What Mormons believe

[fatboys]

Bible was compiled by the early Christians. Christians being followers of the Christ.

Who compiled the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants? In fact who wrote these books? Joseph Smith in 1800s or his demon Maroni? Either way, I trust neither source. And that's all just by going by the story behind them without even delving into the vast mountain of physical evidence that disproves mormon paganism.

To the Jews who hated the only perfect being on earth, they found fault with him and called him a demon and a liar. Joseph Smith was far from perfect, but neither were any of the biblical prophet. I am not saying that the bible was not written by Christians. What I am saying is that those that gather the books together are considered pagan by many mainstream Christians today. I just wanted to know how much confidence they could have in them getting all the books in the bible.

Now who compiled the Book of Mormon? I'm glad you asked. His name was Mormon. He was given the task of taking all of the ancient records from the time they left Jerusalem to the time the Nephites were being destroyed in battle. The last known Nephite was named Moroni. Mor--oon--I. He was given the task of keeping the record safe and burying it in upper state New York. He lived forty years after the great last battle. IN 1823, Joseph Smith was praying in his room and asking for forgiveness. For he thought he had fallen out of favor with God, when his room begin to fill with light, brighter than at noon day. A messenger from God appeared in his room and told him of a record that had been buried near his home. That this record contained the history of a people that lived in the America's. He appeared to Joseph four times that night, each time repeating the same thing. The next day Joseph Smith found the exact spot with ease. He dug down to the buried stone box and witnessed the Gold plates for the first time. They were beautiful. There were other objects in the box with the plates. He was not permitted to retrieve the plate for four years in which he was permitted to have them and translated it by the gift and power of God.

The Pearl of Great Price was given by a couple of methods. The book of Abraham was given by Joseph Smith translating some ancient writings that the church had bought from a person by the name of Chandler who had obtained them from another person who had gotten them from a tomb found in Egypt. They contained the writtings of Abraham and Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. Joseph Smith did not have time to translated all that he had because of the persecution that was continual.

The Book of Moses was given by revelation. Sort of like Moses did when writing the book of Genesis. There are facsimilies also there from the Book of Abraham. Also the Articles of Faith and some proclamations.

The Doctrine and Covenants were revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith and then compiled by members of the church under the direction of the leaders.

 

[Jda016]

Mormons don't want Christians to know it, but Mormonism is a direct attack against all things Christian.

"Every spirit that confesses that Jospeh Smith is a prophet, that he lived and died a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true, is of God, and every spirit that does not is of Anti-Christ." --Brigham Young, LDS Conference at Nauvoo, October 1844

Dont be deceived, the words of Jospeh Smith and Brigham Young are damning against mainstream Christianity. All one has to do is go back and look at their words and they will see how adamantly they were against Christ.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Those who compiled the books of the Bible were not pagans. Who told ye they were? Those who compiled the Bible were Christians and study of history proves they compiled and translated the Biblical Books accurately and faithfully.

Now here's your problem, there is not one piece of evidence the Book of Mormon events ever even happened. The first evidence for Book of Mormon is in the 1800s AD when Joseph Smith made it up either on his own volition or at the behest of a demon. That's all there is to it. Once that is realized then it is fair to say anything afterwards is likewise simply Joseph Smith daydreaming or him consorting with demons. I'm not sure whether Smith was a con-man or a witch, but those are basically the only two choices presented as Smith have a history of both being involved in fraud and witchcraft.

So you can see it is quite plain that the mormonism cannot be trusted, yet the Bible can be fully trusted. So simply for ye all ye must do is cut off the dead weight of Smith's writings and retain the writings of the righteous men found in the Bible. That's all there is to it. It's simple, it's not hard.

 

[tarzan]

Nay I miss his point not. It is a subtle point based on misinterpretation. For whom were those Romans? They were Christians, specifically the early Catholic Church. Thus not pagans.

As where we can look into mormonism's history and its quite frankly laden with paganism. Everything from Smith's connection to freemasonry paganism to a lot of the rituals he put into early mormonism are very lurid and have a basis in paganism.
I mean come on the Mormon Origin Myth is that Smith claims a being pretending to be an angel named Maroni gave him the plates of Nephi and he translated them from "Old Egyptian" into English with a seer stone. So not only is Smith heavily tied to paganism, but even for the translation and compilation of his books he using pagan techniques!


This topic could not get anymore ironic.

