Mormon Claims

[Returning_Home]

Not true. The lds believe in the bible and use the King james version. But as you well know, all faiths use the bible to prove their postions. In this, mormons are no different than anyone else.

But nice try in spreading a false claim.

I’ve covered this before and the facts haven’t changed since that time. We know the prophet speaks for God (D&C 21:4-5), that he cannot lead the church astray (Gospel Principles, p 50, 1996 edition), that God and his word do not change (Mormon 9:9, Alma 41:8), and that the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things.’ (1 Nephi 13:24-42, used seven times for emphasis)

With all of that established, let’s see what God, through Ezra Taft Benson, says about the Bible:

“Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists, the BOM came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation.” (Ensign, Jan 1992)

I think sums it up pretty well, don’t you? The BOM is more reliable than the Bible and therefore, secondary.

 

[DominicSavio23]

Hello Stephen! Good day to you, sir.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

The LDS Church does not claim that the writers of the Bible were apostates.

Hi again Pinay,

There were many possible books to be considered for the Bible and the canon wasn’t put together until long after the death of the Apostles. For Catholics, we believe that the Holy Spirit guided the early Catholic Church (after the death of the Apostles) to properly discern which books were indeed inspired by God and which were not to be counted among Holy Scripture.

It would seem, since the LDS use the same Bible that was put together by the Catholic Church, they accept the authority that was used to discern the canon?

 

[SteveVH]

What could the gospel of Luke possibly add, when we got everything in the gospel of Matthew?

What could Acts possibly add, when we have the gospels?

What could ANYTHING that Paul have written add, when we have the gospel of Matthew?

Obviously the Catholic Church, in determining the canon of Sacred Scripture, decided that these books did have something to add, but more importantly, were authentic revelation. This same Church, which you depend upon for certainty as to the inspired nature of the Biblical texts has determined that the Mormon texts are not inspired and therefore do not constitute authentic revelation. If you doubt the Church’s judgement as to Mormon texts, then you should also doubt its judgment as to the Biblical texts. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Stephen168]

Hello Stephen! Good day to you, sir.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

The LDS Church does not claim that the writers of the Bible were apostates.

But you don’t really answer the question: How do the LDS authenticate the books that are in the Bible now when the decisions for what made it into the Canon were made by the early Catholic Church?

 

[pinay]

Anything new would inherently imply that there was something lacking in the revelation of Jesus.

Hi DominicSavio! Good day.

It is not that there is lacking in the revelation of Jesus. It is that man lacked the capacity to retain the doctrine throughout the centuries, therefore, we receive revelation precept upon precept.

Is the Bible all that there is (pick any translation)? Is ALL of Jesus’ revelations written on there? How do we know?

But you are right. Jesus Christ is the Word. If it’s a word not of Jesus Christ, then it is thus implying that Jesus was somehow lacking.

But, at the same time, if revelation ends at His death and resurrection then there wouldn’t be a need for a “Second Coming”. There is something coming up. We don’t know what. We know He is going to come again. He might have some more words then too. So, to me, it is obvious that the Bible (pick any translation) is not all that there is.

So, the ony question left to me is - is the Book of Mormon Jesus Christ’s revelations? Some say yes, some say no. This is not for anybody here to answer. This is for the Holy Spirit to answer for you.

 

[DominicSavio23]

Hi DominicSavio! Good day.

It is not that there is lacking in the revelation of Jesus. It is that man lacked the capacity to retain the doctrine throughout the centuries, therefore, we receive revelation precept upon precept.

Is the Bible all that there is (pick any translation)? Is ALL of Jesus’ revelations written on there? How do we know?

But you are right. Jesus Christ is the Word. If it’s a word not of Jesus Christ, then it is thus implying that Jesus was somehow lacking.

But, at the same time, if revelation ends at His death and resurrection then there wouldn’t be a need for a “Second Coming”. There is something coming up. We don’t know what. We know He is going to come again. He might have some more words then too. So, to me, it is obvious that the Bible (pick any translation) is not all that there is.

So, the ony question left to me is - is the Book of Mormon Jesus Christ’s revelations? Some say yes, some say no. This is not for anybody here to answer. This is for the Holy Spirit to answer for you.

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here, especially that the Bible does not contain ALL of Jesus’ revelations. Which, of course, is why Catholics also believe in sacred Tradition. Is there any need for anything beyond this deposit of faith? As you say, ‘some say yes, some say no.’ But there is an objective answer to that question-- it can’t be both. You can get pretty far in reason alone, but at the end of the day, it is the gift of faith that will enlighten.

And just a quick note on your comment about the Second Coming-- we may not know precisely when it comes or how, but we do know that with it comes a new heaven and a new earth and that we will see God face to face, rather obscurely through the light of faith. And Jesus revealed this to us.

