In early September (2008) one of Mormon Coffee’s LDS friends left this comment:
“On my other posts, I am finding a disturbing trend. I find that when I reference Christ’s words from the New Testament more often than not the rebuttal comes from Paul’s writings.
“I have developed a general rule of thumb when reading the scriptures. If there seems to be a contradiction in meaning, I give priority to the Saviors words.
“Because so much of what evangelicals seem to believe comes from Paul’s writings- often it would seem to the neglect of the Savior’s- would it be correct to assume that you worship Paul?”
Evangelicals, it should go without saying, do not worship the apostle Paul. Neither do we resolve what may seem to be contradictions in Scripture by choosing the words of Paul over the words of Christ. Rather, Evangelicals believe all the words recorded in the Bible are equally authoritative and fully reconcilable, presenting a consistent and seamless witness of the Truth of God.
Agreeing with Ephesians 2:19-20, we believe “the household of God [is] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” What this means has been well-explained:
“To say that the church’s foundation includes the apostles is not in any way to denigrate Jesus as the cornerstone upon which the church rests (v. 20). Actually, to affirm the apostolic nature of the church is to affirm strongly the headship of Christ over His church. The function of the apostle helps us understand how this can be the case. Apostolos is the Greek term for ‘apostle’ and in the first-century Roman world was used of those delegated to speak for a person of authority. The caesar and other ruling officials could send apostles to speak for them in other places, and when the apostles spoke, their words carried the authority of the official who sent them. To reject these apostles was to reject the authority of the one who commissioned them for service; therefore, to deny the apostles of Jesus is to deny the authority of Jesus Himself.
“Paul mentions the prophets as part of the foundation of the covenant community (v. 20), a clear reference to Isaiah, Daniel, Amos and all the other well-known men who spoke for God under the old covenant, and whose words were recorded in the books that bear their names. But this grouping of prophets also includes all the authors of the Old Testament, such as Moses, David, and the other unnamed writers of books like Judges and Chronicles. All of these individuals are also prophets because they give us the Almighty’s very Word (2 Peter 1:16-20).
“If the prophetic foundation of the church is to be equated with their writings, so too is the apostolic foundation of the church found in the apostolic writings. The Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation carry equally the authority of Christ, for they were written by those our Lord called to speak for Him (Luke 10:1-16; John 14:26). It is a great error to elevate the words of Jesus in the Gospels above other parts of Scripture, for the words of Scripture, no matter where they are located, are breathed-out by God Himself (2 Tim. 3:16-17).” (Tabletalk, August 2008, page 33)
I reprint this here in order to explain the Evangelical understanding of the authority of Scripture. I know it will be a great temptation for the ensuing discussion to fall into the idea of the validity/non-validity of Mormon apostles. Please resist that temptation. Suffice it to say that the above information is referring to the biblical apostles; Evangelicals do not recognize any authority in the LDS apostles (see 2 Corinthians 11). Therefore, please limit your discussion to the topic at hand; that is, the authority of the written Word of God as contained in the Bible.
Morning all…I will stumble into this since I’m sure I was part of the “disturbing trend” mentioned. No ma’am I do not worship Paul. I do however recognize a distinct difference between those who keep the Law of Moses and those who don’t. As a Gentile…I don’t. My point is you have to distinguish who is being addressed in Scripture.
Jesus had some contact with Gentiles in the Gospels but overall He said Himself that He came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. James, His brother, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem and he was a Jew. Paul was the apostle who was sent to the Gentiles to give them the good news that they were included in the mystery of God’s salvation. I’m certainly not suggesting we ignore the rest of Scripture but that it is important to know who is addressing whom when interpreting a text. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it…Blessings!!
For some time I’ve been wanting to get something off my chest so I think this may be a good opportunity. What do we mean, when we say the Bible is the Word of God? It’s a revelation from God. It provides us with information from God that we can’t learn on our own. The Bible is not one book. It’s a collection of 66 books authored by people who testified that they had an experience with someone they called the Lord or the Eternal One. Since these revelations took place over a period of time, there was no collusion by the writers. So what is the inspiration of the Scriptures? Ther Greek word is “theopneustos” which means it was “God breathed.” This inspiration is claimed by Christians for the “original” autographs as they are called. So what about the copies? To determine the accuracy of the “copies”, scholars can do textual comparison and look for consistancy in the copies. Scholars look for transmission errors in the copies of the texts. The interesting thing is that the copies, even with transmission errors do not contradict the basic message and doctrine related to the means of salvation. E.H.Bickersteth wrote “Every jot and tittle of the Bible, as originally penned by the sacred writers, is God’s WORD WRITTEN-I repeat, as originally penned, for the truth here affirmed does not ask us to believe in the inspiration of copyists or translators or interpreters. Superficial errors though we believe them to be few and comparatively unimportant, may have crept in during the lapse of ages. But the autographs were perfect.”
What is “inspiration”? It is the total process which includes the writer. However what is written is emphasised and not the man doing the writing. The process of inspiration is a mystery of God. The written Word is a verbal (the words), plenary (extending to all parts equally, inerrant (errorless), and authoritative record.
A book of the Bible is valuable because it is inspired. It’s not in the Bible because men found it to have value. We have what we have as the complete Biblical text because that’s what God inspired. It is God who regulated the cannon of scripture. Man recognized the divine authority of God. God determined the canon of scripture and man discovered it. So the canon is not founded on the authority of the Church. The Church is founded on the authority of the Scriptures. How do we recognize “real” scripture? (1) was it written by a man of God? (2) who was confirmed by an act of God, (3) told the truth about God, man, etc. (4) came with the power of God, and (5) was accepted by the people of God. The contemporaries of the prophet or apostle knew his credentials and accepted his book immediately. Later the church Fathers sorted out the profusion of religious literature, discovered, and gave official recognition to the books that, by virtue of their divine inspiration, had been determined by God as canonical and originallly recognized by the contemporary beliving community.
There, I feel better now!
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Actually the Greek word is “theopneustos”.
“Theo” meaning God and “pneustos” a variant of the word “pneuma” or spirit (as in 1 Cor 2:11) and it literally means spirited.
The word breathed in John 20:22 is translated from the Greek word “emphusaO” literally meaning ‘He-IN-INFLATES’.
