Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

I'm not Mormon, nor am I a Chrisitan at all and I can see the obvious answer. There are passages in the Bible that are difficult to decipher or to understand, especially since we're 2000 years (or more) removed from the events taking place. An updated book with explanations and more recent revelations would be pretty handy, wouldn't they?

True, but so the Jews believe about the Torah.And besides, it matters not what people believe. If the Bible, both Old and New Testament, as well as the BoM are really revelations form God, then it depends on what HE believes is necessary.

Well, one answer is because a book can expand or add to a previous work without contradicting it. The Two Towers and The Return Of The King don't contradict The Fellowship Of The Ring, but I wouldn't suggest that you only need to read the one.The second answer, if you're Mormon, is that God gave you this new book, so there must be something in it that God wanted us to know. Why would you disregard a God-given book just because it doesn't contradict anything in the previous book?

Which is, as Rahvin pointed out to you right near the beginning, the actual relevant question. Namely, How do we know this book is accurate or correct?That's something you'll have to ask the Mormons. It's the same question you'll have to ask all Christians regarding the New testament in regards to the old one. It's something you'll have to ask the Jews in regard to every book after Genesis.I would hazard to guess that they believe the BoM comes from God, and as such, they would consider rejecting it to be tantamount to rejecting God. It's faith.

Is there anything in the Bible which indicates that nothing more will ever be forthcoming, that after Revelations, God would no longer inspire people to writer anything down?

Ok, does the Bible say there will be more? No. Does that mean there won't be? No. So, if there is no indication either way on whether there will be more information forthcoming, it comes down to personal credulity regarding some new claim of revelation.For instance, I like to read books. I'm currently very engaged in a series that is currently being written, and while there is an overarching storyline within which eahc book rests, there is no necessary indication that there is another book coming apart form the author himself saying he wants to keep writing the series. So, do I assume, when I finish a book that doesn't leave any loose ends, that there will be nothing more, or do I hope that there will be, and when I find something that indicates pretty strongly, to me, that this new book on the shelf is, indeed, another chapter in the series, believe that it is indeed so?Your argument seems to be, well God didn't say he was going to write again, so that MUST mean he stopped writing and will never write again. Whereas the Mormons (and indeed, anyone who believes more than just Genesis) believe that God makes revelations when and where he sees fit and that the story is on going.

No. Why do you think it would? Would God have put a PS at the end of Revelation that says, "Stay tuned for more, same God channel, same God time"?He didn't do so at the end of the Old Testament. He didn't do so at the end of any of the books of either testament. He didn't do so in the Koran, either, for that matter. Why would he have done so at the end of the New Testament?

It says there will be a Messiah. No where does it say there will be another book, and no where in the New Testament does it say that this is the end of the story.Even if the OT does indicate there will be more, that doesn't mean every new chapter must be foreindicated.

We've been over this. No it doesn't, but I see no reason why it should.Genesis gave no indication that more would come. In fact, except for the books that mention a Messiah, nothing in the OT indicates more would come. Unless you take the book as a whole, which is not how it was written by any stretch of the imagination, we should stop with Genesis by your reasoning.The OT also says what the Messiah should do (arguments aside of whether Jesus fulfilled these predictions) why should they have to write a book detailing it, they already had the highlight reel (so to speak). Maybe because there was more to be learned by the details? And the BoM gives more details and offers more to learn that the OT and NT don't cover.I've answered your questions, can you please answer one of mine:Why would there have to be an indication of more to come?

It's one I would disagree with. It assumes a number of things that I don't think are warranted.1) It assumes God must always behave the same way.
2) It assumes the OT and the NT are self contained books as opposed to the compilations of many stories and books.
3) It assumes you know what the Divine Rationale is.

I never said he acted falsely. I'm saying he may have had a reason for foreshadowing in one instance and not feeling the need to at another time. If this argument is true, it would work on your premise as well as mine. He didn't foreshadow more books coming after Genesis, so his precedent is to not foreshadow... Ok, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. All the books are there to reveal God's word and what he wants us to know, right? If he wants us to know more than what was revealed in the NT, he would reveal more, wouldn't he? Not at all. His acting in different ways in different circumstances or not is a completely different topic than whether or not we know God's reasons for doing anything.

Which is how we decided which books to include in the Bible to begin with. Perhaps the foreshadowing of the Messiah was so that we weren't mistaken on something so important as the actual Son of God, but the books themselves are left for us to try and figure out ofr ourselves as a test of our rational thinking ability or some such.Once again, how can we even begin to fathom the rationales of an omnipotent, omniscient sky man?Perhaps, he knew the people alive during the Middle Ages, say, were not ready to know that there was more to come. Perhaps, God, in his infinite wisdom, knew that telling them they had an incomplete collection of God's revelations would have lead to more problems than doing it this way. Maybe people would have used that as a means of assuming control: claiming that what they were doing would be sanctioned by God in his next revelation, or that they already had God's next revelation and He had commanded this or that action.Perhaps that's why he decided to finally reveal the next chapter (who knows if it's the last one) to an relative nobody on an entirely different continent from his previous revelations.

I don't know what you mean here. Considering not only am I not a Mormon, I'm actually an atheist, I'm definitely not spewing propaganda. Considering you asked this question, I'm sure there must be.
If there is, please quote it for me, in context, and we can see if Jesus was really advocating not learning anything new from that moment on. If so, all the Christians who use modern technology are doomed.

I was speaking from the point of view of a Mormon or perhaps other sect of Christianity that doesn't necessarily accept unconditionally that God will no longer ever inspire someone to write anything down ever again. Not if there is some necessary information in the new writing. For instance, Jews don't hold the NT as inspired by God, they're still waiting for someone who actually fulfills the prophecy of the Messiah. Christians disagree and think that Jesus fulfilled them and more. Would you say we should try and get all Christians to give up the NT because it could be dangerous if the NT is actually wrong and they're all following a false messiah? How successful do you think we would be if we tried?Holding it with suspicion would get back to the question Rahvin wanted you to answer...Should we accept this new revelation to be true and accurate. Most Christians don't accept the BoM, the Mormons have decided they think it is a true and accurate writing inspired by God. You're not forced to agree with them, but I would say you'd have to be obtuse not to see how someone could come to that conclusion based on the history of Judeo-Christian thought.