In the 2012 book Mormons An Open Book, Written by a Mormon, What You Really Want to Know, author Anthony Sweat gets right to the point:
“The gospel of Jesus Christ is this:
“1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,
“3. Baptism by immersion by one holding the proper priesthood authority,
“4. Reception of the Holy Ghost (see Articles of Faith 1:4).
“In the Book of Mormon, Jesus defines the gospel this way: ‘Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel’ (3 Nephi 27:20-21).” (25)
Dr. Sweat’s definition of “the gospel of Jesus Christ” is incomplete, according to Mormon leaders. Fourteenth Church President Howard W. Hunter said that the four points specified in Articles of Faith 1:4 “are only the first of all the principles and ordinances of the gospel…” In fact, in order to “stand spotless” before Christ at the last day, as presented in Dr. Sweat’s gospel definition quoted from the Book of Mormon, one must not only comply with the four “first principles” listed above, but “there must be a lifetime of compliance with the laws and commandments… The first principles alone are not sufficient: man is thereafter accountable in the eternal judgment for what he has done in life, whether good or evil. The atonement was for this very purpose, to bring about the resurrection and subsequent judgment of all men” (“This Is My Gospel,” Ensign, July 1973, emphasis mine).
Fifteenth Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley often stated that the gospel was not complete without the ordinances performed in Mormon temples. This Church doctrine was deemed so important that the Church’s official newspaper, Church News, reported Mr. Hinckley’s statements on this at least six times between November 1996 and September 2004 (find references listed below).
Also consider General Conference teachings from two Mormon apostles:
“The gospel of Jesus Christ is the plan by which we can become what children of God are supposed to become. This spotless and perfected state will result from a steady succession of covenants, ordinances, and actions, an accumulation of right choices, and from continuing repentance.” (Dallin Oaks, “The Challenge to Become,” Ensign, November 2000)
“We are now being tried and tested to see if we will do all the things the Lord has commanded us to do. These commandments are the principles and ordinances of the gospel, and they constitute the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (L. Tom Perry, “The Plan of Salvation,” Ensign, November 2006)
The Mormon Church has even found a way to simplify the definition of “the gospel” for children while retaining its full meaning. In the February 2011 Ensign column “First Presidency Message” children’s section it says, “The word gospel means all the teachings and ordinances given to us by Jesus Christ and His prophets” (6).
Mormonism claims to have “the restored fulness of Christ’s gospel” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:271, emphasis mine). A Mormon apostle once taught,
“By the grace of God, and through his mercy, we have had restored to us in this day the fulness of the everlasting gospel: all of the laws, ordinances, and principles by obedience to which we can be both saved and exalted in our Father’s kingdom. No other peoples have had so much of the light and truths of heaven poured out upon them as we have.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Conference Reports, April 1949, 90)
If Mormons believe this is true, if they believe President Harold B. Lee’s teaching that “[Moroni] announced to the Prophet… that the time was at hand for the gospel in all its fulness to be preached in power unto all the nations.” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, 75-76; brackets and ellipses in the original), why does Dr. Sweat essentially keep the fulness of the Mormon gospel under wraps? It might have something to do with the chapter in which this gospel is defined. Titled, “Are Mormons Christian?” this chapter seeks to convince readers that the answer is “Yes.” But if the fulness of the Mormon gospel was revealed it would be pretty clear that the answer is “No.”
Christian author and pastor Harry A. Ironside explained the Christian gospel like this:
“Commencing at the first verse of this precious and wondrous portion of Scripture [1 Corinthians 15:1-4], we read: ‘Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, with also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures’ (see Isaiah 53:5-6) ‘and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.’
“…the Biblical Gospel is concerning a Person…The subject of Paul’s gospel has not a word about anyone or anything except Christ. Perhaps we might say it also could be divided into four points…
“1. Christ died;
“2. Christ was buried;
“3. Christ has been raised again;
“4. Christ is the object for the hearts of His own.”
(“Dr. Ironside Meets With Two Mormon Missionaries: What Is the Gospel?” 1932)
The Christian gospel contains no temple covenants, no ordinances, no “lifetime of compliance with laws and commandments” for the needy sinner. The Christian gospel is full and complete in Christ alone.
