Why Do Mormons Use the King James Version of the Bible Instead of the Joseph Smith Translation?

That’s a darn good question. For those of you who don’t know, “A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as “a branch of his calling” as a prophet. Although the major portion of the work was completed by July 1833, he continued to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for the press until his death in 1844, and it is possible that some additional modifications would have been made had he lived to publish the entire work. Some parts of the translation were published during his lifetime.” (from http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng).

So why don’t Mormons use this Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST, for future reference)?

Perhaps the biggest reason is that it was never really finished, per se, prior to Joseph’s death. The normal path for it to be accepted as scripture by the LDS Church would have been for it to be finished, approved officially by the leadership and membership of the Church, and then and only then would it have become scripture for the LDS Church. But Joseph was killed while still working on it. After that, his wife Emma left the LDS Church and retained possession of the original manuscripts, so the LDS Church didn’t even have the JST. After Brigham Young took the members west to present-day Utah, there was a lot of mistrust between the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded with Joseph and Emma’s son as its leader, and the LDS Church. Brigham Young and others suspected the RLDS Church had tampered with the original manuscripts. It wasn’t until the early 1970s that the RLDS and LDS Churches began to cooperate on certain matters and the JST started being used as a reference in the LDS Church. At this point there was well over 100 years of the King James Version being the standard Bible for Mormons, and so in 1980 a revised version of the KJV Bible was printed with footnotes and references to the JST, with some parts of the JST having been canonized.

Additional references:

Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As the Church’s official Bible

Comments

  1. It says in the King James Version bible in Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." Any additional "scriptures" that have been canonized, aside from the thousands of manuscripts we have proving the original canon of scripture, are false. It says in the Bible to beware of false prophets, for they will arise in the last days. They're wolves in sheep's clothing, just as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were and all those that have been deceived by the teaching of mormonism. If you want to know the truth about what God wants people to know, ask Him yourself. Ask Him to show Himself to you, and He will. He is faithful.

    • What is "this book"mentioned in Revelation? Is it the Bible, or just Revelation itself?

      How do you know Joseph Smith is a wolf rather than a true prophet?

  2. This command is shown other places as well in scripture: Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." These are just 2 examples. I personally would take that quite literally. There really isn't a figurative way to take it. How in the world would anyone explain the JST version of the Bible? Or the book of mormon? It's frustrating just thinking about it. Your religion in all it's self-given authority has changed the so-called "most accurate and complete book in history" as said by Joseph Smith hundreds, if not, thousands of times since it's been written, which seems to be to fit the new generation of people you want in your cult. The difference between the book or mormon and the bible is that the bible has never changed once. There are over 25,000 copies of the original manuscripts of the books of the bible, there's the Septuagint, the dead sea scrolls, etc. etc. There's also a reason nothing arose between the time of Joseph Smith and the canonization of the Bible, because the Bible was God's Word, and God's only Word, breathed by God and written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by men. It says in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If there was more to the story would God, in all of his sovereignty, grace, mercy, compassion and understanding of man, not have given us everything He wanted us to know? Why would He wait 16 or 1700 some odd years to give us some random new revelation through some kid named Joseph Smith? It doesn't make any sense. I've been studying mormonism lately, and it contradicts scripture quite often. The JST version contradicts and adds stuff all over the place. If that is not a necessary piece of your doctrinal teaching, and Joseph Smith wrote it, who is a prophet (supposedly), but you don't teach from it, but it's still there, how in the world would you take anything else that he wrote for being prophetic? Do mormons show him grace in his errors? I could type a book just in discussion about the geographical fallacies in the book of mormon. But, we won't go there for now. I would really like to hear your response to all of what I've stated, so take your time, just as I've taken mine.

    There are multiple places throughout the Word where Christians (not mormons) are warned to beware of false prophets that arise in the last days such as: The Words of Jesus in Matthew 27:15-27 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

    Ezekiel 22:25-28 [There is] a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof. 26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed [difference] between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. 27 Her princes in the midst thereof [are] like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, [and] to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. 28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered [morter], seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken.

    Again, just a couple examples. Now consider the words of Jesus in the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, I challenge you to do so. Get a King James Bible that has Christ's words in red, it'll be much easier and quicker for you. Read what He said, and read what He wants the world to know.

  3. If Deuteronomy 4:2 says "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." then why do you believe any part of the Bible that comes after Deut. 4:2?

    This is also addressed in another post here.

    "Your religion in all it’s self-given authority has changed the so-called 'most accurate and complete book in history' as said by Joseph Smith hundreds, if not, thousands of times since it’s been written"

    This is addressed in another post here.

    "The difference between the book or mormon and the bible is that the bible has never changed once."

    Explain "never changed once", because I can walk into any bookstore and find several versions of the Bible, each with different words in them.

    "There are over 25,000 copies of the original manuscripts of the books of the bible, there’s the Septuagint, the dead sea scrolls, etc. etc."

    Really? The Dead Sea Scrolls and these other 25,000 copies were copied directly from what Abraham, Isaac, Isaiah, and Jeremiah wrote with their own hands? The very documents the prophets created themselves?

    "Why would He wait 16 or 1700 some odd years to give us some random new revelation through some kid named Joseph Smith?"

    I think there's a scripture in Isaiah that says something about God's ways not being man's ways?

    "I’ve been studying mormonism lately, and it contradicts scripture quite often."

    It contradicts scripture, or your interpretation of scripture?

    "The JST version contradicts and adds stuff all over the place."

    Which makes perfect sense if the Bible has been corrupted and things deleted, right?

    "If that is not a necessary piece of your doctrinal teaching, and Joseph Smith wrote it, who is a prophet (supposedly), but you don’t teach from it, but it’s still there, how in the world would you take anything else that he wrote for being prophetic?"

    We do teach from it. It's used quite a bit as a resource. The printings of the KJV of the Bible the LDS Church produces have footnotes and references to the JST all over the place.

    "Do mormons show him grace in his errors?"

    Yes, I guess, if I understand your question correctly.

    You quoted Matthew 27:15-27 and other scriptures, but you didn't explain how it can be proven that these scriptures are referring to someone like Joseph Smith. The fruits of Joseph Smith lead me to believe he's a true prophet. You believe otherwise. How can someone know who is right?

    "Now consider the words of Jesus in the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, I challenge you to do so. Get a King James Bible that has Christ’s words in red, it’ll be much easier and quicker for you. Read what He said, and read what He wants the world to know."

    I've read it. I read it all the time. The entire LDS Church is studying the New Testament right now, every Sunday. The LDS Church has a rotating curriculum that repeats every four years. It starts with the Old Testament, then goes to the New Testament, then Book of Mormon, then Doctrine and Covenants, and then starts over. Our Seminary (a 5 day a week study program all LDS teens are expected to participate in) and Institute (a similar program for college students) programs follow the same schedule. In other words there is twice as much time officially dedicated by the LDS Church to studying the Bible compared to the Book of Mormon. So Mormons do study the King James Version of the Bible quite a bit. We revere it as scripture and try to live its teachings, we just admit that it was tampered with a bit over the years. But you don't throw a car in the river just because it has a few dents, or throw away a banana because it has a little spot, or divorce your wife because she has a mole on her chin.

  4. "If Deuteronomy 4:2 says “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” then why do you believe any part of the Bible that comes after Deut. 4:2?" -Read in context. You might actually understand. And compare the context with the JST.

    "We revere it as scripture and try to live its teachings, we just admit that it was tampered with a bit over the years." -In other words, mormons don't think that God, being the Almighty, the creator of the heavens and earth, could have divinely intervened when His Word was given to men to be written down and translated in to different languages? The KJV is taken strait from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which we still have today. The copies we have of those original manuscripts were hand copied from the original manuscripts, yes, over 25,000 times. No, not by the original authors. Again, does that mean that God could not have divinely intervened when the original, God-breathed, hand written manuscripts were copied numerous times for us to have as reference? You guys really like to limit God. Mormons have taken matters into their own hands and added or taken from the Bible as they see fit. And I'm sure you're thinking "well, sure, but couldn't God have divinely intervened when Joseph Smith wrote his version of the Bible? Or when he wrote the book or Mormon or any of our other doctrinal beliefs?" The answer has to be no, because there is nowhere in the Bible that ever mentions Joseph Smith or even hints to him at all, or ever mentions anything about America and some prophet rising up in the 19th century AD in New York city. Or is there something I'm missing? Yea, didn't think so.

    I'm going to post this again, the words of Jesus in Matthew 27:15-27 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

    Comment on His words. Comment on the Bible, not my words. I'm not perfect and may not have all the answers, hence I go to the Word, and hence you steer clear of the Word and only criticize what I'm saying.

