Some questions for Mormons

[Flyonthewall]

"The first Article of Faith of the Mormon church reads: "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." While this may sound Christian at first glance, upon further examination it is found to be radically different. The Mormon church explicitly rejects the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Said Joseph Smith, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; emphasis added)."

This is not different than what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches nothing about the Trinity. The Trinity is a philisophical concept made up by men to attempt to understand the nature of G_d. The Bible teaches G_d the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, each one different from the other yet one in purpose.

"According to Mormon doctrine, all humans preexisted as spirit children of God before coming to earth. Even before we became spirits, we existed eternally as individual intelligences. Now that we have come to earth and have mortal bodies, we have the opportunity to become worthy to return to our Father in heaven and become gods. This is the core teaching of Mormonism and is called "the Law of Eternal Progression." (See, McConkie, pp. 589-590.)

Despite the teachings of Mormonism, men cannot become gods (Isaiah 43:10). Man was created, unlike God, and therefore has not existed from eternity (1 Corinthians 15:46). Mormons cannot compare themselves to Jesus and his preexistence, for they are not deity by nature, as is Jesus. He preexisted because he is God (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1; 17:5; Philippians 2:6-7)."

Then what does all this "joint heirs with Christ" mean?

Jesus is G_d because of His "nature", correct? Jesus became man, yet still is G_d. If the "nature" of man is evil or sinful, then is Jesus less than G_d? Does this make Him any less? No. I submit to you that the nature of mortal man is not the nature of spiritual man. Spiritual man is of the same "nature" or "essence" of G_d, because we are His spirit children, as is mentioned in the Bible.

Mormons deny the power of the cross, and that Jesus is the way by placing the requirement for salvation on "good works" But..If we could attain salvation by obeying the law, and doing good works, then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21).

We can be righteous before God only on the basis of the righteousness of Christ. Though Christ was without sin, he paid the penalty due our sin so that we would be declared righteous before God (2 Corinthians 5:21; see also, Ephesians 2:1-5).

It is you who does not understand what mormons believe. Mosiah 5

"8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives."

The Bible says "faith without works is dead". We believe that works alone will not avail us anything. Works alone are not sufficient. It is by the Atonement of Christ that salvation comes, after all we can do.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

...

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I think this spells it out quite well.

LDS: Believe Christ's death brought release from grave and universal resurrection. Salvation by grace is universal resurrection. Beyond this, man must earn his place in heaven. Saved by grace after all we can do. (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 25:23; Mormon Doctrine pp. 669-671)

The BIBLE says: Salvation is not limited to universal resurrection but gift of God to those who believe. (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 9:28; Eph. 2:8-9)"

There are many definitions of Salvation in the LDS faith. Salvation from physical death is but one. Here are other definitions:

LDS.org - Topic Definition - Salvation

We dont believe God is married in heaven

understood.

we dont believe jesus and satan are brothers,

understood.

all these details may seem insignificant to you but when you dig for the deeper implications for what such beliefs mean, is is a matter of grave importance.

These details are significant to us. They offer clarity to the whole scheme of things. Not fully understanding you side of things, I'm not sure what you mean by "grave importance". I know these points don't line up with your beliefs, but we never claimed they did. I am glad to have them though.

[xanmad33]

You have yet to explain to me what is better evidence than God Himself?- I am not overly bothered about the Bible being the Word of God from a historical point of view any more than I am the Book of Mormon - if I was looking at religion from a purely fruits of its labours and historical point of view I would be a Buddhist... I have been religious since long before I could read, Christians often ask me when I was converted I didn't need to be I knew God from before I can remember. I have loved Him, trusted Him and he has guided me through the best path to allow me to get back to Him and to reach my full potential eternally He has never let me down - explain to me why I should put your word before God Himself??? no amount of evidence can change my relationship with Him. Only reason I remained a Christian was I wanted to be a Nun and since I was 6 had desired baptism by immersion after seeing the picture in my childrens bible - lol funny how things turn out.

It took me a long time to be able to say the Church is True and the only way back home because I was not sure if the Church was True because it was or because it was True for me, and the right path for me. I now realise that in order to be LDS the Church has to be True because it is, and my own studies in a variety of studies from archaeology through to astronomy, psychology, geology etc have shown me the church doctrines have great merit and can indeed bring a man closer to God than any other.

-Charley

Better evidence has pretty much been my point all the way through, please go back and read it. Read ABOUT the BIble --INDEPENDANT RESEARCH-- with NO hidden agendas.

Weigh the facts YOURSELF.

Go read secular research and not Mormon propoganda.

Explain to me how I am asking you to put my word before God himself?

I have continuously proven the validity of the Bible and implored you to read what it says independantly.

You are putting Joseph Smiths word above God himself.

I have continuously asked why you trust the BOM and all other mormon doctrines, over the Bible when there is FAR more evidence FOR the Bible. you know what the responses have been? "lol" YOU NEED EVIDENCE" BLA BLA BLA...

well, I need no EVIDENCE of God, however I do need some evidence to believe in the books written by Joseph Smith. And if we are to take a side by side look at both books the evidence is INSURMOUNTABLE!

