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.
Ralph, appreciate the honesty on your part, but the simple truth is that at the word “@nti” or “ex-mo” it seems the majority of Mormons dismiss their views as distorted, angry, and not reliable.
I have not been to the site, but have been to ones like it. The criticisms almost always have pretty clear and simple answers to those who wish to seek them out. The answers are also typically clear, and perhaps more important, verifiable by third party sources.
It has been stated before that the Bible is believed by most as a pretty darn accurate history of the Jewish people and the of the Middle East. Whether or not people believe in its supernatural power, most believe in its historicity.
But this brings up this question, since we are discussing whether or not it includes God’s words: if it is historically accurate, is it possible that it could be supernaturally accurate? And from there, we can go more generally, can a book that is not historically accurate include supernatural truths? Or, in other words, if a book that is proven, or at least widely held to be false historically (ie there’s no factual evidence to suggest it is true and more evidence to show it is false), can it be trusted fully on matters of a spuernatural nature?
I must disagree with you. I have outlined several lines of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon on this site. There have been no responses to the specific evidences. DJBrown also listed quite a long list of prophecies in the Book of Mormon that have been fulfilled. I am happy to once again list these evidences, but my guess is the response will be no different- change the subject or fall back on a more general and global dismissal of the church.
I admit, I have not the time to go check out all the sources and information presented. (Just started law school. Why do I post here still? Good question… I guess its a good distraction.)It has been requested of you, though, to give some background into the sources (I believe it was Falcon who has been adamant in requesting), and we have not seen that, either. If you did so, or someone else did so, I missed it…
I have, in times past though, checked out some sources presented about the language in the BoM and others.
Those making the arguments seemed hardly experts in the field (one was a econ professor stating a Hebrew relic was found in Ohio, I think it was), others were extremely narrow in their search, and made far reaching, if interesting, conclusions, and others only left open the possibility of Mormon history as true, though they did not say it was. My apologies for not being able to recite what was what, but these are my recollections of the sources I was presented and viewed.
Contrast this with what we know of the Bible and what the Bible continues to reveal to us about history.
And, while I appreciate your disagreement, you do not address the questions I proposed. Do you have any thought on the reliablity of supernatural elements in a book that is positively accurate?
As always, I appreciate the logical response. But determining if a text is scripture is a little different than reading a history of the Nazis. One is a history. The other claims to be holy writ in a specific historical context. My main point is, do you read the Book of Mormon with as much thought, deliberation, and humility as you read the Bible? Or does one search or skim over it to find a way to strengthen his argument against the book? God is amazingly powerful, but something tells me He may find it difficult communicating to a person’s heart if that heart is hardened.
There are internal evidences in the Book of Mormon that somebody only picks up or comprehends after years of study- no different than the Bible. These are numberless.
And as far as Joseph Smith- I don’t think he felt he knew more than the religionists around him. If anything, I think he felt he knew too little and was hungry for unbiased knowledge.
Scripture comes from the Spirit of God. That same spirit confirms to Gods children the truth of those words. Archeological, historical, linguistic evidences are secondary, if even that, compared to this Spirit. (I insist that there is evidences for almost all our claims).
Laugh all you want about those manuscripts going back to 1 AD. It’s a fact. There are 50 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek going back to 1 AD. Do some research on your own outside of Mormon comfort zones. May I recommend the book “From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible” by Norman Geisler.
Next time you go on vacation head over to Ireland go to Trinity College Dublin and take a look at those manuscripts. Then catch a flight over to England and visit the University of Cambridge and look at some more manuscripts. To finalize your trip go to Israel and see some more. The book of Isaiah is on display. It’s under thick glass and heavily guarded, but you can still look at it. Where can I go and visit and see those golden plates? That’s right, the LDS Church doesn’t have them. Martin Harris stood up in the Kirtland Temple in 1838 and announced that neither him nor any of the witnesses that are listed in the front of the BoM ever saw the plates with their naked eyes. Who has the credibility problem here? It sure isn’t Christianity!
The Mormons can have their safety net of Articles of Faith #8, but they aren’t doing anything to fix the problem. The First Presidency could fly to the above named places and translate the Bible correctly. They would have a problem since they don’t know the original languages. They do have Joseph Smith’s seer stone. Maybe that would help. Do they have his hat in the LDS archives?
The books of the Apocrypha have never been considered scripture. Why weren’t they in the 1611 KJV Bible? You made issue on the book of Enoch? I still don’t see it in the index of the BoM. Why not? You want Christianity to recognize books as authoritative while the LDS Church rejects them? I don’t get it – hypocrisy.
The Muslims? They believe in Jesus. He was only a prophet and they deny His resurrection? Are you okay with that? Their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible – same as the Mormons – a different Jesus.
Berean…for the sake of honesty I have to correct you on the Apocrypha. It was printed in the original 1611 AV between the OT and the NT.
In the Anglican tradition we use the Apocryphal books for instructional purposes but we do not equate them with the accepted canon and do not base doctrines from them. We used to read from them on Sundays but since we have all switched over to the ecumenical Revised Common Lectionary we don’t anymore as it doesn’t include those books.
Thanks for the info. I have several copies of the KJV Bible and one of them is very old. I’ve never seen the Apocrypha in any of them. I will admit that I am not very familiar with the fine details of the Anglican tradition/denomination. I’m surprised that the Anglicans included those books since Jerome put the books in his Latin Vulgate translation in which he clearly stated that they weren’t “books of the canon”, but were rather “books of the church”. The Jews never recognized the Apocrypha books as Scripture. Jesus and the NT authors didn’t recognize those books as scripture.