    It says in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” If there was more to the story would God, in all of his sovereignty, grace, mercy, compassion and understanding of man, not have given us everything He wanted us to know? Why would He wait 16 or 1700 some odd years to give us some random new revelation through some kid named Joseph Smith? It doesn’t make any sense. I’ve been studying mormonism lately, and it contradicts scripture quite often. The JST version contradicts and adds stuff all over the place. If that is not a necessary piece of your doctrinal teaching, and Joseph Smith wrote it, who is a prophet (supposedly), but you don’t teach from it, but it’s still there, how in the world would you take anything else that he wrote for being prophetic? Do mormons show him grace in his errors? I could type a book just in discussion about the geographical fallacies in the book of mormon. But, we won’t go there for now. I would really like to hear your response to all of what I’ve stated, so take your time, just as I’ve taken mine.

    I'm going to copy and paste everything until you comment on it all. No new "revelation" is possible according to John 1:1. The Bible we have was canonized the way it is because God wanted it to be that way. Christianity has been around for nearly 2,000 years, by definition. Thousand more then that by way of relationship with GOD. God is divine, just, merciful, and PERFECT. His Word has stood the test of time, and no, it has not been tampered with as mormons think. If it had been, that would cause all kinds of doubt about the whole of the scriptures, correct? If some things may not be true, because mormons say so, then why would any of it be true and why should anybody follow any of it? You have to believe all of what God has given us for any of it to make sense. You can't pick and chose, nor add or subtract. Once you do that, you turn the gospel of Jesus Christ into the gospel of man, or some guy, or whoever thinks they have the right interpretation.

  5. "Read in context. You might actually understand. And compare the context with the JST."

    The context is open to interpretation. My interpretation is that Deut 4:2, 12:32, and the passage in Revelation are all referring to the books of which they form a part, since at the time they were written there was no Bible to speak of. The book existed separately and were not combined into one book until around 300 years after Christ. And since the book of Revelation was not the last book of the Bible to be written, it is hard to believe it refers to the Bible, rather than merely to itself.

    That's my context, what's yours?

    "In other words, mormons don’t think that God, being the Almighty, the creator of the heavens and earth, could have divinely intervened when His Word was given to men to be written down and translated in to different languages?"

    We believe God could have done that, but we don't believe he did.

    "You guys really like to limit God."

    We place no limitation on God. But we believe what he has told us. God told us the Bible has been corrupted, so we believe what he has said.

    "Mormons have taken matters into their own hands and added or taken from the Bible as they see fit."

    I understand why you would believe this, but of course we don't see it this way. We do not believe we have taken matters into our own hands, we believe we are merely doing what God has told us to do.

    "And I’m sure you’re thinking 'well, sure, but couldn’t God have divinely intervened when Joseph Smith wrote his version of the Bible? Or when he wrote the book or Mormon or any of our other doctrinal beliefs?' The answer has to be no, because there is nowhere in the Bible that ever mentions Joseph Smith or even hints to him at all, or ever mentions anything about America and some prophet rising up in the 19th century AD in New York city. Or is there something I’m missing? Yea, didn’t think so."

    Where does the Bible say that in order for there to be a prophet in the future, details about that prophet must be contained in the Bible?

    "Comment on His words. Comment on the Bible, not my words."

    Ok. I don't believe Matthew 27:15-27 is talking about Joseph Smith or Mormons when it mentions wolves. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

    "If there was more to the story would God, in all of his sovereignty, grace, mercy, compassion and understanding of man, not have given us everything He wanted us to know? Why would He wait 16 or 1700 some odd years to give us some random new revelation through some kid named Joseph Smith?"

    Why wasn't everything in the Bible given to Adam? Or Abraham? Or Moses? Why did God wait thousands of year after Adam to send Jesus Christ?

    "No new “revelation” is possible according to John 1:1." which reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

    I don't see anything in John 1:1 that says no new revelation is possible. What is your interpretation of the scripture that leads you to believe that? Also, wasn't there quite a bit of revelation given after John 1:1?

    "The Bible we have was canonized the way it is because God wanted it to be that way."

    How do you know this?

    "If it had been, that would cause all kinds of doubt about the whole of the scriptures, correct?"

    It seems there is quite a bit of doubt about the scriptures. What other explanation is there for the many different Christian religions? Were they not started by disagreements about what different parts of the Bible mean?

    "You have to believe all of what God has given us for any of it to make sense. You can’t pick and chose, nor add or subtract."

    I agree completely.

    "Once you do that, you turn the gospel of Jesus Christ into the gospel of man, or some guy, or whoever thinks they have the right interpretation."

    This is why we don't pick and choose. We believe all that God has ever revealed unto man, and all that he continues to reveal.

    "One more super practical and logical statement by Jesus in John 14:6 'Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' Does Jesus mention following the teachings of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young which are supplemental to and necessary for salvation? Nope."

    Jesus also didn't mention many of the apostles who were called after his death, whose writings are in the Bible, like Paul's. Should we disregard everything Paul wrote?

  6. You're still not answering any of my questions. You're giving questions to questions. Don't ask me the opposite. Give me a solid foundation as to why you believe what you believe. I take the Bible to be literally the Word of God. I believe everything John 1:1 because the Word, all of it, was in with God in the beginning, not just everything before John 1:1. The entirety of the Bible points to Jesus. Everything. Everything Paul wrote, everything the other apostles wrote after Jesus' death all pointed to Jesus. It's all still God-breathed, and Christ-centered, whereas the book of Mormon is not Christ centered. If it was, no mention of a new prophet would be made. Christ would be glorified, not a man, correct? Christ is the center of all that Christians believe, not mormons. Mormons may teach the Bible, but not in context of it being God's only authoritative Word. I regard all of the Bible, Genesis to Revelation, to be put in place for God's purpose in letting the world know who Jesus Christ is. Pointing to the fact that we as a people, through the Law, have sin. And the penalty for that sin is death. We all are born with a sin nature. If we were born perfect we wouldn't need Jesus.
    Romans 3:19 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all [fn] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."
    Here's the free gift of God – His Son Jesus Christ. One must believe in Him and Him alone to be saved. It's not salvation through works; nor through anything of ourselves; it's faith in Christ alone. We (Christians) aren't here to work toward racking up treasures for our lives after death, but we (Christians) are to preach the name of Jesus because He told us to. We love God because He first loved us – Romans 5:7 "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him."
    John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Notice the word only, which means Jesus and Satan could not be brothers, which is what I'm told mormons believe.

    If you get a chance check out hotm.tv

  7. "You’re still not answering any of my questions. You’re giving questions to questions."

    Ok, here are some more direct answers:

    "Why would He wait 16 or 1700 some odd years to give us some random new revelation through some kid named Joseph Smith?"

    I believe that God gives information when, how, and to whom it pleases him in order to accomplish his plans for the human race. Adam was given the knowledge he and his people needed, Moses the knowledge he and his people needed, and Joseph Smith the knowledge he and his people needed, and the LDS Church is currently guided by a living prophet who receives the revelation the Church needs today. Why doesn't God just give all the knowledge all at once? I don't know. I can only have faith that he knows best and will give me the knowledge I need when I need it.

    "I take the Bible to be literally the Word of God."

    So do we, as far as it has been translated correctly.

    "The book of Mormon is not Christ centered. If it was, no mention of a new prophet would be made."

    Let's follow your logic. If I understand correctly, you're saying that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because it talks about prophets that aren't mentioned in the Bible. But where does the Bible say that there are no prophets other than those mentioned in the Bible?

    "Christ would be glorified, not a man, correct?"

    You seem to be suggesting that the Book of Mormon glorifies a man, rather than Christ. Who do you believe the Book of Mormon glorifies?

    "Christ is the center of all that Christians believe, not mormons."

    How is Christ not the center of all that Mormons believe? Who or what do you believe is the center of all Mormons believe?

    "Mormons may teach the Bible, but not in context of it being God’s only authoritative Word."

    You are accurate here, we believe that the Bible is not all God ever spoke to prophets, which is actually proven by the Bible itself, since it references words of prophets and apostles that are not contained in the Bible nor anywhere else because they were lost.

    Let me know if I missed any of your questions. Other than the one I answered at the beginning of this response, I'm not sure if I missed any others. And feel free to answer some of mine :)

  8. One more super practical and logical statement by Jesus in John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Does Jesus mention following the teachings of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young which are supplemental to and necessary for salvation? Nope.

  9. "I believe that God gives information when, how, and to whom it pleases him in order to accomplish his plans for the human race. Adam was given the knowledge he and his people needed, Moses the knowledge he and his people needed, and Joseph Smith the knowledge he and his people needed, and the LDS Church is currently guided by a living prophet who receives the revelation the Church needs today. Why doesn’t God just give all the knowledge all at once? I don’t know. I can only have faith that he knows best and will give me the knowledge I need when I need it."

    -Again, mormons take the authority of the scriptures away by saying God hasn't given us all of what we need, and we are continually guided by somebody who we've put in place because he says he's a prophet. Also, who is not mentioned in the Bible, hence Joseph Smith wrote his own version of the Bible with him mentioned. Sketchy? I think so.