Are you a free thinker? It just doesnt make sense to me...

I too have always know that God is real. That is not the problem.

[Elgama]

The danger with praying to find truth is that spiritual testimonies are a dime a dozen, and those which are valid may be difficult to distinguish from those which are not. We cannot trust the feelings of our hearts (Proverbs 28:26; Jeremiah 17:9), nor can we trust every spiritual witness (1 John 4:1-6). Called to be like the Bereans of Acts 17:11, we need to "search the Scriptures daily" to see if what Mormonism teaches is true. The biblical test focuses on the Word of God as our standard for truth (2 Timothy 3:15-17); for the witness of the Holy Spirit will never contradict the Word he himself inspired—the Bible (2 Peter 1:21)."

I am sorry i know my testimony should not prove it to you at all but my own spiritual prove it to me beyond any doubt

Part of where you are going wrong talking to Latter Day Saints in particular the ones on this board is you insist that our experiences and our Love of God is wrong or He isn't right, thats a step up from people who get nasty about my husband. I know my path is right because it has been revealed and yes I do trust God, more than I trust the bible

-Charley

[xanmad33]

This is not different than what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches nothing about the Trinity. The Trinity is a philisophical concept made up by men to attempt to understand the nature of G_d. The Bible teaches G_d the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, each one different from the other yet one in purpose.

I never said the Bible said the word "trinity" I DID say that the Bible introduced the concept. It is clear, in many places as I have already shown, you are now focussing on a "word" rather than the scriptural description itself.

Then what does all this "joint heirs with Christ" mean?

Jesus is G_d because of His "nature", correct? Jesus became man, yet still is G_d. If the "nature" of man is evil or sinful, then is Jesus less than G_d? Does this make Him any less? No. I submit to you that the nature of mortal man is not the nature of spiritual man. Spiritual man is of the same "nature" or "essence" of G_d, because we are His spirit children, as is mentioned in the Bible.

re-read what I already posted about it and you will get an answer to this question.

hmm... the rest is un-biblical

It is you who does not understand what mormons believe. Mosiah 5

"8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives."

The Bible says "faith without works is dead". We believe that works alone will not avail us anything. Works alone are not sufficient. It is by the Atonement of Christ that salvation comes, after all we can do.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

...

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I think this spells it out quite well.

There are many definitions of Salvation in the LDS faith. Salvation from physical death is but one. Here are other definitions:

LDS.org - Topic Definition - Salvation

understood.

understood.

These details are significant to us. They offer clarity to the whole scheme of things. Not fully understanding you side of things, I'm not sure what you mean by "grave importance". I know these points don't line up with your beliefs, but we never claimed they did. I am glad to have them though.

its all completely un-biblical--my point.

[xanmad33]

I am sorry i know my testimony should not prove it to you at all but my own spiritual prove it to me beyond any doubt

Part of where you are going wrong talking to Latter Day Saints in particular the ones on this board is you insist that our experiences and our Love of God is wrong or He isn't right, thats a step up from people who get nasty about my husband. I know my path is right because it has been revealed and yes I do trust God, more than I trust the bible

-Charley

Where do you derive your conclusions about the basic principals of the nature of God?

How have you come to the conclusions you have about who he is and what he has said if you have not trusted man along the way?

Are you telling me that God himself gave you a divine revelation?

[Flyonthewall]

xanmad33,

I kind of get the idea that you are not really out to understand what we believe and why, but rather are attempting to show us the "error of our ways". You would have us go read secular research and not "mormon propaganda". You call it "propaganda", I call it research.

My convictions are every bit as strong as yours, and founded in scripture, just like yours are. Please get the "chip" off your shoulder about us and our beliefs and let's come to an understanding, otherwise all it will boil down to is "uh-uh" and "uh-huh".

Did you come here to understand us better? or did you come here to correct us?

[Misshalfway]

To the OP,

It kinda seems to me like you are looking for one answer. You want someone to agree with you and tell you that you are right. I don't think any other answer will satisfy you. We believe the Book of Mormon because of our spiritual experience with it. We believe the Bible for the same reason. No one on this board can convince you to consider our position. It seems that you have already made up your mind. So why continue arguing? Nothing good really ever comes from contests like this. I wish you peace and answers in your search. I hope that is what you are doing. If not, and you are looking to disprove or win a war of words, then I hope at some point you will see that the effort isn't fruitful.

[Flyonthewall]

I never said the Bible said the word "trinity" I DID say that the Bible introduced the concept. It is clear, in many places as I have already shown, you are now focussing on a "word" rather than the scriptural description itself.

No, I am referring to the concept of the Trinity.

re-read what I already posted about it and you will get an answer to this question.

hmm... the rest is un-biblical

We don't see eye to eye here.

its all completely un-biblical--my point.

Let me get this straight, this verse from the BofM does not match any in the Bible?

"There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ"

This concept is un-biblical to you?

The other scriptures I quoted were from the Bible, yet you dismiss them as un-biblical?

I don't get your point.