If you look at 2 Tim 3:16 in different English versions of the Bible you find;
American Standard Version = “inspired of God”
Darby Translation = “divinely inspired”
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition = “inspired of God”
Holman Christian Standard Bible = “inspired by God”
King James Version = “inspiration of God”
New American Standard Bible = “inspired by God”
New Century Version = “inspired by God”
New King James Version = “inspiration of God”
New Living Translation = “inspired by God”
Wycliffe New Testament = “inspired of God”
Contemporary English Version = “God’s Word”
21st Century King James Version = “inspiration of God”
New World Translation = “inspired of God”
Are all of those translations “infallible” or “inerrant”?
GB– Yes.
Here’s a thought for you, though.
Given that scripture is translated, and no translation is absolutely perfect, we best come to an original meaning when we take several examples of translations to get the meaning.
If there is a question, or someone uses one direction to translate over another, when you view what those others are you get a better idea of what the original really meant.
This is a big reason why we do not limit ourselves to one translation and encourage the reading of multiple translations.
GB…they all sound about the same to me. I myself believe the Old & New Testaments to (1) be the Word of God and (2) contain all things necessary for salvation.
However, those Christians who use words like inerrant are ONLY speaking of the original manuscripts (aside from the King James Only crowd that is). Copies and translations are not perfect. This why having the manuscripts in the original languages is important to our learning. Otherwise a text can change from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” with no linguistic justification whatsoever…
My understanding is that the Hebrew scribes had strict rules of transcription. I believe they would put their writing instrument down between each letter transcribed. When they came to the word that would mean God, they would stop and ceremonially “wash” before transcribing. That’s why, when portions of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls are compared to later copies, the error rate is miniscule.
The accuracy of both the OT and NT is remarkable. Now, that doesn’t mean the Bible is true. It means that the confidence rate is very high in the accuracy of the transcription of the text.
There are some folks that are pretty stern about what version should be used. I personally, don’t think it is of any revelance to ones ranking in their knowledge. I have five, KJV, MKJV, ESV, ASV, and NIV. The cool thing about it is, any of them can be compared to another to check it for accuracy. I find that though some of the words might be differing, the point of the text is the same. They made these differant versions, not to change the meanings, to try to reach to the people that want to read and better understand the Bible. W/LOVE
GB said
At least as far as the Bible goes, we have the Dead sea scrolls to go back to and compare. We do not have the Golden plates check the BoM against. Then since LDS do not trust the Bible, God “COMMANDED” JS and Sidney R, to “Correct” the Bible, now we have the J.S.T.
Funny how the LDS rarly use or quote from that. Yet they complaim the Bible is not Correct. Rick b (LDS priesthood holder)
The key question becomes, IS ANY GIVEN BIBLE TRANSLATION SUFFICIENT TO BRING THE READER TO CHRIST? (I’m talking about the Real, Eternal, Uncreated Creator, Testifier and Savior, not the created non-existent, fabricated Jesus of non-orthodox groups, LDS, JW or whatever others could be named) Whether or not one translation uses a slightly different wording becomes a secondary question. If I want to know as exactly as possible what Paul (for example) wrote to the Romans, I may choose to access the NASB. If I am reading Hebrews to my 12 year old son about why we no longer need a priesthood, I might choose the ESV. If I have witnessed to my friend who has never read a Bible before, I might give her an NLT. If I am witnessing to the LDS, I will definitely choose the KJV, since some believe my NASB is “@nti-Mormon” (of course all Bibles are).
If I don’t understand a particular verse in any translation, I have the freedom to consult any or all of the above to get a more vivid picture of what the original author intended and what the original audience would have understood and/or inferred. But the main question when one chooses a Bible is CAN THE HOLY SPIRIT WITNESS THE TRUTHFULNESS OF CHRIST THROUGH THE WORDS OF THIS BOOK. If the answer to that question is “yes,” then the choice of translations becomes nothing more than a matter of personal preference.
I,m not a KJ Only guy, but I have heard it said, If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, then it,s good enough for me. Rick b (LDS priesthood holder).
I don’t believe it was the intent of any of the authors of Scripture to place any Scripture over another. Certainly we use Scripture to interpret Scripture when there are difficult passages, but ultimately “All Scripture is breathed out by God”. I don’t even care for the words of Jesus in red as if certain parts of Scripture are more important or correct than others. Jesus lived for round 33 years and very little of that time is recorded, so we have thousands of years of Scripture that are just as important as the Sermon on the Mount, because ALL of Scripture is about Christ, whether it is Christ speaking or Paul or Moses or David. It all points to Christ and calls people to repent.
The second part of what Sharon writes is equally important, that is that Paul does not contradict Christ in any way. Nor does Paul contradict John or Peter of James. The Bible, when read as a total work instead of proof texting, is a uniform record of God’s work of redemption for His fallen people, the remnant of sinful humanity He is saving.
The whole issue of translations, brought up as a distraction from the main issue of the sufficiency, perspicuity and inerrancy of the Word is an interesting one, but not really the point. Like others here I own multiple translations, mostly word for word translation like the ESV (which I teach and preach from), the NKJV and NASB. I have several KJV but since no one speaks that way anymore and there are better translations out there, it isn’t my preferred translation. None of the translation differ in matters of doctrine. I can read the NKJV or the NASB or the ESV and get the same message. Regardless, the inerrancy of the Scripture is not contained in any single translation but in the preservation of the original autographs. Most Christians do not hold to a double inspiration, i.e. King James Onlyism. GB, I would encourage you to seek out and read some books on translation and the canon of Scripture.
Sido brings up an excellent point, one that we forget at our peril in such a forum: the Bible is one message as a whole. The differing authors do not contradict each other, and the stories come together to tell us of Christ, even the stories in the OT.
I guess we are going to have to find out from one of the Mormon posters, how it is that Pauls writings contridict the words of Christ? W/LOVE
You have interpreted Eph 2:19-20, I have an alternative intepretation from the Mormon perspective:
Why a foundation of apostles and prophets? Because they are the people authorized to receive revelation for the Church. The apostles are the ones delegated in fact to speak for the Lord. The ONLY way he can be the cornerstone is through communication with those on earth. It is revelation FROM Christ through the Holy Spirit that can establish a solid foundation for true doctrines.