    "So do we, as far as it has been translated correctly." You've said this over and over, that mormons only take scripture for what it says as long as mormons deem it having been translated correctly. Once again, thinking God could not have had any part of the translation process. Is He in heaven saying, "Oops, they translated it incorrectly, I'm gonna have to send a new prophet to set them strait." I honestly don't think so. Mormons don't teach authority in scripture, scripture having been overseen by God, otherwise you wouldn't question it all the time as you keep doing. You continue to answer my questions with more questions. Mormons have such a blind faith if they can't believe fully in the power of the Word of God, and the Word of God alone. Adding more "gospels" to it doesn't make it any more correct, but apparently it does, according to mormons. I see so much doubt and so much questioning in God all throughout everything you've said in this blog.

    "Let’s follow your logic. If I understand correctly, you’re saying that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because it talks about prophets that aren’t mentioned in the Bible. But where does the Bible say that there are no prophets other than those mentioned in the Bible?"

    -Where in the Bible does it say there will be new prophets? Nowhere. That's like me saying that frogs can fly because I believe they can, not because I have any kind of factual evidence. Like I said before, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and whatever other authoritative figures in the LDS church add to the the Bible or other doctrinal books to fit their own agenda, or the new generation. Again, not giving the Bible it's due authority; saying, rather, that there isn't enough in the Bible to give us salvation, so we must add to it, and follow other beliefs along with what we pick and choose in the Bible to attain salvation. Whereas, the Bible states that it's through faith alone in Christ alone that we are saved.

    "You seem to be suggesting that the Book of Mormon glorifies a man, rather than Christ. Who do you believe the Book of Mormon glorifies?"

    -Joseph Smith, his authority (according to him), and the entirety of the mormon belief system

    "You are accurate here, we believe that the Bible is not all God ever spoke to prophets, which is actually proven by the Bible itself, since it references words of prophets and apostles that are not contained in the Bible nor anywhere else because they were lost."

    -In other words, mormons believe the Bible contradicts itself. Show me where anything is referenced that isn't contained in scripture. And show me where it contradicts itself. If it really does, (which it doesn't Isaish 55:11 "So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." God's words) then why do mormons believe in a partial truth?

    "Let me know if I missed any of your questions. Other than the one I answered at the beginning of this response, I’m not sure if I missed any others. And feel free to answer some of mine"

    -You're not answering my questions. You're giving me more questions to my questions. You're not presenting any evidence whatsoever for why you believe what you believe. You haven't referenced any doctrinal beliefs, i.e. chapter, verse, etc. of an "authoritative" book of mormon. I've answered yours, always with scripture. I obviously have an opinion as well, but it's backed by the Word of God, hence I reference it repeatedly.

  10. "Again, mormons take the authority of the scriptures away by saying God hasn’t given us all of what we need, and we are continually guided by somebody who we’ve put in place because he says he’s a prophet."

    Your statement makes complete sense if you don't believe God is the one instructing us Mormons to do what we do.

    "Also, who is not mentioned in the Bible, hence Joseph Smith wrote his own version of the Bible with him mentioned. Sketchy? I think so."

    Does the JST mention Joseph Smith? I wasn't aware of that.

    "Once again, thinking God could not have had any part of the translation process."

    We believe he could have, may have, and I believe he probably did have some influence in the translation process. But I also believe God gives us freedom to make our own choices, and considers that freedom sacred and inviolable, and therefore rarely interferes to prevent wicked men from doing their wicked deeds. But he does prepare ways for the righteous to overcome the wicked, hence the Bible gets corrupted, but God sends the Book of Mormon as a second testament of Christ to clarify the first and bring light to mankind.

    "Mormons have such a blind faith if they can’t believe fully in the power of the Word of God, and the Word of God alone."

    Why should we believe in the word of God alone, when the word itself doesn't tell us to do so?

    "Adding more 'gospels' to it doesn’t make it any more correct, but apparently it does, according to mormons."

    Would you be happy to only have the Old Testament, and never be able to read the New Testament? We merely believe that the Bible does not contain all the word of God, and we are happy to get more of the word of God from any source that contains it. Why would anyone want to put limits on God and not accept more of his word that he wants to give us?

    "Where in the Bible does it say there will be new prophets? Nowhere."

    Does it say anywhere that there won't be new prophets?

    "Like I said before, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and whatever other authoritative figures in the LDS church add to the the Bible or other doctrinal books to fit their own agenda, or the new generation."

    What if it wasn't Joseph Smith adding to the Bible, but God telling Joseph Smith what to add?

    "saying, rather, that there isn’t enough in the Bible to give us salvation"

    That's not actually what we say. I believe if you follow everything in the Bible to the best of your ability that you will be saved. But if God gives us more of his word to help us understand the Bible and live it even better, why would you want to reject that?

    "Joseph Smith, his authority (according to him), and the entirety of the mormon belief system"

    The Book of Mormon doesn't glorify Joseph Smith, nor does the Mormon belief system. We regard him as a great prophet, like Abraham, Moses, Peter, or Paul. But we worship God and Jesus Christ, and no one else.

    "In other words, mormons believe the Bible contradicts itself."

    No, there is no contradiction because the Bible doesn't say anywhere that there is no scripture other than what is contained within the Bible.

    "Show me where anything is referenced that isn’t contained in scripture."

    Here are a few examples, there are more:

    1 Corinthians 5:9 – "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:"

    Colossians 4:16 – "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."

    Where are the epistles Paul is referring to? Would they not be scripture, just as his other epistles are?

    Acts 1:3 "To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:"

    If Jesus was with the apostles for 40 days, speaking to them of things pertaining to the kingdom of God, wouldn't whatever he said be considered scripture? Wouldn't it be highly likely that the apostles would have written down what he said? But where are those words?

    John 21:25 – "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

    Evidently Jesus did a lot of things that weren't written. Could it be possible that some of them were written, but never made it into the Bible when it was being compiled? Does it make sense that Jesus could have done so many great things, and yet all that was ever written down about it are the relatively few words we have in the Bible?

    "why do mormons believe in a partial truth?"

    We believe everything God has ever said, and everything He may ever say.

    "You’re not answering my questions."

    I just went through our entire conversation and I don't see where I haven't answered any of your questions, so feel free to ask those questions again that I haven't answered to your satisfaction.

    Here are my questions I'd be curious to know your answers to:

    1. Where does the Bible say there cannot be any more scripture other than what's in the Bible?

    2. Where does the Bible say there cannot be more prophets than those mentioned in the Bible?

    3. Where does the Bible state that the Bible itself, as a whole, is a perfect book without any corruption, mistakes in translation, etc.?

  11. BTW, the reason I answer many of your questions with questions is that the answers are the same. For example, you ask "Where in the Bible does it say there will be new prophets?" My response is "Where does it say that there won’t be new prophets?" Your answer to my question is my answer to yours.

    Actually, I'm wrong. Joel 2:28 says that before the Second Coming of Christ, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions"

    Gee, that sounds a lot like Joseph Smith's experience. His father (an "old man") had prophetic dreams, Joseph was a young man to saw visions…hmmm.

  12. 1. "Where does the Bible say there cannot be any more scripture other than what’s in the Bible?"
    -This is from a publication on creationists.org – (and yes, the book of Revelation was the last book written in the Bible)

    Deuteronomy 4:2

    Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

    This is the first verse we'll examine that makes the case that there will be no further written revelations from God beyond the Bible. The book of Deuteronomy was written in 1410 BC. Note the emphasis on not adding or subtracting from God’s "word". As Matthew Henry’s commentary states, this was God’s written Word, that had been revealed to them up to that point in history.

    Matthew Henry commentary on this verse:
    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHe

    Deuteronomy 12:32

    What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

    Proverbs 30:5-6

    Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

    Revelation 22:18-19

    The previous verses quoted were from old testament books. The final book of the Bible was the book of Revelation. It is physically the last book in the Bible, but it was also the last book written in the Bible (90 AD). Revelation begins with these verses:

    The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand. Revelation 1:1-3

    Revelation ends with these verses:

    For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

    POINT #1. The first thing to note about the book of Revelation is that the revelations in it came directly from Jesus to John. So it has the highest possible authority.

    POINT #2: The Urantia society, for instance, teaches that the Bible was for the people who lived during Biblical times, and that the Urantia book’s additional revelations are for today. But Revelation 1:3 clearly states that the revelations in this book are for all who will live from that time forward, including those who will live in the last days, just prior to Jesus’s second coming. There are many other verses in Revelation that support the idea that it is a book that is focused heavily on the events that will affect those who are living in the last days. We know that in the case of Revelation 1:3, it too is meant for those in the last days because of the phrase "which must shortly come to pass". Now if you’re thinking hey wait a minute, this verse says "shortly come to pass", and it’s been almost 2,000 years since these words were written. "Shortly" sounds like something pretty imminent, not 2,000 years later.