[Elgama]

Better evidence has pretty much been my point all the way through, please go back and read it. Read ABOUT the BIble --INDEPENDANT RESEARCH-- with NO hidden agendas.

Weigh the facts YOURSELF.

Go read secular research and not Mormon propoganda.

Explain to me how I am asking you to put my word before God himself?

I have continuously proven the validity of the Bible and implored you to read what it says independantly.

You are putting Joseph Smiths word above God himself.

I have continuously asked why you trust the BOM and all other mormon doctrines, over the Bible when there is FAR more evidence FOR the Bible. you know what the responses have been? "lol" YOU NEED EVIDENCE" BLA BLA BLA...

well, I need no EVIDENCE of God, however I do need some evidence to believe in the books written by Joseph Smith. And if we are to take a side by side look at both books the evidence is INSURMOUNTABLE!

Are you a free thinker? It just doesnt make sense to me...

I too have always know that God is real. That is not the problem.

the reason I left mainstream Christianity behind as fast as I could was the general lack of a relationship with God they seem to have more of a relationship with the Bible - not all I will admit also know some amazing Christians

You have shown the Bible to have merit as an historical document of a variety of different groups of people but where have you shown me those people were any different to how you see Joseph Smith - why should I choose the works of Paul over the Orthodox Jews or the Gospels over the Quran or why should I accept any of them when Buddha or the Vedas make so much sense.

Why choose the Bible over the other religions I don't yet understand. Forget the Book of Mormon explain to me how you know Abraham, Moses etc weren't frauds or even that it wasn't a novel written by a primitive JK Rowlling?

And let me get this straight because my education, findings and evaluations are different to yours I am not a freethinker - thats a new definition to be a freethinker I must think like someone else

I don't need to prove anything to anyone only God Himself can convert - I know I am right with Him and I take His personal word over something in the Bible anyday - even if it is Satan I worship (an idea frequently suggested by Christians) - He has earned my trust and love and the other God has made no effort in my life

-Charley

[xanmad33]

I came here looking for answers, but after a few assertations were made about the Bible, I started to do more research and then using common sense, more questions arose out of your un-belief in the BIble as authoratative in all theings.

One question has led to another, and people making judgements about me or the Bible has provoked some of my responses here. I am up for a debate/discussion, my feelings arent hurt, but it seems to me any evidence posted to refute any claims made my Mormonism, later comes with accusations of malace.

You are not being persecuted as insinuated in the beginning, you are however being asked to clarify hard questions.

As Mormon apostle and historian, George A. Smith, has rightly said:

"If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p.216)

The following are similar statements of confidence and challenge:

"If this book be of God, it must have sufficient evidence accompanying it to convince the minds of all reasonable persons that it is a Divine revelation...the testimony establishing the truth of the Book of Mormon is far superior to that establishing the Bible in its present form...any person who will carefully examine the subject will be obliged in their hearts to say there is a hundredfold more evidence to prove the Divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon than what we have to prove the Palestine records." (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 22, 36, 37)

I have been asked MANY questions here over the past couple days and I am trying my best to answer them. I haven't been treated the best here for posing those questions either, and there have been so many questions posed to me that I have even been attacked for not answering everything...and lots of accusations have been made. That's okay and I understand your defensiveness, but please assume benign intent. I get frustrated as you do, but that doesnt mean it's not worth it.

I am willing to concede things about your beliefs, but there has yet to be anything I can concede to because it hasent even been argued fairly..

I was under the impression this is a forum for such discussions, if I am not welcome because of such questions, then I will go..

[xanmad33]

the reason I left mainstream Christianity behind as fast as I could was the general lack of a relationship with God they seem to have more of a relationship with the Bible - not all I will admit also know some amazing Christians

You have shown the Bible to have merit as an historical document of a variety of different groups of people but where have you shown me those people were any different to how you see Joseph Smith - why should I choose the works of Paul over the Orthodox Jews or the Gospels over the Quran or why should I accept any of them when Buddha or the Vedas make so much sense.

Why choose the Bible over the other religions I don't yet understand. Forget the Book of Mormon explain to me how you know Abraham, Moses etc weren't frauds or even that it wasn't a novel written by a primitive JK Rowlling?

And let me get this straight because my education, findings and evaluations are different to yours I am not a freethinker - thats a new definition to be a freethinker I must think like someone else

I don't need to prove anything to anyone only God Himself can convert - I know I am right with Him and I take His personal word over something in the Bible anyday - even if it is Satan I worship (an idea frequently suggested by Christians) - He has earned my trust and love and the other God has made no effort in my life

-Charley

Hmmm... I get the feeling you are accusing me of having more of a relationship with the Bible than with God..

well in response to that, the simple answer is no.

I have a deep and personal relationship with God, but you must not be so quick to judge the BIble as just a book either. Jesus called it the Living word because God speaks to us through it and he defines our relationship in it.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word WAS God.

His word shall not be broken. Why should I not use the Bible after all the evidences are brought forth? My continuous question is why do you believe anything OVER the Bible....If you believe the Bible to be partially true, why not give it a chance that what it says could be all the way true?

