stemelbow wrote:all right, agree with your partner then, or argue with me. It sounds rather like semantics to me, but whatever.
What partner? I'm not agreeing with Darth, either. I just think there's a middle ground between the two of you, and it happens to be what I believe. I'm not arguing with you or him, just stating my opinion. Dismiss it as semantics if you must, but it's what I think.
I get your point. I think it only works as a witness and conversion tool because of its content. The substance within it is what LDS hold as important regarding it, not to mention that we have it, and how it come to us.
It's the only book I can think of that comes with a specific spiritual promise, so it shouldn't be surprising that its main role is in conversion.
The effectiveness of the Book of Mormon as a witness of the existence of God and the divinity of Christ springs partly from its mere existence, unexplainable without reference to the hand of God. The Book of Mormon represents the keystone of this latter-day work, the stone that supports all other stones in the arch. If the keystone is removed, the arch crumbles. With the keystone of a testimony of the Book of Mormon firmly in place, the assurance comes that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s church, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that modern revelation guides the Church, and that God is today a God of miracles as in ancient times.
The effectiveness of the Book of Mormon as a witness of the existence of God and the divinity of Christ springs partly from its mere existence, unexplainable without reference to the hand of God. The Book of Mormon represents the keystone of this latter-day work, the stone that supports all other stones in the arch. If the keystone is removed, the arch crumbles. With the keystone of a testimony of the Book of Mormon firmly in place, the assurance comes that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s church, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that modern revelation guides the Church, and that God is today a God of miracles as in ancient times.
That's how I see it, but I wouldn't say it's completely unimportant as a source of doctrine. Of course, there aren't too many recorded instances of Joseph Smith expounding doctrine from the Book of Mormon. Not surprising, really.
Runtu wrote: I do think it's more important as a witness and conversion tool than it is as a source of doctrine, at least that's been my experience from seminary to my mission and on into my years of activity.
That's another way of saying what Beefcalf and I are saying.
ETA: Anyone who feels that the Book of Mormon teaches anything that is unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is welcome to articulate what exactly that is. Meanwhile, let's see if an apostle uses the Book of Mormon as his go-to source for explaining what is unique or fundamental to the LDS Church.
This article is excerpted from an address given to the faculty and students of Harvard Law School on February 26, 2010.
I have chosen three clusters of truths to present as fundamental premises of the faith of Latter-day Saints:
1.
The nature of God, including the role of the three members of the Godhead and the corollary truth that there are moral absolutes. 2.
The purpose of life. 3.
The threefold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation—and how we can know them.
1. He goes on to talk about the Godhead comprising three distinct individuals, two of whom have physical bodies and one of whom is just a spirit. That is not in the Book of Mormon.
2. He goes on to talk about exaltation and eternal families. Those are not in the Book of Mormon.
3. The "threefold sources" are not taught in the Book of Mormon.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Runtu wrote:What partner? I'm not agreeing with Darth, either. I just think there's a middle ground between the two of you, and it happens to be what I believe. I'm not arguing with you or him, just stating my opinion. Dismiss it as semantics if you must, but it's what I think.
Well I was going for the middle ground, but oh well. I think its just another misunderstanding. I agree with DJ in that some importance in put on the fact of its existence by the church, but far more importance is put on its content. I think both cover whatever it is you are saying about it being used as a tool for conversion.
It's the only book I can think of that comes with a specific spiritual promise, so it shouldn't be surprising that its main role is in conversion.
Exactly content is seen as important, in spite of what DJ said.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:Exactly content is seen as important, in spite of what DJ said.
I think both of you overstated your position. No big deal. I think part of the reason the book's content isn't emphasized is that some of it contradicts current teachings.
stemelbow wrote:Exactly content is seen as important, in spite of what DJ said.
I think both of you overstated your position. No big deal. I think part of the reason the book's content isn't emphasized is that some of it contradicts current teachings.
Runtu,
I really appreciate your contributions to this thread, and the measured and patient tone you seem always to use. I see the effect of your presence in any discussion as one of even-handedness and rapprochement.
It is with this in mind that I find I must point out that the contradictions you mention are the ones that, for me, seem to invalidate (or diminish) the authority and truth-claims the LDS Church makes for itself.
eschew obfuscation
"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
I recall little child baptism but no mention of infants. I could be wrong.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)