    Before jumping to the conclusion that the prophecies in Revelation are not for today, you must approach your interpretation of this verse using sound Bible interpretation principals. One of those principals is that you must look at everything the Bible has to say about a particular issue before you can accurately judge the meaning of many verses. In this case, one must consider what God tells us about His perspective on time itself. Remember, he created time. He can operate within or outside its boundaries. Here’s a pretty good clue from God about His view of time:

    But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8

    So from God’s perspective, "shortly" could easily mean a few thousand years and He tells us not to be ignorant of that fact. It is also important to pay attention to the fact that many Biblical prophecies about the "last days" are coming true today, thousands of years after they were predicted. An interesting video about end-time prophecies is available on-line. It may be viewed in its entirety at this link: http://creationists.org/countdown_to_eternity/eng

    Galatians 1:6-12

    I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

    John Calvin’s commentary on Galations 6-9:
    http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol41/

    In these verses we see a) that the Gospels of the Bible are revelations by Jesus Himself and b) that God warns us about a different gospel message from an angel from heaven.

    There are no verses anywhere in the Bible that state there will be additional written revelations after the book of Revelation. Since Revelation deals with events clear up to the very last days, no additional revelations are needed. On the flip side, as we saw above, there are explicit warnings not to add or subtract anything to the last book of the Bible, Revelation. Additionally, several old and new testament books in the Bible do predict additional false revelations from Satan, demons and human false prophets including in the last days.

    The purpose of these additional extra-Biblical revelations are to mislead people away from the central truths of the Bible's Gospel message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (as the Bible defines it). In addition to the Galatians verse above, these other Bible verses are examples of warnings about false doctrines that originate from extra-Biblical revelations and false prophets:

    Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Timothy 4:1

    And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. Matthew 24:11

    For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24

    For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:13-14

    But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2Peter 2:1

    This is an important point because books like Urantia and the Book of Mormon claim to be additional revelations. They also claim to have originated from spirits claiming to be from Heaven. In stark contrast, not one book of the Bible was authored by an angel or from a human that was being inspired to write what he did by an angel. God Himself (the Holy Spirit) directly inspired all of the human authors of the Bible or they got the information first-hand from Jesus Himself.

    -This is a publication from apologeticsindex.com The Mormon Church – officially, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint – considers itself not just a Christian denomination, but rather the only true expression of Christianity.

    However, the history, theology and practices of Mormonism show this religious movement to be outside of orthodox Christianity.
    Mormons believe that their church is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30), the only organization authorized by the Almighty to preach his gospel and administer the ordinances of salvation, the only Church which has power to save" (Mormon Doctrine; 1977 ed, p. 136).

    Mormons either deny of pervert every essential doctrine of historic Christianity, including the uniqueness of God, the virgin birth, the Trinity, the authority of Scripture (by relegating it to a position below their other sacred writings), and salvation by grace through faith.
    Source: Charts of Cults, Sects, & Religious MovementsOff-site Link by H. Wayne House, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000, page 58.

    Individuals who, while claiming to be Christians, reject one of more central (key) doctrines of the Christian faith are considered heretics. Groups which reject such doctrines while claiming to represent Christianity, are considered cults of Christianity.
    A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.
    Source: "Unmasking The Cults"Off-site Link by Alan Gomes. See also: Cult – A Theological Definition
    Thus, while Mormons profess to be Christians, they are outside orthodox Christianity and the Mormon Church is considered to be, theologically, a cult of Christianity.

    2. Where does the Bible say there cannot be more prophets than those mentioned in the Bible?
    -I don't know how many times you're going to answer my questions with more questions, but so be it. The Bible does not say anywhere that there will be new prophets. True, it also doesn't say that there won't be, but it also doesn't say elephants can do back-flips. So, because the Bible doesn't refute something somebody claimed nearly 2,000 years after it's authorship, means it must be true? The entire basis of Christianity is on the doctrinal principles of the Bible. Nothing was needed, or will need to be added in order for us to understand how it is we are to follow Christ. New revelations are, for the 100th time, denying the authenticity and supreme authority of scripture to uphold itself through the years and translation. Mormons believe God could have let the Word uphold itself, but that He didn't. He's too smart to let that happen. He wanted people to live the way Joseph Smith set forth, in addition to God's Word. Thus believing everyone prior to the book or mormon went to hell because they didn't believe in it, because it didn't exist? Or before the book of mormon and other doctrinal beliefs set forth by the LDS church weren't necessary for salvation until they were written?

    3. Where does the Bible state that the Bible itself, as a whole, is a perfect book without any corruption, mistakes in translation, etc.? -Once more, denying that God's Word in itself doesn't have the authority in itself to contain itself in it's correct interpretation. If mormons believe the Bible has been corrupted through translation, then they haven't read the Bible. This is a list of points made on reformed.org:
    -The Bible proclaims its own authority
    1. Scripture is inspired by God
    (II Timothy 3:14-17)
    2. Belief in Scripture is necessary and commanded
    (I Corinthians 14:36-38, John 5:46-47, I John 4:1-6)
    3. God has promised to preserve His word for His people in all generations
    (Matthew 5:17-18, John 10:35, Isaiah 59:21)
    4. The New Testament writers all referred to the Old Testament as authoritative
    5. The New Testament claims the same authority for itself as the Old Testament
    (2 Peter 3:14-16)
    6. "As Christians we receive the Bible as the Word of God which cannot be judged by any higher standard. The Word of God speaks for itself; it is not verified by any other than the self-verifying Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

  13. "and yes, the book of Revelation was the last book written in the Bible"

    Well, at best we can say we don't know when if it was the last or not. Some Biblical scholars think that 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were written later than Revelation. See "The New Testament" by Bart Ehrman and "Introduction to the New Testament" by Raymond Brown. We do know that Revelation was likely written sometime between 60 AD and 120 AD, but that it was not accepted into the canon until the Council of Carthage of 397 AD. In other words, when it was written, it was not part of the Bible, because no "Bible" existed, and therefore it seems unlikely that Revelation is referring to the Bible, rather than to itself.

    Regarding Deuteronomy 4:2 again, the Bible did not exist when it was written. There was no New Testament. So how could the author of Deut 4:2 have been referring to "the Bible" as opposed to the scriptures they had, and only the scriptures they had? If he was referring to books not yet written, wouldn't it have made sense to make that clear?

    "There are no verses anywhere in the Bible that state there will be additional written revelations after the book of Revelation."

    But there are also none that say there won't be revelations outside the Bible. I know you interpret some scriptures to be saying that, but I disagree with your interpretation. I don't think the words mean what you think they mean.

    "They also claim to have originated from spirits claiming to be from Heaven."

    Not true in the case of the Book of Mormon. Every word in it was written by living, mortal prophets.

    "Since Revelation deals with events clear up to the very last days, no additional revelations are needed."

    Isn't that a bit speculative? Does the Bible actually state that clearly anywhere?

    "The purpose of these additional extra-Biblical revelations are to mislead people away from the central truths of the Bible’s Gospel message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (as the Bible defines it)."

    I understand that you think this is the purpose of these extra-Biblical revelations, but I disagree. I think their purpose is to clarify and reinforce the central truths of the Bible's message.

    "God Himself (the Holy Spirit) directly inspired all of the human authors of the Bible or they got the information first-hand from Jesus Himself."

    It's the same for the Book of Mormon.

    FYI, I'm not qualified to discuss anything you quote from the book Mormon Doctrine. While it did come from a very prominent church leader, he was very nearly publicly censured for what he wrote in it, and many mistakes were found in it after its publication. Despite its title, it is not an official nor authoritative source of LDS Church doctrine.

    "Mormons either deny of pervert every essential doctrine of historic Christianity, including the uniqueness of God, the virgin birth, the Trinity, the authority of Scripture (by relegating it to a position below their other sacred writings), and salvation by grace through faith."

    This is mostly true. We believe that the gospel Christ taught was rather quickly perverted and corrupted soon after his death (within 100 years or so). By the time of the First Council of Nicea in AD 325, we believe the true church was already long gone, and what was left were scraps of what had existed before. Valuable, precious scraps, to be sure, but nothing compared to what the members of Christ's church had during the time of the original apostles.

    Since there was no true church left, nor a complete record of Christ's doctrine to refer to, every religion that came thereafter was limited in the truths they possessed. While there were certainly many good men who sincerely believed in Christ and did their best to follow his teachings, they simply did not possess Christ's full doctrine, and the full doctrines of Christ did not begin to be restored until Joseph Smith came on the scene in the early 1800's.

    So yes, we do not agree with many of the "historical" doctrines of Christianity because we believe they were changed from the doctrines Christ and his apostles taught.

    "So, because the Bible doesn’t refute something somebody claimed nearly 2,000 years after it’s authorship, means it must be true?"