It claims divine inspiration, and the word used in original language there for inspiration literally translates to a wind overcoming the apostles so they were not in control.

If you are trusting in the BOM and all other Mormon doctrines, my question has been why?

If you say you believe in the Bible, my question is why do you not believe in all the basic truths found therein. What is the measure for which you have judged?

Why have you come to the conclusions you have about both texts?

HOW have you come to those conclusions? HAS God himself given you a divine revelation?

the reliability of the Bible is verified by believer and non-believer alike. When the Apostle Paul preached the Gospel to the Bereans, how were they to know whether it was true or not? Do the Scriptures teach that they went out and prayed, and asked the Holy Ghost to confirm it? No!

in Acts 17:11 WE READ THAT:

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so."

They did not have to rely upon some subjective experience, they had the Scriptures of the Old Testament by which to judge Paul's words. While it is true that James 1:5 tells those who lack wisdom to ask God for it, the context refers to those who are already brethren. It also clearly states they will receive wisdom, NOT knowledge.

[xanmad33]

And let me get this straight because my education, findings and evaluations are different to yours I am not a freethinker - thats a new definition to be a freethinker I must think like someone else

You have yet to define how you came to the most basic assumptions about salvation without the aid of a church. All your most fundamental beliefs have come from the same place you accuse me! Your beliefs all derive from the word of a man.

[

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I have been asked MANY questions here over the past couple days and I am trying my best to answer them. I haven't been treated the best here for posing those questions either, and there have been so many questions posed to me that I have even been attacked for not answering everything...and lots of accusations have been made. That's okay and I understand your defensiveness, but please assume benign intent. I get frustrated as you do, but that doesnt mean it's not worth it.

I am willing to concede things about your beliefs, but there has yet to be anything I can concede to because it hasent even been argued fairly..

I was under the impression this is a forum for such discussions, if I am not welcome because of such questions, then I will go..

I agree, you are not being treated the best(far from it). Please forgive us. I guess Mormons feel offended by "anti-mormon crap" and when it is used then it must mean that the person using it is anti-mormon. We have been a persecuted people. I think that what happens is, we feel offense and then our minds think that isn't fair and we try to give perspective to the other person. All that is created is anger, frustration, lack of understanding, and sour and bitter feelings. It is a bad representation of the Church.

Sometimes things will appear clear to us and not to you because we know and understand what we believe(for the most part) for a long time. We sometimes forget our own process of learning the same truths that you want to know. We forget the difficult road, and when something now seems very simple to us, might seem complicated to someone else. This is often the case. I feel that if people truly understand what "Mormonism" professes, then they would want to become Mormons themselves.

Again, sorry for the inhospitality but hopefully we will try to understand your point of view in learning. Hopefully we will be able to teach by the Spirit.

[Flyonthewall]

I commend you on your efforts to keep up with all the responses. I know there are a lot of us and only one of you.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, your OP had a lot of the same stuff that has been around a very long time on "anti-mormon" sites. It may be new to you, but not so new here. When we see that stuff, we can get our feathers ruffled, because generally speaking, the posters of that stuff are not really open to dialogue.

This is a forum for discussion, and we can be civil about it. In my mind, the whole idea of discussion, is so we can find common ground between our beliefs so we can better understand each other. We are not trying to convince you of anything, rather, we are just trying to explain the foundations of our faith. Some of the answers, if not most, you probably will not agree with, that's okay. The idea is for you to better understand where we are coming from.

Now I know, you are going to roll out evidence that you think is a slam-dunk proof against what we believe, and we are not going to see it in the same light. We, also, will provide evidence that we think is a slam-dunk for our beliefs, and you will not see it in the same light. And so it goes in a discussion.

I just hope we can come away from here as friends, or at least friendly towards each other.

[xanmad33]

I agree, you are not being treated the best(far from it). Please forgive us. I guess Mormons feel offended by "anti-mormon crap" and when it is used then it must mean that the person using it is anti-mormon. We have been a persecuted people. I think that what happens is, we feel offense and then our minds think that isn't fair and we try to give perspective to the other person. All that is created is anger, frustration, lack of understanding, and sour and bitter feelings. It is a bad representation of the Church.

Sometimes things will appear clear to us and not to you because we know and understand what we believe(for the most part) for a long time. We sometimes forget our own process of learning the same truths that you want to know. We forget the difficult road, and when something now seems very simple to us, might seem complicated to someone else. This is often the case. I feel that if people truly understand what "Mormonism" professes, then they would want to become Mormons themselves.

Again, sorry for the inhospitality but hopefully we will try to understand your point of view in learning. Hopefully we will be able to teach by the Spirit.

Thank you I really appreciate that, and honestly this is exactly why I never wanted to talk to my friend about it, because I didn't want to offend him with all my thousands of questions. I hear a lot of claims of persecution, but that is far from what is happening here, this is an online discussion. I thought this would be the best place to ask such questions because it would be less confrontational, and more focussed on facts and matter of fact like discussion rather than emotion. I try to stay away from emotion in these talks for that very reason.. so I may come across cold, but I am not, i promise.

