Is Baptism a necessary part of salvation according to the Bible?

[LeSellers]

But can we stick to the bible?

Why? That seems rather silly. Did Jesus limit Himself to the Pentateuch? Why should we limit ourselves to a tiny fraction of God's word?

Besides, who said the Bible, as we have it today, is what God intended the Bible to be? There's nothing in the Bible that says so.

Lehi

[evangelist]

Well, if you really want to limit yourself to a portion of the Savior's words...but you're the one who brought up the BOM.

Yours under the oaks accepting all of God's gifts,

Nathair /|\

I said to leave the bom out the picture and a koran or a JW bible (NWT)!

one love

[evangelist]

Does the mormon society think that every where in the bible where mention baptism is meaning water baptism??

one love

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

Sorry for getting your name wrong. I fixed it.

The Book of Mormon supposedly isn't one book, but a series of books written over a period of about a thousand years. Is it really credible that the whole thing appears to have been written to address 19th-century theological concerns?

Nathair is Gaelic for serpent. It is a reference to 2 Nephi 25:20 among other things.

I'm sure that was one of the things Mormon had in mind. If God gave you a vision of the future and commanded you to prepare a book for them, wouldn't you include stuff like that?

I realize I am probably not worthy of your notice,

Yours under the insignificant oaks,

Nathair /|\

[LeSellers]

The Book of Mormon supposedly isn't one book, but a series of books written over a period of about a thousand years. Is it really credible that the whole thing appears to have been written to address 19th-century theological concerns?

It is composed of fifteen sections called, with the exception of The Words of Mormon, books. However, the Book of Mormon is "one book". It was specifically written for us, in the XIX~XXI.

Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

Mormon (and his son, Moroni) abridged the history of their people for us. (BTW, the message is that Jesus is the Christ, and that "secret combinations" cause the downfall of nations and the destruction of righteousness.)

At one point, Mormon was commanded to include a second account of the first 450 years of the culture, and that was explicitly not an history at all, but a testimony of Jesus Christ.

Your position in the cited message is wrong in toto.

Leih

[Nathair/|\]

Does the mormon society think that every where in the bible where mention baptism is meaning water baptism??

one love

Not hard to say:

The three degrees of baptism: First the water, second. Fire and the Holy Spirit, third, the Blood of Christ.

59That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

60For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified Moses 7:59=60

[bluebell]

I said to leave the bom out the picture and a koran or a JW bible (NWT)!

one love

We'll leave the BOM out if you agree to leave the New Testament out. How does that sound?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I assume the Rabbit Hole goes as deep as it needs to. IMHO Mr. Bowman is not here to learn. He is here to preach his own doctrine.

Agreed

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

We'll leave the BOM out if you agree to leave the New Testament out. How does that sound?

He is asking that we leave the BoM out of the debate, on a Mormon site

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

The fact that Jude quotes Enoch, which isn't in the Bible, is proof that our current OT is not a complete collection.

Your argument based on ASSUMPTION is shattered.

Your argument (hey! you actually have one this time) presupposes that in quoting Enoch, Jude was treating Enoch as scripture. Well, Enoch is an extant book, accepted in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as scripture, available in multiple manuscripts and languages. Why doesn't one of your inspired prophets declare the book to be part of the Bible?

And while you're at it, would you care to add the writings of the Stoic poet Aratus (cf. Acts 17:29) or Epimenides (cf. Titus 1:12-13) to the Standard Works?

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

It is composed of fifteen sections called, with the exception of The Words of Mormon, books. However, the Book of Mormon is "one book". It was specifically written for us, in the XIX~XXI.... Mormon (and his son, Moroni) abridged the history of their people for us. (BTW, the message is that Jesus is the Christ, and that "secret combinations" cause the downfall of nations and the destruction of righteousness.) At one point, Mormon was commanded to include a second account of the first 450 years of the culture, and that was explicitly not an history at all, but a testimony of Jesus Christ. Your position in the cited message is wrong in toto.

Thanks for these comments. So, you agree that the entire Book of Mormon is a single work, not the work of multiple authors, and that it was written in its entirety for the benefit of modern people, not for the people of its own time. From my perspective, these are huge admissions. Assuming you are correct, what would be the difference between such a book written in the fifth century but intended for people of the nineteenth century and later, and a book actually written in the nineteenth century?

[ELF1024]

Lehi,

You wrote:

Thanks for these comments. So, you agree that the entire Book of Mormon is a single work, not the work of multiple authors, and that it was written in its entirety for the benefit of modern people, not for the people of its own time. From my perspective, these are huge admissions. Assuming you are correct, what would be the difference between such a book written in the fifth century but intended for people of the nineteenth century and later, and a book actually written in the nineteenth century?

I disagree with that.

