LDS mormons, what is the point of the book of mormon when there already is the Bible?

the Bible is enough, why also need another book?

28 Answers

Relevance
  • slcbtf
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    These may help:

    One non-LDS Christian author cautioned believers from placing the Bible 'ahead' of God:

    It is possible, however, to stress the Bible so much and give it so central a place that the sensitive Christian conscience must rebel. We may illustrate such overstress on the Bible by the often-used (and perhaps misused) quotation from Chillingworth: “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestantism.” Or we may recall how often it has been said that the Bible is the final authority for the Christian. If it will not seem too facetious, I would like to put in a good word for God. It is God and not the Bible who is the central fact for the Christian. When we speak of “the Word of God” we use a phrase which, properly used, may apply to the Bible, but it has a deeper primary meaning. It is God who speaks to man. But he does not do so only through the Bible. He speaks through prophets and apostles. He speaks through specific events. And while his unique message to the Church finds its central record and written expression in the Bible, this very reference to the Bible reminds us that Christ is the Word of God in a living, personal way which surpasses what we have even in this unique book. Even the Bible proves to be the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit working within us attests the truth and divine authority of what the Scripture says. Faith must not give to the aids that God provides the reverence and attention that Belong only to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hope is in God; our life is in Christ; our power is in the Spirit. The Bible speaks to us of the divine center of all life and help and power, but it is not the center. The Christian teaching about the canon must not deify the Scripture. Floyd V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible? (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), 20–21

    Also,

    One of the standard charges of many anti-Mormons is that the Bible constitutes a closed-set of scriptures; that the Bible is complete and infallible (perfect) and that no other scriptures can be added to the Word of God. Proponents of this claim often cite Revelation 22:18–19:

    For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    Most scholars date the Revelation of John to around 95–97 A.D., about the same time (or perhaps prior) to other New Testament books such as James, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, and the gospel of John.1 Many scholars believe that 3 John was written after the book of Revelation.2 Since the Bible was not compiled until approximately 200 A.D., it seems logical that John was warning against adding contents to his Revelation, not to the Bible as a whole. It is more likely that John was concerned with the manipulation of his writings by others, and warned against such alterations. He was referring to his book, not the New Testament. Protestant professor Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, of the Denver Seminary, agrees that “John’s words at the end of Revelation refer to that book only.”3 Even if, however, John were referring to the (as yet) un-compiled Bible, his warning is against “man” adding to the book, not God—which He surely could do by way of a prophet. As Dr. Nibley notes, some non-LDS scholars find evidence that “until the third century the Christians had no objection whatever to the idea ‘that someone might still add revelations to the writings of the Gospel.”4

    In Deuteronomy 4:2 we read a passage similar to the one in Revelation:

    Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I commanded you.

    By the logic of our critics, we should conclude that no scripture was to be added after Deuteronomy. Another scripture often used by those who wish to confine God is Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:16.

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

    The phrase “all scripture is given” is used to argue that there can be no more scripture except the Bible. When Paul wrote this, however, what were the scriptures? There was no “Bible” (as we know it) in Paul’s day, and the Jewish canon was unfixed. During this period in Jewish history, there was no universal agreement on which books were scriptural.5 What Paul says is that “all scripture is given by the inspiration of God,” a statement with which Mormons agree. And even if Paul was claiming that “all scripture” had already been given, what does that do to the rest of the New Testament written after Paul made this statement?

    In about 200 A.D. the church at Rome began to compile writings that church leaders deemed as authentic scripture. Many of the books today contained in our King James Bible were included in that first New Testament. Others, however, were excluded. Some of the books found in our New Testament today, were not included in this first New Testament. Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John were not in the first Roman New Testament, for example, while books such as the Revelation of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon were. Many books were the subject of debate. The emerging church was often unsure which books should be included as scripture and which should not.

    About fifty years later in Alexandria, Egypt, Origen was using yet a different version of the New Testament, which excluded the Revelation of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, but also excluded James, Jude, and 2 John (as well as those disputed by Rome) while adding 1 Peter. It wasn’t until 367 A.D., after the Council of Nicea, that our current New Testament was established, adding Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude, while rejecting the Revelation of Peter, and the Wisdom of Solomon which were included in the earlier version.6 The Bible also makes mention of several books which are no longer available, including an earlier epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9), an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16), and possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3).

    Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ricks note that the New Testament itself suggests an expanded canon by drawing on books not included within the Bible.