Maybe this verse can add some clarity:
Matt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
First note that Peter had the proper approach for truth. Not flesh and blood but communication with God? Isn’t that the foundation I just recommended?
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Now Christ extends the same foundation to the whole Church. That foundation was apostles and prophets, was it not? Peters was one of the apostles, and about to become the next prophet of the Church was he not? It is the same foundation; revelation. The Bible has validated itself on the matter.
OK, I will spoon feed it to you:
On this rock, the rock of revelation, I will build my Church. As long as revelation and priesthood authority is on the earth, the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.
When ongoing revelation ended, the proper priesthood authority was revoked.
Cluff,
“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Let me spoon feed THIS to you. God no longer speaks to men through prophets because He has spoken to us finally, perfectly and completely through His Son. The “revelation” Smith made up shows a diferent Christ, a different gospel and as such his words are anathema. I don’t need some old bureaucrat in Salt Lake to deliver revelation to me because Christ’s Word is all the revelation one needs to be saved. By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone revealed in the Scriptures alone.
The foundation of the church, the rock He built His church on is the declaration that Peter made and every Christian ever since has made: You are the Christ, the Son of God. His church is not built on men, it is built on Himself.
I dropped Hebrews 1: 1-2 on some missionaries a few days ago and they looked like they had never seen the passage. Maybe Cluff can draw on his 9 extra credit hours of religion and try to explain that away.
The issue at hand on this thread is that Paul and Christ are not preaching different Gospels, they are in unanimity because all Paul preached and taught was Christ and Him crucified.
Cluff, one more thing…
“When ongoing revelation ended, the proper priesthood authority was revoked.”
You still seem unable to deal with the problem of your alleged priesthood restoration. Again, what was the function of the Levitical priesthood and why do we need that priesthood under the New Covenant administration of Christ as High Priest? The mormon church loves throwing out Biblical titles with no regard to what those offices meant and what their function and qualification were.
A few months ago I completed the Preliminary Theological Certificate (a correspondence course with Moore College in Sydney). I’d recommend it, but the major issue of disagreement between me and my examiners was on the ‘word of God’.
My objection was that the course notes used Jeremiah 1 to introduce the idea of the inspiration of scripture; “The Word of the Lord came to me saying…Jeremiah, what do you see?” When I read this, I read Jeremiah describing a person, not a book, notwithstanding that half of the Bible had not been written at the time. Its a similar story to 2 Tim 3:16 – much of the NT had not been written, and was Paul aware of the other NT works in any case?
Two observations for this thread;
1 The Word of the Lord asks Jeremiah what he sees; in this case an almond tree and a pot. I don’t dispute that the Word occasionally shows us what we do not see by way of divine revelation, but we should not leave what we do see out of the equation. I like to think that the Word gives meaning to what we do see. So much for shutting our eyes to what we can see in order to ‘see’ what we can’t, which seems to the the trajectory of much LDS teaching.
2 The Biblical idea of ‘inspired scripture’ might be less defined than some Evangelicals would like. Again, I’m not denying the very high regard the Biblical Authors had of scripture, but if you were to ask them for a list of ‘inspired’ books, they might come up with some variations to our own canon.
In contrast to the ‘fax from heaven’ concept of revelation (gold plates?), I believe that the Bible shows us that God communicates to us by living out his story among us, and that this story has been faithfully recorded and transmitted in the pages of our canonical Bibles. After all, I believe that the Bible ‘is’, not ‘was’, the Word of God.
Proverbs 30:5 – “Every word of God is pure”
John 17:17 – “Thy word is truth”
Matthew 24:35 – “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
Isaiah 40:8 – “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
It’s all so true and what a “blessed assurance” that is. We have 66 books written over a period of 1500 years and every writer under the same inspiration from the same Holy Spirit gives the same account and message. We still have prophecy in the OT & the NT that has yet to be fulfilled! Christianity doesn’t reject the writings of certain prophets in the OT or the NT. We accept them all. You’ll never hear a Christian say, “Well, that is Abraham/Noah/Paul’s opinion and therefore not authoritative.” Christanity stands behind all of its prophets and everything they have said because they are not in conflict with one another. However, this is not the case in Mormonism.
Just in the New Testament alone Christianity has:
5,700 Greek copies of the New Testament
10,000 Latin ” ” ” ” ”
10,000-15,000 NT copies in Syriac, Armenian & Georgian
25,000-30,000 handwritten copies
50 manuscripts in Greek from 1 AD to 3 AD
What do the Mormons have for manuscripts? What do they have to check the BoM translation? Oh, that’s right – nothing. Moroni took the plates back.
The Old Testament is another category all by itself and we haven’t even talked about the Dead Sea Scrolls. A good book on the subject is “From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible” by Norman Geisler. Mormons should give that a read before they decide to bad-mouth the Bible.
I don’t see the phrase “As long as revelation and priesthood authority is on the earth” in the text of Matthew 16:18 and that view doesn’t “hold water” because it conflicts with clear scripture that refutes that idea. I’m not going to get off topic talking about the Mormon’s view of the Great Apostasy even though I want to very much!
The “rock” in Matt 16:18 is “my church”. Jesus Christ is the foundation and the cornerstone of the Church. Foundations are laid at the beginning. The apostles & prophets already did this. Today, we are building the church on it by basing our beliefs on their inspired words. For example, when construction workers lay a foundation for a skyscraper they do it at the beginning. A new foundation isn’t laid at each floor going all the way to the top.
If Mormons want to take Ephesians 2:20 in chronlogical order, then apostles are named first and then prophets. It’s even more clearly defined this way in 1 Cor 12:28. This isn’t good news for Mormons. In Mormonism, it’s the prophets and then the apostles.
I think this text clears it all up:
1 Cor 3:10-11 = “…I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Amen!
I don’t know if I want to go where I’m about to go with this. Over the months I’ve been here, I’ve kind of skirted a particular issue out of deference to my dispensational friends.
