My bedside table standard friend

[Steven]

I'm mormon so I read it. It's really really really good!!!!!!!!!!

[Chuckell]

Man, this is the worst science fiction book I have ever read! What brand of pure-grade rock cocaine was this guy smokin'? I did sort of dig the little inside joke on Isaac Asmimov that the author snuck in with that angel's name, though--I, Robot, Moron, I--clever!

[Faith]

chuckell where do you get the science fiction aspect? is the aliens, or the vampires, the wizrads, the what....? where does science fiction come into your reality? i love fantasy myself, never been that much into reading science fiction although i like movies and tv shows that are science fiction, like star wars, quantem leap, space odyssey.....

although i have never come upon this book in any science fiction category? not in used books, or barnes and noble, or borders, or amazon. where did you find the science fiction aspect? is it god or GOD because again i have found the god or GOD subject in religion and mystical and anti-christan. you have me in a complete confusion of genres. when did this book come under a science fiction category?

are you trying to give insult? is that an insult to people who love science fiction or christians in general? do you even know what you are saying? have you ever read a science fiction book or are you confused as to what science is? maybe it is fiction that alludes your intellect? which part? fiction? science? or is the combination of the two?

or were you trying to insult the people here who have expressed their beliefs by trying to say it is all "fantasy?" was that what you were trying to grasp onto? the fantasy that Jesus Christ could actually visit the American people? what a fantasy? maybe that is what you were trying to convey? why in the bible he said i have other sheep to visit? oh he must have meant other sheep, the animal. of course. he meant he needed to visit the sheep animal that is on the other side. when he died and came back to the people/apostles/prophets in Jerusalem. he meant i have other sheep to visit. he literally meant other sheep. you know the north side sheep. yeah that is probably what you meant.

or maybe you don't believe in Jesus. then where is the science fiction? is it that the Son of God was born onto this earth. well. still does not hit the sci-fi category unless you think that God is an Alien from another planet or do you mean he is a vampire...well that doesn't make any sense he doesn't ask that He drinks your blood he says drink My blood and be cleansed. i don't think you understand the vampire folklore. oh maybe it is ghosts you are trying to grasp...jesus did rise from the dead...no that can't be it again that is a fantasy issue.

well....chuckell you will have to explain more of yourself because i can not under any definition of the word Science Fiction in what you could possibly be talking about? it almost sounds as if someone else has told you what to think without actually reading and comparing the entirety for yourself. now that can't be true? i am sure you have researched this all out for yourself and not let anothers opinion influence you.

and rock cocaine....explain. is it the coherent story line or is it the use of coherent philosophical explanation? oh wait....have you ever study one on rock cocaine? is there no and i mean NO coherencency to one on rock cocaine. you might want to study your examples before you use them. it might help your legitimacy. have you ever read a book that one wrote while on rock cocaine? could you reference and maybe give examples?

[Wayne]

Well Done, Faith!!!
A REAl sarcastic scornful tirade.
And Saved By Grace...your dismissive remark to Chucknell declares just what you need...some grace.
I'm sure you have just confirmed for Chucknell every thought and prejudice he has ever arrived at re Christians.
The pagans were reported as having commented on the Early Christian Community:"Look how they LOVE one another". Wouldn't it have been so much more impressive if they had been able to report:
"Look how these Christians love US!!."??
Wouldn't we,as Jesus told us,be better off removing the beam from our own eye rather than overly concerning ourselves with the mere splinter in our neighbour's.
eg. I still find it very difficult to get my head around the wagon train massacre perpetrated by us so many years ago.I'm sure many of us have relegated THAT to Chucknell's Science Fiction category. Remember that there was a Judas among Jesus'closest friends.Why isn't it possible that some of our own leaders were the Devil's serpents? And can we admit this and be Christian enough to forgive them.
Chucknell's "offence is much easier to "forgive" IF that is what is required. At least he took the time to READ our book!!!And he is reacting to the fantastic story that it is.Put yourself in his shoes.I think he has responded quite logically.
That is what REAL literature is about.Being able to experience another person's reality without actually having lived it yourself.How widely do you read,Faith? Ever read a book by those terrible atheists? The ones I've met have always been honest,intelligent and sincere people. God loves them...and He loves Chucknell.Follow the Leader, Faith, and see where it leads you to.I think you might be SHOCKED.God is more inclusive than we can comprehend...or tolerate.He created, loves and lies down with negroes, homosexuals, prostitutes,taxcollectors,the corrupt politicians
...sounds horribly like Jesus.
Come out of your Religious Fantasyland.Get dirt on your hands...Love is Crucifixion.Brave enough to try THAT?
Don't worry Faith, it might take a lifetime.See you on the road.Wayne

[Chuckell]

Can Mormons even legitimately be called Christians? I believe there’s some scope for debate on that topic--but this is not the place for it, since this is supposed to be, as I understand it, a web site for discussing literature. There are no threads on Chick tracts and there shouldn’t be for this book, either. This book certainly has an interesting literary value as an artifact of a peculiarly American strain of hucksterism, but other than that it shouldn’t be discussed here.

That “Christians” seem hell-bent on distorting every aspect of society towards their personal views--very much as does, it seems, the Muslim world these days--is clear. And I’m sick of it. I’m sick of people shoving their damn religions in my face everywhere I turn. I’m sure there are plenty of LDS web sites where believers can air their personal stories of revelation and salvation. But in today’s society, it seems, that’s not good enough--instead, one has to force their religion on someone else for it to count, I guess.

When someone says this book brings them comfort, they don’t mean it in the way another might say that a book of Emily Dickinson poems brings them comfort. To say it of Dickinson is discussing literature, to say it of Joseph Smith is prostelytizing, and it’s ugly, and it has no place in a web site dedicated to literature.

[Rayni]

Rap, rap, rap!!! Order!!! If we ignore him/her, will s/he go away? We do not need to bring ourselves down to Chucknell's level. S/he has already judged & sentenced us. Contention is NOT of the Lord. Let's act like the Christians we are!!

[Meh]

A comment on Saved by Grace's last posting: I thought it's kind of ironic too. But the truth is that everybody wants to flaunt his or her philosophy on life, including Chucknell. So Chucknell puts his face in somebody's religion, (i.e., reading the thread) and shouts "Why are you sticking your religion in my face!" Everybody wants attention. Which is why I'm posting, because I want attention too.

