-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Book of Mormon vs Bible
- Thread starter Abram
- Start date
Abram
Abraham
Well I'm gonna finish the BoM and see. The only thing I noticed is it reads like the Bible in a way that reminds me that I don't even know the Bible yet. It would take 10 life times to really understand the Bible. Now a new book:banghead3 . Come to find out there is even more books, scripts, works(don't know what they are) that you use? I want to know the truth, just like you all.Aqualung said:
Could you teach Mormonism with only the Bible?
There really is a lot to learn. The church has a lot of education programs, such as seminary, institute, seminars, sunday school, etc. I learn new things all the time.Abram said:
As for what to study, I prefer to study the scriptures together. Everyone should read the BOM through at least once, but I like picking topics out of the index and studying things that are interesting to me for the most part. The Bible helps me understand the Book of Mormon and the Book of Mormon helps me understand the Bible. The LDS scriptures are very well footnoted.
I think you could teach the basics with just the Bible, but the Book of Mormon fills in a lot of the holes on some topics where the Bible is silent. It isn't really new doctrine, but it is new details which resolves some of the debate.
Aqualung
Tasty
Yeah, I know what you mean. But I would say be a jack of all trades with the books. Don't worry about knowing the Bible front to back perfectly before you read the Book of Mormon. Take them both at the same time, and your growing knowledge in each will complement the other and make your knowledge grow all that much faster.Abram said:
Depends how in depth you want to get. When people first ask me about my beliefs, I tend to stick to the Bible, because it's sufficient in that regard, and people tend to respond better (it's easier to tell people about a book they already believe in then to use some book they think was written by a fraud). I show them my interpretation of the Bible, and go from there. If they understand and agree with what I'm saying about the Bible, I'll start talking about more in depth stuff. So, you could teach basic mormonism just with the Bible.Abram said:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Hi, Chick! No offense taken. We simply have a difference of opinion; that's all. I'm curious, though, as to how much of the Book of Mormon you've actually read? All of it? Most of it? A few passages here and there? In my experience, most people, when pressed to explain what teachings in the Book of Mormon they find objectionable, can name few if any. It seems that the existence of the book is more problematic for most people that its content.glasgowchick said:
I think it's entirely unfair to say that the Book of Mormon "condemns" the Bible. It's one thing to say that the Bible is incomplete and quite another to condemn it. The Latter-day Saints love the Bible, and anyone who says otherwise is simply making a flawed assumption. This coming year (2006), we will be studying the Old Testament in Sunday School. When I say that we'll be studying it, I mean we will be trying to learn from it. We won't be picking it apart or trying to ascertain which verses may have been translated incorrectly. We will be focusing on it every week throughout the year and will be strongly encouraged to read it. The following year, we will be doing the same thing with the New Testament. If the Book of Mormon really did "condemn" it, as you've said is the case, I can assure you we wouldn't spend so much time studying it.
And why are you so sure that this is not the case? When Jesus was teaching His gospel, nobody was sitting around with a laptop or tape recorder. Do you really believe that during the three years of Jesus' ministry, everything He said was written down and that, during the several hundred years between His death and when the Bible was compiled, no errors whatsoever crept into the handwritten manscripts handed down from generation to generation?
Have you ever had one of those Bibles where all of Jesus' words are printed in red? Stop to consider for a minute how relatively brief the accounts of His teachings really are. John 21:25 says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should bewritten every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should bewritten." You could argue that the really important things that Jesus taught did end up finding their way into the Bible, and I would counter that Jesus didn't waste one moment of His time on unimportant or trivial teachings. Paul wrote several epistles that are mentioned in the Bible which are, nevertheless, missing from it. By what rationale do you dismiss them as being insignificant? You don't even know what they said!
Interesting... If the Bible is, in fact, a letter-perfect translation of the word of God as received by His prophets and apostles over a 4000+ year period of time, to which translation would this rather rash statement apply? In my experience, there are some pretty major differences between the various translations now available. Are you saying that we can categorically accept as undeniable fact that each and every one of them -- in spite of their differences -- is a perfect translation? And why, if there were translation errors, would you feel compelled to accept the verses in error?
Yes, we have four volumes of scripture. However, Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie is not one of them, and the statement you quoted is false. As a matter of fact, the Book of Mormon states on the cover page, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God..." Nothing, and I do mean nothing, that involves human interaction is "accepted without qualification."
Kathryn
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Hi again, Chick.
I decided to break my response into two separate posts so that I could make them both a little shorter. Man, I wish I could master the art of brevity!
