Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
The Book of Mormon is an addition to scripture, not an interpretation of existing canon. Seems like a clear difference to me. Although the uncritical reception of the Lee hermeneutic within the LC, versus the critical reception of scripture as "fallen human concept" does blur the line somewhat. The LC likes to dance on the edge of orthodoxy- the LDS goes over the edge with its Book of Mormon.
But there are a lot of similarities.
|
I'd agree that the Book of Mormon is over the top but the biblical charge you're referring to is the addition of special revelation to scripture found in Revelation 22:19 although I believe you may be interpreting the "adding" to a literal second book rather than in a more general sense.
Yes, Mormons do add revelation to scripture but so do the Local Churches. Perhaps it's not through an additional book but they do it through biblical interpretation in speech and literature.
Adding revelation to scripture can come in more than one way. It doesn't matter whether it comes from an additional book or through verbal or written exposition, you're adding revelation to scripture that is not there in the text. Mormons and Local Church members are similar in this sense no matter what the "extra" is.
So if you argue that the reason Mormons and the Local Churches differ is because they do not have an additional book along with the bible I'd say that may be true but both groups are still violating the same command in scripture.
As it stands both groups have their self appointed apostles and prophets and their unique revelation, neither of which are found in orthodoxy, so if you deem one heretical based on adding to revelation then wouldn't it only be fair and do the same with the other?