    I'm not saying it must be true if the Bible does not mention it, I am only saying it may be true. However, you are saying that because the Bible does not mention it, then it must be false. But how can you make such a claim when the Bible itself never says "If it's not here in the Bible, then it must be false."?

    "Nothing was needed, or will need to be added in order for us to understand how it is we are to follow Christ."

    Where does the Bible say this?

    "New revelations are, for the 100th time, denying the authenticity and supreme authority of scripture to uphold itself through the years and translation."

    Where does the Bible say this?

    "Thus believing everyone prior to the book or mormon went to hell because they didn’t believe in it, because it didn’t exist?"

    That's not what we believe. In fact, we believe that people who die having never heard of Jesus Christ, the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, can still be saved.

    With regards to the Bible proclaiming its own authority…I've got more questions:

    1. Where does the Bible refer to itself? I don't mean a book of the Bible referring to itself as an individual book of the Bible, but part of the Bible referring to the entire, complete Bible as it stands today?

    2. "Scripture is inspired by God" – I agree, but where does the Bible say that men cannot pervert, change, modify, mistranslate, etc. the scriptures? Or in other words, where does the Bible state that everything in the Bible is protected from corruption?

    3. "God has promised to preserve His word for His people in all generations" – But does the Bible say it would be protected in 100% perfect form, with absolutely no mistakes or intentional changes?

    4. "The New Testament writers all referred to the Old Testament as authoritative" – Where did any New Testament writer refer to the New Testament as we know it? How do we know they weren't referring to a specific book that is contained in the NT, rather than the entire NT as a whole?

    One more question–how do you know the Bible is true?

  14. -This is an article from ChristianAnswers.net on the authority of the Bible:

    The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Scripture states this concept repeatedly and emphatically. The very phrase “It is written” means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

    In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

    “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
    —Revelation 22:18-19

    His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160).

    The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional form, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.

    Thus, there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.
    Affirmed by Jesus Christ

    The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

    In the New Testament, it is the written word of God, and that alone, to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18:

    “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”

    People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

    The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5-6:

    “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

    God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

    Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.
    How is Scripture to be accurately interpreted?

    The principle of “sola Scriptura” is basic to accurate interpretation of Scripture. Psalm 36:9 explains, “For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light.” God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. The Apostle Paul said the same thing, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7).

    The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.

    Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth “it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (I John 5:6).

    If you want to be true to God in this important matter, follow His instruction, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you” (Proverbs 1:23). If you are yearning for truth in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 “with a broken and a contrite heart”, the Lord God will not despise you. He will reveal to the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles.
    Is Scripture alone adequate, or do we need more?

    The total sufficiency of Scripture is declared by the Apostle Paul,

    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
    —2 Timothy 3:16-17

    For final truth and authority, all that we need is the Scripture.

    What about the claim that sola Scriptura is not possible?

    In an attempt to justify traditions as being of equal or higher authority than Scripture, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John’s gospel,

    “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
    —John 21:25

    Of course, there were many deeds and sayings of the Lord not recorded in Scripture. Nonetheless, Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority, when Holy God did not give it, is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.

    Another attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states,

    “…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
    —2 Peter 3:15-16

    Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12).

    From the earliest days of Christianity, a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written. “…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
    Truth, God’s Word, and our love for Him

    The Lord brings the topic of truth to bear on our love for Him. This again underscores its importance. “Jesus answered and said to him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent Me” (John 14:23-24). And then again “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

    The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. “The law of the LORD is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scrip

    -If mormons believe people were saved prior to the book of mormon, then what changed? If the Word of God had been corrupted through translation, does that mean that anybody between the time of canonization of the Bible and the book of mormon believed a false gospel? And it wasn't until the book of mormon and Joseph Smith that there was a clear interpretation? That would entail that more grace abounds to those who don't believe the book of mormon, and no grace is needed for mormons because they believe in the only true and authoritative book. And the book or mormon has absolutely no proof of archaeological evidence to back it, nor fulfilled prophecy, nor any single shred of evidence whatsoever. It's a futile faith. On the other hand, there is all kinds of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, and tons of archaeological evidence to show proof, evidence, facts. The Bible is logical, factual, and true.

    • “The Bible is logical, factual , and true.” Moses separating the sea, A virgin giving birth, the world being made in a few days, Adam made from dirt, woman being made from a rib, Jonah swallowed by a whale, etc.. All of that you can believe, but another prophet or prophets sent in the latter days to give more revelation and guide us through the last days is SO unbelievable to you…hmmmm…interesting. :) 😉

  15. The way I see it, it all comes down to what you think "this book" is referring to in Revelation 22:18. If it's talking about the Bible, that's one thing. If it's talking about just the book of Revelation. You think it's talking about the Bible, I think it's talking about the book of Revelation, and that what it meant was "Don't tamper with, change, or add anything to the book of Revelation." That didn't mean there weren't other scriptures, or that more scripture might be given after the book of Revelation was written, it just meant that nobody should come along, add something to the book of Revelation, and claim that it was part of the book of Revelation.

    How could you prove to me that "this book" means the entire Bible? If it was stated in clear terms, for example, if a scripture in the Bible read "If any man shall add unto the Bible…" then I'd say you've got some good evidence for your case.

    And none of the scriptures you cite definitively rule out the possibility of further scripture. For example, you quote Proverbs 30:5-6 as saying “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” but this only says that men are not supposed to make something up out of their own heads, and then say that God is the author of it. Joseph Smith never did this. Whenever he said "This is what God said…" it was really what God said. There is nothing in that scripture that rules out more scripture outside the Bible.

    The real weakness of your approach is that none of the authors of the books of the Bible, as far as I know, show any awareness of the Bible, except Isaiah, but that's another story. When the books of the Bible were written there was no "Bible". These prophets and apostles weren't writing stuff and thinking "Ok, this will be great when it's added to the Bible." There was no Bible. They didn't know there ever would be a Bible. The Bible is merely what was created when someone said "Hey, we should gather up all these holy writings and put them in one book." The people who did that were not prophets or apostles. They did not have all the writings of the prophets and apostles (as I already pointed out in an earlier response). We don't know if the sources they used were accurate. But we do know that when the books were originally written, they were separate books, and if every prophet and apostle were aware that their writings would become part of the Bible someday, you would expect that one or more of them would have mentioned the Bible, you know, something to the effect of "One day in the future many of the writings of the prophets and apostles will be put into one great book that will bless the lives of millions and bring light to the world."

    "Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself."

    Are you saying that without communication from God, not including "scripture" as that communication, there is no way to know for certain the correct interpretation of scripture?

    "The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true."

    What I'm saying is what if some more scrolls, or perhaps metal plates, were found in the area around Jerusalem, and they were found to be legitimate, and in those records there was, let's say, another "gospel" comparable to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John but written by a fifth apostle, perhaps Peter. Would you accept those writings as scripture just as valid as the rest of the Bible, or would you reject them as being false because they're not part of the Bible we have today?

    "If mormons believe people were saved prior to the book of mormon, then what changed?"

    Perhaps I should clarify my definition of salvation, because it might differ slightly from yours. I don't believe someone is saved until they're judged, and I believe that generally only happens to people after they die. As long as we're here on earth, we can go either way regardless of what good or ill we've done, with rare exceptions. And we believe men are judged, at least in part, based on their level of knowledge. We also believe there is a time in between death and the judgment when those who never heard the gospel here on earth have a chance to learn it. This is not a second chance, because they never had a first chance here on earth. So theoretically someone who has never heard of the Bible, Jesus Christ, or the Book of Mormon while alive, hears the gospel preached after they die, and they can choose to accept or reject it. In this way, people who lived before the Book of Mormon (or Bible, for that matter) can still be saved.

    "If the Word of God had been corrupted through translation, does that mean that anybody between the time of canonization of the Bible and the book of mormon believed a false gospel? And it wasn’t until the book of mormon and Joseph Smith that there was a clear interpretation?"

    Mormons don't think in terms of "true gospel" and "false gospel" so much as "some truth" and "more truth". The Bible has a lot of truth in it. The Book of Mormon adds more truth, not only in that it is more scripture itself, but in that it clarifies many of the part of the Bible that people are generally confused about and so makes the Bible that much more valuable itself. It's not that people believe a false gospel, per se, it's just that they only had part of the truth. With the Book of Mormon they have more truth. Our attitude towards other faiths isn't "Drop everything you believe and come get something entirely different and new," rather it is "Bring all the good you have and let us add to it."

    "And the book or mormon has absolutely no proof of archaeological evidence to back it"

    No proof, as such, but then again there are people who say the Bible is complete fiction and there is no archeological proof to back it up. I still believe the Bible is the word of God, but if you're going to attack the Book of Mormon for a lack of archeological proof then watch your back because there are people doing the same to the Bible.

