The Meaning Of A Testimony That The Bom Is True?

[inquiringmind]

This is not meant as a criticism of the book of Mormon, the current teachings of the Church, or as a trick question.

(The fact that baptism for the dead is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15, and members of the LDS Church are almost the only ones doing this, is one of the first things that attracted me to the LDS Church.)

I ask this here because it's the kind of thing that always comes to mind when I'm told to "ask God if the Book of Mormon is True."

If I did receive such a Testimony (that the BOM is true), would that mean every doctrinal and philosophical statement made in the Book of Mormon is true?

For example, if a Mormon prophet said that those who die without ever hearing the name of Christ are automatically covered by the Atonement, would that be true?

And he commandeth all men that they must ^arepent, and be ^bbaptized in his name, having perfect ^cfaith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

And if they will not repent and believe in his ^aname, and be baptized in his name, and ^bendure to the end, they must be ^cdamned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.

Wherefore, he has given a ^alaw; and where there is ^bno ^claw given there is no ^dpunishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

For the ^aatonement satisfieth the demands of his ^bjustice upon all those who ^chave not the ^dlaw given to them, that they are ^edelivered from that awful monster, death and ^fhell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them ^gbreath, which is the Holy One of Israel.

law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that ^btransgresseth them, and that ^cwasteth the days of his ^dprobation, for awful is his state!

(2 Nephi 9:23-27.)

And

For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing

(Moroni 8:22.)

Jacob and Mormon seem to be saying that those who die without knowing they were supposed to be baptised (without law) are covered by the atonement (at the time of their death.)

That would contradict current Mormon doctrine, but is that what they were saying?

Is that what they meant and believed?

If it is, is it what I must believe if I receive a testimony that the Book of Mormon "is true"?

And what about "Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell" (verse 13)?

Why?

If little children couldn't be saved without baptism, couldn't someone be baptized for them?

Why would those who died without being baptized have to "have gone to an endless hell"?

Would a testimony that the book of Mormon "is true" mean that the reasoning Mormon used here ""is true"?

Edited February 29, 2012 by inquiringmind

[selek1]

If I did receive such a Testimony (that the BOM is true), would that mean every doctrinal and philosophical statement made in the Book of Mormon is true?

The Book of Mormon does not make such a claim for itself, nor do the faithful Saints. The disclaimers made at the beginning of the Book of Mormon acknowledge the possibility of errors within its covers.

That having been said, the dichotomy you reference below is a problem with your interpretation, rather than the text itself.

(2 Nephi 9:23-27.)

(Moroni 8:22.)

Jacob and Mormon seem to be saying that those who die without knowing they were supposed to be baptised (without law) are covered by the atonement (at the time of their death.)

That would contradict current Mormon doctrine, but is that what they were saying?

Is that what they meant and believed?

Not quite. LDS belief holds that little children below a certain age- or those who through illness or infirmity are incapable of understanding the law will not be held to account for what they could not comprehend and thus could not truly embrace and obey.

For the rest of us, we are accountable for that portion of the law and light which we did receive (except where granted grace through the Lord Jesus Christ).

Each of us- whether Hottentot or Hindu, Republican or Democrat receives some portion of the law during our lifetime. That is the standard by which we will be judged- again, except as Christ's grace cleanses us.

Moreover, we will be taught the fulness of the God's wisdom and plan (inasmuch of it as we are currently lacking) between our deaths and the Resurrection.

We will all then be held accountable for our decision to either accept or reject Christ's grace and intervention.

And what about "Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell" (verse 13)?

If you read this verse in context, the Book of Mormon shows the prophets refuting this idea. It is a heresy which denies the grace and justice of the Lord.

Now- one further thing: Baptism is indeed a requirement- one that all the faithful are commanded to receive- but it is separate from Christ's atonement in that it is a specific rite.

Christ's atonement is sufficient for those who were not a/o are not currently baptized.

But Christ's ministry also affords us the opportunity to perform those baptisms by proxy- which is why we baptize on behalf of the dead. Mormon doctrine also holds that such baptisms- for both the living and the dead- will be a major tasking for the Saints during the Millenium.

Why?

