Taken At Face Value...Is The Book Of Mormon True

[Robert F. Smith]

This isn't Elders' Quorum, so please don't act like a rude child and shout me down. Do you treat all people here who make statements you don't like in this fashion? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Answer this. Do you believe the Book of Mormon contains the restored gospel? Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be the "most correct book"? These are yes/no answers. Please be civil and refrain from personal attacks and assumptions about my motivations.

I am unaware of the tendency of people to be shouted down in Elders' Quorum mtgs, and I challenge you to go to such a mtg and conduct yourself in a gentlemanly fashion, and then to return here and claim that you were shouted down. I expect you to provide the name and location of that meeting. Elders' Quorum mtgs usually are the preferred venue for all manner of opinions covering the broadest possible range of views, and that makes the mtgs more interesting than they might otherwise be. However, if your concept of Elders' Quorum mtgs is that only your opinion is valid and that only your opinion can be expressed, then of course you do not understand civil discourse, nor what it means to be a gentleman. Real, meaningful discussion assumes the sincerety of the participants. If your only purpose in engaging in discussions here or elsewhere is to demand compliance with your views, then of course you won't find a lot of sympathy for that totatlitarian approach.

As for your questions: You have been given intelligent replies by me, altersteve, and others. When will you actually respond to those replies?

[HeatherAnn]

Craig,

I think that's the longest OP I've ever seen!

To answer the topic question...

Truth is perspective. The more perspectives, the more truthful.

Truth is that which has influence.

Some things (like the Book of Mormon) may not be 100% historically & geographically true, but the influence inspired by it's words is real & true.

When you go see a movie, you probably don't bring a bunch of historical, geographic books to verify the story's accuracy.

You just go to have a good time... maybe be inspired in some way.

That's kindof how I see scriptures & religion in general - it's a tool that might help us spiritually, or to help cope emotionally.

Just because Santa isn't real, doesn't mean the spirit stired by a belief in him isn't.

[Kevin Christensen]

I thought that altersteve's post # 133 dealt adequately with your false claims about the nature of Book of Mormon teachings or theology, but he did not deal with the false claim you made that there are "no temple rituals" in the Book of Mormon. What do you imagine all the temples mentioned in the Book of Mormon were used for?

You might want to have a look at my notes on David Bokovoy's recent BYU Education Weeks lectures on "Temple Imagery in the Book of Mormon" HERE. Could be a real eye-opener for you.

David is very observant on Temple ritual in the Book of Mormon. There is also this from me on the Temple and the Book of Mormon

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=2&chapid=35

And this by Welch and Szinc

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=31&chapid=119

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[cdowis]

Answer this. Do you believe the Book of Mormon contains the restored gospel? Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be the "most correct book"? These are yes/no answers. Please be civil and refrain from personal attacks and assumptions about my motivations.

These are trick questions, based on your definition of "contain" "restored gospel", and "correct".

For example, does "correct" mean "without grammatical errors"? Then the answer is no.

The BOM tells us that it contains the "fullness of the gospel", so now we have to look up "fullness" in the dictionary, not what we think it means. "Gospel", does that mean every teaching that has been revealed in the "restored gospel", such as temple work, priesthood offices and duties, the pre-existence, the kingdoms of glory, etc. Or does "gospel" mean specifically how it is defined in the BOM itself, the "doctrine of Christ". Look it up in the BOM. Specifically, faith in Christ, repentence, baptism, receive the Holy Ghost. The BOM gives the fullness of the doctrines of Christ, as the book itself defines it.

It tells us the baptism covenant, how it is administered by one having the priesthood, how it is renewed with the sacrament. It is performed with immersion. It is therefore the most correct book, the fullness of the gospel regarding an ordinance which is necessary for salvation. You will find that information no where else.

It explains the atonement of Christ, from the necessity of Adam's fall Ädam fell that man might be.... etc, how the atonement fulfills the law, the relationship between mercy and justice. You will find this nowhere else.

But it does not give the entirety of the restored Gospel. Only the Doctrine of Christ, as defined in the BOM itself.

Edited September 4, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

David is very observant on Temple ritual in the Book of Mormon.

David has a very vivid imagination and offers little on the subject, as I pointed out in the thread. Sorry about that.

The temple is an open canvas, and you can paint your own picture on it without much trouble from almost any book.

"I worked all day today, and wiped my brow. I went back into the house and washed my hands and then changed into some clean clothes". This little story provides us a profound view of temple ordinances, does it not? If you really look hard.

I have looked hard, and found only one clear reference in 2 Nephi chapter 2.