 

[pinay]

But you don’t really answer the question: How do the LDS authenticate the books that are in the Bible now when the decisions for what made it into the Canon were made by the early Catholic Church?

That is what the Book of Mormon is about. It bears a second witness to Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith attested that the King James version of the Bible is the closest to accurate on its contents and translation based on truths mirrored in the Book of Mormon. Without the Book of Mormon, it is easy to read a passage in the Bible, even the King James version, and take it to mean something entirely different than what is truth. When you take your understanding of the Bible and bounce it against the Book of Mormon, it’s harder (although not impossible at all) to get the wrong understanding.

Now, there are other books that Joseph Smith revealed as part of the Bible that is not on the Bible - the books of Moses and Abraham. It is part of the LDS scriptures.

Does this make sense?

 

[pinay]

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here, especially that the Bible does not contain ALL of Jesus’ revelations. Which, of course, is why Catholics also believe in sacred Tradition. Is there any need for anything beyond this deposit of faith? As you say, ‘some say yes, some say no.’ But there is an objective answer to that question-- it can’t be both. You can get pretty far in reason alone, but at the end of the day, it is the gift of faith that will enlighten.

And just a quick note on your comment about the Second Coming-- we may not know precisely when it comes or how, but we do know that with it comes a new heaven and a new earth and that we will see God face to face, rather obscurely through the light of faith. And Jesus revealed this to us.

“it is the gift of faith that will enlighten”. Yes, I love that phrase!

Yes, Jesus revealed it to us, but we can’t say - or at least I can’t - that He will not reveal more as it nears or while He’s here or afterwards even. I try not to limit what God can and can’t do.

Tradition is awesome. You got tradition, we got continuing revelation. Either way, the fact of the matter is, there is more to it than what is written.

It’s like this thing about evolution. It’s difficult for a church to understand how God created man when it limits itself to what it already knows. When science reveals an immutable fact that is not aligned to traditional thinking, the Catholic church gets in a bind. When all it is, is God revealing to man glimpses of what forces He might have used to create the earth which is not a departure from Genesis but an enhancement to it. Without continuing revelation, God is limited in His ways to make us understand. But, that’s just my faith speaking.

 

[catholic-rcia]

What could the gospel of Luke possibly add, when we got everything in the gospel of Matthew?

What could Acts possibly add, when we have the gospels?

What could ANYTHING that Paul have written add, when we have the gospel of Matthew?

They are not adding anything new to what Jesus has done or whom Jesus is, they are witnesses to what took place. If you witnessed a wreck along with 11 others why would the officer want to speak to all 11? He wants to make sure they all saw the same thing.

Would they not be more credible than the one who did not see the wreck but only heard about it? Then went out and tried to tell others about it and what happened? We turn to them because they were there. We listen to them because they were there. They only make the testimony regarding Jesus stronger. We rely on their witness along with the Holy Spirit given to us at our baptisms.

When I speak about Jesus to another who does not know Him or is getting to know Him I to become a witness for Jesus. We all have different experiences with Jesus so we all have certain gifts when we speak about Him. But He is the same Jesus yesterday as today. What the LDS church adds is not the same as when Luke, or Mathew or Paul speak about Christ. The LDS church adds a different type of doctrine, they have added a different type of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Big difference. Many have done a great job speaking about the deposit of faith here. Very clear, and I want to say thank you, you have helped to strengthen my Catholic faith today.

 

[Stephen168]

That is what the Book of Mormon is about. It bears a second witness to Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith attested that the King James version of the Bible is the closest to accurate on its contents and translation based on truths mirrored in the Book of Mormon. Without the Book of Mormon, it is easy to read a passage in the Bible, even the King James version, and take it to mean something entirely different than what is truth. When you take your understanding of the Bible and bounce it against the Book of Mormon, it’s harder (although not impossible at all) to get the wrong understanding.

Now, there are other books that Joseph Smith revealed as part of the Bible that is not on the Bible - the books of Moses and Abraham. It is part of the LDS scriptures.

Does this make sense?

But it doesn’t answer the question:

There were many possible books to be considered for the Bible and the canon wasn’t put together until long after the death of the Apostles. For Catholics, we believe that the Holy Spirit guided the early Catholic Church (after the death of the Apostles) to properly discern which books were indeed inspired by God and which were not to be counted among Holy Scripture.

How do the LDS authenticate the books that are in the Bible now when the decisions for what made it into the Canon were made by the early Catholic Church?

 

[pinay]

But it doesn’t answer the question:

Stephen, I did answer your question. But, I think your confusion lies in the common erroneous depiction of the LDS faith that LDS do not find anything true about the Catholic Church. This is far from the truth. The LDS does acknowledge - even in its 13 basic articles of the LDS faith - that the Holy Spirit guides all men on earth, Christian or not.

