You Must Not Add To The Bible

[jwhitlock]

Sorry, I don't see the comparison.

I don't suppose you would.

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that,...

Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

It's always interesting when critics play dumb with somewhat more subtle inflammatory statements such as this (and this isn't really all that subtle), and then call someone like cjcampbell on the carpet for responding in kind - in more direct and honest terms.

Presentation does matter. And we can recognize a post that is meant in an inflammatory manner. Especially when the poster drops and runs.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Nope. Never said it - at least I don't recall saying such a thing and would be ashamed if I did. I did, however, point out that were one to take the referenced post at face value and apply it as the whole of LDS thought one could certainly make the assumption on solid ground.

I have never said such a thing and have, in fact, said the opposite.

Your rhetorical expression implied the opposite, otherwise it made no sense. Thus, you did.

[Hoops22]

Your rhetorical expression implied the opposite, otherwise it made no sense. Thus, you did.

No again. Try to allow for a more creative expression than what you described. I was trying to allow for someone other than me to call on the carpet these ridiculous assertions. But, alas, to no avail.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No again. Try to allow for a more creative expression than what you described. I was trying to allow for someone other than me to call on the carpet these ridiculous assertions. But, alas, to no avail.

Trolls who get bitten back don't garner much sympathy from me. I'll try not to bite, but when they are responded to in kind- especially with actual substance, much more than they initially presented, I usually forbear.

[erichard]

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that, "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 prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

Hi samova,

Are you the same samova2133 over in the automotive forum? (OK, I did a google search)

Here is my sincere answer to your question, one that I wrote some time ago:

Consider these Bible verses again:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. " Gal 1:8

Since Paul is saying not to preach another Gospel, what is the FIRST point he brings up as an example of the correct Gospel?

He brings up that the correct Gospel is NOT given out and taught by Seminaries and educated men, but by prophets who get it from the LORD. Notice what he says:

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the REVELATION of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:12

So, the true Gospel is taught under the direction of men who receive revelation, or it is NOT the true Gospel. This is the first and main point Paul brings out here in Galatians.

Many ASSUME that the men trained in some religious seminary somewhere, studying the Bible in their great wisdom, obviously have the true Gospel-- when in fact, they obviously do NOT have the true Gospel. Since there are dozens of such seminaries which teach conflicting versions of the Gospel, all claiming the Bible as their source, it is obvious that continuing revelation is needed, and always has been needed, by the sincere followers of Christ.

No wonder Paul makes this his first and main point to distinguish the true Gospel. ...

"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." Rev. 22:18-19

Read the above warning carefully. Does it say ANYTHING about what GOD can or cannot do, or will or will not do? (And is it not the same warning given in Deut. 4:2?)

No. It warns "every MAN" (and woMAN) to not add or take from the words that God has given. But it says nothing about whether God can or will call a prophet of Israel (according to the ancient pattern in all generations of former Israel) to bring forth more of His words.

So this Bible verse cannot be used as a "proof" that modern revelation cannot come forth. Men simply ASSUME that these verses say that the God is setting conditions on Himself, declaring that He will never call a Prophet again-- but clearly that is NOT what these verses say.

In fact those who try to use this scripture to teach against any modern revelation are actually ADDING to these verses, doing the very thing these verses warn against!

On the other hand, notice this clear promise from Jesus, the evening before his final mortal day, that through the Holy Ghost MANY more things will be revealed to his disciples-- until they have ALL TRUTH.

John 16

12 I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them

now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you

into ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever

he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to

come.

Notice that the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Ghost, is the same source that gave the former Prophets of Israel their revelations:

2 Peter 1

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any

private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but

holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So the Bible actually predicts more "word of the LORD" scriptures, not an end of it.

Richard

[Selah]

Sorry Samova. I gotta agree with the Mo's on this one. I still don't believe in the BoM or the PoGP. I would have said more in this post but everything that needed to be said was already said by the good folks on here already. And Jersey Girl is right. You need to better arm yourself with how the Bible was compiled.

BTW. Do you know what the definition of the actual word bible is. Not what it represents (Holy Scripture) but what the word itself means? Bible means "Little Library." And that is exactly what the Bible is...A collection of 66 books.

