What if the Book of Mormon had come before the bible?

Question

Would you bash the bible?

Answer 1

Excellent question. If the Book of Mormon had been passed down over the centuries (instead of being buried for a thousand years) and the Bible had been lost before being discovered, say, in caves in Qumran... Yes, I expect people would be suspicious of the Bible. They would insist that the canon of Scripture is closed, and quote verses from the Book of Mormon which say that it should not be added to. They would say "A Book of Mormon, a Book of Mormon, we have a Book of Mormon and there cannot be any more Book of Mormon".

People would accuse believers in the Bible of worshipping the shepherd who found it in the caves more than Jesus Christ. Anti-cult groups would warn people not to read it, but instead issue pamphlets listing verses which could be used against it. They would quote proofs that it was false ("There is no DNA or historical evidence that there was ever a great flood!") and come up with ever more complex and baffling explanations for where it came from ("The shepherd boy copied it from an old manuscript with the express purpose of making money").

Makes you think.

Answer 2

Actually, there should be no reason to bash either one - the same records were the source for most of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Even Nephi said he searched the plates of brass to learn more about what happened in detail. How else would other prophets have been able to give deeper doctrinal expositions on the Fall of Adam and Eve and the Atonement later on.
1 Nephi 13:40: "And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved."

Answer 3

It doesnt really matter if the Bible came first or not, because I think they would still criticise us, since we're the minority...

but I cant understand why people who accept the Bible reject the Book of Mormon, Lehi is even mentioned in the Old Testament. Granted it was a brief mention, but hey, it was still a mention... I think finding out that the people in the Book of Mormon actually existed helped in my conversion..

and I know some people who bash both...

Answer 4

I think this is a great question. I would never bash the Book of Mormon. I would never bash the Bible. That being said, (and yes, I am LDS) I would never bash the torah or the koran either.

Answer 5

Well I read the book of Mormon and never got a Rhema liek I got from the christian bibke and I read the mormon bible to and never got a rhema, so i had to conclude that the mormon bible was also false.
Rhema is were god breaths on the word and teaches you out of his word or...How does it compare to the whole of Scripture? Orthodoxy says that God will not speak a word that contradicts His written word, the Scriptures, so there is a built-in safeguard to prevent misinterpretation.

By contrast, the Logos (λόγος), is typically used in Scripture to refer to what God has said to His people, that is, the collection of God's sayings about Himself, His relationship with His creation and His Church. The Logos of God is true for all time and in all places. It is easy to see how this can be interpreted both as the bible (God's Word Written) and in the Person of Jesus Christ (God's Word in the Flesh) as seen in John's Gospel, Chapter 1.

The Holy Spirit often uses passages in the Logos of God to create specific guidance, Rhema, for the individual. An example of the Rhema of God is to consider how several different people can read the same passage of Scripture and each sees something different. This occurs because each person is in a different place spiritually in their individual lives so God's word to each of them in that moment of their lives is different - specific to their needs. The Logos (God's original meaning and intention) has not changed, but the Holy Spirit has used it to speak to each according to his or her needs

Evangelical Christians, however, have a much different understanding of rhema. Many evangelicals see rhema as being almost synonymous with logos. In other words, the specific guidance we receive from the Holy Spirit at any given time can only be discerned by the general principles laid down in the written word - the Bible. But this sort of guidance is not the same as that described above - it can only give general guidance about how the decision should be made. If we used the same example of the Christian wondering about when to start their business, the evangelical would argue that God will not give any specific guidance - it is up to the person to work it out for themselves. What God can give guidance on is on how that business should be run, and what the business actually does (Running a Brothel, for instance, would be wrong).

For evangelicals, then, the rhema is when God speaks directly to a person as they apply the Bible's teaching to a specific subject. Some Evangelicals do not believe that the Christian may make up his own mind when there is no Biblical teaching on a situation. However, this will never come up because these Evangelicals believe that there is a biblical teaching on every situation, specific or otherwise.

Answer 6

Well the book of mormon didn't come before the bible, and even if it did it wouldn't make a difference because it is based off false teachings and not accurate. People would bash the bible regardless of which book came first.

Answer 7

This is for Imasis. Her answer epitomizes most of the others that view things from their own narrow perspective. All of us have the tendency to interpret life through our own experiences. Whatever we were raised with will stand out in our minds and cloud or color our judgment of everything else outside of our experience. Thus, the Pharisees told Jesus that they have Moses and Abraham as their prophets and they will listen to them. Jesus told them that if they had listened to Moses and Abraham, they would have also believed on Him. The truth of the matter was that they had not truly listened to Moses and Abraham and therefore did not believe Jesus either.
That applies to this question because most of us were raised with the Bible and that colors our perception of everything else. If, for purposes of discussion, we were raised only with the knowledge of the Book of Mormon, then our judgments would be colored from that perception. However, the Jesus/Pharisee analogy applies here because both books testify of each other. Therefore, if we truly believe the Bible, then we will also believe the Book of Mormon because the Bible truly does testify of the Book of Mormon. Likewise, if we believe the Book of Mormon, then we will also believe the Bible because the Book of Mormon truly does testify of the Bible.
So, to answer your question directly, for purposes of discussion, I would still believe both books because they truly testify of each other.
As for Imasis, you need to get better information and stop believing the prejudiced falsehoods you have been taught by the sectarian world.

Answer 8

It didn't. And no I would never bash the Bible, even if I was not a believer.
God Bless

Answer 9

It's human nature to be more inclined to "bash" what you are less familiar with, and to have a greater inclination to embrace what you are most familiar with.

Honestly, I don't think I'm the type to bash, but I'm sure my human nature would make me more inclined to trust whichever I was more familiar with more.

Answer 10

No, because I don't bash the BOM (that's right it is the bomb).
They are both scriptures inspired by Heavenly Father.