“As Does the Bible”

Since 1981 the Introduction to the Book of Mormon has stated,

“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting Gospel.”

Recently the Introduction was changed; among other things, the words “as does the Bible” have been removed. This change is consistent with the teaching of LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer found in an article which appeared in the March 2008 issue of the Ensign magazine. In “Who Is Jesus Christ?” Mr. Packer stated, “Nephi testified that the Bible once ‘contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record'” but later the “great and abominable church” took away many “plain and most precious” parts of the gospel (Ensign, March 2008, 16).

Looks Like HeartacheThe above reference to the teaching of Nephi in the Book of Mormon has been a component of LDS doctrine since the Church’s inception. LDS prophets and apostles have preached continuously that the Bible has been corrupted and much truth lost from the original text. This LDS view of a corrupted Bible is now and has always been a major concern among Christians. The idea that the Bible is missing parts of the LDS Gospel is nothing new or shocking; but with this recent change to the Book of Mormon Introduction, the incongruity of the pre-changed text is brought to the forefront.

The Introduction was originally written for a new edition of the Triple Combination (one volume which contains the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price) published in 1981. The new edition of the scriptures was heralded as “the product of years of research and inspired direction.” * One wonders, therefore, how the inaccurate claim that the Bible contains the fullness of the everlasting Gospel came to be included in the first place. It certainly did not reflect the true teachings or doctrine of the LDS Church, yet it remained in the Book of Mormon Introduction for about 25 years.



* Edward J. Brandt, “Using the New LDS Editions of Scripture—As One Book,” Ensign, October 1982, 42

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Bible, Book of Mormon. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to “As Does the Bible”

  1. oceancoast says:

    Finding Archeological proof for the book of Mormon would be like finding the Holy Grail. The Ark of Covenant, The tablets of the Ten Commandments, or proof of Jesus’ resurrection.

    Forget Josephus and Tactius, we actually have PROOF Jesus existed. Didn’t someone find a first century box of bones with the label on it saying Jesus son of Joseph and Mary? Archeological evidence doesn’t get much more explicit than that. Oh – I forget, that can’t be the Jesus of the Bible because Jesus was resurrected. That must be some other Jesus, Joseph and Mary.

    And you all say Christianity is not based on Subjective Faith.

  2. eric017 says:

    I would not call FARMS a reputable unbias source. I again adimently disagree that there is anything in the archaeological record that supports anything proported to be there based on the BOM. There is no evidence of cultural exchange between middle America and the middle east which the BOM requires if true. For one thing, if there were, one could bet the LDS church would be all over it publically. Finding something supporting the BOM isn’t like finding something for the bible. Why? because we have found things supporting parts of the Biblical narative!! There is ZERO evidence for the BOM. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. Simply saying the Olmecs, Mayans et al. are there doesn’t do it, because from all appearences these cultures developed totally independent of Eastern Hemisphere influence.

    Oceancoast, I believe the oscuarry (sp?) you are referring too was proported to be of ‘James the Brother of Jesus’. While the box actually dated to the first century, the ‘brother of Jesus’ part has been shown to have been added very recently.

    No one has said that being a Christian doesn’t require ‘faith in things not seen’. Rather, I think it is faith based on some reality that doesn’t require blind adherence to a charlitan.

  3. oceancoast says:

    No the ossuary I am referring to Eric is the one of the ten from the Talpiot Tomb. I am surprised you haven’t heard of this since there was a big deal made about in the press, and it was a several hour documentary program aired on the Discovery Channel last year. Since then it has been kept pretty hush-hush for obvious political reasons. When you talk about an ossuary with bones in it that bears Jesus’ name.. well you get the picture. You can learn more by going to http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/

    The ossuary you are referring to known as the James Ossuary, was determined based to have originated from this tomb as well based upon patina analysis done by CSI Suffolk Crime lab in New York. Yes there has been some controversy over the dating of the inscription “Brother of Jesus” but as it goes it hasn’t been conclusive either, that last word on that was that there was no definitive proof it is authentic and the IAA hasn’t provided definitive proof it was a fraud.. I believe the connection with the James Ossuary and the other ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb has added additional evidence that the James ossuary inscription is authentic.

