Some questions for Mormons

[xanmad33]

I am glad you are here, xan, and I hope you stick around for a while and enjoy yourself and learn. I look forward to learning from you.

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?

[xanmad33]

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).

[xanmad33]

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..

[a-train]

Mormons see NO difference in doctrine taught within the Bible and that taught within the Book of Mormon. There is no difference.

-a-train

[xanmad33]

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?

[a-train]

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).

Take this for example. Jesus of Nazareth is the Alpha and Omega. Jesus is the beginning and the end, He is all powerful and all knowing. As is mentioned in Psalm 139, the presence of His spirit cannot be escaped, and in Isaiah 40 'there is no searching of His understanding.' He has indeed always existed as God.

Was he not once as we are now? Was He not born on the earth in the same manner whereby we have been? Did he not receive a body of flesh and bone through the vessel of the Virgin? Did He not endure childhood and manhood? Did He not physically die? Did He not physically rise from the grave? Did He not show the prints of the nails in His hands and in His feet to His disciples and did they not feel them? Did He not say to them: 'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.' (Luke 24:39) Did He not ascend into heaven having been received into the clouds accompanied by angels? Did He not partake of exaltation? Did He not so rise to sit enthroned in yonder heavens?

If Jesus of Nazereth did none of these things, then perhaps the Bible IS faulty, because it sure makes it out like He did. Before I sound like a preacher, let me just simplify it. Mormons believe the Bible deeply and our love for it is very passionate.

-a-train

[a-train]

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?

If you are familiar with canonization throughout Christiandom, it will be helpful to note that the same principle exists in Mormondom. While persons are not canonized in Mormonism, writings are. The canon is officially the Standard Works (which includes the texts you mentioned) and official declarations or teachings of modern leadership.

Mormons are not compelled to weigh one verse or one leader's word against another. They all agree. It is not like: 'Peter said this and Mormon said that, we'll take Mormon over Peter.' or 'We'll take Hinckley over Benson.' Apparent contradictions are most often solved by a growth in understanding and the actual trouble is usually not in what is written, but how it is interpreted.

-a-train

[tubaloth]

Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament...

I would probably agree to. Most of the what is in the bible is correct. That’s why we use a the King James version of the bible. But I would never say it is 100% correct. There are teachings that contradict itself. Even more (and probably a bigger thing) is we just don’t have all the scriptures in the bible.

We have to realize that God always planed to have more then just the bible. He did this to help offset any confusion or errors that would have come over time.

the implication is that this work is perfect in form and content.

Sure I guess I will follow this. Its more talking about getting us closer to God.

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:

The Original version, the written out version from the scribe had not grammar at all. So that had to put in by man later on. I’m sure different people disagreed on what was best. These are Men trying to publish a work done by God.

It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business

Exactly You can find many differences on any type of Map of the Book of Mormon lands. And most of these maps have nothing to do with todays topography.

Do you believe the bible because of archaeology evidence? I guess it do find that kind of funny, you didn’t want to trust God because he could have been a man. But then here you want to trust men over God?

It won’t matter.

So I have some questions for you? (Sense this is a discussion?)

1. Do you believe in Revelation? Either that you can get answers to prayers (that God can tell you what to do) or on a bigger scale that Church Leaders (for what ever church) can be guided by God, just like prophets of old?

2. Do you believe that only those in the bible are the only people on this earth that

A. Had the Gospel of Jesus Christ Preached to them?

B. Where the only ones to write it down?

3. If more scripture was found in Jerusalem, or Iraq, or China, and I guess scholars translated it. Lets just say it was some more writings of Paul, would you view these as scripture or as what?

4. Whats so bad about having more writings about Jesus Christ?

[xanmad33]

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!

[skalenfehl]

You do have a lot of good questions and thanks for your patience while we try to answer them. Happy Easter.

[xanmad33]

I would probably agree to. Most of the what is in the bible is correct. That’s why we use a the King James version of the bible. But I would never say it is 100% correct. There are teachings that contradict itself. Even more (and probably a bigger thing) is we just don’t have all the scriptures in the bible.

