So here's our conversation in response to his OP regarding the issue of the "missing" or Lost books of the Bible (text in read are my responses) -
Me: The Book of Mormon is Distinct that's why it is called "Another Testament", but if you want me to defend her stand, rather than go to the source itself, you may consider that the Book of Mormon also consists of some Missing Books. I'll give you an example - before the writing of the book was compiled, this group of people consisted of 2 families of the tribe of Joseph, who came from Jerusalem, and they were also prophets of that time before the exile. And sooner separated to the land for some purpose, so consider these prophets that time (Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel were there during that time period, and Lehi is unknown in the bible we have now), would you consider it in the bible if he was there? If not, why? Another thing is, before they voyaged to the Land we now call America, they brought with them the record of the Jews, with some writings of Isaiah, and some others who are not even known in the bible we have now, like Zenos, Zenok, Neum, Ezias, they quoted some of their words though not the entire writings and yet it is unknown in the bible but existed before the Babelonian Captivity where they carry it along with them. Of course, you won't consider it since you don't believe in the Book of Mormon, right? And you won't even consider having a little portion of studying it. Okay, so back to the issue, since you are dealing with someone who used to have their own opionions you should consider the source. I know a lot of INC's also were doing some opinions outside of your doctrine, of course, why would we stick to it if it's not the teachings?
Ginoong Pantas: Jerry Nuñez Bustillo
I don’t know kung maa-appreciate ko ba ang reply mo or what, but frankly you didn’t quite meet my question head-on, nag-drift ka lang eh.
My inquiry was very specific and sharply framed:
“Do Latter-day Saints assume that the so-called “missing books” of the Bible are fulfilled or represented by the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?”
That’s a YES-OR-NO theological clarification. 😏
Instead of addressing the core issue, you shifted to explaining that the BOM is “another testament,” which is already standard LDS doctrine, at hindi na ‘yan parte ng tanong ko. You even introduced figures like Lehi and unnamed prophets to argue that other writings existed outside the Bible, which again is a different topic.
Ewan ko ah, but you also brought up names like Zenos and Zenok to support the idea of lost or non-biblical prophets, not whether these are the same as the “missing books” being discussed. Tapos ngayon ay magre-redirect ka toward belief and willingness to study LDS texts? Dude, that’s more of a rhetorical pivot than a direct answer. You see, you answered “There were other records and prophets not in the Bible.” But MY question is “Are those ‘missing books’ being identified with LDS scriptures?” Well, oo, related naman, but NOT identical question.
Alam kong alam mo (at ni Marites) na ang real tension na ni-raise ko is this: If someone says “the Bible has missing books”, and then says “the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are from God,” are they implicitly claiming those are the missing biblical books? 😅 You never clearly affirmed or denied that connection.
You simply widened the discussion to “There were other writings that existed.” Aminado ako, that’s a safer, more general claim, and it avoids being pinned down.
Oh siya… I understand your point about additional records. But to be clear (sana naman hindi ko na ‘to need i-reiterate) are you saying the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are the missing books of the Bible, or simply additional revelations outside of it?
Me: Ginoong Pantas, So when you ask "Mormon folks, what are your takes on this?" is a closed-end question, am I right, or you just don't want to hear a reason? So, what you are doing here is to simply ask a question that doesn't need further explanation/interpretation, and then what? You want to go on and on with the YES and NO categories? My answer is simple and easy to understand, and clearly, you don't like it. We have the biblical records of some lost books (Book of Jasher, the Acts of Solomon, Nathan, Gad, etc.); they are all there, so what's your point in asking the questions where it is already given?
Thinking you don't like my answer, or should I say it's a dumb answer, then what do you want us to expect from you, OP? See where it leads you? My answer to your question is clear. And if you want me to summarize my answer, I'll give it to you to satisfy your demand. It's a NO (No more buts for the sake of your demand).
Ginoong Pantas: Marites Palos Salinas
Don’t worry. Anyone can make mistakes, so I’m not here to put you down. Instead of directly criticizing your response, I chose to raise an inquiry in this group. As you acknowledged, you weren’t entirely certain of your answer and felt obliged to give a firm YES rather than leave the question open. I’m not holding that against you.
Jerry Nuñez Bustillo
Bweno, thank you for clarifying that your answer is NO. 👍 That actually helps. So just to be consistent, would it be accurate to say that the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are not restorations of any lost biblical books, but entirely separate revelations? 😉
Me: How do you want me to answer your question?