[Elisabeth]

Here, here Rayni! I believe that a majority of us, some including Matt, Rayni, and I, have been conducting as much of a pleasant discussion as we can on this topic, and I believe that Chuckell is shoving it down his own throat (in regards to this thread alone, I can in no way speak for what has happened to him in regards to religion outside of this thread because I was not there. We all have a choice what to read and I believe that none of us wrote "Chuckell, eat this!!!" However, I am not saying that I disagree with you about the BOM being like a piece of science fiction, Chuckell, at all so understand that. I think if you look from the outside a little, the BOM, and the Bible I will say as well, can seem a little like science fiction (but I think you might have meant sorta like a fantasy novel?...). I mean, there are all these miracles and stuff. I think of the cartoon movie based on the children's book, "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH," called the Secret of NIMH in which a golden medallion is used to help lift up a little mouse's house to save it from a tractor. This book and movie are known pieces of fantasy and I could see how the use of the medallion could be equated with the miracles of the Bible (and even though I really don't know anything about it because I have read very little of the BOM, are probably in there as well). The only thing is that I believe and know that the Bible has historical evidence to back up what it says, not necessarily to back up the miracles, but evidence that leads me to believe that if a huge amount of what the Bible says is true, then the rest is certainly true as well (though I'm not exactly sure if that is a logically sound argument...I'm sure Matt could tell you if it is!). Please don't think we are trying to shove this down your throat. I am certainly not trying to do so at all and if it appears that way I apologize most sincerely. I can tell that you must have had alot of people do this to you and not to sound cliche or whatever, but we are supposed to show people the truth "with gentleness and respect" (which I think Matt as Mwcarlson said in one of the early threads of this discussion) and acting aggresively toward you is certainly not showing respect in anyway and ultimately turns people off to what one has to say.

Wayne, I think what you said is absolutely true. I think what you said is one of the major problems with Christians today, whether they be Mormon like most of those involved in this discussion, or Non-denominational/protestant (solely Bible believing) like myself, and we should all listen to what you have to say. When Jesus was on earth, he did not spend his time solely with those who already believed (even though doing so is important because we are his church and need to do so to encourage one another in love and spur each other onto good works). No, he spent the majority of his time with sinners as you said, because they are the lost, and in need of saving. How are they to know the truth if we do not go out and teach it to them. We are not commanded to be not of the world and also not in the world. Instead, we are commanded to be IN the world. It is the mission field, wherever we are, we are supposed to love those of it, not do what they do, but still love them so that through us and the work of the Spirit on their lives, they may know the truth and it will set them free from the bondage of sin in there lives. To spend all of our time with only other believers is WRONG! (I am not re-reading this so I hope this make sense. I think most of this comes from Romans). Alright, that's my two cents worth.

Ok, now I have some more questions finally for everyone. Or several actually... Do Mormom's believe in Hell, or do they think that everyone just goes to Heaven no matter what? I was under the idea from other sources that you don't believe in Hell, but you do believe in various "levels" of Heaven, the top of which is "godhood" so to speak, and I was just wondering if this is so. And if it is so, what is the motivation exactly for doing good works at all if there be no fear of punishment? Would not one be doing works solely to gain something, and not out of immense gratitude for what our Lord Jesus Christ has done for us by shedding his blood on the cross for our sins? From the outside, if what I have heard is correct of course, it appears that you "get to heaven" by works (or because everyone goes to heaven, you get to a higher "level" by works). Wouldn't this make what Jesus did uneccessary? I mean, I have been told that when Jesus died on the cross, he opened the gates to paradise making it possible for one to enter into it, but isn't that the extent of it? He just opened the way, and now its time for you to get to work trying to be like him to achieve something that I believe, based on my readings from the Bible, specifically in Romans, is futile for man to achieve because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God[?:]" I don't know, maybe I'm confused on what you believe, but it seems from that outside that you in a way preach semi-salvation by works.

P.S. On re-reading some of these posts, Faith really does sound very very rude, and I agree with Wayne about what she said. I can see how Chuckell might believe that "we" are shoving religion in his face. And yes, Chuckell was rude, but that in no way justifies bashing him in a way that does not even make sense. I think that Rayni's message should be applied to both parties invovled (Faith and Chuckell).

Sorry to anyone if I am being offensive. I am just dissapointed in some peoples attitudes. Let's, as Rayni advised, get back to our polite discussion (or at least polite as it can be). And some of this may sound really repetitive...sorry.

Elisabeth

[Elisabeth]

Ok...so at first, people will either go to heaven or hell based on whether they repented or not? am I right? But then on "judgement day", all will be judged according to their hearts and then will be placed in "different degrees of glory"? So will all people be "glorified" in a sense, just some will recieve a extremely minimal amount of glorification? Is that what you're saying? I'm not sure exactly...

[Faith]

wayne, thank you that was truelly was a "real sarcastic tirade!" towards chucknell. i am quite proud of that thank you very much.

i did write a very sarcastic tirade towards you but i decided that i would feel better with a more direct approach.

wayne. don't lecture me. if you have a comment about what i have said then make that comment. but don't sit there on your holier than though throne and tell me to "love my neighbor". in all definitions you did not show me and i must say 'saved by grace' any of that philosophy you were spouting. and don't condescend to the level of "see you on the road"...you clearly do not see me on the same "road" as you or you wouldn't have lectured me like you did. you said that just to make your conscious clear as you know you were being very non and i say this by your definition "christian" like. love others wayne. not just your christians but to those of us who are not as you have so blindly put yours in chucknell based on your own pre conceived prejudice of what a christian or non christian is.

do not tell chucknell or me what you think he is thinking. you don't know. why don't you ask him. if he wants to put a stupid and i will say stupid comment like the book of mormon is science fiction then let him defend himself. he still in my opinion has not in any way shown proof or authentication, documentation, collaboration, any substance to his sci fi/crack cocaine comment.

let's just say wayne that we will agree to disagree about chucknell's brillant sci fi/rock cocaine comment. i find that comment inherently ignorant. if he had indeed read the book could he really make those comment.

and as towards christians unite crap. who said i was a christian. i never at any point have born my testimony of christ or this book. i simply pointed out in a "sarcastic" ,way i admit,my view that this book is NOT in any way related to science fiction or the incoherency of someone high on crack cocaine.

and wayne. your declaration as to ownership of this book. are you in reference or "your" religion being that of the LDS church. mormon is just an acronym is it not. wasn't that a nickname "your" religion was given. or are you a member of the church of jesus christ of latter day book of mormon. or are you talking about the reorganized LDS church. they at least, along the prophet line, have some sort of personal ownership to the book of mormon. note the sarcasm i have put forth here in case it is beyond your tirading abilities. i brought some in because of your "our" book declaration. really wayne. who is our?

i have taken the time to read this book. i have not read "your" or "our" book. i find it my right to read whatever book i feel i want to. no matter to whom the religion it is posed to.

[Elisabeth]

Thanks Brenda! And I love having alot of detail. I will read those chapters in Alma to get an even better idea. Directly from the source and all that. Thanks.

[Meh]

It's true, Brenda. Quoting is a good thing in any discussion. This thread has gotten a little away from that...

[Elisabeth]

Well...I started it and have been rather busy with other stuff...I start school again on Thursday and have to make time to read my Bible, so the BOM is kinda on the backburner at the moment (sorry) but I had started at the beginning...so I'm still on the first book, can't remember what it's called. I also read a couple of the chapters taken from Isaiah, and a chapter here and there for other reasons.

And ya...I'm glad I finally had time to ask some more questions to get this discussion more on track and away from pettiness.

[Wayne]

Your syllogism isn't. Assuming both premise 1 and premise 2 to be true (both big assumptions, by the way! as you rightly point out), then the form of the syllogism must be as follows:

if a = c, and b = c, then a = b

Your syllogism, then, should be:

Premise 1. The Book of Mormon is Scripture.
Premise 2. The Bible is scripture
Conclusion: The Book of Mormon is the Bible.