We have to realize that God always planed to have more then just the bible. He did this to help offset any confusion or errors that would have come over time.

Sure I guess I will follow this. Its more talking about getting us closer to God.

The Original version, the written out version from the scribe had not grammar at all. So that had to put in by man later on. I’m sure different people disagreed on what was best. These are Men trying to publish a work done by God.

Exactly You can find many differences on any type of Map of the Book of Mormon lands. And most of these maps have nothing to do with todays topography.

Do you believe the bible because of archaeology evidence? I guess it do find that kind of funny, you didn’t want to trust God because he could have been a man. But then here you want to trust men over God?

It won’t matter.

So I have some questions for you? (Sense this is a discussion?)

1. Do you believe in Revelation? Either that you can get answers to prayers (that God can tell you what to do) or on a bigger scale that Church Leaders (for what ever church) can be guided by God, just like prophets of old?

2. Do you believe that only those in the bible are the only people on this earth that

A. Had the Gospel of Jesus Christ Preached to them?

B. Where the only ones to write it down?

3. If more scripture was found in Jerusalem, or Iraq, or China, and I guess scholars translated it. Lets just say it was some more writings of Paul, would you view these as scripture or as what?

4. Whats so bad about having more writings about Jesus Christ?

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!

[a-train]

we believe Jesus was ALWAYS God, he never progressed.

Can you direct me to the Mormon scripture or quote that talks of some time where Jesus was NOT God? Mormons believe Jesus was ALWAYS God.

-a-train

[Flyonthewall]

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).

Here is a good reference: Do We Have the Potential to become Like God?

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).

Here are some good references:

Cherry-Picking in the Orchard of God's Word

What do Latter-day Saints mean when they say that God was once a man?

-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).

Here is a good reference for you:http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Did_God_have_Sex_with_Mary.pdf

--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).

Here is a good article to read: Church Publications (HTML)

--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).

Here is a good article to read: Church Publications (HTML)

--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).

Another good read: Church Publications (HTML)

--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).

A good article: Gospel Link

--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).

Here is a good reference: Is the Bible Complete and Inerrant?

The Corruption of Scripture in the Second Century

--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).

Another good read: Mormonism 201: Chapter 6

[Dale]

I just honestly confess the scriptures mix mono-theism with dare we say tri-theism. The latin word persona which i learned about when i read Understanding The Trinity looked looked a spurious harmonization trick by persons who wanted to deny God and Christ as two Gods. Evangelical scholar Allister E. McGrath is the author. Without the persons being mere roles of God they can be defined as two modern persons.

Actually the Gods in the Book of Abraham with the exception of Jesus are gods with a small "g". They are the angelic hosts assistants to God in creation. Most explain the "us and "our" In Gensisis 1:26,27;3:22;11:7 as the plural of majesty. I happen to prefer the idea god was having a conversation with Jesus and the angelic host. Outreach Judaism - responds directly to the issues raised by missionaries and cults. Responds to Jews For Jesus The Lord did not object to Lucifer calling him and the angelic host gods. (Genisis 3:5,22) Rather than use a small "g" Joseph smith called them Gods with a large "G' to do justice to Jesus deity. These other Gods are not Gods before or after supreme Deity at all.

Can the persons of God talk to each other when the creation was going on? They did so in the New Testament.

The only thing that prevents becoming gods and goddesses is the existence of only one God. If the Father and Son are aware of each other thats two Gods. You would then have the option of accepting the plurality of Gods, or equivocating on Jesus Deity like my Community of Christ used to. But you would still have a 2nd God just a figurative one under the Supreme Deity.

The idea of becoming real gods accept in a highly figurative sense is not my idea. But LDS believe that the gods will be subordinate to God and not worshipped. The idea the Father did it and now is worshipped is a rare opportunity which i doubt many LDS will get if any of them. Even Jesus Deity in LDS belief does not represent his own exclusiveness as God, but the Fathers. I looked at my copy of Gospel principles and could not find a promise for LDS they will ever get prayers or worship.

