"God is flesh and bone" is that what your trying to say?

If that is what I'd been trying to say, it wouldn't have been so difficult that I'd have messed up. Not, it's not what I was trying to say, but yes, it is what we believe.

The new leaders make void all other teachings from previous leaders..am I right

No, you are absolutely wrong, but I'm sure you won't admit it.

 

[DOTE]

Forgive me if i did not read all of the posts between Katzpur and Roli but i don't have the amount of time it would take to read all of that argument. So could one of you simply state the points of conflict you are discussing between the Book of Mormon and the Bible