xanmad33

I never said the Bible was a guard against false claims, I said Chritians are called to USE the Bible to guard agains false claims including those made by "prophets"

1-**The Book of Mormon teaches --One God-- Alma 11:27-39, 44 2 Nephi 31:21 Mormon 7:7 3 Nephi11:27 Testimony of Three Witnesses **Doctrine and Covenants teaches--plural gods-- Section 121:32 Section 132:18-20, 37 2-**The Book of Mormon teaches--God is a spirit-- Alma 18:26-28 Alma 22:8-11 **Doctrines and covenants teaches--God has a body Section 130:22 3-**The Book of Mormon teaches--God dwells in the heart Alma 34:36 **Doctrines and covenants teaches--God does not dwell in the heart section 130:3 4-**The book of Mormon teaches--Creation - One God 2 Nephi 2:14 Jacob 4:9 Pearl of Great Price Book of Moses Chapter 2 **Pearl of Great Price teaches--creation, many gods Book of Abraham Chapter 4 Chapter 5 5-**The Book of Mormon teaches--God cannot lie Ether 3:12 2 Nephi 9:34 **Pearl of Great Price teaches--God commands lying Book of Abraham Chapter 2:22-25 6-**The Book of Mormon teaches--God's Word Unchangeable Alma 41:8 **Doctrine and Covenants teaches--God's Word Can Change Section 56:4-5 7-**The Book of Mormon teaches--No Pre-Existence of Man Jacob 4:9 Alma 18:28, 34-36 **Doctrine and Covenants teaches--man pre-existed Section 93:23, 29-33 Pearl of Great Price Book of Abraham Chapter 3:18, 21-23 8-**The Book of Mormon teaches-- That Polygamy is Condemned Jacob 1:15 Jacob 2:24 Jacob 3:5 Mosiah 11:2 **Doctrine and covenants teaches: Polygamy is Commanded Section 132:1, 37-39, 61 There are more if your interested ... What proofs do you have to support any of this theory? Since Mormons continully claim the Bible is incomplete then why doesn't your prophet restore the lost books or correct the translation? If your prophet has not felt the need to restore those missing books of the Bible how important can they be? Joseph Smith did a revised version of the Bible, why doesn't the LDS Church print it?

people all over the world have come up with different beliefs about God. Obviously sincerity and prayer are not enough to guard against false claims. That is why God has given us the Bible, so that we will have a standard measurement for truth claims. While Christians value prayer and seek direction from God, that is not the Biblical method of testing a prophet.

im secure in the Word of God not my scholars, but I do believe God gave us the ability to think and reason for A reason here are a few flase prophesys I found with a quick search, and let me guess....your church had explained away all these things too? Saints to gather to Independence, Mo. and build Temple (D&C 84) No longer teach the gathering and temple never built. Zion (Independence, Mo.) can not fall (D&C 97:19) Mormons driven out. Civil War Prophecy (D&C 87) England and other nations did not join in. United Order (D&C 104) V.1 Commanded as everlasting order; V.48 & 53 dissolved and reorganized Riches of Salem to pay church debt (D&C 111) No riches found, debts not paid. Apostle Patten to go on mission in Spring 1839 (D&C 114) He was shot in Oct. of 1838. Wouldn't God have known he was going to die before the next spring? New gathering place and temple in Far West (D&C 115) LDS driven out, never built the temple. Build a temple in Nauvoo and house for Smiths (D&C 124) Temple and house not completed Christ to return in 1890-1891 period (D&C 130:14-15) Christ did not return. US Government must redress wrongs or be destroyed (History of the Church, vol.5, p.394, vol.6, p.116 and Millennial Star, vol.22, p.455.) It doesn't and is not destroyed.

Joseph Smith had many false prophesys though...

How many false prophecies could a prophet give and still be a true prophet? if any at all?

How do you know that your prophet is not leading you astray?

I've been told that LDS people believe God is continually giving new revelation to their prophet. How do you guard against false teachings? If your prophet gave a revelation that differed from church teachings in the past, how do you determine which to follow? Christians hold their ministers accountable to the Bible. (See Galatians 1:7-12 and 1 John 4:1) The early Christians compared Paul's teachings with the Old Testament in Acts 17:11-12. What is the standard for Mormons?

