Conference tecrus::mormonism

  I am interested in hearing how the non-LDS readers/writers in this
  conference know that the Bible is the Word of God, and that it is
  of divine nature.  I do not want to hereby put anybody or his beliefs
  down, or make light of anybody/anybody's beliefs.  I also want to affirm
  my belief in the Bible (as an LDS).

   Re .0
    
>  I am interested in hearing how the non-LDS readers/writers in this
>  conference know that the Bible is the Word of God, and that it is
>  of divine nature.  
   
>  I also want to affirm my belief in the Bible (as an LDS).

   But don't you, as an LDS, have certain reservations about the Bible
   being the Word of God?
    
   Ed
    
    

    Re: Note 175.1 by CASV02::PRESTON
    
    Hi Ed,
    
>  But don't you, as an LDS, have certain reservations about the Bible
>  being the Word of God?

    You may be referring to our belief, as stated in our 8th Article of
    Faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is
    translated correctly". 
    
    I would like to share a few thoughts in response to your question: 
    
    1) The LDS church believes that, when originally penned by its various
    authors, the books of the Bible contained the word of God. 
    
    2) The LDS church also believes that there have been some errors in
    translation and transcription that have cropped up over the years,
    introducing changes to the original intent in some cases. 
    
    3) In spite of this, the LDS church still believes that the Bible does
    contain the word of God, is mostly correct, and that the translation
    and transcription problems have contributed to the confusion over many
    basic doctrines among Christian sects, such as baptism, salvation,
    authority, and others. 
    
    4) The LDS church believes that one reason God has given the Book of
    Mormon is to help clarify many of these doctrines, by providing
    additional insight and clarity.
    
    5) From my experience, I think the LDS church follows the teachings
    found in the Bible more closely than any other church, in spite of the
    aforementioned translation and transcription problems. 
                                                          
    I would also be interested to hear your answer to the question posed in
    the topic note. 
    
    Rich
                   

 :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

(whew!)

re: .1

This is my note, I'll ask the questions! :-)


Seriously though,

I believe in the Bible as much as any 'Bible-believing' Christian.  (That
doesn't mean that I believe the same explanation of what is in the Bible --
the same doctrine as interpreted by the various philosophies represented by 
the various groups or Christians).  I do *not* believe in a collection of
paper and ink and maybe leather that has the word 'Bible' or 'Holy Bible'
written across it.  That (this collection of material) has no meaning
inherent in its composition, and neither do the ink forms thereon.  They
mearly form words in a language devised by man to represent and convey
meaning.  These forms are interpreted by an individual's senses and then
by his brain to represent an idea to that individual.  As each person is 
different (physically, culturally, scholarly, etc), these ideas so conveyed
may be different to each individual, so what any one individual may read or say
about what is written in their Bible may or may not conform to God's Word.

Now, back to the question in .0.

Please answer this simple question and stop evading it :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Chad

   re: 175.0 <NORGE::CHAD>

   >I am interested in hearing how the non-LDS readers/writers in this
   >conference know that the Bible is the Word of God, and that it is of
   >divine nature.

           If anyone CHOOSES TO DO God's will, HE WILL FOUND OUT
           whether my teaching comes form God or whether I speak
           on my own.
                                                     [John 7:17]

           To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "IF YOU
           HOLD TO MY TEACHING, you are really my disciples.
           Then YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH, and the truth will set
           you free."
                                                  [John 8:31-32]


       Both of these Scriptures, I believe speak to how a Christian can know
   if the Bible is the Word of God.  If you put it into practice, you will
   know because you will see it work.

   re: 175.2 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>

   >2) The LDS church also believes that there have been some errors in
   >   translation and transcription that have cropped up over the years,
   >   introducing changes to the original intent in some cases.

       Does the LDS believe the same about the book of Mormons and the D&C?
   The book of Mormons was supposed translated from tablets discovered by JS.
   How was his translation any better that the translators of the OT and NT?
   What about the minor (Major?) changes that have taken place since it's
   original translation?  Same for the D&C?

   In Christ,
   Tony

Re .4

>   re: 175.2 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>
>
>   >2) The LDS church also believes that there have been some errors in
>   >   translation and transcription that have cropped up over the years,
>   >   introducing changes to the original intent in some cases.
>
>       Does the LDS believe the same about the book of Mormons and the D&C?
>   The book of Mormons was supposed translated from tablets discovered by JS.
>   How was his translation any better that the translators of the OT and NT?
>   What about the minor (Major?) changes that have taken place since it's
>   original translation?  Same for the D&C?

Tony has asked some important questions.  Two notes already exist that
are discussing the translation and changes in the Book of Mormon.  In order
to prevent this note from fragmenting, I'm requesting that Tony's questions
be discussed there, or if one wishes to take a different approach, to open
a new note.

       62  Translation of the Book of Mormon
      143  Changes to the Book of Mormon

Also pertaining to Tony's questions is the following note.

     23.56 What Joseph meant by "translated correctly"

Allen

  -- moderator

    
    I think that this question has merits of its own and should not
    be redirected to another topic.
    
    Although I have knowledge of the Bible before I joined the Church,
    I, as an LDS, know that the Bible is Word of God because the Book
    of Mormon testifies of it.  I don't have the scriptures in front
    of me, but I remember several references to it.
    
