Best way to answer this?

[CommanderSouth]

"But you don't believe that Jesus gave us all that we need to be saved through his Apostles that he walked on Earth with. You believe what one man said 2000 years after Christ saved us by dying on the cross and leaving us His instructions. The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong."

Doctrinally I don't know how to answer that given I don't fully know she. Each of the ordinances for exaltation were introduced and in which dispensation. What advice or scriptures can you all think of?

[NeuroTypical]

Here's what Christ had to say about it:

Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall bwrite the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto dall nations of the earth and they shall write it. And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed iforever.

[Dravin]

"But you don't believe that Jesus gave us all that we need to be saved through his Apostles that he walked on Earth with.

Sure we do, we just believe it was lost. Now obviously they won't agree with that but that's getting into what they believe, not what I believe.

You believe what one man said 2000 years after Christ saved us by dying on the cross and leaving us His instructions.

This doesn't require a rebuttal. I suppose they're probably trying to imply something, but as stated it boils down to, "You believe what Joseph Smith said." Which we do.

The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong."

They're free to believe that it's wrong.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Dravin

[CommanderSouth]

Do we believe celestial marriage was taught by Christ definitively?

[mnn727]

The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong."

Most people that say this are referring to the verse in Revelations about 'adding or subtracting from THIS book', but are they aware that the book of Deuteronomy says the same thing, so why do they believe anything past the books of Moses? "This book" is the book of Revelations of John, not the Bible as a whole since the Bible did not exist when it was written.

Are they also aware that the Bible was not a book when that was written, in fact most scholars believe the Revelations of John were written before a number of books of the Bible.

Do they also realize that the only reason the Book of Revelations is at the end of the Bible is because it didn't fit in with any of the Gospels or letters (epistles)?

[NeuroTypical]

Do we believe celestial marriage was taught by Christ definitively?

So, it looks like you're researching common criticisms of our faith, or are talking to someone who is offering them. If you're looking for answers, you can find them in places like FARMS Review, or FAIR.

Your questions seem to be of the "If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't Christian!" variety. If you can discover the source of these criticisms, I can probably find a good review of the source for you - it'll have direct answers to a lot of what's said. Then you can see if our answers are good or not.

[Traveler]

"But you don't believe that Jesus gave us all that we need to be saved through his Apostles that he walked on Earth with. You believe what one man said 2000 years after Christ saved us by dying on the cross and leaving us His instructions. The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong."

Doctrinally I don't know how to answer that given I don't fully know she. Each of the ordinances for exaltation were introduced and in which dispensation. What advice or scriptures can you all think of?

Most likely no answer will make any difference what-so-ever. However, I usually address such things by asking two questions:

First: Where in the Bible is there a list of the books that should be in the Bible?

Second: Where in the Bible does it tells us to translate the scriptures into English - or any other modern language.

My point is simple; if it is wrong to add ideas to what the Bible teaches - Why are they adding a list of scriptures and calling it "all that we need to be saved" when no Biblical scripture says such a thing. And why are they reading the scripture in English (instead of learning the ancient languages that it is written in) if the scriptures they have does not command such a thing?

I do not believe these are reason because they are false reasons that they did not learn from studying scriptures - Their reasons are just excuses that have nothing to do with any teaching of Christ or any Apostle.

The Traveler

Edited September 10, 2013 by Traveler

[Dravin]

Do we believe celestial marriage was taught by Christ definitively?

To answer the question you are asking literally; D&C 132 (note the voice of the section). To answer the question I think you are intending to ask; Peter, James, and John possessed the sealing keys after the Mount of Transfiguration.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Dravin

[tubaloth]

Speeches

I began by asking, “May I proceed, sir, on the assumption that you are a Christian?”

“I am.”

“I assume you believe in the Bible—the Old and New Testaments?”

“I do!”

“Do you believe in prayer?”

“I do!”

“You say that my belief that God spoke to a man in this age is fantastic and absurd?”

“To me it is.”

“Do you believe that God ever did speak to anyone?”

“Certainly, all through the Bible we have evidence of that.”

“Did He speak to Adam?”

“Yes.”

“To Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, and on through the prophets?”

“I believe He spoke to each of them.”

“Do you believe that contact between God and man ceased when Jesus appeared on the earth?”

“No, such communication reached its climax, its apex, at that time.”

“Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God?”

“He was.”

“Do you believe, sir, that after Jesus was resurrected, a certain lawyer—who was also a tentmaker by the name of Saul of Tarsus—when on his way to Damascus talked with Jesus of Nazareth, who had been crucified, resurrected, and had ascended into heaven?”

“I do.”

“Whose voice did Saul hear?”

“It was the voice of Jesus Christ, for He so introduced Himself.”