References for Gordon B. Hinckley statements about an incomplete gospel, Church News, weeks ending: 11/23/96 p. 3; 8/1/98, p. 2; 8/4/01, p. 2; 10/5/02, p. 2; 6/7/03, p. 2; 9/4/04, p. 2.
RICK and FALCON
You really need to read what me and Parkman are posting. You have twisted our words into mere shadows of what they actually say.
For instance, Rick, you claim: “You and parkman keep harping on the issue of, how can we trust the Bible since men wrote it.”
When did we ever make the claim that we can’t trust the Bible? I specifically said it was written by inspired prophets. Neither I, nor Parkman ever claimed we can’t trust it. We simply asked why it is that we can’t trust other scriptures as well.
Of course, Falcon prefers to simply try and discredit us through personal attacks and libel, rather than actually respond to anything we say. His posts are all rife with arrogance, pride, and condescension, and so why should we listen to him either.
I will say that you are better in your posts than either Rick or Falcon.
When Mike says ” I don’t know if I can supply you with verses in the Bible relative
to your question that is going to satisfy you.” what he means is that he believes it is there, but doesn’t think we will agree, so sees no point in providing them.
I personally can accept this response, but only if he is willing to accept the same response from me at times. I understand we interpret passages from the Bible differently, and so, at times it is a waste to try and show a certain belief from the Bible, as the other person is not likely to accept it.
You claim to have read the Book of Mormon, and yet you have shown that you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to it. Did you read it in your sleep?
Let us examine this
You say: We read of an account of the tower of Babel in the BoM, so this tells me that if the supposed BoM people existed and were around back in the tower of Babel time, then how come Jesus and his apostles never quote from them if they are real?
First of all, this is only one group of people. You seem to want to lump all the Book of Mormon together, and thus you show you have no understanding.
Second, the people spoken of during this time were not part of the Patriarchal line. The records the Jews had were of this line, and thus they would not likely have had the records of Jared and his Brother.
Third, the records of the Jaredites were on this, the American continent. The Jews in Palestine would not have had access.
You also say : People in the BoM quote from the Bible as if they all knew each other, making mention of people like King David.
Nephites originated in Palestine and Judea. Lehi and his family lived at the same time as Jeremiah, and just shortly after Isaiah. They were part of the Kingdom of Judea, and thus knew the history of it. They brought with them a record of that history, as well as of the prophecies of former prophets. As such, logic states that they had access to everything they quote.
The Bible never quotes from these people for a very good reason. The Jews didn’t know they existed, and even if they did they had no access to them and their records. The Book of Mormon only quotes those sections of the Bible that the people of the Book of Mormon would have had access to due to their origins in Jerusalem. The Bible quotes only what it has access to, which does not include the Book of Mormon.
Why should we trust anything you say in regards to the Book of Mormon when you can’t even grasp this very simple concept of space and time.
Say what you want but LDS do not trust the bible, it was js who said,the bom is the most correct book on earth. Then it was LDS who teach, many plain and precious parts are missing from the bible. Then it was js that said we have no need of a bible. It is js who claims that God commanded him to correct the bible by way of the j.s.t. need I go on. So how can you claim you trust the bible in light of this. Then if you remove all exact quotes from the bom that are bible verses, since if they are already found in the bible, what exactly is left in the bom that helps us get closer to God and tells us things not found in the bible?
Then as I pointed out, your prophets cannot agree on what scriptures to use. Do I use the bom, the d and c, the pearl, or listen to the prophet? And you think there is no confusion.
One other thing: Again you give quotes without understanding.
The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of the religion, and without it the religion collapses. That is very true.
The Doctrine and Covenants is the most important book for us. (first, this was his opinion, as he states clear “in my judgment.) However, it is build off the Book of Mormon. Several of the sections speak to the Book of Mormon. That book stand or falls depending on the Book of Mormon. However, it can rightly be considered the most important because it is the only book of revealed scripture that was written in our day and age. The Bible, though great, makes use of imagery and symbolism that is not common today. The same is true of the Book of Mormon, which was also written as a missionary tool. The Doctrine and Covenants is the only book that was originally reveled in English, making use of more contemporary symbolism and imagery, and was not made for missionaries, but to enlighten and strengthen the membership. As such it can be said to be the most important.
On top of this, the living prophet is more vital to us for the same basic reasons. They live today, and thus understand our language and society, and can thus teach us more effectively. Moses, as great as he was, is not equipped to counsel us regarding the internet, or the political and philosophical theories that are unique to our time.