    Also, I seem to remember one the General Authorities mentioning
    this fact in the last General Conference.
    
    If you want more clarification, I will look into it, but my response
    might be a bit slow :^).
    
    			Tom

The synopsis of Elder Oakes' talk (.1) is a good example of how the
Mormon church relegates the Bible to second-class status behind the Book
of Mormon, and of the condescending attitude they have towards those
poor lost souls who have "only the Bible to go on." 

The reasoning, however, leaves much to be desired: many people claim to
know Christ, yet, since there is such a "huge variety" in their views, it
only follows that *none* of them could possibly know Christ! And the flap
over a controversial movie just adds further proof! The error, of course,
is in lumping everyone labelled "Christian" into an amorphous whole, then
doing away with the lot of them of them simply because their views don't
all agree. Granted, not everyone claiming to know Christ truly does, but
to pretend that because two "Christians" disagree then they are *both*
wrong is ridiculous. Of course it is not mentioned that there are also 
numerous other groups that have *both* the Book of Mormon and the Bible, 
and claim to know Christ, yet disagree with the LDS church on basic doctrine.
What does this variety in *their* views tell us?

> Thank God for the Book of Mormon, which is *another* testament of
> Jesus Christ, his life, AND HIS DIVINITY! For those of us who *know*
> through personal witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon
> is true, there can be no debate. Jesus *is* the Christ, 

The idea that one cannot know Christ without the Book of Mormon is
ludicrous and offensive, but that is precisely the message. I've read
quite a bit of the Book of Mormon, and I'd go so far as to say that 
there's a clearer picture of Christ and salvation in the Gospel of John
alone than in the whole of the Book of Mormon. 

Why this continual need to uplift the Book of Mormon at the expense of
the Bible and "Bible-only" Christians? I'm still waiting for someone to
say that they say they have a "testimony" of the truth of the Bible that
is equal to that of the Book of Mormon. But I'm prepared for a long wait.

Ed

    
	RE: Note 291.12 TOMCAT::PRESTON 

	Ed, Ed, Ed.  Are you having a terrible life?  Why is it you must
	take everything as an attack on your person?

>The idea that one cannot know Christ without the Book of Mormon is
>ludicrous and offensive, but that is precisely the message. I've read
>quite a bit of the Book of Mormon, and I'd go so far as to say that 
>there's a clearer picture of Christ and salvation in the Gospel of John
>alone than in the whole of the Book of Mormon. 

	That is NOT the intended message.  The purpose of stating that the
	Book of Mormon is ANOTHER testament of Christ is exactly that.  I
	have also read both, and I prefer the simple, pure testimony Lehi
	has in 2 Nephi 2.  Why don't you re-read it and see if you can 
	understand what I mean.

		You like analogies, so I would like to present you with one.
	I will give you a brand new car that represents the totalness of what 
	you need for your life in Christ.  But, the car is locked, and I 
	will only give you ONE key, or testimony.  You choose.  Either you 
	can get in the car, but not go anywhere, or you can just stand 
	outside and look in.  Now, if I were to give you both keys, or 
	testaments, then you could more fully enjoy.

		I agree with you in that the idea that one cannot know Christ 
	WITHOUT the Book of Mormon is ludicrous and offensive.  But, I feel
	that one can know Christ better and fuller WITH the Book of Mormon.
	It is a second testimony or witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ,
	the only begotten son of God, the Father, and that he lived and died
	for our eternal benefit.

	Charles

    Re: Note 291.12 by TOMCAT::PRESTON

    
    Hi Ed,
    
>The synopsis of Elder Oakes' talk (.1) is a good example of how the
>Mormon church relegates the Bible to second-class status behind the Book
>of Mormon, and of the condescending attitude they have towards those
>poor lost souls who have "only the Bible to go on." 
    
    Obviously, you and I each read .1 with a different bias, but I went
    back and read  it again, and I must say I don't think that note conveys
    the message that the Holy Bible is second class status behind the Book
    of Mormon. To me it simply says that the Book of Mormon confirms the
    Holy Bible message that Christ is divine, by being a "second witness"
    of the divinity of Christ. This was mentioned in the context of those
    who would somehow conclude that Christ is not divine.
    
    I do get a bit weary of hearing the claim that the LDS church relegates
    the Bible to second class status. It isn't so. There are some
    *differences* between our beliefs about the Bible and the Book of
    Mormon, one being that we do believe that some "plain and precious
    things" that were once in the Bible writings are now missing, causing
    some to stumble. But we view BOTH the Bible and the Book of Mormon as
    having been given by God to men. They go together. They testify of each
    other and confirm each other's truths. They also each contain
    information that the other does not. It would be a great loss to lose
    either one.
    
    But the real message and power of the Book of Mormon, and why it is so
    important for our day, is that, if it is the word of God as we say it
    is, then it means that God has called prophets and apostles again
    in our day. It means that God has sent revelations and heavenly
    messengers to men in OUR time, just as He did in the Holy Bible.
    For this reason, it is the KEY to our (LDS) religion, because, if
    a man can learn from God that IT is true, then he can also know
    these other things. Note that this does NOT detract from the truth
    of or the importance of the Holy Bible, which is the FIRST witness
    of Jesus Christ.
    
