Tag Archives: Book of Mormon

Is the Biblical Canon Closed? Part 1

Post Author: Bill Pratt

This is a profound question for the Christian church.  Every year, there are new cults that emerge where a charismatic leader claims that he or she has received a revelation from God that must be added to the biblical canon.  In fact, this is exactly what happened almost 200 years ago when Joseph Smith claimed to have received revelation from God which became the Book of Mormon.

Norman Geisler and William Nix tackle this very question in their book A General Introduction to the Bible.  To the question of whether the biblical canon is closed, Geisler and Nix answer, “To this one should respond that the canon is closed theologically and historically, and is open only hypothetically.”

Theologically the canon is closed. God has inspired only so many books and they were all completed by the end of the apostolic period (first century A.D.). God used to speak through the prophets of the Old Testament, but in the “last days” he spoke through Christ (Heb. 1:1) and the apostles whom He empowered with special signs (miracles). But because the apostolic age ended with the death of the apostles (Acts 1:22), and because no one since apostolic times has had the signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12) whereby they can raise the dead (Acts 20:10–12) and perform other unique supernatural events (Acts 3:1–10; 28:8–9), it may be concluded that God’s “last day” revelation is complete (see Acts 2:16–18).

This does not mean that God’s visitations are over, because there are many other things yet to be fulfilled (see Acts 2:19–20). Nor does it mean that there will be no new understanding of God’s truth after the first century. It simply means that there is no new revelation for the church. Indeed, this does not necessarily imply that there have been no miracles since the first century. Supernatural acts will be possible as long as there is a Supernatural Being (God). It is not the fact of miracles that ceased with the apostles but the special gift of miracles possessed by a prophet or apostle who could claim, like Moses, Elijah, Peter, or Paul, to have a new revelation from God. Such a prophet or apostle could back up his claim by dividing a sea, bringing down fire from heaven, or raising the dead. These were special gifts bestowed on prophets (apostles), and they are not possessed by those who are not the recipients of new revelation (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3–4).

It is interesting to note that both Muhammad and Joseph Smith were rejected as prophets by most Christians of their day because they were unable to perform miraculous feats such as dividing seas, bringing down fire from heaven, or raising the dead.  Their miraculous claims centered around supernatural visitations from God or angels, who allegedly gave them new revelation.  This was not sufficient to back up their claims of being prophets of God.

I have often been asked how I would deal with someone who claimed to have a brand new message from God.  I would say this to the person: “Show me the miracles.  Show me the signs.  Heal the deaf and blind.  Raise some people from the dead.  Until you do those kinds of things, I won’t even consider your new revelation from God.”  Muhammad and Joseph Smith were likewise asked to do those things, and they could produce nothing of the kind.

In part 2, we will look at why the canon is historically closed.

Mormon Church Visit

LDS Church Annaberg-Buchholz
Image via Wikipedia

Post Author:  Darrell

The Sunday before last some friends and I attended services at a local Ward of the Mormon Church.  This is the first time I have attended the LDS Church since leaving it for Christianity a few years ago.  For any Mormons reading this, please know that we were very polite and courteous during our visit.  We did not debate, argue, or disrupt any of their services.  For the most part, we listened quietly and asked a few non-confrontational questions during Sunday School.  In fact, we were so polite that the Second Counselor in the Bishopric invited us to come back (note: we won’t!)!

I have been discussing Mormonism on-line since leaving the Church, and being back reminded me of something that I had forgotten: there are some substantial differences between the Mormonism that is portrayed on-line by amateur LDS Apologists and the Mormonism as taught and practiced in the church Wards.

I realize that not all Mormons are going to believe exactly the same thing on every single issue and that some may be more nuanced in their beliefs than others.  However, I believe the difference we see between chapel Mormons and internet Mormons is more than mere nuance.  In on-line conversations, I have had internet Mormons declare emphatically that such and such is not Mormon doctrine.  However, when in the Mormon Church I have had chapel Mormons declare just as emphatically that such and such is Mormon doctrine.

For example, while at church this past Sunday, my friends and I attended the Gospel Principle’s class, the Sunday School class designed for investigators, i.e., those who are researching the church. During class, the teacher shared with us how “keeping the commandments” is a vital part of the formula for attaining salvation.  We politely pointed out how we believe that faith alone is all that is needed for salvation and that works are a result of, not a requirement for, salvation.  We then asked for clarification to make sure we understood exactly what she was saying.  In response, one of the members of class told us that keeping the commandments is not only vital to salvation, but there are some commandments that if not kept, will damn a person.