  4. JamesN says:


    I can agree that we disagree. I can see you can’t get past your bias and prejudice against LDS sources. You adamant belief there is no evidence to support the BoM is just a reflection of your bias. Just as you would probably dismiss any archeological evidence presented in reference to the Talpiot Tomb and the ossuaries since to accept them would potentially undermine your faith. You can’t have a box of bones belonging to Jesus if he was resurrected right? So you dismiss it because of your bias. For the same reasons you would dismiss any research presented by FARMS. I can admit FARMS will have LDS Bias, but I don’t see how you can say they aren’t reputable. Nibley was a HIGHLY respected scholar by peers outside the LDS.

    I also realize that not all Evangelical Christians are so dismissive of LDS Scholarship. In fact I recently read a paper published by two Evangelical Scholars, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen that express the opposite view point.

    There is no evidence of cultural exchange between middle America and the middle east

    I am curious that you would make such a bold statement. Aren’t you aware about the Cocaine Mummies? Egyptian mummies with Cocaine in their hair follicles. Cocaine only existed in the Americas. How did the cocaine get ingested by an ancient Egyptian if there were no cultural exchange?

  5. subgenius says:

    Michael P
    Faith without work is an abomination. Who with Faith does nothing. Faith is the spark which drives the engine of righteousness. Have you read James 2:17? You should also heed the warning of 1 Samuel 2:3 when it comes to your wager comments?
    Also 1 Cor 2:14 is not meant to prove my point, because it was the point. But please, as you boldly stated, “turn” that around for me.
    nicely put. and congratulations on a successful use of “Cocaine Mummies”, not only in your point but as an evocative term in any discussion.

    Evidence versus Proof (good grief)
    What evidence does anyone have that any of the miracles throughout the Bible were ever performed? What “evidence” is that Jesus was an immaculate conception? What “evidence” is there? Remember “hearsay” is not admissible as “evidence”. Spiritual things are Spiritually discerned…Some people actually NEED to find a piece of Noah’s Ark to believe, are you one of them?

  6. Jeffrey says:

    JamesN, I didn’t ask for you to type it all out on here, just reference it and I will go to the link. Pick only two please because they are all very long.

    Again, I don’t think you and oceancoast haven’t grasped the difference between proof and evidence.

    If you lived in Biblical times, met Jesus, walked and talked with Jesus, saw miracles performed by Jesus, watched him die upon the cross and then be ressurected – This is what you walk away with.

    You walk away with PROOF of an extraordinary man who claims to be the Son of God. You have proof of his ressurection because you witnessed with your own eyes. You do NOT have PROOF though that He is who He says He is. He left EVIDENCE suggesting his divinity. So would you have to have faith and trust in Jesus Christ anymore and the price he paid for your sins? Of course you will! You have to have faith and trust in the promises he gave you to receive salvation. You do not have proof of your salvation until the day you die.

    So, even if we find a city named Zarahemla, it is not PROOF that the whole of Mormonism is correct, it is just proof that Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about. It is rather solid evidence that he IS a prophet of God.

    James, I don’t know why you think God can’t leave any traces to help evidence His existence? Finding everything mentioned in the Book of Mormon would make it a lot easier to have faith in its authenticity, but it does NOT remove the necessity of faith in God and His promises.

    I would probably be able to believe in the BoM if it had even half of the evidences of the authenticity of the Bible. The thing though, is it doesn’t. In fact, there is much evidence (not proof) suggesting that Joseph Smith is a fraud. (Book of Abraham, prophecys not fulfilled, etc.)

    It saddens me that you think God is playing hide and go seek with you. He has given you His Word and you ignore it.

  7. Ralph says:


    Your post can just as well be applied to the Bible. Just because we can find names of places, events and people means that whoever wrote the Bible knew what they were talking about. It happens with fiction writers as well. Some of them do massive amounts of research to write a book based on a certain area so they can get the information correct to write into their books – for example Robin Cook. He writes medical thrillers and he researches up to date technologies so that people, like me, who know the industry and jargon will think that he knows his stuff. I have said a number of times the movie “Forrest Gump” has many names, places, people and events from history, does this mean that its correct?