>The idea that one cannot know Christ without the Book of Mormon is
>ludicrous and offensive, but that is precisely the message. I've read
>quite a bit of the Book of Mormon, and I'd go so far as to say that 
>there's a clearer picture of Christ and salvation in the Gospel of John
>alone than in the whole of the Book of Mormon. 
    
    I agree with you that a person can come to know Christ without the Book
    of Mormon. How else would Joseph Smith have been able to have his first
    vision, which happened before he knew of the Book of Mormon. You are
    right, the Gospel of John is a very powerful and beautiful witness of
    Christ. We (LDS) feel fortunate to have BOTH the witness of the Bible
    (including John), and of the Book of Mormon. I don't think it is very
    useful to compare the two. I say instead, take what each has to offer
    and learn more of Christ.
    
>I'm still waiting for someone to
>say that they say they have a "testimony" of the truth of the Bible that
>is equal to that of the Book of Mormon. But I'm prepared for a long wait.
    
    Wait no more! ;-) I have said it before in this conference and will say
    it again. I know the Holy Bible is the word of God, as I also know the
    Book of Mormon is the word of God. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

In note 291, Ed objected to the comment of Elder Dallin Oakes given in 291.1.
Ed's comment has sparked a new discussion of the place of the Bible in the
LDS Church, and in order to prevent note 291 from fragmenting, I'm moving that
discussion to this note.  I've copied 291.1 to provide the context for Ed's
objection.

================================================================================
Note 291.1         Favorite Teachings from General Conference            1 of 14
IPOVAX::PERM "Kevin R. Ossler"                       37 lines   4-OCT-1988 07:48
                      -< October 1988: Another Testament >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thoroughly enjoyed Conference this past weekend. Perhaps some of you 
would like to share your thoughts and reactions. I, for one, would 
like to make a point about the talk that Elder Dallin Oakes gave on 
Sunday afternoon.

Basically, he said that in this world, there are so many people who 
claim to have come to know Christ, yet there is such huge variety in 
their views. He referred to 'Last Temptation' and the debate it has 
caused. He mentioned the cover story in Time magazine which talked 
about how so many people have come to view Christ as 'fully human' or 
as just a good man and/or teacher. Some of those with these views are 
mainline Christian ministers, many of whom have gone so far as to 
defend that movie as being 'enlightening' or 'uplifting.'

Elder Oakes pointed out that these people have only the Bible to go 
on. They reach their conclusions - honestly, I'm sure - based only on 
what they read there, coupled with their own wisdom, and the teachings 
of men.

Thank God for the Book of Mormon, which is *another* testament of
Jesus Christ, his life, AND HIS DIVINITY! For those of us who *know*
through personal witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon
is true, there can be no debate. Jesus *is* the Christ, the way, the
truth and the light and life, the only begotten and living Son of God
the Eternal Father, the one who provided the Atoning Sacrifice that
allows us to be reconciled to the Father, the one who was then
resurrected from the dead and thereby conquered death for all mankind,
who loves us more than we can comprehend! 

Elder Oakes elaborated on this theme with great force and eloquence, 
and I look forward to reading the text of his talk in next month's 
Ensign. In the meantime, I am grateful for his words, which have 
illustrated plainly *why* we refer to the The Book of Mormon as
"Another Testament of Jesus Christ." 

A brother in Christ,
/kevin

I thought I'd make a comment while my attention is on this note.
I may be wrong, but I think Ed's objection concerns the following phrase
from Kevin's reply: "these people have *only* the Bible to go on." (emphasis
added).

I can see how that phrase could be interpreted to mean "only" in the sense
of inferior, and I think Ed took it to mean that.  If Elder Oakes did mean
it in that way, then I would join with Ed in objecting.  However, as Charles
and Rich have pointed out, the word "only" refers to "being alone", i.e.
other Christians have one book to testify of Christ, a book that is widely
misinterpreted.  Elder Oakes was saying that the Latter-day Saints have an
advantage in having two books that testify of Christ.

Allen

Re 285.3, Charles Roney

>	Ed, Ed, Ed.  Are you having a terrible life?  Why is it you must
>	take everything as an attack on your person?

Charles, Charles, Charles! My life is just fine, thank you! Be careful,
though, I might get the idea that you have a condescending attitude
towards me..! 

>	You like analogies, so I would like to present you with one.
>	I will give you a brand new car that represents the totalness of what 
>	you need for your life in Christ.  But, the car is locked, and I 
>	will only give you ONE key, or testimony.  You choose.  Either you 
>	can get in the car, but not go anywhere, or you can just stand 
>	outside and look in.  Now, if I were to give you both keys, or 
>	testaments, then you could more fully enjoy.

Well, my old Volvo uses the same key for the door and the ignition, but I 
assume that in your analogy a seperate key is needed for each, and that I 
cannot use the car for its intended purpose without both of them. In that 
case you are saying that without the Book of Mormon I can only sit in my 
car, therefore my knowing Christ avails me nothing until I have a Book of 
Mormon to make it "go." I appreciate your analogy, but I don't agree with 
it.

Re 285.4, Rich Kotter

>    Obviously, you and I each read .1 with a different bias, but I went
>    back and read  it again, and I must say I don't think that note conveys
>    the message that the Holy Bible is second class status behind the Book
>    of Mormon. 