Psalm 90:2 should be read with Psalm 103:17. The mercy can't be literally "from everlasting to everlasting" upon those "that fear him." I understand the word everlasting comes from the Hebrew Olam. It refers to a long, but hidden period of time. It is uncertain as to it temporal duration. But certainly it is uncertain proof against the idea God had a start as God. (Isa.40:28) Psalm 139:7-10 should be read in light of the fact Jesus was a personage in-between his death and resurrection. The Holy Spirit is treated as part of Gods spirit because the personages of God are lumped together with it. Luke 1:37 i saw it having nothing to do with the points made.

I do not see Joseph Smith as intending to start the spirit birth idea. I think his idea of the continuation of the seeds was physical children being born. I see D.&C. 29:30,31, and Collossians 1:16 as having if the heavenly mother idea be true having spirit children via Jesus. If both Lucifers and Jesus spirit bodies were created by God that makes them brothers. I have read Evangelical word studies on the word Firstborn in Coll. 1:15 as saying it means pre-eminent only. I have seen better studies that argue it can mean born first.

You can call three self aware persons one God. But for them to be aware of each other they have to be as smart each of them by themselves as three men. But the use of a term with an unorthodox meaning is a common ploy. I feel New Testament wriiers mixed mono-theism with a social Trinity idea to make the idea acceptable to strict mono-theists.

Was Jesus a Ghost in-between his death and resurrection? If the essence of god is divided that makes two Gods not one. Jesus spirit form was created.(Collossians 1:15) That would not prevent a form for the Holy Ghost being created either i suppose. Though their intelligence whatever it was could if i understand LDS belief right be uncreated. At most i see a complaing about literal spirit birth having merit. The rest of LDS belief on this subject has no complaint coming from me. I see more errors in Evangelicalism than among LDS on these same ideas.

If Eve had been kicked out and Adam remained in they would have had no children. Would not both of them falling not have been neccessary for them to be the primal parents of their descendants?

Don't think God can't damn anyone for not doing some of those commanded works. Saying man is not saved by acts of human effort is not the same as saying none of those works if we fail to do them can't damn us to hell.(James 2:10)

I feel LDS have possibly misunderstood D.&C. 132:4,6,27. The LDS Bible Dictionary has a topic of Damnation. (pg.652) words can have different meaning and to LDS Damnation can mean stopped progress. A part of their definition i dispute is the idea angels who are saved without exaltation do not have eternal life. The verses i referred to were used to say that. But i see the verses as only applying to those who end up in hell or outer darkness. So i do not confuse the idea the "angels did not abide my law" for exaltation with saying they did not abide the law for eternal life.(132:17) The revelation in verses 23-25 is a take off on Matthew 7,13,14, and John 17:3. In order for angels to be saved the New Testament verses can't just be about exalted people. If one does not have eternal life one goes to outer darkness, or the final hell.

What i feel should be done is because i feel its a misreading is to keep exaltation and eternal life as seperate terms. One type of eternal life is more than just salvation from hell to a part of the kingdom.

Let me let you in on a secret about Celestial law. Its set up to be impossible to man. But remember with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:25-26 and the whole story in Matthew 19:16-30) One witnessing approach some evangelicals use on LDS is to ask questions. Have you sinned the same sin twice? Or are you abiding Celestial law? These questions are based on certain verses in the D.&C. which i am to fatigued to look up. My answer i can no more do it than that rich young man.

Another objection is based on Matthew 18:21-35. And LDS leader had a story of Jesus taking over our debt with God. And as long as the person keeps on making payments they will be saved from prision. So R. Philip Roberts had a section of his book called something like Debt or No Debt. While pondering that section he pointed to Matthew 18 for his idea of no debt. But i don't see it as saying we don't owe a new debt to Jesus. Why else would God be willing to forgive us seven time's seventy if he had not spread out the payments, or we had no new debt? The point was only if we want Gods forgiveness for old debts to remain in effect we have to forgive others. But yes indeed we can and will be called to account to God not for old debt, but future debts the Father will call us to account for.