    As for evidences of the BoM, there is a book called “Discovering Lehi” written by the Hiltons. They came to Australia to serve a mission and subsequently I met them. He told me personally about the travels him and his wife went on in the Middle East to write the book. They have found that the journey in 1 Nephi from Jerusalem to the land of milk and honey is plausible when many critics who have not been to the Middle East think it is not. So who are you going to believe – an eye witness (Hiltons) or the hecklers? Elder Hilton said that another group found another possible way but both are in the same general area and come out a few kilometres away from each other.

    I also found this sentence of yours very interesting “You have to have faith and trust in the promises he gave you to receive salvation. You do not have proof of your salvation until the day you die. This contradicts most of the Evangelicals position on this site as they all say that they are assured of being saved – ie they have proof. Your comment can be interpreted as you saying that this is not correct, they cannot be assured of being saved right now as they do not have proof. It also means that someone other than the Evengelicals can be the correct church, for example the LDS church.

  8. Michael P says:

    Is it just me or do Mormons seem to miss, consistently, pertinent points?

    How many times have I said, and others, that the historical facts of the Bible do not prove it, only lend it credence?

    And how interesting is it that sub does not see how 1 Cor 2:14 can be turned on him. Quite easy: since you do not have the true spirit, you cannot accept the true things of God. That you do not have the true spirit is found in many places. Read over this forum to find places to start.

    Ah, sub, but saying that laziness is an abonimation does not answer my question: do you know, without a doubt, you have done enough to merit God’s favor and achieve the celestial kingdoim?

  9. eric017 says:

    It isn’t my evangelical bias that precludes me from accepting interpretations by LDS scholars for evidence of the BOM. It is my bias as a logically thinking human. We (persons on this blog) throw around the word proof way too much in my opinion. Archeaology as a science can not prove anything, nor can any other scientific endevor. Rather, science disproves hypotheses which are generated with observation and tested with data. Until hypotheses are disproven, in my opinion, we should accept the most logical interpretation of the data. So much of the LDS interpretation of meso-American culture 2000 years ago seems increadibly anacronistic and improbable. I developed this opinion as I left the LDS church, and believe me there were times when I wanted more than anything for the BOM to be true. Years later when I became a Christian, it just gives me something interesting to talk about as I see people in my family continue to believe in something I just don’t think is real. It continues to baffle me.

    But, with this talk of proof, I will state that religous persutes of truth fall outside the scientific model (i.e. miricles aren’t repeatable). So, it isn’t proof, per say, I am after. The Bible has existed for a long time, and we can trace it’s origins to certain points in time. Yes, being a Christian requires faith, but I argue that it is faith based on something. There is a reason to believe beyond the words and feelings of others.

  10. subgenius says:

    You or I can say many things many times, unfortunately it does not make them true, often it simply looks foolish. Fortunately the historic, rather the archaelogic or geographic, evidence also gives credence to the Book of Mormon. This evidence (Biblical or BoM) is useless to argue over because the uniqueness of the Bible (its “internal” evidence) is a more convincing proof. This internal evidence offers way more than credence. Trying to prove the Bible with science is sad is one of the obstacles to the Truth within its pages; and yes, the same is true for the BoM, the Gnostic Gospels, the Apocrypha, etc.. 1Cor2:14 – if this is a “turn” then let me say “huh?”. “you are wrong” is not a turn, it is a baseless accusation.
    Afterlife-Do i know? i can honestly and truly say that i do NOT, that is a judgement beyond and not for me to know. Perhaps you agree that the Bible supports this OR can you enlighten me where God says that we are capable of this knowledge. This is a most arrogant position any so-called starbucks Christian will ever state= “i know without a doubt”. The “once-saved-forever-saved” motto is ridiculous. Now granted one may have “assurance”, but that is not a guarantee. To state “Do I know? Absolutely” is arrogance worthy of 1 Samuel 2:3. See Luke 9:62 – is Jesus’s statement that salvation is NOT guaranteed wrong?
    “Absolutely” = This is a common Protestant position, unfortunately it leads to these false-church attitudes (as seen in numerous comments):
    1. My faith is better than yours, it has rendered all this unnecessary.
    2.Your desire to “grow” further is lost and appear no different than a non-believer.
    3.Without the urge to learn more, you succumb to erroneous teachings and interpret scripture poorly
    In time, churches with simplistic views of salvation fade away. They really had no teaching to support their faith.

    endurance to the end is achieved only at the end, then it is “absolute”, you have no “guarantee you have only your FAITH.