Melito, bishp of Sardis, wrote out his list of books that were in the OT in A.D. 170 and that list never included the books of the Apocrypha. According to my research, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church recognized the Apocrypha books and made them part of the canon. This was another dividing issue of the Reformation because those books contained teachings that conflicted with the rest of the Bible. With the Anglican Church being part of the Reformation, I’m a little puzzled at why they would even include them for casual reading. I went to a Catholic bookstore recently and looked at their Bibles. I saw that they now do not include the Apocrypha. I was wondering what was going on with that. Protestants have never recognized the Apocrypha books as Scripture or part of the Biblical canon and that goes all the way back to Melito’s list and Jesus and the other NT authors not metioning them as Scripture. That was the basis of my statement to Ralph.
You said “Laugh all you want about those manuscripts going back to 1 AD. It’s a fact. There are 50 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek going back to 1 AD.” So I take it from this you have found evidence of or you believe that there are 50 manuscripts of the NT written before it happened? As far as I know the earliest book in the NT was written sometime after 40 AD. Can you please tell me where to find this evidence as I would find it very interesting to read.
Thanks for pointing out to me my error on this. I meant the 1st century – not 1 A.D. Christ was born in 1 AD! Somehow I equated 1 AD with being the time period of the 1st century. I’m used to thinking of dates in four digits. I need to get some more sleep. Maybe it’s time for a break!
There are 50 manuscripts in Greek alone of the books of the New Testament that go back to the 1st century. No, we don’t have the originals, but we have these early manuscripts that makes checking, tracing and translating the Bible that we have today very reliable because of the manuscripts that date back to the time when all the New Testament writers were alive. They all died in the 1st century with the exception of John who made it over the hump into the next century with his death in 101 AD in Ephesus as recorded by Jerome.
A very good article that was written about these early manuscripts is in the “Christian Research Journal”, Vol.30/No.5/2007. An interview was done with Dr. Daniel Wallace, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Seminary. He is the executive director of the Center for the study of New Testament Manuscripts.
Ralph, thanks for keeping me on track! I’m happy that you are paying attention to detail because that is one thing that I stress and in my earlier post and I obviously wasn’t. I made a serious typo. Sorry for the confusion.
Allow me to take a honest survey. Sorry to keep pushing this issue, but it is fundamental to even having a discussion about LDS scripture.
How many non-mormon people here have read the Book of Mormon cover to cover? How long has it been since you did read it? Can you say you honestly read it to know if it was true, or did you spend your time looking for evidence that it was a fraud?
faithoffathers…any time I try to read it my “BS” detector goes off…what in blazes are cureloms and cumoms? How did a French word get into the ending of the book of Jacob? How did all these Greek words get into the vocabulary of supposedly Reformed Egyptian (Alpha, Omega, Christ, Christian)? Why are all the names of towns fairly authentic sounding except for Bountiful? How did they name a town in English which hadn’t even come along yet? I just can’t even begin to take it seriously let alone bring God into the charade…
FoF: fair questions. I’m still working thru my 1st reading, I think I can make that by Thanksgiving or sooner if I don’t get sidetracked. You might not like the comparison, but even without reading every page of E.Tolle’s “Power of Now” and “New Earth”, I knew they weren’t authoritative words from God for the same reasons, or some of the same reasons: his message does not line up with the message of the gospel given in both OT and NT. I am a little more motivated to finish the BoM and D&C so as not to offend truth seekers like yourself, and the New Age guys get recycled anyway, so ET’s work will be fishwrap in a few years or less, the same cannot be said for the quad.
Like Titanic-man, I just cannot turn off my ‘bs-o-meter’, nor would I ever want to. There are just too many bizarre and illogical parts to the whole Mormon story, and I’m not at all talking about the miraculous like walking on water, feeding the multitude, or pulling a coin out of a fish’s mouth. I’m fine with that kind of thing, but the list of ‘beyond the pale’ items for the BoM, and the baggage that the person of JS brings, are ‘fraud alarms’ to me. Combined with the LDS penchant for hierarchy, structure, organization, and humanly held power/authority and we are talking not one alarm or two, but a christmas tree’s worth of alarms. I hope I am honest enough to be convinced otherwise if GOD is, in fact, involved in all of this, but so far I don’t see much to move me (not for a lack of your efforts, you’ve done a fine job of defending the massively implausible). Especially with my grand daughter’s involvment with the LDS, I’m quite sure I will continue to read all the quad at least once, and probably more. I’ll do that with mixed feelings. Hope this helps, GERMIT
GB: “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.” The point of Matt 16:13-20 is Peter’s ‘confession of faith’ that Jesus is the Christ. To me, that=knowledge. Sorry, you’re correct that the Greek manuscript doesn’t use the word gnosis.
“BTW, I did a search of the Bible (KJV) for the word ‘merits’ and found zero.”
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything, but I did some etymological research on the word “merit” –I’m not surprised it’s not found in the Bible as the word came into existence around 1300 AD. The verb meaning ‘to be entitled to/to earn’ is from 1526 (etymonline.com). Jesus and the apostles wouldn’t have been using this word (as it stems from French and Latin), and I’m not even sure if King James’ monks were familiar with it, but it sure was in common use by 1827…if you get my drift.
(germit –welcome back! Estes Park eh? That’s in my neck of the woods!)
My response is similar to the others: BS ometer ran high when I tried to read it.
There was an honest attempt to read it some years ago, and I have couple copies. But it was just too fictional and too much a stretch to buy.
While I understand your concernin making sure people have read it, one thing from my criticism is that it does not take reading it to know about it and what it says, let alone the method and character of the one who wrote it.
That by reading it you get some supernatural knowledge that proves it is a very questionable idea. If a book is true, it must be true in all phases, right? What we hear most Mormons say is that they don’t care if horses weren’t here then, or steel, or that there is no credible and accepted source about Reformed Egyptian, it is that their faith is only stronger because they know it is true despite these things. The details get in the way of true faith.
