Mr Cowan cites the 8th Article of Faith by Joseph Smith which states "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God" and also cites a quote from James Talmage and Bruce McConkie about the LDS support from the Bible and then claims

"Such statements have led many to assume that the LDS view of the Bible is similar to what Protestants believe, but such is not the case. Mormonism actually attacks the Bible on two counts: (1) it is mistranslated, and (2) it is incomplete."

2.  LDS do not attack the Bible.  Why should we attack the Bible when its part of our doctrinal canon?  We hold the Bible up along with the other LDS scriptures (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as being official sources of truth of the LDS Church.  We teach the Bible ever 2 years in our 4 year sunday school cycle.  The other two years we teach from the other LDS scriptures. Cowan's comments simply don't reflect the actual stance of the LDS faith in regards to the Bible.  Consider the following quotes and these can be multiplies many times over.  (Journal of Discourses = JOD)

1. Joseph Smith: "The Book of Mormon, which we hold equally sacred with the Bible" (Joseph Smith, An Appeal., Evening and Morning Star, vol. 2 (June 1833-September 1834), Vol. Ii. August, 1834. No. 23. 184)

2.  Joseph Smith: "The Bible being our standard, we received no Revelations contrary to it."  (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 4:85 -86.)

3.   Brigham Young: "We not only believe part of the Bible, but the whole of it, and the whole of the plan of salvation that Jesus has given to us. Do we differ from others who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? No, only in believing more; we are one with them as far as they believe in him. Do we differ with regard to the practice of the Gospel that he has delivered to us? No, not as far as they really believe in and practice the doctrines taught by him. We believe all that any good man on the earth need believe. We believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ His Son, our Savior. We believe all that Moses spoke and wrote of him, all that the apostles said of him, and all that Jesus himself has said, which was penned by his apostles and servants." (Brigham Young JOD, Vol.13, p.56)

4.  Heber C Kimball:  "We believe this book, the Bible, to be an historical account of Jesus Christ, and his Apostles and Prophets. We believe it is sacred..." (JOD, Vol.2, p.222)

5.  John Taylor:  "We have confidence in the Bible, and in the revelations of God." (JOD, Vol.11, p.346-347)

6.  Charles W. Penrose:  "Now although we do not base our faith upon the Bible or any other written work, yet at the same time there are no people upon the face of the earth who believe so much in the sacred scriptures left on record and handed down to us, as do the Latter-day Saints. Though we are not dependent upon books for our religion--for our religion would exist if there were no books in existence, at the same time we manifest by our works that we have more faith in the Bible than the people who profess to base their faith upon it."[JD, Vol.23, p.345]

7.  Orson F. Whitney:   "The Bible is a blessing; we do not depreciate its value, for it enables us to meet the Christian world upon their own ground, using this Bible as the touch-stone of truth, in relation to their doctrines and those that we advance, which are taught and confirmed by this very Book in which Christians profess to believe. There is no doctrine preached or believed by the Latter-day Saints, but they can find confirmatory proof of its authenticity within the lids of the Holy Bible; and when their views are not received, and they are laughed to scorn and derided by the Christian world, it is simply an acknowledgement on the part of those who mistreat them that they do not believe their own Bible, that they have no faith in the record which they claim is all-sufficient--the be-all and the end-all of revelation.

They profess great reverence for this good Book, yet they do not believe or practice what it inculcates. It is a prevalent idea in the world, with those who are in possession of the Scriptures, that it is only necessary to believe on the name of the Son of God, and that constitutes salvation, taking I suppose as a basis for it, the Scriptural passage which declares that "God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Now, we take this position. We hold that belief in God and the Savior of mankind is absolutely essential to salvation. But we do not stop there. We claim that if men believe in Jesus Christ they will keep the commandments; they will live His laws; they will not repudiate any of the doctrines He preached; they will not say baptism is unessential; that Apostles and Prophets are no longer needed; they will not wrest the Scriptures; they will not say the blessings of the Holy Ghost are done away with; they will not say it is not in the province of inspired men bearing the Holy Priesthood to cast out devils, to speak in new tongues, to lay hands upon the sick and administer those spiritual blessings as they are empowered by the Priesthood bestowed upon them for that purpose. The Christian world would not repudiate these things if they believed their own Bible; for I nowhere read within the lids of this sacred volume that the time would ever come, except through transgression and apostacy, when these things would be done away with, and it would be said they were no longer needed." (JOD, Vol.26, p.198)

8.  James R. Clark:  "Sacred laws and ordinances which are recorded in that sacred book called the Bible, which we verily believe, and which we proclaim to the ends of the earth." (Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 1: 334.)