None of these quotes contradicts the others. They are all in agreement, when properly understood.
@ Sharon Lindbloom
“Parkman, if you are going to quote Mike R accurately without interjecting your own “creative imagination” it would be more helpful to the conversation to quote his entire sentence: “I don’t know if I can supply you with verses in the Bible relative to your question [that] is going to satisfy you.” Your satisfaction is the subject of Mike R’s statement.”
I know it is annoying, but I thought it ok since it is often used by mrmers.
I am not the only person that finds creative imanagination being used here at mrm. ” You really need to read what me and Parkman are posting. You have twisted our words into mere shadows of what they actually say.”
I don’t care what you say. You have proven over and over again that you have no understanding of our doctrine, and that you can’t grasp the meaning of the words of the prophets. You can make any false claim you want, but the truth is there for anyone who actually wants to know it.
Here is the truth: We believe in and trust the bible. We study it for two years in our Sunday School, two in Seminary, and two in institute. It is the first of our standard works, and is the most frequently quoted.
However, we also acknowledge that after nearly 2000 years the records are no longer complete. This does not mean that we do not trust what we have received, but that we seek out what we are missing in other inspired records.
And just to let people know; my favorite of the standard works has always been the Bible, and more particularly the Old Testament. It is not the simplest book, or the easiest to understand. But it is the greatest in my opinion.
I have not found anywhere in the Bible that says God has not given, nor will He stop giving aditional revelation.
And by the action by these posters, noone here is willing to try.
You are the one that has no clue and really are grasping at straws.
Their is no proof for the BoM. Where is the reformed Egyptian Language? O-Thats right, it does not exist and no evidence it has ever existed.
Why is it when I was in Israel, The great Jewish Minds that run the temple mount Institute claim they have no evidence any of the BoM people ever existed? O thats because according to you, the BoM people lived here in the Americas. But if we trace things back to the Tower of Babel, we should find some evidence they existed, yet we dont.
Why does the story of the tower of Babel contradict the story of the tower of Babel in the Bible if they are both the word of God? Why have we never found one shred of archeological evidence for the BoM if it is real? Why has the battle field for the battle of hill cumorah moved so many times if it was real?
Why did JS claim the BoM is the most correct book, yet it has had 4,000 changes in only a few short years, and their is no notes indicating any of these changes if the BoM is real?
This statement shows your ignorance, I say that because When Jesus quoted about Adam and Eve, and Noah Jesus was not around when they were alive, and since they existed before the great flood, that greatly changed the land scape. Yet He knew about them. So He does not need “Access” to quote them. Then according to your LDS people, their was a total “Apostasy”, (Cont).
Yet According to the BoM, we have John and some buddies who are alive till Jesus returns, so if thats true, we cannot have a total “apostasy” Since they did not die. Then The Bible, BoM, D and C and Pearl all contradict one another and the pearl even contradicts it’s self.
Then when you guys, keep asking about a closed canon vs ongoing revelation, Here is the thing. The Bible is 66 books, written by 40 different authors over thousands of years and many continents.
Many people, believers and Non believers cannot figure out the Bible or grasp what it says, so why do they need more “scripture”? Then add to that, you guys choose to believe that the BoM is real and believe it is new and added scripture, yet what makes you so sure that the BoM, and the D and C and the pearl and your prophets are correct, and everyone else is wrong? What I mean by everyone else is, Muslims, JW’s Buddists, Etc.
All these various groups believe their scripture is correct while believing yours is wrong, and even the Off shoot groups of LDS dont agree with you and you dont agree with them, so who is right and why? What evidence do you have? You only can say, I prayed about it, but I can say the same thing, saying I prayed about it puts us all back to square one, we need evidence, and I gave mine, where is yours?
As I said before, We have 66 books making up the Bible, how many more books do you need?
You dont understand the 66 you have, why have more. Also we Christians do believe God speaks to us. It’s just unlike you LDS, We believe God will not contradict His written word.
In The Bible, God tells us, Their are no other gods besides Him, None were before Him, and none will come after Him. Yet you believe we can become Gods. That would mean God contradicted Himself.