If little children couldn't be saved without baptism, couldn't someone be baptized for them?

Again, that's not a belief we hold, but yes, little children could theoretically be baptized by proxy.

Would a testimony that the book of Mormon "is true" mean that the reasoning Mormon used here ""is true"?

As noted, you are using an erroneous interpretation of Mormon's reasoning.

Mormons do not believe that infant baptism is a necessary or valid rite, and therefore cannot/will not condemn those who do not receive it.

[inquiringmind]

The Book of Mormon does not make such a claim for itself, nor do the faithful Saints. The disclaimers made at the beginning of the Book of Mormon acknowledge the possibility of errors within its covers...

But doesn't it make the claim that it would have been error free if the Nephites could have written in Hebrew?

And isn't it believed to be doctrinally inerrant (with any human errors being minor, non-doctrinal errors?)

Again, that's not a belief we hold, but yes, little children could theoretically be baptized by proxy.

But didn't Mormon exclude that possibility when he said "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."

Taken at face value, the statement presumes three things.

1) Hell is necessarily endless.

2.) These infants could only be saved or lost (and if lost they'd go to hell.)

3.) They're lost if they need to be baptized (because they weren't baptized here on earth.)

All three are denied by current Mormon doctrine.

What stands written in the Book of Mormon isn't literally true, if current Mormon teaching is true ( and if "little children could theoretically be baptized by proxy.")

As noted, you are using an erroneous interpretation of Mormon's reasoning.

It's the logic that Mormon uses to make his point about infant baptism, and if God recognizes baptism by proxy, it's faulty logic (as you yourself acknowledged when you said "yes, little children could theoretically be baptized by proxy.")

So my question is still this.

If the BOM isn't doctrinally and logically inerrant, what do we mean when we ask God if "it's true," and what does it mean if we get an affirmative answer?

Edited February 29, 2012 by inquiringmind

[selek1]

But doesn't it make the claim that it would have been error free if the Nephites could have written in Hebrew?

No that I'm aware of, no.

And isn't it believed to be doctrinally inerrant (with any human errors being minor, non-doctrinal errors?

But as demonstrated, the problem wasn't with the Book of Mormon, but rather was with your interpretation.

[inquiringmind]

Not that I'm aware of, no.

I'm thinking of a passage that says "there would have been no imperfections in our record if we could have written in Hebrew," and I've never understood what it means (does it mean the BOM would have been inerrant if the Nephites could have written in Hebrew?)

But as demonstrated, the problem wasn't with the Book of Mormon, but rather was with your interpretation.

I don't believe you demonstrated that.

Again, that's not a belief we hold, but yes, little children could theoretically be baptized by proxy.

But didn't Mormon exclude that possibility when he said "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."

Taken at face value, the statement presumes three things.

1) Hell is necessarily endless.

2.) These infants could only be saved or lost (and if lost they'd go to hell.)

3.) They're lost if they need to be baptized (because they weren't baptized here on earth.)

All three are denied by current Mormon doctrine.

What stands written in the Book of Mormon isn't literally true, if current Mormon teaching is true ( and if "little children could theoretically be baptized by proxy.")

As noted, you are using an erroneous interpretation of Mormon's reasoning.

It's the logic that Mormon uses to make his point about infant baptism, and if God recognizes baptism by proxy, it's faulty logic (as you yourself acknowledged when you said "yes, little children could theoretically be baptized by proxy.")

So my question is still this.

If the BOM isn't doctrinally and logically inerrant, what do we mean when we ask God if "it's true," and what does it mean if we get an affirmative answer?

Edited February 29, 2012 by inquiringmind

[zerinus]

Taken at face value, the statement presumes three things.

1) Hell is necessarily endless.

Not necessarily. See D&C 19.

2.) These infants could only be saved or lost (and if lost they'd go to hell.)

Wrong. They could only be saved, given the inevitability of the Atonement.

3.) They're lost if they need to be baptized (because they weren't baptized here on earth.)

Wrong. They would have been lost if they needed to be baptized (and died without baptism). As it is, they don't.

All three are denied by current Mormon doctrine.

Wrong! None of them do.

