The Bible VS the Book of Mormon?

Introduction to the Author
First off I’m going to apologize. Due to unavoidable circumstances I was unable to make my debut post on time this past Sunday; callings are a pain like that! I’ll give an introduction to how I came to the Church, and then give the blog. If you wish you may skip the introduction as it is fairly long.


To introduce myself, my name is Kieron Nelson, but in the past due to a variety of concerns, I created an alias, Joe Johnson, to post under. Jory was a nickname given to me when I had a really forgetful evening (I was very tired) so the relevance to Dory in the Disney movie Finding Nemo, and the fact that the person giving it to me couldn’t type properly is why it’s spelled the way it is. I was born in south Wales, in the capital city, Cardiff.

Although I had a largely atheist/agnostic family, I grew up with a belief in God, which had a Protestant twist. I moved to Essex, which is next to London, when I was still only 7 years old. When I was 11, I started secondary school, with it came things that became really big trials for me, during which I became completely apathetic towards God, thinking something along the lines of the oft-used “He doesn’t care about me, why should I care about Him?” When I was 15, the trials lessened, but being stubborn, I still didn’t want to know.

At 17, after leaving school and going to further education, I was working at Tesco (a supermarket), and something happened to change my perspective. I was on the checkout, about 5.30pm. Now anyone who has ever worked on them, or even been shopping at that time of day, knows that there is NEVER a time between 5 and 7 where you get a quiet period when no customers on your till. It’s completely solid, and you can whistle to the wind if you want a break. But I really needed to use the toilet, and there was no one to relieve me, so at the end of serving a customer, in desperation I uttered a half thought out prayer to God in heart, and, much to my surprise, the two remaining customers just picked up their stuff and left, apparently forgetting something on their lists, and no one came to replace them. After staring for a minute in shock, I got up and ran for the toilets. Later on in the day, I looked back over my life, and saw that every prayer I ever remember asking had always been answered but, I had ignored them. Have you ever seen Bruce Almighty, the sequence where he’s driving down the road demanding signs, the signs come, but he pays no attention, then in the end he crashes, and blames God? Yeah, that was me. After that, my faith returned, and hasn’t left since.

Through looking at the Bible, I came to the conclusion that I didn’t believe that Catholicism could be the true Church, and I really didn’t agree with the Protestants, so not knowing which Church is true, nor how to find out, I settled down and decided to learn for myself. With what I now recognize as the Holy Spirit teaching me, I learned a great deal about Christ, God and their nature. A few years later, I had moved down to Swansea, which is in Wales to do a degree in physics. While there, I came across a (less-active) Mormon and befriended her. After may be 7 or 8 months of knowing each other, she invited me to have the Missionaries round, which I accepted. They came over, and taught me the lessons. Being pretty anti-religious at the time (I only accepted the invite because I was trying to make her happy), I kept trying to prove them wrong, and kept asking questions about all my disagreements with organized religion. To my surprise, unlike any of the other people trying to persuade me to join their religion, not only did they actually manage to answer one of my questions, they managed to answer them ALL, and to my satisfaction as well.

In one last attempt, borne mostly of frustration, I got them with one question I KNEW they couldn’t answer. I asked them what makes them any different, how can I know that they are the true Church? After all, at the end of the day, all they have is a bunch of Doctrines and answers, but for I knew they could be wrong, there’s nothing to tell them as true, from say Islam, etc, and I can’t trust the word of man. Well those familiar with the Church are probably smirking right now; the reply I got was “Well, don’t trust us, trust God, ask Him!” This pretty much floored me. Needless to say I received my answer, and was Baptized around 6 weeks later, and my friend also came back to Church. That was 18^th April 2008.

I’m currently serving as a Young Single Adult (YSA) Representative, I 'm a member of the Ward Activities Committee and also as an Executive Secretary. I’ll soon be released as I am moving back to my parents house, university having now finished, in preparation for my Mission which I hope to be Serving early next year.