[selek]

Sorry Samova. I gotta agree with the Mo's on this one. I still don't believe in the BoM or the PoGP. I would have said more in this post but everything that needed to be said was already said by the good folks on here already. And Jersey Girl is right. You need to better arm yourself with how the Bible was compiled.

BTW. Do you know what the definition of the actual word bible is. Not what it represents (Holy Scripture) but what the word itself means? Bible means "Little Library." And that is exactly what the Bible is...A collection of 66 books.

Give or take the books in the Roman Catholic canon, Greek and Russian Orthodox canon (IIRC), and the accepted Protestant canon. If memory serves, each has variants both subtle and gross in what is included in the collected work known as "the Bible."

[Zakuska]

Sorry Samova. I gotta agree with the Mo's on this one. I still don't believe in the BoM or the PoGP. I would have said more in this post but everything that needed to be said was already said by the good folks on here already. And Jersey Girl is right. You need to better arm yourself with how the Bible was compiled.

BTW. Do you know what the definition of the actual word bible is. Not what it represents (Holy Scripture) but what the word itself means? Bible means "Little Library." And that is exactly what the Bible is...A collection of 66 books.

And what of all the other books that where checked out of the sacred Library and never checked back in?

I'd hate to pay those late fees!!!

Lost books

[Selah]

Yes. Good point Selek. The RCC has seven books that we do not include in ours. Or is it six? I can never remember.

[Bsix]

Hoops:

Don't you just hate it when Mormons use the same sort of rhetoric that Evangelicals use?

Six

[Hoops22]

Hoops:

Don't you just hate it when Mormons use the same sort of rhetoric that Evangelicals use?

Six

No. I don't hate much and your assertion is not one of them.

I just find it curious - though not terribly so, I'm not up all night because of this - that an LDS can use this language on a whim and yet evies are branded with "hater" when they do. Hmmmmmmmmm...

[jwhitlock]

No. I don't hate much and your assertion is not one of them.

I just find it curious - though not terribly so, I'm not up all night because of this - that an LDS can use this language on a whim and yet evies are branded with "hater" when they do. Hmmmmmmmmm...

Just a guess...

Because our religion is the one being attacked?

But then again, I think you could have figured that one out yourself.

[selek]

Just a guess...

Because our religion is the one being attacked?

But then again, I think you could have figured that one out yourself.

Yeah...bullies and demagogues hate it when the persecuted fight back.

It's like during the Salem Witch trials- they tied you to a chair and threw you in a lake or other large body of water- if you floated, you were a witch and they could then burn you. If you sank, you drowned- but at least you were innocent of the witchcraft charge!

Ultimately, history records that the pious Christian leadership of the time were far more benevolent to those who copped a plea and pointed fingers at their neighbors. It was largely those pesky people who insisted on defending themselves and their innocence who died.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.....

[BCSpace]

In addition to all this, an excellent illustration of how extra Biblical prophets were aware of the angel's injunction to those who read the Revelations of John not to add to them is found here....

And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

19 And I looked and beheld a man, and he was dressed in a white robe.

20 And the angel said unto me: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

21 Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been.

22 And he shall also write concerning the end of the world.

23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men.

24 And behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see.

25 But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them.

26 And also others who have been, to them hath he shown all things, and they have written them; and they are sealed up to come forth in their purity, according to the truth which is in the Lamb, in the own due time of the Lord, unto the house of Israel.

27 And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John, according to the word of the angel.

28 And behold, I, Nephi, am forbidden that I should write the remainder of the things which I saw and heard; wherefore the things which I have written sufficeth me; and I have written but a small part of the things which I saw. 1 Nephi 14:18-28

[Hoops22]

Just a guess...

Because our religion is the one being attacked?

But then again, I think you could have figured that one out yourself.

I see, the OP asked a question, mundane though it may be, and that is considered an attack. OF course, all of you are able to read "attack" into anything you wish, and often do. But, be that as it may, the language then used to castigate a huge portion of Christendom becomes acceptable?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Zakuska]

I wonder which prophet is going to come and complete the book of Revelation?

Apparently... John didn't get a chance to write the whole story...