It is, therefore, the LDS stand that the Bible, as put forth by the early church and translated into the King James version IS divinely inspired even if some of its teachings have been interpretted differently by the Catholic Church.

Joseph Smith was prepared for his work by his diligent and faithful and sincere study of the Holy Bible. Therefore, when God revealed to him that he not join any church, he brought that which gave him his foundation - the Holy Bible - and with the Book of Mormon started the work of the restoration. The Holy Bible, then, was given to Joseph Smith and proceeding prophets as canon “as far as it is translated correctly” - that is, with the companionship of the Book of Mormon. Neither one nor the other can stand on its own.

 

[pinay]

catholic-rcia:
They are not adding anything new to what Jesus has done or whom Jesus is, they are witnesses to what took place. If you witnessed a wreck along with 11 others why would the officer want to speak to all 11? He wants to make sure they all saw the same thing.

Would they not be more credible than the one who did not see the wreck but only heard about it? Then went out and tried to tell others about it and what happened? We turn to them because they were there. We listen to them because they were there. They only make the testimony regarding Jesus stronger. We rely on their witness along with the Holy Spirit given to us at our baptisms.

When I speak about Jesus to another who does not know Him or is getting to know Him I to become a witness for Jesus. We all have different experiences with Jesus so we all have certain gifts when we speak about Him. But He is the same Jesus yesterday as today. What the LDS church adds is not the same as when Luke, or Mathew or Paul speak about Christ. The LDS church adds a different type of doctrine, they have added a different type of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Big difference. Many have done a great job speaking about the deposit of faith here. Very clear, and I want to say thank you, you have helped to strengthen my Catholic faith today.

Hello catholic-rcia. Good day to you.

When you study the Book of Mormon, you will find that it is speaking of the same Jesus as Luke, Matthew, or Paul. It is not a different doctrine as people would like you to believe. It is not a different type of God. The Arians did not put forth a different “type” of Jesus from a different bible but that which hailed from Luke, Matthew, and Paul. Similarly, Joseph Smith did not as well. Whereas, Joseph Smith’s revelation is not Trinitarian nor Arian, it still stems from the same Bible that you hold in your hands.

The Book of Mormon is exactly what you stated. *“They are not adding anything new to what Jesus has done or whom Jesus is, they are witnesses to what took place. If you witnessed a wreck along with 11 others why would the officer want to speak to all 11? He wants to make sure they all saw the same thing.” *

The only difference is - whereas you believe that the only people who God revealed himself to was the people depicted in the Books of the Old Testament and the New Testament, we believe that he revealed Himself to more than just those people. But then, that’s a matter of faith. Nobody can prove either position.

Regardless, the message that God revealed to the OT and NT folks and the other folks in the Book of Mormon is exactly the same. Jesus is the Christ and through His atonement lies our salvation. Of course, you don’t have to believe that even if I do.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, I did answer your question. But, I think your confusion lies in the common erroneous depiction of the LDS faith that LDS do not find anything true about the Catholic Church. This is far from the truth. The LDS does acknowledge - even in its 13 basic articles of the LDS faith - that the Holy Spirit guides all men on earth, Christian or not.

It is, therefore, the LDS stand that the Bible, as put forth by the early church and translated into the King James version IS divinely inspired even if some of its teachings have been interpretted differently by the Catholic Church.

Joseph Smith was prepared for his work by his diligent and faithful and sincere study of the Holy Bible. Therefore, when God revealed to him that he not join any church, he brought that which gave him his foundation - the Holy Bible - and with the Book of Mormon started the work of the restoration. The Holy Bible, then, was given to Joseph Smith and proceeding prophets as canon “as far as it is translated correctly” - that is, with the companionship of the Book of Mormon. Neither one nor the other can stand on its own.

So the Mormon Church accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to decide which books go into the New Testament and the authority of Church of England to translate it into English.

 

[Returning_Home]

What could the gospel of Luke possibly add, when we got everything in the gospel of Matthew?

What could Acts possibly add, when we have the gospels?

What could ANYTHING that Paul have written add, when we have the gospel of Matthew?

The epistles, once completed, give us what we need to know. That’s the way it was intended but you’re trying to separate them as if they weren’t all essential parts of the cohesive whole.

With all of them, we need nothing else.

 

[scipio337]

It is not a different type of God. The Arians did not put forth a different “type” of Jesus from a different bible but that which hailed from Luke, Matthew, and Paul. Similarly, Joseph Smith did not as well. Whereas, Joseph Smith’s revelation is not Trinitarian nor Arian, it still stems from the same Bible that you hold in your hands.
.