9.  Neal A Maxwell: "Occasionally, a few in the Church let the justified caveat about the Bible-“as far as it is translated correctly” -diminish their exultation over the New Testament. Inaccuracy of some translating must not, however, diminish our appreciation for the powerful testimony and ample historicity of the New Testament. ...So when we read and turn the pages of the precious New Testament, there is a barely audible rustling like the quiet stirrings of the Spirit, something to be 'spiritually discerned.' (1 Cor. 2:14.) The witnessing words came to us-not slowly, laboriously, or equivocally through the corridors of the centuries, but rather, swiftly, deftly, and clearly. Upon the wings of the Spirit these words proclaim, again and anew, “JESUS LIVED. JESUS LIVES!” (“The New Testament-A Matchless Portrait of the Savior,” Ensign, Dec. 1986, 20)

10.  James E. Talmage:  "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Holy Bible as the foremost of her standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and doctrine." (Articles of Faith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], 214)

11.  Gordon B. Hinckley:  "The Bible is the word of God, written by men. It is basic in Mormon teaching. . . .Supplementing the Bible, the Latter-day Saints have three other books. These with the Bible constitute the standard works of the Church. They are known as the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.” (What of the Mormons? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1947], 26)

12.  Spencer W. Kimball:  "I believe the Bible. I love the Bible. It stimulates me. It lifts me. It inspires me. And, I never tire reading its pages." (Conference Report, October 1966, Afternoon Meeting 21)

Mr Cowan starts this section by once again posting a few quotes LDS views of the mistranslations of the Bible.

"There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost... Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the errors of men" (James Talmage "Articles of Faith" p. 237).

"There is not one principle pertaining to the salvation of men that is so clearly stated in the Bible, as it has come down to us, that men do not stumble over - not one thing. There is not one principle they can be united on that has been so clearly stated that they do not find their interpretations of it conflicting" (Joseph Fielding Smith "Doctrines of Salvation", Vol. I, p. 278).

"Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Joseph Smith "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"  p. 327).

"Many insertions were made, some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated" (Mark E Peterson "As Translated Correctly"  p. 4).

If it be admitted that the apostles and evangelists did write the books of the New Testament, that does not prove of itself that they were divinely inspired at the time they wrote.... Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, IN HIS RIGHT MIND could for one moment suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original? (Orson Pratt Divine Authority of the Book of Mormon, pp. 45, 47; read all of this pamphlet for a detailed attack upon the Bible).

Following from Kerry Shirts article "The Bible, Unfortunately, Has Not Been Perfectly Preserved Through the Centuries"  http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/scriptur.htm

"For those who refuse to accept that God would have allowed the text to have been tampered with, I offer another theological perspective. God is a God of recovery. He is a God who allows things - his people, his nation, and even his word - to be lost and then found. This is the principle of recovery. The entire theology of redemption is one of recovering what had been lost." (Philip W. Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions," Tyndale House Publishers, 2000 p. 154)

"Scribes occassionally altered the words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views." (Bart D. Ehrman, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture p. xi).

"There were scribes who corrupted their texts for theological reasons..." (Bart D. Ehrman, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture p. xii).

"A group of correctors working at Caesarea entered a large number of alterations into the text of both Old and New Testaments." (Bruce M. Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration p. 46). "The whole of Matthew's Gospel as far as xxv, 6 is lost, as well as the leaves which originally contained John 6:50-58, 52, and 2 Cor. 4:13-xii, 6." (Ibid p. 46). "Unfortunately the beauty of the original writing has been spoiled by a later corrector..." (Ibid p. 47). "All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors..." (Ibid p. 246)

"The history of the text of the Hebrew Bible has been confused and obscured by an assumption, or rather a dogma, that the Hebrew text was unchanged and unchanging." (Frank Moore Cross, "The Text Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible," p. 143).