    But there are some interesting archeological evidences corroborating the Book of Mormon narrative. Here are a few:

    1. Ancient books on metal plates. When Joseph Smith talked about an ancient book written on metal plates, he was laughed at. Nobody had heard of such a thing. For decades he was ridiculed because everyone knew that nobody had ever used metal plates anciently. But today, ancient records have been found on metal plates, indeed very close to Jerusalem. See Seventy metal books found in cave in Jordan.

    Actually, let's not reinvent the wheel. Just go check out this website and let me know if you think there is "absolutely no archeological evidence". I admit, you won't find absolute proof, but you'll find that there are plenty of things we're discovering these days in terms of archeology that match up with the Book of Mormon, and you have to ask yourself, is there any way a backwoods boy in the early 1800s with a 3rd grade education could have made this stuff up?

    One that is particularly interesting to me is the part on weights and measures of the Book of Mormon, because I went to Guatemala and saw them using a system of weights and measures in a small marketplace that conformed exactly to what is described in the Book of Mormon. Coincidence? Perhaps, but quite interesting.

    And actually, you yourself are a fulfilling one of the prophecies of the Book of Mormon. In 2 Nephi 29:3 it reads "…many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible." Wouldn't you say that's a pretty accurate description of your side of the discussion we've been having?

    I guess you could look at all that and still say there's no shred of evidence whatsoever, but I guess it all depends on your definition of evidence. What sort of evidence would it take to prove to you that the Book of Mormon is true?

    Here's a follow-up question to my earlier one of "How do you know the Bible is true?" You respond that "there is all kinds of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, and tons of archaeological evidence to show proof, evidence, facts. The Bible is logical, factual, and true." But there are people out there who have carefully examined each prophecy of the Bible and say that they are coincidences, or stretching the interpretation of the Bible. There are people who say there is no archeological evidence that the Bible is factual in every detail (for example, what archeological evidence is there of the virgin birth, Christ performing miracles, or the resurrection?). So, is your entire conviction that the Bible is true based on archeology, logic, and physical evidence, or in other words, upon science?

    • I have enjoyed your responses Brother Steimle!

  16. I wanna be clear as to whether or not the JST has or has not changed a single word in the book of Revelation, if you believe that's all John was referring to. I don't own a JST version, so you'd be helping me out. And the passages quoted from Deuteronomy were in reference to the law of Moses, which Joseph Smith did change, just for your reference. Google commentary on the passage.

    "Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself."

    Are you saying that without communication from God, not including "scripture" as that communication, there is no way to know for certain the correct interpretation of scripture?

    -Just to be clear, this wasn't my comment. However, I do agree. If you use scripture to interpret scripture, it will never contradict itself, nor ever return void, as the Lord states Himself in Isaiah 55:11.

    "What I'm saying is what if some more scrolls, or perhaps metal plates, were found in the area around Jerusalem, and they were found to be legitimate, and in those records there was, let's say, another "gospel" comparable to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John but written by a fifth apostle, perhaps Peter. Would you accept those writings as scripture just as valid as the rest of the Bible, or would you reject them as being false because they're not part of the Bible we have today?"

    -If you read the commentary in the article, it's all pointing to the book of revelation, and Christ's resurrection. Nothing was mentioned about Joseph Smith or any comments made on the book of mormon. And if there was another gospel found, similar to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, I would not deem it as canonized scripture. As I've stated multiple times, if the Lord, who was the one who wrote the Bible, it being His very breath, wanted it in the scriptures, it would've been. But, since it's not, then I wouldn't count it as blasphemous or false, I just wouldn't take it as God's very Word.

    :Perhaps I should clarify my definition of salvation, because it might differ slightly from yours. I don't believe someone is saved until they're judged, and I believe that generally only happens to people after they die. As long as we're here on earth, we can go either way regardless of what good or ill we've done, with rare exceptions. And we believe men are judged, at least in part, based on their level of knowledge. We also believe there is a time in between death and the judgment when those who never heard the gospel here on earth have a chance to learn it. This is not a second chance, because they never had a first chance here on earth. So theoretically someone who has never heard of the Bible, Jesus Christ, or the Book of Mormon while alive, hears the gospel preached after they die, and they can choose to accept or reject it. In this way, people who lived before the Book of Mormon (or Bible, for that matter) can still be saved."

    -First of all, nobody is going to hear the book of mormon after they die. That's silly. Second, we don't get a second chance after we die. God shows us in scripture that He makes Himself known to everyone. In His creation His attributes are clearly seen, as stated in Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

    "It's not that people believe a false gospel, per se, it's just that they only had part of the truth."

    -You guys need to start giving God more credit, seriously. He's much smarter then humans, and He knows our hearts, that they are deceitfully wicked Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" God can. And God does. Understanding that, He had to have had His hand in the entire dispersing of His Word through all the years, and through translation or one would have to believe that He trusted man, thus going against who He is. Again, He knows our hearts. He knows everything.

    "And the book or mormon has absolutely no proof of archaeological evidence to back it"

    "No proof, as such, but then again there are people who say the Bible is complete fiction and there is no archeological proof to back it up. I still believe the Bible is the word of God, but if you're going to attack the Book of Mormon for a lack of archeological proof then watch your back because there are people doing the same to the Bible."

    -Your responses are funny because you essentially are disproving your faith. The book of mormon is full of unfulfilled prophecy. It's full of a complete lack of archaeological evidence, which you just admitted. But, there is actual archaeological proof to back the Bible; tons of it. Just search it on google. And I'm not attacking anything, I'm presenting proof for the legitimacy of the Bible, and the lack of proof for the book of mormon.

    "I admit, you won't find absolute proof, but you'll find that there are plenty of things we're discovering these days in terms of archeology that match up with the Book of Mormon, and you have to ask yourself, is there any way a backwoods boy in the early 1800s with a 3rd grade education could have made this stuff up?"

    -He copied lots of his "writings" or "revelations" from the KJV. So, if anything was to ever match up with anything in the book of mormon, it would be things copied from the KJV, not anything Joseph Smith wrote. And what it sounds like to the real Christian world is a false prophet lead by way of the devil to deceitfully stumble people, just as the Bible warns us repeatedly about.

    "I guess you could look at all that and still say there's no shred of evidence whatsoever, but I guess it all depends on your definition of evidence. What sort of evidence would it take to prove to you that the Book of Mormon is true?"

    -It would take believable evidence. Not articles saying that some things sound kind of similar to the language used here and there, and this and that. There's not authority in that evidence. Hence no circumstantial evidence, or more plainly put, no evidence whatsoever, which is what I'd like to see.

    "Here's a follow-up question to my earlier one of "How do you know the Bible is true?" You respond that "there is all kinds of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, and tons of archaeological evidence to show proof, evidence, facts. The Bible is logical, factual, and true." But there are people out there who have carefully examined each prophecy of the Bible and say that they are coincidences, or stretching the interpretation of the Bible. There are people who say there is no archeological evidence that the Bible is factual in every detail (for example, what archeological evidence is there of the virgin birth, Christ performing miracles, or the resurrection?). So, is your entire conviction that the Bible is true based on archeology, logic, and physical evidence, or in other words, upon science?"

    -My conviction is one of a changed life in Christ Jesus, and Him alone being the way, the truth, and the life, as He Himself said. The fact that critics call prophesy coincidental makes sense because they don't bow to God, they bow to the media. The media turns everything spiritual, or just things pertaining to God, into being coincidental because they don't want to give Him any credit. If you believe in the Bible, then you should know this already. As far as people saying that it's stretching the interpretation of the Bible, you should understand again that people that don't glorify God are not going to give Him credit, but blame coincidence or say the interpretation's wrong.

  17. Paul, I gotta say this Joshua guy has a lot of good points. In fact, you do come out looking rather foolish, but hey, we all do at times. After all, your post was written on April Fool's day. However, I do appreciate your conviction of our Savior and the way you firmly tried to answer questions and deliver them.

    • I agree

    • Some things you come to know with your heart not your eyes. I feel the LDS Church is true in my heart. I see no bad motives. We are taught to be loving, forgiving, accepting, uplifting, charitable, and righteousness is the main goal of the members in all aspects of life. It is lovely, and my heart is full. I am happy with the lifestyle and teachings. I am content in my heart and mind with the leadership and the Prophets. I know they are inspired and led by our Lord. I can feel it. I Love it. Jesus is the Christ. I believe if the church and prophets were false, God would have put an end to the church as is in his power to do so. Look at what good the church does in the world. Look at the millions that are following Christ. What gain do you think the church makes at the expense of its members?.. The motive is charity and the pure love of Christ is the heart of the church.

  18. My answers were Biblical. I back scripture with scripture. The evidence I was presenting was from the Bible, in other words, they weren't my answers. If you don't believe me, you as well Joshua, I would challenge you both to study into the Word of God yourselves. I will also continue studying into the book of mormon. If the things I have presented are false, you guys should actually try to find that out for yourselves. Get a King James Bible and study what it says. I'm sure you're probably both saying to yourselves that you already do that; however, the conviction you have in studying it is one of corrupted translation. Read it through the eyes of a literal translation and see what you find.