    The Epistle of Jude, for instance, draws heavily on non-canonical books such as 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Indeed, as an eminent contemporary scholar says of 1 Enoch, “it influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly), and Revelation (with numerous points of contact). There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the final judgement, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism.” When Matthew the evangelist says (at 2:23) that Jesus “came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled

    which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called Nazarene,” he is citing a prophetic text unknown to the Bible as we have it. When, at Acts 20:35, the apostle Paul exhorts the elders of the Ephesian branch “to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, I t is more blessed to give than to receive,” he is pointing their minds toward a famous statement that does not occur in the New Testament books that we posses today. To put it bluntly, both Matthew and Paul seem to accept a canon of scriptural materials broader than that accepted today by the critics of Latter-day Saints. This hardly bothers the Mormons, but it should give real pause to our detractors. How can they denounce us for receiving scriptures beyond their limited canon without simultaneously condemning Jude, Matthew, and Paul?”7

    Even Martin Luther did not accept every book of the New Testament as fully inspired. Luther particularly disliked the Epistle of James, which he called a “‘an epistle of straw’ having ‘no gospel quality to’” for disagreeing with his teaching of justification by faith alone. He denied that James’ Epistle had apostolic authorship and claimed that it was ‘“worthless.’” Luther declared: “‘I hold that some Jew wrote it who probably had heard about Christians but had never run into any.’” Neither did Luther trust the Revelation of John.8 If Luther, Matthew, Paul, Jude, and other early Christians could accept more of less of the Bible (as we know it) and still be “Christian,” then Latter-day Saints are certainly in good company.

    For more details on this topic see http://www.mormonfortress.com/ or http://www.fairlds.org/

    Written by Michael R. Ash for the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), Copyright © 2004. www.fairlds.org

    By Kevin Graham:

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. The Church has received much persecution for making such a statement about the Holy Scriptures and one has to wonder, "Who wouldn't accept only a perfectly translated Bible as a PERFECT word of God." The insinuation by the Protestants however, is that the Bible is "God breathed" down to the last word and that God would not allow his word to be corrupted in any way through the centuries no matter what historical evidence proves otherwise. However, we know from history that the Bible has been repeatedly translated not only from three languages once, but several times in each language and the different tra

  • 4 years ago

    How can the church alter the book of Mormon you ask - easy, if we wanted to we would be allowed. We don't believe in a closed canon of scripture so if President Monson said we would be making changes as a prophet I'd think he's allowed to make those changes. However, that's not what has happened. The vast majority of the changes are typographical errors, you could go on but aside from what you wrote there is nothing of consequence to go on with. There isn't a doctrinal change in the entire book unless you buy the unfounded notion that Smith was a trinitarian believer which he was UNTIL he saw God the Father introduce him to His Son Jesus Christ - prior to that he likely was a believer in the trinity, and not afterward. If you understood LDS doctrine, including the doctrine of divine investiture as taught by the Book of Mormon in Mosiah and 3rd Nephi, you would see that there is absolutely no conflict. So unless you believe the unfounded hogwash about Smith believing in the trinity (you've got to ignore a bunch of history to swallow that one) or assume that a book that explains divine investiture clearly shouldn't be read in that context. Of course even if you are operating under enough cognitive dissonance to accept those notion you still have the issue of asking if the LDS church can change scripture and the response is absolutely, but we haven't. Need I remind you that none of our prophets have declared themselves infallible and the Book of Mormon has never declared itself a perfect book. By the way - assuming that you're Christian - how do you account for the fact that there are more discrepancies in the New Testament historical translations and historical document that the mistakes outnumber the amount of words in the book? There are so many variants that nobody has ever been able to list and catalog them. And according to your doctrine there is no more prophesy, so can you accept the bible since those changes are clearly unauthorized? Congratulations, you found an argument that's the equivalent of a suicide bomb - you really didn't prove anything on us but you have just destroyed the bible with your logic - good thing your logic is flawed.

  • rkd6
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    The Bible itself states that out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the truth be established. The Book of Mormon stands as a second witness that Jesus Christ truly is the Savior and that he truly was resurrected.

    Was every book of the Bible written at the same time? No. Some were written when there already was scripture available. Those earlier believers didn't have any problems with receiving MORE of the word of God, even though they already had some. For example, the Gospel of Mark was written before the Gospel of John. After the Gospel of John was written, do you think the early Christians said, "No, we don't need any more...we've already got the Gospel of Mark"? Of course not. They would have been insane to not even consider it. I honestly don't understand why Christians won't even consider a book whose purpose is to show that the Bible is true.

    Is God's mouth closed? Does he not have anything left to say to humanity? If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why wouldn't he continue to reveal his word through inspired individuals...as he did in times past? Who is ANYONE to presume that the Bible is IT and that God can't give us more of his word?

    God gave us his word through the Bible. He's given us his word in the Book of Mormon. And guess what...I hope that's not all! I hope God never stops revealing additional scripture to humanity.

  • 1 decade ago

    Here's a better question: Why would God stop talking to His children in this day and age? Why wouldn't He continue to teach us?

    Or.... Were the Jews the only people on the earth? Why shouldn't we learn about other cultures that were on the earth before, during and after the time of Christ? Why would God care more about the Jews then the rest of His children?

