Not that I don't think it is well-written, I'm just in no real position to judge.

But it is a story about a family from Jerusalem. They split up shortly after arriving in the New World, forming two civilizations. They write their history, and up until a point it is written directly by them. Then, we are told that from here on out, the writings are abridgments of many other documents and records. The descendants then meet up with another completely separate civilization that came from Jerusalem, who have found the writings of another much more ancient civilization, but are unable to translate it. We are then given more of their history, of their many wars and struggles. We follow them up to ~400 AD. Then the person who has abridged most of the book passes it on to his Son, who then abridges and inserts the records found by the second group from Jerusalem, the records of the very ancient civilization. Then, the son writes a few words, and includes letters and other things from his father and his time.

There are a lot of different authors. And they seem to have different interests. When Nephi (the very first) writes about wars and contentions, he simply states that there were wars and contentions. When Mormon (the one who abridged much of the record) writes of war, he is much more descriptive, focusing heavily on what was going on. Considering he was a general for his people, his interest in war is understandable. His son, who is one of the last survivors of his people, abridges the records of another people who killed themselves off. Many of the authors in the latter part of the beginning write almost nothing, save that they received the record, and passed it on.

It's too complex for a dim-witted farmboy.



Please, lets keep this a polite discussion. You don't agree with me. I know that!




Fundamental and baseline according to the First Ecumenical Council . Fundamental and baseline according to you, even.

We do not simply talk about Christ and feel he's important. We believe he is the one and only way to salvation. That his Atonement is the greatest event in the history of everything. That he wants each of us to follow him, and that he loves everyone with a pure love we can hardly fathom. He is the Son of God, and the Only Begotten in the flesh. He is not simply some great moral teacher, or a guy with good ideas.



Yes, we believe that. But we do not believe that there is a god greater than God. There are no other gods we can or should pray to. I don't know how all that works. But for this universe and creation, there is One God.



Hebrews 1:1 says that he spoke to prophets. Other verses say he sent his Son, who is greater than the prophets. And then... nothing. Nothing says that no more prophets are needed.

Joseph Smith did not deny Jesus is the Christ. He did not ask anyone to follow gods other than God. I've never heard of those prophecies you talk of.



What is "my" baptism then?



It is not a contradiction. It is Another Testament. I have not read the entire Bible, something I do need to do. But I have read much of it, and most of the New Testament. I do not see that I am "violating almost everything that it says". Honestly, they mesh quite well.




Congratulations, you have managed a verse.


Yes, I did just skip the latter part of your post. I don't see the point when discussion hits this level of hostility. This is the point where we settle down and yell at each other. I will keep those books in mind.

I will comment on one part:


This is wrong. He had done nothing to make them a "rightly" angry mob. Angry mobs have stoned and killed prophets before, and they are not "right".