This :

Nicaea however was to deal mostly with the Arian controversy. Constantine was torn between the Arian and Trinitarian camps. After the Nicene council and against its conclusions, he eventually recalled Arius from exile and banished Athanasius of Alexandria to Trier.

Source : Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this :

[h=4]Latin Fathers[edit][/h]The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[SUP][28][/SUP] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[SUP][29][/SUP] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[SUP][25][/SUP] or if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[SUP][30][/SUP] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[SUP][31][/SUP]
In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[SUP][32][/SUP] Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[SUP][33][/SUP] and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon.[SUP][34][/SUP]

From here: Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The title "Pope" has nothing to do with Christianity. It's a pagan title.

The OP may not be right just yet in his understanding of God, but his questions are educated and you are being quite high-minded. I am able to understand when people are manipulating to cause problems or for their own gain, and the OP is not someone looking to stir up trouble on purpose.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Lol brother Tarzan, you just proved my point that the Bible was compiled by Christians not pagans lol.

 

[tarzan]

Constantius' persistence in his opposition to Athanasius, combined with reports Athanasius received about the persecution of non-Arians by the new Arian bishop George of Laodicea, prompted Athanasius to write his more emotional History of the Arians, in which he described Constantius as a precursor of the Antichrist.[SUP][8][/SUP]

In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, St Athanasius had the opportunity to return to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria at which he appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for the definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. In 362, the new Emperor Julian, noted for his opposition to Christianity, ordered Athanasius to leave Alexandria once again. Athanasius left for Upper Egypt, remaining there until Julian's death in 363. Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile.[SUP][8][/SUP] Some of the early reports explicitly indicate that Athanasius spent this period of exile in his ancestral tomb.[SUP][7]
[/SUP]Valens, who seems to have sincerely dreaded the possible consequences of a popular outbreak, gave orders within a few weeks for the return of Athanasius to his episcopal see. Here, St Athanasius, spent his remaining days, characteristically enough, in re-emphasizing the view of the Incarnation which had been defined at Nicaea. He died peacefully in his own bed, surrounded by his clergy and faithful.[SUP][5][/SUP]

From : Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am showing you how it was pagans. Yes they were Christians, but the pagans were heavily intermingled in the whole process. Just as the Jews had need to exist with the gentiles in order for the gentiles to restore Jerusalem and the Temple.

This is the question that is being asked. This is the information which clarifies the all too general and ambiguous answers to the question.

Athanasius is also considered a Pope, and had an office, but we know that it was not like as we see today with the Roman Catholic Church. Also that the state office was not meant to be glorified, but rather that was God's way of allowing the Christianity to maintain itself at that particular time. IT was not meant to be a tradition. The office was given by pagans. The Council was overseen by pagans. The message is not to the saved, but to the pagans! For what need is there to save the saved? What need is there to educate the educated?

Of course God used Christians to perform the work. That is not the debate here. They are called pagans. The protestant churches call these people pagans. This is the ambiguous and general consensus. And who said that the early Catholic church was right? It was not. Arianism is not correct. And now there is the Trinitarian philosophy. People still fail to see that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the flesh. The Father is greater than the flesh, but the Son is equal to the Father, for He made it so.

If I were to build a vessel, a robot, for example, and I were to implant my memories, my mind, my heart, my soul, and all of my being into that robot, and I were to give it the ability to live and to access all of what is me, and it were to walk around with me, am I walking and talking with myself? Why not? Now the vessel is my creation, but the spirit within that vessel is me. Therefore the spirit is equal to me, but the vessel is my son. Now the very spirit that is within that robot is also within me. Therefore, all that I have done, so did also the spirit that is within that vessel. Therefore, what is within that vessel has done that I have done. Though the vessel itself had not performed all those things, it is as if it had. Now that vessel may do everything according to my wishes, because the spirit of my wishes and the memory of me resides within that vessel. Therefore, that vessel already contains the experience and the power necessary to overcome all things. Therefore, in that vessel is the power to be perfect according to my understanding. It has the ability to obey everything I say because everything that I say is in accordance with everything that the spirit within the vessel understands. Now let's say I give that vessel feelings and emotions and an appetite. Now that vessel, though my spirit is within it, may hunger, may be tempted for itself, may be hurt, and all things that are normal to me. Now if I wanted that vessel, my creation, to die for everyone that was imperfect, surely the spirit within that vessel would want the same thing. However, the vessel would still cry out, Please, take this from me. But even so, whatever is right in your eyes.