Ok lets pretend for a minute I believe the Book of Mormon, If I truly believe the Book of Mormon, doctrinally, how do I accept the Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price ?These books teach different concepts that often contradict the BOM. And in regard to the Bible, does translation always lessen scripture's value or change its teaching? What about the Book of Mormon? How many translations have been made of it? Is it less reliable in French or German? Does the church put a disclaimer on the Book of Mormon in other languages for translational errors as they do with the Bible? If not, why not? If professional LDS translators can reliably take the English Book of Mormon into French, why can't professional translators take the Greek New Testament into English?

The "stuff" I was referring to, are all the new doctrines in the Mormon books of faith that are no where to be found in the Bible, including stark contradictions on issues as serious and plain as who God was. all these things you speak of are from your books of faith, my question before I can believe the Book of Mormon or any other book of Mormon faith is, the reliability of those books vs. the reliability of the BIble. said better than I: "Reputable scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, can attest to the accuracy of the Bible’s historical accounts, language translation, and interpretation throughout time. As the most influential written document of all time, the many manuscripts we have that make up the Bible have undergone superb scrutiny from it’s very beginning. The Bible has been studied for thousands of years. It is historically accurate, supported by science in many, many regards, superbly translated into many different languages without losing meaning, and the few uncertainties that result from the loss of many of the original manuscripts (mind you, we still have the copies….the copies that underwent such intense scrutiny) have proven to be insignificant in light of the Bible’s real message. The ONLY thing that is disputed by reputable scholars is whether or not it is the divinely inspired Word of God. And that is because such belief requires faith."

I have no problem with you citing pro-mormon websites for questions of your doctrine, but if the only "evidence" you will consider for the Bible's ultimate authority on all things, is from pro-mormon sites, then it doesn't seem like you are very interested in the complete truth, does it? My points have become increasingly focused on the Bible, because IMHO, thats what all these questions keep going back to.. I posed FACTS about the Bible's reliability because when one takes a look at both sides from the middle the evidence is compelling, but it's useless to discuss if you will only consider evidence purported by The Mormon Church. How could you ever know? Also, in response to someone who stated that I am having a hard time believing in God without evidence...quite the contrary... I *wholeheartedly* believe in God, I know he exists. I never question his existance. I do however question certain doctrine's that stand in direct conflict with what I believe to be the Word of God, The Bible. The Bible gives such warnings and implores us to test all things against his word. Thats one of the reasons I'm asking these questions . I do believe in God, I dont need evidence to prove God exists, I do however have an obligation to educate myself on what is more reliable. How all these books of faith came to be in the first place, and what they say versus what The Bible says..... The belief in God is not my struggle.

