Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Hi, Peg. By my reading, that scripture doesn't say anything about spirits going to the dust: when it says "both," it is referring to man and beast, not body and spirit.But, no matter: curiously enough, Mormons also believe that spirits die:

quote:

---

16 And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death, which is a spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto righteousness.

​

Book of Mormon
Alma 12: 16

---

From the LDS perspective, the Book of Mormon clarifies those things in the Bible that are meant to be taken as metaphors, but are most commonly taken as literal fact. In this case, "spiritual death" is being cut off from the presence of God, and this happens to the wicked after they die. This is the Mormon definition of Hell.-----So, I've defeated your argument on two fronts:

17. The Bible doesn't say what you wrote that it says.
18. The Book of Mormon doesn't even contradict your erroneous interpretation of the Bible.

-----Obviously, I have a bit of an advantage in this topic, since I read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon on a regular basis. So, to even the playing field, let me provide you with my sources: Here is an online version of the Book of Mormon (the link goes to the Table of Contents). You can read it for yourself, if you'd like: then you'd know what it actually says, rather than what somebody else told you it says.Also, here is a link to the Topical Guide, which is an index in the back of the Mormon KJV that lists scriptures that relate to specific topics. For instance, look up the term "Death, Spiritual" (under "D"), and you'll come up with a list of scriptures from the Bible, the BoM, the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price that are related to the topic of spiritual death, as defined within Mormonism (there’s quite a large number of them).A simple reading of these materials would answer any questions anyone might have about what Mormon doctrine is.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi, Peg. Please enlighten me as to how else I can argue the point that the BoM doesn't contradict the Bible, if not with scriptures from the BoM.----- "Father" is just a title. Jesus and God are two distinct beings.Jesus earned the title "Father" because He was the one who actually created the Earth (under God's direction).

quote:

---

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

​

--Mosiah 3:8

---

-----

quote:

---

2 Ne. 10: 7 But behold, thus saith the Lord God: When the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance.

---

This is talking about the gathering of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Since some of your quotes have the footnote letters in them, I’m assuming you copied and pasted from lds.org? The footnotes there are hyperlinked, and you can find the answers to these questions pretty easily. Incidentally, foonote c from that scripture takes you to Genesis 49:10 (that’s in the Bible, by the way):

quote:

---

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

---

----- Was Jesus resurrected in flesh or in spirit?
By definition then, shouldn’t our resurrection be the same?----- Spiritual. All things were created spiritually before they were created physically (D&C 29:32). We interpret Genesis 2 (all things created before they were on the earth) as referring to this spiritual creation (that’s two references to the Bible so far).----- Neither one: it’s referring to Jesus Christ.-----I'd like to write more, but I've got to go to class, and it's my wife's birthday tonight. I'll talk to you again later.Thanks, Peg.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi, Ochaye. I'm pretty sure you're just being deliberately dense (or "intellectually dishonest", as Taz would have it) at this point.Your question has been answered at least four or five times, by Michamus (a Mormon) and by Rahvin and by Perdition (not Mormons): you have so far decided to ignore their answers in favor of asking your stupid question again.I am also a Mormon. Here is the answer you've already been given: you can learn something new without contradicting something you learned before. We do not believe that all the teachings of Christ are to be found in Genesis, or even in the entire Bible, so the Book of Mormon is needed to provide us the missing pieces.Here is another answer, in case you decide to ignore the first again: the Book of Mormon serves as a second witness. If you are a district attorney, and you have one witness to a crime, would this be enough? What if there were two witnesses to the crime? Wouldn't you want both to testify, to make the case better?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Ochaye. John 10:16 says:

quote:

---

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

---

There are others, Jesus says.Why wouldn't these others also write scriptures?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Ochaye. Where does this definition appear?

Hi, Kbertsche. The church of God in the BoM had fallen apart by the time of Christ's ministry:

quote:

---

And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the *thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord.