Doesn't help much, though!

Cheers from Al (via Wayne's site)

[Matthew]

A great deal has been posted since I last had opportunity to review the discussion. First, as to Chuckell’s comment, Faith’s response, and Wayne’s rebuke. I am afraid I agree somewhat with Faith in regards to Chuckell’s comment. You cannot relegate the Book of Mormon to the category of science fiction and attempting to describe its origin as drug-induced is quite absurd. The use of “pure-grade rock cocaine” is particularly interesting as it is anachronistic.

I for one thought that Faith remained for the most part concentrated upon the assertions made by Chuckell although obviously there was some sarcasm and condescension. She did not at any point resort to ad hominem and posed some very pertinent questions relating to Chuckell’s claims. Although Wayne appears to prefer a discussion which is entirely bereft of counterpoints and challenges one cannot let such things go unchallenged. Austin Farrer was right when he wrote that “What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.” Although “Rational argument does not create belief” it most certainly “maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”

However, Wayne did have a point. It is much more effective to speak “the truth in love” (KJV Ephesians 4:15) rather than in derision. Although we are counseled by Peter “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” one should do so “with meekness and fear,” i.e. with humility and respect. We should be possessed of a “good conscience” so that those who “speak evil of you, as of evildoers” may be “ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” (KJV 1 Peters 3:15-16) That I think it the key, a “good conversation in Christ.” I would suggest we shoot for that mark.

Of course, Chuckell was not finished with merely an absurd assertion or two. He returns with another “Can Mormons even legitimately be called Christians? I believe there’s some scope for debate on that topic.” Indeed, I have a discussion at present underway on this particular topic in relation to Stephen Robinson’s book, _Are Mormons Christians?_. I would invite you to chime in there if you feel so disposed. However, whether or not “Mormons” can “legitimately be called Christians” requires that one define precisely what a “Christian” is. Then one would have to demonstrate that “Mormons” do not meet that definition.

As to Goodreads not being “the place for” such a discussion, this is an interesting claim. Merriam-Webster defines “literature” in several ways including “printed matter.” If indeed Goodreads is “a web site for discussion literature” are you failing to define properly the manner in which you are using the term, i.e. the Book of Mormon is not “literature” on the basis of it not meeting some particular aspect of your definition of the term? First you categorize it as “science fiction” and now it is not even “literature.” Yet you then go one to admit to its “interesting literary value as an artifact of a peculiarly American strain of hucksterism.” If it isn’t “literature” how does it possess “literary value?” I think perhaps you should educate yourself in the most basic rule of logic, that of non-contradiction.

Of course, it is odd that Goodreads includes the Book of Mormon amongst the books one can both mark as read and review if it is not a volume subject to discussion. It would seem that Goodreads disagrees with your assessment.

I think you have been sufficiently answered in relation to the matter of others “shoving their damn religions in my face everywhere I turn.” Although the expletive was I believe quite unnecessary it would appear you are quite frustrated with others evangelizing you. Odd that you should actually seek out interaction with those you are so frustrated with. LDS Christians are amongst the most vociferous evangelizers out there and yet you chose to post in a discussion in which quite a few are participating. It’s akin to one who claims they hate bee stings while they are shaking a hive.

Finally, although you may claim there is a difference between those who claim “this book brings them comfort” and those who claim that “a book of Emily Dickinson poems brings them comfort” I would love to see this demonstrated. Have you performed a statistical analysis of the results of a poll? Have you performed a poll? Is this merely your personal perception? Does “a book of Emily Dickinson poems” bring your comfort where “this book” does not? Do you then demand that every other person reflect your experience? Is it not possible that one can derive the same level of comfort from both sources? I think so. In fact, I dare say there are those who gain comfort from both, either, or neither.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Rayni commented that “Contention is NOT of the Lord” probably in reference to 3 Nephi 11:28-30:

“And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.”

How are we to understand such a statement would be my question. Jude counsels us to “earnestly contend for the faith” (KJV Jude 1:3) so it obviously cannot refer to a complete lack of contention. Contention can range from a emotionally charged diatribe to a carefully reasoned argument intended to persuade another to ones position. So what is it about contention that Jesus does not approve of?

Jesus notes specifically that he does not approve of “the spirit of contention” and then defines precisely what that “spirit” is: “anger.” Note also that Jesus is speaking to believers about the unity which should exist within that body. There should “be no disputations among you,” no “disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine.” I hasten to add that Jesus then goes on to define precisely what his “doctrine” is thereby removing any need to enter into “disputations” regarding it. To me this is the key to avoiding “the spirit of contention;” avoid angry and vitriolic disputation, especially within but also without. However, one should not avoid a well-reasoned defense, an informed discussion, or an explanation unless one cannot avoid the “anger.”

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Elizabeth referred to “evidence that leads me to believe that if a huge amount of what the Bible says is true, then the rest is certainly true as well (though I'm not exactly sure if that is a logically sound argument...I'm sure Matt could tell you if it is!).” Unfortunately it isn’t. The fallacy of composition consists of arguing “that what is true of some parts of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself.” Unfortunately “Inferring that a collection has certain characteristics merely on the basis that its parts have them proceeds erroneously from regarding the collection distributively to regarding it collectively.” What is true of the part need not necessarily be true of the whole and vice versa. Obviously empirical evidence can bolster our faith in the Bible but our belief it still “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (KJV Hebrews 11:1) This is not to say that faith is not substantive or evidentiary but that the value of such as substantive and evidentiary is utterly and completely subjective and oftentimes quite personal.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Elizabeth (Part 1 of 2),

Now, although others have answered your questions I would like to take at stab at them as well:

1. “Do Mormom's believe in Hell, or do they think that everyone just goes to Heaven no matter what?”

Although you have been referred to Alma 40-42 as well as 1 Corinthians 15:29 Joseph’s understanding of the degrees of glory stemmed from a revelation on the matter called “The Vision.” This revelation is contained in section 76 of the present Doctrine and Covenants. This revelation refers to three heavens or degrees called the Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial. There are also subdivisions within these degrees as well as section 131, verse 1, and verse 98 of section 76 witness. However, there is also a place reserved for those who will not inherit a kingdom of glory, referred to as outer darkness. This is reserved for very few from what I understand.

Alma 40-42 deals with the matter of “what becometh of the souls of men from this time of death to the time appointed for the resurrection?” It does not address the degrees of glory. Keep in mind that Alma 40-42 is pre-resurrection while D&C 76 is post-resurrection.

So in responding to your question, yes, “Mormons” do believe in Hell. Let me put it to you this way. At death there is a separation of the spirit from the body. We believe the spirit to be the vital element in the equation. It is not merely a motive force like a set of batteries but a rational soul possessed of intelligence and individual volition. This spirit receives a partial judgment and is consigned to paradise or prison which can be seen as being roughly analogous to the orthodox idea of heaven and hell.

Previous to Jesus’ mortal sojourn there was a strict divide between these two. However, according to LDS belief Jesus implemented evangelistic efforts amongst those in prison which was carried on by the righteous from paradise thereafter. Belief in post-mortal evangelization is what leads Latter-day Saints to engage in vicarious ordinances.