This is not hard to understand to me. OP, this is what you need to understand. That the spirit of the Lord is the spirit of the Father and the Holy Spirit is yet another manifestation of God. This is not a hard thing.

For the Father is a spirit. And the Son is the Word of the Father which is the expression of the Father. When I speak, is it not me that you hear? It IS me. And the Holy Spirit is the work that is completed within any who hear me. Is that not also me? So then, therefore the manifestations of the Lord are all the Lord. Now the vessel was granted Lordship, and the vessel was made a quickening spirit. Therefore the Lord has possessed for Himself a vessel to retain. This is the Bridge. This is the Son. And all power and authority in all of Heaven and earth has been given to the Son. Therefore, the Father maintains all power and authority through the Son, for the spirit of the Father is in the Son. And then once the Father has brought all the enemies of the Son into submission to the Son, then the Son will give back authority of all things to the Father. Therefore the Son will no more have to execute His God given authority. We will be brothers and sisters of the Son, for through Him and to Him the Lord will make us equal. For in perfection, there is no more a need for the law, and there is no more a need for rule. For all are ruled by the spirit of perfection. There will be a New Heaven and a New Earth, and who will need to be ruled? To the glory of God the Father all things are made perfect and manifest, and there will be no need for any obligation, for all that exist with the Father will declare His righteousness and His glory willfully. And what will be the separation between us and the Son? There will be no separation, for all will be made perfect. How can someone sanctify something to be more perfect than that which is perfect? If the Father wishes to reconcile us, then won't He certainly reconcile us?

And these truths are evident in our lives, and we learn from the Bible which we are given. I do not need the Mormon texts to expand upon these truths. There is no more mystery for me. So what is there to add?

Therefore, that is the reason why there is no need for the Mormon religion. If you are willing to see, you will see.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Lol yet all the people in those articles are known and famed Christians. Therefore where is the pagans?

You say pagans oversaw these councils, yet it is pretty clear that it was Christians that oversaw the councils. So where be the pagans?

Lol Protestants calling Catholics pagans is not a sufficient explanation especially when all this happened in an era before Protestantism was even dreamed of.

 

[Jda016]

Mormons cast doubt on the Bible to validify the Book of Mormon, just as Muslims cast doubt on the Bible to validity the Quran, just as athiests cast doubt on the Bible to validity evolution.

If only the West had the same respect and love for the Bible that Chinese Christians have then there wouldn't be doubt. They literally weep over receiving a Bible and treausre it as their most important possession. One woman's hovel was raided and the police beat her hands over and over again because she refused to let go of God's word. She just kept clutching that Bible until her hands simply gave out.

if only we had this love for God's word then we would not run to and fro trying to discredit it.

 

[notuptome]

Who really cares what Mormons believe? If they do not receive Jesus Christ as Gods Messiah they have nothing of merit to contribute. Jesus Christ is Jehovah God in the flesh. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God given as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world.

You can mock the bible. You can endeavor to elevate other books to the level of the bible but God has put His signature upon the bible. God has said that the bible will never pass away. The Holy Spirit only operates through the bible.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[tarzan]

Another analogy if you will: If I record a music CD, and you play the music CD, are you playing me? Yes. I am sitting here still alive as well, so then are you hearing only the record of me, or are you hearing me alive? I live and I do another thing even as you are listening to me alive. Now our technology has made it possible for us to recreate the very thing which God is able to do much more effectively and perfectly and He has always done it. Is not the Son, the expression of God, a record of the Father? And did the Son not do perfectly? Was there a scratch on the disc? Was there an error? Was there a skip? And the Scriptures, are these not the record of the Father, wherein is found the Spirit of the Father? Therefore are these not also the same? Is not the record of the Father an expression of the Father Himself? So then we are met with Him. And when we meet a Christian who was saved by the Word of Power, and that Christian gives you food when you are starving, was it man or God which fed you? It was God Himself that fed you! You just met God again. Now it is not in the vessel that people see the Lord, but in the character of the vessel that people meet the Lord. For if you were to dig into the vessel you would only find wires and parts. God is found within the recording device in a place wherein we cannot seek. We cannot measure God within an object, but the character revealed through an object glorifies God who is a spirit. God's fullness cannot be calculated, and yet His fullness can be contained in the smallest form. This is a testament to God's consistency and perfection. The One who created the entire universe could contain Himself within the temple of the body. And further, His character is contained within just one verse of Scripture. And His heart is contained in two words: "Jesus wept."