This is very problematic in a very real way. A truth must be true in all places, or it is not true. Even the slightest error can cause the whoel house to fall. The faith affirmation in spite of the myriad of evidence to the contrary is hard to believe, and its all based, ultimately, on that burning.
It makes no sense. So, to me, a full reading of the book makes not a difference…
There have been several references here to the use of the word “adieu” in Jacob 7 with the suggestion that this is a rediculous anachronism showing the BOM to be a fraud. There is nothing mysterious about this. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word had been a common one in English since at least 1374. It is included in the Oxford English Dictionary and the Oxford American Dictionary, as well as, most importantly, in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. It was a fairly commonly used word in 1830. Chances are Joseph didn’t even know it was French.
So what? Joseph translated the reformed Egyptian language on the plates to English. He used English words. This in no way implies that there were French words on the plates. Really folks- it is a basic principle. Joseph used this word in place of some word in reformed Egyptian that meant goodbye, or see ya later, or something like that. In his English language, adieu was one such word that expressed the same meaning. It really is not complicated.
Same goes for the word “merit.” At the time of Joseph Smith, this word was used to convey a certain meaning. In Joseph’s English, this word had a similar meaning to a word or symbol in reformed Egyptian.
These are not proper names people- they don’t carry over from one language to another. Look up the definition of the word “translate.”
faithoffathers…translate is defined as “to turn from one language into another or from a foreign language into one’s own” in dictionary.com…funny no mention of rocks or hats…
So what exactly is a curelom and a cumom…can you look that up in your good ole Oxford for us?
I think you are probably the most level-headed poster on the other side here. But it sure seems that you have a difficult time reading the BOM without bias, that your “BS-o-meter” is slanting you against the text before you even read it. This is very difficult thing to overcome. I have seen this in other ways.
Sorry to repeat myself but, from another post:
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.”
I honestly see the same phenomenon at work here.
When I first read the book, I knew nothing about it. I started at the beginning with no preconceived ideas. I jumped right in and was overwhelmed- it changed my life in a huge way! I have since learned tons about arguments for and against the book. I am very glad I read it first before reading other opinions. I am better able to place criticisms, evidences in appropriate context I believe.
Observer: I’ll burn my 3rd post and help the wife clean house tonight: somewhere she’s cheering. This post is a little off topic, but a direct response, hope that’s OK.
No one is ‘bias free’ in reading anything, though an honest person tries to not allow their bias to deflect or alter new information. It’s healthy to know that a bias exists, and hold that ‘in suspension’ so that there is an ability to adjust as needed. I see some of that flexibility in LDS, but also a lot of ‘the prophet (who is chosen by GOD Himself)says it, or did it, therefore….” this is working backwards to me, as opposed to Acts 17:11 where Paul did NOT get a free pass because of rank or role.
I’ve spent more than a few hours looking at ID (intelligent design) Vs. macro-evolution , and you are right about the bias thing, and oddly enough, it is usually a PHILISOPHICAL bias, not a scientific one that works against most: as in Carl SAgan saying that the universe is all there was, or is , or will be. I believe that is called philisophic materialism, and can hardly be called a scientific statement, but because he has been granted special status in the world at large , his philosophy is swallowed as science. See also R.Dawkins,C.Hitchens, and S.Harris for more of this. In BOTH of these debates, the world itself testifies to the reality of what GOD has done in space, time, and history. Not to say that the ID position is a slam dunk, but did you happen to see “Expelled” ?? In both cases, what is convincing to YOU and LDS and Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott is NOT that convincing to me.
I am happy to consider new information, just as I’m always interested in the newest “transitional form” (a la tiktaalik, for those following this drama), but ‘almost’ doesn’t count in TRUTH. Glad to read your posts. GERMIT
Quick question regarding the concept of translation: who actually translated the BoM? God, or Joseph Smith? My understanding is that it was a very painstaking and time consuming endeavor set forth by the farm boy from NY to allow God to help him put the plates into English. Thus, I would say that God had a hand in it, especially since God would not show the next character until our farmer got it right. How does this play into the discussion of Adieu and merit, not to mention all the typos and word for word recreations from the Bible?
Seems to me that if God was that particular with the translation, Smith should only get credit for transcribing and not translating, and that, probably more importantly, God would not have allowed such questionable aspects into his word.
Call me crazy about that…
Bias? Yes, I have bias. We all have bias, whether we like it or not. The proposition to read the BoM and pray it is true institutes a bias. And the added caveat that the answer is apparent when your heart is open to it is absolutely bias. It is a self fulling prophecy that cannto be refuted. Those who get a different answer, now matter how sincere in reality, are dismissed as insincere.
And if you want to discuss without bias, try considering our position. Make our arguments so that you can see them and understand them. This indicates a lack of bias, and the failure to do so really shows quite a bit of it.
But, in the end, and we can argue this until the end, but I’ll take the Bible, with its remarkable historical accuracy and consistency over a book with questionable historical facts and a built in problem in accepting it as true.
Call me crazy, if you’d like.
Thanks for the response.
Joseph Smith was reticent to share too much about the translation process. All we really have are brief statements from others like Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery. And there are two lines of thought about the actual translation. Some people believe that Joseph actually saw words or phrases, making him more of a scribe if you wish to call him. Others believe he was given a view or understanding of concepts for which he had to produce english words.
From what I have studied, the initial process involved being given the words. But over time, Joseph developed an understanding of the reformed Egyptian language and was less dependent upon the urim and thummim/seer stone to translate. Ultimately, it is thought that he was able to read it without those aids.
