LDS beliefs and the Bible

[SoyLeche]

As someone who has to love statistics, i love the argument.

If this is the case though, why were they not added at the same time? Why the need for another book after the Holy Spirit had been sent to reveal the truth Himself?

10000 miles, a couple of oceans, and no fax machines or airplanes.

 

[Arrow]

you cant confine the workings of God to technology.

 

[Arrow]

nvm that was a horrible argument lol

 

[SoyLeche]

you cant confine the workings of God to technology.

I'm not - and neither did he. He worked it out in both places just fine

nvm that was a horrible argument lol

 

[Arrow]

alright so could you help me in understanding what the big differences between the two are. so i can get some bearings on this.

 

[SoyLeche]

alright so could you help me in understanding what the big differences between the two are. so i can get some bearings on this.

You are going to have to define your question a little better so that I have a better chance of actually answering the question you want answered.

 

[Katzpur]

If they are equal then what need is there for the Book of Mormon and what gives the Book of Mormon the same status as the Bible?

To a Latter-day Saint, what's kind of like saying, if Matthew's gospel is equal in status to Luke's, is there really a need for Luke's? If John's gospel is no more accurate than Mark's, why do we need both? Each of the gospel accounts teaches covers much of the same material but each adds a new perspective. The Book of Mormon stands as a second witness to the divinity of Christ. It is a record of His post-resurrection ministry among the people on the American continent. It's purpose is to testify of Christ and to bear witness that the words He spoke to the people of the Holy Land were true.

The New Testament abolishes the old covenant in the Old Testament because it was incomplete. The only reason i see for the Book of Mormon coming into existence would to do the same, yet i do not see how this could be possible considering the covenant of the New Testament is perfect through Christ. There is no other book that does this; thus the Bible could have no equal only commentaries or things written about it to maybe get some attempted (because we are human) clarification.

Well, as SoyLeche said, the Book of Mormon is not a man-made commentary but another holy text altogether. It doesn't contradict the Bible in any way, but it does provide a more in-depth explanations of certain doctrine the Bible alludes to but does not clarify.

 

[Orontes]

Hello,

I have basically focused on Fish-Hunter's posts in this thread. I have been critical of a general sloppiness and failure to give any type of wherefore for many of his charges: example, and example. I have also noted a fundamental category mistake in his stance that undercuts the whole tenor of his postion: post. Even so, I noted this statement at the head of your challenge: "Due to the extremely annoying level of anti-mormonism eminating from the lips of Fish-Hunter i will challenge him to a 1 on 1 about how the LDS view the Bible so he will shut up." Fish-Hunter believes his view is the correct one and Mormonism is flawed. He is also passionate about his views. I think that is fine, a free exchange of ideas is a good thing. For what it's worth, I don't think Fish-Hunter intends to be annoying, nor does he strike me as any kind of bigot or a nasty fellow.

Well, thank you! We share because we believe what we believe. We share for the obedience and love for the God we know. We share for the privlidge and the joy of it. Why do you think Jesus endured the cross? The answer is found in Hebrews?

Happy to. While I think your positioning is deeply confused, I don't think your posts are nasty in the least. To that positioning: there is a category mistake that undercuts all that follows. I point it out here.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

It seems we should move to the next topic since I have not seen an attempt to support the LDS proclamation of the gospel through the 13 letters of Paul. I assume the silence is admitting that the gospel proclaimed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints cannot be supported through the writings of Paul. Wha't the next topic within the intent of this thread?

Sola'lor
This thread is a continuation of a discussion from another thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish-Hunter
**Thanks for correcting my error and I welcome it! I'm not sure if that one verse is even close to imply that there would be a wholesale apostasy of the Christian church. What happened to Joseph Smith's translation of the Christian Bible...not good enough for the LDS Church to use? Do you mind presenting a case for the entire apostasy of the 1st century through the 19th century church through the Christian Bible. I would love to read in context whatever Bible verses you can come up with. Does the Christian Bible ever point to the restoration movement of the LDS Church and a prophet of Joseph Smith? The other sheep is the Gentiles. If you wish to discuss, maybe you could start another thread and I would love to particpate. But before you start, can the Mormon Faith be supported apart from the Book of Mormon? Can the apostasy be strongly supported by the Holy Bible with scriptures taken in proper context? The proper context is the entire Bible, or at least the entire book of Amos.

The main topic of this will be these questions in Fish-Hunter's post. But I gave the thread a more general name because I'm sure there will be other topics about Mormon beliefs and the Bible that could be discussed here too.

I'll answer these questions shortly.

 

[madhatter85]

It seems we should move to the next topic since I have not seen an attempt to support the LDS proclamation of the gospel through the 13 letters of Paul. I assume the silence is admitting that the gospel proclaimed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints cannot be supported through the writings of Paul. Wha't the next topic within the intent of this thread?

lmao. LMAO :ROFL:


you seriously don't want to reply to my thread? or have you not visited it here -

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...6-fish-hunter-madhatter85-lds-bible-word.html

 

[Fish-Hunter]

lmao. LMAO :ROFL:


you seriously don't want to reply to my thread? or have you not visited it here -

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...6-fish-hunter-madhatter85-lds-bible-word.html

Thanks for the invite; maybe at a later time. Do you agree that the LDS proclamation of the gospel of God's grace cannot be supported by the 13 letters of the Apostle of Paul?

