Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Peg seems to be taking the position that "additional information not present in previous texts" equates to "contradiction." Obviously, this cannot be the case. Genesis doesn't say anythign at all about Jesus dying on the corss - does this mean that the Gospels "contradict" Genesis?(We could likely talk all day about actual contradictions, but I think that's outside of the scope here)Clearly not. Additional information does not necessarily contradict anything else.If the Book of Mormon taught that Jesus did not die on the cross, or that he didn't rise from the dead, or that God didn't create man, or contained other actual contradictions, the Peg would have a point.But Mormon teachings aren't necessarily contradictory to the Bible itself. They may be contraictory to Peg's particular interpretation of the Bible, but then, many other Christian denominations would be as well, and they often use the very same Bible that Peg does.And, of course, there's teh fact that various Christian denominations use very different Bibles - we've gone over that subject many times here at EvC. It seems to me that the Book of Mormon is simply another addition to the canon, no different from those denominations that recognize various apocryphal books as part of their Bibles.

If the New Testament does not contradict any Old Testament teaching,, why not just make do with the Old Testament?If Mark does not contradict and teaching from the other Gospels, why not just make do with the other Gospels?Come on, this is easy. Additions and extrapolations do not necessarily contradict, but can completely change the tone and interpretation of the pre-existing instructions.The question is not "why bother with another text"" The question should be "is this new text authentic and accurate?"

It's not a matter of whether the question is awkward.Obviously you missed the point of the rest of my post. If Text A is held to be sacred, and Text B expands and expounds upon Text A without contradicting it, why bother with Text B?That same question seems to have different answers for you depending on whether Text B is the New Testament, a given book of the Bible, or the Book of Mormon. All are additional texts that do not contradict other works; the Gospels, especially, seem to be redundant.An additional text can completely change the meaning of a previous text without contradicting anything from the other text. The Book of Mormon seems to do this, just as the books of the New Testament did so with the Torah. Just as Mark did with Luke.Again, the valid question is not "why bother;" we know why one would include additional non-contradictory texts: additional texts can add additional information and change the way the older text is interpreted.The valid question is "is this new text authentic? Is it accurate?"If the text can be shown to be a forgery (purporting to be old when it can be shown to have been written recently, for example), or if it is inaccurate (claiming that an ancient tribe of Hebrews, for example, migrated to North America, a claim that has ben thoroughly falsified), those are valid reasons to exclude a text.Simply saying that any additional text that doesn't contradict other texts is extraneous required special pleading: the Bible you accept is itself a collection of books that presumably do not contradict one another, but instead add to what was written in other texts. If you exclude the Book of Mormon as extraneous on thsoe grounds, it's inconsistent of you to include more than a single book from the Bible.A book can only be considered extraneous if it adds nothing new. The Book of Mormon most definitely adds new information, and so cannot be regarded as extraneous.

...are you intentionally being dense? Take a moment, re-read, and try to comprehend what is being said.The Book of Mormon does not contradict, but it does add significantly to the Bible, sufficiently that it changes significantly the character and motivation of God, the nature of the afterlife, etc.If you exclude additional texts because they simply don't contradict other texts, then logically you'd have to have only one book - all others must be excluded because they are contradictory, or because they are not contradictory. This would mean Christians should stick with Genesis, or one text from the Bible of their choice, because all of the other Biblical texts do not contradict the chosen text.Your argument implies that the Book of Mormon is extraneous because it does not contradict the Bible, but being redundant requires that the text also not add anything new. The Book of Mormon most definitely does add new information, and so cannot be regarded as simply redundant.The only valid questions regarding the BoM are whether the text is authentic, and whether it is accurate. Your question, to put it bluntly, betrays a lack of reasoning ability.