Christians: What in this Book do you Disagree With?

tomspug said:

To me, the Book of Mormon is one-dimensional, gives the impression of being man-made, and is just plain boring.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm gathering from this statement that you actually have read it then. Would that be correct? And can you honestly say that there are not some parts of the Bible that are not pretty boring, too? There are parts of The Book of Mormon I have to force myself to plow through, but other parts are overwhelmingly powerful and beautifully written.

tomspug said:

Hmm... Yeah, I guess what I'm looking for is something profound, something unique to the Book of Mormon that, as a Christian with only the Bible, would be worth remembering. I think that such passages would greatly increase the value of the Book of Mormon to other Christians.

Click to expand...

Consider the entire chapter of 2 Nephi 2. It clarifies important points regarding the purposes of God in relation to the Fall and the Atonement. Here are a few verses from this chapter:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.


I don't think these concepts are generally understood in the Christian world. You can tell me if I'm wrong about that. Heavenly Father intended that Adam and Eve would fall and enter mortality as we know it. Had they not fallen they would have had "no joy, for they knew no misery." The Fall took place "in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." The primary purpose for the existence of man is "that they (we) might have joy." I have heard some Christians criticize LDS doctrine for teaching that the Fall was supposed to happen. I believe 2 Ne 2 gives profound insight into the purposes of God concerning the Fall and the Atonement.

Also, there's Alma 40. I'll quote a few verses:

11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death 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 taken home to that God who gave them life.
12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

13 And then shall it come to pass, that the 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 devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

These verses clarify what happens after death when the spirit leaves the body. There is a division among the wicked and the righteous. The wicked remain in the state of "darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them". This is Hell. But the wicked do not stay there forever for "thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection". After the resurrection the wicked are redeemed from this hell. (This is further amplified in the Doctrine and Covenants, where it also speaks of the "sons of perdition" who will never be redeemed from hell. ) These verses teach that paradise is a place of peace and rest from sorrow and troubles. We could certainly call this heaven, but these verses teach that the spirits of the righteous remain in paradise only until the resurrection. After the resurrection, as is pointed out in other BofM and D&C verses, the resurrected beings are appointed a permanent home in a heaven of varying degress of glory.

I could go on for a long time pointing out how the Book of Mormon adds insight and clarification to the Bible. I will do more, if anyone wants to hear it.

Scott C. said:

I could go on for a long time pointing out how the Book of Mormon adds insight and clarification to the Bible. I will do more, if anyone wants to hear it.

Click to expand...

The Talmud and the Anchor Bible Commentary do the same thing...but they're not scripture...

sojourner said:

The Talmud and the Anchor Bible Commentary do the same thing...but they're not scripture...

Click to expand...

Exactly. The Book of Mormon is scripture. So it's another scripture that supports the bible not just some commentary.

The Book of Mormon is scripture.

Click to expand...

If it does the same thing the commentaries do, why is it "scripture" and not "commentary?"

sojourner said:

If it does the same thing the commentaries do, why is it "scripture" and not "commentary?"

Click to expand...

It's not a commentary. It doesn't comment on the Bible. It supports the bible. It supports by being the word of God. And is supports the Bible because it says many things are in the Bible as well.

Sola'lor said:

It's not a commentary. It doesn't comment on the Bible. It supports the bible. It supports by being the word of God. And is supports the Bible because it says many things are in the Bible as well.

Click to expand...

Then, why is it necessary? If it supports the Bible, isn't it commentary?

sojourner said:

Then, why is it necessary? If it supports the Bible, isn't it commentary?

Click to expand...

It supports the Bible in the same way that the individual books in the Bible support each other. Is Matthew, for instance, merely commentary on Luke?

DeepShadow said:

In the interests of clearing the air with fellow Christians as to what we agree and disagree on, I thought I'd offer the following bone of debate: The LDS Gospel Principles Manual.

Here it is, the basic manual that we teach lessons from every Sunday. It's not doctrine per se, but it contains doctrine, and it's what we actually teach, so those pesky Mormons won't be able to say, "Well, I've never heard that in my 23 years attending church!"

So have at it.

Click to expand...

It seems that there are a lot of teaching in these LDS books that have their roots and similarities and ideologies from the bible, yet are worded slightly different as to appear profound and somewhat original. Then there are those doctrines that are added that contradict actual scripture and to me only serve one purpose and that is to support these apparent visions of him whom founded the LDS.
So I guess the question is why or how could God endorse a book that is so similar in many ways almost repeating the many principals found in scripture, but throw in new doctrines that counter original scripture

roli said:

It seems that there are a lot of teaching in these LDS books that have their roots and similarities and ideologies from the bible, yet are worded slightly different as to appear profound and somewhat original. Then there are those doctrines that are added that contradict actual scripture and to me only serve one purpose and that is to support these apparent visions of him whom founded the LDS.
So I guess the question is why or how could God endorse a book that is so similar in many ways almost repeating the many principals found in scripture, but throw in new doctrines that counter original scripture

Click to expand...

Many principals are repeated because it's God's Word. New doctrines aren't "thrown in" and don't counter original scripture.

Maybe you could give an example of what we're talking about so we could have a more productive discussion.

athanasius said:

1 Bosephus 4:16: "Hark the Mormons are a calling, sound the trumpet for heresy. for death is at hand"

Mosandra 16:16 "Everyone else is wrong except the the prophet Joseph Sweet."

Fundy folly 8:29: "Baptism doesn't save you"

Moroneeey 7:22 "ye shall not drink anything from now on except maybe wine and beer"

Click to expand...

Trying to be funny or do you actually have anything worth substance to contribute to this thread?

Bishka said:

Trying to be funny or do you actually have anything worth substance to contribute to this thread?

Click to expand...

ahhh I thought this was another thread I accidentally posted in. Sorry. However the books I quoted from are about as funny to you as the book of Mormon quotes are to me.

athanasius said:

ahhh I thought this was another thread I accidentally posted in. Sorry. However the books I quoted from are about as funny to you as the book of Mormon quotes are to me.

Click to expand...

So you do not have anything of substance to say? :sarcastic

Sorry to here it, but if you do, we'll be happy to discuss it.

Most people do not think highly of people who go around and make fun of other religions, but then what do I know, I'm just a Mormon.

Bishka said:

So you do not have anything of substance to say? :sarcastic

Sorry to here it, but if you do, we'll be happy to discuss it.

Most people do not think highly of people who go around and make fun of other religions, but then what do I know, I'm just a Mormon.

Click to expand...

That is funny I thought Joey Smith was making fun of the Christian religions when he started his own in the 1800's.

athanasius said:

That is funny I thought Joey Smith was making fun of the Christian religions when he started his own in the 1800's.

Click to expand...

Then you haven't thought very hard.

If you actually cared to do any research about the LDS Church, theology and history that wasn't what he was doing.

athanasius said:

That is funny I thought Joey Smith was making fun of the Christian religions when he started his own in the 1800's.

Click to expand...

"You'll have to excuse my friend. Too much LDS in the 60's." -- Capt. Kirk

So does anyone actually disagree with anything in the OP?

Bishka said:

So does anyone actually disagree with anything in the OP?

Click to expand...

The book cited in the OP is not the KJV, the BoM, the D&C, or PoGP, and I know better than to comment on anything that is not official LDS doctrine.