The Book of Mormon was abridged (By Mormon) into "One set of Books" but the books that comprise the Book of Mormon are authored by multiple authors. (Omni for example claims about six different authors, while the book of Alma has at least two) After the abridgement, Mormon's son, Moroni added a book of his own to the set.

The historical account of the people of Lehi was written for us today, and the decendants of the people of Lehi who are alive today. It was not written for the people who were alive at the time it was originally authored or abridged.

[ELF1024]

Your argument (hey! you actually have one this time) presupposes that in quoting Enoch, Jude was treating Enoch as scripture. Well, Enoch is an extant book, accepted in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as scripture, available in multiple manuscripts and languages. Why doesn't one of your inspired prophets declare the book to be part of the Bible?

And while you're at it, would you care to add the writings of the Stoic poet Aratus (cf. Acts 17:29) or Epimenides (cf. Titus 1:12-13) to the Standard Works?

Why don't you pick up the phone to your own Prophet... oh wait... How about you call up Rome... oh wait... How about you call up Salt... no that won't work...

So who do the Evangelicals call up when they want to add something... Oh that's right... you guys aren't that organized. It's every church for itself.

At least the Catholics and the Mormons have someone to call and a world wide organization. What do you have?

[ELF1024]

None the less, the book IS there. It wasn't removed, as you implied by your statement by saying that your Bible has "one more book than yours!"

Besides which Rob, you know full well that the LDS Church doesn't believe that ANY book is inerrant. So much of your arguement is pretty pointless in that respect.

Beyond the concepts of "Inerrancy" I would like to know what you personally find so compelling about Song of Solomon. And you if had been the one to decide if the Book had made it or not, would you have included it.

So Rob, just to remind you... you haven't answered me yet. I'm still curious about what you find so compelling about Song of Solomon... and if you personally would have included it in the Canon.

[LeSellers]

So, you agree that the entire Book of Mormon is a single work, not the work of multiple authors, and that it was written in its entirety for the benefit of modern people, not for the people of its own time.

Agree with a prophet (or two or twenty)? Of course I do.

However, there are a few nits to pick with your synopsis of my position.

First, there are several authors. Mormon wrote the vast majority of the book, his son, Moroni, finished it, but both, were prophetic redactors or their national history. Moroni also abridged the history of a different people, largely, in my view, to pound home the message to avoid secret combinations.

The first six books, 1 Nephi~Omni, were written by several authors, but their goal was the same as that of Mormon/Moroni: to witness to us in the XIX~XXI that Jesus is the Christ, and to give us insights into what happened to their people when they disobeyed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, while it was written with us as the target audience, it was not written by a single man. It was written with a single goal in mind.

From my perspective, these are huge admissions.

Why? It's not a huge admission to state what has been said repeatedly over the past 170 years and is included in the book itself.

Assuming you are correct, what would be the difference between such a book written in the fifth century but intended for people of the nineteenth century and later, and a book actually written in the nineteenth century?

Several things pop to mind:

• Its provenance: a book written in XIX would not have needed an angel to reveal it to its translator.
• The book itself says it was written in IV~V, so, by the witness I have of the book, it was written in V, which is very different from XIX by some fifteen hundred years.
• The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to witness that Jesus is the Christ, and that secret combinations are destructive of societies and persons. The fact that is is a history of peoples whose societies and individuals were destroyed by the nefarious groups (two of them, in actuality, which reinforces the message) makes that witness more impressive.

Lehi

[bluebell]

Agree with a prophet (or two or twenty)? Of course I do.

However, there are a few nits to pick with your synopsis of my position.

First, there are several authors. Mormon wrote the vast majority of the book, his son, Moroni, finished it, but both, were prophetic redactors or their national history. Moroni also abridged the history of a different people, largely, in my view, to pound home the message to avoid secret combinations.

The first six books, 1 Nephi~Omni, were written by several authors, but their goal was the same as that of Mormon/Moroni: to witness to us in the XIX~XXI that Jesus is the Christ, and to give us insights into what happened to their people when they disobeyed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, while it was written with us as the target audience, it was not written by a single man. It was written with a single goal in mind.

Why? It's not a huge admission to state what has been said repeatedly over the past 170 years and is included in the book itself.

Several things pop to mind:

• Its provenance: a book written in XIX would not have needed an angel to reveal it to its translator.
• The book itself says it was written in IV~V, so, by the witness I have of the book, it was written in V, which is very different from XIX by some fifteen hundred years.
• The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to witness that Jesus is the Christ, and that secret combinations are destructive of societies and persons. The fact that is is a history of peoples whose societies and individuals were destroyed by the nefarious groups (two of them, in actuality, which reinforces the message) makes that witness more impressive.

Lehi

Why does your post attribute the quotes you are answering to California boy while a few posts up from this one it shows it was Rob Bowman who actually said them?