If you care to see the rest, I will be happy to provide them

Continued" "A second LDS argument against the finality of the New Testament canon is based on the Book of Mormon teaching that the Bible was tampered with at some point in the early Christian centuries. According to 1 Nephi 13:26-28, "many plain and precious parts" were deliberately removed from the original New Testament writings. Verse 28 suggests both chronological and causal factors in this subversion of the New Testament: "thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book." According to Mormon authorities and scholars, this passage means that entire books or parts of books were removed from the original writings of the apostles, not simply that the text of the New Testament as we now have it has been corrupted or mistranslated.7 However, while 1 Nephi 13 links the sabotage of the New Testament to "that great and abominable church," there is some ambiguity in the resulting picture, a kind of chicken or egg dilemma. Which came first, the universal apostasy or the sabotaged New Testament documents? In other words, is the subverted New Testament an effect, of which the purported great apostasy is the cause? Or, is it the other way around: was the great apostasy the effect, of which the apostolic Scriptures, sabotaged already in the first century, were primary causal agents? In the author's experience, most Latter-day Saints understand 1 Nephi 13 in terms of the first view, that the universal apostasy came first, with the corruption of the New Testament writings as one of its effects. The apostasy is thought of as the culmination of a gradual process stretching over three or four centuries in which the gospel was corrupted by intermixture with Greek philosophy.8 This is understood to have culminated in the formulation of the doctrines of classic Christian orthodoxy at the councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451), and the emergence of the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy. As an hypothesis, one can acknowledge a definite logic in this view. For if, over a period of time — say several centuries — the entire early Christian community strayed from some of the essential teachings of the apostles, it is possible to conceive of this leading to the introduction of deliberate changes in the New Testament documents to support apostate doctrines. However, note that this view carries the implication that the New Testament books were copied and circulated for several centuries in their original form, that is, inclusive of the material said by 1 Nephi 13:26-28 to have been removed by the "abominable church." Thus, on this view, we would expect to find, somewhere among the thousands of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament and countless quotations of the New Testament book in early Christian literature, vestiges of the original, unedited version of the apostolic writings. In fact, there is no evidence of an earlier New Testament textual tradition supportive of any of the distinctive doctrines of the Mormon religion.9 Because of this insurmountable problem of an absence of textual evidence for an original, unedited version of the New Testament, contemporary Mormon scholars have adopted a different theory to explain the sabotage of the New Testament described in 1 Nephi 13. According to this newer theory it was the New Testament autographs, that is, the original copies as written or dictated by the apostles, that were sabotaged by apostate Gentile Christians before copies were made and could be circulated widely. This is supposed to have taken place within a few years after the apostles, and would thus explain why no traces of the original manuscript tradition have survived. Robert J. Matthews, dean of Religious Education and professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, is representative of those who hold this view. He writes: In order for an alteration to have widespread effect, the text would have to be tampered with early enough that multiple copies were not already extant. In other words, the alteration had to be early and by a person or persons having access to very early records and first-generation copies (emphasis added).10 According to Prof. Matthews this "alteration" of the New Testament text consisted primarily of "extractions" of key doctrinal material, and took place, not three or four hundred years after the apostles, but already in the late first century,11 (while, we note, at least one apostle, John, was still living). Prof. Matthew's colleagues at Brigham Young University, Stephen Robinson and Hugh Nibley, also hold that the sabotage of the New Testament took place already in the first century. Nibley suggests a time frame of A.D. 70-80.12 However, consider the implications of this very early dating of the subversion of the New Testament Scriptures: It requires one to believe that the spiritual condition of the Christian community and its leadership within a few years of the apostles was such that major extractions could be made from their writings, undetected or unchallenged. At such an early date, many, if not most, of the Church's pastors and bishops would have been men who were converted, trained, and appointed to leadership under the apostles, themselves. One can only label such a radical view of events an "instant apostasy." Is this radical hypothesis credible? A survey of the biblical and historical evidence shows that it is not, that there are simply no reasonable grounds for such an "instant apostasy" and the resultant sabotage of the original New Testament writings it is supposed to have produced. Instead, the overwhelming weight of biblical and historical evidence is against such an view: "

If you care to read, here is a rebuttal for all the evidences posted,(i found this online) The first Mormon argument against the final authority of the New Testament is the claim that some of Jesus' teachings were intentionally never recorded because of their sacred nature; these teachings are said to have been lost soon after the time of the apostles. Hugh Nibley, emeritus professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, develops this theory in his book, Since Cumorah.3 Nibley notes that the New Testament records various occasions on which Jesus met privately with Peter, James, and John, such as at the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9; see also Mark 9:2-13, Luke 9:28-36, 2 Peter 1:16-18).4 However, a careful reading of these texts shows that they do not support the idea of secret, unrecorded revelation. There is no hint that the three disciples received new teaching. It is not doctrine but an experience they are told to keep confidential, and this, only temporarily: "As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead" (Matthew 17:9). The fact that this incident is described in four different New Testament books, three of which were penned by non-participants (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), obviously demonstrates that Peter, James and John shared their experience with others in the early Christian community and that it did not go unrecorded. But not only is Nibley's notion of secret, unrecorded revelation entirely speculative, it is contradicted by Christ's own explicit declaration to the contrary. When questioned under oath5 before the Sanhedrin about his disciples and doctrine, Jesus testified: I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said (John 18:20-21). Jesus' instructions to his disciples elsewhere are consistent with his testimony before the Sanhedrin, and show that none of his teaching was reserved for an inner circle of initiates: "what I tell you in the darkness, that speak ye in the light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops" (Matthew 10:27). Thus, on the basis of Jesus' own unequivocal testimony, the idea of secret, unrecorded teachings must be rejected. It is notable that the strictly open, public nature of Jesus' teaching sharply distinguishes him from some of his Jewish contemporaries, such as the Qumran Community of Dead Sea Scroll fame. These ancient scrolls mention many secret, extra-biblical traditions (such as the supposed personal names of countless angels) which were imparted only to initiates who had met the community's strict religious requirements. It is against this backdrop of secret religious organizations — hotbeds of political intrigue which worried both Roman officials and the Jewish Sanhedrin — that the interrogation of Jesus recorded in John 18 took place. Dead Sea Scroll authority Dr. Ethelbert Stauffer concludes,"This strict rejection by Jesus of any notion of secret teaching and secret organization represents a most characteristic point of difference between him and Qumran."6