[Elgama]

If you are trusting in the BOM and all other Mormon doctrines, my question has been why?

If you say you believe in the Bible, my question is why do you not believe in all the basic truths found therein. What is the measure for which you have judged?

Why have you come to the conclusions you have about both texts?

HOW have you come to those conclusions? HAS God himself given you a divine revelation?

te.

I didn't accuse you personally of not having a relationship with God anymore than you intended to indicate I am an uneducated, unintelligent idiot with no brain cells;)- I have tried very hard not to get personal, I find Christianity in general restricts the freedom of that relationship, if I hadn't had that relationship I would not have been Christian it was not for me on many levels despite loving church I attended a Stations of the Cross service on Friday it was beautiful - like the previous posters have said its hard not to get your feathers ruffled I thought I was being mostly civil I apologise for anything you felt was a personal attack.

Yes is the answer to your question, over and over again every day of my life God gives me revelation and proof some more blinding and spectacular than others - I believe what Joseph Smith taught because a personal experience in my own life was very close to something he went through in the first vision, not something one often talks about to strangers unlike Joseph Smith I am not called as a prophet. I got engaged to someone I had never met on the strength of revelation through a priesthood blessing - he is everything my patriarchal and other blessings promised. If I walked away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints it would be comparable in my own mind to Laman and Lemuel (Nephi's brothers) seeing and Angel and still not worshipping God. I have not seen an angel but have had experiences that teach me I am where God wants me, whenever I do want to walk away (which is often I am not a natural Latter Day Saint would much rather be a Roman Catholic, Pagan or a Buddhist) - something happens to bring me back inline every time. I live my life based on a variety of revelation and inspiration as well as reading the scriptures

I was a Latter Day Saint many years before I met the missionaries and even knew what one was - this is the way my inner liahona has been pointing since I can remember.

-Charley

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Why should I not use the Bible after all the evidences are brought forth? My continuous question is why do you believe anything OVER the Bible....If you believe the Bible to be partially true, why not give it a chance that what it says could be all the way true?

It claims divine inspiration, and the word used in original language there for inspiration literally translates to a wind overcoming the apostles so they were not in control.

If you are trusting in the BOM and all other Mormon doctrines, my question has been why?

If you say you believe in the Bible, my question is why do you not believe in all the basic truths found therein. What is the measure for which you have judged?

Why have you come to the conclusions you have about both texts?

HOW have you come to those conclusions? HAS God himself given you a divine revelation?

the reliability of the Bible is verified by believer and non-believer alike. When the Apostle Paul preached the Gospel to the Bereans, how were they to know whether it was true or not? Do the Scriptures teach that they went out and prayed, and asked the Holy Ghost to confirm it? No!

in Acts 17:11 WE READ THAT:

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so."

They did not have to rely upon some subjective experience, they had the Scriptures of the Old Testament by which to judge Paul's words. While it is true that James 1:5 tells those who lack wisdom to ask God for it, the context refers to those who are already brethren. It also clearly states they will receive wisdom, NOT knowledge.

The Bible and the Book of Mormon are equal. They are the word of God. They are incomplete. Yet they are true. The Bible has inaccuracies based on the works and changes of men through multiple translations and copies. For what we believe, there is no inaccuracy in the Book of Mormon(as far as doctrine is concerned), because it was translated once, by the power of God. However, all knowledge was not revealed in the Book of Mormon. As to the Bible, it does not have all knowledge either. The same truths are taught in both. I think Mormons read the Book of Mormon is because it is easier, know there are not imperfections so is therefore "safer" from misinterpretation, and it is shorter. They also feel closer to it because they joined the Church because they know it is true.

We do believe the Book of Mormon and the "Mormon" teachings to be true, because we have prayed about them, and received an answer from the Holy Ghost testifying that they are true.

I personally read the Book of Mormon more, but I feel that there are so many wonderful doctrines in the Bible. I just get confused occasionally by the language. I like the New Testament a lot because it teaches "more directly" Christ's teachings but so does the Book of Mormon. I also love Paul's commentary on the Atonement.

You hit the nail on the head. I have received divine revelation from God, which testifies of the truthfulness of both books. Of which I have already mentioned, the Holy Ghost testifies of the truth.

The Bereans believed because as they were taught and read the Scriptures, they felt the Holy Ghost testify of the truth. It is not a one and done thing. As I read the Bible or Book of Mormon, I feel the Holy Ghost testify that it is true, everytime. I don't even pray anymore for it. It just happens, because the Holy Ghost testifies of the truth because it can't help it. It always testifies of truth. However, the reader also has to be prepared to listen or feel the Holy Ghost. That is often why at first we don't feel it testify of the truth.