At the great white throne judgment, when the spirit and the body are again reunited and we are brought before God and Christ for a final judgment, one will be relegated to a kingdom of glory. Section 76 provides the general criterion for such assignment. Although LDS thought has varied on the matter it is generally accepted that this is ones final state.

You noted that you were “under the idea from other sources that you don't believe in Hell, but you do believe in various ‘levels’ of Heaven, the top of which is "godhood" so to speak, and I was just wondering if this is so.” Well with an obvious belief in both spirit prison and outer darkness we definitely believe in a state both “between death and the resurrection” and thereafter which can without a doubt be called “hell.” However, it is true that we “believe in various ‘levels’ of Heaven” and that “the top” does indeed lead to exaltation or deification.

2. “what is the motivation exactly for doing good works at all if there be no fear of punishment?”

If you read section 76 you would not believe that being consigned to the terrestrial or telestial glory could not be considered punishment and outer darkness is definitely such. Even those who receive one of the two other “heaves or degrees” (D&C 131:1) within the celestial kingdom might consider such a punishment. However, there is an obvious indication of discomfort involved in spirit prison as well so whether pre- or post-resurrection there is indeed what one can interpret to be punishment.

3. “Would not one be doing works solely to gain something, and not out of immense gratitude for what our Lord Jesus Christ has done for us by shedding his blood on the cross for our sins?”

I personally like how Paul put it, that “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” If a “man’s work” be “wood, hay, stubble” then what shall it amount to once “burned?” If a “man’s work” be “gold, silver, previous stones” then what shall the fire reveal? If it is a combination of both which shall remain? What is this fire and upon what foundation is a “man’s work” laid? (KJV 1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

Well, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (v. 11) If one does not build upon the foundation of Christ then not even their “gold, silver” or “previous stone” will not be of any value. However, if they do build thereon, if their works are built “upon this foundation” then the refiner’s fire shall test those works in the end, “If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.” Conversely, “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”

It is not a matter of Latter-day Saints working for greater rewards for our efforts account for precisely nothing if they are not built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ. However, Jesus has asked of us good works and He does reward us for such by His own admission. It simply cannot be avoided.

You commented “From the outside, if what I have heard is correct of course, it appears that you "get to heaven" by works (or because everyone goes to heaven, you get to a higher "level" by works).” Actually no. Obviously even within historically orthodox Christianity some sort of action is required in order to accept the atonement of Jesus. Jesus informs us “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (KJV Revelation 3:20) He knocks; He does not kick the door in. We are required to “open the door” in order that He might “come in” and we are perfectly free to ignore the knock or through the closed door refuse the offer. Within LDS theology we can even kick Him out after inviting Him in (most Calvinists would disagree that this is possible).

(Continued)

[Matthew]

Elizabeth (Part 2 of 2),

3. “Wouldn't this make what Jesus did uneccessary?”

No, it wouldn’t. Without Jesus’ atonement all the good works in the world would amount to precisely nothing. Imagine that one could even build upon another foundation. What would those good works look like to God if obscured by all the “wood, hay” and “stubble?” Nothing. It is not merely that Christ rewards us for good works but that Christ also exposes those good works through the refiner’s fire making them evident. It’s an incredible gift that not only does He save us but also rewards us for doing what He asks even though we are unworthy of both. Indeed, I like how Benjamin puts it:

I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning… I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and… if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you. And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him. And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?” (Mosiah 2:21-24)

You commented further “I have been told that when Jesus died on the cross, he opened the gates to paradise making it possible for one to enter into it, but isn't that the extent of it?” No, as one of my favorite authors put it, it’s not a matter of Jesus being a tool in your own convenient do-it-yourself salvation kit. Although some may erroneously view the atonement as a sundae on which Jesus' sacrifice is the cherry topping off all their works, it's more that the sundae is Jesus' sacrifice, the grace of God in Christ, and our efforts are the pitiful little cherry on top, teetering precariously on the mountain of ice cream and toppings. Without the sundae there isn't even any need for the cherry.

If any action is required in order to accept the atonement then there is a tacit admission that some action is required. Although the extent of that action may be disagreed upon I know of no Christian of any stripe who disagrees that something is required. For LDS Christians it is more than merely a verbal profession of one’s faith, it is a commitment through covenant to follow Jesus. A belief in free-will (agency) similar to Arminians also provides the possibility of falling from grace and thereby abandoning ones commitments. Indeed, faith to the apostolic Christian was more than merely belief, it was constancy.

One must remember that were we to set up stakes in within the Bible on theological grounds and defend a position we might find ourselves battling our allies. Although one might read Romans in a manner which would preclude good works one would also have to accept that James is in exact opposition to Paul. One would have to either reconcile their contradictory statements or find a way in which both can be true. Such exists.

Paul was addressing Judaizers, those within the early Church who believed that although Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the works of the law (of Moses) were still required of converts to Christianity. Paul was especially critical of the insistence on circumcision although at one point he had one of his converts circumcised in order to avoid the problems this group created for the Church.

Conversely James addressed the Antinomians, those who believed that Jesus’ sacrifice entirely absolved them of a need for any good works whatsoever. (Peter noted that "in all of his [Paul's:] epistles" were "some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." [2 Peter 3:15-16] It seems likely that it was the Judaizers to whom Peter was referring.) This James heartily disagreed with. Both Paul and James are correct, from that perspective.

I hope that addresses the main points so far within the discussion.

Regards,
Matt.

[Elisabeth]

Ummm...Brenda, Matt pointed out the flaws in my logic because I sorta asked him too... I made a statement that I was pretty sure was not completely logical and told people that Matt would know for sure if it was.

When I read the Bible of course I have favorite parts that I like to read but I think thats beside the point. I also don't read it straight through because reading alot of the old testament can get tedious so I skip around between Old and New quite often. Right now I am studying Revelation and also Romans. Picking just my favorite parts would be lame because the whole thing is important. I have read through almost the whole thing once (I think I just have to read I and II Chronicles) and have read the majority of it more than once. Plus I was in a Christian school my whole life so we studied it quite a bit.

[Matthew]

Well Brenda, Elizabeth implied that she was looking for such an assessment in writing:

“The only thing is that I believe and know that the Bible has historical evidence to back up what it says, not necessarily to back up the miracles, but evidence that leads me to believe that if a huge amount of what the Bible says is true, then the rest is certainly true as well (though I'm not exactly sure if that is a logically sound argument...I'm sure Matt could tell you if it is!).”

Of course, Elisabeth did not ask if it was, nor did Rayni, but nonetheless I thought I would answer in advance of a explicit invitation. As to milk and meat, fallacies of logic having nothing to do with gospel knowledge unless you consider all knowledge to be gospel knowledge. I do not.