All sources cited here for arguments against the Bible have been PRO-MORMON, and EXTREMELY biased... If you read the Bible IN CONTEXT and study it closely and all the original greek and Hebrew text (using a concordance if need be to clear up any issues one might have), you would never come to the conclusions Mormons have about any of the doctrinal differences... because it's not there. Thats why Mormons need other books, because the stuff just isnt there. It's easy to make a case for something when you believe it is fallable, because you get to pick and choose the things you like and leave the things that don't fit. But... if you take the Bible at it's word, and believe it to be Gods perfect Word **as it claims to be, REPEATEDLY**, if you trust in what it CLEARLY says without trying to make it something else...If you look even at Jesus who referred back to the old testament numerous times as reliable and as truth, there would be no case. It takes great liberty and leaps to come to the conclusions about scripture that those sources have come to, and you will only find these sorts of conclusions from Mormon sources... I also find it interesting that nobody here has quoted independent studies...? The Bible has been scrutinized like NO OTHER book in the history of the world. Like NO OTHER and it still has yet to be proven one prophesy false!!!! NOT ONE!!!!! people who *hate* the Lord have studied this book trying to find ANY thing that would prove it's a lie but guess what, nothing has ever been proven. And someone said, "who cares about archaeological evidence....I do. I care that there have been countless affirmations in this world attesting to it's truth. It might not matter to some of you, but it surely matters to me. It attests to the Bible's reliability VS. the BOM, that's for sure, but then again maybe thats why you dont care about it ? The Word says, "scripture cannot be broken" and It hasnt! If you care to get a Biblical scholors point of view you may be greatly enlightened. If you search for someone who is nuetral, (if that makes you feel better) because I have looked at both evidences, I have looked at people with no vested interest in proving something one way or another, and the evidence is clearly FOR the Bible... I would think that EVERYONE would want a fair and complete balanced look at both sides of this issue. If the only place you are looking for answers is from your own books, or from people inside your faith then those are the answers you will get. But if you just pick up this Bible that you all claim to be so passionate about, with no one influencing how you read it, with no one pulling sentences out of context...if it was your only guide, you would find MUCH different answers... Its interesting to me how open Christianity is to EVERYONE, all faiths know EXACTLY what we believe, there are NO SECRETS, there are no secret temple rituals, NO SECRETS. If there was something to be PROVEN, if it could have been broken, it WOULD HAVE. ALL the cards are on the table. If you had only ever read the Bible, never being indoctrinated by a church----YOU WOULD NEVER come to the conclusions that Mormons claim. NEVER. Thats why Joseph Smith had to write a whole other book and then other books had to be written to clear that one up and so on....You NEED outside sources to come to these conclusions about doctrines and about the Bible. But if you trust the Word as the Bible explicitly says, then you would find an everlasting God, who was never created, has no beginning or end and whom was never a man. and soo much more. I found these quotes compelling in regard to Biblical evidences: "Nelson Glueck, renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." 5 William F. Albright, one of the world's most renowned archaeologists, stated: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." 6 And again ... "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phrases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." 7 The late Millar Burrows, renowned Professor of Archaeology at Yale University, exposed the cause of persistent unbelief: "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural." 8 2. Evidence from early Christian writers J. Harold Greenlee, Professor of New Testament Greek at Oral Roberts University, wrote that the quotations of the Scripture in the works of the early Christian writers, "... are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts." 9 This was later confirmed by Sir David Dalyrimple. All but eleven verses of the New Testament are found in the works of second and third century writers. In addition to the many thousands of NT manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the NT in the early church fathers, and quotations in thousands of early lectionaries (worship books). 3. Evidence from extra-Biblical authors Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, III. 39) referring to Mark Papias (c. 130 AD) refers to Matthew's gospel Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) refers to the four gospels and Matthew If there is so much evidence why not at least take a fair look?