Yes, the Biblical cannon is closed. However God’s gift to the Church was His Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit invigorates the Church through many means including the charasmatic gifts. These are outlined in particular in 1st Cor. 12 & 14. The gifts are named and the protocol for their use is outlined. So I get more than a little irratated with our Mormon friends when they brag regarding their on-going revelation form God, implying that the Christian Church does not have such revelation. Many Church bodies continue to use the titles apostle and prophet along with the more conventional use of evangelist, pastor and teacher. So my point is that this rather haughty concept within Mormonism that they’re the real deal because they are receiving on-going revelation is, like the entire Mormon program, bogus. In Christianity we have a standard by which we measure on-going revelation by those claiming particular spiritual gifts. In fact in 1st Cor. 14 Paul instructs the believers to judge when someone gives a prophesy for example.
The gift of discernment allows us to discriminate between true and false revelation. Exercising this gift, had Joseph Smith come to me with his “revelations” I would have told him to take a hike. The revealed restored gospel of Smith includes a false god, a false savior, a false spirit and a false message of salvation. There’s also a false hope being placed in a message that does not lead to eternal life but outer darkness, using the Mormon term for hell.
I knew it was only a matter of time before you took jabs at LDS over an article that gets no response from mormons because we really don’t disagree with it. Makes we wonder if criticizing mormons is just as much a part of your religion as anything else.
Your approach could not be better described than:
“And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance.
And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel; and they say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men;
Behold, hearken ye unto my precept; if they shall say there is a miracle wrought by the hand of the Lord, believe it not; for this day he is not a God of miracles; he hath done his work.” (2 Ne 28:4-6).
“Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!
And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.
Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!” (2 Ne 28:26-28)
Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee. (2 Ne 27:20).
I love what Ezra Taft Benson said, “The Book of Mormon is not on trial, the people of the world are on trial.”
observer,
Excuse me but the BoM is on trial. It is incumbent upon those of us who follow Christ to take apart any claim of revelation or new scripture or pronouncment that a new prophet has arrived. Jesus warned again and again regarding the “new prophet” phenomonon. As it is, modern day Mormonism doesn’t even agree with the BoM. Judging a new revelation as to if it is from God is not all that difficult. Modern day prophets abound. We seen Moon, Koresh, Jones and all sorts of prophets. Forgive me, but Mormons are totally clueless when it comes to judging prophets, prophesy and revelation.
I just observed a modern day version of this take place this summer in Florida. Todd Bentley was holding nightly meetings in a modern day tent. As I watched the “preaching” on TV I became aware of the fact that very little of what was being said was coming from the Bible. It was all based on revelations and visions and “words” from the Lord. He was claiming that people were receiving miracles from God including the appearance of gold teeth in their mouths. People were dropping over when he pointed at them and yelled “BAM BAM.” The faithful flocked into the tent every night. It abruptly ended when his wife filed for a divorce. False prophets, false teachers, false Christs appear on the scene with their revelations and miracles. There are a lot of people who need to take discernment 101. That would be a good place for Mormons to start.
That passage “the Lord and Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men” sounds a lot like Mormonism to me.
We don’t like to criticize Mormons, we criticize Mormonism.
Matt 16:18 You are Peter (Gr. petros -rock, single stone) and upon this rock (Gr. petra -bedrock, solid immovable) I will build my church.
Simon Bar-jona confessed his faith that Jesus is the Christ, and Jesus then called him Peter. The rock that He speaks of is not revelation, but that Jesus is Christ -that is the foundation of the church. Jesus is the Son of God and is the Messiah and everyone who believes that is another rock or stone for the church, which continues to be built that way. As Paul said in 1Cor 3:11 Jesus is the foundation, not revelation.
I concur that the Bible is a uniform message; the OT looks forward to the Messiah, the NT is the fulfillment of that, and a guide for how to live as Christians (people not under the Law of the OT). No part is more important than another.
Observer, heres a little scenario for you regarding your quoting from the BoM.
Lets say you are a parent (Joseph Smith). You have a child (potential converts). The Child is sitting down to eat some food that has always been “enough” nourishment one ever needs (the Bible). You however, really want them to eat the food you made (the “restored” gospel, i.e. new doctrine, revelation, etc.). Now how would you go about “selling” them on the idea that their food wont keep them alive. Wouldn’t you tell them that what they currently eat is fine, but to just rely on that would be the end of them.
You have to cut down the idea that God’s word as he gave it is somehow not enough or so corrupt that you need something else. What’s funny to me is you have potential converts read the BoM that doesn’t contain anything doctrinally new except some different stories. People should really be reading Journal of Discourses, Doctrine and Covenants, History of the Church.
Basically my point is this. How “convenient” that the BOM prophesys of an issue of acceptance of new scripture that even a witty teenager could see coming from a mile away. The only thing that proves is that Joseph Smith thought ahead.
Now that is just a simple analogy. But Joseph Smith took it all a step further. He claimed that God revealed it to him personally. Not just that he found ancient manuscripts But because LDS think God has personally revealed the truth of that to them as they are promised they would in the BoM. (lol, go figure.. You have to assume that the BoM is true before you even pray about it its truth because for you to get a true answer by following that verse, the verse itself must be true) Does that offend anyone else’s logic?
observer…isn’t it interesting that the LDS fault us for finding the Bible to be sufficient while your supply of “fresh” revelation seems to have dried up.
The Community of Christ is constantly adding to their Doctrines & Covenants…they are up to 163 sections…what’s up with that? Maybe the CoC really does have Joseph’s stamp of approval and the Utah crowd apostasized…My, my
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” John 10:27
“And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.”
“And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.” 2 Ne 33:10-11.
The Book of Mormon is either true, or it is not. If it is not true, you have nothing to worry about!
But if it is true, then these are the words of Christ as delivered to Nephi. For those who have never really, really humbly read the book and prayed with all their souls to know of its truth, have you ever wondered in your heart of hearts if you are wrong? The purpose of the book is to gather His sheep. They hear His voice. What is His voice? It is not a test of logic, science, or reason. Rather a test of humility and trusting in Gods ways, and of a desire to follow Christ.
And if the book is true, the enemy of Christ would go to every effort to keep people from reading it and humbly considering it.
Of course this doesn’t prove anything. But, ultimately, it is not a question of proof. I personally believe that ANY person who will honestly and humbly read the book from the beginning for one hour a day (usually finishing it in 3-4 weeks) and pray earnestly for guidance will know it is true in a way that will satisfy their desire for an answer. If it is true, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW IT!
Obsersvor,
Then I am not worried at all about my own salvation.
I am worried about yours.
Let me ask you a question: if the BoM is true, and if you believe in it, you yourself have nothing to worry about. Why do you concern youself with what we think?