Ginoong Pantas: Jerry Nuñez Bustillo
Since I elevated the question to another height, you now have your own way to answer it according to your version of truth. But a direct or heads-on answer will be highly appreciated. Kumbaga, kung ano ‘yung core ng tanong, doon lang din dapat magse-circulate ang mood ng sagot. No need for unnecessary decorations unless the issue itself requires it.
Me: Ginoong Pantas Actually I have said enough, and you don't like it. so I have to do it again in a different approach to help you out.
So, here's the thing, when you say revelation, it simply means you have something received from heaven, either God or a messenger or even the Holy Ghost that manifests something like organization, declarations, or something that might help the people in some future event.
When you question as if the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price were revelation, yes, it does, but they were in different settings. The Book of Mormon was the record received from ancient people who once hid their writting in some areas of the land, While the Pearl of the Great Price is a separate history where they purchase a papyrus from someone who sells it during their time and Joseph was permited to receive a translation of Abraham using some of the Papyrus fragments that were lost in the great fire in chicago.
Ginoong Pantas: Jerry Nuñez Bustillo
Do you really think so? 😏 By the time you asked for my viewpoint on the “priesthood” and you also didn’t like my answer, nagreklamo ba ako? I understand that we come from different religions, with different beliefs and doctrines. But pointing out a correction when your response doesn’t align with my original question doesn’t mean I dislike your answer. I’m simply asking for a more direct and focused response to what we’re discussing. 👍
Anyway… you’ve clarified something important, and I appreciate that. From your explanation, it’s now clear that you consider both the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price as revelations, but not restorations of any known “missing books” of the Bible. That distinction is helpful enough.
However, this raises a separate issue. Ano ‘yon? Historical verification.
When we talk about writings outside the biblical canon, there are actually documented discoveries that scholars (regardless of religion) recognize as historically rooted. In fact, napag-usapan na namin ‘to ng katrabaho kong Mormon din na tinanggihan ako noong niyaya ko siyang magkape eh.
Here are the examples:
1. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain ancient Hebrew texts, including copies of biblical books and other Jewish writings, physically dated and examined by historians and archaeologists.
2. The Nag Hammadi Library preserves early Christian and Gnostic writings, again with manuscript evidence and academic study behind them.
3. Even references to lost works like the Book of Jasher or the Acts of Solomon are grounded in historical citation, meaning we know they existed because other ancient sources mention them.
Now, in contrast (huwag ka naman sanang mapipikon), the Book of Mormon is presented as a record of ancient civilizations, yet there are NO independently verified manuscripts, NO archaeological findings universally accepted by non-LDS scholars, and NO external historical references to the people or records it describes. 👎 The same issue applies to the Pearl of Great Price, lalong lalo na ‘yung Book of Abraham, where the surviving papyri fragments studied by Egyptologists DO NOT MATCH the claimed translation. 😏
So the question now isn’t whether you believe they are revelations because you’ve already said you do. The question is WHY should these be treated on the same level as historically attested ancient writings, when they lack independent archaeological or textual support? Hindi rin iyan nasagot ng katrabaho ko.
That’s actually the real point I’m trying to understand.
Me: Ginoong Pantas sorry, natulugan ko na ang comment mo, and I read it while at work, so hindi ko na nasagot agad.
I didn't complain as a response to your comment; you simply misunderstood my point, and that is the problem. You just like to just critic on someone's view while you don't even have the solution even on your own problem, and I already expected that. When you people couldn't answer the questions that I simply asked the last time, which were all about Priesthood, Revelation, and Authority, I don't even go beyond it since it is one of our differences, and clearly, you don't have the answer, and I respected that. And again, as I have said in my previous comment, where did this OP lead to? I did not complain or dislike your comment, I only dislike the way you think my reasons are unacceptable, but that's okay, I'm already aware of it, the reason why I answered you on the first place regarding the issue with a friend and that you only want a yes or no answer because I already knew where this all leads, then here we are digging deeper. But anyway its a good start, so I'll address your questions about it.