  11. Jeffrey says:


    You said my post can be applied to the Bible as well.. I completely agree with you, there is no argument there. I don’t think I said once that what we have in the bible is proof. I thought it was apparent that its all evidence.

    As for the book you reference, I am interested in seeing what it has to say. If it is mainly about a possible journey that others believe is impossible, I don’t see how that works as evidence for the authenticity of Mormonism.

    To be honest, I’m not sure how one can say they have proof and know for certain they will have eternal life. I believe one can have the utmost confidence and belief though. The only medium in which I believe it is possible for one to “believe they know” is through the Holy Spirit. I would be very interested to know what other Christians think about this. That is all a subjective experience though so one cannot prove it or disprove it through that medium. Being assured and having proof are to different things. I can say with assurity that I will wake up tomorrow, but until I actually do, I don’t have any proof. My evidences are my seeminly good health and my young age. In other words, I think that if we had PROOF of our salvation (what we believe is proven true), then what need is there for faith? If I knew for a fact I would be alive tomorrow, is there a need for faith that I will be alive tomorrow? No, because I know its going to happen.

    The underlying difference is this. The Bible has many solid evidences to support it, and the BoM has very few not-so-solid evidences (along with evidence that is contrary to Mormonism). You LDS seem to know more about evidences and so thats why I asked for some references I can view online. I don’t care wether it comes from a Mormon, a Christian, or a monkey.

  12. JamesN says:

    Eric, when you say

    There is a reason to believe beyond the words and feelings of others.

    Are you saying that LDS believe in the words and feelings of others or are you applying this to yourself? LDS such as myself and probably your family are not believing in words and feelings of others.. We have our own Spiritual Testimony from the Holy Spirit. So I can see that if you never received such a witness of your own, you could be skeptical. I believe that is why the challenge of Moroni 10:3-5 is there. I would also suggest that without some sort of a spiritual witness your skepticism might reason that Jesus’ bones were found in an ossuary a couple years ago too.


    From websters:
    Evidence : ground for belief; that which tends to prove or disprove something; proof.

    You are correct that we don’t have proof of our salvation until that day comes. So we would need to have some measure faith, albeit small, even if we walked with the resurrected Christ that we will be with him in the hereafter. But since we received the BoM by miraculous means, finding Zarahemla is not as you say, it would not say that Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about, it would be much more significant than that, I would be tantamount to finding Proof of the Resurrected Christ…

    I am surprised in some respects that more evangelicals don’t get behind the BoM because if it’s true, so is Christ’ Resurrection. So let’s dig on and find Zarahemla.

  13. Jeffrey says:

    Wow subgenious, I just read your post after mine and it looks strikingly similar to what I wrote. It’s not too often that we agree so lets just share this moment of agreement together.. Ahh thats nice.. Okay, back to fighting.. lol just kidding.

    I would like to know what you think about members of the church stating “I know this is the true Church, I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that Thomas S Monson is a prophet, etc…”

    In my 5 years of attending a ward, this has always bothered me from day 1. Especially when the little ones get up on the pulpit and regurgitate what their mother/father is whispering to them. That bothers me on a whole other level. If a small child hears the same thing over and over again and repeats it over and over again throughout there life, there is somewhat of a brainwashing going on. I don’t think one should declare something until they can declare it on their own.

    Anyways, just like you say one cannot know if they will truly have salvation until they actually have it, I don’t see how one can say they KNOW the church is true. The only reason I can think of that they think they can say that is because of their “confirmation” from the holy spirit.

    If you agree with me that you dont believe people should say that, but instead say something like “I believe this is the true church, etc.”, then that would make me happy that we can continue this line of agreement, but of course if you dont feel that way, no big deal. Other people feel differently. I just wanted to see if you apply the same standard of faith in salvation as you do with belief/knowledge of the church being true.

  14. Jeffrey says:


    What do you think could be “Proof” of the ressurected Christ? If you saw him with your own eyes, that would proof for you, but your testimony of that would only be evidence to me.