“Then, my Lord—that is the way we address judges in the British Commonwealth—I am submitting to you in all seriousness that it was standard procedure in Bible times for God to talk to man.”

“I think I will admit that, but it stopped shortly after the first century of the Christian era.”

“Why do you think it stopped?”

“I can’t say.”

“You think that God hasn’t spoken since then?”

“I am sure He hasn’t.”

“There must be a reason. Can you give me a reason?”

“I do not know.”

“May I suggest some possible reasons? Perhaps God does not speak to man anymore because He cannot. He has lost the power.”

He said, “Of course that would be blasphemous.”

“Well, then, if you don’t accept that, perhaps He doesn’t speak to men because He doesn’t love us anymore and He is no longer interested in the affairs of men.”

“No,” he said, “God loves all men, and He is no respecter of persons.”

“Well, then, if He could speak, and if He loves us, then the only other possible answer, as I see it, is that we don’t need Him. We have made such rapid strides in science and we are so well educated that we don’t need God anymore.”

And then he said—and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war—“Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why He doesn’t speak.”

My answer was: “He does speak, He has spoken; but men need faith to hear Him.”

Then we proceeded to prepare what I may call a “profile of a prophet.”

[Dravin]

Your questions seem to be of the "If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't Christian!" variety.

Sadly way too many LDS get sucked into playing the "Prove me all your doctrines from the Bible!" game as a consequence of such questions.

[SpiritDragon]

You could always try this --> Ask them to answer this riddle:

Three guests check into a hotel room. The clerk says the bill is $30, so each guest pays $10. Later the clerk realizes the bill should only be $25. To rectify this, he gives the bellhop $5 to return to the guests. On the way to the room, the bellhop realizes that he cannot divide the money equally. As the guests didn't know the total of the revised bill, the bellhop decides to just give each guest $1 and keep $2 for himself. Each guest got $1 back: so now each guest only paid $9; bringing the total paid to $27. The bellhop has $2. And $27 + $2 = $29 so, if the guests originally handed over $30, what happened to the remaining $1?

The answer is of course that final equation of 27+2 = 29 not 30 is irrelevant because the men still paid the hotel $25 and when added to the two dollars the bellhop kept it makes $27 as it should, with an additional dollar each making up the original $30.

If they happen to know the answer to the riddle, let them know that their questions are of the same nature.

Christ and His Apostles gave the world all that was necessary... but they were rejected and the power needed to perform acceptable ordinances was lost. Therefore a restoration needed to take place. Why is it any harder to believe that God could return and re-establish what was lost than to set it up in the first place.

As for believing a man who came 2000 years after Christ... where does the bible state we don't need direction any more? It doesn't it states the opposite in Amos 3:7

And obviously every word that proceeded out of Christ's mouth and every letter of each apostle has been kept and recorded so we have it all (um, yeah. About that...)

The questions are avoiding the real issues of obtaining a testimony for oneself through personal study and prayer by throwing up smoke and mirrors that sort of appear to matter some how.

Edited September 11, 2013 by SpiritDragon

[drham3rd]

Having been in the Baptist church in my old life :), I can attest that many of these types of Christians are not familar with the history of the Bible. If you brought up the notion of cannonization of the scriptures, they would not understand. Somehow they have the impression that God dictated the KJV and that was that! It is hard to reason with these individuals since they do not even understand the history of the book they are trying to defend!

[CommanderSouth]

All of these comments help, I think I need to address some deficiencies in my own testimony before going too much further down these roads though. All additional insight is welcome though, and thanks to everyone so far! As always you guys are pretty Johnny on the spot to help me when questions come up and I run out of mormons to ask who will know what I am talking about :)

[NeuroTypical]

Doubt must be resolved, CommanderSouth. I'm pulling for ya.

:)

[MrShorty]

To me, it seems like this

The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong.

in many ways is the key statement she makes. To me, it seems like basically a statement of "sola scriptura" -- one of the foundational principles of the Reformation/Protestantism. To Protestants, this means that they start from the "axiom" that all scripture is contained in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, and that there can be no other scripture. Because it is such a foundational principle for Protestants, I'm not sure there is much that can really be said to dissuade someone. I think this might also be why Protestants get so "offended" by the Book of Mormon and other things in our theology -- because we openly reject sola scriptura.

I don't know if it helps any. To me, though, it at least helps me understand why she seems so adamant that it is wrong. It also helps me understand just how different LDS and Protestant theology is, and why it can be so hard on some of the principles to find common ground.

Obviously, LDS thought is not based on this same axiom.

[Finrock]

Hi CommandSouth. I hope you are doing well! :)

"But you don't believe that Jesus gave us all that we need to be saved through his Apostles that he walked on Earth with. You believe what one man said 2000 years after Christ saved us by dying on the cross and leaving us His instructions. The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong."