Rev 10

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

[selek]

I see, the OP asked a question, mundane though it may be, and that is considered an attack. OF course, all of you are able to read "attack" into anything you wish, and often do. But, be that as it may, the language then used to castigate a huge portion of Christendom becomes acceptable?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Actually, in Samova's defense, he may simply have been overcome both with Christian zeal and the "wisdom" of Evangelicals such as those who frequent "Confused Christians".

Rather than a troll dropping an ill-informed love bomb, he may have been sincerely wrought with grief over our fallen state, wanted to do something about it, but also wary of thier injunction about "getting any of it on you."

Hoops, you do recall the recent DVD campaign- where brave, courageous, well-meaning, sincere Christians were willing to litter on Mormon homes throughout the country, but were manifestly told to avoid any direct contact- for fear they might learn something about the people they targeted?

[Jersey Girl]

Just a guess...

Because our religion is the one being attacked?

But then again, I think you could have figured that one out yourself.

Jwhitlock,

Since this thread was started by a hit and run and I think it deserves no more attention, I wanted to tell you that yours is the best avatar I've ever seen on a board, bar none!

I want to steal it!

JG

[jwhitlock]

I see, the OP asked a question, mundane though it may be, and that is considered an attack. OF course, all of you are able to read "attack" into anything you wish, and often do. But, be that as it may, the language then used to castigate a huge portion of Christendom becomes acceptable?

Curiouser and curiouser.

"Mundane question"

And the critics play dumber and dumber. It really is to your advantage to simply label everything we do as purely subjective - but that is, after all, part of the game, isn't it?

[BCSpace]

Since this thread was started by a hit and run and I think it deserves no more attention, I wanted to tell you that yours is the best avatar I've ever seen on a board, bar none!

I would like to see one wreathed in flame and perched atop the Barad-dur.

[jwhitlock]

Since this thread was started by a hit and run and I think it deserves no more attention, I wanted to tell you that yours is the best avatar I've ever seen on a board, bar none!

I want to steal it!

Feel free!

I think that will a little image modification, you could come up with some great alterations on it - like the one BCSpace suggested.

The picture of this board dominated by all kinds of bizarre little eyeballs searching around would not only fuel most of the critics' preconceived notions that we Mormons are weird - it would drive the mods to distraction.

But I'm not going to tell anyone what to do...

[Hoops22]

Actually, in Samova's defense, he may simply have been overcome both with Christian zeal and the "wisdom" of Evangelicals such as those who frequent "Confused Christians".

Rather than a troll dropping an ill-informed love bomb, he may have been sincerely wrought with grief over our fallen state, wanted to do something about it, but also wary of thier injunction about "getting any of it on you."

Hoops, you do recall the recent DVD campaign- where brave, courageous, well-meaning, sincere Christians were willing to litter on Mormon homes throughout the country, but were manifestly told to avoid any direct contact- for fear they might learn something about the people they targeted?

That sounds good. Overcome with zeal I get. Misspeaking in defense of one's strongly held beliefs I understand.

Can we get the same understanding without being branded "haters"? I understand some of our more fiery brethren offend you, and I understand your offense. Do with it what you may. Maybe the ideal of most LDS folks I know does not translate well onto message boards.

What, there was a DVD campaign? I never heard about that? Surely it was done with taste and decorum if it even ever happened.

[selek]

What, there was a DVD campaign? I never heard about that? Surely it was done with taste and decorum if it even ever happened.

Not even close. It was the 21st century equivalent of leaving a flaming bag of dog poo on a doorstep, ringing the bell, and running away.

There are numerous threads on the topic here, and it was orchestrated by the street screamers- including the infamously unbalanced Shafovlav III (who, I understand, is working on a lease-to-own deal on Dracula's castle).

If you're gonna go wrong- at least go big.

[Hoops22]

"Mundane question"

And the critics play dumber and dumber. It really is to your advantage to simply label everything we do as purely subjective - but that is, after all, part of the game, isn't it?

Surely you understand the English language. It is mundane to you because you have answered it numerous times. Wrongly, in my opinion, but adequately. That's all.

I don't consider this a game. Do you?

Not even close.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Though you know how suspect you LDS are.

[Cold Steel]

I remember when I first joined the church back in the 70s.

This was a very popular argument back then and was even

used by various ministers. I think people on all sides of this

issue have grown more sophisticated in that this is the first

time I've seen this particular argument used in a very long

while. I never see it in anti-Mormon literature any more.