Also James 1:5 , wisdom is the act of using knowledge correctly. So a man may feel they know the answer but are not sure. Then they ask a question to see if their judgement based on what they feel is right. They will receive an answer so they can make a correct decision. Not to make the wrong choice. I go to Church because I know it is the right thing to do. I know it is right based on blessings and the Holy Ghost, which again testifies of all truth. I have knowledge, based on the Holy Ghost. But I continue to exercise my choice and so use wisdom to receive more blessings and protection.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Our belief ultimately comes down to what God says. We know that He speaks to us through Jesus Christ and by the Power of the Holy Ghost. So ultimately, it comes down to getting in tune with the Spirit. That is how we know that the Book of Mormon is true. That is how we know the Bible is true. God speaks to us through the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost will speak to you as you read the Bible. It speaks as you read the Book of Mormon. There is a scripture I think in Galatians that talks about it.(chapter 2?) It speaks as feeling, sometimes as thought.

Hope my last post was understandable.

[Elgama]

Why should I not use the Bible after all the evidences are brought forth? My continuous question is why do you believe anything OVER the Bible....If you believe the Bible to be partially true, why not give it a chance that what it says could be all the way true?

.

I actually have no problem with you holding the beliefs you do - if you truly believe you are where God wants you I can't argue with that on any level and I wouldn't want to, to me that is placing myself above Him. The Holy Ghost is the only one that can convert and Heavenly Father knows how best to guide you to reach your full potential

Until I became LDS and entered a new level of understanding with the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the Temple the Bible was for me just another religious text - personally I know Buddha's teachings are good for me they work very well in my life and I have no doubt a huge chunk of his teachings are from Heavenly Father - living in the moment, meditation etc are something we can incorporate into any belief system and feel good on it. From my pagan friends my understanding of creation deepened beyond anything the Bible can teach, I learned to appreciate the spirits around me in the trees and plants, I learned to meditate and gaze in wonder at what was around me.

What Joseph Smith teaches allows for possibilities for science and religion to be one in a way the Bible alone does not make sense to me.. To have the full understanding of the Bible the other works are needed and alongside that goes current revelation whether from President Monson or direct to myself.

-Charley

[Dale]

I applied the Barean test to my beliefs.(Acts 17:11) so i would not describe my feelings subjective but proven by the word of God. I read every Evangelical book on Mormonism i can get my hands on. That forces me to look up Bible verses, read Evangelical commentary on my proof texts, and form my own opinion. I am reading several books by Evangelicals on Mormonism right now in-between other reading projects. One is by R.Philip Roberts entitled Mormonism Unmasked. One of the others i have right in front of me now is Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith by Floyd Mcelveen.

James 1:5 and "Wisdom"- In context it speaking to those whose faith was being tested.(James 1:3) The wisdom they were asking for pertained to their faith. Professor Bro Reicke of the University of Basel wrote: "It is likely that James had such sources of "wisdom" in mind [i.e.,books of worldly knowledge] when he advises his readers to strive after the true wisdom that comes only through prayer. He is confident that such prayers will be answered positively.(Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, The Anchor Bible 1982),p14) Joseph Smith heard many conflicting claims. The ministers he heard cited the Bible. He was confused by the different teachings of man. He did not know who was right. He knew each cited the Bible to support their case. He certainly needed wisdom to decide who was teaching the true doctrine. So he went to a grove of trees to ask God for wisdom. Certainly if God is giving the wisdom our prayers do not mislead us.

If Joseph Smith believed in God he was bretheren. So as one of the bretheren he asked God. What greater acceptance as one of the bretheren can one have than from God? In either case when Joseph Smith got wisdom he also got knowledge.

Plus if i follow up with the Barean test i can trust God twice as much. (Acts 17:11)

The above is notes i got mostly got from How Firm a Foundation, Evidences of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ by Michael T. Griffith. His chapter 6 is entitled James 1:5-The First Vision and Prayer: Should We Pray to Know if the Church is True? (pages 48-49)

[Dale]

hmm.... Obviously I disagree

secondly, my questions started with HOW do you know?

Is it only because the Mormon church tells you so?

Becuase I have already posted incredible evidences to the contrary, and pointed out the importance for reading yourself without the guidance of ANY MAN.

Even being guided by the spirit, you are called to test the spirit against The Word.

I quoted one of your own admitting to the reliability of the Bible, contesting previously held beliefs. and the list goes on...

After ALL the incredible evidences FOR the Bible, archeaological, factual, scientifical, historical, and phrophesys, AND after there has never been found one FALSE claim or one provable contradiction, after the AMAZING evidences in it's favor, you STILL choose to believe a Book that has never had even ONE SHRED of evidence EVER!

EVER!

EVER!

WOW...

In comparison with the Bible, the closer one comes to the original autographs of the New Testament, the fewer the transmissional errors. However, the closer one comes to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, the more numerous the errors.

Here is an authority you did not quote:

"Some modern individuals, like the 2nd century Trypho, deny the change in scripture by making statements like "We have today 25,000 handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament alone, and over 5,000 of these are written in Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Or "Any number of scholarly works have proven that the Bible has not been corrupted---it has by far the best manuscript attestation and textual preservation of any ancient book." With all the respect due to these three individuals who appear to have four mail-order doctorates between them, I would like to suggest that it is they who are "in ignorance of the history of the canon." We have been discussing evidence from the second century, but it is only fair that we look at Greek Biblical manuscripts.