If I write a few words about myself here, then you have met me. And though I might die here, and the words are preserved, yet you still meet me. Therefore, how much more, knowing that God is a living God, and death has no power over the Lord, should you realize that to meet with the words of the Lord is to meet the Lord Himself? And to meet with the actions of the Lord is to meet the Lord Himself? And to consider the Lord and His character is to consider with the Lord Himself?

And this we are able to do only because of Jesus Christ.

I have no need for any other priest or pastor to be a conduit to the Lord, for the Lord has established a direct connection to me. Pastors lead the flock to the Lord, but they are not conduits for communication. And who speaks to the Lord on our behalf but the Lord Jesus Christ? Now if we are found in Him, then therefore, we may speak on others behalf as well. But when they are led to the Lord, then are we still a better route for communication?

The phone is used to establish a connection that two may talk over a great distance. But if one person chooses to walk to the other person's location, then the reception will be much clearer and the phone will not be required. Now the person who knows the location of the phone may say, "I know where the other person lives, I can show you the way."

But those who choose to stand as gatekeepers to the phone and to the way to the Lord, these that call themselves priests and yet allow no one to get through to the Lord, these same ones also do not know the way of the Lord. Therefore, they are gatekeepers of something that is not right, and if they are keeping you out, don't go in.

But the priests that show you the way to the Lord, and step out of the way and allow you to meet the Lord after they have guided you, then the same have also conferred upon you the priesthood, if the Lord will give it. Because those who meet the Lord and accept the Lord are those who are therefore gatekeepers of the Lord. But they do not shut the gate on those who seek the Lord, but they open it and give authority to the gate to those who receive it. And those who would try to enter into the gate, not to seek the Lord, but to destroy, therein lies the authority of the priests to keep the destroyers out.
So if you seek the Lord, and you are kept out, then go another way. Mormonism does not allow any to come to the Lord directly. Catholicism does not allow any to come to the Lord directly. Sabbath keepers won't allow it. Most preachers don't allow it. Most pastors do not allow it. The offices have been puffed up in tradition. The understanding of the Lord still escapes most. People still fight for greater glory in Heaven, not realizing that this is not proof of who loves God the most. For Satan also fought for greater glory in Heaven.

I understand the feeling of the confusion, but I do not condone the confusion itself. The Lord is easy to access if one is willing.

 

[tarzan]

Lol yet all the people in those articles are known and famed Christians. Therefore where is the pagans?

You say pagans oversaw these councils, yet it is pretty clear that it was Christians that oversaw the councils. So where be the pagans?

Lol Protestants calling Catholics pagans is not a sufficient explanation especially when all this happened in an era before Protestantism was even dreamed of.

Protestantism the movement was certainly a response to Catholic and Orthodox heresy. However, before the great heretical problems arose in the churches, the faith of the Christians beforehand was what the movers of the protests were attempting to reacquire. Therefore, we do not call what is right to the Lord, "Protestantism", because that was a movement. But the protesters certainly were seeking for the faith which was delivered unto the apostles. There is nothing wrong with this. Now protestant churches have gone the way of the Catholic churches. And many cults have sprung up. And Adventists claim to fight against it, but they pulled in some of the heresy as well. What manifesto has dodged the heresy bullet? That anyone who spends too much time striving about with silly doctrines will find themselves in the legalist and works and prosperity and charismatic movements, among many others. Now there is a rebellion against the so-called "Protestants", just as there was against the so called "Catholics" or the "Universal" church. But this rebellion is not against people, but for God. So then there is a protesting against those who labeled themselves the protesters. And there is the Catholic church there to attempt to claim they were right for they still stand. And yet it was the heresy of the Catholic church which found itself reimplanted into the protestant churches. And it is the ex Catholics who entered into Protestantism and found the Adventist movement and found the legalism within it and found comfort that their works still matter. And there are many other things that have found their way in to the institution. But the institutions came about to preserve the letter so that it may be passed down. But still the people who run these churches today are still pagan, for they worship many gods, and many idols, including themselves. But the character of the Lord is not preserved in them, but in the people who pass in and out like vapor, and carry the seed, and plant it in the world, and make friends of the Lord, and the church is built without the buildings and the manifestos.

So any who say that the congregation of a manifesto is the character of the Lord is wrong. God has used the institutions to preserve the letter for the generations. But most of the offices which were erected for that purpose contain those who found themselves in a holy position and the power interferes with them. Because once peace and harmony was found within a fellowship, then there came drama to add color to what the bored considered a bland relationship in the fellowship. Because evil does not enjoy peace and wishes to stir up trouble. And people responded willfully by adding to the doctrines and enhancing them. Therefore many splits occur.