Your first statement: Why do you believe that about the Bible? What teachings read in context contradict itself? And why do you believe we don't have all the books that God intended for there to be in there? Further how do you determine what to believe, or to not believe? to your 2nd statement: What would ever lead you to the belief that God "always intended to have more than the Bible" The Bible doesnt say that! It says exactly the opposite. To your point about Mormon maps: The Mormon church has not ever authorized a publication of an official map of Book of Mormon lands and no I would not just believe anything from MAN thats why Im asking all this to begin with! Yes I do believe in revelation, but the BIble has very strict criteria to test spirits and to take every thought captive to God. The Bible tells us that our hearts are decietful and we cannot rely on them alone to find truth but that we much rightly divide the Word of God to understand. If we could not ever understand then why would he command us to do so? The criteria in the Bible for prophets is also very strict, The Bible specifically warns of false prophets who will teach "another gospel" centered around "another Jesus," and witnessed to by "another spirit" (2 Corinthians 11:4,13-15; Galatians 1:6-9). The rest of your questiona are a little confusing, and Its late and I'm not thinking as clear, so maybe thats it But I'll try to answer them if I can tomorrow, thanks!

but did you read my posts? My question was way more than that...Did you read the doctrinal differences? Thats a pretty big deal. Were not talking about some small church regulation here, were talking about HUGE contradictions between the Bible and all combined books of faith associated with Mormonism. Also with regard to your post about Jesus....It does look similar but when you break it down, there really are some huge differences just to name one... we believe Jesus was ALWAYS God, he never progressed. I'm off to bed and I wish you all a happy Easter! Thanks for all your responses, even though i feel more confused than ever, you all have been really patient so thank you!

But you have other books of faith that you believe to be just as sacred right? Doctrine and Covenants? Articles of faith? Pearl of great Price? Not to mention your prophets who are perhaps considered more important than all sacred texts as they can get new revelations? Together these things all make up your religion correct?

also, there are very good reasons for why other books were left out of the Biblical cannon if one were so inclined to research it..

Also, since I have been asked several times for clarification of doctrinal differences, a quick internet search gave me this list (although it could be more detailed this is a small part) The Bible teaches that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34). the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302). The Bible teaches That God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God —He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37). the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577). -The Bible teaches and that Jesus is the unique Son of God; he has always existed as God, and is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 14:9; Colossians 2:9). While never less than God, at the appointed time He laid aside the glory He shared with the Father (John 17:4, 5; Philippians 2:6-11) and was made flesh for our salvation; His incarnation was accomplished through being conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35). -By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192). --The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost are not separate Gods or separate beings, but are distinct Persons within the one Triune Godhead. Throughout the New Testament the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father are separately identified as and act as God (Son: Mark 2:5-12; John 20:28; Philippians 2:10,11; Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3,4; 2 Corinthians 3:17,18; 13:14); yet at the same time the Bible teaches that these three are only one God (see point 1). --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649). --The Bible teaches that the disobedience of our first parents Adam and Eve was a great evil. Through their fall sin entered the world, bringing all human beings under condemnation and death. Thus we are born with a sinful nature, and will be judged for the sins we commit as individuals. (Ezekiel 18:1-20; Romans 5:12-21). --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Adam’s sin was "a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us" (Gospel Principles, p. 33; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 2:25; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-115). --The Bible teaches that apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1,5) and are powerless to save ourselves. By grace alone, apart from self-righteous works, God forgives our sins and makes us worthy to live in His presence (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-6). Our part is only to cling to Christ in heartfelt faith. (However, it is certainly true that without the evidence of changed conduct, a person’s testimony of faith in Christ must be questioned; salvation by grace alone through faith, does not mean we can live as we please — Romans 6:1-4). --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms "exaltation in the celestial kingdom") must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the "celestial kingdom") — Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price — Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 25:23). --The Bible teaches that the purpose of the atoning work of Christ on the cross was to provide the complete solution for humankind’s sin problem. However, those who reject God’s grace in this life will have no part in this salvation but are under the judgment of God for eternity (John 3:36; Hebrews 9:27; 1 John 5:11-12). --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christ’s atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669). --The Bible teaches that the Bible is the unique, final and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1,2; 2 Peter 1:21) and that it will stand forever (1 Peter 1:23-25). God’s providential preservation of the text of the Bible was marvelously illustrated in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been corrupted, is missing many "plain and precious parts" and does not contain the fullness of the Gospel (Book of Mormon — 1 Nephi 13:26-29; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 190-191). --The Bible teaches that the true Church was divinely established by Jesus and could never and will never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18; John 15:16; 17:11). Christians acknowledge that there have been times of corruption and apostasy within the Church, but believe there has always been a remnant that held fast to the biblical essentials. --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there was a great and total apostasy of the Church as established by Jesus Christ; this state of apostasy "still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" of the Mormon Church (Gospel Principles, pp. 105-106; Mormon Doctrine, p. 44).