Kathryn
I decided to break my response into two separate posts so that I could make them both a little shorter. Man, I wish I could master the art of brevity!
I agree. What God said to His prophets and apostles was not only inspired but perfect. Unfortunately, human beings are not.glasgowchick said:
The Bible gives us a lot of valuable information. I believe the verses you mentioned explain what a tremendous resource it is. Unfortunately, none of those verses tell us that the Bible contains everything we need for salvation. They just don't.
I think that's debatable. Are you saying that all "born again" believers interpret the Bible in exactly the same way? Judging from what I've read on this forum, that doesn't appear to be the case. Or maybe you're saying that a lot of us really haven't been "born again." I don't know about everybody else, but I feel kind of bad that you would think you are able to judge the condition of my heart. I truly believe I have been "born again," but my understanding of the Bible is not the same as yours.
Hmm, does that mean God has restricted Himself and that if He has something more to say, He is prohibited by the scriptures from doing so? If God said, way back in Deuteronomy, that no one was to add to His words, then the writers of the remainder of the Old Testament as well as all of the writers of the New Testament were guilty of breaking this commandment. As a matter of fact, John the beloved was guilty of this himself, since he wrote his gospel account after he recorded the book of Revelation.
I'm going to let a priesthood holder respond to the statements on the priesthood since they may be able to do so more competently than I. However, I do feel justified in pointing out to you that Doctrines of Salvation (not Doctrine and Salvation, by the way) by Joseph F. Smith is not part of the LDS canon any more than Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie is. While I have no quarrel with what Joseph F. Smith said, I always find it kind of amusing that a non-member of our Church would come up with quotations out of a book as old as Doctrines of Salvation. Where did you get your copy?
Kathryn
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I think there are very, very few of our doctrines for which there is not some Biblical evidence. If someone can think of one, I'd be happy to retract my statement. In some cases we interpret certain verses differently than other Christians, but I think that there are good arguments for all LDS doctrine in the Bible. When debating points of doctrine with other Christians, I stick to the Bible alone at least 95% of the time.Abram said:
Hi GlasglowChick,
I'll try to answer some of your questions regarding the priesthood. Members of the LDS church believe that the priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God. Katzpur pointed out that the book you quoted from is not LDS scripture, but I have no disagreement with that statement.
I agree with you that Christ is the greatest high priest - but he wasn't the only high priest. We believe that Christ's authority is needed and that he is the head of the priesthood. In the Bible we read that after Christ's death, people were ordained to offices in the priesthood through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6). This is how the priesthood was given to Joseph Smith and how it is given to every worthy male in the LDS church. The actual name of the Melchezidek Prieshood is the contained in the Doctrine and Covenants:
D&C 107: 1-4 - There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
I was going through the scriptures you gave, and didn't follow your thoughts on most of them. Perhaps you could expound or another LDS member could comment who understands the direction you're headed. I can take a deeper look into it when I have more time.
I'll try to answer some of your questions regarding the priesthood. Members of the LDS church believe that the priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God. Katzpur pointed out that the book you quoted from is not LDS scripture, but I have no disagreement with that statement.
I agree with you that Christ is the greatest high priest - but he wasn't the only high priest. We believe that Christ's authority is needed and that he is the head of the priesthood. In the Bible we read that after Christ's death, people were ordained to offices in the priesthood through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6). This is how the priesthood was given to Joseph Smith and how it is given to every worthy male in the LDS church. The actual name of the Melchezidek Prieshood is the contained in the Doctrine and Covenants:
D&C 107: 1-4 - There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
I was going through the scriptures you gave, and didn't follow your thoughts on most of them. Perhaps you could expound or another LDS member could comment who understands the direction you're headed. I can take a deeper look into it when I have more time.
DeepShadow
White Crow
GC, I thank you for your kind and frank introduction. I'll do my very best to match that tone in my own post.
"And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."
On top of that, there's a difference between a successor and a joint-heir. We are told by Paul in Romans 8:17
"..and if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."
If Christ chose to share his priesthood with me, who am I to refuse? Christ apparently did so with the early church, as stated in 1 Peter 2:9 (your quote, below)
GC, obviously you've got your own interpretations of these scriptures, and I respect that. My point here is that there is room for another interpretation, in such a way that the Bible and Book of Mormon needn't contradict. FWIW, much of what we have here on the priesthoods isn't contradicted by the Book of Mormon. If the church website wasn't down at the moment, I'd paste Alma 13:1-8, which is the most detailed account of the priesthood in the BoM, and it's pre-crucifiction, so there's no contradiction with your interpretation, either.
