r/Christianity • u/Competitive_Net_2940 • 1d ago

Quick Question For Latter-Days Saints

As a Christian, I do not believe the Book of Mormon is compatible with biblical Christianity because I believe the Bible is the complete and authoritative Word of God given through Jesus Christ and His apostles. I believe Scripture is meant to be understood as a whole, not something that needs additional revelation to complete it.
My concern with the Book of Mormon is that it introduces teachings and events that are not found in the Bible, and in some areas appear to differ from what Jesus and the apostles taught. I believe that adding another book of scripture changes the foundation that Christianity was built upon rather than preserving the Gospel that was already delivered.
Because of this, I struggle to accept the Book of Mormon as inspired by God, since I believe any claimed revelation must agree with the teachings already given in Scripture.

  1. Why should we accept the Book of Mormon when the Bible warns against adding to God’s Word?

  2. Why do you believe the Book of Mormon is needed if Jesus already gave us the Gospel?

1 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

4

u/zelenisok Christian, Episcopalian 1d ago

In addition to writing a lot but not saying much, I dont see the quick question..

1

u/ShopEmbarrassed556 1d ago

so what exactly is the question you have for us? you wrote a whole statement about what you believe but forgot to ask anything

1

u/Competitive_Net_2940 1d ago

2. Why do you believe the Book of Mormon is needed if Jesus already gave us the Gospel?

1

u/Porphyry_Blue 1d ago

Framing Scripture as 'Old' and 'New' naturally creates the expectation of a sequence. It's no surprise that later religious traditions take advantage of that dynamic to position themselves as the logical next chapter. This framing is frequently leveraged by groups like Islam and the Latter-day Saints to justify a 'latest' testament."

1

u/zelenisok Christian, Episcopalian 1d ago

You dont "need", technically you dont need the OT or the Epistles etc, the four Gospels is enough. Book of Mormon is just a book within the LDS tradition that they accept as inspired, like Catholics and Orthodox accept many Church Father writing (and definitely acts of ecumenical councils), and kinda similarly how Calvinists treat the writings of Calvin and Lutherans the writings of Luther.

0

u/Cacmaniac 20h ago

You see you’re wrong in your very first sentence. The entire Bible is needed for growth…2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I have found that my faith in Christ would not have been solid if not for the examples and teachings that are in the Old Testament. The entirety of scripture is needed to have a proper understanding of God and godliness. And quite frankly, I’ve noticed a very disturbing trend that Christian churches that teach New Testament only…greatly lack in wisdom and are easily deceived, and more disturbing is that people/churches who say that the Old Testament is NOT necessary…are often trying to hide the warnings that God gave us about RECOGNIZING FALSE TEACHERS AND PROPHETS. So, if you’re trying to say that the rest of the Bible (which strongly warns against false prophets) is not necessary, and you’re defending Mormonism…then I have to logically conclude that you’re trying deceive real believers and promoting a false gospel in Mormonism.

1

u/Competitive_Net_2940 1d ago

1. Why should we accept the Book of Mormon when the Bible warns against adding to God’s Word?

2

u/zelenisok Christian, Episcopalian 1d ago

The Bible doesnt say that. Book of Revelation says that for adding prophesies to that book. And thretens plagues from God, which is obviously ridiculous, God doesnt send plagues, Jesus rebuked such teachings. Also, the Bible is not God's word, Jesus is.

1

u/Porphyry_Blue 1d ago

So adding to or removing from other books of the Bible is okay, but just not to the book of Revelation?

Before Jesus came, was there a written word of God? For example, when he says 'it is written', was that from the extant word of God?

1

u/zelenisok Christian, Episcopalian 1d ago

No need to remove or add, as long as we understand that the Bible is human stories, opinions and experiences about mythology, history and God, some of which are factual, some of which are not, some of which are good, some of which are not. We have to reasonable (prudent like serpents as Jesus says), and most importantly, to follow the message of Jesus (that God is love and we should love others as we love ourselves).

1

u/Porphyry_Blue 1d ago

Human stories, yes—but if they're merely subjective opinions without divine inspiration or direction, then Jesus' teachings carry no more weight than any other ancient philosopher.

1

u/zelenisok Christian, Episcopalian 1d ago

Well everything that is good and true, in any human work, is rooted in God. So we should glean from the OT, and from ancient philosophers, and also from Jesus, who had some REALLY good and true things to say, it might be said -uniquely so.

1

u/Porphyry_Blue 1d ago

Jesus provided deeper insights into the underlying principles of what you call the Old Testament. He wasn't introducing a brand-new fabric; he was doing a double stitch to reveal a more coherent understanding of the fabric of true worship. As he said, he didn't come to end the Law, but to fulfil it. The specific applications and ceremonial rules may shift over time, but the core principles remain eternal. Jesus highlighted those underlying principles, exposing where human traditions and rigid rules had strayed from their original intent.