>    I do get a bit weary of hearing the claim that the LDS church relegates
>    the Bible to second class status. It isn't so. There are some
>    *differences* between our beliefs about the Bible and the Book of
>    Mormon, one being that we do believe that some "plain and precious
>    things" that were once in the Bible writings are now missing, causing
>    some to stumble. 

Sorry it wearies you Rich, but you (LDS) *do* impart a status to the
Book of Mormon that automatically puts the Bible in an inferior position.
You just said so yourself by mentioning the so-called "plain and
precious" things that have somehow been deleted from the Bible. This
means that it is now deficient in some ways. No such statement is ever
made about the Book of Mormon so it must, in your thinking, be a
superior resource to the Bible. 

� I'm still waiting for someone to say that they say they have a "testimony" 
� of the truth of the Bible that is equal to that of the Book of Mormon. 
� But I'm prepared for a long wait. 

>    Wait no more! ;-) I have said it before in this conference and will say
>    it again. I know the Holy Bible is the word of God, as I also know the
>    Book of Mormon is the word of God. 

Sorry, I'm still waiting. I wanted to hear something about "equal".


Re 285.5, Allen Leigh

> I thought I'd make a comment while my attention is on this note. I may 
> be wrong, but I think Ed's objection concerns the following phrase from
> Kevin's reply: "these people have *only* the Bible to go on." (emphasis
> added). 

Thanks Allen, but if it were only one word that I disliked, I would 
have overlooked it. Pouncing on the casual use of a single word, 
especially in a notes conference, is usually not a good idea. No, I saw 
Elder Oakes' remarks as typical of the LDS attitudes towards the Bible 
and Christians, because I've heard it before and I'm sure I'll hear it 
again, because it's the very heart of Mormonism.

Don't get me wrong, You (LDS) are fully entitled to believe whatever you 
like about the Bible, people who call themselves Christian and of course, 
the Book of Mormon, just as I am entitled to object if I think that what 
you say is wrong (especially if it involves me).

>..other Christians have one book to testify of Christ, a book that is widely
>misinterpreted.  Elder Oakes was saying that the Latter-day Saints have an
>advantage in having two books that testify of Christ.

This is what I mean - whenever the Bible is mentioned in the context of 
non-LDS, it is always done to reinforce the idea that the ("widely 
misinterpreted") Bible just isn't enough, and that something else (the 
Book of Mormon, LDS church et al) is needed. I could not disagree more. 

Regards,

Ed

	RE: Note 285.6 TOMCAT::PRESTON 

>I might get the idea that you have a condescending attitude towards me..! 

	Not at all.  I do NOT have a condescending attitude towards you. 
	I do wonder at your ability to totally miss the point and go off 
	on a tangent.  It is amazing!  I wonder what your personal bias
	towards Mormon is that you so totally take things the wrong way.

>Well, my old Volvo uses the same key for the door and the ignition, but I 
>assume that in your analogy a seperate key is needed for each, and that I 
>cannot use the car for its intended purpose without both of them. In that 
>case you are saying that without the Book of Mormon I can only sit in my 
>car, therefore my knowing Christ avails me nothing until I have a Book of 
>Mormon to make it "go." I appreciate your analogy, but I don't agree with 
>it.

	You missed the entire point of the analogy. Let me repeat it.  Here
	is the bottom line - watch for it - "I feel that one can know Christ 
	better and fuller WITH the Book of Mormon."  I must apologize for not
	being able to better explain myself with words.  This kind of half
	way communications is a bother.


	Everyone read things with a different bias, but that is what makes 
	the world go 'round.  Not everyone is able to understand the double
	negatives that Paul uses in getting his points across.  Even Peter
	say so!  One of the reasons that I like the Book of Mormon over the
	Bible is that it is much clearer in concepts.  Did you read 2 Nephi
	chapter 2?  If not, then do so.  After you have read it, find a
	corresponding chapter in the Bible, or even a book, that is as plain.

	The Bible has a lot to offer mankind.  When I taught the New Testament
	in early morning seminary, I found so much that thrilled me.  It was 
	amazing the things that were there.  But most of the time you had to 
	dig them out as for a concentrated teaching of a principle.  As the 
	Jews were a hard-hearted and stiff-necked people, Jesus had to teach 
	them in parables and symbols and such.  To the apostles he could speak
	plainly, but to the rest He did as He did so that only those who had 
	the spiritual heart and mind could understand.  The Book of Mormon
	does not have to be deciphered as does the Bible. (Especially the
	book of Revelations!)  It is a second testimony or witness of the 
	divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.  It shows His concern and caring
	for "the other sheep" of the ten lost tribes of Israel.  

	The Book of Mormon does not replace the Bible, but enhances and fills 
	it out.  A person can NOT say that all they need is the Book of 
	Mormon.  That is absolutely not true.  To understand God's relationship
	with mankind on this earth, one must realize that the House of Israel 
	is the covenant people of that God.  No matter how hated or despised 
	the Jews have been, are, or will be is of no consequence.  (This 
	particular aspect of these people has been prophesied more than once 
	in the Bible.)  The Jews were and still are part of the covenant 
	people of God.  All that the Book of Mormon is about is of part of 
	that covenant people who were directed away from the impending and 
	prophesied disasters that were about to befall them.  A companion.  
	Not a displacer.
	