 

[Katzpur]

It seems we should move to the next topic since I have not seen an attempt to support the LDS proclamation of the gospel through the 13 letters of Paul. I assume the silence is admitting that the gospel proclaimed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints cannot be supported through the writings of Paul. Wha't the next topic within the intent of this thread?

The only thing I think you can safely assume is that we're all getting tired of this nonsense. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back, Fish-Hunter, and declare yourself the winner of this debate if it will make you feel any better. Clearly, Draka hit the nail on the head when she said:

Hmmm, so that's how a debate works.

You start a thread with a blanket statement with an opinion of what something means...

You ignore what others have to say about said opinion...

You continue to state it as fact...

You declare debate over and that you win.

Hmmmm...I guess you learn something new everyday. I didn't know that was how to debate.

 

[uss_bigd]

Thanks for the invite; maybe at a later time. Do you agree that the LDS proclamation of the gospel of God's grace cannot be supported by the 13 letters of the Apostle of Paul?

scared?


I am waiting for your reply in the "is baptism required to salvation thread" :yes:

stop picking on the Mormons, they might be more christian than you are....

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for the invite; maybe at a later time. Do you agree that the LDS proclamation of the gospel of God's grace cannot be supported by the 13 letters of the Apostle of Paul?

The LDS understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ can be found in the sum total of God's word, which is contained in all scripture and in the words of the prophets -- both ancient and modern. One solitary apostle's writings do not constitute the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whenever someone focuses on only part of what God has revealed, they are sure to end up with a skewed understanding.

 

[uss_bigd]

The LDS understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ can be found in the sum total of God's word, which is contained in all scripture and in the words of the prophets -- both ancient and modern. One solitary apostle's writings do not constitute the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whenever someone focuses on only part of what God has revealed, they are sure to end up with a skewed understanding.

right! the book of James said " faith without works is dead' and he said there is a pure and undefiled religion.:yes:

Do you believe in being saved by faith alone fish hunter? and that religion is not necessary?

 

[Fish-Hunter]

The LDS understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ can be found in the sum total of God's word, which is contained in all scripture and in the words of the prophets -- both ancient and modern. One solitary apostle's writings do not constitute the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whenever someone focuses on only part of what God has revealed, they are sure to end up with a skewed understanding.

Are you going to state in every discussion and debate that my understanding and beliefs are wrong because I only have the Holy Bible as my only source of truth? It seems you are implying that without extra-biblical revelation of the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, Price of Great Pearl, and the authority of modern day prophets, then I will always have incomplete and insufficient revelation from God?

I'm not trying to win a debate.

Galatians 6:14: - Paul and the Holy Bible
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

 

[Katzpur]

Are you going to state in every discussion and debate that my understanding and beliefs are wrong because I only have the Holy Bible as my only source of truth?

It seems to me that you don't even have the entire Bible. From all my discussions with you so far, it seems to me that you might as well just tear out Paul's thirteen epistles and chuck the rest. You don't seem to consider the rest of it particularly pertinent anyway.

It seems you are implying that without extra-biblical revelation of the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, Price of Great Pearl, and the authority of modern day prophets, then I will always have incomplete and insufficient revelation from God?

If the shoe fits, hon...

 

[Fish-Hunter]

It seems to me that you don't even have the entire Bible. From all my discussions with you so far, it seems to me that you might as well just tear out Paul's thirteen epistles and chuck the rest. You don't seem to consider the rest of it particularly pertinent anyway.

If the shoe fits, hon...

We have concluded together that the LDS understanding of the gospel cannot be supported within the 13 letters of the Apostle Paul alone.
I've said from the very beginning that the Bible needs to be understood and interpreted within the entire Bible (66 books). We were trying to have a manageable discussion by limiting the gospel according to the letters of Paul. We can expand our understanding of the gospel with the light of the entire Bible. I believe the gospel is partially revealed in Genesis chapter 3, and foreshadowed in types and pictures throughout the Old Testament. Let's stick to the topic of the gospel within the context of the entire Bible.

Acts 17:11:
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[uss_bigd]

I've said from the very beginning that the Bible needs to be understood and interpreted within the entire Bible (66 books). We were trying to have a manageable discussion by limiting the gospel according to the letters of Paul. We can expand our understanding of the gospel with the light of the entire Bible. I believe the gospel is partially revealed in Genesis chapter 3, and foreshadowed in types and pictures throughout the Old Testament. Let's stick to the topic of the gospel within the context of the entire Bible.

Don't you get it? they have declared countless times, they don't base on the bible alone. period.

So we have to move on now ok? so why haven't replied on the "is baptism necessary thread?" shall i start a thread entitled " fish hunter and the bible?

 

[madhatter85]

Thanks for the invite; maybe at a later time. Do you agree that the LDS proclamation of the gospel of God's grace cannot be supported by the 13 letters of the Apostle of Paul?

no, i do not agree with any of your nonsense.

if you want to debate how our doctrine is fully supported by the pauline epistles, start a new thread. and point out what of our doctrine you believe is not supported by them and i will show you how it is.