    I believe that God has more to say to us, and I'm not going to close my mind to anything that He is willing to show me, or tell me. To say that there can't, or won't, be anymore scripture after the bible is limiting what God can do. I am not willing to limit what my God can do. If you believe He is all powerful, and that He is the same yesterday, today and forever, then why would He stop doing the things He has done from the beginning? To presume that He would is like saying that you are don't accept God for what He really is, and that He can't do anything He wants whenever He wants.

    I think that if He wanted to add to ANY scripture we have now, I would be open to that. I also don't think that all scripture has been revealed, and that there is more to come. I won't stop accepting God's word just because someone tells me they THINK it's done. Until God Himself says it's finished, I'm leaving myself open to receive more of what He has to say.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Because, over the last couple of thousands of years the bible has lost some of the truths and doctrine that it originally contained. The Book of Mormon has this missing doctrine, as well as reaffirming the truth of the Bible and of Jesus Christ being the Savior and Redeemer of the World.

  • 1 decade ago

    Really? The Bible is enough? That's why so many religions fight about what its passages mean and hundreds of religions have resulted by multiple interpretations of it? That's funny....

    OK, in reality, I grew up LDS, and I do have a testimony of the BOM even though I'm not "devout" anymore (I have some doctrinal differences). There wasn't an intended purpose when the Book of Mormon was written; It was merely a recording of certain events hundreds of years ago, including a visit by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection, on the American continent.

    And for the people who spout "But in 'Revelations' it says no book should be added onto this," take a closer look at your Bible. It's not in chronological order. It goes Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and afterwards it is in the order of length in books. John, in Revelations, was referring to the fact that no one should add or change anything to his specific book. If you were to put the Bible in chronological order, half of it would be left out if we followed that scripture.

  • Like I said earlier today when answering a nearly identical question, it's not a competition. To us, the Book of Mormon and the Bible are like parts of your body--both are great on their own, but both are better together. It would be like asking you why you need your left hand when you already have your right. Is your right hand a complete hand? I assume it is, unless you've lost part of it. Is it functional without the left? Of course. The same is true of your left. Both can accomplish great things without the help of the other, but when you combine them, think of how much greater the capabilities!

    This is how I view the relationship between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I don't see any need to try to put one above the other, because both are equally useful to me. Both testify of Christ, both record the teachings and revelations given by His prophets, and both encourage the reader to follow Him. Either on their own would testify of Christ, but when you put them together, things that aren't clear in one are more fully explained in the other. Concepts left out of one remain in the other. Experiences not recorded by one are recorded by the other. The Book of Mormon would adequately testify that Christ is our Savior and that He was resurrected without the Bible to back it up, but the Bible contains the beauty of records or people who knew Christ and walked with Him. It records His life and ministry.

    Likewise, the Bible contains those beautiful records, but the Book of Mormon has centuries more of input from the various prophets on the other side of the world who were also being instructed by God. So many books from the Bible were left out when it was organized centuries after Christ's death, and many of those teachings are contained in the Book of Mormon because those people were receiving the same instructions as those "lost" books' prophets.

    I can't say I'd prefer not to have either. To lose either one would be a great loss in my opinion, because the loss of any of God's word is a very sad thing.

  • 1 decade ago

    Evidently God didn't think that the Bible was enough. Otherwise He wouldn't have given us the Book of Mormon.

    The point of the Book of Mormon is to stand as ANOTHER witness that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God. That God LOVES ALL His children. Here read this...it is right there at the beginning of the Book of Mormon:

    http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg

    It is only one page long...so you shouldn't have a problem reading it. After you do, if you want to ask more questions...e-mail me. gatesfanlds@yahoo.com

  • 1 decade ago

    Obviously it's not enough with all the religions who can't come to a consensus on what it REALLY means. They don't believe the bible, but their INTERPRETATION of it. If they were built on the bible, they would all be the same.

    Why do you need Mark, Luke and John when you have Matthew?

    Unlike the bible, there's no disputing the doctrine of the book of mormon. It settles every question Christianity is divided over.

    It settles how we are to be baptized, by whom, what's to be said, the name of the church, the realtionship of grace, faith, works, mercy, judgement, justice, the true nature of God and Jesus Christ, and ON and ON.

    Read it!

    Source(s): www.scriptures.lds.org
  • 1 decade ago

    I don't believe that the Bible is enough. If it were, then why is the Christian church like Paul described?

    Eph. 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

    Because we have athe Book of Mormon, we know we have living prophets and apostles.

    Eph. 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

    12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

    13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

    14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

    15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

    16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

  • 1 decade ago

    Simple - we can't get enough of the word of God. We believe God spoke to all his children - scattered upon the face of the earth. We are fortunate to have another record of God's dealings with a people who lived upon the American continent. It records not only the testamonies and teachings of God's prophets, but also the visitation of Jesus Christ as He fulfilled His promise to remember His children.

    We also believe in current revelation and an open canon - because our Savior lives - and continues to speak to man.

    For further information, check out the following article:

    http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1...

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.