A Bible. a Bible, we have a KJV Bible

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

P.S. God did forbid Nephi to write down his vision that was also recorded by John the Beloved in Revelation, so I'll concede that book has value too.[/QUOTE]


Scholars as early as the 3rd century knew that John the Beloved did not write Revelation. And if you read Greek it is equally obvious. I don't even know how Revelation made it into the canon. That was nigh unto a miracle itself. That's a Book of Mormon "oops".

[Indy Coug]

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/14/27#24

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77

Was Joseph Smith really that clueless?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Indy, all I have to say in response to this drivel is you have demonstrable native intelligence and a keen insight into some things. It's a pity; you are capable of so much more.

What demonstrable improvements does the Bible provide over the other standard works, as they pertain specifically to the Doctrines of Salvation?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/14/27#24

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77

Was Joseph Smith really that clueless?

Those who canonized Revelation were the ones that got it wrong first. Of course it could have been written by a different John. It doesn't claim to be written by one of Jesus' disciples.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What demonstrable improvements does the Bible provide over the other standard works, as they pertain specifically to the Doctrines of Salvation?

If you are stating that the doctrines of salvation need only come through one funnel, perhaps there is some small merit to this.

However, given that the mind of God is difficult to comprehend in all its ways, any information we have concerning God's dealings with humanity is useful, IMHO.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If you are stating that the doctrines of salvation need only come through one funnel, perhaps there is some small merit to this.

However, given that the mind of God is difficult to comprehend in all its ways, any information we have concerning God's dealings with humanity is useful, IMHO.

Certainly there are useful stories in the Bible to illustrate the power of faith, the suffering brought about by sin, etc., but from a doctrinal standpoint it is at best merely redundant.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

P.S. God did forbid Nephi to write down his vision that was also recorded by John the Beloved in Revelation, so I'll concede that book has value too.

Scholars as early as the 3rd century knew that John the Beloved did not write Revelation. And if you read Greek it is equally obvious. I don't even know how Revelation made it into the canon. That was nigh unto a miracle itself. That's a Book of Mormon "oops".[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. It's "apocalyptic literature," written pseudonymously, like the apocalyses of Paul and Peter and the Secret Book of John. I find the arguments that it's describing Christian persecution under Domitian and Nero quite persuasive.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Certainly there are useful stories in the Bible to illustrate the power of faith, the suffering brought about by sin, etc., but from a doctrinal standpoint it is at best merely redundant.

Well I for one haven't compared the two to make certain no doctrine is not contained within other sources but which is contained in the Bible.

However, I have another reason, perhaps non religioiusly related. Much of our Western literature has references tied to the Bible. A person would end up uneducated if one ignored it. Even my atheist Math prof in high school, finally broke down and read it, declaring, "even though I don't believe, I don't want to be ignorant of an important part of our culture."

Which reminds me of a cartoon at Oxford.

Atheist to priest: "Is it okay if I don't stand during mass?"

Priest: "It's okay by me, but people will think you don't understand Latin."

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Certainly there are useful stories in the Bible to illustrate the power of faith, the suffering brought about by sin, etc., but from a doctrinal standpoint it is at best merely redundant.

I suppose with a living prophet, all scripture could be potentially doctrinally redundant. Is the BoM doctrinally redundant?

I love the New Testament. I think the LDS view is and should be equally Bible-friendly as Catholics or Christians are.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I suppose with a living prophet, all scripture could be potentially doctrinally redundant. Is the BoM doctrinally redundant?

I love the New Testament. I think the LDS view is and should be equally Bible-friendly as Catholics or Christians are.

You know, there is quite an irony here, since the book of Mormon is so theologically conservative, that it is, well, biblical. There is nothing in the BOM that doesn't tie back to the theology that Joseph knew from the KJV bible. So I guess in the terms of the discussion so far, yes, you could say that the BOM is redundant.

Joseph's theology doesn't become otherwise until the late 1830s when his view of the godhead starts changing. I guess he remembered his vision then or something, I don't know. Until then it was very protestant and very biblical.