	Charles

    Re: Note 285.6 by TOMCAT::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
> you (LDS) *do* impart a status to the
>Book of Mormon that automatically puts the Bible in an inferior position.

    I must disagree. I suspect that I won't convince you, because it seems
    that you have firmly made up your mind on this issue. Anyway, a couple
    of things to consider come to mind. 
             
    Latter-day Saints do NOT put the Holy Bible in an inferior position to
    the Book of Mormon. Instead, we put it in a *different* but EQUAL
    position. We believe that the Book of Mormon is not complete without
    the Bible, and that the Bible is not complete without the Book of
    Mormon. 
    
    For example, the ancient prophets who wrote the Book of Mormon made the
    comment that they purposely left out the story of the creation of man
    and most of the writings of the ancient prophets before their day,
    because they knew that many of these writings would be in the Bible,
    and that it would be had among all nations. They also knew that the
    Bible would contain the record of the minstry of our Lord among the
    Jews. 
    
    The Bible contains many things of great or greater value than some of
    those contained in the Book of Mormon. By the same token, the Book of
    Mormon contains many things of great or greater value than some of
    those contained in the Bible. A person can only get the full picture
    that they offer together by using them BOTH. This is what Latter-day
    Saints do. 

>You just said so yourself by mentioning the so-called "plain and
>precious" things that have somehow been deleted from the Bible. This
>means that it is now deficient in some ways. No such statement is ever
>made about the Book of Mormon so it must, in your thinking, be a
>superior resource to the Bible. 
    
    Yes, I did say that Latter-day Saints believe that some plain and
    precious things that the ancient prophets originally wrote are now
    missing from the Holy Bible. We believe this because it was revealed to
    Nephi a few hundred years before Christ that such would be the case,
    and he wrote it in the Book of Mormon, along with his testimony of the
    truthfulness and importance of what would later become the Bible. Just
    because some precious things are missing does not permit anyone,
    including Latter-day Saints to assert that the things that are left are
    any less precious. It's just not as complete a picture as it was. 
    
    Does this make the Bible "deficient in some ways"? Yes, I suppose that
    it does, in comparision to what the prophets originally wrote. You say
    that no deficiencies have been noted by Latter-day Saints in the Book
    of Mormon. This is not true. As a matter of fact, the prophets who
    wrote the Book of Mormon were concerned about their difficulty in
    writing, and were concerned about errors they might have made. Also,
    the LDS church has acknowledged deficiencies in the publication of the
    earlier printings of the Book of Mormon, and have tried to carefully go
    back and correct these errors, by reviewing the original handwritten
    sheets produced in the translation and printing of the Book of Mormon. 
    
    My point is, the Bible and the Book of Mormon EACH have their strengths
    and their deficiencies. They are given by God to strengthen and testify
    of each other. They include the testimony of two different nations, the
    descendants of Judah and the descendants of Joseph, the Jesus Christ
    ministered to them personally and the He is the resurrected Son of God.
    Latter-day Saints believe they must be used together, and yes, on an
    EQUAL basis. 
    
    Why then does the LDS church and its members put such an emphasis on
    the Book of Mormon and on asking God if it is true? Because this is the
    KEY to knowing if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and if the Church
    of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established and ordained by
    Christ. If the Book of Mormon is the word of God, then these other
    truths soon follow. If it is not, then these other assertions cannot be
    true. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
          

Something to think about:

The Book of Mormon is also "deficient".  It is not the complete record kept by
the Nephite (and other) prophets.  It is an abridgment of this record and 
contains such things as Mormon and Moroni thought were most important.

I mention this because it could be compared to the "deficiency" in the Bible.

Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon will get you to heaven.

Chad

	And besides that, the Book of Mormon is only a small part of the
	available plates that were the abridgement!

    Ed, surely you are aware that Mormons regard the Bible as containing
    the word of God.  Also, we regard the B of M as containing the word of 
    God.  Why do you insist that we regard some of the word of God as being
    inferior to other words of God?  The word of God is of eternal worth to
    me, whether it comes from the B of M, the Bible, or wherever.  It seems 
    foolish to me to regard any of God's word as being inferior to any other 
    of God's word.  It seems unfortunate to me that segments of the Christian
    community refuse the word of God found in Book of Mormon.  It's
    probably not too much different from what early members of the
    Christian church felt for their friends that continued in the Jewish
    faith.  I wonder if the early Christians had similar discussions with 
    those of Jewish faith regarding the Old and New Testaments ...
    
    Steve

    continued from 97.131...
    
    > The Bible is quite incomplete on what Jesus Christ did and taught.
    > The doctrines he laid out by precept and example are not all recorded.
    > If a person is willing to be directed by incompleteness, then that is
    > their right, but it does mean that everyone has to.
    >
    > If you want to talk about the Bible as God's Word, then be aware of
    > the LDS doctrine that we believe so only to the extent that is is
    > correctly translated.  This concept is discussed else ware in this
    
    I get the feeling you're ostracizing God's Word here and consider it
    a weaker source of truth, at best.  That's not what God's Word says
    though.  The Word of God in scriptural canon is inspired (God-breathed), 
    inerrant, complete (Revelation 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:5-6), and the only 
    infallible rule of faith.  It reveals the origin and destiny of all 
    things; records God's dealings with mankind in the past, present, and 
    future; and focuses on the Person and work of Jesus Christ.  The Bible 
    inspires faith (Romans 10:17) and will make men "wise unto salvation" 
    (II Timothy 3:15).  More supportive Scriptures can be found in 
    II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:21, Psalm 119:105, Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 4:12.
    