Thanks! :) Just for the record, I have read the BOM and I've also read a lot about the history (and my information has been from several different sources mostly your own leaders) and in reading it, it has brought me to question after question, and I sorta feel like hansel and gretel, following breadcrumbs to a new set of questions every day. I came here to get some answers to those questions about your faith. Things that just dont make sense to me, and to get a Mormons perspective on it.. A lot of things you all have said are in contradiction to things I have read from recognized Mormon doctrine, so I'm even more confused... I have faith in God, and I do pray. It has been inferred here a couple times already that I just need to pray and read the BOM to get my answers..but herein lies the problem, I want to know the history and I want to know the in's and out's of everything before I accept it fully. It's not a lack of faith or a hard heart, but a serious quest for truth and a reverance for his Word. In my heart there are too many doctrinal differences and contradictions between the Bible and the BOM for it not to matter... In my personal quest for truth I just cannot accept these differences as unconsequential. They matter to me A LOT and thats why I am asking, I will probably have a lot more questions for you soon or maybe I'll just re-write some quotes I already posted in full context to get some answers but basically, I guess I still do not understand why you do not trust the Bible completely. Why trust in some parts but not others? How do you decide what parts are right or wrong? One argument that has been made here already for not trusting in the Bible completely is because of the time it was written and the interpretation, but couldn't the same be said (perhaps more) of the BOM? Once again, to quote one of your own on the subject of the Bible: Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, stated: "In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts...Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies...With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change... It is easy to get lost in debate on details and fail to see the overwhelming agreement of all manuscripts to the historical record of the New Testament...This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament...There is more reason today, then, to agree with him (Sir Frederic Kenyon) that we possess the New Testament 'in substantial integrity' and to underline that 'the variations of the text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.' It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess." (Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, BYU, 1963, pp. 52-59) If this is truly the case, then Why not put more trust in The Bible than the BOM? I guess I am wondering from who does the authority derive from for the BOM? Why did God need to send another revelation to Joseph Smith that was so vastly different than the one already recieved in the Bible?

I understand that I have posed a lot of deep and personal questions but I don't think that because a question is hard or even controversial that it means we should just stop looking. Truth can withstand scrutiny. All scrutiny. I am not persectuing Mormons, I am wanting to have an open dialogue and be able to ask questions in a safe place, which I thought this was. The Bible tells us to study, and to rightly divide the Word of God. We are called to test the spirits and to read the Word of truth. If you believe this conversation is useless because there will always be doubt, I respect how you feel, However I personally disagree. It is critical to test the authenticity of any book that claims "divine imprimatur". I will say it again, Truth can withstand scrutiny.

My post was full of Mormon scholars who have studied hard on the subject, and although I agree that God could do anything, that point really only touches on a very small piece of my entire question. Respectfully I must ask if you read all the quotes I cited and questions I posed?