Doctrinally I don't know how to answer that given I don't fully know she. Each of the ordinances for exaltation were introduced and in which dispensation. What advice or scriptures can you all think of?

I'd say I believe Jesus gave us everything we need to be saved but people rejected what Jesus gave and made up their own religions. What we ended up with was the philosophies of man, mingled with scripture. Finally, when the time and place was right, Jesus restored all that He had given to the original apostles through the prophet Joseph Smith. So now, all those things we need to be saved, are back.

If you believe in Jesus Christ, then you will believe in the Book of Mormon, because it contains the words of Christ. Nothing has been added to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but instead, all the missing things have been restored. This is wonderful news! Jesus has visited the earth again. The Heavens are open and revelations, visions, dreams, powers, and all those wonderful gifts of the Spirit have been restored. He has given us back the apostles. We now have prophets again. We have all the truths that were missing, restored! We have the priesthood again. This isn't bad news. This isn't something to get upset about. This is something to have joy in! I invite you to investigate and find out for yourself.

Regards,

Finrock

[prisonchaplain]

A couple of non-LDS thoughts...since the "Bible" of Jesus' day was the LXX--a Greek translation of the Old Testament, it does not seem much of a stretch to believe that the Bible should be translated into local languages. Still, very few Christians argue that such translations are infallible. Incredibly accurate? Yes! Not infallible.

On the matter of the authority of the Bible, my major difference with LDS teaching would not be about continuing revelation itself. Rather, I would argue that prior revelation that is canonized sits in judgment of latter messages. God's words should not contradict, so what is already revealed should not stand in opposition or contrast to a more modern revelation. It is my impression from discussions here that most LDS would place greater stock in latter revelations, since the Bible could have translation difficulties. Also, since modern revelations are sustained by faith, LDS are quicker to use them to understand prior messages, rather than vice versa--at least from what I'm understanding in my discussions here (which of course are not official).

[justinc]

"But you don't believe that Jesus gave us all that we need to be saved through his Apostles that he walked on Earth with. You believe what one man said 2000 years after Christ saved us by dying on the cross and leaving us His instructions. The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong."

Doctrinally I don't know how to answer that given I don't fully know she. Each of the ordinances for exaltation were introduced and in which dispensation. What advice or scriptures can you all think of?

Another non-LDS response.

I hate when people talk about "adding to the bible" as though it's somehow the final authority of everything. I almost wish it was never compiled. The bible is a collection of ancient writings handed down by religious people who believed they were the people of God. The issue is not then "adding to the bible" the real issue would be "falsely claiming/adding to the history of Gods people."

Personally I am not convinced about the Book of Mormon and LDS history, in fact I think there are good reasons not to believe it. But to say "The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong" comes from a lack of understanding on their part.

[skippy740]

"But you don't believe that Jesus gave us all that we need to be saved through his Apostles that he walked on Earth with. You believe what one man said 2000 years after Christ saved us by dying on the cross and leaving us His instructions. The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong."

Doctrinally I don't know how to answer that given I don't fully know she. Each of the ordinances for exaltation were introduced and in which dispensation. What advice or scriptures can you all think of?

Most Christians believe that the scripture in Revelations applies to the entire compiled Bible.

Revelations 22:19

19 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.

Depending on the tenor of the conversation, I'll usually counter with Deuteronomy 4:2

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.

Does this mean that everything added since Deuteronomy should not have been added? This is a lot easier using printed scriptures instead of digital ones. Just ask if you should rip out everything since Deuteronomy? This would include the life of Christ and the entire New Testament.

So what is the proper interpretation of these verses? I believe it is by asking this question: Did we add to the Book of Revelations, specifically "this prophecy"? No. Did we add to the word within Deuteronomy? No.

Who are we to limit what God can and cannot do in this day?

[prisonchaplain]

Most Evangelical academics, scholars, and thoughtful apologists have discarded the use of Rev. 22:19 as a one-liner against LDS. It does refer specifically to the Book of Revelation, and those who try to use it for more can end up flat-footed, as Skippy demonstrated. I'd still offer that revelations that are significant changes from what has gone before will face proportionate resistance. If you are right it does not matter. Jesus knew that well.

[Traveler]

A couple of non-LDS thoughts...since the "Bible" of Jesus' day was the LXX--a Greek translation of the Old Testament, it does not seem much of a stretch to believe that the Bible should be translated into local languages. Still, very few Christians argue that such translations are infallible. Incredibly accurate? Yes! Not infallible.

On the matter of the authority of the Bible, my major difference with LDS teaching would not be about continuing revelation itself. Rather, I would argue that prior revelation that is canonized sits in judgment of latter messages. God's words should not contradict, so what is already revealed should not stand in opposition or contrast to a more modern revelation. It is my impression from discussions here that most LDS would place greater stock in latter revelations, since the Bible could have translation difficulties. Also, since modern revelations are sustained by faith, LDS are quicker to use them to understand prior messages, rather than vice versa--at least from what I'm understanding in my discussions here (which of course are not official).