    As for "translated correctly," literature tests on ancient documents and 
    the earliest manuscripts show that the OT and NT are 99+% accurate and
    pure.  Homer's "Iliad" from 800 B.C. is rated at 90% accurate.  I think
    "translated correctly" is questionable at best.
    
    Mike

>    I get the feeling you're ostracizing God's Word here and consider it
>    a weaker source of truth, at best.  That's not what God's Word says
>    though.  The Word of God in scriptural canon is inspired (God-breathed), 
>    inerrant, complete (Revelation 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:5-6), and the only 
>    infallible rule of faith.  It reveals the origin and destiny of all 
>    things; records God's dealings with mankind in the past, present, and 
>    future; and focuses on the Person and work of Jesus Christ.  The Bible 
>    inspires faith (Romans 10:17) and will make men "wise unto salvation" 
>    (II Timothy 3:15).  More supportive Scriptures can be found in 
>    II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:21, Psalm 119:105, Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 4:12.

     Mike,
     I have to agree that I think that a lot of (Most?) LDS go to far in
     the translated correctly business to justify not accepting or putting
     insufficient faith in Biblical scriptures (IMO).  However, after your
     first three statements, I doubt that you'd find ANY LDS who disagree
     with you.

     Having said that, I have a question for you: how do the first two
     scriptures you cite validate the position you have taken.  Surely you
     accept that the verse in Revelation applies ONLY to the Book of
     Revelation .. there was no Bible as we have currently to which the Book
     of Revelation belonged at the time John wrote it.  Moreover, the verse
     in Proverbs (and similarly Deut.4:2) might invalidate the entire
     New Testament, if you were to believe that they made the O.T. complete,
     as these verses imply.

    Hi there, Mr. Rollins!
    
    >     Having said that, I have a question for you: how do the first two
>     scriptures you cite validate the position you have taken.  Surely you

    I consider prophecy as the foundation of God's Word - where God guides,
    God provides.  The Gospel and Life of Jesus Christ in the NT is the
    fulfillment of all 332 Messianic prophecies in the OT.  In addition,
    Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation all parallel many of the same
    eschatological events.  I don't see any contradictions in the NT as
    compared to the OT and believe II Timothy 3:16 with all my heart.

    FACTS on the Bible's Unity
    --------------------------
    - The Bible was written over a period of ~1500 years
    - The Bible was written by at least 40 different authors without a
      single contradiction.  That is a miracle in itself!
    - Those authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds:
            Joshua - military general
            Daniel - prime minister
            Peter  - a fisherman
            Nehemiah - cup bearer
    - Those authors wrote from different settings
            Moses - from the wilderness
            Paul  - from prison
            John  - exiled on the island of Patmos
    - The Bible was written on 3 different continents
            Africa, Asia, Europe
    - The Bible was written in 3 different languages
            Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek
    - Archaeological evidence: So far, the findings of archaeology have
      verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the Bible
      record.  No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible,
      while many have supported it.
    - Historical Evidence: there are historical records, other than the
      Bible which support the Bible record.
    - Fulfilled Bible prophecy: 
            there have been over 400 fulfilled Bible (OT & NT) prophecies so far
            Isaiah 46:9-10, Isaiah 48:3,5
    - Changed lives: this is perhaps the strongest evidence for the
      reliability of the Scripture.  No one can deny all of the changed lives
      throughout history, including yours!

>     accept that the verse in Revelation applies ONLY to the Book of
>     Revelation .. there was no Bible as we have currently to which the Book
>     of Revelation belonged at the time John wrote it.  Moreover, the verse

    True, but there was the Torah, Septugint, and Vulgate.

>     in Proverbs (and similarly Deut.4:2) might invalidate the entire
>     New Testament, if you were to believe that they made the O.T. complete,
>     as these verses imply.

    I don't think they imply that.  We are to follow all of God's inspired
    Word.  If it is not of God, it will prove itself so over time.  God's
    Words *always* come to fruition and He *never* contradicts His Word.

    Mike

RE:             <<< Note 285.19 by FRETZ::HEISER "shut up 'n' jam!" >>>
                      -< can't believe what I'm reading >-

>    continued from 97.131...
>    
>    > The Bible is quite incomplete on what Jesus Christ did and taught.
>    > The doctrines he laid out by precept and example are not all recorded.
>    > If a person is willing to be directed by incompleteness, then that is
>    > their right, but it does mean that everyone has to.
    
>    I get the feeling you're ostracizing God's Word here and consider it
>    a weaker source of truth, at best.  That's not what God's Word says
>    though.  

	You may feel anything you like, but I feel that the Bible is incomplete.

	St John, Chapter 21, verse 25 :

	        And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the
	     which,  if  they should be written every one, I suppose that
	     even the world itself  could  not  contain  the  books  that
	     should be written. Amen.