The answer is probably pretty similar to what we present when we are asked: we defend our faith and wish to bring in those who are lost.
Not to go too far off topic, but what do you think of this, and how do we “prove” it? To get there, shall we consider the topic presented in the article as help?
Observer,
I think it would be great for you to read the Bible and ask God if He was not able to preserve it, if He were somehow not God enough to ensure that we have His words and His truth? Ask God if Satan is so powerful that God is no match for him where God’s word is concerned. The BOM isn’t true. I’ve read it. It’s not even true for Mormonism, because it preaches a different message than D&C and PGP. You see, we don’t have anything to worry about with regard to the BOM, but you do. Your salvation is on the line because you follow after a false prophet. You want to attack what you perceive to be our approach in defending Christianity against heretical teachings. You think we’re attacking Mormons, but we are attacking a false religion that is taking millions of people to a place they don’t really want to go. Look at the red flags: you’re fighting against the word of God whenever you denigrate the Bible so you can exalt the BOM.
Cluff,
When will you quit adding to the Bible? The phrase “rock of revelation” is not found in the Bible. Mormons have added that phrase in a blatant display of eisegesis. The rock is Jesus Christ. The specific revelation that Jesus is the Messiah is the only type of revelation we can see in this passage. Your argument for a general revelation is the argument your father, JS, wanted you to believe so he could become your father without you questioning him. It has no foundation. One more thing, the foundation of apostles and prophets IS the Bible! I’ll continue to pray for you and all Mormons that you might be saved.
Observer,
What I need to have you do is read the Koran with all of your heart and soul and pray to Allah if it is true. Will you do this? Allah will reveal the truth to you if you would just open up. Allah is looking to gather his sheep into a flock. The Koran is either true or it is not. If it is not you have nothing to worry about. But if it is true, your soul is at stake. You need to open yourself up to Allah that he might guide you. Will you give yourself to this task just for one hour a day for a month? You will be rewarded with a burning in your bosom that it is true. Please answer me yes or no if you are willing to do this? If not, why not? I won’t hold my breath waiting for your answer.
Berean,
Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; Matthew 24:35; Isaiah 40:8. Nice scriptures, but they do nothing to prove that what we have now is 100 percent correct. These are talking about the original texts, which as we all agree are perfect. Now do we have them? No we don’t. Do we know if the Bible is 100 percent correct? We know it isn’t as there are a number of passages that have been shown to be inclusions. How far back do these inclusions start? Because we do not have the original texts we cannot answer this question. One passage that is thought to be an inclusion is the 2 verses calling for women to keep silence in the church. There is a debate on whether this is from the original text or if it was a marginal note made by one of Paul’s contemporaries on the original text but then copied into later reproductions. If (note I am saying IF) this is true then the contamination of the original texts started as early as the original texts.
Other inclusions that are known are the Johannine Comma, the last half of Mark 16 and, a controversial one, the story of the woman taken to Jesus to be stoned because she was caught in the act of adultery.
But what exactly is the Bible comprised of? What about all the books/epistles that were left out? On a website (Christians converted to Muslim) showing problems with the Bible, there is a page which shows how the content of the Bible has changed over the centuries, so the question follows – if it was deemed scripture (ie God’s word) then, why isn’t it now? The web page is – http://www.answering-christianity.com/different_bible_canons.htm
Are you that much more enlightened today with ‘modern revelation’ in the ‘Traditional Christian’ church to be able to say that the books/epistles discarded from the old Bibles, are not good enough to be scripture or are/were not ‘God breathed’.
Matt 16:18 You are Peter (Gr. petros MASCULINE -rock, single stone) and upon this rock (Gr. petra FEMININE -bedrock, solid immovable) I will build my church.
Simon Bar-jona confessed that Jesus is the Christ, and Jesus DECLARED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THAT KNOWLEDGE BY REVELATION then called him Peter (petros). The rules of languages is that the GENDERS must match, the rock that He speaks of (FEMININE petra) is not (MASCULINE) Jesus Christ, but REVELATION -that is the foundation of the church.
Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he REVEALETH his secret unto his servants the PROPHETS.
As Paul said in Gal. 1:12 “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the REVELATION of Jesus Christ.”
He didn’t get it from the Bible!!!
Again Paul said Eph. 3:3 “How that by REVELATION he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)”
He didn’t get it from the Bible, he got it from revelation and then he wrote it!!!
Prov. 29:18 Where there is no vision (REVELATION), the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he
Oh, and lest you forget the importance of prophets in the church,
Acts 13:1 “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain PROPHETS and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and SAUL (PAUL).”
Also see Rev 11:3-10.
GB, where did you study Greek? Or did you copy that from someone else’s work? If so, can you cite your source so we can examine it? I would also suggest you check out (here we go again) James White on Matthew 16 demonstrating that it is speaking of the declaration of Christ being the rock: http://vintage.aomin.org/Epitetaute.html. Dr. White is speaking about the claim of Peter himself being the rock but he addresses the issue of the masculine/feminine pronoun. What is clear from his explanation, as someone who actually has recognized expertise in Greek, is that the rock He is building His church on is not an individual (i.e. Peter) or revelation, but the declaration of Christ as the Son of God.
No one is questioning that the apostles, who were eyewitnesses of Christ, received information by revelation. What I am denying is that Joseph Smith through Thomas Monson have received revelation. First it is contrary to Hebrews 1:1-2, the final revelation has been received by the NT writers through the revelation of Christ. Second, the “revelation” that mormon prophet allegedly receive contradicts the Bible in a myriad of ways. and as such cannot be true, unless you reject the Bible completely.
None of this is to deny the role of the Holy Spirit in illuminating Scripture. The Bible is foolishness to the unregenerate, but His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. What is not Biblical is to read the BoM and pray about it being true, because I have prayed and testify it is false and mormons pray and testify it is true. Our own recourse is to turn to a true source of authority, the Word of God and that is where mormonism is shown to be false.
LOL!!!
“He is building His church on is not an individual (i.e. Peter) or revelation, but the declaration of Christ as the Son of God.”
Well now we know that James White has no clue about Greek!!