I personally think that he probably was given the words initially and after enough repetition and experience was able to read the language. But that is only my opinion based on what I have read.
As far as changes that have been made in the BOM, Royal Skousen has done an enormously laborious evaluation of every change that was ever made and has published the original manuscript. Very interesting. Human beings were involved with every step- translating, scribing, typesetting. Makes sense that mistakes would be made at every level. I know some will reply that this goes against it being “the most correct book on earth.” But I stand by that claim whole-heartedly. To me this means it is the greatest converting tool to bring people to Christ. The most correct in its teachings and doctrines.
If you feel inferior because of my comments, than I apologize for your easily offended mindset. I’m pretty sure we’re all equal… all God’s children… just not all correct in our beliefs/reasonings/arguments/etc.
There is no what if question about grace. We believe there is no way to make it without the grace of God… you know that. As for what we preach, you know we preach Jesus Christ and his Atonement. So don’t pretend you silly goose.
THe reason why i say your arguments about our religion are flawed/false, is because they are. You claim so many things about our religion that aren’t true. ANd you create your own definitions about eternal principles so as to disclude our belief set. Just because our beliefs are different than yours does not make them false, and just because you don’t believe Christ re-established his church through Joseph SMith doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I believe the original questions posed had to do with scripture, and everyone has failed to help me understand why there are so many religions (even christian religions), yet only one bible, one “word”. Unfortunately, we all can’t be right, and all “Christians” included. YOu argue our religion, but maybe you should go figure out what you really believe. (I believe!!!!… I’m going to Heaven!!!!… YESSS!!!!) See you there…
This is a great post, Sharon. I’m so thankful that my faith was built on the “foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”
I’ve been blogging recently with one of the many ex-Mormon atheists out there who, coming to find the lack of historical evidence for the BoM and the historical problems with the LDS religion, is now questioning the existence of the cornerstone Himself. He wanted me to read an article called “Did Jesus Christ Really Live?” which sets forth some lame arguments for the “Jesus Myth” – the belief that Jesus never really existed.
Thankfully, God has supplied an abundance of evidence for those hard-core skeptics among us and I was able to respond with some good arguments that he admitted were very compelling. He said he could even buy the fact, given a little more research, that Jesus really existed. Now he has other questions, though, about the authorship of the NT, can it be trusted, etc.
LDS might say this is my bias, but I see a direct correlation between this ex-Mormon’s lack of faith in the Bible and the LDS church’s position on the Bible:
“The Church…regards the Bible to be the word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly” (8th Article of Faith). Accordingly, Church members believe that during the centuries-long process in which fallible human beings compiled, translated and transcribed the Bible, various errors entered the text” (LDS Newsroom, “Reverence for the Bible”)
Perhaps if my ex-Mormon friend’s faith had been built on a solid foundation, with faith in the “God-breathed words of Scripture,” he would not be having all of these questions and doubts about the Bible and Jesus Christ even though he no longer believes in the BoM, Joseph Smith, or the LDS church.
We have been over this “God-breathed” baloney already. “God-breathed” is a recent fabrication to try and bolster believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as if men couldn’t intentionally screw it up. It just ISN’T in the Greek!
But looking some of the “modern” translations, it is painfully obvious that men can and have screwed it up.
So much for you “God breathed” BS!!!!
I have consided several approaches to find truth:
1. Establish a credible source, and then bend everything to fit.
2.Use reasoning, God gave us brains for a reason
3.Scientific theory. Make a hypothesis, and then test it.
4.Ask God because he answers prayers.
Many Christians would say that #1 is it. The Bible is complete. Any truth that is truth is explained there. We need nothing more. Others would examine the history around the Bible. Use the second approach, reasoning, to sure up the credible source. That is a lot of what is taught today in Theological Seminaries.
After a while in this mode, the “Word of God” becomes the Bible. They are used interchangeably; they are one in the same.
The problem with that approach is that the Bible itself disagrees:
Luke 3:2 — Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Does that mean the Bible grew wings and flew to where John was in the wilderness? No, it means the word of God is the word of revelation, inspiration. At least before the Bible was written that was the case. I don’t think God has changed anything as basic as the foundation for truth, just because the Bible was written.
So what approach DOES the bible recommend? Christ gave us his approach:
Matt 7:7 …ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
If you reject the concept of personal revelation to always defer to the Bible, then what does “knock” mean? It must mean that you should knock on the cover before you read.
Yes, I agree, that would be quite ridiculous.
If you study the Bible itself, it seems that God is recommending an alternative approach to find truth. It is not the first or second approach I listed, but the third and fourth approach. The same one that John the Baptist used in the desert. You are expected to pray as part of your seeking activities.
The apostle Paul teaches the concept like this:
1 Cor 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
You will find that Mormons actually follow this counsel. We use testimony and the power of God in our daily lives. What is the power of God? Paul hints that it is the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. It is that demonstration that is the foundation for truth for most active Mormons. Get used to it, it is what God recommends.
Now that we have established that God expects us to pray as part of our seeking activities, lets take the concept to the next level. Not only is the demonstration of spirit and of power the right foundation for truth, but it is the ONLY foundation for certain pivotal points, like the validity of the claim that Jesus is Lord.
1 Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Why don’t more skeptics embrace this approach? Because it requires faith, and faith is hard.
There seems to be alot of debate about the Book of Mormon as scripture. I challange anyone who might have an issue or issues with the book to try defending the book. Be a lawyer for a little while and try defending something you don’t believe in. Do some research and visit sights like fairlds.org, jefflindsay.com, or FARMS. On the same note, I would say the same for Mormons who might take issue with Orthodox Christian beliefs not their own. I am not saying that either one will convert or anything, but I do think it will provide a better understanding of both sides of the issue.