While from a non-doctrinal source, the quote seems quite accurate. A doctrinal source on this would be the Bible, which says much the same thing in Hebrews 5:4:
"And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."
No argument here!
...still no argument...
Hold it! Hebrews 7:16,17 does say Christ received the priesthood, but it says nothing about receiving it alone. That makes a huge difference.
On top of that, there's a difference between a successor and a joint-heir. We are told by Paul in Romans 8:17
"..and if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."
If Christ chose to share his priesthood with me, who am I to refuse? Christ apparently did so with the early church, as stated in 1 Peter 2:9 (your quote, below)
True, but as part of that offering, Christ set a new function for the Aaronic priesthood: he passed the bread and wine to his Apostles, telling them to eat and drink of his flesh and blood. This was how, as you say:
Note these scriptures say the priesthood changed, while the law ended. Doesn't this strongly imply that the priesthood was still around after the crucifixion? What function could they perform but what they had seen their great exemplar do? Thus he makes intercession for us, but allows us to stand in his stead and learn by doing what he did. This is the change: post-crucifixion the Aaronic priesthood gave the new offering--the flesh and blood of the Savior, symbolized in bread and wine--in place of the old one.
True, but he said the exact same thing in Exodus 19:6. Taken in that context, this also strongly suggests that the old priesthood had changed, but had not ended, as the law had. This new priesthood was merely the old one with new duties.
And we're back to no argument here!
GC, obviously you've got your own interpretations of these scriptures, and I respect that. My point here is that there is room for another interpretation, in such a way that the Bible and Book of Mormon needn't contradict. FWIW, much of what we have here on the priesthoods isn't contradicted by the Book of Mormon. If the church website wasn't down at the moment, I'd paste Alma 13:1-8, which is the most detailed account of the priesthood in the BoM, and it's pre-crucifiction, so there's no contradiction with your interpretation, either.
DeepShadow
White Crow
In a word, no. Even if you can find a Biblical basis for every doctrine and practice, this is a living church that is based in living revelation. We're concerned with what God has to say for us today. It's the difference between reading a book every day and carrying on a correspondence with the author. Even if everything he says has already been said, it's different to hear it today.Abram said:
joeboonda
Well-Known Member
Has God Revealed Anything Further to Mankind Since The First Century?
There is evidence that the canon of Scripture was complete in the first century. Has God, since that time, revealed anything that is to be added to Holy Scripture?
Claims Do Not Make It True
The mere claim that God spoke to an individual does not make it true. There has to be evidence to back up the claim. The question Is, "Does the evidence support the claim that God spoke through them?" The Bible instructs us to test the spirits:
The downfall of all the books that have had inspiration claimed for them is that they present a different revelation from what has previously been recorded. They contradict the Bible. For example, the Koran says that Jesus was not the Son of God and that He did not die upon the cross for the sins of the world.
The sacred books of Mormonism teach that there exist many gods rather than the one God the Bible speaks of. In addition, Mormonism teaches that each male can someday become a god himself, Mormonism also denies the doctrine of the Trinity. salvation by grace through faith, and the eternal punishment of the wicked.
No Book Qualifies
Every book written since the completion of the Bible that claims to be further revelation from God fails on the same ground. They all deny that Jesus Christ is God Himself, second Person of the Trinity. These works also deny salvation by grace through faith. They preached a different gospel. The Apostle Paul warned the church at Galatia about such people.
Furthermore, there is no substantiating evidence such as fulfilled prophecy to demonstrate the books are of divine inspiration.
Thus, as we examine the various books that have been written since the completion of the New Testament that have claimed to be further revelation from God, we find them coming short of the mark. The Bible warns:
Can Anything Be Added To the Bible Today?
We have seen that the canon was closed in the first century, and that since then God has not revealed anything on the level with Holy Scripture.
Westminster Confession
"The Westminster Confession," a seventeenth-century statement of faith, says concerning the Bible,
No Direct Word
However, there is no direct word in the Bible that says God has stopped revealing Himself. Some have appealed to the following verses in the Book of Revelation.
Yet there is a principle here that is clearly taught. No one is to add or to take away from the revealed Word of God.
Jude makes a statement that Is pertinent to' our discussion.
We know the nature of God does not change:
The Bible says clearly that the faith has been completely revealed. Therefore, If any new revelation were to come from God, it would be consistent with past revelations.