Also we Dont need prophets and pope’s or other to speak to God for us, as I said already, Gods word says, 1st Timothy
So according to this verse, I dont need to have a pope or a lds prophet go to God for me, I can talk to God and God speaks to me.
Then the Bible also says as I pointed out already, Hebrews 1:2
So God spoke to us through His son, so again we dont need added scripture and prophets, and if people insist we need them and must have them, then thats fine, just explain why they do agree with the Bible, why they contradict Gods word and why their is no evidence to prove these “added scriptures” and prophets are then needed. Lastly as I already pointed out, (Cont)
It is written in Gods word that the reason for these scriptures is, John 20:31
Now if these things were written that we might believe, then again, why do we need more scriptures?
As Falcon keeps saying, If Mormonism is a “restored Gospel” As LDS teach, what was restored? I do see Mormonism taught in the Bible, I dont see the vast majority of Mormon beliefs or Doctrine taught in the BoM either, so why have this added scripture?
Then as I said, what is in the BoM that is not already in the Bible that will help me get closer to God or give me a clearer understanding of Scripture?
Now Parkman, stop coming out from under your bridge and claiming we dont or cannot answer you, I have said all this before and others also have answered you, you just dont like the answer and dont care, so you claim we have not answered you.
I see it being taught as a false gospel and wolves and false prophets, and Paul Mentions it in Gal 1:8-9, otherwise, Mormonism know as it is today cannot be proven from the Bible, so it cannot be a restored Gospel. I Pray Shem and Parkman, your eyes are opened and you see the truth, lest you finally do hear from the real God, but the words you will hear will be, Depart from me you evil doer’s into everlasting darkness, for I never knew you.
I see that you tried to EXPLAIN why you think that your version of the Bible is all there is. You failed!!!!
You give examples of God giving us instructions through a man and then you use them as proof. You have not proven your definition belongs in the Bible and you have not shown where God said in the Bible that He would not give any more scripture.
I do not believe that you want to change your way of thinking, nor do you want to remove your definition from the Bible, but you should at least be able to show us where God really said what you want us to believe He said.
But all you can do is give me your definition and then you take something out of context to prove your definition that you added to the Bible,
“Also we Dont need prophets and pope’s or other to speak to God for us, as I said already, Gods word says, 1st Timothy
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
Now, notice how you left out the part that the mediator speaks through a man.
(1 Timothy 2:5–7)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
So stop calling me a troll because I do not follow the definition you added to the Bible and show me where God said He would not give us more scripture.
I dont see you bothering to explain why your added scriptures are needed or even true in light of the fact that contradict themselves, the Bible, and is zero evidence they are true or came from any reliable sources. I also dont see you trying to explain why you believe despite this serious lack of evidence you believe your added scriptures and and prophets are true when we have lots of other religions who teach their added scriptures, and or prophets are true and yours is false.
Best example, Islam, It makes the news when someone says Allah is not real, or their prophet is false, the Muslims go crazy and kill people over this, Yet they can say, are Scripture is wrong and our God is not real. So yes your a troll because you have seriously dodged almost every question we ask, and just keep asking more, then when we answer you, you either claim we did not, or you dont like the answer and then ask more questions.
When you say I left out part of Timothy, you are nuts, The Man spoken of is Jesus, I pray to Jesus and He goes to God on my behalf. I dont pray to Timothy, the pope, by best friend, some priest. Read the Bible, Jesus is the Word, and the Word Became Flesh. Read the Gospel of John.
Then as I said, John 20 claims these things were written that we might believe. Yet you dont believe and feel the need for added scripture that contradicts it’s self. If ou want more added scripture, then it must agree and line up with the Word of God, not dis-agree with it or change it.
A short while ago I asked you and Shem a question, big surprise that both of you have not bothered trying to answer it.
Anyway, the question was, why should anyone here trust you guys or listen to you guys? Are you Mormon prophets or presidents? Have you written books that were/are endorsed and published by the church? I pointed out how at least 3 different LDS posting here at one time disagreed with one another, and how LDS in general cannot agree.
Well I want to add to that, that I had 2 MM’s over my house, I said to them, I want to ask you some questions and see what you think. I read some things to them that were found in the Book Miracle of Forgiveness, but when I read them these things, I had them printed on paper and did not tell them at the time where they were from and only said what do you think. They could not agree with each other and then after they disagreed with each other over what I read, I told them everything I read to them was from their church published book, the miracle of forgiveness.