    James, in what ways would finding Zarahemla be more significant? You said that twice now but I dont understand exactly how, so tell me. I already told you it would be proof that Zarahemla exists, and solid evidence of Joseph Smith being a true prophet of God and the BoM to be an authentic book. It would be the evidence of a miracle. You would STILL have to have faith that the Jesus Christ written about in that book really did pay for sins that you could not pay for yourself, and that faith, will allow you to receive the gift of Salvation. It doesn’t PROVE that God is who He says He is, it is EVIDENCE a supreme being greater than us, who in fact did send His Son to die for us, so that we may inherit Eternal Life.

    I don’t know if your still trying to make a point that if we have evidence or even proof of the stories written in the Books of the Bible or in the BoM, that we dont need faith. I think its rather obvious that no matter what, regardless of all the evidence and proof God gives us of his existence, we still need to have faith in his Son, that he IS our Reedemer!

  15. Michael P says:


    How you truly do not understand our position.

    First, what evidence is there, outside of FARMS, to suggest the historicity of the BOM is true? None. You have not even given a source to suggest the BOM has anything, and how many times do I need to state that the accuracy found in the historical Bible gives it credence, not proof. We could also look at prophecy, but for the sake of discussion have left that out. I’ve asked before, and will ask again, given two books, one with some verification the other without, which would you beleive?

    I have also expressly stated the Bible is based on faith. It starts with faith, but the truth we find in its external verification serves to supplement the faith we have. Unlike the BOM, which still has no external supplements, remains sketchy at best. Take also into consideration the character of its “revelator” (which you have dismissed as not important) and the evidence comes into place.

    Some verse showing the assurance we speak of:
    John 5:24, John 6:37-39, Joh 10: 27-30, Romans 8:1, 31-39, 1 Cor 1:8, Eph 4:30, Heb 7:25, 1 Peter 1:3-5, among others.

    Your impression that this is boasting is surprising to me. I do not intend to boast, and certainly do not think myself any better than you or anyone. But as to my faith, yes, I guess this can be considered a boast, and why not? I know it is right, and as the verses just mentioned, I know I am saved. Shouldn’t I celebrate that fact by spreading the confidence I have?

    Finally, such an assurance has nothing to do with growth, and your assumption shows your lack of understanding, and to succomb to erroneous teachings is also outside the assurance. Those two points miss the mark badly, and I hope you look into why.

  16. JamesN says:


    After reading the last couple of post I can say I think we are coalescing on a point of agreement. That point being this is all about faith. The significance of a proof of Zarahemla would essentially be like walking with the Resurrected Christ. Your comment about if I saw the resurrected Christ that would be proof to me and evidence to you? I don’t agree, it would be evidentiary proof to me, yes, but it would be only my testimony to you, and you would have to accept my testimony as evidence based upon your faith that my testimony was true. As you see were back to faith. If I told you now that I saw the resurrected Christ.. Would you accept that as evidence?

    You asked for some evidence of the BoM.. I brought up earlier the case of the Cocaine Mummies. Ancient Egyptian mummies with heavy cocaine loads in their hair follicles. Botanists say that cocaine has only existed in the Americas, and their isn’t any genetic or fossile evidence that coca ever existed in the Old world. So how would an Ancient Egyptian ingested cocaine? He had to have been using before his death for the cocaine to be present INSIDE the hair shaft, there is no other way. This isn’t a direct evidence of the BoM per se. It’s not the same as a ruin with the name Zarahemla on it, but it is an evidence that there was in some way a cultural connection between the Americas and the Egyptians in ancient times. Which is a component of the BoM story. BTW..This evidence is not from any LDS sources.


    Is your assurance of your salvation so much guaranteed that you no longer need to govern your actions? Do you feel that you have any accountability for your actions now? I mean if you found yourself in a fit of rage over something and you lost control of your senses and murdered someone in cold blood.. are you still saved? Or would you admit that you still have the free will and agency to choose a behavior that will cancel that guarantee of your salvation?

  17. subgenius says:

    As has been stated by many, the Apostle’s Creed is similar in its regurgitation, some say it just to say it, especially children. I also agree that one should only “preach what they can practice”, but i am not sure that the repetition theory is a strong argument-there is thin line between brainwashing and conditioning. After all some people keep re-typing the same useless ilk over and over and over, but it floats away for it has no weight. I do believe the CoJCoLDS to be the true Church and the prophets to be true prophets. However, i only ‘believe’ a prophet when i have read or heard their prophecy in tune with the Spirit. God actually commands us to have Faith as read in the book of Hebrews, as well as others.