I have no problem asserting that the Bible is true, its contents divinely inspired. Nor do I have a problem with others asserting the same. However, if one were to argue that the Bible is true on the basis that certain details of the biblical text can be proven and thus the biblical text is true overall I would reject such as fallacious. This is not the say the Bible isn’t true but rather that the argument is flawed.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Elisabeth,

I want to make the invitation, in case it has not been made previously, for you to ask me any question you like in relation to what I believe or what LDS Christians believe (although on the latter I cannot provide what all Latter-day Saints might believe but rather what many Latter-day Saints accept, usually based upon canonical sources). Obviously any response will represent my own understanding and I would not presume speak for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in any official manner, but I would like you to feel free to ask whatever you want without feeling that you will be belittled, mocked, or that I will be offended thereby. So, please, if you have any questions you are just itching to ask, feel free to do so.

Regards,
Matt.

[Nicole]

Hiya!

Wow. I didn't think that there were enough mormons on this site to ever make a topic. I must say I'm pleased.

I read the book of mormon, but it took me a LOOOOOOOONG time.

I like Nephi the best. He seems like he's one of the younger people, like me.

Who's your fav?

[Rayni]

Hey Matt, glad you're back. I haven't been following this discussion lately & when I came in today, I was surprised to find 14 new topics. I have read to your assessment of contention, #75. And will have to catch up on 76-83 plus new ones another time.
-------------
To me this is the key to avoiding “the spirit of contention;” avoid angry and vitriolic disputation, especially within but also without. However, one should not avoid a well-reasoned defense, an informed discussion, or an explanation unless one cannot avoid the “anger.”
--------------
And most people cannot avoid the anger. Then there are some that thrive on "vitriolic disputation."

And Brenda, I haven't read 77-78, so perhaps shouldn't comment, but I have learned from this discussion from ALL comments, including Chucknell's.

Rayni

[Matthew]

Brenda,

Although you indicated that the matter was not worth discussing further you made some assertions that I feel need response. You noted:

“(1), this is a discussion board about the Book of Mormon, not logic”

You seem the feel that the two are mutually exclusive, as if one can make assertions about the Book of Mormon (or the Bible) which are illogical (i.e. senseless) that are still of value. Logic is not merely a set of rules whereby an argument’s value is assessed; it is a way of thinking which leads to a clearer and more convincing presentation of ideas.

“(2) I feel like the main point wasn't whether the statement was logical anyway, but rather whether the Bible is true).”

Actually, if the “main point” was “whether the Bible is true” then logic has everything to do with such an assertion. If rather the “main point” was that Elizabeth feels the Bible is true that is another matter. Opinions are not arguments and therefore there is no reason to assess such on the grounds of logic. However, if I make an argument, i.e. the Bible is true not merely subjectively but objectively based upon one standard or another then it is most certainly susceptible to critical examination. Take for instance:

1. The Bible is true as the Bible contains references to real-world locals and/or historically verifiable civilizations and individuals.

What is the argument? Syllogistically:

Premise 1: Texts which contain references to real-world locals and/or historically verifiable civilizations and individuals are true.
Premise 2: The Bible contains references to real-world locals and/or historically verifiable civilizations and individuals
Conclusion: The Bible is true.

Now, this is certainly a valid argument, i.e. it conforms to the proper form of an argument. It is also sound, for although the definition of “true” is left to the individual I do not think that most would argue with premise 1 nor with premise 2 and if premise 1 and 2 are true than the conclusion certainly follows from the premises. The problem is that accepting such an argument leads one to accept the veracity of any text which conforms to the required criteria. Take the Qur’an for instance:

Premise 1: Texts which contain references to real-world locals and/or historically verifiable civilizations and individuals are true.
Premise 2: The Qur’an contains references to real-world locals and/or historically verifiable civilizations and individuals
Conclusion: The Qur’an is true.

How does one determine if the Bible is truer than the Qur’an? Logical fallacies move beyond the form of an argument or the truth of the premises and whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises to the actual content of the premises and conclusion. It is where the real weakness in an argument is manifest in my opinion.

To argue that either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an for that matter, is true of the basis that the text contains references to real-world locals and/or historically verifiable civilizations and individuals is fallacious as it argues from the specific to the general. Here are a couple of examples:

1. The Bible in whole is true because the Bible in part contains reference to Jerusalem and Jerusalem is a historically verifiable locale.

So we should accept everything the Bible says as true merely on the basis that it contains a reference to a city which did and does exist in the geographical locale in which the events are posited to have occurred? Would it not be more logical to accept the veracity of the Bible on this one point? Does the existence of Jerusalem give historical credence to the story of the Exodus? Not at all.

2. The Bible is true is all it says about Jesus of Nazareth as the Bible contains reference to Jesus of Nazareth and he is a historically verifiable individual.

So the actual existence of historical records confirming the existence of a Jewish peasant in Palestine who was crucified for criminal activities by the Roman authorities confirms that Jesus was the Son of God and the Savior of the world? Jesus’ miracles and His resurrection are confirmed by the existence of a historical record which contains reference to Him? I think not.

This is not to say that the Bible is not true, but that such arguments do not demonstrate the truth of the Bible. Do you see the difference? Further, arguments which are easily dismantled and dismissed do not serve the faith of others. What happens when some poor Christian comes in contact with an atheist and presents him/her with such arguments? What happens when the atheist absolutely destroys such arguments? Will the faith of the Christian be retained? Perhaps, perhaps not.

The truth of the Bible or the Book of Mormon has absolutely everything to do with logic and reason.

Now, on the issue of milk before meat, I assume you are uncomfortable with certain aspects of my posts. Perhaps you can be more specific?

Finally, it is not that I am encouraging Elisabeth to limit her inquiries to me alone. Rather, it is that she appears concerned about asking questions and I want her to feel free to inquire about anything she is curious about.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Nicole,

I agree. I have actually related most with Nephi and Amulek although for reasons different than that which you noted (i.e. Nephi’s youth). Rather I feel a kinship to Nephi and Amulek because of some of the things they admit of themselves. I suppose it gives me comfort to know that these two great men had their foibles and flaws just like I do and so there is hope for me yet. :)

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Rayni,

You commented:

“I have read to your assessment of contention, #75.”

And what did you think of that “assessment?” After quoting it you wrote:

“And most people cannot avoid the anger. Then there are some that thrive on ‘vitriolic disputation.’”

Both are undoubtedly true. Even those who put forth a great deal of effort still cannot avoid a little anger from time to time. Maybe Elder Hales talk on “Christian courage” is timely. Still, although one should avoid the deliberate contentiousness of our critics one cannot forego interactions altogether but must use discretion in determining which interactions one should and should not pursue. It’s a thin line I think.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Brenda,

Please know that I value your comments. I am more than willing to accept criticism and to correct my actions in accordance with what is demonstrated to me to be unacceptable. I am gratified that you too have found value in some of what I have written and I welcome further feedback from you.

Regards,
Matt.

[Chuckell]

Of course Mormons believe in Hell. All they have to do is imagine a place slightly worse than Utah.

[Ilze]

... us Utah that bad? Not Chechnya or, uh, Ethiopia?

[Nicole]

Utah is great!
And, other places are great also. I like Virginia.

[Matthew]

Brenda,

There seem to be two primary questions at issue:

1. What is truth?
2. Does logic and reason have anything to do with the truth of the Bible or the Book of Mormon?

Merriam Webster provides several definitions of the term “truth” but it would appear based upon your response that “a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality” comes closest to your definition of the term. You have in fact quoted Paul to the effect that there are some things which can only be “spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14) implying that knowledge gained in this manner is irrational.