It is nice that you are using Christs’ words in Matthew, though if you read a little farther HE warns us of false prophets in sheeps clothing. So HE makes it even easier for us to deny the prophets you hold so dear to your heart. They have brought things in which DO pervert the Gospel, let alone the changes that have been made in the Bible
As you point out personal revelation is a key, then why would you, or anybody else, need a prophet to make it through this life?
As for the BoM being scripture, the parts that directly coincide with the Bible, could be considered, as long as the “original” author is recognized. The parts that are of fables, should not, and shouldn’t even be in the book. W/LOVE
I looked at your link and have a question, incompetence or deception?
James makes good points; BUT there are OBVIOUS, FLAWS.
JW: The issue is, to what does tau,th| refer? As a pronoun, it has an antecedent, a referent that it is pointing back to. . . .”This rock” is referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding phrase, something that we find in the immediate context. . . . A natural reading of the passage . . . makes it plain what must function as the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun:
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
GB: In the KJV, you find that a) it is not “this” but “it”, b) it is italicized which is a word added by the translators and NOT in the Greek.
The literal Greek is; “that flesh and blood not reveals to-you but the Father of-Me the-one in the heavens”
JW FAILS to tell you the “this” he is using as a basis for his argument isn’t in the Greek. A real, honest scholar would. Incompetence or deception?
Also notice that Jesus actually uses the present/ongoing tense “reveals” not the past tense “revealed”. JW fails to point it out. Incompetence or deception?
JW: The confession that Peter gives of the Messiahship of Jesus is the central thought . . . .
GB: Revelation is the central thought. James admits it;
JW: Jesus indicates that Peter has just been the recipient of divine revelation. God, . . . has given to Peter an insight that does not find its origin in the will of man, but in God the Father . . . . The content of that confession is . . . divine revelation, . . . . This is the immediate context of verse 18, . . .
GB: JW does discuss genders, but he fails to look at the genders in the statement he is tying to “petra”. Incompetence or deception?
Cluff…you keep on quoting this passage as if it will change it’s meaning. Paul said himself that he declared to them the testimony of God. What was that? Read verse 2. It’s the Gospel. Read the beginning of Romans…Paul was set apart to preach the Gospel. He explains the demonstration of the Spirit and power in Romans chapter 1 verse 4 as well. Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
So what exactly is the power of God? Go back to chapter 1 Cluff…18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
The Gospel is God’s power for salvation. It is all about Jesus. Even Jesus Himself promised the Spirit would come. What is the testimony of the Spirit? Go back to John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
The Spirit testifies that Jesus was resurrected from the dead by the power of God. It all makes sense to me. Doesn’t mention anything about burning in your belly if some new book is true or not…Blessings!
Dont’ flatter yourself. Your arguments are basically the same tired stuff that is intent and denigrating the Bible to a status that allows for you to say the BOM is the most correct book on the earth and I had better pay attention. I really don’t think my arguments are as flawed as yours are rooted in folk theology. You claim to believe in grace, but in actuality you really don’t. You teach a grace that is added to the end of your life after all you have done. This is pretty straightward with regard to the Mormon belief about grace. Sure, you preach Jesus Christ, but you preach a Jesus Christ who did just enough to add to what you do. So, you don’t really preach the power of Christ crucified on the cross. In the end, you and your Mormon siblings will argue the importance and weight of your works, which will dilute the power of grace. That’s not right. That’s not biblical. As far as your attempt to say I don’t know about Mormonism, well, it’s just a feeble attempt because I know. I know what you believe as a Mormon. If you truly believed in grace as it is presented in the Bible, you would cease to be a Mormon. You can’t be a Mormon and a true believer of the true and living Christ. Sorry, but it just can’t be. I say that you don’t know too much about the Work and Person of Christ. Oh, you’ll say I’m crazy, but Christ is all about grace, justification by faith in Him and not justification by works. If you can say that you are justified by your faith in Christ alone, then I welcome into the family of God. If you can’t, and you still have to link your works with salvation, then you’re still walking blindly. We might all be God’s creation, but we really don’t become a child of God until we believe in Jesus Christ, the Jesus Christ who has power to save you without your help. Even in that assumption you are wrong. I guess you’d know that if you studied the Bible.
“Dont’ flatter yourself. Your arguments are basically the same tired stuff that is intent and denigrating the Bible to a status that allows for you to say the BOM is the most correct book on the earth and I had better pay attention. I really don’t think my arguments are as flawed as yours are rooted in folk theology. You claim to believe in grace, but in actuality you really don’t. You teach a grace that is added to the end of your life after all you have done. This is pretty straightward with regard to the Mormon belief about grace. Sure, you preach Jesus Christ, but you preach a Jesus Christ who did just enough to add to what you do. So, you don’t really preach the power of Christ crucified on the cross. In the end, you and your Mormon siblings will argue the importance and weight of your works, which will dilute the power of grace. That’s not right. That’s not biblical. As far as your attempt to say I don’t know about Mormonism, well, it’s just a feeble attempt because I know. I know what you believe as a Mormon. If you truly believed in grace as it is presented in the Bible, you would cease to be a Mormon. You can’t be a Mormon and a true believer of the true and living Christ. Sorry, but it just can’t be. I say that you don’t know too much about the Work and Person of Christ. Oh, you’ll say I’m crazy, but Christ is all about grace, justification by faith in Him and not justification by works. If you can say that you are justified by your faith in Christ alone, then I welcome into the family of God. If you can’t, and you still have to link your works with salvation, then you’re still walking blindly. We might all be God’s creation, but we really don’t become a child of God until we believe in Jesus Christ, the Jesus Christ who has power to save you without your help. Even in that assumption you are wrong. I guess you’d know that if you studied the Bible.”