A bare assertion fallacy if I ever saw one. I have a difficult time finding any type of “spirit child” reference to Jesus, of God having a physical body, or any of the beliefs of Mormonism in my copies of Luke, Matthew, or Paul.

Then again, I’m reading the Vulgate in the original Latin.

Considering the BoM outs the Bible being intentionally corrupted:

“because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots…”…

it makes one wonder why LDS read the Bible, at all.

How does one pick the fly poop out of the pepper, so to speak? How does an LDS distinguish between what is factual in the New Testament, and what is corrupted? I suppose the circular logic of “If it confirms what is in the BoM, it is true” could be used, but please, no artful “Holy Sprit…” dodges.

 

[Mike2010]

Since the LDS doesn’t really accept the Bible except where it thinks it can prove its own position, your point is moot.

I agree in spirit, but since we have no accurate prophecies or revelations coming from any Mormon prophet, you don’t have a leg to stand on. We have the farce of the Civil War prophecy, we have the church playing the hokey pokey with polygamy, and we have two temples that were supposed to be built and never were (on plots of land that the church no longer owns).

So exactly how many false prophecies does it take to be considered a false prophet?

Actually only one false prophecy. And Christ says to look for these claims. Look at Deuteronomy 18:20-22 where it tells us how to tell whether a prophet is true or not (and I even pulled it from the King James Version - which Catholics don’t use:

“But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: though shalt not be afraid of him.”

This proves that a single false prophecy proves a profit to be false. This means that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other “prophets” are false for they have had failed prophesies.

It’s kind of audacious to assume you know God well enough to know what he’s thinking about what he needs mankind to know, especially since the BOM adds almost nothing beyond the Bible. Not only that, but any Biblical ‘support’ for any LDS claims can be shown to be erroneously and creatively reintepreted or taken out of context.

I agree with this very much

 

[evanfaust]

Since the LDS doesn’t really accept the Bible except where it thinks it can prove its own position, your point is moot.

This is not true and you know it. We accept the Bible as the word of God. We have four books that are considered standard works and the Bible is one of them. Where does it say we only use the portion of Bible that supports our position?

I agree in spirit, but since we have no accurate prophecies or revelations coming from any Mormon prophet, you don’t have a leg to stand on. We have the farce of the Civil War prophecy, we have the church playing the hokey pokey with polygamy, and we have two temples that were supposed to be built and never were (on plots of land that the church no longer owns).
So exactly how many false prophecies does it take to be considered a false prophet?

Then this will back fire on you because you should use the same standard to evaluate the prophets and prophecies of the Bible. By your standard many Bible prophecies and prophets can also be considered false.

Please read the following and maybe you will think twice before using double standard.

fairlds.org/Bible/Nature_of_Prophets_and_Prophecy.html

It’s kind of audacious to assume you know God well enough to know what he’s thinking about what he needs mankind to know, especially since the BOM adds almost nothing beyond the Bible. Not only that, but any Biblical ‘support’ for any LDS claims can be shown to be erroneously and creatively reintepreted or taken out of context.

The Bible is subject to different interpretations. The proof of that is in the thousands of Christian churches all based on Bible interpretations. So, why should we be condemned for our interpretation of it? Don’t all others do the same? The difference is that we claim to receive revelation from God to interpret it correctly, which puts us in a very advantageous situation. The Book of Mormon surely clarifies many points of doctrine where in the Bible it may not be so clear. If God manifest himself in a different continent to a different group of people, don’t you think it makes sense that God will reveal his same word, which will be very similar in another region? The history is different, but the principles and doctrine should remain the same, which the Book of Mormon does. In a way you complimented the Book of Mormon! It does not contradict the Bible. It is another testament of Christ. Thank you!

 

[dianaiad]

The epistles, once completed, give us what we need to know. That’s the way it was intended but you’re trying to separate them as if they weren’t all essential parts of the cohesive whole.

With all of them, we need nothing else.

Where does it say that?

 

[SirThomasMore]

I am a pretty intelligent guy. It will be a never-ending embarrassment to me that I fell for the LDS faith. I believed that a guy with 9 versions of a vision could just pick his favorite and go with it. That I believed that God was once a sinful man, that I could accept a book written in King James English from an American in the 1800s about a land no one can find. That I followed a man who made up polygamy, a practice that was ended when God decided he liked money than an “eternal” concept.

It is my solemn prayer that the real Holy Spirit converts our LDS brothers and sisters away from the false prophets and into truth

 

[evanfaust]

So the Mormon Church accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to decide which books go into the New Testament and the authority of Church of England to translate it into English.

LDS believes that God inspired Budha, Mohammed, Martin Luther and others. That however, does not mean that Budhism, Islam and Protestantism only teach correct principles. They received portion of the light of God for a certain mission, but that does not qualify these religions as authoritative or being the representation of God on the earth.