Mormons are constantly being ridiculed for having beliefs that are not "in the Bible". I have been conversing back an forth with another user regarding this whole "Rapture" belief. These are comments from a non-Mormon regarding the non-existence or absence of "rapture" in the Bible. He has not yet been able to tell me where it is stated in the Bible:
USER: What does the absence of the word "R-A-P-T-U-R-E" have to do with the fact that the event to which it refers to is clearly taught in the Bible?
My response to this was once again something to the effect of where is it in the Bible? In which he responded:
Maybe you misunderstood his meaning. The word "Rapture" like the word "Tinity" are theological terms which refer to particular concepts taught in the Bible.
My question is this:
WHY IS IT OK FOR OTHER FAITHS TO "ADD TO THE BIBLE" BUT IT'S NOT OK FOR US (MORMONS) TO HAVE ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST AS A COMPANION TO THE BIBLE--NAMELY THE BOOK OF MORMON?
2007-06-30 13:43:34 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
FYI: If that verse in Revelation were true then we would not have over half of the New Testament because John wrote Revelations BEFORE he wrote the Gospel of John.
2007-06-30 13:52:51 · update #1
Let me rephrase that last addition:
If that verse in Revelations referred to the Bible as a whole, then we would not have the Gospel of John or many of the other books there.
2007-06-30 13:54:36 · update #2
Kait: Grand Father is NOT a Christian concept...Rapture is...
2007-06-30 14:02:23 · update #3
Liesel: Mormons have not added to the Bible as many would have you believe. We use the KJV of the Holy Bible in our worship and study. We also use the Book of Mormon, which if you read it, NEVER contradicts the Bible, but it does reinforce what the Bible teaches.
2007-07-02 05:41:31 · update #4
The rapture is a 18th century interpretation by some evanglical protestants of the christians rapturing or being with christ before the antichrist shows up. It has been traditional christianity view before that the church would go through persecution during the tribulation of the antichrist.
Only evangelical protestants...I should some e.p.'s believe in the rapture. Every other christian Catholics and eastern othrodox as well as mormons don't believe in the rapture before the tribulation period before the antichrist.
As for adding to the bible...Revelations written by John and yes before he wrote his works like his gospel and epistles only states adding or subtracting from the book of Revelations. The bible wasn't canonized in its present form until the 4th century. The Book of Mormon is a testament by itself it isn't in the bible nor does it contradict the bible.
For more information:
http://www.lds.org
http://www.mormon.org
http://www.fairlds.org
http://farms.byu.edu
2007-07-01 09:17:24 · answer #1 · answered by Brother G 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Your question doesn't make sense. The book of mormon does NOT contain most of the doctrine that the Mormon church teaches. So how is that different from the Rapture missing from the bible?
So just like your Question about the Rapture, I could say to you "Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach about the Temple ceremonies?" The answer is, it doesn't. Those are supposedly revelations provided after the BOM was written.
Personally I don't have a problem with the 'adding to the bible' thing, because I believe that the Bible is also created by man to provide and enforce social control. I believe that the Bible was actually written, but was added/deleted/edited as the 'powers that be' saw fit. Likewise, I believe the BOM was made up, but much of it based on the Bible.
I also understand that the Rapture is a fairly new terminology - interestingly enough, came about and popularized around 1830 during the religious revivals of that time period. Coincidentally, this is the same timeframe that the Mormon church started. I'd guess that Joseph Smith avoided this term in his religion as to not conform with other churches.
2007-07-01 03:56:17 · answer #2 · answered by Cheese and Rice 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
You make a good point. A lot of people refer to the well-known Book of Revelation scripture (22:18) but that doesn't refer to the Bible as a whole (Bible wasn't complete back then). It refers specifically to the Book of Revelation.
The Bible DOES say, however, in John 21:25...
"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."
The Book of Mormon truly is a companion to the Holy Bible.
2007-06-30 20:53:58 · answer #3 · answered by Daniel 4 · 7⤊ 1⤋
I'm LDS so I'm just guessing here.
I think it has to do with HOW MUCH has been "Added". In reality the Book of Mormon doesn't really add it clarifies. For me, after reading the Book of Mormon, And reading the Bible again...the Bible made so much more sense.
Most of the time I just tell people the truth. It is very bad for MAN to add to the scriptures (and I must point out, in my opinion, so you know what that is worth, that the doctrine of the rapture and the trinity are additions BTW) But God can add as much as He wants whenever He wants. Hence the reason we have the Book of Mormon, because God wanted us to have it.
2007-06-30 20:51:21 · answer #4 · answered by LDS~Tenshi~ 5 · 7⤊ 0⤋
The word "rapture" is not in the bible and neither is the word Grand Father, but the concept is still there. I would say that this is a pretty poor arguement for the Book of Mormon. Another book is not a concept, but an addition to the Bible.
In fact, there is really very little in that book that is doctrinally disagreeable to orthodox Christians. The real meat of Mormonism is found in their other scriptures, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. These books, however, Mormons do not hand out at the door - and for good reason. If people knew up front what they were really going to be asked to believe (things such as God once being a man, denial of the Trinity, Satan being Jesus' brother, pre-existence of souls, etc.) they may not be quite so willing to put aside their skepticism.
2007-06-30 20:57:09 · answer #5 · answered by Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
Too many people harp on "not adding" to the Bible. The Bible is a living book comprised of authenticated scrolls, letters and if you will biographies. The only place that particular phrase is mentioned is the book of Revaluation. Which was a letter and added to what would become the Bible. So John warned of adding to Revelation not the Bible as it did not exist in its present form.
What Mormons, and others, need to worry about is this verse 2 Peter 2
False Teachers and Their Destruction
1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Now I will say there are just as many scriptures that tell those that are in the position of instruction will be held accountable for what they teach. So if the Trinity and Rapture are improper concepts God will deal with them as he sees fit.
2007-06-30 21:28:58 · answer #6 · answered by crimthann69 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
There is NO other testament of Jesus Christ.
The Old and New Testament is a complete Bible, the information, historical, peoples, prophecy foretelling of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God, Salvation, Eternal Life; all of this took place in the middle east for a reason.
Jesus had business to take care of and did not leave that area until he returned to the Father.
Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Galilee, Gethsemane are all important .
My cook book and the book of mormon are both manufactured
products intended to feed the masses.
2007-06-30 21:10:56 · answer #7 · answered by coffee_pot12 7 · 1⤊ 6⤋
I believe the 'Rapture', along with 'Dispensationalism' are recent 19th-20th century interpretations of certain biblical references. Neither are taught explicitly by the gospels as such, but it just goes to show what can be 'read into' scripture thousands of years old.
The BoM on the other hand is completely fabricated and not nearly in the league of bible. It has no poetry as found in the the Hebrew version, as it seems to have been written in a highly interpretive character text. This is of no consequence, as neither the text nor the people it claims to be about ever existed.
Shakers and Quakers have added their 'interpretations' to biblical text, as do Wesleyan, Lutherans, and the Amish, but their core teachings are universal. Mormonism by contrast, places more emphasis on the teachings of J Smith, the BoM story, the Opinions of the Apostles than Christ.
2007-06-30 22:45:27 · answer #8 · answered by Dances with Poultry 5 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Who said it was ok for anyone to add to the bible?
2007-07-02 04:47:37 · answer #9 · answered by Liesel 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Dude...I've never taken LSD.
But I'm LDS:)
Stop bashing my LDS cheese!
2007-07-01 18:39:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