THE MOST JUDGEMENTAL, CONDESENDING, AND ARROGANT POST I HAVE EVER READ!
I have read what you have to say to all the believers of Jesus Christ and have come to this conclusion: you need someone to tell you that you need to repent of fighting against the servants of the LORD. With patience, my brothers and sisters have provided you with the message of God, but you continue to act as if you have some real knowledge. Your word studies are humorous at best. It’s sad that the term God-breathed offends you. You know, the wonderful thing about God is that He works through a broken humanity. Your attempt to say that men have intentionally screwed up the Bible is the same as saying that God is not God enough to protect His message of grace and salvation to the world. Your message is that men are more powerful than God. You’ll disclaim this accusation, but it’s really true. You see, you have to believe the Bible is in error so you can preach the gospel of Joseph Smith, who seems to be your god. Your offensive responses with regard to God’s Word will not go unchallenged.
I’ll burn my last post for you. I have read with patience the arrogance, judgmentalness amd condescencion of Mormons against followers of Jesus Christ day after day. What is more arrogant that telling all of Christianity that you don’t belong to the true of Christ, the LDS Church? What is more arrogant than telling the world that your works can somehow make you holy, perfect, exalted? This shows a lack of understanding regarding the Work and Person of Jesus Christ. All I’ve done is point out the truth of Christianity. Because you don’t like the truth, you respond with judgment and arrogance. Mormons spend time studying the BOM, a book that cannot have any scholarly study because there are NO manuscripts or any evidence of its existence. Basically, it’s a work of fiction. As a Christian defending God’s Word, the Bible, I must call a spade a spade. What is more condescending than denigrating the Bible to a book that really has no relevance, because that is basically what Mormonism is saying? You can charge me all you like. I don’t seek your smile. I seek the smile of my Father. I suppose you won’t be too thrilled with my response to GB or this one to you. I can’t help that. You would do well to spend your time immersed in God’s Word, which is the Bible–and only the Bible.
One last thing: “So don’t pretend you silly goose.” reggieswood to me. I guess his approach and the approach of GB is approved by you. I don’t think I called him a silly anything. I just juxtaposed Mormonism against Christianity. I’m glad it stung.
FoF referred to jack’s post as “THE MOST JUDGEMENTAL, CONDESENDING, AND ARROGANT POST I HAVE EVER READ!”
I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder. I may not 100% agree with everything jack said, but I certainly didn’t see his post that way.
So this morning I happened to catch the last few minutes of In Touch with Dr. Charles Stanley. He said ‘what worse work, what more destructive work, what more devastating work could anybody do than to interpret the Word of God as being a book mixed with truth, fable, mixed with myths, full of error…Nothing could be more devastating than to confuse people, telling them that the word of God is not the word of God that it is only a portion of the word of God –you can believe what you want to believe and it will be alright” http://www.intouch.org/site/c.dhKHIXPKIuE/b.2287423/
Now I’m not applying this as a blanket statement just to Mormons, but I believe that the Mormon Church is included in it. Just to clarify, no I don’t always agree 100% with what he says either, but he is a notable Christian minister and I do respect him. The topic is God-breathed scripture and its authority –these statements were perfect and I just had to share.
“It is nice that you are using Christs’ words in Matthew, though if you read a little farther HE warns us of false prophets in sheeps clothing”
Why doesn’t Christ just tell us that we need no more prophets? Isn’t that what this article really means. If the Bible is all we need, why warn of false prophets at all? Just say No more prophets, until the end.
Here’s why, because God has always intended to send true prophets as well. You know, to prepare the world for the 2nd coming of Christ?
He even told us how to tell the true prophets from the false ones– by their fruits you will know them. He would never say that if He intended to never send more prophets.
To me “God-Breathed Words of Scripture” is just an excuse to reject Gods living prophet today.
It is a little ironic, but you are helping me make my point.
We are pleased to be of service to you. I can’t help but wonder though, how that might help you make your point. You had brought in personal revelations, which would mean that there is no need for prophets to point in the right direction. The people that have the Holy Spirit residing with them, are prophets in that sense. So we can tell if they are false by their fruit. Can you say that your prophets fruits have all been good? W/LOVE
Cluff, Christ DID tell us that. Both Luke and Matthew document His remarks:
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. Matthew 11:13
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Luke 16:16
The problem with the LDS is that it doesn’t matter what the Bible says, they want to put their own meanings into the words. And, when faced with blatant contradictions to their church’s doctrines, well, those are just where those “plain and precious” parts got all muddled.
If one is going to simply ignore or spin the Word of God then one may as well read the phone book as holy writ.
GB: thanks for the courage to quote Mr.White at length, that is both courteous and fair. I’m at a loss to see his incompetence, maybe it’s the pot I smoked in the 70’s or the loud 8-track tapes…. Are there other scripture scholars who make as big a deal about the gender agreement as you do?? I don’t know Greek at all, but having studied ASL for a few years (american sign language), I am well aware that not all languages are as article intensive as English, ASL “builds the articles into” the structure of other words, usually the verbs. Just wondering.
I’ll close with a reference to an article that’s off topic here, but belongs to the MMM thread. I’d recommend reading Gene Sessions “Sending New Light on the MMM” over at FAIR, yes I typed that out myself!! I’m still the new guy at Mormon history, but his take ‘smells true’ if you know what I mean, I recommend a careful reading of that article. He does NOT give BY the free pass that some would give him in terms of the cover up after the tragedy, but has compassionate reasons to do so. Anyway, thot I’d work that into my 2cd post. Have a great weekend all. To my christian friends here: could we amp up the charity here at MC, stay strong in conviction, but leave the character of the POSTERS out of it please, and I’ll try to do likewise….THANKS, GERMIT
“I looked at your link and have a question, incompetence or deception?