My point is, You guys claim we need added scripture, and you teach and believe you have a living mouth piece through your prophet. Yet LDS in general cannot and do not always agree with the prophet, Books written by your prophets and or presidents, and cannot agree with one another.
So why should be believe anything or trust anything you guys tell us? How do we know your right if you dont know if your right? What evidence do you base your belief’s upon? I gave evidence for the Bible, where is yours?
No offense Shem, But I dont believe you when you say LDS it is the first of your standard works. It’s easy for you to say this and make a blanket statement that all Mormons feel this way. But here is what I see.
A of F 8, We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, AS FAR AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY.
So what parts are not translated correctly? And how can you prove it? If you guys study the Bible and quote it as much as you claim, then do you come across a verse and say, This verse is translated incorrectly and why? Lets take JS version of the Bible, Supposedly your god in your scripture commanded JS to “correct” the Bible, and guess what, I once went through LDS church approved books, magazines web sources and other places, looked to see how often the Bible was quoted. It was quoted rather often as you claim. But here is what I also noticed, When the Bible was quoted, never was their anything written stated, this verse was translated incorrectly and here is the correct meaning.
Then add to that, I compared all the Bible quotes I read to the J.S.T And noticed many of the Bible verses quoted were changed in the J.S.T, but these J.S.T verse were not the ones used, the KJV was used. Seems rather odd, that LDS feel the Bible is not translated correctly, yet they use it anyway. (cont)
And they rarely use the J.S.T which again according to your prophet, scripture and god, was the “corrected” version.
Another issue is, the Bible says 2 Timothy 3:16
Is this verse translated Correctly? If not why not, what evidence do you have. If it is, then would God really allow all His other verses to be translated Incorrectly, Since that would mean this verse is false since We cannot use the Bible to correct, reproof and instruction.
Another issue is, When I said many verse of the Bible are word for word, and you feel that it was easy enough for Mormon People to quote from the Bible, then explain this. The Bible is written in the KJ English language. So why is the Mormon “Bible” Quotes written in the same exact language? You mean the Jews back then spoke KJ English. Looks like plagurism to me.
If the Bible has errors as LDS teach, can you name 3 or 4, maybe 5 errors in the Bible and explain why you know for sure they are errors?
Like it or not, you can tell me I am clueless, but all of these really are serious problems and I honestly dont care if you and Parkman dont answer them or make excuses as to why you cannot or will not. I state these things for People like MaM and her husband, and others questions LDS belief’s.
If these people see you not answering them, or giving off the wall answers, then maybe this is what God will use to open their eyes to the truth and they will walk away from a false Gospel unto true salvation in Jesus.
I, rick said
I meant to say, But I dont believe you when you say the Bible it is the first of your standard works
Can you see how Rick B is using the old worn out tactic of creating confusion?
Notice how Rick B has not answered the question about showing us a verse in the Bible where God says the Bible is the only scriptures He will give His Children.
Notice how Rick B then asks lots of questions to divert the reader from how he does not have an answer.
Notice how I, parkman, ignore his diverting tactics and just keep asking the question he does not want to answer. The question I cannot get anyone here at mrm to answer.
@ ANYONE FROM THE MRM CROWD
Where in the Bible does God say that He will not add scriptures to His cannon of Gospel?
I am personally not inclined to answer your questions when you dodge ours, and then accuse us of deception and unwillingness to discuss.
You asked a question on September 15. It is now the 18th. I realize that waiting a whole three days must tax your patience, but please; this is an online blog and not everyone has unlimited time to get on here and respond to every ridiculous statement you make.
Here is your answer.
Doctrine and Covenants 68: 2-4
” And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—
And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”
Now, I cannot speak for Parkman, but I have been ordained to this Priesthood, and thus I have this same blessing and promised from God when I am teaching the gospel. I realize, of course, that you will simply say that I don’t have the spirit, and thus dismiss this. However, I can’t help it if you don’t feel it’s presence.
Now, everything else you mention I am going to ignore at this time. Parkman is right that it is a confusion tactic. You throw out as much as possible in the hopes that we, and others reading your comments, get confused and thus miss the real issues.
The only thing I will comment on is your supposed answer to Parkman’s questions.
He asked you to show him in the Bible where it says that there will be nothing else given.