Unfortunately the bell rang ending class, so we didn’t have time to follow up with more questions.  However, I assume she was referring to Spencer W. Kimball’s book The Miracle of Forgiveness where he points out that murder is a nearly unforgivable sin and that denying the Holy Spirit (decreed by some to be apostasy from the Mormon Church) is unforgivable.

Here is the kicker though… we were taught this by a Mormon Sunday School Teacher in a class designed to teach investigators about Mormon beliefs.  The lady who taught the class has supposedly been called by God to teach the doctrine of God’s one and only true Church to investigators, yet in numerous conversations on-line, I have had internet Mormons tell me repeatedly that the LDS Church does not teach that works are required for salvation.  Instead, they say that the Mormon Church teaches salvation by faith alone.  Why the huge discrepancy?

For a church that is supposed to have the “plain and precious truths” of the restored gospel, there certainly is a lot of confusion amongst its members as to exactly what it teaches.  Perhaps the Church has apostatised again and the on-line Mormons should form a newly restored LDS Church – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Internet Mormons.

Jeffrey R. Holland's General Conference Talk

Post Author: Darrell

In the most recent LDS General Conference, Jeffrey R. Holland gave an impassioned talk regarding The Book Of Mormon.  As defense for the truthfulness of The Book Of Mormon, Holland cites the fact that he has yet to hear of any acceptable explanation for its origin aside from God.  First of all, I vehemently disagree with this position.  There are many reasonable explanations aside from God for the rise of The Book of Mormon.  Nevertheless, I would like to assume for a moment that Holland is right.  What if we could not explain the origin of The Book of Mormon?  Would this prove its truthfulness?  Fortunately, the answer is a resounding “No”.

In order to examine this question, one must understand that Holland’s challenge demonstrates a serious error: the conflating of 1) making an argument that something is true/false with 2) providing an explanation for how it did/did not happen.  When we seek to demonstrate the truthfulness/falseness of something we use arguments to show that it is true or false.  However, these arguments do not need to demonstrate how the subject does/does not work.  For example, I know that the sun provides heat: I walk out in the sunshine everyday, and it warms my body.  People have known this truth about the sun for thousands of years, and this knowledge does not depend upon demonstrating how the sun provides its heat.  I can know that it is true without knowing how it does it.  In fact, the search for how it does this is seeking an explanation for a truth that has already been established.

The same can be said for The Book of Mormon.  While it might be fun to speculate as to exactly how it came about, I do not need to know this in order to know that it is not true or from God.  God has told us several things about Himself in The Bible.  Paramount among these is the fact that He and His Word are eternal and unchanging.  Therefore, we have a sound basis for judging The Book of Mormon to be false, for its teachings and the church(s) which follow it lead people to follow a God and Gospel that contradict the God and Gospel of The Bible.  As a result, if I were to hold the Book of Mormon as true, I would have to discard what God has told me in The Bible. 

For information regarding how the teachings of the Book of Mormon and LDS Church contradict The Bible, you can see my posts here, here, here, and here.  In addition, stick around… there will be more to come.

The Book of Mormon… Another Testament?

The Book Of Mormon is called “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” by the LDS Church.  The Title Page in the Book Of Mormon says specifically… “The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus Christ”.  I was reading some material earlier this morning and something about this title hit me hard… the word TESTAMENT.  Why do they use that word?  What does it mean? 

The word Testament literally means “Covenant”.  The Old Testament in The Bible is the recording of God’s dealings with man under the “Old Testament” or “Old  Covenant” of sacrifice.  However, when Jesus Christ came to earth He established a “New Testament” or “New Covenant” with man based upon His sacrifice.  There are several verses throughout the New Testament which speak about this switch from an Old Testament/Covenant to the New Testament/Covenant.

Luke 22:20 “…after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.””

2 Corinthians 3:6 “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”

Hebrews 8:13 “By calling this covenantnew,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.”

Hebrews 9:15 “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

Let me explain why this hit me so hard.  Since “Testament” literally means “Covenant”, the LDS Church is literally saying that the Book of Mormon is establishing ANOTHER “COVENANT” OF JESUS CHRIST.  Another Covenant?  Why?  Was the Covenant Christ established based upon His sacrifice not GOOD enough?  Why do we need another Covenant?  What is the basis of this New “New Covenant” established by the Book of Mormon?

This got me to thinking a little more… Joseph Smith took this very position when he established the doctrine of plural/eternal  marriage.  D&C 132:4 says:

” For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. ”

Section 132 goes on to explain that this New and Everlasting Covenant is the Covenant of Eternal/Plural Marriage and Theosis (man can become a God).  Plural Marriage was forbidden by the LDS Church in 1890 due to political pressure.  Since that time the “New and Everlasting Covenant” now simply involves Theosis and Eternal Marriage.