James makes good points; BUT there are OBVIOUS, FLAWS.”
Well I look forward to you calling, toll-free, and explaing to Dr. White where he is wrong. Let us know when you are going to call, because I would love to listen in. Tell me again, I must have missed it, what your background in Greek is? I don’t have a solid background in Greek, so I am curious what your background is that permits you to make such statements?
“Why doesn’t Christ just tell us that we need no more prophets? Isn’t that what this article really means. If the Bible is all we need, why warn of false prophets at all? Just say No more prophets, until the end.”
Well He did: 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.
I would seriously like to see a mormon interact with those verses instead of ignoring them or changing the subject. That declaration doesn’t negate the rise of false teachers, Christ warned us repeatedly and specifically of the coming of false prophets and teachers. The NT is full of examples of them, and the church has had to guard the faith once delivered against false teachers from the Judaizers in Galatia to Pelagius to Joseph Smith to David Koresh to today’s false teachers. What it does negate is the rise of prophets who teach new “revelations”. God’s revelation is complete in the person and work of His Son. The NT epistles are not adding new revelation, but confirming and explaining the revelation of Christ. Paul doesn’t say “Well I know John says the Christ is the Word, and the Word is God so Christ is God but I say He is just a created being like you and me” They all agree on who Christ is, what He did and how men are justified. Mormonism is not “another Testament”, it is another gospel.
So the Bible is the “complete” word of God, right? Is that understanding based on the Revelations “do not add unto this” verse or some other?
The New Testament was not compiled until the 11th century. Yes, I know we have manuscripts of the individual epistles and books that are much older. But those books and epistles were not complied into the current form for another 1000 years. This would seem to be a major problem for the argument that canon is closed. Who has the authority to say that? The people who possessed manuscripts between 100 A.D. and 1000 A.D.? Those that did the compiling? The very last person to write “scripture.” Who?
I am sure somebody will respond that God’s work was complete in His Son, Jesus Christ. I think I understand the meaning of those verses that state that. If God’s work was “done”, then why did the apostles record their accounts and epistles? Why were martyred apostles replaced initially. Why even have a church organization?
If all we have to do is believe, why preach the gospel? Of course because it brings us joy, but really- couldn’t the apostles just believe. Why did they have to go preach and die for the gospel? Did they not do “works?”
I know this post is scatter-brained, but my main questions are 1) where does anybody say with authority that canon is closed, and 2) where do we draw the line in believing Gods work is done in Christ?
The canon may not be closed, but here is one thing to consider: if Christ has already done everything we need him to do, why would we need anything else?
You should already know by now that we don’t think anything else is needed, no prophets or direct lines to God are needed. You should know by now that we claim that Christ gives a direct line to God, since he is God, and that the prophets ended with John and Christ.
Thus, your first question should be pretty apparent as to why we feel the Canon is closed.
The second question is a tough one to answer. But I think that if one is toiling over whether or not they have worked enough is indication the work is for themselves. If it is with Christ, (those in Him don’t work for him, they work with him, which is really the issue) then there is no worry about its sufficiency.
I think the belief only really confuses Mormons. Its too simple, and too easy. One can say “I beleive” but still be a bad person. Very true, and it is true that many do this. But it is fallacy to confuse this action, a faulty action, with the doctrine and its wisdom.
Believing is truly all that is needed. It really is that simple. Can one be saved and never lift a finger? We have to define what lifting a finger is.
If you wish to define mental acts and heart transformations as works, go ahead. That is fine, but be sure to differentiate these acts as distinct from following a set of ritual acts or physical labor.
Bottom line, if we feel like we are living with Christ, and working with him in all you do (something surprising happens when you live with him in this way), you’ll be in Christ. However, if you have to wonder if you’ve done enough, you’re not. (This includes checking off a list for various recommends or certain exaltation.)
Does this help?
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 don’t know if Falcon has, but I have. You can read it here…
Incidentally, I agree with Falcon’s point. Also, I read the Bible and pray for God to guide me to its truth, and I come to a very different conclusion to the LDS who do the same. Based on this empirical evidence, I can only conclude that this method of discerning truth is not as reliable as some would wish.
Alright, i’m going out on a limb here.
The first that will be brought up, is that Mormons claim that the BoM is truly scripture by the feelings that they had aked the Eternal Father for his truth. Then they received verification of its authenticity by the Spirit. That seems a little troubling, because if you read Moroni 10:4, the verse asks “if these things are NOT true”. So logicaly, the Spirit is telling, the sincere heart, that they are not true. Hmmm
Second, it also names “God the Eternal”. If they claim that God is an exalted man(created). Than how can he be infinite, if he is created?
“Combined with the LDS penchant for hierarchy, structure, organization, and humanly held power/authority…”
I’d like to thank Germit for helping me understand something. Its a thought that’s been buzzing around my head that I could not previously put into words; when we deny the incarnational Christ of the Bible, our only recourse is to attempt to recreate the structures of the Church, including the role of prophets and scriptures.
Here is my concern for LDS and Islam (since the latter was raised above); in failing to comprehend the Christ of Scripture, they have both substituted him with a dynasty of ‘prophets’ and claims (in both cases) for books that ‘clarify’ (supersede?) all previous books.
When I read my Bible I see that the mission of God is to be incarnated among his people. This is the expectation of the OT (see the concluding statement in Ezekiel, for example), and the purpose of Christ’s mission in the NT. We see it in the story of the Exodus and in Jesus’ own words in the conclusion to Matthew. This is what the New Jerusalem is for.