Your reply was “Why would you want more?”
This is not an answer to the question. It is an evasion that tries to make the question itself seem trivial and thus dismiss it. By this we know that you can’t prove through the Bible that there is not more scripture available, or that more will not become available in the future. All you can assert is your opinion that we don’t need more so why ask for it.
First let me say this, Me and Falcon really dont care what Parkman says or thinks, He’s nothing more than a troll. Not just on this topic but almost every topic he has dodged questions and we have told him many times we are dont talking to him, yet for some reason we find our selves doing it anyway.
Now as to everything I said, Your wrong about claiming I am creating confusion. You know and understand what I am saying, yet you dont want to deal with it, so let me try and clarify it for you and explain it differently.
Everything I said goes along with the issue of do we need more scripture or not. The question you asked pretty much come down to this, Is the Bible enough? Or do we need more scriptures?
I have clearly stated already, we do not need more scripture and you guys feel we do. I gave quotes from the Bible stating God speaks to us through His son, the word was written that we may know these things are true, the Bible says to search the scriptures to know if these things are true. As far as searching the scriptures, at the time we could only use the OT, and Jesus and His apostles quoted from it, so I feel that is evidence right their that the OT is true and inspired of God.
But some people refer to the scriptures as, “Canon”. So the term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. I said already why I dont believe the BoM and any Mormons scriptures are inspired or of God, same goes for your prophets. So the problem is, how do we know what books, (Cont)
Belong and what books dont?
The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. So how do we or who decides what books belong and what ones do not?
Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God.
Now as I said before, but you guys feel I was saying these things for confusion, when In fact it was to say, I have evidence that the Bible is inspired and the LDS scripture is not.
We have archeology proving the Bible, But it cannot prove the BoM. We have actual lands and people from the Bible, Like Israel that I went to for 12 days and will be going back for another 16 days next year. Yet this cannot be said about BoM lands. Then as I said, their is two guys who read the account in Acts about Paul being shipwrecked and throwing two anchors over board, they used the Bible and found these two anchors and gave them to the president of the island and proved the Bible is correct. Yet the BoM mentions the battle at the hill of cumorh, Yet no evidence has ever been found for this battle and the battle field has been moved many times due to lack of evidence.
Then as I asked you before (cont)
Why does Jesus and His apostles quote former Bible people, but never BoM people? You said they did not know each other or something along that lines, yet Jesus quoted all the way back to Adam and Eve and even Noah, then after the Flood, that destroyed the entire landscape, yet Jesus quoted them, so He could easily quote BoM prophets and People. You can claim all you want, they did not know them, but Jesus claimed to be God, so it stands to reason if He is God, then He would know about these prophets and People. Then The account of the tower of Babel in the Bible contradicts the account in the BoM. So again, how can we or why should we trust the BoM to be of God and why should it be added to scripture?
so now we must ask, how did they determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided.
Then I said, the BoM, the D and C, the Pearl all contradict one another and the Bible, the pearl even contradicts it’s self. (Cont)
What you did was confusion tactic, and it did not address the question.
The question had nothing to do with whether we need more, but whether God could give more. Your attempt to alter the question into one that you feel more comfortable answering is a confusion to distract the readers from the actual question.
So, let me ask it again, in simpler terms so you will understand: Can God inspire men to write books of scripture that are not currently contained within the 66 books of the Bible? If He can, do you believe He will? If you don’t believe He will (as is the opinion of most of the Christian world) can you show us, through the Bible, why you don’t believe this?
Everything else you bring up has no direct bearing on this issue, despite your insistence that it does.
I will make a few comments here.
First, show me where in the New Testament Christ quotes any prophet that is not recorded in the Old Testament. I know that some of the apostles do so (like Jude quoting Enoch), but I do not recall Christ doing so.
As to records of the time before the flood, I know you will disagree, but it seems to me that Noah would have preserved the records of Adam and the ancient Patriarchs on the Ark; they would have been passed down until they fell into Abraham’s possession; he gave them to Isaac, who gave them to Jacob, who gave them to Joseph; Joseph preserved them by having them buried with him; so they would have come to Moses when he took Joseph’s body back to Canaan.
Thus, the records would have been available to the Jews.
