Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

'An updated book with explanations and more recent revelations would be pretty handy, wouldn't they?'It would if the Bible needs explanations, but people thought it did not do so long before there the BoM was written. In fact, just as soon as ordinary people were allowed to read the Bible, it was widely reckoned to be complete, and by the most learned people, too.

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.

'True, but so the Jews believe about the Torah.'Mormons think that Jews are wrong. Mormons need to explain why they think the Bible is insufficient.If BoM does not contradict any Bible teaching, why do Mormons not just make do with the Bible? Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

The anwer to your question is the same as for this one:Why don't all Christians just make due with genesis?

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

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?

It's not a matter of whether the question is awkward.Obviously you missed the point of the rest of my post. If Text A is held to be sacred, and Text B expands and expounds upon Text A without contradicting it, why bother with Text B?That same question seems to have different answers for you depending on whether Text B is the New Testament, a given book of the Bible, or the Book of Mormon. All are additional texts that do not contradict other works; the Gospels, especially, seem to be redundant.An additional text can completely change the meaning of a previous text without contradicting anything from the other text. The Book of Mormon seems to do this, just as the books of the New Testament did so with the Torah. Just as Mark did with Luke.Again, the valid question is not "why bother;" we know why one would include additional non-contradictory texts: additional texts can add additional information and change the way the older text is interpreted.The valid question is "is this new text authentic? Is it accurate?"If the text can be shown to be a forgery (purporting to be old when it can be shown to have been written recently, for example), or if it is inaccurate (claiming that an ancient tribe of Hebrews, for example, migrated to North America, a claim that has ben thoroughly falsified), those are valid reasons to exclude a text.Simply saying that any additional text that doesn't contradict other texts is extraneous required special pleading: the Bible you accept is itself a collection of books that presumably do not contradict one another, but instead add to what was written in other texts. If you exclude the Book of Mormon as extraneous on thsoe grounds, it's inconsistent of you to include more than a single book from the Bible.A book can only be considered extraneous if it adds nothing new. The Book of Mormon most definitely adds new information, and so cannot be regarded as extraneous.

'Why don't all Christians just make due with genesis?'What do Christians have to do with anything?Can Mormons answer a plain question about their own faith, that they promote at the expense of all others?What is so hard about this?If the BoM does not contradict any Bible teaching, why do Mormons not just make do with the Bible?

...are you intentionally being dense? Take a moment, re-read, and try to comprehend what is being said.The Book of Mormon does not contradict, but it does add significantly to the Bible, sufficiently that it changes significantly the character and motivation of God, the nature of the afterlife, etc.If you exclude additional texts because they simply don't contradict other texts, then logically you'd have to have only one book - all others must be excluded because they are contradictory, or because they are not contradictory. This would mean Christians should stick with Genesis, or one text from the Bible of their choice, because all of the other Biblical texts do not contradict the chosen text.Your argument implies that the Book of Mormon is extraneous because it does not contradict the Bible, but being redundant requires that the text also not add anything new. The Book of Mormon most definitely does add new information, and so cannot be regarded as simply redundant.The only valid questions regarding the BoM are whether the text is authentic, and whether it is accurate. Your question, to put it bluntly, betrays a lack of reasoning ability.

FACEPALMLast time I checked, LDS Members are Christians. Seeing as the Bible is a Christian compilation of Scripture, this would be a discussion on Christianity. More especially, a sub section of it known as the LDS Church. It's not whether your question is plain, or complex. It is whether your question is relevant, or meaningful. Seeing as your question can be applied to The Book of Exodus - in that it is an additional book following Genesis, that does not contradict it - I would say that your question is meaningless to the topic.A Better Example would be to quote your own last line: and rephrase it within your own rules:
If the [Book of] Exodus does not contradict any Genesis teaching, why do Christians not just make do with the [Book of] Genesis? Actually, you are the only person that can answer that question. So, what is so hard about critical thinking, because it seems to come easily to me, and many others on this forum.Edited by Michamus, : qs was not bracketed

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

'Last time I checked, LDS Members are Christians.'Ok then, why don't Mormon Christians just make do with Genesis?Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

Hi, Ochaye. I'm pretty sure you're just being deliberately dense (or "intellectually dishonest", as Taz would have it) at this point.Your question has been answered at least four or five times, by Michamus (a Mormon) and by Rahvin and by Perdition (not Mormons): you have so far decided to ignore their answers in favor of asking your stupid question again.I am also a Mormon. Here is the answer you've already been given: you can learn something new without contradicting something you learned before. We do not believe that all the teachings of Christ are to be found in Genesis, or even in the entire Bible, so the Book of Mormon is needed to provide us the missing pieces.Here is another answer, in case you decide to ignore the first again: the Book of Mormon serves as a second witness. If you are a district attorney, and you have one witness to a crime, would this be enough? What if there were two witnesses to the crime? Wouldn't you want both to testify, to make the case better?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

'you can learn something new without contradicting something you learned before.'Of course. But that statement makes an assumption, that itself may be a fatal one, that there is anything more to learn. Is there anything in the Bible that gives anyone that impression? Is there anything in the Bible that gives an impression that learning 'more' may indeed be fatal, because 'more' means less?

Does the bible contradict what science has concluded about nature?Why don't christians just make do with science?- Oni

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.

quote:

---

How do we know this book is accurate or correct?

---

That's a question for later, if necessary. The first relevant question is this:Is there anything in the Bible that gives anyone the impression that there is more to learn?