The stance of the LDS Church is that the New Covenent of Jesus Christ was “upgraded” to the “New and Everlasting Covenant” through Joseph Smith.   I simply ask why?  Why do we need this?  Why was Christ’s New Covenant not good enough?  Based upon what do we need a “New and Everlasting Covenant” to replace the “New Covenant”?  Personally, I believe the New Covenant established by Christ was “Everlasting Enough” for me.  I will praise Him forever!!

Darrell

Thee, Thou, Thine and Thus in Prayer?

One of the teachings of Mormonism is that one should use reverence in prayer to Heavenly Father. It is taught that when you pray you should not use the language of our day.  Rather you should always use Thee, Thou, Thine and Thus. If you address God in common language (you, me, them, us, etc.) you are NOT being reverent.

I simply ask, why? What justification is there to support this position?  Is Old Modern English really MORE REVERENT?  If so, when the early Christians prayed in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic were they being IRREVERENT?

Don’t get me wrong… I fully believe that one should approach God with awe and reverence. He is the ONE and ONLY TRUE God and He does deserve respect. However, why do we need to use Early Modern English to show respect? I believe that the only reason this is taught within Mormonism is this was the language used in the King James version of the Bible. Joseph Smith taught that the King James Bible was the “most correct” version of the Bible on the earth. In fact, it is the only version used by the Mormon Church today… despite the fact that we have MUCH BETTER translations available.

When my wife and I left the LDS Church one of the things we dropped almost instantaneously was the use of Early Modern English in our prayers. We began to address God in Modern English. We both feel that this has contributed greatly in our communication with God. We no longer have to struggle for words that simply do not feel natural.  We are able to address God in a natural manner and are able to concentrate on what we want to say to Him and not how we say it.  We believe that we can now approach Him as we really are and can communicate with Him reverently in the language of our day.

God has told us in the Bible that He already knows the groanings of our hearts.  In fact, He knows them before even we know them.  I really don’t think He cares what language we use when addressing Him.

Darrell

What Is Repentance?

This is a very important question to consider.  How repentance works in the life of an individual is determined by what they believe repentance to be.  Depending on it’s definition and application, it can either free one from bondage or be a legalistic tool which enslaves.

The LDS Church defines “True Repentance” as a step by step process which ends with the complete abandonment of the sin.  It is taught that if you “repent” of a particular sin and commit that sin again, the repentance was not “true” and was therefore, ineffective.  According to D&C 82:7  “unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return”.  For example, let’s say I think an unkind thought about a neighbor and afterwards repent.  Then in 2 months when I think an unkind thought again ALL THE TIMES I HAVE THOUGHT UNKIND THOUGHTS RETURN!!  If that scares you, it should!  For, how many of us can say that we will never again…

  1. Lie
  2. Get angry
  3. Covet
  4. Mislead
  5. Skip a church meeting
  6. Think an impure thought
  7. Think poorly of our neighbor
  8. Gossip

Look back on the last month of your life… did you sin at all?  If so, how many times did you commit the same sin?  Did you go back and repent of all of them?  How about the ones you committed 2 months ago?  Did you Re-Repent of those?  How about the ones from two years ago? 10 years ago?

When you really think about this you can see how impossible it really is.  There is NO WAY we are going to be able to “truly repent” of all our sins.   According to LDS Doctrine then, we are all doomed because the “former sins will return” (D&C 82:7).   This lines up perfectly with Moroni 10:32 which I talked about in my previous post.   It says “…if ye shall deny yourselves of ALL UNGODLINESSTHEN is his grace sufficient for you.”   It is not until I deny myself of all ungodliness (“truly” repent of all my sins) that I can receive Christ’s grace.  IMPOSSIBLE!!

So, is this what repentance REALLY means?  Thank God because the answer is NO!  The word repent is translated from the Greek word “metanoeo”.  It is a combination of 2 Greek words which mean “change” and “mind”.  To repent is literally to change your mind.  It is what you do ONE TIME when you accept Christ as your Savior.  When you truly accept Christ as your Lord and Savior you “change your mind” and decide to follow Him and not the ways of the world.  There is no step by step process involved and it does not require the complete abandonment of sin.  We can’t do that… so where would the good news be if it were required?  

Once you have come to Christ good works will manifest themselves in your life… good works are the evidence of a saving faith.  A person who has received the gift of salvation will TRY to live a righteous life out of love for their Savior but they will not be perfect.  The glorious news of the gospel is that despite our imperfections, He has paid the price and we will go to be with Him at our death. 