There are, no doubt, quite a few atheists who would agree that spiritual knowledge is irrational but I do not believe it to be so. In fact, the very fact that God assures us that “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart” assures me in no uncertain terms that spiritual knowledge can be just as intellectual as it is emotional. Further, spiritual knowledge can lead to declarations which yield themselves to secular scrutiny. LDS Christians for instance do not simply profess the Book of Mormon to be true on a “transcendent fundamental or spiritual” basis but that it is a “body of real things, events, and facts.” Indeed, it is the “Spirit,” the source of that “transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality” which “speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be.” (Jacob 4:13) Once we profess the Book of Mormon or the Bible to be more than merely true in a spiritual sense and posit its truthfulness in a literal, verifiable sense we have moved beyond merely a faithful assertion. This is the reason limiting the truth of either the Bible or the Book of Mormon to merely “a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality” which is beyond reason or logic is flawed for we profess it to be a “body of real things, events, and facts.” Therefore, once again, reason and logic ultimately have everything to do with the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

Reason, “the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways: Intelligence” is also a vital quotient of obtaining spiritual knowledge itself. Consider the promise of Moroni which begins with an invitation simply to “read these things.” (Moroni 10:3) Obviously God “will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost” but if indeed the truth is to be made manifest to both heart and mind one did not suspend ones reason either in the asking or in the receiving. Indeed, it is Paul who with a series of interrogatories makes clear that knowledge of Jesus is logically prerequisite to faith in Him (Romans 10:13-15).

In “read[ing:] these things” are we really suspending reason when we are asked to “remember,” “ponder,” and “ask” in sincerity and with “real intent” regarding the truth of the Book of Mormon?

Was Joseph suspending his reason as he sought an answer to the question of which Church he should join? Were his entirely logical conclusions such as “I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God” actually illogical? Did he come to such a conclusion based solely upon the a “transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality” that “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him?” No, actually he sought diligently amongst the sects of the day but concluded not merely on the basis of his youth and his lack of acquaintance “with men and things” that he could come to no “certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong,” but rather that there was no way to obtain the information he sought in any other way: “if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.” Neither the “teachers of religion” nor the source of their knowledge could be relied upon for it all ended in a “war of words and tumult of opinions.” It was Joseph’s reason which led him to ask.

And what of the answer? Did Joseph claim that he had some “transcendent fundamental or spiritual” experience which was in some way divorced from reality? Or did he profess “I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me… I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it…” Actuality, reality, knowledge. More than merely spiriutal knowledge I would say.

Reason is I think as much a part of gaining spiritual knowledge as gaining any other form of knowledge. Further, the presentation of knowledge gained through spiritual means can be improved through the proper use of reason, through avoiding logical fallacies which do little to enhance the presentation and often detract from it.

So, I hope that clarifies why I hold to the position I do. You are of course free to disagree with that position.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

It sounds as if Chuckell is not horribly fond of Utah. It’s a bubble (theologically, socially and politically) but it’s not all that bad. I imagine hell as being far worse.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Brenda,

Unintentional misunderstanding and misrepresentation are bound to occur in any discussion. Please understand that I am not being accusatory, insulting, or deliberately attempting to infuriate you. Charity is an important part of avoiding the anger which I believe leads to contentious deliberations. Where my understanding of your position is erroneous please feel free to correct me and I will be happy to adjust and apologize accordingly.

I am elated that we agree. I am usually quite careful in how I word the statements that I make and there is a world of difference between “The truth of the Bible or the Book of Mormon has absolutely everything to do with logic and reason" and “The truth of the Bible or the Book of Mormon is dependant solely upon logic and reason." I am pleased that my elaboration led to a fuller understanding of my position for that was its intention. Again, I offer my apologies for any misrepresentation of your position.

You asked (although in passing) “are you a lawyer?” No, although a study of logic and employment of a legal nature will certainly lead one to think like a lawyer. Again, I was not attempting to “twist” your words but rather carefully defining the manner in which it seemed you were using particular terms. It would appear that my understanding of your position was flawed.

As to caring about fallacies of logic you might be surprised how much a general knowledge of fallacies of logic has to do with everyday life. They are especially prevalent in politics where the position of one or another candidate for political office is usually laced with fallacies of thought. Ad hominem (latin “at the man”) attacks where the individual is attacked as opposed to their position are especially prevalent and the public is not often fooled labeling such a “smear campaign.” Another is the tu quoque (latin “you to”) fallacy where another’s position is impugned due to the fact that they are not practicing what they preach. Although this is perhaps not the best way to advocate the value of a cause, the fact that one is not doing something does not invalidate the argument that it should be done. And politics is not the only venue for fallacies of thought, advertisements are another place where they can be found in abundance.

I like the way that S. Morris Engel put it:

“Unfortunately, in argument the one who talks longest, loudest, and last often comes out looking like “the winner,” even though he or she may not have argued well at all. This is because if no one has answered the argument—if no one has actually shown that the argument is weak or unlikely, we are left thinking: the arguer could be right and, moreover, no one can point to anything wrong, so.... This is why we bother to dispute a point at all—if it goes undisputed we and others may be subtly or even heavily influenced by it, may in fact be weakened in our original disagreement with it, and may find it hard to refuse other arguments or even calls to action that derive from it. All of which can lead us to feeling that we have no choice but to say and do things that we do not, at heart, chose or believe in.” (S. Morris Engel, _With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies_, Sixth Edition [Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000], pp. 5-6.)

If you ever feel the desire, I think Engel’s book is an excellent place to start regarding a basic understanding of logic and fallacies thereof.

Regards,
Matt.

[Ilze]

Yup, we're here, Brenda! Watching and totally agreeing with you. There's another thread akin to this one and I couldn't make the point there, that you have just made here, as eloquently! (thank you!)

[Matthew]

Brenda,

Much of what I wrote was an elaboration upon the two primary questions and was not meant to reflect your position on the matter. At only one point, if I recall correctly, did I make any reference to my understanding of what you wrote and that was in associating your position with what I felt was the most applicable of the standard defintions of truth. Thereafter it is an elaboration on why I believed reason to be vital to the truth of the Bible and/or Book of Mormon.

My quotations were from merriam-webster.com and were not intended to be understood as your words. Perhaps references would have been helpful to avoid confusion. I had no intention whatsoever of putting words in your mouth.

As to the manner in which I write, the prose I employ as well as the terminology, this is simply how I write. I am not attempting to impress or confuse others. In fact, I assumed that on this site in particular I would be understood better than elsewhere as I am speaking to those who are undoubtedly literate. I even define unfamiliar terms like ad hominem and tu quoque (which are actually latin) in order to avoid confusion.

So, I am feeling a bit downtrodden by the vehemence with which you are responding. If you find my participation unwanted or unuseful I will go elsewhere. Just say the word.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Brenda,

In an effort to return to a focus upon the Book of Mormon let me simply emulate Nephi and frankly forgive you. I suppose my skin is a bit thin when it comes to my inability to condescend to the level of those I am conversing with. I try, but I am afraid I fail abysmally.