"The number of errors [in the Bible]...amounts to about 6,000! It is absurd to try to make this factual reality conform to the popular impression that the Bible,...is totally error-free because God personally not only rendered it originally in true form, but has, over the past few thousand years, personally seen to it that the Scriptures continue to be his personal word." (Steve Allen, "On the Bible, Religion, & Morality", Prometheus Books, 1990, p. 52)

"No original biblical documents, such as Paul's letters, have survived...All we have are copies of copies of copies, and so forth. Because of mistakes in copying, later elaborations and even intentional alterations, surviving manuscripts contain numerous discrepancies..." (Daniel N. Schowalter, "Lost in Translation," in "Bible Review," Aug. 1995, p. 36)

"The original copies of the various books in our canon, as they came from the pen of their respective authors, were free of all errors and discrepancies is a pure postulate. The Bible nowhere claims that to be that case, and no autograph exists to allow the postulate to be tested. The text of Scripture as we now posses it, even in the best critical editions, contains errors and discrepancies." (Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture, Phildelphia: Westminster Press, 1980, p. 71)

"Texts had been copied over and over again by the hand of man for hundreds, and, in the case of the Old Testament, for thousands of years. There must invariably be mistakes by scribes and copyists that have never been corrected. No one of us could copy even ten pages of manuscript without making some errors. We would at least forget to dot some "I's" or cross some "T's"; But the most of us would leave out words, write some words twice; leave out some lines, repeat some lines and make many other blunders that would cause our copy to vary from the original. Just these things have happened with manuscripts of the Bible..."

"A slip of the pen, an error of sight, and of hearing, or an error of memory on the part of a scribe or copyist, would be preserved and perpetuated with the same care as that exercised in preserving the best text. Subsequent copyists and translators would not only peretuate earlier errors, but would add some of their own. This kind of mulipication of manuscripts, extending down through the centuries, opened the door to untold possibilities of many kinds of errors in the text that was thus treated." (The Ancestry of the English Bible, by Dr. I. M. Price, p. 11)

"Texts had been copied over and over again by the hand of man for hundreds, and, in the case of the Old Testament, for thousands of years. There must invariably be mistakes by scribes and copyists that have never been corrected. No one of us could copy even ten pages of manuscript without making some errors. We would at least forget to dot some "I's" or cross some "T's"; But the most of us would leave out words, write some words twice; leave out some lines, repeat some lines and make many other blunders that would cause our copy to vary from the original. Just these things have happened with manuscripts of the Bible..."  (The Ancestry of the English Bible, by Dr. I. M. Price, p. 11)

In addition to this charge of an unreliable translation, Mormon leaders say that important doctrine as well as whole books have been deleted or added by corrupt men. Joseph Smith declared, "Upon my return from Amhurst Conference, I resumed the translation of the Scriptures. From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible or lost before it was compiled" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 9-11).

The Book of Mormon also says, "Many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible... Thou fool, that shall say a Bible, we have got a Bible and we need no more Bible.  Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?" (II Nephi 29:3,6).

Notice that only "fools" trust in the Bible alone! Verse 10 of the same passage goes on to say, "Wherefore, because ye have a Bible ye need not suppose it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written." The Book of Mormon declared that more revelation was needed and thus made way for its own existence!

The Book of Mormon also predicts a great and abominable church has "taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (I Nephi 13:26).

The bottom of that page of the Book of Mormon dates this perversion of the gospel around 600 B.C., which was long before the "gospel of the Lamb" was even given in the New Testament! LDS claim the Book of Mormon has restored these "plain and precious things," and that it is the "fulness of the gospel" (Book of Mormon  I Nephi 13:34-35; D. & C. 20:8-9; 27:5). But they are hard-pressed to point to anything that has been "restored" by the Book of Mormon. Our chapter on the Book of Mormon discusses this problem further.

There needs to be opposition in all things. (2 Nephi 2:11)
Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy. (2 Nephi 2:25)
If there were no resurrection our spirits would be shut out from the presence of God. (2 Nephi 9:9)
All will have a perfect knowledge of their guilt, uncleanness, or righteousness after the resurrection. (2 Nephi 9:14)
In hell, torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone. (2 Nephi 9:16)
Where there is no law given there is no punishment. (2 Nephi 9:25)
The atonement satisfies the demands of justice upon all those who have not the law given to them and they are delivered from death and hell. (2 Nephi 9:26)
The blood of Christ atones for the sins of those who have died not knowing the will of God or sinned ignorantly. (Mosiah 3:11)
The atonement was prepared from the foundation of the world. (Mosiah 4:6)
Those that persist in sin and rebellion against God are an enemy to Him. (Mosiah 16:5)
Because of the law of justice, God can’t save unrepentant sinners. (Mosiah 15:27)
When war is justified and when it is not. (Alma 43:45-46)
Both faith and available remedies are acceptable to cure sickness. (Alma 46:40)
Why the righteous suffer. (Alma 60:12-13)
Righteousness can soften the hearts of enemies. (Helaman 12:2)
The “other sheep” referred to in John 10:16 are the Book of Mormon peoples. (3 Nephi 15:21)
The Lord still works by revelation. (3 Nephi 29:6)
America is the choice land and those who possess it shall be free if they serve Jesus Christ. (Ether 2:10,12)
The premortal Jesus had a spirit body that looked like his mortal body. (Ether 3:3-15)
America is the place for the New Jerusalem. (Ether 13:3-6)
Exact sacramental prayers revealed. (Moroni 4 and 5)
The spirit of Christ is given to every man to know good from evil. (Moroni 7:16)
Little children are alive in Christ and need no repentance or baptism. (Moroni 8:11-12)
Despair comes because of iniquity. (Moroni 10:22)