    “our position”? why not say “my position”, are you now the self-appointed spokesman for all of Christianity? You thinks yourself a “prophet”, eh?
    my evidence is as plausible as the same type of temporal evidence for the Bible. No evidence you can offer will take away or give credence to any of Spiritual Text we have discussed. What you are “spreading” is not confidence, and “why not”?, perhaps you will find that answer among the pages of the Bible, i got you started with Samuel, however try Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc……..especially Job 4:6.
    I notice you have no response for Luke 9:62.
    Yes, assurance is a different thing, however my “assumption” is admittedly subjective and we first spoke not about assurance, but rather about your claim of being “absolute”. Likewise, you have succumb to erroneous teachings, after all, what do you urge to know more about?

    p.s. give us some of this evidence that you speak about (and one book’s prophecy about another book in the Bible does not count).
    The Bible, like the BoM, has a wealth of internal evidence (spiritual proof), but i am curious about this ‘convincing’ external evidence you reference. You have a piece of the Ark?

  18. eric017 says:


    I do not believe that your (and my family’s) spiritual witness to the BOM or the LDS church is a real witness of truth. Why? Because there are many experiences that are decidedly not LDS or even religious in nature that garner the same emotional response. People have emotional experiences that Mormons would identify as the Spirit on face value that involve things that are not true (or can not be true if the LDS gospel is true). How do you explain the paradox? I believe Moroni’s promise is loaded with apriori bias, especially for the life-long Mormon. Why? So much of ‘the church being true’ is tied up with love of family, sense of community, validation that your way is right, ect. It stands to reason that you feel the way you do when you pray to see if the church is true. You get the response you want (regardless of truth) because getting a different response would be a terrible thing indeed (i.e. your family might not be together forever). I’m tell you that I do not think that your spiritual witness doesn’t mean the church is true, it simply means your human and capable of emotional interaction with like-minded others.

    I came to this conclusion long before I was a Christian, and have given this much thought over the years. When I stepped back and looked at the LDS picture, I could see right through to the deception of it’s founder. It was like taking the blue pill (or was it the red?) in the movie the Matrix. This is especially true since becoming a Christian. My Christian experience isn’t so much about having a witness of what is true and what is not. Rather it is about growing in a walk with Jesus. You suggest that I take up Moroni’s challenge (btw, already did this my LDS mission). This will never happen, as I believe doing so would be turning my back on Christ.


  19. Michael P says:

    James, I am glad you asked. In a word, we have complete freedom in Christ, I think. We can do anything and not lose our salvation. But before you take that to the extreme, ultimately, this assurance puts great responsibility on us and we must restrict our freedom. There is much discipline that comes from accepting Christ.

    First, we are to turn away from sin. Second, we are to lift up our brothers and sisters in Christ. Third, we are not to harm ourselves or those around us. Fourth, and most important, we are to be as a light to those around us so they can see the glory of God in us.

    As Paul says, while we are free to do all things, not all things are profitable.

    Some other scripture (though there are more): Romans 6:15-22, 13:13-14, and Gal 5:13.

    I also like 1 Cor 9:19. While this does not talk about sin, per se, it does directly address our responsibility to win as many to Christ as we can. And anything that would put doubt in another person’s eyes as to the authenticity of Christ, then we are not to do that.

    We are free to do anything, but that freedom carries great responsibility to honor Christ. That’s what its all about, and when we do things on our own, we do not honor Christ.

    A fit of rage? Or you stumble once by lusting? Yes, you can be saved, even after you stumble. There are a few things to keep in mind, though. If you continue to live in the sin, then you are not living in Christ. You must also admit your sin, and really work to avoid sin in the future. Otherwise, though you claim Christ, your willful living outside of his will is not honoring Christ.

    You know the scripture, not all who claim him will be of him.

    We also cannot have this discussion without saying that we cannot resist God’s call. Calvinistic thought has merit on this topic. And though it may seem contradictory, we cannot deny we are not called by God as scripture says even though we still retain our free will. For as Paul says, we have freedom.