That said, perhaps we can simply discuss the Book of Mormon and when Elisabeth feels the need to interject a comment or a question we can address it? You asked:

“What are some doctrines from the Bible that are described more clearly or in greater detail in the Book of Mormon?”

Good question. I would be interested in your answer. Would such things as infant baptism (Moroni 8) or the state of the soul between death and the resurrection (Alma 40-42) be considered “some doctrines from the Bible that are described more clearly or in greater detail in the Book of Mormon?” I am not sure. Although I think the Book of Mormon as well as other “records” “make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from [the gospel of the Lamb:]” I cannot state that such “plain and precious things” are “from the Bible” if indeed they have been “taken away.” Of course, without knowing what was “taken away,” it’s also impossible to know what it really a restoration of “plain and precious things.”

Still, the specific manner in which your question is worded aside, I think that the Book of Mormon most certainly provides some additional insight not provided in the Bible on these two topics (i.e. infant baptism and the state of the soul between death and the resurrection).

You also asked:

“Did Elisabeth give up on us?”

Perhaps she will let us know. I simply hope I do not frighten anyone away with my verbosity and unfamiliar terminology.

“Any other Book of Mormon questions out there?”

Perhaps we should simply start a reading group or something, expressing insights regarding the text as we come across them. I for one enjoy hearing another’s perspective on the text and the insights they have regarding it or gain from it.

Regards,
Matt.

[Elisabeth]

Sorry I haven't been around...I just have a ton of school work and have like absolutely no time to relax let alone respond to a BOM discussion. As much as I "feel" that the Bible is true, my feelings are not the only thing I am led by. To say I "feel" that the Bible true is to me like saying "follow your heart." But the Heart is "deceitful wicked". How could I listen to my heart/feelings. I think an acceptance of the Bible has to be on reason as well. I believe that Faith without Reason is completely null. I mean I can have faith and "feel" that the earth is indeed really flat, but that is an illogical belief and has no reason or basis behind it. The earth is round and we can prove that through science. Now I'm not saying that we can prove the truth of the Bible through science, but I know, as I said a long time ago, that there is evidence for the Bible and this gives me reason for "faith" that I have in it... and thank you Matt for your invitation for questions. I think anyone who has read all of these posts would know why I would want to ask you my questions and that it because you seem to have the most knowledge of all the people commenting (you cite the Bible, BOM, and many other sources in your comments) and I think its great to repeat the same thing Brenda said, because more people saying the same thing reassures me just a little bit that what either of you says about the BOM and LDS beliefs is true. I will try to stay more up to date on this discussion.

[Matthew]

Elisabeth,

Take you time, I assure you we are in no hurry. I can always harass poor Brenda with more tangents on philosophy you know. ;)

As to feelings, Paul’s lists the "fruit of the spirit" as “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness” and “temperance.” More than one of these could be aptly described as a “feeling.” When Luke and Cleopas run into the resurrected Lord on the way to Emmaus they do not recognize him but later query “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” Undoubtedly they experienced a “feeling” related to Jesus’ words. These are only two examples and they could be multiplied.

Yet undoubtedly the Lord through the prophet Jeremiah notes that “The heart is deceitful above all things,” even “desperately wicked.” (KJV Jeremiah 17:9) Yet we must be cautious in assuming that the Hebrew leb (translated here as “heart”) is referring solely to emotion. Strong’s notes that leb “is used (fig.) very widely for the feelings, the will and even the intellect.” As close as I can tell (using Brown-Driver-Briggs) Jeremiah is here referring to moral character, not to emotion. Thus it is not emotion that is “deceitful” and “wicked” (even “desperately” so) but rather human morality. Perhaps this is why God tests those who serve him through such moral dilemmas as that experienced by Abraham; He has to “search the heart” and “try the reins” for the purpose of giving “every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” (17:10)

Indeed, I see no other way to understand this passage in light of verse 10, for “doings” are specifically mentioned. I think there is a significant difference between feeling and doing.

All of this is meant to establish that the feelings are a legitimate source through which God communicates. Obviously based upon my previous posts I do not believe it is the only one nor that is using such an avenue that God does so without also appealing to the intellect. I think rather that God does both and depending upon our individual disposition we may apply more weight to one or the other in accepting revelatory insight. Yet nevertheless we should not discount either.

Yet for me it is more than merely that I feel and discern (through reason) the truth of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, it is that I am not as I was before I was exposed to them. I cannot deny that in following Jesus challenge (“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” [John 7:17]) I have been changed. Perhaps I am not all I should be but isn’t that the point of sanctification? I am certainly not who I was. I am a new man, born of God in Christ. I cannot deny the change; I cannot deny the effects it has had upon me and my life. It would be akin to denying the Sun shines when I see is in all its glory at midday.

So I understand Elisabeth. Although I can profess to know it is true on the basis of both emotion and intellect I certainly have a deeper reason for asserting its truthfulness than either its emotive value or the intellectual affirmations available in support of it.

You noted that “I think anyone who has read all of these posts would know why I would want to ask you my questions and that it because you seem to have the most knowledge of all the people commenting.” Well, I am not sure that is the case but I appreciate the compliment. I cite sources not in an effort to impress anyone with my intellect (which I hold as deficient anyway) but rather that you might know that I am not merely asserting my opinion but what could be regarded as the LDS position on the matter. I want the response to be considered a reliable reflection of LDS belief.

You also wrote “I think its great to repeat the same thing Brenda said, because more people saying the same thing reassures me just a little bit that what either of you says about the BOM and LDS beliefs is true.” True as in accurate I would assume? Yes, it is helpful to have more than one source asserting a similar position but that our material is derived from the Standard Works (the LDS canon including the Bible [King James Version:], Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) would also be a good indicator that it represents LDS belief and not merely personal opinion. If you like we could discuss a little more how one determines what LDS doctrine really is but for now I will leave it at that.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Brenda,

Right, a bit difficult to posit what’s been restored when we are not sure what was removed.

You noted that “the Bible mentions we all need baptism to be saved, but doesn't really declare by what method.” I suppose that is debatable. The words translated as baptism, baptisms, baptize, baptized, baptizest and baptizeth are predominantly translating the Greek baptizo but also baptisma and baptismos. All derive from bapto, “to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid.” Baptizo is “to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet).” The word itself makes clear that baptism is full immersion.

Further, Paul’s analogy makes little sense without complete immersion. Paul asks “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Now if one is placed below the surface of the water there is most definitely an analogous nature between baptism and death: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” And the analogy continues in being raised again from the water “that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” (Romans 6:3-5) I for one think that the Bible declares quite clearly the method of baptism.

I will spare you the biblical exegesis (“an explanation or critical interpretation of a text") on what I believe the Bible has to say about “authority.” Suffice it to say that there are clear indications that one cannot simply claim it (for instance, Hebrews 5:4 wherein even Jesus did not attempt to usurp authority, but I particularly like the lesson of Simon the Sorcerer and his desire to purchase the ability to bestow the Holy Ghost [Acts 8:]).