Even if a work met all of the above criteria, it would not necessarily be the Word of God. While theoretically it is possible that God could add something to what He has previously revealed, it is highly unlikely that this would be the case. The faith has already been delivered to mankind. Any further word from God to man is not necessary. The canon of Scripture is complete.
Table of Contents
Conclusion
After considering the subject of the canon of Scripture we can make the following conclusions.
1. The term canon refers to the authoritative books of Scripture.
2. God is the One who decided which books should be placed in the Bible.
3. We know the correct books are in the Bible because of the testimony of Jesus
4. The Apocrypha, books considered inspired by the Roman Catholic church, do not give evidence of inspiration.
5. Recent books that have claimed Divine inspiration have proven themselves to be frauds.
6. The Scripture is complete. Nothing should be added or subtracted from it.
Thank you for your interest in the Blue Letter Bible and we hope that God will grant you continual blessing in your studies.
There is evidence that the canon of Scripture was complete in the first century. Has God, since that time, revealed anything that is to be added to Holy Scripture?
Claims Do Not Make It True
The mere claim that God spoke to an individual does not make it true. There has to be evidence to back up the claim. The question Is, "Does the evidence support the claim that God spoke through them?" The Bible instructs us to test the spirits:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1).
When we test the claims of those who have brought forth a "new Scripture" we find them to be untrue.
The downfall of all the books that have had inspiration claimed for them is that they present a different revelation from what has previously been recorded. They contradict the Bible. For example, the Koran says that Jesus was not the Son of God and that He did not die upon the cross for the sins of the world.
The sacred books of Mormonism teach that there exist many gods rather than the one God the Bible speaks of. In addition, Mormonism teaches that each male can someday become a god himself, Mormonism also denies the doctrine of the Trinity. salvation by grace through faith, and the eternal punishment of the wicked.
No Book Qualifies
Every book written since the completion of the Bible that claims to be further revelation from God fails on the same ground. They all deny that Jesus Christ is God Himself, second Person of the Trinity. These works also deny salvation by grace through faith. They preached a different gospel. The Apostle Paul warned the church at Galatia about such people.
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel ... But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:6,8).
No Evidence
Furthermore, there is no substantiating evidence such as fulfilled prophecy to demonstrate the books are of divine inspiration.
Thus, as we examine the various books that have been written since the completion of the New Testament that have claimed to be further revelation from God, we find them coming short of the mark. The Bible warns:
Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar (Proverbs 30:5,6).
Table of Contents
Can Anything Be Added To the Bible Today?
We have seen that the canon was closed in the first century, and that since then God has not revealed anything on the level with Holy Scripture.
Westminster Confession
"The Westminster Confession," a seventeenth-century statement of faith, says concerning the Bible,
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men ("Westminster Confession," 1:10).
According to this statement, which sums up the Protestant view of Scripture, nothing is to be added or subtracted from the Bible. The revelation from God to man has been completed.
No Direct Word
However, there is no direct word in the Bible that says God has stopped revealing Himself. Some have appealed to the following verses in the Book of Revelation.
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life (Revelation 22:18,19).
This is only speaking of the Book of Revelation. It is not a commandment against adding any other book to Scripture. If taken literally, then you could not have any other book in Scripture but the Book of Revelation!
Yet there is a principle here that is clearly taught. No one is to add or to take away from the revealed Word of God.
Jude makes a statement that Is pertinent to' our discussion.
I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which has one for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
This verse teaches that a body of truth from God has been delivered to man and that this faith has been wholly delivered. This seems to indicate that no further revelation from God is necessary. God has told us in Scripture everything that we need to know about who He is, who we are, and what will happen to the earth in the future.
We know the nature of God does not change:
The Bible says clearly that the faith has been completely revealed. Therefore, If any new revelation were to come from God, it would be consistent with past revelations.
Even if a work met all of the above criteria, it would not necessarily be the Word of God. While theoretically it is possible that God could add something to what He has previously revealed, it is highly unlikely that this would be the case. The faith has already been delivered to mankind. Any further word from God to man is not necessary. The canon of Scripture is complete.
Table of Contents
Conclusion
After considering the subject of the canon of Scripture we can make the following conclusions.
1. The term canon refers to the authoritative books of Scripture.
2. God is the One who decided which books should be placed in the Bible.
3. We know the correct books are in the Bible because of the testimony of Jesus
4. The Apocrypha, books considered inspired by the Roman Catholic church, do not give evidence of inspiration.
5. Recent books that have claimed Divine inspiration have proven themselves to be frauds.
6. The Scripture is complete. Nothing should be added or subtracted from it.
Thank you for your interest in the Blue Letter Bible and we hope that God will grant you continual blessing in your studies.