The Book of Mormon VS the Bible?

For the blog I decided on this topic because at the moment I don’t have much time, so I want a relatively unambiguous post, then next time, with a month or so to prepare it, I can do a much better one that perhaps will push me much more. I will assume people have a basic knowledge of the Church’s teaching, and answer some of the questions that I commonly come across from those who perhaps don’t understand our Doctrines. I will make clear now though, these are my interpretations, not [necessarily] the official stance of the Church.

Does 2 Nephi 25:23 teach that without complete perfection in our lives, we cannot be Saved? Doesn’t that mean that we cannot be Saved, seeing as Sin is essentially not doing our best, and we have all Sinned (Rom 3:23)?

Let me quote the Scripture in question:

“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do”

(Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 25:23)

If we to read around the verse, especially verse 26, we’ll learn what Nephi’s intent here is. It’s to commend the importance of Grace in our lives. Without it we cannot be Saved. Nothing new to the question here. But it’s important to realise its place in LDS Doctrine. In the Doctrine and Covenants, we know that Abraham, Jacob and Isaac were all saved. So clearly, what is being said here doesn’t mean it’s impossible to be saved. To get the right attitude of what Nephi meant, I'll refer to a TV show. Scrubs. Dr Cox’s patient survives, but JD’s didn’t, even though they had identical circumstances. Dr Cox says something like “After everything you do in this place, luck always decides the outcome.” Dr Cox wasn’t saying that luck would only save the patient if JD did everything possible, just that, at the end of the day, luck will save or kill, JD’s efforts only helped influence it. A similar attitude is meant here. “After all we can do” is not a condition in the sense that is meant in the question. It’s saying, “after all you can do, its grace that’ll Save you, not your works, so believe in Christ!”

Doesn’t Hebrews 1:1-2 teach that there will be no more prophets after Christ?

Let me quote it:

“GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”

(New Testament Hebrews 1:1 - 2)

First, I’ll let the question’s interpretation of the Scripture run its course. I’ll put aside that it’s an odd place to be teaching this concept, given that this is a passing comment, not a Doctrinal discourse, which is where you’d expect it to be. If it was teaching that there will be an end to the prophets, then it makes a very definite prediction. It defines the order, prophets, then Christ. No more prophets. In this interpretation there is no room for prophets after Christ. Let’s be scientific about it then. Let’s see if the prediction holds up. Well it doesn’t. There are several prophets after Christ. Several are mentioned in Acts, and two mentioned in Revelations:

“And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.”

(New Testament Acts 11:27)

"And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth....the beast...shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified...And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.”

(New Testament Revelation 11:3,7-8,10)

So there are prophets after Christ, disproving this interpretation. Some claim that they are a different “kind” of prophet. Unfortunately, they have the same name in the Greek text, so the onus is on the reader to show that they are fundamentally different. The Bible teaches that a prophets Mission is to testify of Christ, to reprove Sin, and bring people closer to Christ. They can do this through prophesying of future events, by teaching of Christ’s nature (tense has little to no effect on this) and by calling people to repentance. I see no reason why modern day prophets could not perform those tasks. Too often, in answer to this problem I hear eisegesis from those who seemingly eschew it, claiming that they are different kinds of prophets, which is reading a viewpoint in to the text. So what is meant by Hebrews 1:1-2? Well, it’s quite simple. Let me alter the words for as modern day example, then you can see the parallel.

“I, who at sundry times and in divers manners paid my electricity bill in time past by direct debit,

Hath in these last days paid my electricity bill by cash”

What’s being said is not that I’ll never pay by direct debit again, but that I recently paid by cash. The Author of Hebrews isn’t trying to us that God won’t communicate via prophets again, but is simply emphasising the great Blessing of having had Christ personally minister to them.

Does Alma 7:10 teach that Christ would be born in Jerusalem, not Bethlehem as was recorded as His birthplace in the Bible?