Praise be to Christ!!

Darrell

A Former Mormon's View of The Bible – Part 2

As a continuation to Post 1, I would like to discuss another principle that is used in the Bibliographical Test.  This principle involves looking at the time span between the original manuscript in question and the oldest surviving copy.  The principle behind this is, obviously, the shorter the time span, the more reliable the copy is deemed to be.  How does The New Testament compare to other literature of antiquity?  Let’s look at a few notable works…

  1. Caesar – Gallic Wars – 1000 year gap
  2. Pliny Secundas – Natural History – 750 year gap 
  3. Tacitus – Annals – 1000 year gap
  4. Plato – 1300 year gap
  5. Herodotus – History – 1350 year gap

Notice how LONG the time frame is!!  But wait… let’s look at one more.  Historians and scholars consider Thucydides to be one of the most accurate historians of antiquity.  How many copies do we have of his works and what is the time span?  We only have 8 surviving manuscripts and a 1300 year gap!!!  Yet, despite this he is considered by many to be THE MOST ACCURATE IN ALL OF ANTIQUITY!!  WOW!!  

How does this compare to The New Testament?  Remember from my previous post that we have 24,970 surviving manuscripts… compared to only 8 for the most accurate historian from all of antiquity.  Here is where it gets even more amazing.  We have portions of books of The New Testament that go back to within 100 YEARS of the original!!!  This is compared to a 1300 YEAR GAP for the most accurate historian of all of antiquity!!  Not only this… we have an entire copy of The New Testament that goes back to within only 225 YEARS… again, compared to 1300 years for one scholars and historians consider to be one of the most accurate in all of antiquity!!  Wow!!  God is good.

What all this adds up to is this… we can hold The New Testament in our hands and have an intelligent faith in it because we have the evidence!!  We can rest assured based on evidence that what it says is what was originally written down.    As scholars  Norman Geisler, William Nix and Bruce Metzger have concluded, we have a text that evidence shows is 99.5% pure!

For the Mormons who are reading this, how does this compare to The Book Of Mormon?  Your church teaches you that it is the most correct book on the face of the earth and that The Bible is filled with errors.    Yet, how many changes has your church made to The Book Of Mormon since it was first published?  What proof do we have of it’s historicity?  I will deal with these issues in future posts.  In the meantime, I would encourage you to research this to find out for yourself if The Book of Mormon is really what your church claims it to be.

In addition, in some upcoming posts I will also address the historical reliability of The Old Testament.

Darrell

A Former Mormon's View of The Bible – Part 1

 The 8th Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints states “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God”.  Notice the caveat for the Bible of “so far as it is translated correctly”.  I remember many times as a Mormon I would tell people about this article of faith and explain to them how many “plain and precious truths” have been removed from the Bible… how the Bible has been mistranslated throughout history, does not contain the fullness of the Gospel, and cannot be trusted.  I would tell them how we need The Book Of Mormon and modern day prophecy to clear up the confusion caused by the mistranslations in the Bible.  However, when I started questioning the truthfulness of the LDS church, I began to research the history of the Bible, how we got it and how it has been transmitted to us throughout history.  I wanted to find out for myself whether or not the Mormon claim that the Bible is “mistranslated” is true. What I found out amazed me. 

Historiography is the the study of ancient documents.  It is used to determine the authenticity and validity of documents of antiquity.  One of the tests used in Historiography is called the Bibliographical test.  One principle of the Bibliographical test is to look at the number of surviving manuscripts of any document of antiquity.  Obviously, the more copies we have the easier it is to determine errors in copying and determine what the original text said.  So, the question is, how many copies do we have of the New Testament?

For the New Testament alone we currently have 24,970 surviving manuscripts!  This makes The New Testament the #1 document in all of antiquity in manuscript authority!  Despite being Number 1 in manuscript authority it’s accuracy is questioned more than any other document of antiquity.  You don’t hear many college professors questioning the reliability of Caesar’s Gallic Wars… yet we only have 10 surviving manuscripts for it!!

What is really amazing is the gap between The New Testament and the #2 document in manuscript authority, Homer’s Iliad.  There are only 643 surviving manuscripts for it!!.  The New Testament has 24,970 and # 2 HAS ONLY 643. What a gap!!  God is good!!   

In part 2 I will discuss the 2nd principle used in the Bibliographical Test and how these principles lead one to a reasoned conclusion that the New Testament we hold in our hands today is an accurate transmission of what was originally written down.