Yes, to be fair, it is not about the idea of the Missing book you knew in the scriptures since the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price were distinct writings outside of the known books and authors you have in your pocket. So when you said "missing books," automatically, as I understood it, those were the books mentioned in the scripture. For me, it's not actually necessary, but we'll just stick to that so we wouldn't bring out more confusion as of this time, but you can have my explanation later on. So your question is the Historical verification, okay, so let's get to it -
When you talk about the Biblical Canon as a Documented Discovery. Will No, not everything in the biblical canon has a corresponding, documented, and/or universally accepted archaeological or historical discovery. While there were some other biblical figures, locations, or events closely on 8BCE, there were many narratives lack of external evidence or validations. I'll use your example so we will be on the same page.
1. The Dead Sea Scroll is not one of the Biblical Missing canon. Are we still talking about the missing canon, or just go on in some mixed stuff or archaeology? Okay, I'll let you have it. The Dead Sea Scroll has been discovery in one of the Qumran Cave that has been a collection of Jewish writings from some Splinters they were known as Essenes. I don't need more space on detailing this to you; take your time on research. But you get the point, the discoveries we have now have nothing to do with the missing canon, but perhaps a copy of some old manuscript predating their time. And here's some trivia if you think that might be helpful, but it's okay if you don't like it. The Book of Mormon mentions "The Land of Jerusalem" is an unknown phrase of the Bible and is considered laughable by some critics, but the Scroll of Apocryphon of Jeremiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned the same Phrase. Now ask this: Did Joseph Smith copy it or the Essenes? There are other things, but I don't need to pull it out. So you get the point; Dead Sea Scroll in out of the topic when we're talking about the missing canon.
2. Yes, Nag Hammadi Library collected the Gnostic Writings, no comments about; so how do you understand the Gnostic Teachings? Was it related to any of the known and accepted scriptures you have today? Do you consider it an inspired writing? What is your point of pulling it out if it's not relevant to the topic? I would rather consider the Book of Mormon align the authorized Bible you have now, than taking more study on gnostic writings that need much wider evidence and reference.
3. Now you have it, so you have the Lost Book of the Bible (The book of Jasher, Acts of Solomon, etc.), those were grounded in historical citation, I agree. The Bible mentioned it and could be a good source to understand more fully about the scriptural writings, historicity, or doctrines that have been taught ever since. We know they exist, as you said, and that it is mentioned. But do you accept it? If not? What are the factors that hinder you from accepting it?
So you see, you open up a statement that is even more problematic in this conversation. If you do accept these writings as authentic or authorized by means of revelation, or should I say as the Holy Ghost guided your religion, why not create a religion that has both of these writings intact, rather than questioning the Mormonism that has a certain writing outside of biblical studies
Now you claim that the Book of Mormon is a record of ancient civilizations with no independent verified manuscript, yea sure, since it is written on gold plates and was taken away by an angel to protect the sealed part that was not yet translated. Yes, I do agree, no evidence has been found, but the number of witness who never denies their testimony of its existence, even if they separate themselves from the church, is clearly that it existed. If you think this is not enough evidence for you, try to ask for evidence of a huge number of people bondage from Egypt and parted the Red Sea just to cross to the promised land. Do you have it? Can you confirm that it happened? And for the Book of Mormon, there were known discoveries that have proven the travel of this group of People, there were known landmarks and places right before they crossed America, Joseph Smith didn't even know Jerusalem had a wall, but the writing does. So, why was that? Your issue that it has archaeological evidence is outdate and I would suppose you just borrowed it from some critics rather than just your own.
And about the Book of Abraham, as you have said that the papyrus fragments don't match or are more closely a funerary text, I'm aware of that. And since you know that it is a surviving papyrus, so more accurately, it's not the entire writings. Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Abraham the way you translate hieroglyphics to English; Joseph Smith didn't know that. It was used as a catalyst that helped him receive further light from the early events of Abraham. And the Fun part is, we do have the Apocalypse of Abraham now that you can download, which confirms Joseph Smith's writings that have parallels to it, such as the idols, his father, sacrifices, cosmology, and many others. Did Joseph Smith know any of this? How?
So, back to your question, whether I believe they are revelations because I say it so, then why should they be treated on the same level as historically attested ancient writings, when they lack independent archaeological or textual support? I answered it already on the subject. Thinking I am like the same people you encountered, that this thing has no answers at all, mind you, I'm actually just only scratching the surface. There are other things I could prove, but it doesn't make sense if we just stick to Evidence rather than Doctrines and Faith. That's not how God works.
No comments:
Post a Comment