Let me quote the relevant part of the Scripture:

"And behold, he [the Son of God, i.e. Jesus Christ] shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers”

(Book of Mormon Alma 7:10)

Important to note is what immediately succeeds the name Jerusalem “which is the LAND of our forefathers.” Alma’s not talking about the city of Jerusalem, but the land, he’s giving a rough geographic location, not the city. Why? I would guess that after approximately 500 years in a foreign land, the people of Gideon have lost almost all sense of the layout of the land of Israel. So using maps, a little town of Bethlehem probably won’t be the first thing to be put on it. However, Jerusalem, one of the central cities, most certainly would be. When foreign people ask where I live (and we’re not in Swansea at the time) I say Cardiff a lot of the time. Swansea is pretty big, and the second most important city in the country. But go 200 miles to the east to London, and you get people who have never heard of it. So I say Cardiff. If they don’t know Cardiff then there really is no hope for them. I suspect that Alma is doing that here.

Doesn’t Ephesians 2:8-9 teach that works are unnecessary for our Salvation?

I’m only going to briefly discuss this quote; I’ll more comprehensively answer why it can’t be teaching that works are irrelevant, as well as other quotes from the Pauline epistles, in a different blog, since it can be quite extensive. But I’ll answer this one briefly here simply because of how frequently it’s mentioned. Let me quote it:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

(New Testament Ephesians 2:8 - 9)

It’s important to read what it’s actually saying. Its saying we are Saved by faith/grace, and not by our works. That’s perfectly in line with LDS Doctrines. We are Saved by our faith, not our works. What I disagree with is that we are Saved by our faith, irrelevant of our works, or lack thereof. I only have to mention Matthew 7:21 to show that this latter interpretation cannot be true. To explain how works can be necessary, but not earn our Salvation, I’ll refer to the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). Did the Prodigal Son do ANYTHING to earn acceptance back in to his Father’s household? No. But what did the Prodigal Son do? He recognised that he had wronged his Father (v18), he had faith that his Father would forgive him, or he’d not have made the long journey and so wouldn’t have been forgiven (v20), repented, which if he hadn’t, I’m sure his Father would not have given full restoration to his household (v21), accepted the tokens of his Father’s house, which again without accepting this, he’d be rejecting his Father, and so would have forfeited his restoration (v22). It’s then not too much of a stretch to say that if he had not continued to work in his capacity, as he had before wasting his birthright, then he would have been rejected as well. An observant Latter-day Saint would recognise the points that I made. In other words, at no point did he ever EARN his Salvation, but he was still required to make efforts and do something before he would be Saved.

Does Revelations 22:18 teach that there will be no additions to the Bible?

Again, let me quote it:

“For 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”

(New Testament Revelation 22:18)

At first off, it might seem that way. But let me give another similar quote:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminishought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you”

(Old Testament Deuteronomy 4:2)

Except this excerpt is from the book of Deuteronomy. If it truly meant that there will be no more additions, then the same would be true of Deuteronomy, and so the 61 books of the Bible that succeed it are also false additions, including Revelations. There are two answers to this problem. One is the reference of “man”. In other words, we shouldn’t add to it. But God can, and would do so through His servants, the prophets. Since the Book of Mormon would be from a prophet, this makes it a valid addition. If it's not from a prophet, then it's false, and this quote from Revelations is superfluous anyway. The other answer, and is pretty much irrelevant to the Deuteronomy quote, is what “book” refers to. When the book of Revelations was written, the Bible wasn't even in existence, not for another couple of centuries. So the “book” can’t be referring to the bible since it didn’t even exist, and is actually talking about the book of Revelations. Secondly, Bible comes from the word biblia which is plural. To be referring to the Bible, it would need to say books, not book, so it must be referring to the book of Revelations, not the Bible.

I hope you learnt something from this blog, and it gave you something to think about. Next time I’m thinking about tackling the works/faith debate, and how they harmonize with the Bible.

Jory.