Aside from this, let me ask you a simple question: What would be the point in quoting a person that your audience never heard of? In other words, why would Christ quote from the men of the Book of Mormon with the people in Jerusalem having no clue who he was talking about? We don’t teach by quoting unknown people. We teach by quoting those people our audience knows and respects.
Now, Christ knew of the Book of Mormon peoples, and he told the Jews “Other Sheep I have which are not of this fold” to teach them that other nations existed that had direct dealings with God and were part of the faithful saints. But that is all he told them, because that is all they needed to know.
I have to say your four qualifications are not very good, and show that God did not direct the selection process in regards to canonizing the Bible. Only the first one provides any valid means, but this can easily be contradicted by the others. Speaking of the others: What if a book was not inspired scripture, but the majority of the Christians thought it was? What were considered ‘Orthodox’ teachings, and how were those selected? Is every book that displays high moral values inspired scripture?
So, let us see an example: In 1 Corinthians 5: 9 we are told that Paul had written and earlier epistle to the Corinthians. We do not have this epistle, but it is obvious from this reference that it was written by an apostle under the inspiration of God, and is thus scripture.
Now, let us just choose a hypothetical here, and say that this now unknown epistle contains a discourse on Baptism for the Dead, which Paul later refers back to in what we have as 1 Corinthians 15. (Please don’t argue this point, as I am speaking hypothetically.) As it was inspired by God and written by his chosen Apostle this would make such doctrine.
Let us see how your qualifications work.
1. It was written by an apostle. So far so good.
2. We really don’t know if it was accepted or not, but should this really matter if it was inspired by God.
3. Unless the leaders who are in charge of the selection of books accept Baptism for the dead as ‘Orthodox’ this epistle is in serious trouble.
4. It does show high moral values (love thy neighbor, even after he is dead) and so this passes.
Do you see my problem with this? There should be only one standard and accepting a book as scripture, and thus part of the canon. That standard is simple: Was this inspired by God? If yes it should be accepted as scripture. If not it should not be accepted. There should be no other qualification needed.
(Oh, and I know you like to through it around, but there is no contradiction between any of the standard works. If you see one than that is because you do not understand them. I will not discuss this, just thought I would mention it for the reader’s benefit.)
Like you I am busy, I have like you, 6 posts per day, and I think this is either 3 or 4 for me. So I cannot address at this time everything you said, maybe others will. But I will address some things and they wont be in any certain order.
Let me start with this, and honestly I dont care if you address it or not, it is for the benefit of others.
The Bible tells us in two places, It is impossible for God to Lie, and simply, God cannot lie.
Now if God cannot lie, Then when God says this
So If God claims their are no other gods, and He knows of none, their are none formed before Him and none will come after Him, How is this not a contradiction? It seems you have an answer for everything and nothing Is a problem for you, Thats fine, you have all the answers, yet they are all wrong and your still following a false prophet and headed to eternal destruction.
God Lie if their are other Gods, Mormons Claim, God has a father who is a God, and His father is a God and this is an endless chain of Gods. Plus JS taught in the King follet discourse their are millions of Gods and you Mormons will be Gods someday. So if God said He knows of None and none will come after Him, then either this is a contradiction, God lied Or your right and I dont understand. Yet I will take God at His word over some human.
Now add to that, lets jump to the pearl of great price. Moses 1:6
Know read Moses chapter 2 and 3, It says, I God created these things.
God is singular, so that agrees with Isaiah. But now we read
Wow, First God says, No other Gods before me or after me, and I know of NO OTHER GODS, Yet Know God is creating things with other Gods.
I am guessing you will have an answer as you always do, as to Why this is not a problem. Then with the issue of You saying, God has other sheep we know not of, He was not talking about the people in America, He was talking about the Gentiles, and if you read your Bible you will see this. Go back and see how things are laid out. First it was Adam and Eve and simply the human race. We had only the human race and one people group, (Humans) Up until God took Abram and made the nation of Israel, after creating the nation of Israel, we had two Groups, The Jews and the Gentiles. It was Gods plan all along to say us Gentiles, Non Jews. We read this in the OT, and see God grafting us into the Vine in the NT and we see the Religious leaders hating this.
Again, say what you want, but you can claim all you want I am creating confusion, their is two things you cannot do and never will do, you might think you have all the answers and can prove us wrong, But you and no mormon has ever been able to show us one shred of evidence that the reformed Egyptian Language ever existed, and their is not one single piece of Archeological evidence for the BoM.