[zerinus]

I ask this here because it's the kind of thing that always comes to mind when I'm told to "ask God if the Book of Mormon is True."

If I did receive such a Testimony (that the BOM is true), would that mean every doctrinal and philosophical statement made in the Book of Mormon is true?

Provided it is understood correctly, yes.

For example, if a Mormon prophet said that those who die without ever hearing the name of Christ are automatically covered by the Atonement, would that be true?

Yes, up to a point. Somebody who committed a serious crime against his own conscience, without repentance, even though never heard of the gospel, will still be held accountable for it in the day of judgement.

Jacob and Mormon seem to be saying that those who die without knowing they were supposed to be baptised (without law) are covered by the atonement (at the time of their death.)

Yes, subject to the above explanation. It does not mean "without knowing they were supposed to be baptized," but without a knowledge of what they needed to repent of. Baptism is "unto repentance," and through faith in Jesus Christ. Before baptism, it is explained to you what you need to repent of. If you don't know what you need to repent of, and you are not repenting, and without having faith in Jesus Christ, baptism will not be doing you any good.

That would contradict current Mormon doctrine, but is that what they were saying?

How does it contradict current Mormon doctrine?

Is that what they meant and believed?

If it is, is it what I must believe if I receive a testimony that the Book of Mormon "is true"?

Your question doesn't make sense.

And what about "Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell" (verse 13)?

Why?

It tells you. Baptism is necessary for salvation. If little children needed baptism, that means that they could not be saved if they died without baptism. As it is, however, they are redeemed unconditionally by the Atonement, including those who die as adults but without a knowledge of the gospel. In other words, the Atonement net catches them both; otherwise, neither of them could be saved.

If little children couldn't be saved without baptism, couldn't someone be baptized for them?

Question is redundant, because it does not arise.

Why would those who died without being baptized have to "have gone to an endless hell"?

Without the Atonement they would have been; but because of the Atonement, they won't.

Would a testimony that the book of Mormon "is true" mean that the reasoning Mormon used here "is true"?

The reasoning that Mormon uses is true, regardless of whether the Book of Mormon is true.

Edited February 29, 2012 by zerinus

[inquiringmind]

Hell is necessarily endless.

Not necessarily. See D&C 19.

I take it your point is that endless could be used here in the sense of it being one of God's names, to work on the mind. O.K.

Without the Atonement they would have been; but because of the Atonement, they won't

But Mormon didn't say they would have had to go to an endless hell without the atonement.

He said "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."

He's clearly pointing to how many infants die without baptism, saying that if they needed this ordinance they must be in hell, and concluding that such a thought is blasphemy--therefore they don't need to be baptized.

(His whole argument is logically based on the assumption that these infants could not be vicariously baptized by proxy.)

Wrong. They could only be saved, given the inevitability of the Atonement.

Mormon is assuming that the departed spirits of these infants could only be saved or lost (in heaven or hell.)

His reasoning doesn't include the possibility of anything in between (like purgatory, limbo, or spirit prison.)

"Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell."

Do you believe that everyone who isn't personally baptized during this mortal probation is lost?

Mormon is saying that because these infants died without being baptized, they'd be lost if they had to be baptized.

Is that statement literally true?

Do you agree with it?

Does it line up with current Church teaching and practice?

Wrong. They would have been lost if they needed to be baptized (and died without baptism).

That does seem to be what he's saying, doesn't it?

And the Church doesn't say that those who need to be baptized (those over the age of accountability) are lost if they die without baptism, does it?

So you agree that there's a contradiction here?

Taken at face value, the statement presumes three things.

Wrong! None of them do.

Current Mormon doctrine and practice doesn't deny any of these three propositions?

1) Hell is necessarily endless.

2.) These infants could only be saved or lost (and if lost they'd go to hell.)

3.) They're lost if they need to be baptized (because they weren't baptized here on earth.)

Jacob and Mormon seem to be saying that those who die without knowing they were supposed to be baptised (without law) are covered by the atonement (at the time of their death.) That would contradict current Mormon doctrine, but is that what they were saying?

How does it contradict current Mormon doctrine?

