Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Book of Mormon Message-ID: Date: 2 Sep 90 03:21:08 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 22 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: > All covenants must be ratified in blood. The Old Testament was >ratified in the blood of animals. The New Testament, or New Covenant, >was ratified in the Blood of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of >God. The Book of Mormon claims to be "another testament of Jesus >Christ." The problem I have with this is that the Book of Mormon >appears to use this phrase in terms of mere "testimony." Thus, a new >covenant, or new testament, has not been ratified in blood, the >martyrdom of Joseph Smith and Hyrum notwithstanding. God did not >ratify a covenant with Joseph Smith in anyone's blood or any kind of >blood; hence, it is not another testament or covenant of Jesus Christ. Well, Cindy, the Book of Mormon does indeed claim to be a testimony of Jesus Christ and as such points to his ministry, death and resurrection. I see no need to treat as a new covenant requiring blood ratification. Even if such a need exists it is not clear why you reject the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith as satisfying that need. In fact the book itself describes plenty of other martyrs who gave their lives for God. I'm afraid I don't see your point.