So with this lack of serious evidence you have nothing to stand on but blind faith and can say what you want, but I have and can prove the Bible is from God, you cannot prove the BoM is from God. So regardless of do we need more books of scripture or not really is a moot point when you cannot prove your scripture is from God.
@ Rick B
Thank you for answering my question as to why you think God has not given revelation outside the Bible.
The problem I see with your thoughts is that you say it takes revelation from outside the Bible to prove that there will be no more revelation outside the Bible.
“It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.”
“so now we must ask, how did they determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit”
“No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided.”
You’re right in that you have no understanding.
Looking at all the verses you give to prove that there has never been and never will be another God, there one things worth mentioning.
Most state there are not beside him. Notice that this is not ‘besides’ giving the meaning of an addition. It is ‘beside’ meaning next to, giving the concept of equality. In these verses God is declaring his supremacy over all others, as none stand next to him in authority and glory. This does not prohibit the existence of other gods (“as there be gods many, and lords many” 1 Corinthians 8: 5) but it does make them of a lesser standing.
None of the quotes you give from the other standard works in any way contradict this. In fact, in Moses 1: 6 (which you don’t fully quote) it even puts Christ as being under the father, and not his equal. The Father is our God, the one we pray too, and the one we want to return to. He is the Great Elohim, the Head of the Counsel of Gods that Created this Earth, and there is none that can stand beside Him in authority and glory over us.
However, there are those who live with Him, in the same state of existence, possessing all the same properties and attributes that He does, save for his authority and glory. This is what we strive for, for we know that we can never be His equal, but we can be like Him.
(No, I don’t have an answer for everything. Only for everything that matters.)
As to your analysis of the other sheep; I find it funny that we can be accused of having no logic (which is completely false, by the way) but then you can continue to put forth ideas that make absolutely no sense at all.
You claim: ” First it was Adam and Eve and simply the human race. We had only the human race and one people group”
Of course, we get a very clear separation of people before the flood. In Genesis 6: 2-4 we see the sons of God seeking out and marrying the daughters of men. In other words, even before the flood the people were divided by who was faithful (sons of God) and who was not (daughters of men).
You also claim: ” Up until God took Abram and made the nation of Israel, after creating the nation of Israel, we had two Groups, The Jews and the Gentiles.”
Of course, there were people who were faithful in the days of Abraham that were not part of his descendents, like Melchizedek.
Another problem here is that the Jews constitute one twelfth of the descendents of Jacob (from his son Judah) and thus only one twenty fourth of the descendent of Isaac (as he also had his son Esau) and only 1/192 of the descendents of Abraham, as he had eight children total.
Also, we know that Abraham had other faithful descendents, because Moses’ father-in-law was a High Priest. We also have the record of Balaam, who was a prophet that God communed with. We then have the Wise men who came to see Christ, obviously having the spirit of God with them as they saw the star, and God appeared to them in a dream.
Thus have evidence that in at least four different places there were people who know of, believed in, worshiped, and were blessed by God (The Isrealites, the Midianites in Sinai, Balaam in Canaan, and some group from the east).
So, the only real division among the people that has ever existed, as evidenced by the Bible, is a division of the faithful form the unfaithful, no matter where they lived.
So, when Christ speaks of his other sheep, what is he talking about. Is he talking about those who do not know and do not believe in him as their savior. It makes a whole lot more sense, given the entire record of the Bible, that he is referencing the other groups of faithful men and women around the world that are looking for his coming. These are the ones who are his, though they are not of the fold of the Jews, and to them he was also called to minister.
Let me ask you this: Why does it make more sense to believe that God only dealt with a small portion of His creations on Earth rather than believe He cared for all of them as much as they let Him?
On a last comment, you like to harp on Reformed Egyptian and Archeological evidence, as if this proves something. It really doesn’t matter at all.
Maybe you should ask why European people believed in Christianity back in the eight or nine hundreds when there was no physical proof of anything in the Bible available to them. Most of them never knew that Egypt existed except for what the Bible said. The same is true of a great deal of the Old Testament world. Should they have abandoned faith because they didn’t have the proof you seem to require?
Or, more to the point: Would you still believe if nothing in the Bible was supported by modern sciences?