OK first I want to thank everyone for all your responses, and to ask you to be patient with me while I ask some more :) I really appreciate it! I have been asked what I mean my doctrinal differences, there are so many I will have to gather that info and post it later, they touch on Salvation, Jesus, who God is, the apostacy of the church, heaven, the Bible, humans being created vs. pro-created, many gods vs. one god etc. I also just want to take a moment to clarify, I have these questions because I want to understand better myself. Someone wrote here already that you only trust the Bible "as far as it has been translated correctly", this is a direct blow to my faith and inferring that my book of faith is faulty or wrong. In an effort to understand why you have that belief, I have done some searching... in searching for what evidences there are concerning that assertation, I have not found them. I found the opposite actually, and I would like to know your thoughts on this info...This is not to argue but to have a respectable discussion in an effort to find truth. Looking further online for why Mormons believe that the Bible is corrupted and not full or trustworthy in and of itself, I came across these words by a Mormon scholar, Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU: "Mormon writers have often taught that the Bible is a wholly unreliable record in matters of doctrine and history. This is because many "plain and precious truths" were either lost, removed, or corrupted by early Church leaders and later generations. However, modern Mormon scholarship has recently aligned itself with the findings of non-Mormon scholars around the world. Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, stated: "In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts...Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies...With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change... It is easy to get lost in debate on details and fail to see the overwhelming agreement of all manuscripts to the historical record of the New Testament...This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament...There is more reason today, then, to agree with him (Sir Frederic Kenyon) that we possess the New Testament 'in substantial integrity' and to underline that 'the variations of the text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.' It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess." (Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, BYU, 1963, pp. 52-59)" **Also, in regard to what book is more trustworthy I found this interesting article: Since the Book of Mormon is claimed to be the Word of God, and Joseph Smith stated, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on the face of the earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p.461), the implication is that this work is perfect in form and content. This has also been the understanding of LDS Church authorities during the last 150 years. Joseph Fielding Smith, sixth President of the Church, stated in a sermon: "Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God...The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver Huntington, 1881, p. 168) Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President of the Church, has likewise stated: "Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit, but each new revelation an doctrine and priesthood fitted into its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it has been prepared by the Master Builder." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. I, p.170) It would seem reasonable to assume, in light of such teachings by Church authorities, that current editions of the Book of Mormon would be identical to the 1830 edition, particularly since God made the translation. The following are a few examples of such corrected errors: 1. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents." (p.15) grammar 2. "...and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists." (p.49) grammar 3. "As I was a journeying." (p.249) - grammar 4. "...they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground." (p.204) -- grammar It is difficult to understand how a translation, superintended by the power of God, could contain such basic errors. It also cannot be said that these errors crept in through poor proof-reading or type-setting. Noted Mormon historian, Francis Kirkham, had this to say when considering the vast majority of changes in the original text: "Such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the 'typos,' or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character, they are of the web and woof of the style and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free from typographical errors." (Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, The Book of Mormon, 1942, pp.200-201) "Far more serious and troublesome are the substantive errors; those that have been corrected which were found to be in conflict with Mormon doctrine. The following are two illustrations. In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, on page 32, it reads, "And the angel spake unto me, saying: 'These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the World; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 13:40 in modern editions. Then on page 25 of the 1830 edition it reads, "And he said unto me, 'Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh...' And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me, 'behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 11: 18-21. The problem in these sections, and two others, is that Jesus is said to be the Eternal Father, contrary to current Mormon teaching. In later editions, "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father." Then I came across these remarks made by Dr. Dee Green, Mormon scientist and former editor of U.A.S. Newsletter. In the journal, Dialogue, he states in regard to no archaeological evidence supporting the BOM: "There have been no spectacular finds, no Zarahemlas discovered, no gold plates brought to light, no horses uncovered, and King Benjamin's tomb remains unexcavated... The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty handed." (Dialogue, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)" My question is should I trust the BOM over the Bible in light of all this evidence? If so, why?

I have a couple questions for Mormons if it's okay to ask :) A good friend has been talking a lot with me trying to convert me i suppose to Mormonism but I have some maybe tough questions (maybe you'll think there easy :) )that he has not been able to answer, and I was hoping for some insight from you all if I may...thanks! 1.)My friend insists that Mormons believe in the Bible and are "Christians"(like me), so my question to you all is, do you? And if you do then why are our most basic and fundamental beliefs so different? 2.) Is more importance placed on The Book of Mormon, Journals and discourses, Pear of great price, and your church leaders than the Bible? If so why? 3.)lastly, (for now )If God was once a man, how could he ever be trusted? Why should I put my faith in a man who has become a god? That is distinctly different from the Biblical God who says he is the same yesterday today and forever. Why should I put my trust in a changing god?