The phrase “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Is from the Greek “su ei o(masculine) cristos(masculine) o(masculine) uios(masculine) tou(masculine) qeou(masculine) tou(masculine) zwntos(masculine)”
Petra (feminine) CAN NOT be applied to the VERY VERY MASCULINE phrase “”Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Sorry to break the news to you but James White is clueless!!!
Jackg and falcon,
You guys crack me up- seriously. I am surprised you didn’t mention that our “righteousness are but filthy rags.”
Why do I bring up the fact that without immersing oneself in the BOM and pleading with God for guidance, you will never know whether it is true? Because it is the fundamental issue upon which the whole LDS church rests. And because so much of your time as Christians is spent bickering over whether it is true. Nobody is forcing you to expend this energy. It just seems sort of silly to me to invest so much time in this endeavor, yet never put it to THE test outlined by the book.
jackg- I am guessing you once believed it was true. Only you and God know what really pulled you away from it!
It is just strange that so many people claim to know so much about a book they have never really read intensely or studied. And I’m not talking about reading what the Tanners, Mr. White, or others said about it.
This thread is about scripture- something always resulting from inspiration from the Spirit of God. We believe a testimony about scripture also comes from that same spirit. Be honest- do you believe the bible because of archeological evidence? If so, your faith is weak and built on sand.
In graduate school, I worked with mostly atheists who believed in nothing but evolution and science. We had very regular discussions about religion. For the most part, they had very negative impressions about religion, especially Christianity. Several of them knew a lot of facts, but didn’t understand. After lots of experience with these people, I am convinced that they do not understand because they have no experience with God- no religious experiences. That, and the fact that their information is obtained from such biased sources, make it very, very difficult to ever see the whole issue differently, no matter what new information is provided.
Many here have very little direct, unfiltered experience with the BOM.
GB,
You silly rabbit, don’t laugh to hard. Petros(piece of rock) is not the petra(mass of rock). The words of Petros is not it silly, its the faith that was given to him, which in turn produced the words, that is the petra. W/LOVE
observer,
I think that everyone here, has a testimony of some kind that can attribute to the grace of God. I think testimonies are great. As far as using archeological evidence to base faith in the Bible, that is so far from the truth. The Bible is the most correct historical evidence book there is. That only shows that the stories are not fables or invented stories. W/LOVE
Jeffrey- THe example you give is a similar example an atheist once used in reference to Moses and Jesus Christ. What better way to get people to believe/do what you want than to say I got these commandments on these tablets, and they came from God. Or better yet, let’s tell everyone the I’m the son of God, and then they’ll really do what I say. Was Moses nothing more than a manipulative politician? Jesus? I don’t believe they were and I don’t believe Joseph Smith was either. Your argument is completely flawed.
Falcon- great question about Allah and the Koran. Why don’t we all do that? Have you studied the Koran, and if so, is it true? And if not, where is your website criticizing that book of scripture? I’d like to read up on your criticisms of other faiths as well. I believe this website is called Mormon Coffee, SO, I’m assuming your website criticizing the Qur’an (sp?) is called something like Islam Intercourse. Your argument is flawed on many levels.
Jack- The Bible has been preserved, and I’m sure it was God that made sure it got to us today. Unfortunately it was man that decided to interpret/translate the Bible in different ways. I repeat something i said on a previous thread… So many Christian denominations/beliefs stem from one Bible. It hardly makes sense to me that we can all read the same thing, yet believe something so different. And i don’t just mean Mormons and everyone else, i mean catholics and baptists and JW’s and Assembly of God and Seventh Day Adv., etc. We’re not fighting against the Bible, but we may doubt the many translations of the Bible. “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Your accusations are false and your argument is flawed.
Rick G – You’re just silly. I like that you have aspirations still to be an LDS priesthood holder. I like your genuine concern for us mormons. Thank you!
Ralph,
You seemed to have overlooked the factual statistics I gave in my earlier post regarding the manuscripts that we have today and many of them go all the way back to 1 AD. They are in the original languages. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls. I keep wondering when the LDS GA’s are going to go and look at those manuscripts and translate the Bible correctly?
With all those thousands of copies going all the way back all scholars have to do is look at those manuscripts and see each verse written the same way tens of thousands of times and get the idea. If one manuscript has a word out of order and another 5,000 copies do not, then we know that the transcriber just misplaced one word out of order and the weight falls on the other thousands that do not have it that way. What do the Mormons have for manuscripts? Nothing – nothing to check the BoM. Christianity = tens of thousands. Mormons = zero.
Mark 16:9-20 in my Bible is marked with brackets with a note that this text is not in the earliest manuscripts, but in later ones. It’s clearly noted. Why doesn’t the LDS KJV Bible have this noted? Seems like an LDS in-house problem to me. How do you explain the 4,000 changes in the BoM since 1830?
Are you referring to those books in the Apocrypha that didn’t make it in the Bible such as the book of Enoch? They were written by Gnostic writers – heretics. In one form or another they denied the fundamentals of the faith. Why doesn’t the Mormon Church include these books in the standard works? I don’t see them in the index of the BoM? Why? JS mentioned the book of Enoch in D&C 107:57, but it still didn’t make the cut in the end? Why? Why use the KJV Bible if it’s not complete? Why put the LDS stamp on it and give it away for free if it’s not complete? Why not use the JST? JS completed it in 1833. Reconcile with the Community of Christ (RLDS) and use their JST. Wait! It’s not complete. JS left out a book – the Song of Solomon. He lost another book!
Observer,
jackg- I am guessing you once believed it was true. Only you and God know what really pulled you away from it!
Your question humors me because it is the basis of the Mormon superiority. The answer to your question is God’s grace pulled me away from it. His grace is pulling you away from it, as well, but you’re not quite ready to respond to that grace. As for righteousness, our righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us.
Reggieswood,
The amazing thing about God is that He has chosen to work through a broken and frail humanity to bring His message of grace and salvation. I am flawed because I am human. I can accept that. I can even accept that you don’t agree with me. You’re a Mormon, and you work from faulty premises from the foundation of false prophets. I understand that about you. But, I must say that you don’t really believe the Bible to be true based on whether or not it is translated correctly. Your false prophets and false leaders have not translated anything. What JS did was add things to manipulate God’s word to fit his heretical teachings. Your article of faith, which you hold above God’s word because of the general low view of the Bible that Mormonism espouses, should read: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is INTERPRETED correctly.” The conversation of translation can’t even begin until you realize that you base your beliefs on the interpretation of your leaders, whose interpretation contradicts Christianity. The Matthew passage is focused on the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. Peter’s presence and the use of his name in a word play is incidental to the gospel truth that Jesus is the Messiah. God revealed this to Peter. But, this in no way establishes a road that would lead to Joseph Smith. It’s up to you to be responsible in how you interpret the Bible, and I will be responsible on my end, as well.