Getting back on topic, I can fully reconcile Paul to this mission. Paul appeals to us because we like to tackle the subject in terms of abstract logic, which occupies much of Paul’s writings. Much of the remainder of the Bible tackles it in terms of story and metaphor, and Evangelicals will be well advised to explore these aspects of the Gospel in parallel with their studies on Paul.
Has anyone else noticed a curious thing about the BoM with the verses. By that I mean it doesn’t flow as a single text. Now I see why our LDS friends feel they can quote verses in the Bible without reading any of the surrounding chapters. It is almost like Joseph saw how the KJV was structured and ignored the occasional paragraph marks and made every verse in his book as if it was a stand-alone sentence. Start reading anywhere in it and see if I’m right or if I’m losing it. Anyone else know what I mean?
I would seriously like to see a mormon interact with those verses instead of ignoring them or changing the subject”
“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.
Here I am, Mormon, as the case may be– interacting per request to a seriously misinterpreted verse of scripture. Be sure to thank me now.
The phrase “these last days” should be interpreted like “in recent days”. There you go, now it makes sense.
“but in recent days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
To make even more sense, we would need to pull in a recent mouthpiece. Like this:
“but in recent days he has spoken to us by Thomas Monson, whom he appointed the prophet of these days, by whom also the kingdom of God on earth is governed.
Now we have something we can work with. I can pray about that one. Arthur?
Is that enough interaction to meet your needs?
Let me pound on this because it is critical to the Mormon perspective. The God Breathed Word is ongoing revelation NOT the varied and misguided interpretations of ancient scripture.
It is our right AND OBLIGATION to embrace the proper foundation for truth and put alternative approaches to the test.
Let me make it clear.
1 Cor 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
That is not referencing things that Jesus did, but rather something WE need to do as we become Christian– that is confess by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ.
This means: The only way we can know for sure that Jesus is the Christ is by the witness of the Holy Ghost. That is the foundation for faith for the “true” Christian.
But today we have a new relevant question. What applied to Jesus in the first century can rightly be applied to Joseph Smith in ours. Not that Joseph Smith is Lord, which is laughable, but that he was called of God to restore the missing priesthood authority.
At the risk of being hanged for heresy (and to make my point more solid). 1 Cor 12: 3 AS IT SHOULD APPLY IN OUR DAY would say:
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Joseph Smith accursed: and that no man can say that Joseph Smith is the prophet of the restoration, but by the Holy Ghost.
Put that in your skeptic pipe and smoke it.
Still waiting for the answer to the question of, Can you say that all your prophets fruits are good?
The phrase is correct the way it was. It seems to be typical for some, to even change the definitions of a word. Let alone blaspheme the SON OF GOD, with the name of a sinner. I hope that you do pray about that one with contrition. God is waiting for you my friend.
I wonder why Faith of Fathers isn’t getting on you for your blatant disrespect and faulty reasoning. “Put that in your skeptic pipe and smoke it”? Perhaps our definition of arrogance is different.
“Let me pound on this because it is critical to the Mormon perspective. The God Breathed Word is ongoing revelation NOT the varied and misguided interpretations of ancient scripture.”
The problem with this premise is that your leaderes supposed “God-breathed” words do not stand the scrutiny when pitted against the true “God-breathed” Word of the Bible. Ongoing revelation does not trump the Bible. Once again, the Mormon perspective relegates the Bible to a virtual non-authoritative writing, being replaced by leaders who preach a different gospel than that found in the Bible. You seem to have embraced JS over truly God-breathed words.
“Here I am, Mormon, as the case may be– interacting per request to a seriously misinterpreted verse of scripture. Be sure to thank me now. The phrase “these last days” should be interpreted like “in recent days”. There you go, now it makes sense.”
The Greek word for “last” is eschatos, which refers to the last as in of a series. I don’t know how you get “recent” out of this. Once again, you try to talk about interpretation over translation. JS did not translate anything. I don’t even think one can call it interpretation. What he did was add and delete as he saw fit, and the sad thing is that you champion his cause and think you’re doing us a favor.
“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Joseph Smith accursed: and that no man can say that Joseph Smith is the prophet of the restoration, but by the Holy Ghost.”
This is presumptious, and a sad attempt to defend your father JS. Can’t you see that you are fighting against the Word of God, and that you are basically saying God has no power to safeguard His Word that teaches us about grace and salvation?
But, sadly, “grace” is an unpleasant word for you, and I think it’s unpleasant for you because it robs you of your self-sought glory, which is a teaching that cannot be reconciled to the Bible–the true God-breathed Word.
Yes, the Bible is the complete word of God. In it is contained everything we need to know in order to live eternity in God’s presence. You want to accuse me arrogance, etc., but it’s more arrogant to suggest that you and JS et al can judge that God did not protect His word to us, that He somehow is not powerful enough, and that Jesus Christ somehow lied when He said that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church, which is not the LDS Church, but the true Church of Christ established on Jesus Christ Himself, with the foundation of the apostles and prophets (the Bible), and the priesthood of believers (see 1 Peter 2, specifically v.9).
It’s sad that Mormons want to identify themselves as Christians and then do everything in their power to establish a low view of the scriptures and a low view of God. The Bible reveals God as always existing and the Creator of all things. The Mormon god did not always exist and was in fact created. Mormons teach to the premise that the Holy Spirit cannot perpetually empower the believers of Christ from the time of Pentecost until the Second Coming of our LORD Jesus Christ. The idea of a need for a restoration of such heretical teachings as I have outlined is preposterous, and I have only mentioned a couple of the lies perpetrated on humanity by JS. As a believer in Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected, I am called to fight against such heresies and preach the gospel of grace, which is firmly established by God-breathed words throughout the totality of the Bible and the Bible alone.