The BOM does not teach temple ordinances except in a very broad view of the gospel. I find it offensive when someone tries to build a reputation on something that is just not there. In any case, this is a very poor defense of the BOM when the *real* answer is much more to the point. You must define "fullness" (look it up in the dictionary) and "gospel" (look it up in the BOM), instead of silly made-up excuses.

[Pahoran]

The source is irrelevant. Rational people do not ignore information because they don't like where it comes from. What it contains is key. All the quotes are valid. There is no "out of context" excuse here". I KNOW what the LDS church teaches and believes, and I repeat, it differs VASTLY from what the "most correct book" teaches.

To simply wright this information off as "anti" doesn't make it go away. The quotes are accurate. Which quotes do you suggest are false? Which do not reflect LDS theology today?

You have not answered ANYTHING contained in my post. Your answer descends into name-calling and stereotypes. Please tell me where this information is wrong. Don't just claim it's wrong without any proof.

Aussie Poofter,

Over the years, I have probably seen hundreds of examples of "laundry list" polemics; yours is merely the latest that I have seen.

And I am astonished that you would expect anyone to take yours seriously, since you had no serious interest in engaging the answers that have been given.

But then again, those who wave such laundry lists in our faces never have any such interest anyway. Such lists are intended to end discussion, not to add to it.

Each item on your list is merely a bumper-sticker slogan. As has been clearly demonstrated, examining them more closely shows that they are all found wanting. But you really didn't want them to be examined more closely, did you?

While no-one does anything perfectly, I am well satisfied of two things: (1) The Book of Mormon is true, and (2) "Mormonism" absolutely does adhere to it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited September 5, 2011 by Minos
Removed for name calling

[Robert F. Smith]

David has a very vivid imagination and offers little on the subject, as I pointed out in the thread. Sorry about that.

The temple is an open canvas, and you can paint your own picture on it without much trouble from almost any book.

Biblical scholars do not share this view. They take the approach that there is much liturgy, including temple liturgy, in the Bible -- in the Psalms, for example -- and they apply the formulaic language which they find there to a variety of instances in the Bible, including examples of temple sermons. David Bokovoy extrapolates from that non-Mormon scholarship to examples of clear-cut temple sermons in the Book of Mormon, wherein that very formulaic language is reused, and wherein people (as in Mosiah 2 - 5) are described as bringing the firstlings of their flocks to the temple for sacrifice, and take a formal oath and covenant at the conclusion. There is nothing mundane about such cases.

"I worked all day today, and wiped my brow. I went back into the house and washed my hands and then changed into some clean clothes". This little story provides us a profound view of temple ordinances, does it not? If you really look hard.

This is manifestly mundane and just plain silly. Such nihilism would invalidate virtually all biblical scholarship and make it impossible to read any text on earth in a coherent way. Scholars do not toy with texts in this manner because that constitutes "text abuse."

I have looked hard, and found only one clear reference in 2 Nephi chapter 2.

I see no reason here to take seriously the claim that you "have looked hard." I expect from you at least a paragraph or two of substantive critique of the articles by Kevin Christensen, and by Terrence Szink & John Welch, which Christensen cited above. Only then will we know whether you "get it."

The BOM does not teach temple ordinances except in a very broad view of the gospel. I find it offensive when someone tries to build a reputation on something that is just not there. In any case, this is a very poor defense of the BOM when the *real* answer is much more to the point. You must define "fullness" (look it up in the dictionary) and "gospel" (look it up in the BOM), instead of silly made-up excuses.

[cdowis]

I see no reason here to take seriously the claim that you "have looked hard."

OK, please put me on ignore and I have done the same.

You are being asked for documentation.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Minos

[Calm]

OK, please put me on ignore and I have done the same.

So you are retracting the accusation you made against David?

PS: This is the sum total of your refutation of David's work that I could find:

I see the temple referenced in 2 Ne chapter 2, but this other stuff, Nephi/Brother of Jared on the mountain, Jacob's speech, etc.... it just isn't there. I'm sure that the lecture was well-meaning, there will books, lectures, articles written, but to my way of thinking, this was just more twinkie theology.

The temple is basically an open pallet where you can relate almost anything to it. "Whew", I wipe my brow, "I have had a hard day". I go back to the house and change my clothes.

Surely that has profound temple significance. Are you going to include that in your notes?

Seriously, I am not impressed Edited September 5, 2011 by calmoriah

[Minos]

There are many more examples where the Book of Mormon does not mention current Mormon theology or outright contradicts it. So, the question is, if the Book of Mormon IS true, why do Mormons ignore it and not follow its teachings?

This is getting close to trolling. Clean up the attitude or find another board.

[Storm Rider]

It appears that Mr. Ozpoo has left the building.