1 Nephi 13:20-27 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among them. And the angel said unto me: Knowest thou the meaning of the book? And I said unto him: I know not. And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles. And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth, which is in God. And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men."

The same year that Rav Shaul [Paul] died (66 C.E.), the Jewish nation revolted against the Roman Empire. Four years later the Roman legions encircled Jerusalem at the feast of Pesach (Passover). Yeshua had warned the believers that the generation that was alive at the time of His death would see Jerusalem destroyed. He had instructed that when the city was circled by the enemy, they were to flee, which is what they did. Five months later the city fell. During this time, congregations in the Diasporia (dispersion) scattered throughout the Roman world, experienced radical changes. To support the Jewish people, or even Jewish customs, was interpreted as not being loyal to Rome. The greater numbers of Gentiles among the congregations began to make a difference as anti-Jewishness began to be popular. Joseph Good, Rosh HaShanna and the Messianic Kingdom to Come (Hatikvah Ministries, 1989), p. iii.

Toward the beginning of the fourth century C.E., Constantine became the Caesar of Rome. In his rise to power, he supposedly became a believer and joined the group now called Christians. In 325 C.E. he called the Council of Nicea, where he gathered the heads of the Christian community from throughout the empire. In this council, however, he purposely left out every Jewish leader. Laws were passed forbidding Jewish believers to circumcise their children, to observe the Jewish festivals or to rear their children as Jews. The Jewish believers were forced to cease being Jewish and to become, in every sense of the word, Gentiles. Pagan festivals such as Easter, lent, Christmas, and Sunday were substituted for the Biblical festivals of G-d.... The faith now was a totally different religion. Greek names, concepts, and religion became Christianity. The faith had been “gentilized.” (Ibid., p. 4)

Even the Gospels and the Epistles were gentilized when they were translated into other languages and were given common Gentile names and idiomatic thoughts, causing people to miss the intended Jewishness of those scriptures.  (Ibid., p. 8)

He also cites Dr. James Tabor, Associate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies, Univ. N.C. in Charlotte

"The Christians lost touch with the Hebrew language and modes of thought, and the long and fruitful history of rabbinic exegesis and understanding of Scripture. Greek methods of interpretation were applied to a Greek text of both Old and New Testaments. The Hebraic roots of the movement were totally severed." (James Tabor, Restoring Abrahamic Faith, p. 101)

Rabbi Yosef concludes:

"So it would seem that the Book of Mormon is correct here. It asserts that the Messianic movement was in its original Jewish form, basically pure, but that when the movement passed to the Gentiles it became corrupted and “Gentilized.” The Book of Mormon is quite correct in its claim that after the movement had passed to the Gentiles they formed an “abominable church” which, thru gentilization, took “away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious” in that they “gentilized” even the Scriptures. As Joseph Good writes “...when they were translated into other languages and were given common Gentile names and idiomatic thoughts, causing people to miss the intended Jewishness of those scriptures.”

Apostle Orson Pratt also claimed, "The Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike" (The Seer, p. 213).

Pratt made another familiar LDS charge against the Bible, saying:  The gathering together of the few scattered manuscripts which compose what is now termed the Bible was the work of uninspired man which took place centuries after John finished his manuscript. Among the vast number of professedly inspired manuscripts, scattered through the world, man, poor, weak, ignorant man assumed the authority to select a few, which according to his frail judgment, he believed or conjectured were of God, but the balance not agreeing, perhaps, with his peculiar notions of divine inspiration, were rejected as spurious. The few, selected from the abundance, were finally arranged into one volume, divided into chapter and verse, and named the Bible (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p. 3).

Pratt goes on to say that this selection or rejection of the books of the Bible was done by a vote of those uninspired men as they met in councils (Ibid., pp. 36-38). Pratt shows indignation at the very idea of the early church fathers voting to accept or reject scripture. But, Talmage wrote concerning LDS scripture, "the works adopted by the vote of the church as authoritative guides in faith and doctrine are four: the Bible, the B. of M., the D. & C., and the P. of G.P." (Articles of Faith, p. 7). Therefore, the LDS Church accepted their four books of scripture by a vote! LDS must explain why it was wrong for the early church to vote on scripture and yet it was right for the LDS Church.  Actually, about all those early church councils did was officially vote to endorse the books of the Bible then in use by the church. The Holy Spirit had already made the selection and guided them into all truth as Jesus promised He would in John. 16:13. There is absolutely no evidence that the books of the Bible were selected or rejected the way Pratt says they were.

1.  "It should be added that in the writings of most of the Apostolic Fathers and some of the apologists, not to mention Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, there are quotations of sayings of Jesus not preserved in the canonical gospels. Some of the sayings doubtless came from oral tradition; other may well have been preserved in books. The gradual development of the Canon was a process of exclusion and it lasted at least to the fourth century." (Grant, R. M "The New Testament Canon." Ch. 10, The Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome. P.R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds. Cambridge: University Press, 1970. p. 296)

2.  "We are unable to reconstruct with confidence precisely which lists of books were considered authoritative by Jesus and his earliest followers." ("Harper's Bible Dictionary", Paul J. Achtemeier, ed., Harper & Row, 1985, p. 111 cited by Kerry Shirts article "More Notes on the Bible"at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/bible.htm)

3.  "It is potentially misleading to use the terms 'noncanonical,' 'canonical,' 'heresy,' and 'orthodoxy' when describing either Early Judaism or Early Christianity."  (James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, v. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), Introduction, p. xxiv--Early being before 100 A.D. cited by Larry Taylor at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html)

4.  "While Christians who were concerned with defining a New Testament canon analogous to the Old Testament canon, they were in no position, at least in the first few centuries, to say exactly what was in it. The Old Testament canon during this time was more a process than an achievement." (Grant, R. M. The Formation of the New Testament. New York: Harper and Row, 1965 p. 51 cited by Kerry Shirts at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/biblical.htm)

5.  "The early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation…contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called "deuterocanonical" (or "apocryphal") books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon. This is rather significant.

6.  “In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books - although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today. When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament... the first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.)…Most [early Christian] churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament...During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion's canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul's epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical.” (Father A. James Bernstein "Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament," The Christian Activist, Vol. 9, Fall/Winter 1996, p. 1,4-7 cited by Jeff Lindsay at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml )

7.  "Their Bible, and that of the Jews to this day, consisted of the Old Testament; this was the Canon of Holy Writ accepted by Jesus Himself, and referred to simply as 'the scriptures' throughout the New Testament writings. It was not until A.D. 393 that a church council first listed the 27 New Testament books now universally recognized. There was thus a period of about 350 years during which the New Testament Canon was in process of being formed." (David F. Paye, "The Text and Canon of the New Testament," in The International Bible Commentary, ed. by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan Publ. House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986, p. 1005 - cited by Jeff Lindsay)

1.  Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) viewed Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews), he also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel as being canonical or having some authority (Bruce Metzger, ed., The New Oxford Study Bible (New York: Oxford Press, 1977), p. 190) He did prefer the 4 gospels. First to accept 1 and 2 John and Jude as scripture. Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Canon, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), p. 213, 294)

2.  Origen (c. 185-c. 254) acknowledged the four gospels, Acts, the thirteen Pauline epistle, I Peter, I John, and Revelation while disputed 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, James, and Jude. (Bruce Metzger, ed., The New Oxford Study Bible (New York: Oxford Press, 1977), p. 192-193 and F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford Press, 1974), p. 1008). Origin also used the word "scripture" in reference to Barnabas, Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas scripture in at least some places though some evidence suggests he did not consider them canonical.

3.  Eusebius of Caesares, a Church historian, [A.D. 270-330] canon consisted of 3 categories
Books accepted--4 gospels, Acts, all of Paul's letters, 1 John, 1 Peter.
Questionable--Revelation. Some people accepted it while other Christians did not.
Disputed -- Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.
Considered Acts of Paul, Shepard, Revelation, Epistle of Barnabas, Teaching of the Apostles [Didache] Spurious.

4.  The Cheltenham Canon (around 300 A.D.) --Included the Modern New Testament books except James and Jude which were omitted.  (See: Frederick C. Grant, the Union Theological Seminary, New York, -The American Encyclopedia, vol 3, p. 651 cited by Daniel Thorpe "No Evidences for the Book of Mormon? Look Again" at http://www.restorationhistory.com/rh/bom.html)

5.  Clermont Canon (6th Century)--Old Testament books from Genesis to Tobit, the Gospels, the letters of Paul, except Philippians, 1-2 Thessalonians, & Hebrews were not included. The Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, & the Revelation of Peter, however, were included. (Frederick C. Grant, the Union Theological Seminary, New York, -The American Encyclopedia, vol.3, pg. 651e)

1.  In regards to the Bible, truth is never established by people getting together and deciding by majority vote what is true and what is not true.  Nobody in the Bible ever did that.  Truth was always established by God through his prophets.  In Acts chapter 15 the matter of circumcision is brought in front of the apostles for the church.  The apostles did not do a majority vote to decide the issue.  The issue was actually decided by James (who may well have been the prophet over the entire church while Peter was just the leader of the 12 Apostles.  This possible  2 leveled organization exists in the LDS church today)  in Act 15:19  "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:"  Notice no vote is taken.  James decides the matter and it is settled for the entire church.  In the LDS church, the Prophet and President over the church has this authority.  Is there anyone in the non-LDS world that has such authority over all of the denominations?  The closest one gets to a vote is in Acts 1 where the Apostles decide Mathias to replace Judas when they casted lots but there is no indication this was a majority vote win.  LDS would contend that this was a unanimous vote and it would be a stretch to compare this instance to the the drawn out selection of the canon in the late fourth century.

2.  The LDS church does not vote on scripture.  What Mr Cowan appears to be referring to is the LDS doctrine of law of common consent where LDS members raise their hand to sustain a particular person in office, or doctrine or even scripture.  This sustaining is not a vote even in the remotest sense.  No ballots are cast, not counts are made, and no results are given.   The whole process takes seconds and can involve thousands and even millions of people at one time like at General Conference.  All this doctrine says is that we raise our hands before the church and more importantly before God that we sustain and bind ourselves to whatever is being sustains.  Those that don't sustain but oppose may then address there concerns privately to church leadership to resolve the concern but this rarely ever happens.   So in regards to this issue, members did not vote for the scripture like the Book of Mormon or the D&C or any new revelation that might be included in the LDS canon.  They simply sustain or bind themselves to the revelations and make them accountable to them.  Bottom line--THERE IS NO VOTE.    When a revelation is given to the prophet, the prophet presents it to the other Apostles and after prayer they must arrive at a unanimous conclusion it is then presented to the church for sustaining.  This is nothing remotely what happened in the 4th century.  So there is really nothing for us to explain Mr Cowan as we are consistent in our beliefs.

Pratt also condemned the Catholic Bible, declaring, "That the Romanists have continued in their apostasy until the present day is demonstrated from the fact that they have not added one single book to their canon since they first formed it" (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p. 38).  Pratt said the same thing about the "Harlot Daughters," i.e. Protestants (Ibid., p. 40). We will discuss what the LDS have added to their original scriptures in our chapter "More LDS Scripture and Revelation."

Orson Pratt also attacked the Bible saying, "The voices of several hundred jarring, contending, soul-sickening sects, were constantly sounding in your ears; each one professing to be built upon the Bible, and yet each one differing from all the rest. Under this confused state of things, you have peradventure, involuntarily exclaimed: can the Bible be the Word of God! Would God reveal a system of religion expressed in such indefinite terms that a thousand different religions should grow out of it?" (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p. 47).

What would Pratt say now that over 200 splinter groups have come out of Joseph Smith's original church? (See Denominations that Base Their Beliefs on The Teachings of Joseph Smith by Kate Carter). Neither LDS prophets nor their scripture have eliminated church splits!

It is strange that Mormonism attacks the reliability of the Bible while Talmage calls it their "first" book of doctrine!

But, not all LDS leaders agree on which LDS scripture is the most important. For example, Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church wrote, "In my judgment there is no book on earth yet come to man as important as the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, with all due respect to the B. of M. and the Bible, and the P. of G.P. which we say are our standards in doctrine. The book of D. & C. to us stands in a peculiar position above them all" (Doctrines of Salvation., Vol. III, p. 198).

Obviously the D. & C. and the Bible cannot both be in "first" place above other LDS scriptures! But Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, said, "I told the brethren that the B. of M. was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 194).

Thus, while Dr. Talmage said the Bible is the most important book to Mormons, Joseph Fielding Smith said the D. & C. was the most important, and the founder of Mormonism declared the B. of M. was the book that would get men nearer to God.

As Mormons now practice their faith, Joseph Fielding Smith is really the most accurate because LDS believe the Bible has been corrupted and therefore is not too reliable.

"... the B. of M. does not teach much Mormon doctrine, as our chapter on the Book of Mormon  shows.

"...Bruce R. McConkie explains their view of "scripture:" "The Church uses the King James Version of the Bible, but acceptance of the Bible is coupled with a reservation that it is true only insofar as it is translated correctly (Eighth Article of Faith). The other three (The B.of M., D.& C., and P. of G.P.), having been revealed in modern times in English, are accepted without qualification" (Mormon Doctrine  p. 764). This statement clearly shows that the LDS leaders question the reliability of the Bible, but not their other three books of scripture.

However, three of their four books of scripture have been changed several times. The last time was in 1981. The only book of scripture they did not change was the Bible!

The Bible has changed many times.  Look at all the different translations that exist.  The KJV itself has changed many times since 1611.  Over 24000 changes have been made to it.  So his claim that the Bible has not changed in some respect is simply false.

Since it is the Bible they claim has all the problems, their actions are a bit strange. LDS leaders made changes (including doctrinal changes) in their B.of M., D. & C., and P. of G.P. when those books were already perfect enough to be "accepted without qualification." Why couldn't they correct the corruptions in the Bible if they really exist? Could it be that LDS leaders know that the Bible is not as corrupt as their own three books?

According to LDS scripture, every LDS president is "a seer, a revelator, a translator and a prophet" (D. & C. 107:91-92, Mormon Doctrine . pp. 591-592). Yet, even though Joseph Smith re-translated the Bible, the LDS accept only the King James Version as their official Bible!

According to the D.H.C., Vol. I, pp. 324 and 368, and Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 802, Joseph Smith completed a translation of the Bible. Those sources and Andrew Jensen's LDS Church Chronology show that the New Testament was finished February 2, 1833, and the Old Testament on July 2, 1833. In a revelation given on January 10, 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are commanded to "continue the work of translation until it is finished" (D. & C. 73:4). Obviously this was not talking about the B. of M. which was published in 1830.  Nor could it be talking about the Book of Abraham Papyrus which Joseph Smith saw for the first time on July 3, 1835 (D.H.C., Vol. II, p. 235). Furthermore, Joseph Smith was commanded by God in D. & C. 124:89 to "publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth" (see also D. & C. 94:10 and 104:58).

In spite of these commands in LDS scripture the LDS Church never published the Inspired Version of the Bible until 1979.  According to LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, the reason it was not published is that "...This inspired revision of the ancient scriptures was never completed by the Prophet" (M.D., p. 383). If that is true, Joseph Smith was a very disobedient Prophet because he was commanded to finish it (D. & C. 73:4) and publish it (D. & C. 124:89)! As previously mentioned, Smith himself claimed he did complete it, but it had not been published at the time of his death in 1844. When he was killed, the manuscript went to his wife who never accepted Brigham Young as the successor to her husband. Her son Joseph III later became the Prophet of the Reorganized LDS Church and published the new translation for the Reorganized LDS Church for the first time in 1867. Many LDS people have used the RLDS edition, but it has never been officially endorsed by the LDS Church because they did not trust the "apostate" Reorganized LDS Church. The ninth printing of the 1944 edition entitles it the Inspired Version The Holy Scriptures. Below that title it says "A New Corrected Edition." On p. 3 of the Preface, we read: "As concerning the manner of translation and correction, it is evident, that from the manuscripts and the testimony of those who were conversant with the facts that it was done by direct revelation from God."

Why did the LDS church not publish the Inspired Version?

1.  Due to financial reasons and other issues, it could not publish it in the early period of the church.  The saints were more concerned with immediate things like persecution and moving from place to place than this issue.

2.  The RLDS church holds the copyright to the Inspired Version

3.  Even though the LDS church has not published the Inspired Version, we did have access to the RLDS published version.

4.  The LDS do now contain most of the the Inspired Version in the footnotes.  If one knows who to use the footnotes, that is all they really need.  The reason is the Inspired Version is simply a KJV with changes to about 3400 verses or rather than publishing the KJV and another KJV with those changes, it makes more sense to publish the KJV with the significant changes in the footnotes to save paper and so forth.  I find it easier to use as one can see the KJV and the change in the Inspired Version on the same page.