According current Mormon doctrine, those who die without law (Hindus, Buddhists, etc) have to accept the atonement and the ordinances of the Gospel (performed vicariously for them.)

They're not just automatically saved by the Atonement.

And what about Alma 40:11-13?

Now, concerning the ^astate of the soul between ^bdeath and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are ^ctaken ^dhome to that God who gave them life.And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of ^ahappiness, which is called ^bparadise, a state of rest, a state of ^cpeace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the ^bdevil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer ^cdarkness; there shall be ^dweeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

http://www.lds.org/s.../40.11?lang=eng

This sounds more like the particular judgement taught in Roman Catholicism than D&C 138.

Is it Mormon teaching that individual souls (or spirits) return to God for their particular judgement immediately after death?

Are the spirits of all men (whether good or evil) taken home to that God who gave them life as soon as they are departed from this mortal body?

Again...

If the BOM isn't doctrinally and logically inerrant, what do we mean when we ask God if "it's true," and what does it mean if we get an affirmative answer?

Edited February 29, 2012 by inquiringmind

[zerinus]

I take it your point is that endless could be used here in the sense of it being one of God's names, to work on the mind. O.K.

But Mormon didn't say they would have had to go to an endless hell without the atonement.

He said "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."

He's clearly pointing to how many infants die without baptism, saying that if they needed this ordinance they must be in hell, and concluding that such a thought is blasphemy--therefore they don't need to be baptized.

(His whole argument is logically based on the assumption that these infants could not be vicariously baptized by proxy.)

Mormon is assuming that the departed spirits of these infants could only be saved or lost (in heaven or hell.)

His reasoning doesn't include the possibility of anything in between (like purgatory, limbo, or spirit prison.)

"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."

Do you believe that everyone who isn't personally baptized during this mortal probation is lost?

Mormon is saying that because these infants died without being baptized, they'd be lost if they had to be baptized.

Is that statement literally true?

Do you agree with it?

Does it line up with current Church teaching and practice?

Are you really saying that those who need to be baptized, and die without baptism, are lost?

Current Mormon doctrine and practice doesn't deny any of these three propositions?

1) Hell is necessarily endless.

2.) These infants could only be saved or lost (and if lost they'd go to hell.)

3.) They're lost if they need to be baptized (because they weren't baptized here on earth.)

According current Mormon doctrine, those who die without law (Hindus, Buddhists, etc) have to accept the atonement and the ordinances of the Gospel (performed vicariously for them.)

They're not just automatically saved by the Atonement.

And what about Alma 40:11-13?

http://www.lds.org/s.../40.11?lang=eng

This sounds more like the particular judgement taught in Roman Catholicism than D&C 138.

Is it Mormon teaching that individual souls (or spirits) return to God for their particular judgement immediately after death?

Are the spirits of all men (whether good or evil) taken home to that God who gave them life as soon as they are departed from this mortal body?

Again...

If the BOM isn't doctrinally and logically inerrant, what do we mean when we ask God if "it's true," and what does it mean if we get an affirmative answer?

I don't think that you read my previous posts carefully enough.

[inquiringmind]

I don't think that you read my previous posts carefully enough.

I don't think you did.

You wrote'

Wrong. They would have been lost if they needed to be baptized (and died without baptism).

That does seem to be what he's saying, doesn't it?

And the Church doesn't say that those who need to be baptized (those over the age of accountability) are lost if they die without baptism, does it?

So why would these infants be?

Edited February 29, 2012 by inquiringmind

[zerinus]

I don't think you did.

You wrote'

That does seem to be what he's saying, doesn't it?

And the Church doesn't say that those who need to be baptized (those over the age of accountability) are lost if they die without baptism, does it?

So why would these infants be?

These are the words that you didn't read carefully:

Yes, subject to the above explanation. It does not mean "without knowing they were supposed to be baptized," but without a knowledge of what they needed to repent of. Baptism is "unto repentance," and through faith in Jesus Christ. Before baptism, it is explained to you what you need to repent of. If you don't know what you need to repent of, and you are not repenting, and without having faith in Jesus Christ, baptism will not be doing you any good.