This supposed assemblage of five-thousand Greek biblical manuscripts includes the entire Bible, and most of these manuscripts are late cursive manuscripts. If we consider only those of the New Testament, we have about 341 uncial manuscripts (which are generally earlier than the cursive manuscripts). Of these , about 10% date before the time of Constantine, and only one dates to the second century. This second century manuscript (p52=Rylands 458) is about the size of a postage stamp and contains only ten complete words. (Peter Thiede's redating of the Magdalen College fragments to the first century would be wonderful if true, but his arguments have been demonstrated wrong). Ninety-nine percent of Greek uncial New Testament manuscripts come after the time period when accusations of textual corruptian are rampant. If we included the cursive manuscripts as well the percentage of second century manuscripts would become even smaller. But further consider that only ten complete words of the New Testament are attested in manuscript form during the time of textual corruption, and not a single one is attested before that time.

If we assemble all the manuscripts from the second and third centuries and just note those chapters where even a part of a verse is attested t, we find that enitire books are missing, including 1-2 Timothy, 1-2 Peter, 2-3 John and Jude. Of the twenty-eight chapters in the gospel of Matthew, there is no manuscript containing even a single verse of sixteen of these chapters before the end of the third century. (The Corruption of Scripture in the Second Century, by John Gee, Ph.D.,Proceedings of the First Annual Mormon Apologetics Symposium pages 183-184, FAIR,1999)

I do think when citing a talk i think i can can use a bit of copy-writed material without permission. If anybody thinks i have cited to much the moderator can take it down. But i want you to read it and explain it to me before it is taken down. It is easy to cite one LDS scholar who can be made to agree with your case, but not read others that disagree with your case. I linked to the FAIR website with his talk on it, but you ought to read it, so i brought the information to you. That required me to cite a portion of his paper.

I am studying Bible vs. The Book of Mormon film. They leave out facts that bring parts of the Bible into question to protect the Evangelical audience from questioning the Bible. The DNA essay of Tom Murphy that is used against the Book of Mormon supports evolution, and provides firm evidence Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. Yet they used him as an expert in the film as if he agreed the Bible was the inerrant word of God. The total relibility of the Bible is enough of a debate question that i saw that deception when i first watched the film. Brant Gardners review of Bible vs. The Book of Mormon shows the Bible is facing historicity issues in regards to certain parts. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage

[skalenfehl]

I see that I, too, have approached this from only a Book of Mormon point of view I should confess, that I love the Bible. I enjoy reading the stories of the Old Testament, like the story of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. I love Isaiah's words and they reinforce my beliefs in my faith and my religion and that a marvelous work and a wonder would take place. Truly Isaiah saw our day. I love reading the four gospels (the four testimonies) of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Once upon a time I sat at a table and spent countless hours comparing the four gospels chronologically and how they melded together to grasp an even bigger picture. I was heartbroken when I discovered through my reading and my comparing of the four gospels to learn that Christ hung six hours on a cross after brutal torture by the Romans and illegal court hearings by the Pharisees. I rejoiced in knowing that Christ rose from the dead and lives still today.

I watched my faith and knowledge in the Bible grow as I read about Paul the apostle and his conversion and his ministry to the early saints of Christ's church and also how strong in the gospel Peter grew after getting over his guilt of denying Christ three times. I marvel that John had seen so much through revelation and wrote of them while on the isle of Patmos. I wish that there was more in the Bible of Christ's teachings and life experiences. But I would not know any more then than I know now that Jesus Christ lives and that through Him we can be saved and through no one else. That is our common ground. We both have a relationship with our God and have a love for our Savior and are willing to share that.

We obviously see the same scriptures in a different light and in a different context. From my point of view, there simply is no error. The Bible, especially Isaiah's and Ezekiel's words reinforce my knowledge and understanding of the Book of Mormon and likewise my understanding of the Book of Mormon strengthens my knowledge and understanding of the Bible, especially about Christ's mission on earth. Perhaps one day we will find ourselves on the same side of the fence and rejoice. I am glad that you found us and hope we can continue to find common ground.

[skalenfehl]

By the way, I think also, it would be easier if we could answer any set of questions to your satisfaction before moving on or posting a ton more. This won't make us feel like we're being attacked and you probably won't feel like we're ganging up on you. Just a note from a moderator's point of view.

[xanmad33]

Here is an authority you did not quote:

"Some modern individuals, like the 2nd century Trypho, deny the change in scripture by making statements like "We have today 25,000 handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament alone, and over 5,000 of these are written in Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Or "Any number of scholarly works have proven that the Bible has not been corrupted---it has by far the best manuscript attestation and textual preservation of any ancient book." With all the respect due to these three individuals who appear to have four mail-order doctorates between them, I would like to suggest that it is they who are "in ignorance of the history of the canon." We have been discussing evidence from the second century, but it is only fair that we look at Greek Biblical manuscripts.