Jckg- Your argument is based on the precept that our Prophets are false. What if they’re not? Are the claims of your prophets/leaders/personal revelations and understandings more valid than those of others? Have your spiritual experiences been more significant than mine? Has your discernment of the spirit been more clear than mine?
These questions are rhetorical as most of your arguments are… attempting to point out a flaw in your reasoning again. Of course you believe that your spiritual experiences have been more significant than mine, otherwise you wouldn’t profess negative sentiment about my faith on this website. Of course you believe that your discernment of the spirt is more clear than mine, otherwise you wouldn’t shout claims of false prophets and false interpretations.
My point is this… your thoughts and arguments and beliefs can be punched with the same holes that you indicate in my beliefs. Because if you have a self profession of truth (as you say Joseph Smith has done), then by any argument, everyone else is wrong. Of course we believe that there is one path… not many (catholic, baptist, budhist, christian, etc. etc. etc. etc.) If you believe there are many paths, aka, particular sects aren’t important, then i hope you make a lucky guess! (I know what you’ll responde with…” I believe that Christ is the only path!) Well, we believe that too, and we believe that Christ and his gospel are taught within the walls of our church. I spend my time as a defender of truth, not an attacker of faith. I feel like you, and many others on this website are exactly that… attackers of faith.
Oh, and the Articles of Faith are not held above anything. They are simply a basic set of beliefs. Your argument and declarations were once again flawed and false.
I’m going to blow a post on this, but I just have to put my $.02 out there.
“upon this rock” –GB argues that “this rock” is feminine and cannot mean Jesus Christ which is masculine. The scripture doesn’t say that Jesus is the rock, “this rock” is the knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah. Yes, it was received by revelation, but “this rock” is (again) knowledge –knowledge that Jeshua of Nazareth, born to a virgin, is the Son of God and is the Messiah. With your apparent expertise in Greek, can you tell me the gender of gnosis?
Ralph,
The Comma Johanneum is an inclusion which all recent translations have omitted, but it’s in the KJV (and the AKJV) which Mormons still use as it’s the only “official” translation. Anyone else see irony here?
There is a huge, glaring issue that nobody is acknowledging. Nobody is willing to address the fact that a lot of people here claim to know a lot about the Book of Mormon who haven’t even read it. How do you think this would go over in a forum with any degree of academic credibility?
People here are claiming special insights and knowledge about a book they haven’t even read. You claim to know more about this book than others who have read the book dozens of times and spent their whole lives studying every verse, phrase, and word of the book. This is absolutely laughable. Those opposing the Book of Mormon here have no credibility whatsoever.
How would you like it if some atheist, who knew only stuff he read from other atheists, argued with you about the Bible, claiming he knew the bible was false and simply fair-tales? Would you not dismiss him rather quickly?
You all go after the means of its translation and/or perceived character flaws of its translator without ever studying the Book of Mormon itself. You insist on very careful, methodical reading of the Bible, and appropriately so. Yet you really only provide recycled, old arguments that others have come up with. Does this not bother you just a little bit?
As I said before, this is what everything rests upon. You are no threat to the church because you haven’t even done the first thing we ask people to do! None of your arguments or lines of evidence even begin to bother me or make me wonder because you haven’t even stepped onto the playing field. (And because I have followed every argument/issue out to its furthest possible degree to my satisfaction- way beyond what is discussed here). You are on the sidelines playing armchair quarterback.
My guess is that this will get no response. Further proof this forum is not about any real evaluation or study, but rather a bull-horn to scream only one biased, limited perspective.
reggiewoods,
It has nothing to do with guessing. We all need to examine and test our spiritual experiences against the word of God which, even though you say otherwise, is the Bible. There is no what if question with regard to your false prophets. The what if questions go to Mormons: What if Jesus truly is the Christ who offers grace and all you have to do is believe in Him? You see, by putting works into the equation, Mormonism denies the power of Jesus Christ to save on His merits. You want to say my reasoning is flawed, that’s okay. I don’t concern myself with what you think about my reasoning or lack of it; it kind of just shows that you think you’re superior in some way because you think you have a grand testimony about a man who taught heretical teachings. You preach JS and him sent as a lamb to the slaughter. I preach Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God Who truly was sent to the slaughter for me and for you and for all who believe in Him for salvation. As for discernment, I don’t know anything about you to say one way or the other. But, that’s not the point. The point is that most Mormons have a flawed view of God, Jesus, and the Bible, and, therefore, struggle to grasp what God is saying. I think it’s pretty clear that man is justified by faith. Somehow, it’s not clear for Mormons. When all is said and done, I don’t think my reasoning is so flawed. I’m human, so there will naturally be shortcomings. This does not say that my reasoning about justification by faith is wrong. The Bible leaves that pretty clear. I think it’s more an issue of grace and responding to God’s grace. Since Mormons arrive at grace through a faulty premise (now, we’re talking faulty premises; my premise about JS is not faulty), a Mormon struggles to understand justification by faith.
Observer,
You can rest your faith on a book. I’ll rest my faith on the blood of Jesus Christ.
Observer,
It seems like you’re the one that’s a bull-horn screaming a biased, limited perspective, a perspective rooted in false prophets and false teachings. Christians defend the God-breathed words of the Bible while Mormons defend JS-breathed words. And, it kind of sounds like you feel a little threatened–not that you would admit that.
Andrea,
You would have a point, IF “knowledge” was the topic of Matt 16:13-20. But it is NO WHERE found in the discussion.
Jackg,
You say, “. . . Mormonism denies the power of Jesus Christ to save on His merits.”
Which of course is FALSE!!
BTW, I did a search of the Bible (KJV) for the word “merits” and found zero.
However, Book of Mormon has a few hits some of them are;
2 Ne. 2:8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the MERITS, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
2 Ne. 31:19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the MERITS of him who is mighty to save.
Hel. 14:13 And if ye believe on his name ye will repent of all your sins, that thereby ye may have a remission of them through his MERITS.