* * *

It tells you. Baptism is necessary for salvation. If little children needed baptism, that means that they could not be saved if they died without baptism. As it is, however, they are redeemed unconditionally by the Atonement, including those who die as adults but without a knowledge of the gospel. In other words, the Atonement net catches them both; otherwise, neither of them could be saved.

[inquiringmind]

These are the words that you didn't read carefully:

So are you saying that if infants needed to be baptized, those who died without baptism couldn't have temple work done for them?

That for some reason they (and they alone) would be forever lost because they died without baptism?

Mormon's Epistle reads "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."

Is it true to say that because (wherefore) some infants die without baptism, all such infants must be in an endless hell if infants need baptism?

How can anyone who believes in baptism for the dead say (as Mormon does) that that conclusion necessarily follows?

Nine year olds need to be baptized, but nine year olds who die without baptism can have someone do it for them.

Anyone under nine years old, on the other hand, would be out of luck if they needed to be baptized.

Why?

I have no idea.

The proof?

Some little children (under the age of nine) die without baptism, "Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell."

Is that statement doctrinally logically correct?

Edited February 29, 2012 by inquiringmind

[CV75]

If I did receive such a Testimony (that the BOM is true), would that mean every doctrinal and philosophical statement made in the Book of Mormon is true?

It means you would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

[selek1]

What we have here is a thinly vieled attempt to claim that the Book of Mormon denies the doctrine/practice of baptism for the dead.

The real argument is that if children who died without baptism were condemned to Hell without hope of rescue, then there is no baptism for the dead.

His real aim and intent is to twist these verses out of context so that they deny proxy baptism- and upon that faulty premise claim that the Book of Mormon "contradicts modern Mormon doctrine".

This spurious charge has been levelled before. And refuted before.

http://en.fairmormon...dead_not_taught

Joseph Smith said- and the Church maintains- that the Book of Mormon was "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book”.

Neither Joseph nor the Church maintain that the book contains every Gospel concept, fact, and tenet ever revealed to mankind, nor do we claim that those with agendas cannot quote-mine the Scriptures to fuel their cause.

As such, the oh-so-innocent query

If I did receive such a Testimony (that the BOM is true), would that mean every doctrinal and philosophical statement made in the Book of Mormon is true?

constitutes a red-herring, if not a false dichotomy. Edited February 29, 2012 by selek1

[zerinus]

So are you saying that if infants needed to be baptized, those who died without baptism couldn't have temple work done for them?

That for some reason they (and they alone) would be forever lost because they died without baptism?

Mormon's Epistle reads "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."

Is it true to say that because (wherefore) some infants die without baptism, all such infants must be in an endless hell if infants need baptism?

That describes a hypothetical condition that is actually false, therefore anything is possible in that false condition. Mormon is addressing a group of people who held some incorrect beliefs, which if it had been true would have made that false conclusion possible. You are reading more into it that you need to.

Moroni 8:

10 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.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 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!

13 Wherefore, IF little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

That is the conditional. Since the conditional is false, your conclusion is also false. You are reading something into it which is not there.

Edited February 29, 2012 by zerinus

[inquiringmind]

What we have here is a thinly vieled attempt to claim that the Book of Mormon denies the doctrine/practice of baptism for the dead.

The real argument is that if children who died without baptism were condemned to Hell without hope of rescue, then there is no baptism for the dead.

His real aim and intent is to twist these verses out of context so that they deny proxy baptism

First, you're unfairly imputing motives here.

Second, please show me how I'm twisting anything out of context.

Neither Joseph nor the Church maintain that the book contains every Gospel concept, fact, and tenet ever revealed to mankind, nor do we claim that those with agendas cannot quote-mine the Scriptures to fuel their cause.

You're overlooking the fact that Mormon doesn't just say that infants who haven't committed any sins don't need to be baptized--he reaches this conclusion by using the argument that if infants did have to be baptized, those who died without baptism would be lost in an endless hell.

I'm reading the passage at face value, and taking it for what it says.

How am I twisting it out of context?

I'm not making a thinly veiled attempt at anything.

I'm saying that I see a contradiction between the logic Mormon uses here, and the logic of proxy baptism (and I don't see how anyone can honestly fail to see the contradiction.)