So this is not an argument concerning which "church" is right.

It means nothing.

The church of the Lord is in the hearts and the minds of the children of God. And upon us will be written a new name. So then what need is there for "isms"?

 

[tarzan]

To add a little more (because I could not edit the previous post after the five minutes):

Now the Lord said that He came not to bring peace, but a sword. Now the Lord is at war with the principalities and the powers. Therefore, we know that He is not condoning the principalities and the powers, but He is able to use them to execute His will. And I say that evil wishes to destroy peace, and that is true. But I do not say that the Lord wishes to destroy the peace, but the peace of the wicked. For the wicked need to be riled up in order to understand that their peace is a peace that leads to death. Therefore the Lord brought the sword, His Word. Jesus Christ is the Sword. And when we speak the Lord, and we cut our enemy, we also cut ourselves. It is double-edged. So where there is a peaceful assembly of those who do wrong, and then the Lord comes in and scatters them in order to find His sheep, then that peace is destroyed for holy peace. But the holy peace found in a fellowship is not destroyed by the Lord, but it is destroyed by the enemy. The Lord loves peace that is Holy, but evil loves the peace that leads unto death.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Protestantism the movement was certainly a response to Catholic and Orthodox heresy. However, before the great heretical problems arose in the churches, the faith of the Christians beforehand was what the movers of the protests were attempting to reacquire. Therefore, we do not call what is right to the Lord, "Protestantism", because that was a movement. But the protesters certainly were seeking for the faith which was delivered unto the apostles. There is nothing wrong with this. Now protestant churches have gone the way of the Catholic churches. And many cults have sprung up. And Adventists claim to fight against it, but they pulled in some of the heresy as well. What manifesto has dodged the heresy bullet? That anyone who spends too much time striving about with silly doctrines will find themselves in the legalist and works and prosperity and charismatic movements, among many others. Now there is a rebellion against the so-called "Protestants", just as there was against the so called "Catholics" or the "Universal" church. But this rebellion is not against people, but for God. So then there is a protesting against those who labeled themselves the protesters. And there is the Catholic church there to attempt to claim they were right for they still stand. And yet it was the heresy of the Catholic church which found itself reimplanted into the protestant churches. And it is the ex Catholics who entered into Protestantism and found the Adventist movement and found the legalism within it and found comfort that their works still matter. And there are many other things that have found their way in to the institution. But the institutions came about to preserve the letter so that it may be passed down. But still the people who run these churches today are still pagan, for they worship many gods, and many idols, including themselves. But the character of the Lord is not preserved in them, but in the people who pass in and out like vapor, and carry the seed, and plant it in the world, and make friends of the Lord, and the church is built without the buildings and the manifestos.

So any who say that the congregation of a manifesto is the character of the Lord is wrong. God has used the institutions to preserve the letter for the generations. But most of the offices which were erected for that purpose contain those who found themselves in a holy position and the power interferes with them. Because once peace and harmony was found within a fellowship, then there came drama to add color to what the bored considered a bland relationship in the fellowship. Because evil does not enjoy peace and wishes to stir up trouble. And people responded willfully by adding to the doctrines and enhancing them. Therefore many splits occur.

So this is not an argument concerning which "church" is right.

It means nothing.

The church of the Lord is in the hearts and the minds of the children of God. And upon us will be written a new name. So then what need is there for "isms"?

Aye I agree with this comment a lot. And to it I would add forget the churches of stone, I just read the Bible and talk about it to people. So by no means am I a Catholic or Protestant in any sense of the word. I merely pursue Christianity, no isms necessary.

However in regards to Protestanism, if ye be calling the Catholics of old whom oversaw and compiled The Bible and translated and copied the Bible (proven that they did this faithfully via archaeological and historical evidences.) Then why call the ancient catholics as pagans just because Protestants today call them pagans when Protestantism did not even at that time exist?

My basic point here is:

1. Even from a modern point of view where Protestans call Catholics pagans and vice versa this is not applicable in the 300s AD before the existence of Protestanism

2. Therefore the Bible was not compiled by pagans, but rather by Christians. And even before all this much of the Bible Old Testament was compiled by Christians and of course before any compilation all of the Bible was written by Christians. Therefore the OP's premise that pagans compiled the Bible is not correct.