  20. Michael P says:

    Sub, my, have your posts gotten a little heated? I am no prophet, but I am not the only one to hold the view. If others wish to debate or say something different, they are as free as you are to do so.

    Evidence. It is clear you wish to see only what you wish to see. This is fine.

    Perhaps you misunderstood me: I am 100% sure I will be heaven. Call it proven, call it assurance, call it what you will. This based on faith, but like you I am convinced what I say is true. And if you are willing to question me on this assumption, you must be willing to question the possibility you are wrong in your faith.

    Evidence. We have been through this. This is why I say arguing with Mormons is often a frustrating endeavor. You don’t seem to listen. Check out the many posts here to find evidence. Do a google search for evidence for the Bible.

  21. JamesN says:

    Eric, Jeffrey

    First of all I want to applaud you for attitude some of you express in your posts. It appears that we can agree to disagree and still have a civil discussion about topics. I have only been here on Mormon Coffee for about a week and I have had some experience on another Evangelical site (CARM). I can say at least so far this is NIGHT and DAY difference in the attitude. I don’t know what they are thinking, but how they think they can demean, belittle, marginalize and deride the LDS and their beliefs is going to have anyone take anything they say serious is beyond me.

    As for my spiritual testimony, I would like to say, I understand Eric where if I had been born and raised in to the Church then I can really see that there can be a point in saying that putting Moroni’ challenge can be like asking God if these people around you are really your parents. (As if every teenager doesn’t do this anyway ) . But I wasn’t born into the church.. I was born a Catholic, I received Christ into my life when I was 11 at Vacation Bible school and later in my teenage years do to a “Series of Unfortunate events”, I lost my parents and was raised my teenage years by a gracious LDS family. During my walk in life I have had many occasions to question the LDS faith, I have spent many Sundays at the local Evangelical Church, I have a great many friends who are Evangelical, Catholic, etc. Some of them pastors. Although my family (adopted) is very important to me, I am my own person and I do not follow the LDS church just because they do. In fact some of them don’t. My testimony lies with deep spiritual convictions that I have received and personally can not deny that have nothing to do with what my family thinks or does.. Why I have received these things and others who put Moroni’s challenge to the test don’t, I couldn’t tell you. I can only go on what I have received and that is the foundation of my relationship with Christ.. A testimony from the Holy Spirit.

  22. Jeffrey says:


    Even though you drive me crazy sometimes (just like I’m sure I drive you crazy), it makes me happy to know that we can have a debate that goes no where, but still we retain our respect for each other as human beings. Let’s face it. We both think one another is lost.

    We are both presented with facts and you made you decision on those facts, and I have made mine. Even though you don’t see things my way, I applaud you for not being afraid to look into the history of your church. I have attended an LDS ward for the past 5 years and have known many LDS people that don’t even know the doctrines that were taught by their own past prophets.

    I am sorry to hear about your parents passing away. My father passed away when I was 12, but luckily my mom still lives today so I was always with a biological parent. It sounds like you were lucky to have been adopted by a very loving family though so thats wonderful.

  23. gundeck says:


    Sorry for the delay, in responding but work, school, Church, and finally a cable modem have kept me off the net.

    I still do not see your biblical evidence rule, but since Christ called the Church to be a witness, that should satisfy that. The mere transmission of the New Testament Texts shows multiple witnesses; first from speaker to the writer (2 witnesses) to the reader (3 witnesses or more), to the hearer (4 witnesses) to copier (5 witnesses) etc.

    In response I would say that Scripture is either “inspired by God” or it is a man made creation. Of course Paul is not referring to his own letters when speaking of scripture, but 2 Peter 3:16 gives the status of Scripture to New Testament writings. Sorry for not referring to that last week I thought the Mormons still believed the New Testament was part of the Bible.

  24. eric017 says:


    Thanks for your kind words. It is a struggle, I think for all of us, to discuss issues relating to Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity when we feel so passionate about our positions. I often try to couch things in the least offensive ways possible, while simultaniously remain true to what I believe. Thank you for honestly answering the questions in your post above. While I don’t feel the same way regarding things, it is good that we are able to have a dialog. Which is the whole point of this blog, I think.


Comments are closed.