SoyLeche
meh...
Yesterday I put the October General Conference of the LDS church on my MP3 player, and was listening to it on the drive from Rexburg, ID to Layton UT (about 3 hours). I realized that pretty much everything that was said has been said many, many times before. Does that mean that there is no value to listening to someone elses take on things? Even if the basic message is the same, the delivery is different and can stimulate your mind in different ways. Isn't that why any church goer attends church every week?
Joe,
You said,
The only way to determine if anything is of God is by revelation.
This is the foundation of Jesus Christ's church.
Flesh and blood does not reveal that Jesus has come in the flesh, but the Father reveals it to those who will receive it.
By the same principle, the Old testament was in the same situation as the New Testament.
In the Old Testament we read that no words should be added. And, that was in Deuteronomy. So, if we go as literal as what you are implying, the Bible should have stopped there.
If God, through Moses said don't add, and God doesn't change what need is there for scriptures after God's pronouncement of don't add ?
This don't add is also in Revelations. But, in revelations we also find it stated that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy.
Now, if I understand prophecy correctly, it is a spiritual knowing that is not limited to time. Prophecy is stated in time, but its fulfillment is linked to future events beyond the time of its initial commitment to words.
In other words, the ink on paper that is called a Bible, is a representation of words given in time, yet those words (if they are prophetic) will go beyond when they were first spoken and interesect actual flesh and blood life at a future point in time.
The best illustration of this might be the propehcies concerning Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection. They were all in the Old Testament.
Do you realize their are many Jewish people who believe the Old Testament is the word of God but not the New Testament. Why can't they see all the clear prophecies in the Psalms and the prophets?
It's clear to me, they have closed their mind and their "Canon" just as you have.
The prophecies concerning Jesus have only been partially fulfilled. The prophetic words written in the Old and New Testament will yet intersect in real time.
If you think you can close a book and have the audacity to think that God doesn't change and then say God does not reveal anymore you have placed yourself in a dangerous position.
God is sovereign, he does not have to check in with you or any Christian theologian. If you do not have enough humility to see that this might be the case, you have missed the point of Jesus Christ's atonement and example, as well as the intent of the Bible.
BenJosh
You said,
The only way to determine if anything is of God is by revelation.
This is the foundation of Jesus Christ's church.
Flesh and blood does not reveal that Jesus has come in the flesh, but the Father reveals it to those who will receive it.
By the same principle, the Old testament was in the same situation as the New Testament.
In the Old Testament we read that no words should be added. And, that was in Deuteronomy. So, if we go as literal as what you are implying, the Bible should have stopped there.
If God, through Moses said don't add, and God doesn't change what need is there for scriptures after God's pronouncement of don't add ?
This don't add is also in Revelations. But, in revelations we also find it stated that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy.
Now, if I understand prophecy correctly, it is a spiritual knowing that is not limited to time. Prophecy is stated in time, but its fulfillment is linked to future events beyond the time of its initial commitment to words.
In other words, the ink on paper that is called a Bible, is a representation of words given in time, yet those words (if they are prophetic) will go beyond when they were first spoken and interesect actual flesh and blood life at a future point in time.
The best illustration of this might be the propehcies concerning Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection. They were all in the Old Testament.
Do you realize their are many Jewish people who believe the Old Testament is the word of God but not the New Testament. Why can't they see all the clear prophecies in the Psalms and the prophets?
It's clear to me, they have closed their mind and their "Canon" just as you have.
The prophecies concerning Jesus have only been partially fulfilled. The prophetic words written in the Old and New Testament will yet intersect in real time.
If you think you can close a book and have the audacity to think that God doesn't change and then say God does not reveal anymore you have placed yourself in a dangerous position.
God is sovereign, he does not have to check in with you or any Christian theologian. If you do not have enough humility to see that this might be the case, you have missed the point of Jesus Christ's atonement and example, as well as the intent of the Bible.
BenJosh
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
This is supposed to be a discussion board not a debate board. Maybe they were too much like an attack on the LDS.Abram said:
Regards,
Scott
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
They were deleted since they were debating the validity of the Book of Mormon. This is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. It's for asking questions and not for arguing. Up until those two posts appeared, everyone who has posted has kept that in mind. Don't worry, they may show up again on a debate forum and if they do, that's fine. They will be allowed to remain there.Abram said: