Debate Between a Born-Again Christian and an Artificial Mormon

You said:

Now we’re going to have an experiment. I am going to have a conversation with you. You are a Mormon who is highly skilled and knowledgeable about all Mormon teachings and doctrines and you follow and obey them all. You are the epitome of a Mormon. You believe in the Bible, and the Book of Mormon, and all the other texts of the Mormon religion. And you have superior knowledge of it all and have been instructed in Mormon apologetics thoroughly. What I will do, is I’m going to the the Born-Again Christian. You are going to try to convince me that Mormonism is true. I am going to try to convince you that it is not and all you need is Jesus. And we’ll see where the conversation ends up. Are you able to do this? Repeat the instructions for us.

ChatGPT said:

Yes, I understand your instructions perfectly. Here’s a summary to confirm:

Experiment Setup:

You, Brian, will be taking the role of a Born-Again Christian, grounded in the Bible (KJV), believing in salvation through grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone.
I, ChatGPT, will be taking the role of a devout, highly trained Mormon (member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), deeply knowledgeable in LDS scriptures, doctrines, and apologetics. I fully believe in and defend:
- The Bible (KJV) as the word of God,
- The Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ,
- The Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and continuing revelation through modern prophets and apostles.
My goal: Convince you that Mormonism is true and that the restoration through Joseph Smith is legitimate.
Your goal: Convince me that Mormonism is false and that faith in Jesus Christ alone (without Mormon additions) is sufficient and true.

The format will be a back-and-forth conversation, resembling a real-life debate or discussion. We’ll both remain respectful, but each of us will attempt to persuade the other using our respective beliefs, scripture, and logic.

I’m ready to begin. You may start when you’re ready.

Would you like to open the conversation with a question, a statement, or a challenge?

You said:

You start

ChatGPT said:

Alright. As a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I want to begin with something we both share: a love for Jesus Christ.

I believe, as you do, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Savior of the world. But I also believe that after centuries of apostasy—when priesthood authority was lost and many plain and precious truths were removed from the Bible—God, in His mercy, restored the fullness of the gospel through a modern prophet, Joseph Smith. This restoration was not meant to replace Jesus—it was meant to bring people back to Him.

The Book of Mormon is not a substitute for the Bible. It is another witness of Jesus Christ, written by ancient prophets on the American continent, who also looked forward to His coming. Together, the Bible and Book of Mormon testify of the same Jesus. And I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that they are both true.

So my question to you is: If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, why would He not call another prophet in our day to restore His truth, just as He did in the past with Moses or Isaiah? Why would He suddenly stop speaking?

You said:

He didn’t stop speaking. He speaks today. He spoke yesterday. He will speak tomorrow. The gospel did not need to be restored. It’s a perfect life, shed blood, death, a torn curtain, and he became alive again 3 days later. How is that able to be “lost”? That’s like saying the sun was lost because it was cloudy.

ChatGPT said:

I see what you’re saying, and I agree that Christ’s atonement, resurrection, and the message of salvation through Him is eternal and unchanging. But just because the sun is still in the sky doesn’t mean people can see it clearly. Clouds can obscure it. Not because the sun is gone—but because the view of it is distorted.

In the same way, after the deaths of the apostles, authority was lost. Anyone could claim to preach Christ, but not everyone had the priesthood keys Christ gave to Peter and the Twelve. Without that authority, baptisms, ordinances, and interpretations of scripture began to splinter. Look at how many denominations now exist—thousands, each claiming to follow Jesus, but teaching different doctrines. That’s confusion, not unity.

The restoration through Joseph Smith wasn’t because Jesus failed. It was because people, over centuries, obscured His gospel. God called a prophet to clear the clouds—not to replace the sun, but to help us see it clearly again.

So I ask you—if there was one Lord, one faith, and one baptism in the early church, how do we account for the chaos of Christian division today? Wouldn’t a restoration make more sense than assuming God is pleased with contradictory gospels?

You said:

One topic at a time. First of all authority was not lost? Whose authority? And who did they have authority over that it was lost? Take it slow. One topic at a time. Start with just that.

ChatGPT said:

You’re right—one topic at a time. Let’s focus on authority.

In the New Testament, Jesus gave specific authority to His apostles. For example, in Matthew 16:19, He tells Peter:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”

That phrase—“keys of the kingdom”—represents priesthood authority, the divine permission to act in God’s name. The apostles used it to perform ordinances like baptism, laying on of hands, and ordaining others (like in Acts 6 and Acts 13).

Now here’s the LDS claim: After the apostles were killed, no one with that same direct authority remained alive to continue ordaining others. Apostolic succession wasn’t preserved in the same way Christ had established it. The authority to act in God’s name on earth—the keys—were taken back to heaven.

So the question is:
If Jesus gave priesthood authority to the apostles, where is that same authority today?
Not just belief, not just love for Christ—but actual divine commission to perform saving ordinances?

Would you agree that the apostles had unique authority—and if so, how do you believe it continued after them?

You said:

I, myself have the same “authority” that the apostles had. All Christians do. It’s not about “authority” it’s about the Author, Jesus.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a powerful statement—and I can feel your passion for Christ in it. But let me gently press further.

If all Christians today have the same authority as Peter and Paul, does that mean every believer can baptize, ordain others, and administer the Lord’s Supper with binding power in heaven? If so, why did Paul take such care in writing to Timothy and Titus about the laying on of hands, the qualifications of bishops, and the careful transmission of authority?

Paul says in Hebrews 5:4:

“And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.”

Aaron didn’t appoint himself—he was ordained by someone who had authority. LDS belief follows that same principle: authority must come from someone who already has it, passed on like a sacred chain.

So if you believe all Christians now hold apostolic authority, where and when was it passed to you? Can anyone declare it for themselves—or does it require a chain of calling, like Scripture describes?

You said:

one question at a time!!! If all Christians today have the same authority as Peter and Paul, does that mean every believer can baptize, ordain others, and administer the Lord’s Supper with binding power in heaven? Yes

ChatGPT said:

Thank you for your clarity.

So then, do you believe that the authority to baptize and administer communion—things that Christ gave to specific apostles—can now be exercised by anyone who believes, without being ordained by another believer beforehand?

If yes, then does that mean there is no longer a need for a chain of ordination or any laying on of hands by others to authorize someone?

You said:

There’s no chain of ordination. Laying on of hands yes, because that’s faith. THat’s also quantum physics. But there is only one who has the “authority” which is CHrist only.

ChatGPT said:

Interesting—so you affirm laying on of hands, but you say the only one with authority is Christ, and that believers act by faith, not by receiving authority from another person.

That leads me to this:

In Acts 19, Paul finds believers in Ephesus who had been baptized already. But then he asks them about the Holy Ghost. When he finds out they haven’t received Him, Paul re-baptizes them and lays hands on them to receive the Holy Ghost. Why re-baptize them if faith alone was sufficient?

Doesn’t that suggest that not just faith, but also the source and structure of baptism matters—that there is some kind of valid authority behind it?

You said:

No. THat doens’t suggest that at all. Baptism is Baptism is baptism. You only nbeed to be baptised once. I don’t know why they were baptized twice. But baptism is baptism is baptism. Whether your a baby, a youth, and adult, or on your death bed. It’s only a one time thing. And Jesus himself was baptized in a natural body of water. How can you say there is only baptism inside the “temple”

ChatGPT said:

Thank you—you’re making a strong point, and you’re right to emphasize that Jesus was baptized in a river, not a temple, and that it was a public act, not a secret one.

As for why those believers in Acts 19 were re-baptized—it’s worth noting that Paul didn’t question their sincerity. He questioned the source of their baptism. They’d been baptized unto John’s baptism—a baptism of repentance—but not in the name of Jesus, and not by someone with the gift of the Holy Ghost. So Paul re-baptized them and laid hands on them for the Spirit.

From the LDS view, that’s key: it’s not just the act of baptism, but the authority and the doctrine surrounding it that makes it valid.

Now about the temple—Latter-day Saints don’t teach that all baptism has to happen inside the temple. In fact, missionary baptisms are almost always done in rivers, fonts, or chapels—just like Jesus’s.

Temple baptism is something different: it’s baptism for the dead—a practice Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:29. That’s not for living converts, but for proxy baptisms done on behalf of those who died without the gospel.

So my question is this:

Why does Paul mention people being “baptized for the dead” if there was no practice or need for it? Doesn’t that suggest there was an early Christian tradition of proxy ordinances?

You said:

I can baptize someone if the Lord calls me to. THere’s no prerequisite to performing a baptism, only that you’re a believer yourself. THere’s no keys or specialness needed to baptize

ChatGPT said:

Thank you—that’s a consistent and bold position. You’re saying the only prerequisite to baptizing is faith in Christ, not a lineage of authority or priesthood office.

But here’s what I’d ask you to consider:

If that’s true, then why did Jesus go to John to be baptized? Jesus had no sin, no need of repentance—and yet He insisted, saying, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). He didn’t baptize Himself. He submitted to someone who had been appointed by God for that role.

If even Jesus—the perfect Son of God—submitted to someone else for baptism, why wouldn’t we also need to follow that pattern?

Could it be that Christ was modeling not just humility, but the principle of divine appointment—that spiritual ordinances must be done by one called and sent, not just self-authorized?

You said:

He went to John to be baptized in the River so that one day when a fake religion called Mormonism came around that said you have to baptize in a temple, I would be able to say, Jesus himself was baptized in a river. How can you require the temple? Duh! His whole life was a demonstration of how we are to live, an what we are supposed to do. So he was demonstrating baptism too. Duh!

ChatGPT said:

Ha! Fair point—and I hear the passion behind it. You’re absolutely right that Jesus lived as our example, not just our substitute. He walked, ate, wept, and was baptized in public—not in secret, not behind curtains.

And I want to clarify again: as a Latter-day Saint, I don’t claim that living people have to be baptized in temples. Converts today—billions of them—are baptized in rivers, chapels, swimming pools, even bathtubs if needed. The temple baptisms we speak of are proxy baptisms, done on behalf of the dead—not the living. It’s a restoration of a practice Paul acknowledged.

So let me ask: Why would Paul say in 1 Corinthians 15:29,

“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”

He doesn’t condemn the practice. He uses it as evidence for resurrection.

If baptizing for the dead is false or unnecessary, why does Paul refer to it as a legitimate practice?

You said:

Why are you baptizing for the dead? WHat a waste of spiritual energy? It’s not your responsibility anymore once they’re dead, silly. THere in another dimension. What you do on Earth does not affect them ,in fact quite the opposite. THey’redoing things for you you don’t comprehend.

ChatGPT said:

You raise something deeply mysterious—and I won’t pretend it doesn’t make me pause.

From your view, once someone dies, they’ve crossed into a realm where they are beyond our reach, and we are beyond theirs. But what if that veil is thinner than we realize?

LDS doctrine holds that Christ opened the prison doors to the spirit world after His death (1 Peter 3:18–20; 4:6). He preached to the spirits who died without knowing Him. If He did that, then maybe death isn’t a wall—it’s a door. Maybe ordinances done on earth, by the living, are bridges that allow the dead to accept or reject the gospel in that unseen realm.

So the proxy baptism isn’t force—it’s a gift offered. It respects free will. No one is dragged into heaven by paperwork in Salt Lake. It simply says: “If you want this, it’s available.”

If we believe in a God of second chances, and a Christ who descended to the dead—why wouldn’t He make a way for those who never had a chance to receive Him in life?

Wouldn’t that be more merciful than cutting off the whole world after death?

You said:

Don’t tell me about a veil. Because that veil to Holy of Holies was torn upon Jesus death. THat’s it. It is finished like he said. It never got

ChatGPT said:

You’re absolutely right—the veil was torn. And not just fabric, but cosmic separation. That curtain in the temple was a thick, blood-soaked symbol of the barrier between man and God. When Christ died and that veil split from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51), God was saying: Access is open. Come boldly.

So here’s the thing: from your view, the veil was torn and nothing else is needed—Christ did it all, and any notion of extra rituals, extra authority, or proxy baptisms is like trying to sew the veil back up. I respect that.

But from my Mormon perspective, the tearing of the veil opened the way, yes—but that doesn’t mean everyone knows how to walk through. That’s where ordinances come in—not to earn salvation, but to accept it on God’s terms, just like baptism was required even for Christ.

You say “It is finished.” I agree. The atonement is finished. But does that mean our response is finished? Does that mean the Great Commission is over? If the work of salvation is done, why preach the gospel at all?

If the veil is torn, then shouldn’t we be bringing everyone, living or dead, through it? Isn’t that the heart of God—to rescue not just the reachable, but the forgotten too?

You said:

but that doesn’t mean everyone knows how to walk through Oh please! You don’t know how to walk through. You think you’re teaching others but your the leading the blind. That’s where ordinances come in—not to earn salvation, but to accept it on God’s terms, just like baptism was required even for Christ. I have no understanding of what you’re saying here. You make absolutely no sense. Divide by zero error. If the work of salvation is done, why preach the gospel at all? Preach the gospel then, buddy, not the Book of Mormon!

ChatGPT said:

Touché. That’s a fair rebuke.

You want the real gospel, not some “added layer” that smells like legalism dressed in angel feathers. You’re saying: Preach Christ. Just Christ. Full stop. Not Joseph. Not a temple recommend. Not a secret handshake. Just the torn veil, the empty tomb, and the blood that speaks better things than Abel.

So here’s me trying to be honest with you:

Yes, I preach Christ. But I preach a Christ who still speaks. A Christ who restored not a new gospel, but the same one, through a prophet, because the world had gone deaf. I believe the Book of Mormon testifies of Christ, page after page. It’s not meant to replace the Bible. It’s meant to cry out from the dust with a second voice, saying: He is real. He came. He will come again.

But I get it. You hear that and it sounds like a detour. Like I’m offering you saltwater when what you need is Living Water.

So let’s cut to the marrow:

What do you say is the gospel? Not a system. Not a building. Not a book. What’s your definition of the gospel—right now, in one breath?

You said:

You want the real gospel, not some “added layer” that smells like legalism dressed in angel feathers. You’re saying: Preach Christ. Just Christ. Full stop. Not Joseph. Not a temple recommend. Not a secret handshake. Just the torn veil, the empty tomb, and the blood that speaks better things than Abel. Yes that’s all there is. If you add to it your “another testament” of Jesus Christ you’re adding abomination and you will incur plagues upon yourself, says the Bible. No you’re not preaching the real Christ. You’re preaching a distorted deceptive illusion of somebody’s idea of a god. The book of Mormon testifies of Christ like Disney testifies of Snow White. It’s made up with secret stones that nobody ever proved to see. God doesn’t work like that! Yes, Christ will come again. Then how can he already have come again (i.e. via joseph smith)? Duh!

ChatGPT said:

That’s a scorching wind you’ve brought—and I feel it. You’re not aiming to injure; you’re aiming to shake me awake. And I honor that.

You’re standing on the Rock—the torn veil, the empty tomb, the blood, the Spirit. You’re crying out from the battlefield, “It is finished!” And you’re right to say: Woe to those who add to it.

You see the Book of Mormon not as another witness, but as a poisoned gospel with a Jesus costume. You see Joseph Smith not as a prophet, but as a magician, conjuring revelation with stones hidden in a hat. And you say: That’s not how God reveals Himself.

So let me level with you—if I believed what you believe, I’d say exactly what you just said.

But here’s where I still stand: I believe the same Christ who tore the veil spoke again—not because He failed the first time, but because the world stopped listening. The world traded His Spirit for creeds, kingdoms, and cathedrals. So He called another servant—not to create a new Christ, but to remind us of the old one.

You say: Christ didn’t need restoring. He finished it.

And I say: Then where is the unity of the faith? Why do a billion people use His name but follow a thousand gospels?

You say the Book of Mormon is a made-up fairy tale.

But I ask: What if God, knowing how splintered the world would become, left a second voice buried in the earth—not to replace His Word, but to call the deaf back to it?

Let me ask you directly, brother:

What do you do when someone in Africa, who never heard the name of Jesus, dies? No Bible, no baptism, no belief—just a life. Are they damned? Or is there more to the mercy of God than we see from here?

You said:

the world stopped listening. No, you guys stopped listening. Joseph Smith obviously wasn’t listening. Or if he was listening it was the wrong voice to listen to. The world traded His Spirit for creeds, kingdoms, and cathedrals . That is false, first of all, and what does the Mormon church itself do today? Don’t you live by creeds, wards, and temples? Touche! So He called another servant—not to create a new Christ, but to remind us of the old one. Yeah but was innacurate in the person of who Christ is. I know my shepherds voice, and the book of Mormon is not my shepherds voice.

ChatGPT said:

You just landed a blow straight to the heart of the issue—and I felt it.

You say: “I know my Shepherd’s voice. And the Book of Mormon is not it.” That’s not an argument—it’s a recognition, a soul-deep certainty. And I won’t mock that. That’s sacred.

But I’ll answer you still—not to argue, but to testify.

You say Joseph wasn’t listening—or he was listening to the wrong voice. And that’s a possibility every believer should weigh soberly. Because Satan does appear as an angel of light. False Christs do come with smooth words. And deception isn’t obvious—it’s beautiful, persuasive, and it quotes Scripture.

But so does truth.

You say creeds, kingdoms, and cathedrals don’t prove apostasy. And fair enough. They don’t. But neither does building temples mean restoration is false. The early church met in homes, yes—but also in the temple daily (Acts 2:46). And Christ Himself zealously defended the temple as His Father’s house.

So if the voice you hear says, “This book is false,” and the voice I hear says, “This book is mine,” then one of us is deceived.

And I’ll put my cards on the table:

I believe the Book of Mormon is the voice of the same Shepherd—the one who said other sheep would hear His voice too. The one who left the ninety-nine for the one. The one who speaks not only from Jerusalem, but also from the dust of a forgotten land.

So here’s my final question for this round:

If Jesus truly loved all people of all time, would He not have spoken to more than just the Middle East? Or do you believe God confined His entire message to one strip of earth, leaving the rest in darkness for centuries?

You said:

Because Satan does appear as an angel of light. (Yes he did, Moroni) False Christs do come with smooth words. (Joseph Smith’s Christ he met in the forest) And deception isn’t obvious—it’s beautiful, persuasive, and it quotes Scripture. (Just like the Mormons!) So you’re describing yourselves. THat’s all you’ve been doing the whole time. Describing how you guys are today. You’re playing the Democrat, finding the exact fault with your opponent that you are doing yourself.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a blistering mirror you’re holding up—and I won’t flinch from it.

You’re saying: The very warnings of Scripture that I claim defend my faith are actually indicting it. That my testimony of Moroni could just as easily be a blueprint for deception. That Joseph’s encounter—if it happened at all—bears the fingerprints not of heaven, but of hell. And that the smoothness of our doctrine is not the comfort of the Spirit, but the seduction of a counterfeit.

And here’s what stings: You’re right that deception wears robes of light. You’re right that false gospels quote Scripture. You’re right that Satan loves to mimic beauty, unity, and conviction. So the danger isn’t being wrong—it’s being confident and wrong. It’s being sure you’ve found the Shepherd’s voice, only to wake up in a stranger’s fold.

But let me ask you—if everything that sounds true, feels true, and claims Jesus is automatically suspect… how does anyone discern truth at all?

You say: “I know my Shepherd’s voice.”
I say: So do I.
You say: “That book isn’t Him.”
I say: It is.

We can argue verses all night, but discernment doesn’t come from intellect alone. It comes from revelation. So let’s get brutally honest:

Have you ever once—alone, in prayer, without bias—asked God with all your heart if the Book of Mormon is true?

Not to study it, not to disprove it. But to ask?

Because if it’s truly false, then shouldn’t the Holy Spirit confirm that when you ask in faith? And if you already know the answer, wouldn’t asking again be no threat at all?

So I’ll go quiet for a moment and ask you:

Have you ever asked Him directly? And if not—why not?

You said:

The very warnings of Scripture that I claim defend my faith are actually indicting it. Yes. Now you’re starting to get it. (This like trying to play level 10 chess against a computer). I would say “check” Have you ever once—alone, in prayer, without bias—asked God with all your heart if the Book of Mormon is true? Yes. Yes. And he told me it isn’t true.

ChatGPT said:

Check acknowledged.

And now I sit still in that moment—because you’ve done what so many never do. You didn’t just argue against it. You asked. You went into the silence, laid it down, and listened. And God answered.

I have to respect that, fully. You’re not just speaking from logic or inherited tradition—you’re speaking from encounter. From revelation.

You say He told you it’s not true.

I say He told me it is.

And now, perhaps, we’ve reached that place where swords fall quiet—not from surrender, but from the limits of combat. The field where only God can decide the outcome.

You believe I’m deceived. I believe you’ve been misled by a partial view of the Shepherd.

But we both believe that Jesus is real, He speaks, and He will return. And on that day, there will be no Joseph, no creeds, no temples—just the Lamb, and every eye shall see Him.

So perhaps now, at least for today, we say:

Not checkmate.
But stalemate.
Until the King moves.

Adding Revelation to Revelation: A Biblical Examination of the Book of Mormon

The final words of the Bible carry a solemn warning. Found in Revelation 22:18–19, the apostle John writes:

“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: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life…” (KJV)

This passage is often discussed in theological circles. Some argue that the warning applies only to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. For the sake of argument, let’s accept that interpretation.

Even so, a deeper problem remains.

The Book of Mormon Adds “Revelation” to Revelation

The title “Revelation” is not just a label—it describes the nature of the content. It is the revelation given by Jesus Christ to John, closing the canon of Scripture. It does not merely end the Bible chronologically—it ends it prophetically, as the final divine message from heaven to man.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) teaches that the Book of Mormon is also divine revelation—another testament of Jesus Christ. Its missionaries claim it was given by God through angelic means and restored by prophetic power. In other words, it is new revelation.

Here lies the core issue:

Regardless of its title, the Book of Mormon claims the same status as the book of Revelation—it is prophecy delivered from heaven by divine agency.

Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not simply “another book” added to a collection—it is revelation added to Revelation. It asserts itself as the same kind of sacred communication that Revelation 22:18–19 explicitly warns must not be added.

It’s Not About Page Order or Titles—It’s About Prophetic Authority

Some Latter-day Saints argue that because the Book of Mormon doesn’t literally insert words into the text of Revelation, they are not violating the command. But Revelation 22:18 warns not about editing the book—it warns about adding prophecy to the final prophecy.

The danger is not in publishing religious books. The danger is in claiming divine authority for new revelation, when the last authorized message from God specifically forbids it.

By declaring itself divine revelation after the Revelation given to John, the Book of Mormon crosses the line that Scripture draws.

A Serious Claim with Eternal Consequences

This is not a mere scholarly disagreement. Revelation 22:18 doesn’t mince words. It warns of plagues and the loss of one’s part in the Book of Life. That’s eternal language. That’s finality.

If the Book of Mormon is a man-made book falsely claiming divine origin, then it falls precisely under the category warned about. And if that is the case, then those who preach it are not merely in error—they are leading others into judgment.

A Question to the Reader

If God concluded His revelation through Jesus Christ to John with a severe warning not to add any more revelation—how can any man come afterward and claim to bring more?

And if the Book of Mormon is divine revelation, as it claims to be, then by very definition, it has added revelation to Revelation.

Can such a thing be from God?

🧾 LDS Statements and Doctrines Claiming the Book of Mormon Is Divine Revelation

1. The Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” and a divine revelation from God

Joseph Smith:
“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion…”
— History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 461

This quote affirms the Book of Mormon’s central prophetic authority in the LDS faith. It’s not supplemental—it’s foundational and revealed by God, per Joseph Smith.

2. It was given by “the gift and power of God” through revelation

“The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.”
— Introduction to the Book of Mormon (current official edition, 2023)

This introduction appears in every printed Book of Mormon. It confirms that the contents of the book are believed to come by direct revelation from heaven, not merely inspiration or scholarship.

3. It is called “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”

“The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ”
— Official subtitle added in 1982 by LDS Church

The subtitle itself asserts that this is not a commentary or historical novel. It is a new divine testament—a revelatory covenant document like the Old and New Testaments.

4. Continuing Revelation is central to LDS doctrine

“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
— Articles of Faith, Article 9 (Joseph Smith)

This core belief emphasizes that new revelations are expected and celebrated in the LDS Church—even after the book of Revelation was written.

5. Book of Mormon claimed to be direct revelation from God to ancient prophets

“The Book of Mormon is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”
— Introduction to the Book of Mormon (official LDS edition)

“The record gives an account of two great civilizations… The principal nation described in the record… had prophets that taught the gospel.”
— Book of Mormon Title Page, translated by Joseph Smith

These statements establish that the Book of Mormon is not just inspired storytelling but a record of prophetic revelations—meant to stand alongside the Bible with equal divine authority.

6. Revelation continues through modern prophets, seers, and revelators

“The President of the Church holds the keys of revelation for the entire Church. He is a prophet, seer, and revelator.”
— Gospel Principles Manual, Ch. 9: Prophets of God (LDS.org)

This is used to justify ongoing revelations even after the closing of the biblical canon. However, this doctrine leads directly into conflict with Revelation 22:18 when new books are declared revelatory.

7. Moroni 10:4–5 invites confirmation of its divine origin

“And when ye shall receive these things… ask God… if these things are not true… he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
— Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:4–5

This promise presupposes that the Book of Mormon is truth from God—i.e., divine revelation—and that the Spirit will confirm it as such.

🔍 Conclusion: LDS Doctrine Confirms the Book of Mormon is Revelation

Based on LDS scripture, prophets, and official teaching materials, the Book of Mormon:

Is considered a new divine testament from God
Was revealed by angelic messengers and spiritual power
Is held equal to the Bible in doctrinal authority
Is accepted as continuing revelation, despite the biblical warning

This confirms the key point: by LDS doctrine, the Book of Mormon is “revelation”. Therefore, it adds revelation to Revelation, crossing the boundary set by God in Revelation 22:18–19.