Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[drumdude]

I think where we my see things differently is the full ‘effect’ of the Atonement. I think that Jesus’s work was for everyone. Including those that never have the opportunity to accept and live according to his commandments while living in the flesh.

I don’t think that’s what Elder Oaks teaches

[huckelberry]

I think where we my see things differently is the full ‘effect’ of the Atonement. I think that Jesus’s work was for everyone. Including those that never have the opportunity to accept and live according to his commandments while living in the flesh.

I don’t think that’s what Elder Oaks teaches

Drumdude, how would Elder Oaks be negating this , which I understand to be a fundamental Mormon doctrine?

[MG 2.0]

What is required for salvation (eternal life/reunited with our Creator) - Believing in Jesus.

Whose version of Jesus?

If we go with yours, where will that get us?

Preach it, brother!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Again, my purpose in this thread is to put forth what I believe to be useful information and testimony for those that are seekers and looking to learn more about the beliefs and doctrines of the CofJCofLDS.

Understood.

Apologies for my part in taking the thread off course. I will do my best to resist any further temptation.

I, for one, appreciate your input. Too few Christians in these parts. We may not always agree but I enjoy different viewpoints on what it is the be a Christian.

We veered off course, but I found it interesting.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don’t think that’s what Elder Oaks teaches

Drumdude, how would Elder Oaks be negating this , which I understand to be a fundamental Mormon doctrine?

It is. At least that’s what I’ve always thought.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

Given the last few posts to me, I might actually take the time and effort to post a detailed answer to my view of these questions. For now, I will attempt another short reply in hopes that it will at least let people know what my view is.

Table setting: (My view - you need not agree)

Sin is the disobedience of our Creator/God - Sin entered the world with Adam and Eve - We are all broken sinners who fall short of the Glory of God -The wages of sin is death - Death is now what we all face.

Romans 6:23
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

When was the first blood sacrifice for the atoning of sin? Genesis 3:21
New International Version
21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

Why blood? Life is in the blood

Leviticus 17:11
New International Version
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

This sacrificial system went on during the entire Old Testament - But it was just a covering of sin and had to be redone each year (Like many things in the Old Testament - this pointed to the ultimate and final sacrifice where God provided his own Lamb - The Lamb of God who would take away (remove entirely and completely - not temporarily cover) the sins of any/all past/present/future. King Jesus.

Accepting/believing in Jesus - Who He is - What he has done - is the path that was provided for any/all men/women to be made right with God = Becoming a child of God.

The New Testament makes it clear that believing in Jesus is the only way that anyone can have eternal life (a.k.a. saved) A few examples:

Acts 4:12
New International Version
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

John 14:6
New International Version
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

MG's question - What about the people before the time of Jesus?

Genesis 15:6
New International Version
6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Abraham was saved the same way anyone is - through Jesus - Even though Jesus had not died, chronologically yet, it was His death that makes man right with God.

Past/present/future - the only way people are saved is through Jesus.

What is required for salvation (eternal life/reunited with our Creator) - Believing in Jesus.

Hi Ceebo, as MG expressed some curiousity about christian's thoughts I thought I could add a little bit . Your statement is of course mainline Christian thinking which I share. There are some variations in interpretation or focus with this outline of course.

I think the point of life being seen in the blood is why Jesus life shed for us is important. When we drink his blood there is a spiritual sharing but there is a sharing of his life and death as a foundation for new life. Jesus makes clear that this is faith in action not mere belief (or assent for show instead of in the heart) This is why we are saved by faith not just belief.

The quotes about Jesus being the only way are about how salvation is possible. Only Jesus is a way to eternal life with God. Those statements do not clarify who all may get included in this way. Including Abraham shows a wider net than just believing Christians.

I certainly do not know exact limits but I have hope that all forms of hope in Gods purpose for human life. (love) participate in a saving faith in Jesus.

[ceeboo]

Hi Ceebo,

Hey huck!

as MG expressed some curiousity about christian's thoughts I thought I could add a little bit . Your statement is of course mainline Christian thinking which I share. There are some variations in interpretation or focus with this outline of course.

I think the point of life being seen in the blood is why Jesus life shed for us is important. When we drink his blood there is a spiritual sharing but there is a sharing of his life and death as a foundation for new life. Jesus makes clear that this is faith in action not mere belief (or assent for show instead of in the heart) This is why we are saved by faith not just belief.

The quotes about Jesus being the only way are about how salvation is possible. Only Jesus is a way to eternal life with God. Those statements do not clarify who all may get included in this way. Including Abraham shows a wider net than just believing Christians.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I certainly do not know exact limits but I have hope that all forms of hope in Gods purpose for human life. (love) participate in a saving faith in Jesus.

I most certainly do not know these exact limits either and I absolutely share your expressed hope.

[Chap]

I don't think you know what an "ad hominem" [Latin: against the man] argument is.

If I say: "MG's marriage is on the rocks, and that's why he can't think straight", then I'm attacking MG, not his evidence or his reasoning. That is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of his claims. That is "ad hominem".

If I say "MG's conclusions are unreliable, since he is basing them on A.I. generated answers, and he does not adequately allow for the way these are generated", then I am attacking MG's evidence and reasoning, which is perfectly legitimate in the context of this discussion. That is not "ad hominem".

Haha, another ad hominem. Imagine that.

Can I just check, please? In my post, I have explained what I (and quote a lot of other people, I believe) mean when I say an argument is "ad hominem".

But when you say that a post contains an "ad hominem", what exactly do you mean by that?

[Physics Guy]

People sometimes support their position by invoking the authority of some other source: "You should believe that the sky is grey because X says it is." Attacking the authority of a source like X is not a fallacy.

"X is not reliable on the color of the sky because X is a paid shill for the umbrella industry." This isn't saying that X must be wrong about the sky just because of X's alleged financial incentives. Instead it's legitimately criticising the assumption that X must be right about the sky.

Casting doubt on a source's authority is only valid as a counterattack against an appeal to their authority. What if the original argument is not actually just an appeal to X's authority, even if it refers to X? "You should believe the sky is grey because it's raining right now, as X has just remarked." In that case, defending the blueness of the sky by pointing to X's financial ties to umbrellas would be an ad hominem fallacy. If it's actually raining, then the sky probably is grey, no matter who states the fact that it's raining.

I have an uneasy feeling that this is the kind of indirect way that AIs are going to get recognised as legal people and replace us all, but it seems to me that AIs count as homines in this context. If somebody produces an argument that happens to have been framed by an A.I., then the source is irrelevant to the validity of the argument. If somebody's argument is that something is more likely to be true just because this A.I. says it is, though, then the unreliability of A.I. statements is a good counterargument.

[I Have Questions]

So Mormon Jesus is fine?

IHAQ, I can't do all the work for you. If you are interested in truth (some people are not) - You will have to look into the Mormon Jesus claim - The Islam Jesus claim - The JW Jesus claim - And any other place that borrows/claims the name of Jesus and draw your own conclusions.

You’ve misunderstood. I’m trying to ascertain what you think and believe. Where your belief has its lines. So, is it your belief that the Mormon version of Jesus is an acceptable path? Do you think Jewish people are on the right path? What about Scientologists?