My question is whether it's possible for one to receive a testimony that the book of Mormon is true , if it contains the mistaken beliefs of some ancient prophets?

Could it be historically true that Mormon wrote this epistle, but was unaware of baptism for the dead and used some faulty reasoning?

(And if the Church is true, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that his reasoning is faulty.)

Anyway, that's my question.

What does it mean to receive a witness that the book of Mormon true?

Does "true" mean doctrinally inerrant, historically correct, historically correct and doctrinally inerrant only when Christ is directly quoted in the fist person, or what?

That describes a hypothetical condition that is actually false, therefore anything is possible in that false condition.

It's not my hypothetical.

It's the hypothetical that Mormon used in his epistle.

He says "look at all the little children who die unbaptized--if little children needed baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell."

Edited February 29, 2012 by inquiringmind

[zerinus]

It's not my hypothetical.

It's the hypothetical that Mormon used in his epistle.

And a false one, from which you are drawing an incorrect conclusion.

[mercyngrace]

Would a testimony that the book of Mormon "is true" mean that the reasoning Mormon used here ""is true"?

If your basic question is: Must the writers of the BOM have been perfect in their writings (including only a perfect understanding of doctrine, etc) for the book to be "true", then obviously the answer is no.

Alma launches into a beautiful explanation of life after death, prefacing it with the disclaimer that he doesn't know if he's got it exactly right, but that he believes what he is teaching has merit.

Captain Moroni is described as a man worth emulating and we are told that the very gates of hell would shake were we all to follow his example and yet we read of him making a complete horse's rear out of himself, threatening Pahoran in an emotional and overzealous epistle.

Sariah complained. Alma boasted. The brother of Jared failed to pray.

Prophets are people. They have opinions. They have flaws. You know that.

I can only say what it means to me when I think of the Book of Mormon as "true".

Is the Book a testament of Jesus Christ? Does reading it draw me closer to Him in word and deed? Does it engender in me a desire to live better, love more freely, and serve without reservation?

I can say unequivocally, that it does.

It is true to the purpose of it's writers - it has brought me closer to Christ.

(PS All truth is God's truth - and all things testify of Christ - which means that my "standard works" include way more that 4 leather bound volumes...)

[inquiringmind]

If your basic question is: Must the writers of the BOM have been perfect in their writings (including only a perfect understanding of doctrine, etc) for the book to be "true", then obviously the answer is no.

Alma launches into a beautiful explanation of life after death, prefacing it with the disclaimer that he doesn't know if he's got it exactly right, but that he believes what he is teaching has merit.

Captain Moroni is described as a man worth emulating and we are told that the very gates of hell would shake were we all to follow his example and yet we read of him making a complete horse's rear out of himself, threatening Pahoran in an emotional and overzealous epistle.

Sariah complained. Alma boasted. The brother of Jared failed to pray.

Prophets are people. They have opinions. They have flaws. You know that.

I can only say what it means to me when I think of the Book of Mormon as "true".

Is the Book a testament of Jesus Christ? Does reading it draw me closer to Him in word and deed? Does it engender in me a desire to live better, love more freely, and serve without reservation?

I can say unequivocally, that it does.

It is true to the purpose of it's writers - it has brought me closer to Christ.

(PS All truth is God's truth - and all things testify of Christ - which means that my "standard works" include way more that 4 leather bound volumes...)

Thank you.

[inquiringmind]

I understand the writers of the BOM not having a perfect doctrinal understanding if everything wasn't revealed to them at the time.

But could they come to false conclusions based on what was revealed to them at the time (or must we accept their logic and conclusions)?

Example: If Moroni's father knew nothing about proxy baptism, and really used the logic he seems so clearly to be using to me (i.e. infants have died before they could be baptized, and they can't be baptized when they're dead, so if they needed baptism they'd be out of luck), would a testimony that the Bom is true mean that his logic was correct?

Would a testimony that the BOM is true mean that the Temple Lot Mormons are right, and baptism for the dead is false doctrine (as I was told by William A. Sheldon, of Independence Mo.)?

Edited March 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[robuchan]

If the BOM is what Joseph Smith says it is...

record from ancient prophets, many who saw God, the record delivered to Joseph, Joseph translated the gold plates by looking into a hat and seeing letters appear, dictating the words to his scribe, and Joseph saw God and Jesus Christ who told him other churches lacked all the truth and he was called to restore God's true church...

if you accept that, then it would be really, really odd that God would allow Joseph to put false doctrines in the Book of Mormon. So i'm going to say, if you say it's true it's ALL true.

[inquiringmind]

If the BOM is what Joseph Smith says it is...

record from ancient prophets, many who saw God, the record delivered to Joseph, Joseph translated the gold plates by looking into a hat and seeing letters appear, dictating the words to his scribe, and Joseph saw God and Jesus Christ who told him other churches lacked all the truth and he was called to restore God's true church...

if you accept that, then it would be really, really odd that God would allow Joseph to put false doctrines in the Book of Mormon. So i'm going to say, if you say it's true it's ALL true.

From the tone of your post, I assume you say that as a non Mormon.

I'm interested in what claims the book makes for itself, and what Mormons mean when they say they've received a testimony that it's true.

Does it mean "all true" in the sense you mean here?

(And this reminds me of some posts nobody followed up on.)

The Book of Mormon does not make such a claim for itself, nor do the faithful Saints. The disclaimers made at the beginning of the Book of Mormon acknowledge the possibility of errors within its covers...

But doesn't it make the claim that it would have been error free if the Nephites could have written in Hebrew?

And isn't it believed to be doctrinally inerrant (with any human errors being minor, non-doctrinal errors?)

Not that I'm aware of, no.

I'm thinking of a passage that says "there would have been no imperfections in our record if we could have written in Hebrew," and I've never understood what it means (does it mean the BOM would have been inerrant if the Nephites could have written in Hebrew?)

Edited March 1, 2012 by inquiringmind

[JDave]

Example: If Moroni's father knew nothing about proxy baptism, and really used the logic he seems so clearly to be using to me (i.e. infants have died before they could be baptized, and they can't be baptized when they're dead, so if they needed baptism they'd be out of luck), would a testimony that the Bom is true mean that his logic was correct?

Would a testimony that the BOM is true mean that the Temple Lot Mormons are right, and baptism for the dead is false doctrine (as I was told by William A. Sheldon, of Independence Mo.)?

Your assessment of Mormon's logic makes sense to me. I don't know whether he was making a rhetorical point and not being quite accurate, or whether he was portraying an incomplete understanding. Either way, I don't see how it could be argued that Mormon is teaching that baptism for the dead is a false doctrine. And either way I don't see any need to subscribe to the meaning of the text that you are describing. I agree that your explanation is, to me, the most simple and logical understanding. But as I have a testimony of both the Book of Mormon and proxy baptism, I choose to take it within the context of all the truth I have been given so far.

[inquiringmind]

Your assessment of Mormon's logic makes sense to me. I don't know whether he was making a rhetorical point and not being quite accurate, or whether he was portraying an incomplete understanding. Either way, I don't see how it could be argued that Mormon is teaching that baptism for the dead is a false doctrine. And either way I don't see any need to subscribe to the meaning of the text that you are describing. I agree that your explanation is, to me, the most simple and logical understanding. But as I have a testimony of both the Book of Mormon and proxy baptism, I choose to take it within the context of all the truth I have been given so far.

What would your testimony that the BOM is true mean if he is "making a rhetorical point and not being quite accurate"?

That's what I'm asking.

Historically true (in the sense that Moroni wrote this epistle. and used this argument), but not true in the sense of his argument being entirely accurate?

Is that what it would mean?

[JDave]

What would your testimony that the BOM is true mean if he is "making a rhetorical point and not being quite accurate"?

That's what I'm asking.

Historically true (in the sense that Moroni wrote this epistle. and used this argument), but not true in the sense of his argument being entirely accurate?

Is that what it would mean?

My testimony is that the Book of Mormon is true, but you can't take every passage as a logically airtight, self-contained doctrinal exposition.

Is your question essentially would God allow an inaccurate doctrinal statement to be included in the Book of Mormon and then still allow people to gain a testimony of the truthfulness of that same book?