​

-3 Nephi 6:14

---

When they say the "thirtieth year," they mean, "the thirtieth year since the sign of Christ's birth."Some Lamanites continued to follow the teachings of the Church, and some had the priesthood authority, but the Church itself was decentralized and disorganized. My personal understanding is that the Church is essentially gone by this time.So, by the time of Jesus's ministry, it is correct that there is no Church.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Ochaye.No where in Hebrews 5 is it said that all priests of the order of Melchizedek are inccoruptible.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Ochaye. I can't help but think that you consider this to be a point somehow, but I'm not sure what, exactly, you think the point is.You can't expect me to take a two-word post seriously.Edited by Bluejay, : I didn't preserve his formatting.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kbertsche. Yep, that's what it says.Do you have a problem with this?
If so, why?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Ochaye. Mares eat oats and does eat oats and I'll be home for Christmas. I'll tell you what I'm talking about if you tell me what you're talking about.Edited by Bluejay, : Formatting

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kbertsche.

quote:

---

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

​

-James 2:22-24 (NIV)
emphasis mine

---

The LDS Church does not use the NIV, but I like the wording for this particular chapter.It seems that you've done a good job exposing a situation in which the Bible contradicts itself. But, there is a biblical precedent for the LDS belief in works, so I'm afraid Mormonism passes this test easily.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kbertsche. What Samuel prophesied didn't happen exactly the way Samuel prophesied it. What you've exposed is a prophet making a minor mistake in his prophecy. This is akin to Moses smiting the rock when he was supposed to speak to it (Numbers 20: 7-12).The BoM contains a scripture that covers such problems, too:

quote:

---

And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things...

---

But, it didn't actually cover the entire earth, and the BoM doesn't say that it did, so you've got no contradiction with actual events.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kbertsche. Ah, but, right there, you admit that the epistle to James can be interpreted to support the Mormon view.So, what you're saying is that the BoM only contradicts the Bible if James 2 is interpreted the way you interpret it?So, why do you think the interpretation of James 2 is off-topic?----- Note also that the epistle to James includes this:

quote:

---

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

---

Faith is made complete by works. This puts the operative power on works. Thus, works are an active part of salvation.On a related note: why did God give commandments if works don't matter?----- Okay, so what you're saying is that, since the Bible contains two contradictory statements, if the BoM contradicts either one of these, it is false.I say the BoM teaching on this matter is clearly based on biblical precedent, despite your whining that you disagree with the interpretation.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kbertsche. Uncomfortable? What's so uncomfortable about it?I am equally comfortable with the belief that the Flood did not cover the entire Earth, despite what it says in the Bible.If I were a Nephite, and I saw all those cities being destroyed, and experienced the vapor of darkness for three days, do you really think it would cause a religious crisis for me if I found out that only my half of the planet was covered, instead of the whole thing?What if it were later revealed that Jesus had actually broken six loaves, or that he had really only fed 1000 people, instead of 4000? Would that shake your faith?Besides, as far as Samuel the Lamanite (or anybody he told) ever knew, the darkness did cover the entire earth.----- We're talking about miracles, Kbertsche: the reason we propose is, "Goddidit." What else needs to be explained?----- Joseph Smith did have his own Bible, you know, and he spent a lot of time reading it (you've heard of the Joseph Smith Translation, I assume?).Edited by Bluejay, : little dashes between segments

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Kbertsche. You're not going to get far with this one.The Book of Mormon was an abridged compilation of many hundreds and hundreds of records that the Nephites had written. It's entirely possible that it wasn't Samuel's mistake, but the mistake of one of the abridgers, Mormon or Moroni.I meant for that to be in my last post, but I guess I thought the quote from Moroni about the possibility of faults in the BoM covered that, so I didn't explicitly state it.-----At any rate, people are humans, and all humans make mistakes, even prophets. It was meant to be a sign for the Nephites, and it fulfilled its purpose. Thus, in my mind, the prophecy was fulfilled.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.