I detest the idea salvation by grace is mere resurrection. Salvation from hell to me is eternal life. Christ's atonement would be only a partial basis for worthiness to obtain exaltation. LDS might define eternal life differently than me based on a different view, but any dead saved from outer darkness is still saved by grace from hell. The requirement of Celestial law for exaltation is a requirement to do what is impossible to man. But for God all things impossible are possible. He has to have a way to Judge persons guilty of breaking Celestial law. (James 2:10) But breaking Celestial law should not be misunderstood as sending the offender necesarily to outer darkness, or hell if one prefers. A person can be sent to a lesser part of the kingdom in the new heaven and earth.

The word of God will last forever. Even if the Book of Revelations were tampered with in the first copy the original would be remembered by God. (1 Peter 1:23-25) Hebrews 1:1,2 if read wrong could prevent the writing of the New testament. God spoke via Old testament prophets. and then he spoke via Jesus. and jesus spoke via apostles who wrote new scripture. Nothing in it say's scripture writing was to end after the apostles wrote the New Testament. We have a discussion on the Dead sea Scrolls in another post.

FAIR has articles arguing against the evangelical position on Bible preservation. when i read both sides i felt the Evangelical apologetic was hiding facts from me.

If Martin Luther did not reform the church he was not along with his fellow reformers that faithful remnant. Without a succesful reformation of the church back to true doctrine the apostasy prevails among Evangelicals.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I've just very quickly read through this thread before going to Church this morning and I know that my response is nowhere near going to do it justice but I do just feel moved to make one comment regarding the Bible.

Mormons take the Bible very seriously and study it carefully. In studying we can see that there are some discrepancies but these do not stop us regarding it with reverence. I do believe it to be the word of God as far as teaching me what I need to know for the sake of my salvation. I also believe that there are some things missed out because Biblical writers refer to them and yet we do not have them. For some reason when the Bible was compiled (long after Jesus' death and resurrection) men decided that they would have some things as accepted teachings band rejected others.

Reading through your New Testament can you tell me how Judas died? Can you tell me who first saw the resurrected Christ? It depends on which Gospel you read doesn't it? They can't both be right can they? Does it in fact matter as regarding my eternal salvation? I don't think so. What does matter is my relationship with the Saviour.

[Elgama]

Like Willow and Xhenli have said I think part of your problem understanding where a Latter Day Saint comes from is you are approaching it from an academic point of view first and a spiritual or relationship point of view second, for most of us it doesn't matter that we differ from mainstream Christianity because we are Latter Day Saints, because revelation has told us that is the right way to go. Most Latter Day Saints place their relationship with God before any word of scripture, after all who would believe the Book of Mormon was the Word of God without revelation, many of us live our lives day to day with revelation from bevthe Lord which can come in many ways sometimes through scripture or prophets, some through a still small voice or gut feeling, dreams, too many ways to mention really.

If I was coming at it from an academic point of view the Bible would not be my choice of scripture - evolution has a lot of evidence going for it, there are places in the Bible we can't find eg Sodom and Gommorah, and the dates for Joseph and Moses etc are dodgy. There is as much archaeological evidence Nephi existed as there is for Abraham.

-Charley

[Dale]

FAIR Wiki had some good articles on Bible manuscript preservation.

Biblical innerancy

Biblical inerrancy - FAIRMormon

Textual Criticism

Textual criticism - FAIRMormon

Both articles also link to a lot of other material.

One very common Anti-Mormon witnessing approach is to raise a series of rapid fire questions in an attempt to overwhelm. FAIR Wiki deals with two such common long lists. Its at the top of the contents under Reviews and FAIR Projects. FAIRwiki:Table of contents - FAIRMormon

[xanmad33]

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?

[xanmad33]

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

[xanmad33]

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: "

[xanmad33]

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

[Andrew777]

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.

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.

