Is the Book of Mormon really a "keystone" of LDS religion?

[_scripturesearcher]

Why are potential converts asked to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon if it does not claim to contain all truth?

Why should it containing every single truth be a prerequisite for praying about it?

Why do LDS missionaries ask people to pray about the truthfulness of a book that in many ways refutes many of the fundamental teachings of its own church?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Criticism:

Critics claim that the Book of Mormon cannot contain "the fulness of the gospel" because it doesn't teach certain unique LDS doctrines, such as baptism for the dead, the Word of Wisdom, the three degrees of glory, celestial marriage, vicarious work for the dead, and the corporeal nature of God the Father.

[SNIP!]

What does the Book of Mormon contain?

The Book of Mormon is correct in the doctrines and principles it teaches, but it does not claim to contain all truth. Its own self-described purpose is to "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations" (title page), and that these teachings are "plain and precious" (1 Nephi 13:35,40; 1 Nephi 19:3). For the most part, the Book of Mormon does not concern itself with the deeper mysteries of God.

The book itself admits that it does not contain all the doctrines the Lord wants us to know. The prophet Mormon explained that he only recorded "the lesser part of the things which [Jesus] taught the people," for the intent that "when [the Book of Mormon reader] shall have received this...if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them" (3 Nephi 26:8-9; compare Alma 26:22).

Wow, this response really sucks. You have to wonder why the FAIR apologists are relying on "the book itself" when the comment about the "fulness of the gospel" came from Joseph Smith.
It seems to me that a legit apologetic argument here is going to have to explain why the Book of Mormon's prophetic translator would describe this sacred text in a way that contradicts the text itself.

I guess maybe FIRM is right, and the "academic" apologists are willing to toss Joseph Smith under the bus?

[_mentalgymnast]

Sorry, not sure who you are addressing this question to, but the quote above attributed to "scripturesearcher" was not from me. I believe that part that was quoted was by "moksha".

In case the question was meant for me, my answer is that I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Oops. Changed it. I meant the question for moksha.

Regards,
MG

[_why me]

Here is what WW and Why me miss: "it contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel".

No, it does not "contain the fullness". It contains the basics and misses much of the "fullness".

A person doesn't even come close to exaltation without the temple ordinances and such teachings are nowhere in the Book of Mormon.

When one adds the Book of Mormon to the Bible, the book does contain the fulness of the everlasting gospel. I think that it is difficult to read into someone's words. I kind of feel sorry for Joseph Smith. Almost two hundred years later, we have people attempting to analyse every word that was said by him or purportedly said by him.

[_why me]

Wow, this response really sucks. You have to wonder why the FAIR apologists are relying on "the book itself" when the comment about the "fulness of the gospel" came from Joseph Smith.
It seems to me that a legit apologetic argument here is going to have to explain why the Book of Mormon's prophetic translator would describe this sacred text in a way that contradicts the text itself.

I guess maybe FIRM is right, and the "academic" apologists are willing to toss Joseph Smith under the bus?

I don't know scratch, maybe two hundred years later, people will analyse the words you are now writing on this forum trying to figure out what you meant.

When one puts the Bible and the Book of Mormon together there is the fulness of the everlasting gospel. Now the question is: what is meant by fulness?

[_harmony]

When one puts the Bible and the Book of Mormon together there is the fulness of the everlasting gospel. Now the question is: what is meant by fulness?

Can't be. The endowment is not in either book.

[_scripturesearcher]

When one adds the Book of Mormon to the Bible, the book does contain the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

What was missing in the Bible that was added by the Book of Mormon to complete the fullness of the everlasting gospel?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow, this response really sucks. You have to wonder why the FAIR apologists are relying on "the book itself" when the comment about the "fulness of the gospel" came from Joseph Smith.
It seems to me that a legit apologetic argument here is going to have to explain why the Book of Mormon's prophetic translator would describe this sacred text in a way that contradicts the text itself.

I guess maybe FIRM is right, and the "academic" apologists are willing to toss Joseph Smith under the bus?

I don't know scratch, maybe two hundred years later, people will analyse the words you are now writing on this forum trying to figure out what you meant.

Well, hey: I suppose I have to thank you for equating me with the Prophet Joseph. And I'm also delighted that you seem to grasp my point. The problem with FAIR's astonishingly crappy response is that it doesn't address Joseph Smith's comments at all. The whole entry cited by WW amounts to little more than a dodge.

When one puts the Bible and the Book of Mormon together there is the fulness of the everlasting gospel. Now the question is: what is meant by fulness?

That isn't what Joseph Smith said, why me.

[_scripturesearcher]

When one adds the Book of Mormon to the Bible, the book does contain the fulness of the everlasting gospel. I think that it is difficult to read into someone's words. I kind of feel sorry for Joseph Smith. Almost two hundred years later, we have people attempting to analyse every word that was said by him or purportedly said by him.

I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith

Maybe the reason Joseph Smith's words are analyzed so much is because of statements he made such as the one in your signature quoted above.

And also statements like the one following:

Joseph Smith boasted he did more than Jesus to keep a church together.
History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409
Address of the Prophet - His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo.
"A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet."

[_Polygamy-Porter]

When one puts the Bible and the Book of Mormon together there is the fulness of the everlasting gospel. Now the question is: what is meant by fulness?

Can't be. The endowment is not in either book.

Oh it is there, but only if you have a need to find it there.

For me the Bible is spelled BUY-BULL