The biggest problem I have in thinking that scripture contains "authority" is in the ancient example of the Scribes and Pharisees at the time of Christ. In all the world there were not more "qualified" scholars and experts experts in scriptures and how they should be interpreted than than the Scribes and Pharisees. Without their contribution they would be no Bible. And no one would argue that their contribution in preserving divine Biblical scripture is unparallelled in history. But it was these very pious, deeply religious individuals under that authority and tradition of their scripture that opposed and crucified Christ. See John 7:

45 ¶Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?

46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?

48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?

49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

The reference in verse 49 to "the law" was a direct reference to the authority of scripture. Which we see is in reality a false doctrine.

The Traveler

[Guest]

A couple of non-LDS thoughts...since the "Bible" of Jesus' day was the LXX--a Greek translation of the Old Testament, it does not seem much of a stretch to believe that the Bible should be translated into local languages. Still, very few Christians argue that such translations are infallible. Incredibly accurate? Yes! Not infallible.

On the matter of the authority of the Bible, my major difference with LDS teaching would not be about continuing revelation itself. Rather, I would argue that prior revelation that is canonized sits in judgment of latter messages. God's words should not contradict, so what is already revealed should not stand in opposition or contrast to a more modern revelation. It is my impression from discussions here that most LDS would place greater stock in latter revelations, since the Bible could have translation difficulties. Also, since modern revelations are sustained by faith, LDS are quicker to use them to understand prior messages, rather than vice versa--at least from what I'm understanding in my discussions here (which of course are not official).

Most Evangelical academics, scholars, and thoughtful apologists have discarded the use of Rev. 22:19 as a one-liner against LDS. It does refer specifically to the Book of Revelation, and those who try to use it for more can end up flat-footed, as Skippy demonstrated. I'd still offer that revelations that are significant changes from what has gone before will face proportionate resistance. If you are right it does not matter. Jesus knew that well.

And that's really why you're AoG and I'm LDS and some other people are Catholics and Baptists and Methodists and Jewish, etc. It's not about adding scripture or whatever it was stated in the OP. It is in one's testimony of whether the interpretation of the teachings of the Bible is correct as stated by <insert denomination here>. Because even when denominations agree on what the correct translation of the teaching is, they could still disagree on what it implies. Catholics, using the same exact translation of the Bible, believe divorce and artificial birth control are grave sins whereas Baptists don't.

And that's really what the BoM and PGP is all about. Just like there are 4 accounts of Jesus' ministry, the BoM gives a second account of the entire gospel, adding events that were lost/excluded from the Bible, to get to the accurate implication (not just translation) of the same doctrines that all Christians profess.

Therefore, unless you gain a testimony of that second account, there's really no point in being LDS.

[prisonchaplain]

The biggest problem I have in thinking that scripture contains "authority" is in the ancient example of the Scribes and Pharisees at the time of Christ. In all the world there were not more "qualified" scholars and experts experts in scriptures and how they should be interpreted than than the Scribes and Pharisees. Without their contribution they would be no Bible. And no one would argue that their contribution in preserving divine Biblical scripture is unparallelled in history. But it was these very pious, deeply religious individuals under that authority and tradition of their scripture that opposed and crucified Christ. See John 7:

The reference in verse 49 to "the law" was a direct reference to the authority of scripture. Which we see is in reality a false doctrine.

The Traveler

It wasn't the Bible's fault.

IMHO much of the misuse of the Bible is due to the same type of interpreting that we're seeing over at the fun string "What I mean is..."

We read what we want into the words. Again, it's not the Bible's fault.

[prisonchaplain]

Therefore, unless you gain a testimony of that second account, there's really no point in being LDS.

True enough. Luther lost his testimony of the authority and anointing of church hierarchy. My forefathers couldn't understand why some of the experiences of the early church weren't still happening...so they sought them.

I understand that many converts to LDS say they felt something was missing in their old church or religious practice. It makes sense that the counter to that is that if I have a strong testimony of my current faith, I'll look to those second accounts and ask, "Was something added?"

[Traveler]

It wasn't the Bible's fault.

IMHO much of the misuse of the Bible is due to the same type of interpreting that we're seeing over at the fun string "What I mean is..."

We read what we want into the words. Again, it's not the Bible's fault.

Which is exactly my point - Where there is no fault or in other words, responsibility, there is no authority nor can there be.

Therefore the only authority, that can in reality exist, is the individual that interprets scripture - especially those that interpret scriptures for others - which if you think about it is the very core definition of authority concerning others.

The Traveler