They call this the "Book of Mormon" and say it is a "companion" to the Bible.... basically another Gospel.
So the Mormons claim to have another Gospel that they received from an angel.
But the Bible, which they claim to accept, says this:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! (Gal 1:8-9)
So why do they accept what the Bible tells them to reject?
2006-11-30 03:53:41 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
One might ask the same thing of Muslims.
2006-11-30 05:32:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your question implies that the Bible is a gospel. It is not. It is a collection of writings related to the gospel.
Gospel defined: "In the New Testament the word is never applied to a book but to the message (Rom 1:1; 1 Thess 3:2,9; Acts 20:24; Eph. 6:15). The message of God's plan for redeeming humanity."
Besides, in Rev. 14:6 John prophesied that the everlasting gospel would one day be brought by an angel, to preach unto every nation. If the Mormons claim to have received the Gospel from an angel, then wouldn't this be seen as fulfillment of John's prophecy? I am not aware of any other church claiming to have received the Gospel from an angel.
2006-11-30 17:27:45 · answer #2 · answered by hmmm... 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They would quote from one of the books of Nephi where it talks about plain and precious truths being removed from the Lamb's book.
When you look at what they say though, it is utter nonsense. If you look at the book "The Identity of the Greek New Testament Text" by Wilbur Pickering, it shows that the identity of what the original manuscripts contained can be known. It doesn't leave room for the sort of rubbish that the Mormon church teaches on this point!
2006-12-03 08:56:39 · answer #3 · answered by Buzz s 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all - it's NOT another Gospel as you stated.
They both teach the same gospel, the Book of Mormon is not in any way a replacement or an "instead of the bible"... We believe in both books, they go hand in hand with one another. Just like it says, it is ANOTHER testament, a second one. Not a "replacement testament". Also, in that scripture you referenced, it says "a gospel other than the one that we preached to you"...they contain the same gospel...they teach the exact same gospel principles.
The Book of Mormon is basically a history of people who lived on the American continent. Heavenly Father wanted us to know their history as well as the people in the bible.
2006-11-30 13:29:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
If you read and really understood both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, you would have know that they both teaches the same gospel.
But like many people, you would not accept any more words of God beyond the Bible. How illogical to think that God only reveal his word in the Bible, doesn't history shows that God had called numerals of prophets to teach his words, and the messages is always concerning the Savior Jesus Christ.
As a LDS, we believe in the Book of Mormon, and we believe in the true word of God in the Bible also.
2006-11-30 14:59:24 · answer #5 · answered by Wahnote 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
why do you accept documents and "translations" and other peoples' spins on the Bible? the Book of Mormon is not another Gospel. it is in addition to the Bible. some things from the past were incomplete, and the Book of Mormon helps to fill in the gap. if you really do have questions, though, try to get a hold of mormon missionaries. they can answer your questions.
2006-11-30 11:59:59 · answer #6 · answered by Syd 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Moroni-- Was that angel Italian?
It could they don't have Galatians in their Book of Mormon. Or they discount it as false teaching because Galatians isn't a gospel, it is only an epistle.
2006-11-30 12:01:58 · answer #7 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I've always wondered that too. If something is truly God's word, it won't contradict what He's already said.
I would say you must be cautious of any religious teaching that limits your source material. They say they use the KJV of the Bible too, but do they have to buy it only in Mormon bookstores?? I have an aunt in a religion that limits them to only one author of Christian books. Sounds fishy to me.
2006-11-30 12:29:12 · answer #8 · answered by BaseballGrrl 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hey while you're asking, ask them about the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible - the one with the KJV with extra verses added into it??
www.lds.org
2006-11-30 11:59:57 · answer #9 · answered by Mav here! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you were in the business of creating a new religion, wouldn't you think it prudent to tell people not to believe anything other than what you taught them? This is exactly what happened in the OT and with Paul in the NT.
Imagine the audacity a person must have to tell someone not to believe angels from heaven because they might tell you something different from what he, a mere man, told you! This quote says "if anyone". I suppose that means that when Jesus returns and tells us how much his gospel got distorted by his followers that we're not to believe him either, because he's not Paul. That's some serious chutzpah!
The truth is that God is not limited to the few pages of one book, or even ten books or a thousand books. God reveals himself to us in many ways and at many times throughout history he has given us revelations of epochal significance to correct what we have gotten wrong and to expand upon what we already know. It is people who try to crystalize and dogmatize his revelations into organized religions and then exclude anything outside those religions. The truth is that all religions have some truth, but there is not a single religion which has all the truth.
92:7.3 The many religions of Urantia are all good to the extent that they bring man to God and bring the realization of the Father to man. It is a fallacy for any group of religionists to conceive of their creed as The Truth; such attitudes bespeak more of theological arrogance than of certainty of faith. There is not a Urantia religion that could not profitably study and assimilate the best of the truths contained in every other faith, for all contain truth. Religionists would do better to borrow the best in their neighbors' living spiritual faith rather than to denounce the worst in their lingering superstitions and outworn rituals.
92:7.4 All these religions have arisen as a result of man's variable intellectual response to his identical spiritual leading. They can never hope to attain a uniformity of creeds, dogmas, and rituals -- these are intellectual; but they can, and some day will, realize a unity in true worship of the Father of all, for this is spiritual, and it is forever true, in the spirit all men are equal.
2006-11-30 12:16:34 · answer #10 · answered by Agondonter 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Revelation 22: 18For 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:
19And 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.
2006-11-30 11:57:54 · answer #11 · answered by Damian 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