And let us not forget,
Alma 22:14 And since man had fallen he could not MERIT anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king.
observer’s point is proven!!!
Berean,
You missed my point – we do not have the original texts to compare with what we have today. There are at least 2 verses that appear to be inclusions on the ORIGINAL text by a person other than the author, not a few copies later.
Then your argument about there being manuscripts dated back as far as 1 AD is laughable. Those manuscripts are the OT which makes these copies written at least 1000 years after the original texts were written. If I remember correctly the OT was ‘preserved’ through 3 different sources, and then the Dead Sea Scrolls were found containing some of the text as well. However, all 4 sources have many variences between them, showing that the ‘copying mechanism’ was not perfect. The OT we have now is a ‘conglomerate’ of the 3 sources with a ‘best fit’ approach in the passages that vary.
As far as the NT is concerned, the oldest text are a couple of pieces dated from somewhere in the 40 or 50 AD area and has only half a dozen words on it. How can we possibly say that because those half a dozen words were translated correctly and fit with what we have today, that the rest is 100 percent accurate as well?
Yes the original texts were revelation from God and were inerrant in doctrine, we both agree on that. But due to human imperfection what we have now is not. I can accept that, can you? I can still believe in God and Jesus even though they use flawed humans, can you?
As for the books left out – The Canon has changed over the years. Not just the Apocrypha but other ‘books’ were/are used by different Christian groups. A list of these books can be found on the website I mentioned earlier by Christians who have converted to Muslim. My question is – if they were considered scripture then why not now? If we are to live by EVERY word from the mouth of God, then if these repeat other books they should still be included.
GB, “Well now we know that James White has no clue about Greek!!”
You didn’t answer my question, is this your research (if so what is your education in greek?) or did you copy this from someone else (if so let’s see th citation) I would love for you to call, toll free, into Dr. White’s radio show and explain to him how he is clueless about Greek. It is pretty easy to be brave posting anonymously, but let’s see you back it up if you can. Here is the number: 1-877-753-3341. I won’t hold my breath.
observer,
“There is a huge, glaring issue that nobody is acknowledging. Nobody is willing to address the fact that a lot of people here claim to know a lot about the Book of Mormon who haven’t even read it. How do you think this would go over in a forum with any degree of academic credibility?”
I have read it, cover to cover straight through and other large chunks multiple times. Others here have as well. What do you base your claim that people haven’t read it on? Maybe you should consider that we HAVE read it, and even prayed about it, and compared it to the Word of God and found it to be false instead of assuming that we haven’t read the book.
Ralph, I love how you try to use Muslim apologists and apocryphal writings as a defense of mormonism. If you can’t trust the Bible which has enormous textual evidence we can examine, how in the world can you trust a book translated from plates no one has seen in a langauge that doesn’t exists about a people that never existed?
Ralph: I’m late to this party,but I’ll jump in anyway, welcome back (to me…haha)
I have only skimmed the earlier posts, but I have yet to see anything touching on major doctrine within the additions or insertions that you mention, Ralph. If you want to make the ‘mistakes or errors’ such a big deal, you seem like a man in glass house throwing rocks, given the same kind of errors (in large quantity,no less) in the BoM. ANd of course, these BoM ‘errors’ are not that big a deal to YOU, hmmmm. Also, the agreement of the many early manuscripts is staggering: yes there are some transcriptions differences, but when looked at carefully, they are overshadowed by what is NOT there: any kind of large scale wandering from the meaning of the overall story, no change in theme or story, etc. The same CANNOT be said for those “other scriptures” and that is precisely why they were not, and are not, included in the canon. You can call them ‘christian’ all you want (we’ve flogged that theme to death) but the fact remains that they went far from the early creeds (yes, those). and those that pre-dated the creeds went far from the biblical beliefs that the creeds are built solidly upon. The fact that SOME people consider these works (shepherd of hermes, etc) ‘scriptural’ and unfairly omitted is an interesting topic, but as orthodox christians, we are not likely to own whatever belief or text that ALL people calling themselves christians put out there.
Observer: your point about reading the Mormon scriptures themselves as primary sources has some weight, and convicts me to stay busy at that (though it will never be my primary reading responsibility until I convert). But I would repeat SOME weight: who knows more about the Nazi party (you won’t like this analogy I’m guessing): a WWII German vet who STILL believes in the Fuhrer, or a 4th grader with a soft heart for GOD who has read a little bit of accurate history?? The German vet has read “Mein Kampf” multiple times, but is he ahead of the 4th grader?? I’ll let you answer that. I’m not using this as an excuse NOT to read the BoM,PoGP, D&C, and even other lectures,sermons, and histories. Consider that JS himself thot he knew more about the surrounding ‘christian ‘ groups (Meth,Presb, and Baptist) than THEY did, at least as far as ‘are they right with GOD or not’. He had not read ALL the groups writings, so your argument, although partly correct, falls a little flat.
SHARON: I like the part of the article that underscores that ALL the NT is of equal inspiration. Some here at MC seem to not care for Paul that much and I can see why. Great work.
Arthur,
I like how you dismiss the Muslim website I refered to so easily and off handedly. Did you actually look at the site or did you just see that I had written ‘Muslim’ in the description? The website is by former Christians who found errors and problems in the history of Christianity, the doctrine of Christianity and the Bible. They then converted to Muslim and are now trying to teach Christians the errors of their ways. Sound familiar? Do I and other LDS just dismiss your comments off handedly because you are an ex-member of the LDS church? I don’t, I can’t talk for the other LDS on here. I look at what you have written and decide for myself whether to take notice or not.
And as far as me using it and other similar websites, so what. Its not against my religion to use others’ research if they belong to a body that disagrees with my beliefs. If that were the case, then we (ie everybody) would be getting no where fast in our everyday life, especially people like me who do research for a living. But if the facts on the site are correct then I can use it quite readily to support my opinion.
Germit,
Yes, I don’t have a problem with errors in the BoM and Bible, as long as I have a prophet who I know is God’s mouthpiece on this earth – he will let me know what God wants these days and how the scriptures should properly be interpreted. That is the major role of the prophet in these days, to guide the church on the strait and narrow.