	As far as any of the other stuff, I am just a simple layman and not
	at all versed with the secular expoundings as to why the Bible is or
	is not complete.  To get the complete LDS position, you would really
	have to take that up with the scholars at BYU.

	I do, however, have a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon as being 
	the word of God, and that Jesus Christ, being the only begotten son
	of the living God, is my savior, redeemer, and mediator.  The Messiah.

	I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is correctly
	translated as I believe that some of the plain and precious truths
	have been taken out of it.  This does NOT mean that I do not value
	what I can get out of it, or relegate it as sub-standard.  I am most
	careful, however, before I cast beliefs in concrete based solely upon
	what the Bible says.  I have accepted the BoM and the D&C and the words
	of latter-day prophets as scripture, and my beliefs and knowledge come
	as a consolidation of all that information *backed up* by meditation
	and prayer on the concepts.

	I also feel that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are incomplete as far
	as God's dealings with man on this earth are concerned.  There were 12
	tribes in the House of Israel, and so far we only have information from
	two (2) of them.  Our knowledge is so very incomplete in so many things
	and that is why there are the "mysterys" of God.

	No matter what lofty sources are sited, or what Biblical scriptures
	are referenced, the fact remains that I know what I know because the
	Holy Ghost has testified to me with a force unknown to man.  That is
	what I have as a base, and the other stuff is mainly to help me better
	understand what I have already been given.

	Charles

>	I do, however, have a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon as being 
>	the word of God, and that Jesus Christ, being the only begotten son
>	of the living God, is my savior, redeemer, and mediator.  The Messiah.
>
>	I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is correctly
>	translated as I believe that some of the plain and precious truths
>	have been taken out of it.  This does NOT mean that I do not value
>	what I can get out of it, or relegate it as sub-standard.  I am most
>	careful, however, before I cast beliefs in concrete based solely upon
>	what the Bible says.  I have accepted the BoM and the D&C and the words
>	of latter-day prophets as scripture, and my beliefs and knowledge come
>	as a consolidation of all that information *backed up* by meditation
>	and prayer on the concepts.
>
>	No matter what lofty sources are sited, or what Biblical scriptures
>	are referenced, the fact remains that I know what I know because the
>	Holy Ghost has testified to me with a force unknown to man.  That is
>	what I have as a base, and the other stuff is mainly to help me better
>	understand what I have already been given.
    
    Do you think that if God, in His infinite wisdom, had wanted St. John
    (or anyone else) to write more, He would've inspired him to do so?
    
    I understand that you have a "burning in your bosom," but God's Word
    says not to trust our feelings or changing hearts (Jeremiah 17:9, 
    Proverbs 14:12), but base our spiritual decisions on the secure and 
    established Word of God (Isaiah 40:8, Acts 17:11).
    
    have a good weekend,
    Mike

     I'm not arguing against the Bible, and I agree with your statements
     on it.  I'm just asking how Revelation 22:18-19, for example, can
     be used to explain how the Bible is complete, as I inferred from:

>    	      The Word of God in scriptural canon is inspired (God-breathed), 
>    inerrant, complete (Revelation 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:5-6), and the only 
>    infallible rule of faith.

     Also,

>>   scriptures you cite validate the position you have taken.  Surely you
>>   accept that the verse in Revelation applies ONLY to the Book of
>>   Revelation .. there was no Bible as we have currently to which the Book
>>   of Revelation belonged at the time John wrote it.  Moreover, the verse
>
>    True, but there was the Torah, Septugint, and Vulgate.

     I'm not sure I understand this response.  [Not to say I agree or disagree
     with any point you are trying to make.]

>>   in Proverbs (and similarly Deut.4:2) might invalidate the entire
>>   New Testament, if you were to believe that they made the O.T. complete,
>>   as these verses imply.
>
>    I don't think they imply that.  We are to follow all of God's inspired
>    Word.  If it is not of God, it will prove itself so over time.  God's
>    Words *always* come to fruition and He *never* contradicts His Word.
>
>    Mike

     Nor do I believe that Deut.4:2 implies that, but I also don't believe that
     Revelation 22:18-19 implies completeness, either.  Both of the statements
     are saying the same thing; it seems to me their interpretation must be
     nearly the same.

>    Do you think that if God, in His infinite wisdom, had wanted St. John
>    (or anyone else) to write more, He would've inspired him to do so?

	I think that God should not be second guessed and/or limited in what
	he does or does not do.  How do we know that God did not have him write
	more, but that it has been held back.  John saw many things in which he
	was not allowed to write down, so there is a lot more that we do not
	have.
    
>    I understand that you have a "burning in your bosom," but God's Word
>    says not to trust our feelings or changing hearts (Jeremiah 17:9, 
>    Proverbs 14:12), 

	Jeremiah is taken totally out of context and has absolutely no bearing
	upon the testimony of the Holy Ghost.  Proverbs 14:12 has nothing at 
	all to do with it, but does lead to another scripture that should be 
	brought out, Isaiah 55:8-9.  

	God has given us a way to known to know the truth, and that is the 
	mission of the Holy Ghost.  Just as Peter knew Jesus was the Christ,
	so can we.  Not by intellectual readings, but through a sure means
	which can not be denied.