I'm really confused. Computer quirk?

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Your argument (hey! you actually have one this time) presupposes that in quoting Enoch, Jude was treating Enoch as scripture. Well, Enoch is an extant book, accepted in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as scripture, available in multiple manuscripts and languages. Why doesn't one of your inspired prophets declare the book to be part of the Bible?

In other words, Bowman is conceding defeat here because he has no refutation.

Jude identifies his source as Enoch to add authority to his comments. He can only do this if both he and his audience accept the prophetic/scriptural nature of Enoch's words.

Thanks for playing Bowman. But you LOST!!!!

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Your immature harassment is just unbearable. I don't concede defeat, but I do concede having run out of patience with you.

In other words, Bowman is conceding defeat here because he has no refutation.

Jude identifies his source as Enoch to add authority to his comments. He can only do this if both he and his audience accept the prophetic/scriptural nature of Enoch's words.

Thanks for playing Bowman. But you LOST!!!!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Vance,

You wrote:

Your argument (hey! you actually have one this time) presupposes that in quoting Enoch, Jude was treating Enoch as scripture. Well, Enoch is an extant book, accepted in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as scripture, available in multiple manuscripts and languages. Why doesn't one of your inspired prophets declare the book to be part of the Bible?

And while you're at it, would you care to add the writings of the Stoic poet Aratus (cf. Acts 17:29) or Epimenides (cf. Titus 1:12-13) to the Standard Works?

If the "body of Christ" is one and one church...why don't you agree with the "Ethiopian Orthodox Church"?

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You are assuming with your question that a Christian's proper stance is to view each book of the Bible with some measure of suspicion unless he finds it "so compelling" that he would personally choose to include it in the canon of Scripture. That is a recipe for disaster. Suppose I find the genealogies in the first nine chapters of Chronicles boring; is that a good reason for throwing them out? There's almost nothing in the Gospel of Mark that is not paralleled in Matthew; shall we dispense with Mark? Sorry, this just isn't how it's done. Rather, lacking any compelling reason to reject the Song of Solomon, given the fact that it has been part of the Jewish and Christian canons of Scripture for two millennia, I accept it as Scripture. Now, if you ask me what we can learn from the book, I do have an answer: that God made us to be male and female, that there is no shame in the erotic love of a man for a woman, and that such love is to be consummated in marriage. All good lessons, if you ask me. But I refuse to take the burden of proof on myself to defend the canonicity of the Song of Solomon. Rather, the burden of proof is on Joseph Smith to explain why he would claim that it is not inspired scripture.

So Rob, just to remind you... you haven't answered me yet. I'm still curious about what you find so compelling about Song of Solomon... and if you personally would have included it in the Canon.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

Being one body of Christ, one church, doesn't eliminate disagreements among its members, because we are still imperfect sinners, still learning and growing. I feel no shame in that fact.

If the "body of Christ" is one and one church...why don't you agree with the "Ethiopian Orthodox Church"?

[ELF1024]

Elf,

You are assuming with your question that a Christian's proper stance is to view each book of the Bible with some measure of suspicion unless he finds it "so compelling" that he would personally choose to include it in the canon of Scripture. That is a recipe for disaster. Suppose I find the genealogies in the first nine chapters of Chronicles boring; is that a good reason for throwing them out? There's almost nothing in the Gospel of Mark that is not paralleled in Matthew; shall we dispense with Mark? Sorry, this just isn't how it's done. Rather, lacking any compelling reason to reject the Song of Solomon, given the fact that it has been part of the Jewish and Christian canons of Scripture for two millennia, I accept it as Scripture. Now, if you ask me what we can learn from the book, I do have an answer: that God made us to be male and female, that there is no shame in the erotic love of a man for a woman, and that such love is to be consummated in marriage. All good lessons, if you ask me. But I refuse to take the burden of proof on myself to defend the canonicity of the Song of Solomon. Rather, the burden of proof is on Joseph Smith to explain why he would claim that it is not inspired scripture.

I would have thought that the fact that it reads like a cheap and poorly constructed romance novel would have been enough. Nothing you have claimed so far has changed my opinion that it is not of much worth as a book of Scripture.

All good lessons that can be learned from other books of scripture within the Bible.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

Being one body of Christ, one church, doesn't eliminate disagreements among its members, because we are still imperfect sinners, still learning and growing. I feel no shame in that fact.

Concerning what is scripture

[LeSellers]

I'm really confused. Computer quirk?

Cut'n'paste error. Sorry, and thanks for pointing it out.

Lehi

[Vance]

Vance,

Your immature harassment is just unbearable. I don't concede defeat, but I do concede having run out of patience with you.

Another ad hominem by Bowman. He has no counter argument so all he has left is personal attacks.

He is upset because he lost.