tfrey1225 Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Hey I was just wondering what the LDS response is to the common evangelical criticism that the LDS "adds to the Word of God." They often quote Deut. 4:2 which reads: 2Ye 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. I was just wondering how you guys react when that passage is brought up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 ... Why would we have to say anything to that? We don't add anything to that which God has commanded us to. God brought forth the Book of Mormon. If your friend is suggesting that Deuteronomy is saying that no more scripture will come out, point out that it certainly isn't the last book of the bible. In fact, if they're saying God is saying there's no more scripture, then wish them Happy Chanukah and shalom as they must be Jewish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tfrey1225 Posted November 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 ... Why would we have to say anything to that? We don't add anything to that which God has commanded us to. God brought forth the Book of Mormon.If your friend is suggesting that Deuteronomy is saying that no more scripture will come out, point out that it certainly isn't the last book of the bible. In fact, if they're saying God is saying there's no more scripture, then wish them Happy Chanukah and shalom as they must be Jewish.Thanks for the reply. I (growing up for the most part of my life Baptist) have heard that passage bandied about as "proof" against the LDS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 No problem. I hear Revelations 'Do not add unto' one myself. The counter-argument to that is always Deuteronomy. I'm honestly surprised someone would use Deuteronomy as an argument against the church, since that's not even close to the last book or word of the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 ... Why would we have to say anything to that? We don't add anything to that which God has commanded us to. God brought forth the Book of Mormon.Agreed.If your friend is suggesting that Deuteronomy is saying that no more scripture will come out, point out that it certainly isn't the last book of the bible. In fact, if they're saying God is saying there's no more scripture, then wish them Happy Chanukah and shalom as they must be Jewish.And not very good Jews, either, since they will reject everything after Deuteronomy 4, which includes all of the "prophets" and the "writings". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hordak Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 I have heard the argument before but usually it stems from the book of revelation. Of course they ignore the fact that don't add to this book means THIS BOOK , the book of revelation and not this book the bible which wasn't compiled until years after the quote was made. Plus IIRC Revelation wasn't the last book written. Just last in the bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormwitch Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) I have heard the argument before but usually it stems from the book of revelation.Of course they ignore the fact that don't add to this book means THIS BOOK , the book of revelation and not this book the bible which wasn't compiled until years after the quote was made. Plus IIRC Revelation wasn't the last book written. Just last in the bible.So true. It makes absolutely no sense to apply these phrases to anything but the specific book (deuteronomium or revelations) as both were not the last books of the Old or New Testament written. And ask anybody who has studied the history of the bible: there have been additions to the scriptures all over... texts in the synoptic gospels were aligned... Genesis consists probably of several sources, Isaiah 40-55 are also called "Deutero-Isaiah".And I do not want to make any guesses what was done by the "Church Fathers" in the early centuries to get the scriptures fit exactly their purposes. And the great churches still do by publishing translations of the Bible that sustain their views (I work as a translator, and I know, that the possible translations of a single sentence can differ so much, that you will not believe it was the same sentence!) As a matter of fact: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints never added to the word of God, it only published and proclaimed more and new "word of God" as it came from His own mouth or the mouth of His servants. (And if somebody refers to the JST -- see the explanation about translation above... -- and consider the possibility that God's word has been restored properly in this translation!) Edited November 25, 2009 by stormwitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 Hey I was just wondering what the LDS response is to the common evangelical criticism that the LDS "adds to the Word of God." They often quote Deut. 4:2 which reads: 2Ye 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.I was just wondering how you guys react when that passage is brought up?Take a course on how the bible was put together in what order and by whom. It will help you to understand the background of the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exnonlds Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 wouldn't it be more applicable if the bible had a statement to the effect: and the mouth of God was silenced forevermore. ? i always found it interesting that scriptures like these were used in the effort against the church when at the same time you will see some of those same people passing papers that are so called prophecies from so called prophets around in their churches with great enthusiasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 Both Dueteronomy and Revelation are specific in two senses. Of course, Moses would refer primarily to his writings. And John to his revelation. However, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the warnings extend--that anyone who says a given writing is of God, is scripture, and it's not is in big trouble. So, either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, or he's in big trouble. Neither Dueteronomy nor Revelation tell us which. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmarklin Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) The idea that Joseph Smith or any LDS church member is adding to the word of God is quite silly if you stop to think about it.The bible contains all necessary things for our salvation. The "additional" LDS scriptures such as the Book of Mormon etc only add clarification. If you look at the fundamental doctrines between Mormons and Catholics for example you'll find them the same in their essentials. Faith, repentance, etc. etc.Joseph Smith's non acceptance of other religions is bible based. There are many instances of changes made by so called Christian religions to the extent that God rejected them all, and wanted a restoration of all things. Some of the things are only alluded to in the bible. But by and large they are all there.The book of Mormon is a self proclaimed additional testimony of Christ...nothing more or less. It's not changing any fundamental doctrine. The D&C clarifies and codifies certain ordinances, priesthood duties etc.....but all are biblical based. Things for example like the Melchizedek Priesthood are clarified and explained in Mormon theology. But all this is alluded to in the bible. The protestant world is still trying to figure it out, and argues a lot about it, but since they have no modern revelation about what the bible is alluding to they can only speculate. Edited November 25, 2009 by mrmarklin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekabalist Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 The humorous mentioning of the Jews reminds me of how greatly misinterpreted Judaism is on the issue of the canon. We don't have a canon as Christianity defines it. Much less a "closed canon" for that matter. So you can't really compare as they are apples and oranges. For example Judaism holds that the books of the Torah are the most sacred literature there is. The other books are not considered to be on the same level as the books of the Torah. Then comes the Prophets. Then comes the other writings which are not on the same level as the Torah or the Prophets. We also have a written record of our oral laws. This is something quite different because while they are not canon they contain canon. The Talmud isn't just about the oral laws. But the oral laws are on the same level as the Torah. Then we have some commentaries which we believe came fourth by the inspiration of G-d. Rashi and Maimonides for example are on that level. And we certainly have other holy books which are considered inspired such as the Zohar. Recently some kabbalistic works such as the Tanya have been considered to be profitable for all Israel. And last but not least the halachah (guidance) of the sages are considered to be binding by the power of G-d. So while the Tanach (Torah + Prophets + Writings) is a closed system this doesn't annul the fact that Judaism has always believed in continuous revelation. The idea of immutable revelation isn't Jewish and so it's an idea Christianity developed on its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 I am wondering about alternate ways of saying closed cannon. How about"frozen shut book", a latinized "textus staticus", or even "would you please hold, there is no one on the line"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RanMan Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Both Dueteronomy and Revelation are specific in two senses. Of course, Moses would refer primarily to his writings. And John to his revelation. However, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the warnings extend--that anyone who says a given writing is of God, is scripture, and it's not is in big trouble. So, either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, or he's in big trouble. Neither Dueteronomy nor Revelation tell us which.Good point. I sure wouldn't want to be in the position of facing God after adding to His word. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Hey I was just wondering what the LDS response is to the common evangelical criticism that the LDS "adds to the Word of God." They often quote Deut. 4:2 which reads: 2Ye 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.I was just wondering how you guys react when that passage is brought up? You could ask how it is that they read the scriptures in English.The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.