Re: .24

�>     I'm not arguing against the Bible, and I agree with your statements
�>     on it.  I'm just asking how Revelation 22:18-19, for example, can
�>     be used to explain how the Bible is complete, as I inferred from:
�
�>    	      The Word of God in scriptural canon is inspired (God-breathed), 
�>    inerrant, complete (Revelation 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:5-6), and the only 
�>    infallible rule of faith.

These writers, under Divine inspiration, are telling us not to add or subtract
from God's words.  If the Word of God is believed to be His authoritative Word,
what gives us the right to add or subtract to/from it?  God doesn't make
mistakes and provided us with everything we need to know.  There is one
scenario in Revelation where John is told not to write what he saw/heard, but
that was also under Divine direction.  Furthermore, God *NEVER* contradicts His
Word.  If He chose to further reveal Himself in another testament, it would be
100% unified with anything else He's inspired.  How do I know this?  Because His
Word says He never changes.

�>    True, but there was the Torah, Septugint, and Vulgate.
�
�     I'm not sure I understand this response.  [Not to say I agree or disagree
�     with any point you are trying to make.]

well it was said that John had no access to a Bible.  I meant to imply he had
access to at least half (Torah) of what we know today as the Bible.

�     Nor do I believe that Deut.4:2 implies that, but I also don't believe that
�     Revelation 22:18-19 implies completeness, either.  Both of the statements
�     are saying the same thing; it seems to me their interpretation must be
�     nearly the same.

To add to Deut.4:2, the person speaking there is the LORD.  All uppercase
denotes God's name: YHWH or "I AM."  Jesus in John 8:58 states that He is the "I
AM."  Therefore, this verse doesn't make the NT obsolete since it is Jesus
Christ speaking in the OT.

Re: .25

�	more, but that it has been held back.  John saw many things in which he
�	was not allowed to write down, so there is a lot more that we do not
�	have.

I wouldn't say a lot, but there are a few mysteries that God chose not to have
revealed to us for whatever reason.  These mysteries are eschatological
in nature too.
    
�>    I understand that you have a "burning in your bosom," but God's Word
�>    says not to trust our feelings or changing hearts (Jeremiah 17:9, 
�>    Proverbs 14:12), 
�
�	Jeremiah is taken totally out of context and has absolutely no bearing
�	upon the testimony of the Holy Ghost.  Proverbs 14:12 has nothing at 
�	all to do with it, but does lead to another scripture that should be 
�	brought out, Isaiah 55:8-9.

I don't agree, they are out of context or irrelevant, but if I did there is
still I John 4 to deal with.

�	God has given us a way to known to know the truth, and that is the 
�	mission of the Holy Ghost.  Just as Peter knew Jesus was the Christ,
�	so can we.  Not by intellectual readings, but through a sure means
�	which can not be denied.

This I can agree with you on.

Mike

>      <<< Note 285.26 by FRETZ::HEISER "most corrupt White House ever" >>>
 Surely even the most devout conservatives would agree that the Harding and
 Nixon administrations are the most corrupt ever.  I am a political conservative
 and recognize this without reservation.
>
>Re: .24
>
>�>     I'm not arguing against the Bible, and I agree with your statements
>�>     on it.  I'm just asking how Revelation 22:18-19, for example, can
>�>     be used to explain how the Bible is complete, as I inferred from:
>�
>�>    	      The Word of God in scriptural canon is inspired (God-breathed), 
>�>    inerrant, complete (Revelation 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:5-6), and the only 
>�>    infallible rule of faith.
>
>These writers, under Divine inspiration, are telling us not to add or subtract
>from God's words.  If the Word of God is believed to be His authoritative Word,
>what gives us the right to add or subtract to/from it?  God doesn't make
>mistakes and provided us with everything we need to know.  There is one
>scenario in Revelation where John is told not to write what he saw/heard, but
>that was also under Divine direction.  Furthermore, God *NEVER* contradicts His
>Word.  If He chose to further reveal Himself in another testament, it would be
>100% unified with anything else He's inspired.  How do I know this?  Because His
>Word says He never changes.

 Revelation 22:18-19
 "I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one
 adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if
 any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take
 away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described
 in this book."

 The writer is saying that the words of the book of revelation are not to be
 changed.  It doesn't refer to anything else, and requires an active imagination
 to suggest otherwise.

 Proverbs 30:5-6
 "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar."

 This says that man should not add to God's words.  I agree with that.  Does
 that mean that God cannot add to His own words ?  No; and you obviously agree
 with that, since you accept the N.T. as authoritative, and it obviously was
 written well after this verse in Proverbs.  So the question comes down to
 whether something was a revelation from God or not as to whether it is rebuked
 by this statement in Proverbs.  Certainly this verse doesn't specify a date
 at which God has said He will add no more to His own word.

> This says that man should not add to God's words.  I agree with that.  Does
> that mean that God cannot add to His own words ?  No; and you obviously agree
> with that, since you accept the N.T. as authoritative, and it obviously was
> written well after this verse in Proverbs.  
    
    True.
    
    >So the question comes down to
> whether something was a revelation from God or not as to whether it is rebuked
> by this statement in Proverbs.  Certainly this verse doesn't specify a date
> at which God has said He will add no more to His own word.
    
    Not just that statement in Proverbs, but the Bible as a unit.  A new
    revelation from God wouldn't contradict God's Word, would it?  And it's
    true, God is not restricted by time.
    
    Mike