    This discussion has obviously fallen on deaf ears, so there's no need to go back and forth until the sun stops shining. I hope and pray the Lord leads us all in the right direction.

  19. Joshua. you ask; How do you know Joseph Smith is a wolf rather than a true prophet? Moses said by the Spirit of God – "And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the Word of Jehovah has NOT spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing does NOT happen or come about, that is the thing which Jehovah has NOT spoken; the prophet has spoken it proudly; you shall NOT be afraid of him." (Deut. 18:21,22, LITV; emphasis mine).
    Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of the Lord – Jehovah.
    Joseph smith prophesied on Feb. 14, 1835 at Kirtland, Ohio, regarding the coming of the Lord Jesus that 'fifty six years should wind up the scene'; HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, Vol 2, pp180-182. It did not happen. Jesus did not return 56 years later, nor has He yet come or returned. But He is coming!
    Joseph Smith prophesied on September 22, 23, 1832, at Kirtland, Ohio, that the new Jerusalem would be built "which is appointed by the finger of the Lord…Verily this is the word of the Lord…shall be built…in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed." HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, 1.286-95.
    The mormons were driven out of Jackson county in 1833. This prophecy was not fulfilled.
    Joseph Smith prophesied on Dec. 25, 1832 that all nations would become involved in the American Civil War "thus saith the Lord". DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, Section 87. This prophecy was not fulfilled.
    By comparison, every holy prophet of Jehovah God of Scripture, prophesied under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and to date each and every one has been fulfilled; there has not been any failure of any one of those prophecies which relates to the time span to date. And of course, our Lord Jesus Christ is the Supreme example of accurately prophesying every single time. He has set the standard – the bench mark. And it is high.
    Moses says when a prophets speaks; this means a single prophecy given at a moment in time, not a percentage of prophecies given over a period of time. If one prophecy given in the name of the Lord (God Almighty) does not come to pass, then that prophet has spoken proudly and GOD DID NOT SPEAK THROUGH THAT PROPHET. Those who read or hear that prophecy shall not fear that prophet. This fear means to revere, to listen to and take heed of; to follow rigorously. Such fear is solely for the Lord Himself.
    If these prophecies were actually given by Joseph Smith (as recorded) in the name of the Lord and they came to pass then in respect to those prophecies he has spoken correctly. But if those prophecies were not fulfilled as recorded, then prophet Joseph Smith did not speak the Word of the Lord. He has spoken out of his own spirit. He needed to repent before he died, or the Lord in His justice and holiness would have to have judged J.S. as false and rewarded him accordingly to God's own holy judgement. So, was he a wolf or a true prophet? Moses laid the ground rules. It has all played out and has been completed. Check for yourself; verify one way or the other; and make your own conclusion. God has spoken. Judgment has already been given.

  20. "By comparison, every holy prophet of Jehovah God of Scripture, prophesied under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and to date each and every one has been fulfilled; there has not been any failure of any one of those prophecies which relates to the time span to date."

    4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

    5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

    6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

    7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:

    8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

    9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

    10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

    Jonah 3:4-10

  21. Jonah was told to warn the people. It was not a prophesy. LDS always use this one. Oh, by the way, later God destoyed them anyway.

  22. I find this whole argument about the pasage in Revelation warning against adding too or taking away to be incredibly sad because it show just how little people really understan how the New Testament and the Bible as a whole came to be. I don't need to guess if the writer of Revelation was talking about just his book or just the NT or the Bible as a whole because I know. He's talking about only the Book of Revelation. How do I know that? Because the New Testament didn't even exist when the Boof of Revelation was written.

    There was no Bible with both Old and New Testament in it. It wasn't until several hundred years later that Christians of what would become the Catholic church decided what books should be included in a canon of scripture and which should be left out. So books like the Gospel of Mark and the Apocalypse of John made it while books like the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocalypse of Peter didn't.

    The writer of the Apocalypse of John or Revelation knew the only way to copy books was to write them by hand. He's giving a warning to all those scribes who would make copies of his book not to make any changes to it. I find it sad how many people believe the Bible to be the word of God yet they don't understand even the most basic things about how it even came to be.

  23. Don't forget William that Deut 12:32 and Prov. 30:6 also warn along the same lines. So you have a very early warning in Moses, a middle period warning in Solomon, and a very late warning via John, essentially saying the same thing. So let's put aside the wrangle about whether 'Revelation' was the last 'Book' or not. There are three witnesses in Scripture about this thing. And Jesus the Master of the Universe said that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. The Word of God is one testimony. Though we say there are 66 Books, there is only one Book. That one Book – Holy Scripture, is one Sword of the Spirit, not, many swords of the Spirit. It has testified against any adding to and taking away from its content. By our own words we shall be justified or condemned by that Word of God. He who rejects Jesus' words will have one the very words Jesus spoke to judge him in the last day (Jn. 12:48). Do not add or take away any words of God dear souls.

    • Can God add to His own words?

    • Ian, as much as I appreciate discussions of the sword and Master of the Universe, let’s agree to leave He-Man out of a conversation centering on the formation of the accepted canon of scripture in early Christianity.

  24. The FIRST Bible was written by the Roman Catholic Church and was inspired by God Himself. All other Bibles were written by those who chose to change the meaning of the original Bible. Is there any question why there is so much confusion?

  25. "Can God add to His own words"

    God, being God will speak or act when He so chooses. Joshua, the restriction is on mankind not on God Himself. As I have said at another time in this forum, J.S already knows the truth of what he wrote and said. Can you hear him….??? Are those cries of 'Halleljuah! and Glroy! and Salvation to our God forever and ever…? Or are they cries of terror and screams for mercy and another opportunity to repent and tell all those he has lead astray…??? He knows. And God knows. God knows.

    If God indeed was the author of those plates that Moroni gave J.S. to translate, then it will have God's own 'watermark' (to use a modern expression) on it, in it and right through it.

    Right through all 66 books of the 'Holy Bible', Jesus Christ is either prophesied about and or is typified, that is He is portrayed in types, as well as in other ways, eg, His sacrifice for sins and His coming again etc.

    Jesus Himself said that all of the prophets spoke of Him (Luke 24;27). Any true prophetic 'word of God' must testify of Jesus Christ for it to be truly prophetic. John reports that he, by and according to the divine process (Rev. 1:1), witnesses of (about Jesus) Christ (v2). And again he says "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy". (Rev. 19:10). This means that any prophecy of God will be testifying bout Jesus Christ, either in clear unambiguous terms or in parables or types, or in some other figure which the Holy Spirit Himself will reveal to the one hungry for righteousness, which righteousness is bound up in Jesus Christ.

    If J.S's 'prophetic' book the Book of Mormon' truly is of God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, it will have the same kind of adoration, praise and worship, and promotion of Jesus Christ in His resurrected glory and majesty, power and efficacy, just as the apostles of Jesus Christ had in their writings. It should have the hall marks, such announcements as His coming as King of kings and Lord of lords, and His victory of satan and all his demons, over all wickedness, and so on.

    If J.S's 'marvellous' book of Mormon is truly a prophetic work of the one true God, it will have other 'watermarks' as well.

    Jesus said that his words are both 'spirit and life'. The words of Jesus are life changing, because they are God breathed. They address the issue of sin – condemning sin as God Himself has defined sin, first in the old testament prophets, and finally in the revelation of Jesus Christ. They speak of the great necessity of believing in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone. All of Christ's apostles eulogized Christ at the expense of themselves. They were not (after the Holy Spirit came upon them -Acts 2) ambiguous or unclear in their message, nor were they ashamed of their Lord and Master; they did not lead a double life, nor were they taking numerous wives to themselves as history shows others to have done, regardless of the self justifying reasons given.

    Their message was plain. Christ Jesus came to save sinners. He came to give His life a ransom for many. He alone could save them. He alone was the Door to Heaven. He is to judge the earth in righteousness and truth (Acts 17:31). They did not try to defend themselves with weapons of man's inventions but by the word of God.

    His word alone was to be obeyed – for His word was from the Father, and His word was given to His faithful 'Eleven' (Jn 17:8) and Matthias (Acts 1:26), and Paul to whom Christ revealed Himself (Acts 9:22;26:12-18) and sent Him out as well. Then we have 2 Timothy 3:16 which is Paul's own testimony of the composite Old Testament, as well as any of the writings of his contemporary faithful apostles circulating at his day. There are other like water marks too.

    Then on another level there are those unique indicators such as Ivan Panin (the mathematical genius of his day) discovered all through the Hebrew and the Greek texts and whose work was presented to the Nobel Prize adjudicators, and which work he challenged any and everyone to disprove.

    I.Panin discovered that right through both Hebrew and Greek texts a most remarkable series of mathematical indicators which are commonly called 'Bible numerics' as opposed to numerology.