This supposed assemblage of five-thousand Greek biblical manuscripts includes the entire Bible, and most of these manuscripts are late cursive manuscripts. If we consider only those of the New Testament, we have about 341 uncial manuscripts (which are generally earlier than the cursive manuscripts). Of these , about 10% date before the time of Constantine, and only one dates to the second century. This second century manuscript (p52=Rylands 458) is about the size of a postage stamp and contains only ten complete words. (Peter Thiede's redating of the Magdalen College fragments to the first century would be wonderful if true, but his arguments have been demonstrated wrong). Ninety-nine percent of Greek uncial New Testament manuscripts come after the time period when accusations of textual corruptian are rampant. If we included the cursive manuscripts as well the percentage of second century manuscripts would become even smaller. But further consider that only ten complete words of the New Testament are attested in manuscript form during the time of textual corruption, and not a single one is attested before that time.

If we assemble all the manuscripts from the second and third centuries and just note those chapters where even a part of a verse is attested t, we find that enitire books are missing, including 1-2 Timothy, 1-2 Peter, 2-3 John and Jude. Of the twenty-eight chapters in the gospel of Matthew, there is no manuscript containing even a single verse of sixteen of these chapters before the end of the third century. (The Corruption of Scripture in the Second Century, by John Gee, Ph.D.,Proceedings of the First Annual Mormon Apologetics Symposium pages 183-184, FAIR,1999)

I do think when citing a talk i think i can can use a bit of copy-writed material without permission. If anybody thinks i have cited to much the moderator can take it down. But i want you to read it and explain it to me before it is taken down. It is easy to cite one LDS scholar who can be made to agree with your case, but not read others that disagree with your case. I linked to the FAIR website with his talk on it, but you ought to read it, so i brought the information to you. That required me to cite a portion of his paper.

I am studying Bible vs. The Book of Mormon film. They leave out facts that bring parts of the Bible into question to protect the Evangelical audience from questioning the Bible. The DNA essay of Tom Murphy that is used against the Book of Mormon supports evolution, and provides firm evidence Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. Yet they used him as an expert in the film as if he agreed the Bible was the inerrant word of God. The total relibility of the Bible is enough of a debate question that i saw that deception when i first watched the film. Brant Gardners review of Bible vs. The Book of Mormon shows the Bible is facing historicity issues in regards to certain parts. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage

With a quick search I've just found an extremely in depth rebuttal of this book and also the video, and so it goes on...

[Dale]

John Gee does not have a film, or book on it that i know about. So you might be confusing a similar title of another book with the title of his talk and paper. If you disagree with his documentation i challenge you to read his talk and tell me where his documentation is wrong. I double challenge you to not use any resource to rebut him, but to simply read the article and tell me what you disagree with.

What is your rebuttal to the quote? The New Testament manuscripts do not seem to be complete enough to agree with what my author of Mormonism Unmasked R. Philip Roberts wrote. "Christian scholars would respond that the Bible texts are within 1 percent of complete textual accuracy." (pg.98) To me such a claim sounds like a questionable statistic. They have not seen the auto-graphs, but are basing conclusions merely on copies in various states of completeness. Even if the copies were kept accurately all it takes is one corrupt very early scribe and group to destroy the original and produce a corrupted copy. (Rev.22:18,19)

Its been a long time since i studied this issue. Its been maybe 8,9 years, so forgive me if my information is off. But i recall one New Testament book maybe John written about A.D. 50, or something like that. If i recall right the earliest copy can be dated to fifty years or more after the original got lost. Unless the first copy-ist was honest they had a lot of time to take away plain and precious things from the book. The first Book of Mormon came out in 1830. Changes started to appear in the 1837 edition i think. Without seeing the original we can't check for changes in between the original Bible books and first copies as we can with the Book of Mormon.

I recall the Jews as having a careful method of copying Bible manuscripts. That if they made one mistake would they not destroy the bad manuscript? If their were no corrupt copyists, or religious figures they would all follow the same procedure. But all it takes is one corrupt group and copyist out to tamper with Gods word to set aside the practices of good copyists.

Bible vs. The Book of Mormon is an popular Evangelical anti-Book of Mormon film. It repeats the basic critics case against the Book of Mormon. I see nothing in it that was not in my other Evangelical books basic points against the book.

When Brant Gardners review came out i participated in some critics attempts to rebut his review. I saw him do an adequate job of standing up for himself which increased my confidence in him. The Mormon Apologetics And Discussion Board had pages and pages of a bunch of his critics trying to rebut him. I read his critics and still agree with him. I also visit the Living Hope Ministries website from time to time.

------------------

I went to the Probe Ministries website. I found an article saved the link to my Favorites file. Jimmy Williams had an article entitled Are The Biblical Documents Reliable. He had a chart saying about when Bible Books were written along with the date of the earlies manuscript. The Gospel of John may have been written between 90-110. And the earliest copy was about 130. Any original could have been lying around for 20 to 40 years.

I guess the church Fathers cited the New Testament manuscripts a lot. But did they cite copies, or the originals? If all they cited were copies at most all we could re-construct is what the copies looked like? If they cited only the originals that would increase my confidence in the copies? How many of the church fathers saw the original book of the Gospel of John for example? Seeing the original would make them eye-witnesses to its preservation.