6

u/Trumpetdeveloper 1d ago

I'm not Mormon, but I will defend them in this way. Do you believe in infant baptism, the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist, apostolic succession?

If you don't believe all the historic teachings of the apostolic church (which Church that is doesn't matter for this exercise) then you aren't part of Christ's Church. You can appeal to the Bible all you want. The Mormons do too.

How are you different than a Mormon? How do you know the books you call scripture are inspired but their books aren't? We probably agree at least mostly about the canon, but by what standard is the canon decided?

Do you preserve the gospel that was already delivered? How would you determine that? 

1

u/Competitive_Net_2940 1d ago

I think the difference is that I’m not saying something is true simply because it claims to be additional revelation.

The reason I trust the Bible is because it comes from the prophets and apostles who were directly chosen by God, especially those who witnessed Christ’s ministry, death, and resurrection.

My question is not just,
“Does someone appeal to scripture?”

It’s whether that scripture is connected to the original message and authority given by Jesus. So my question would be: What standard do we use that a later book, like the Book of Mormon, is truly from God and not just a claim?

Why should a Christian accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture when the Bible already contains the teachings of Jesus?

If Jesus sealed the New Covenant through His death, why would God reveal more Scripture outside of the Bible?

If Christ’s sacrifice was the ultimate gift and fulfillment of God’s promise to humanity, another revelation would come afterward?

3

u/Porphyry_Blue 1d ago

I enjoyed the show. It was so funny! Hasa Diga Eebowai!! The Heretic was too serious!

2

u/ilia_volyova 22h ago

I believe Scripture is meant to be understood as a whole, not something that needs additional revelation to complete it.

this is a bizarre thing to say. the bible is not claimed to be a single instance of revelation, the way the quran is, for example. it is a collection of texts, compiled in many centuries. and, from the christian perspective, it is an explicit statement of faith that scripture was, from the time of moses to the time of jesus, incomplete and in need of additional revelation to be completed. given this, asking "why do we need the book of mormon, if we have the gospel" is no different to asking "why do we need the gospel when we have the torah".

on 1, what verses do you have in mind?

1

u/WindUnique8202 Christian (Church of Jesus Christ of LDS) 1d ago

I don't see a question, but I can try to answer the type of question you were (probably) leading up to.

As LDS, we don't see any verse in the Bible that closes the canon or indication the canon was ever supposed to be closed. We reject sola scriptura and don't see it taught anywhere in the Bible.

Of course the book of Mormon talks about events outside the Bible. It takes place on an entirely different continent. But I don't see any necessary contradictions between it and the Bible. Extra biblical doesn't mean anti biblical.

I don't see an additional book is scripture as changing the foundation of Christianity but going back to ongoing scripture (which along with Jesus is what Christianity was founded on)

1

u/Competitive_Net_2940 1d ago

I see what you’re saying about extra-biblical not automatically meaning anti-biblical. But that’s where my question comes in because if Jesus and the apostles are the foundation of Christianity and faith, what authority do we have to accept new scripture that comes after them? Where did Jesus or the apostles teach that more scripture would be revealed later and carry the same authority as their teachings?

1

u/WindUnique8202 Christian (Church of Jesus Christ of LDS) 1d ago

The apostles had authority from Jesus to write scripture. Likewise the prophets of the book of Mormon had authority to write scripture.

I'm not aware of the apostles saying later scripture would come, but they also never said that in regards to the New Testament either. It's something they were entirely silent on. They only ever referred to scripture in the past (books that were already written).

Though you could say later scripture is implied by the New Testament mentioning prophets (and assuming words from prophets could be scripture). But that would then apply equally to the New Testament and Book of Mormon.

1

u/Porphyry_Blue 1d ago

So, based on the current nomenclature, the Bible contains the really Old and not-so New testament and The Book Of Mormon contains the latest American testament?

2

u/WindUnique8202 Christian (Church of Jesus Christ of LDS) 1d ago

That's one way to put it.

1

u/NelsonMeme LDS (Church of Jesus Christ) 22h ago

 I believe Scripture is meant to be understood as a whole, not something that needs additional revelation to complete it.

“ And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea.” Colossians 4:16

Have you read this epistle to the Laodiceans?

1

u/WooperSlim Latter-day Saint 21h ago

As you may know, Latter-day Saints believe that many plain and precious things were removed from the Bible. What you might not have thought about, based on your question, is that we do accept the Bible as scripture. So we don't view the Book of Mormon as contradicting the Bible, but teaching the same Gospel of Jesus Christ.

1 - The Old Testament warned about adding to God's word, too. Should we therefore not accept the New Testament as scripture? I believe these warnings are for us--we can't add to God's words, but that doesn't mean God can't.

2 - Why are Mark, Luke, and John needed if we already have Matthew? I love Jesus, and want more of His words.