You’re right about age though. I had a mission companion who thought there may be a biblical allusion to the age of accountability in 1 Peter 3:20-21 but if that is the case it is so badly obscured that without modern revelation it would be impossible to decipher.

What I have found to be far more prevalent a disagreement than how “Different churches perform baptisms in different ways” is the need for baptism at all. Oddly this seems even more obvious than the mode of baptism and yet it is more hotly contested. It is argued based upon Protestant belief in sola gracia (solely grace) and sola fides (solely faith) that one can be saved through verbal profession alone and that baptism plays no role in salvation other than a symbolic affirmation of ones commitment. Most cite the thief on the cross but that does not hold up under scrutiny.

I have always liked 2 Nephi 31 relating to baptism. As to the atonement I agree, the Book of Mormon is a powerful witness of Jesus Christ and 2 Nephi 9 also elaborates on another concept upon which the Book of Mormon elaborates; agency. One thing that the Book of Mormon also settles about the Holy Ghost is His nature. He is indeed an actual being, the third member of the Godhead and this was most certainly in dispute within early Christianity (and to be fair was unclear within Joseph’s early thought as well).

And are you serious, no favorite Book of Mormon character? I would have thought you would be quite taken with the valiant Captain Moroni. ;)

You commented “From what I know of Matt, he seems to be a very good source of information for LDS beliefs and Book of Mormon knowledge.” Eek! Well, alright. Again, I am a bit more conservative in appraising my ability to elaborate on either LDS belief or “Book of Mormon knowledge” but I assure you that if there is something discussed I am not aware of I will educate myself on it. I too am an active member of the LDS faith, serving presently in the Sunday School Presidency of my local Ward (congregation) and having previously served for a long time, in several Wards, as Gospel Principles instructor. I do not say this to tout my credentials (as if I could, I act in no official capacity in posting here anyway) but merely to assure those reading that I strive to be orthodox (i.e. as in conforming to established doctrine not in being an adherent to Eastern Orthodoxy).

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Hi Brenda,

Yes, an appeal to the underlying Greek or Hebrew (depending upon which portion of the Bible one is discussing) can be very useful. Of course, even this additional tool does not seem to lead to the “confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions.” (2 Nephi 3:12) All languages are open to interpretation and thus to the confusion of a “war of words and tumult of opinions.”

Which is I suppose the problem with baptism by immersion. Even given the rather obvious allusions to immersion evident within the biblical text, there is a great deal of disagreement over mode, authority, and even need as you have noted most admirably. Indeed, it would seem that the need for revelatory insight into the matter is just as necessary in our day as it was in Joseph’s (although the question may not necessarily be precisely the same) “for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.” So we are agreed, it is in modern revelation where God makes clear a great majority of that which has been disputed throughout history.

As for Moroni, I was attempting to be humorous; I did not expect a serious response. I think I understand your reticence regarding choosing a favorite. As I noted, I related better to Nephi and Amulek and as a result would have to call them my favorites but I also find a lot in common with other individuals within the Book of Mormon. I think that is one of the beauties of the book; its ability to speak to one through the experiences of those whose lives it recounts.

Regards,
Matt.

[Matthew]

Brenda,

Yes, it is quite instructive isn't it. So simple yet so comprehensive. I think this could easily be branded a restoration of the "plain and precious."

Interesting that I have read the passage you reference upwards of 15 or 20 times and yet did not recall how explicit the passage was in relation to baptism. The Book of Mormon really is a treasure trove.

I think one thing to consider however is that there were even disputations amongst the Nephites on the manner and mode of baptism. There would have been no point in counseling them to avoid disputations regarding both baptism and "the points of my doctrine" save there had been such disputations. This might not seem horribly important save that such an understanding lends itself to a more charitable view of historical orthodoxy and their plethora of views on the subject. If even the Nephites, who did not experience nearly as acute an apostasy, were disputing baptism and doctrine it's no wonder that the apostasy spawned such.

Just an observation, for what its worth.

Regards,
Matt.

[Laura]

Elisabeth wrote: "I'm sorry, as I read all of your reviews I can't help feeling sorry for all of you. Do you ever read the Bible? or just the Book of Mormom? "
Elisabeth I recently saw this book discussion and wondered if you had had a chance to read the book since August, and if so, what you thought of it. I am currently reading it myself.

[Micah]

I have read The Book of Mormon many times now and have become truely converted to Christianity through its teachings, and those of the Bible. I don't have a lot to add to this thread as far as secular knowledge of Hebrew, translation of the bible, history of Christianity, etc... But I can say that I have become a better person by learning what is taught in The Book of Mormon, and living what I learned.

[Laura]

El wrote: "I am very glad that this book helps you cope, overcome struggles and get through the day. I really am. I just become bothered when a Book inspires a People to spread fear. The passing of Propositio..."

Hi El,
I understand that different people have different views, but we are not here to talk politics. This is a discussion about the Book of Mormon and our opinions about the book.

[Carli J]

I know I'm coming in late, and there's been a lot going on in this discussion, but I feel like maybe I can add something.

First I would like to say that I appreciate Matt's comments. You sound very well informed and like you've done your research. And Elisabeth, thank you for asking questions and trying to understand instead of just attacking. There were a lot of comments on here that were really derogatory and inflamatory. I'll admit that I was offended by some of them and they weren't directed at me.

What I can say about the Book of Mormon itself is that I have read it compmletely through more than once and I enjoyed reading it both as a religious book and as a work of literature. I believe strongly that it is true and the Joseph Smith truly was a prophet and translated the book through the power of God. Joseph Smith was very uneducated; there was no way he could have made this up himself. I've read it and I've taken the advice that people are given in Moroni 10:4-5 and in the Bible in James 1:5

Moroni 10:4
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye should ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

I did that, and I really do believe and feel that it is true. I also think that the Book of Mormon can be a wonderful influence on people's lives. Going back to the original title of the discussion, I keep my copy on my bedside table myself, and I read it every night because it makes me feel good. I used to have a lot of trouble with trying to read it every night because it was difficult and it couldn't catch my interest in the verse or two I read, so I quit. But while I wasn't reading, I didn't have as good of days and I felt bad. I had an experience and decided to go back to trying to read and it's really helped me.

[Matthew]

Well, it would appear that this dicussion lost whatever traction it had. I am happy to participate further if there are interested parties.

Regards,
Matt.

[Micah]

I am not very familiar with goodreads Matt, but I think that you made a suggestion to strt a reading group on the Book of Mormon and Bible. Has that been done? Does Good Reads have the ability to host reading groups?

Also is it possible for you to PM me? I want to ask you about somethng else.

[Matthew]

Micah,

Yes indeed, goodreads does have the ability to create "groups." I suppose it would be easy enough to create a "Book of Mormon" group. However, this is meant to be a discussion of the Book of Mormon and not necessarily a group per se.

As for contacting you via PM, I have done so. I am happy to be of assistance.

Regards,
Matt.

[Elisabeth]

Matt,
This is a really late post. The last posted was about a year ago. I didn't get scared away. Just got rather busy with alot of other things. I haven't gotten around to reading the BOM. I'm sad that I stopped seriously participating in the conversation because it appears that it has basically stopped having any momentum. =(