    This can be sighted in a little book called the 'Seal of God', and also at large via the http://www.; various entries exist, and although there is some discussion about details, overall the significance is that such hidden factors in the Hebrew and Greek texts show a design beyond human engineering, and could not be of satanic origin because satan is declared in those texts to be defeated and Christ Jesus is declared to be Lord over all.

    And there are other such like minded factors woven throughout the texts showing a super natural stamp.

    There is no other book on the face of the earth to compare with the that which is commonly called 'The Holy Bible' – and I am not referring to the plethora of new paraphrases and many of the new translations, even though God uses such in spite of human intervention. He will judge the men and their works.

    As for me? I am content with the Holy Bible. It is remarkable. It is truly life changing. I love it. Smith Wigglesworth, an evangelist of a previous century was a very good plumber but was no good in reading. At age eight he gave up his little life to follow Jesus Christ. Years later, after marrying, his wife taught him to read the Holy Bible. And that is all he ended up reading. He wasn't a good orator, but he knew his God, and he loved the Holy Scriptures and by them he got to know profoundly the God of the Bible. He learnt, by faith in Christ Jesus to overcome the devil and heal the sick, and work for Jesus in most remarkable ways, in a way not dissimilar to the apostles of Jesus Christ our Lord. He was a man of faith – who had faith in and of God. Though at one time he nearly ended up shipwrecked in the faith, the Lord was merciful and he was turned back to God. He lived a holy life wholly for Jesus whom he loved.

    The book of Mormon…??? Is it spirit and life? Will it get sinners red hot for Jesus Christ the only Saviour of the world? You be the judge. For His word will judge each one in the end. Wake up! The Bridgroom comes. Don't be caught without oil in your lamps (Matt25). It is time to seek the Lord.

  26. My understanding is that: 1.) Joseph Smith was instructed, by God, to 'edit' the bible. 2) It was finished, other than a few ' tweaks', and it was ready to publish. So with that in mind, here is what I see. First the LDS claim that the bible is corrupt, but even though the founder fixed it, the church leaders don't have faith in the 'corrected' bible. It is said that it wasn't finished, yet claim the 'corrupt' bible is open-ended. So you don't have faith in your founder, you don't have faith in the 'corrected' bible, and you don't have faith in God. What is the point in doing a rewrite as instructed by God, and then not using it? On a side note, the claim that Revelations 22 ver 18-19 is only for that book is still your downfall since J.S. altered that also.

  27. Joshua, your reply re 25 Oct.2011 in which you quote from the Book of Jonah, who prophesied but it did not come to pass.

    God Himself has established the ground rules for prophetic utterances whether by the mouth (Spirit) of Jehovah or not.

    In respect to Israel (Jeremiah 26:3) or any other people (Jer, 18:7) repenting after hearing the a word of judgment pronounced because of their evil doings such as in the Book of Jonah, God says that if they repent from all their evil ways He will not do what He had said that He would do, but then if they do not obey His voice then all the evil which He had said to do to them He will do. So with respect to the Ninevites who repented to a man, that generation at that time did not receive the pronounced judgment. However, history shows as Tom alluded to that a few decades later, Nineveh was overthrown because they had not continued in the way of the Lord as in the time of Jonah's proclamation.

    The Word of God is true. Jonah was a true prophet, and his word did come to pass. God kept His word because the people had repented. He also kept His word by overthrowing the city at a later date because they did not keep walking in obedience. You can't use Jonah's prophetic utterance as a case for false prophecy.

    Do you have any other example to prove your point?

    Paul the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, said "let God be true, and every man a liar'. Apart for the Lord Jesus Christ, every other man, as well as every woman – young or old has from Adam and Eve lied, one way or another. Thank God that the blood of Jesus Christ – God's Son, cleanses us from all sin – IF we confess (say the same as God says about ) our sins before the MOST HOLY GOD (1 Jn. 1:9).

  28. Everybody always says how the Bible says nothing should be added or taken away from it. I have explained many times online that this is from the book of Revelations, and refers to that book only. The Bible as we know it wasn't even compiled when that scripture was written. If people would read the book "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" by LeGrand Richards, it explains this and lots of other questions people may have about Mormonism. I'm a convert to the LDS church, I joined over 30 years ago, and can't imagine being a member of any other church.

  29. I agree God said not to add to his word, and he made it clear he abolished polygamy in the new testement writing new laws that one man for one wife, vice versa, not wiveS have one husband-not plural. So you can't pick and choose. You either believe the word of God or you don't.

  30. Joseph Smith, a man who claims to find "ancient Egyptian" tablets (in America no less) no one has seen or witnessed translated them by placing a magical stone in a hat showing him words while others acted as scribe for him. So we are to believe the ancient Egyptians sailed that far centuries ago just to bury and hide these ancient tablets waiting for JS to find a couple hundred years ago. Everyone knowing theEgyptains are perhaps the authoritave known bookeepers in history didn't record this voyage for some reason but they certainly did everything else- even Moses part in their history that didn't shed them in a favorable light.

  31. Continued:
    Red flags yet? But the biggest red flag for me is the fact Mormons believe if they give ear to slanderous remarks about the authenticity of Joseph Smith they are listening to satanic or evil doings. The fear is what keeps you people buried here. If his teachings are from God, don't you think the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith teachings would stand up with the word of God, not against it? A fear based religion is no religion. God is truth and if what you have been told or raised as the truth the bible will not go against your teachings. The bible is compiled of many countries testimonies of witnesses that are saying the same thing. Hard to deny that. But Joseph Smith came up with this on his own.

  32. Continued:
    If that wasn't enough, he decides to rewrite Gods word (known bible) but dies before it's completed. Knowing God gives the breath of life, if he was in fact ordained to do this work don't you think God would had allowed him to live long enough to complete what he called him to do?Something as significant as rewriting the bible would be pretty high on my list one would think. Who's to say if he was just corrupt and evil or maybe had some sort of mental illness and truly believed he had done all of this through God. How many false prophets have converted a huge following. And if he happened to know some things you believe he shouldn't, if you believe in the bible then you believe in Satan and you understand his mission on Earth is to take as many to hell with him. Perhaps he was giving this by Satan to decieve a multitude of people.Either way I will still pray for their exaltation and they gain Heaven. Onething I dobelieve we have in common is we love God. With that alone, hope is always there.

  33. First off if you sit down and actually study the Book of Mormon from beginning to end you will come to understand some of our beliefs as Mormons. When Lehi left Jerusalem with his family and Ishmael's family it was after God had revealed that bad things were about to happen to him and his family. Nephi and his brothers were sent back to get the plates of brass, which happened to be part of the word of God at that time. Now if you are running for yours and your families life's are you going to stop and tell your enemies that your leaving??? I think not. Therefore how would it have been recorded of their departure by the Egyptians. So God had lead them out of Jerusalem he lead them over a course of many years to the promised land which just happened to be the American continents. Now if you think about it there has been many debates about how humans got to the American continents as it is. So would this not make a little bit of sense to you at this point?

  34. Now we do have a book out of the book of Mormon that is missing it's the book of Lehi. Now if I remember my history right that would be due to Oliver Cowdry (don't quote me on his name I may be wrong, its been a while since I really studied the histories.) He essentially begged to show off the book before translation was finished and in the end it was lost, and commanded that it was not to be placed in the book of Mormon at that point. That book is now missing because of human err and ignorance to the commands of the lord. God will do such things to individually teach us some harsh lessons. Joseph Smith at that point also lost the gift of translation for a while for that little stunt.

  35. Now back to actual points I was getting to. So it would have been Lehi and his family that would have known the Hebrew languages and also choose to keep records the same way as their forefathers. Those plates and others having been passed down from generation to generation until god had commanded to seal them up to his own purposes as the last generations fell into iniquity which would have been around the same time our European ancestors fell into the dark ages. Which also happened to be around the time the priesthood was taken from the earth along with many other things. Which also happened to be when we started seeing different denominations of religion and a lot of fighting among the different sects.

  36. Which also now brings us to fast forward to how Joseph Smith came to what he came to. He was trying to figure out which of the churches was true and fell upon a scripture in James which happens to be James 1:5 which reads "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." So Joseph went and asked God for him self. That's when things started taking place when God told him none are true. Here's a good reference to the histories "Our Heritage A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" You can pick it up at any dessert book for about $2.50 usd. I hope I managed to answer some questions.

    So here is my answer to all your questions GO ASK GOD IN FAITH HE WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS EVEN IF ITS NOT HOW YOU EXPECT IT OR WANT IT!!! Even about the Mormon church. I did that's how I know that the LDS religion is true and not an occult.

  37. Thank you RManhard for ending this right and asking everyone to just ask god in faith what is the truth!!

  38. The LDS Church does not use the Joseph Smith Translation because the copyright is still owned by The Community of Christ Church, which church has graciously allowed the LDS to come in and examine and compare their published edition with original manuscript for accuracy, and permitted the use of quotations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>