 

[notuptome]

God spoke His word and God to this day preserves His word. God used holy men to write the word and God used holy men to preserve His word. Not perfect men but men whose heart was right, humble and willing to be led of the Holy Spirit in the task at hand.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[fatboys]

You raise excellent questions. I am reminded that while the Jews were in captivity, God had given the gentiles authority over the Jews. The temple was rebuilt on account of the decree of Cyrus. Jerusalem was reinstated. If God used the gentiles to restore the Jews, then could He not also use pagans to gather His instruction? This possibility cannot be discounted. And what more glorious and beautiful way to reveal the Word? That those who are against it gather it and compile it and reveal it as a witness to them, and against them, and to the world, and for the world, and also against the world. God certainly works in brilliant ways. The possibility should not be discounted.

This is probably the best answer I have ever had on this question. Thank you. Let me clarify for others. I did not say that I believe Catholics were pagan. I am not saying that those who created the trinity creed were pagan. I have been online for many years and read many posts from mainstream Christians who believe the Catholic church to be pagan and not Christian. They hate Catholics as much as Mormons. I am sure there are some here who are of that opinion.

Tarzan so you are saying that the Catholics were inspired to compile what we have as a bible today? Are you catholic and if not, do you believe that there teachings are more or less correct than your teachings?

 

[fatboys]

God spoke His word and God to this day preserves His word. God used holy men to write the word and God used holy men to preserve His word. Not perfect men but men whose heart was right, humble and willing to be led of the Holy Spirit in the task at hand.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

If God can preserve his word, why are there some of his words which the Savior spoke from the scriptures he knew that are not in the Bible. And what about those books which were considered scriptures by other parts of the Christian world but also failed to contained in the Bible. Constantine who was emperor of Rome was a pagan, and was not converted before he brought the church leaders together to hammer out the bible and the creed. Before that time there was no creed. Before that you had early church fathers that understood the gospel differently than what the Catholics or mainstream Christianity. You also had church leaders that were invited to the council that were eventually banned from the process, and Constantine finally chose which understanding the Character of God was. So in my opinion whether or not I was Mormon or had any other religious believe, I would find it difficult to accept the Bible as perfectly preserved.

 

[fatboys]

Look I realize that many of you believe the bible is perfect. I do not. But I do believe it to be the word of God. Man is not infallible, but man is all God has to work with. I have also never said that the Book of Mormon is perfect either. It is not. But because of the way it came about, it is closer to the pure intent of the authors. It did not have hundreds of copies of copies of copies. Man made mistakes honestly or by intention. That is all I am saying. I know this rubs you the wrong way, but that does not make me evil or what I believe evil.. I have got to go. I farm as well and it is spring so if I am slow in responding or if I miss a post that is directed to me, don't think that I intentionally did not respond.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Constantine was not a pagan when he convened the council. He was a converted Christian. Surely ye know the famous story of Constantine's conversion?

Plus remember this isn't the first time the Bible was compiled either. The Old Testament was compiled by the Christians back in the BC (Dead Sea Scrolls proves this.) Then of course the New Testament books and letters was just being written variably throughout the 0-100 AD and studied over during 200-300 AD.

The fact we have manuscript evidence that these books were copied faithfully all saying the same thing throughout all time, not to mention has the largest documentary trail (2nd being the Homeric Epics) is good proofs indeed that the Bible was in fact perfectly preserved.


EDIT: as for the momonism writings, these are fiction, you can just push them aside quite easily.

 

[skipp]

power of God.
The book of Abraham was given by Joseph Smith translating some ancient writings that the church had bought from a person by the name of Chandler who had obtained them from another person who had gotten them from a tomb found in Egypt. They contained the writtings of Abraham and Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. Joseph Smith did not have time to translated all that he had because of the persecution that was continual.

False. Later on it was discovered that the ancient writings, rather than being written by Abraham and Joseph, were actually writings about ancient Egyptian funeral preparations. So either Joseph Smith was badly mistaken in his translating or he was (more likely) an incorrigible con man and liar.

 

[posthuman]

False. Later on it was discovered that the ancient writings, rather than being written by Abraham and Joseph, were actually writings about ancient Egyptian funeral preparations. So either Joseph Smith was badly mistaken in his translating or he was (more likely) an incorrigible con man and liar.

lol it's starting to sound like one of out dear "speaking in unknown tongues" threads !

here is an illuminating article substantiating your post. interesting read..
http://www.isitso.org/guide/papyri.html

i'm not posting this to make any sort of attack. let's just get the facts straight as well as we can.