Of course it's pro-Mormon this is a Mormon website what did you expect. As for indoctrination; don't insult my intelligence, I was indoctrinated by evangelical Christians probably ones just like yourself and finally found the truth of the LDS church within the bible and the 'additional' scriptures. You pick and choose out of the bible, this is why there are thousands of denominations picking and choosing -- the LDS church takes the bible as a whole puts the concepts together then completes it all through modern day revelation. I came to the conclusions I did straight out of the bible -- that the book of Mormon and additional revelation would be needed, that baptism is needed for remission of sins, that the church needed to be restored, etc... none of the modern day revelations contradict anything in the bible. I wake up and praise God every day that I was led and I was willing enough to search so that I could find the truth of his church and not be left in the half truths I grew up to believe. I do thank the evangelicals though and my good Christian upbringing as being a stepping stone to the LDS faith and the fullness of the gospel I have received in Christ's church.

[skalenfehl]

Thats why Mormons need other books, because the stuff just isnt there.

That is precisely why the Lord prepared another people to write a new testmant of Jesus Christ. "Out of the mouths of two or more witnesses shall every word be established". The Lord has given us further revelations necessary that are not in the Bible. As you said, "because the stuff just isn't there."

Joseph Smith began work on correcting the Bible through revelation from the Lord, but never had a chance to finish it, but what he did manage to finish shows some significant differences (Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible).

Also, when Nephi's family departed from Jerusalem, they took with them brass plates that contained the history of the Jews from the time of Adam down to their present time (reign of Zedekiah) including the five books of Moses, the prophets and their lineage. Nephi particularly understood and taught from Isaiah and even included many of Isaiah's chapters in his own volume. Consider and compare 2 Nephi chapter 27 with Isaiah chapter 29, which prophesy of of the apostacy, the coming of the Book of Mormon, the three witnesses, and the restored gospel (a marvelous work and a wonder). Isaiah knew all about this and wrote about it. Had the clergymen, scribes, editors, etc of the early churches kept this portion of Isaiah's words, that would have posed a threat to the early church, but instead altered or removed scriptures as they saw fit.

Nephi also saw our day and understood the scriptures that he had brought with his family and relished the words of Isaiah so much that he copied many of Isaiah's chapters for our benefit. The bottom line is either our church is the restored church of Christ, built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Christ Himself as the cornerstone and revelation being the rock of His church or as President Hinckley said at one time, "...or we are a fraud". But we stand by our convictions, revelations and testimonies for it is only through revelation that we can know the truth of things, know the fullness of the gospel and continue to receive revelation through our prophet concerning His church in our time. It cannot be any simpler than this.

I am not a scholar or a learned theologian, but I can share my witness to you.

The only challenge I can offer you in all sincerity is to ponder this in your heart and as Moroni exhorts us in chapter 10 verses 3-5, pray to your Father in Heaven with real intent and if you truly are ready and willing to live according to your answer, He will manifest the truth to you by the power of the Holy Ghost. But you must have a sincere heart, real intent and faith that He will reveal His truths to you.

[Flyonthewall]

How interesting that you state that all the Mormon sources to your "questions" are pro-mormon. What exactly did you expect? It should be no surprise that we use pro-mormon sources in the same way you use "anti-mormon" sources for your questions.

You have been very adept in citing "anti-mormon" web-sites and sources, you could very well have used the same amount of effort going to "pro-mormon" sources to get the rebuttals yourself. They can be located on the FAIRLDS.org site, FARMS.com site and lds.org website.

Everything, and I mean everything, you have cited and questioned has already answered on one of these sites I uh um...cited.(double/triple speak with the site/cite)

Those of us on this board have answered your questions and issues, with the assumption they were sincere. We did not expect you to agree with the answers, but at least acknowledge that we did. We are not trying to convince you of anything, we are just answering your questions.

If you just want to tell us how wrong we are, then you are at the wrong site for that, try the Apologetics site.

If, however, you are sincere about learning what we believe and why we believe it, come up with your own questions, don't throw the "anti-morom" website stuff around, and we will be more than happy to answer your questoins.

[xanmad33]

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.