As to why the 1944 version says "Corrected Version" from what I understand the RLDS went through the published version and compared them to the manuscripts and where the published version was different from the manuscript, it was corrected to follow the manuscript.  I don't see a problem in this as this is simply to correct problems that always occur in published editions of books.  Especially before the invention of the computer and spell check software.

If the inspired translation was done by direct revelation and yet needed correction by revelation, will the revealed corrections need to be corrected by further revelation? Why couldn't God reveal it correctly the first time? And why is about 90% of it a copy of the King James Version if that translation is as bad as LDS leaders have claimed it is? Since 1979, the King James Bibles published by the LDS Church have most of the Inspired Version in the footnotes and appendix, but they call it the Joseph Smith Translation or the "JST."

1.  Matthew 5:22"...whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement..."    JST removes the part "without a cause".  This makes sense as whenever someone is angry, they do feel that they have a just cause to be angry. Thus hardly anyone would fit this warning as all have causes.  Modern versions like the NASB, RSV, Amplified Bible, and Living Bible, also have deleted this part.

2.  John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father..."  JST says "Jesus saith unto her, Hold me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father...."   The NIV and RSV reflect this correction.

3. Hebrew 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." while JST corrects to "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.   New Living Translation, NASB, RSV, New RSV, and Amplified Bible have assurance and  NIV and New Century Version use "being sure" and Today's English Version uses "to be sure" (See "1000 Evidence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints" Part 1 by Allen Richardson, David Richardson, Anthony Bentley p. 203)

4.  1 John 3:8 "He that committeth sin is of the devil..."  JST corrected to "He that continueth in sin is of the devil..."   The following versions  agree with the JST.  "The New Century Version "Anyone who continues to sin belongs to the devil."; Today's English Version "Whoever continues to sin..."; New Living Translation and Contemporary English Version "Those who 'keep on sinning" belonging to the devil."  ("1000 Evidence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints Part 1" by Allen Richardson, David Richardson, Anthony Bentley p. 204)

5.  James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;" JST corrects to "My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers afflictions;" The scriptures say that we should avoid temptation, not be happy when we are tempted.  (See Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28)   The following versions now agree with the JST. New Century Version "many kinds of troubles"; New American Standard, New KJV, and RSV "various trials"; NIV and New English Bible "trials of many kinds" ("1000 Evidence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints Part 1" by Allen Richardson, David Richardson, Anthony Bentley p. 204)

Even if all 20 of these books are mentioned in the Bible, does that prove they were intended to be books of the Bible? If so, Epicurean and Stoic philosophy should be included also since the Apostle Paul quotes it in Acts 17:18 and 28. Just because some writing is mentioned in the Bible does not prove that everything in that document is supposed to be part of the Bible! One would expect the Inspired Version to contain the "lost books" which LDS claim make our Bible incomplete. But, not a single "lost book" has been replaced in the Inspired Version or in any other LDS book of scripture. In fact, the Inspired Version only has 65 books because Joseph Smith deleted the Song of Solomon!

"Modern research into the past has found that "the Song [of Solomon] belonged to a particular genre of love lyrics in the ancient Near East." Gerson Cohen writes "modern scholars of scripture...have unanimously dismissed the theory that the Song of Songs, was originally a religous work."  (See John G Snaith, The New Century Bible Commentary: Song of Songs, [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993], p. 3-5; Gerson D. Cohen, "The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religous Mentality," in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, edited by Sid Z. Leiman, [New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974] p. 262-263; both cited in Matthew H. Brown, All Things Restored, [2000] p. 163, 179. Cited in 1000 Evidence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints Part 1 by Allen Richardson, David Richardson, Anthony Bentley p. 202)

1.   Book of the wars of the Lord (Num 21:14)
2.   Book of Jasher (Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18)
3.   Book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
4.   Book of Samual the seer (1 Chron 29:29)
5.   Book of Gad the seer (1 chr. 29:29)
6.   Book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29, 2 Chr. 9:29)
7.   Prophecy of Ahijah, visions of Iddo the seer (2 chr. 9:29)
8.   Book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15)
9.   Book of Jehu (2 chr.20:34)
10.  Sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19)
11.  Paul's earlier epistle to Ephesians (Eph. 3:3)

12.  1 Corinthians 5:9 "I wrote you in an epistle not to company with fornicators."  There should be 3 epistles to the Corithians in the Bible, not just 2. Its even possible that other written were written to them but we know at least 1 is missing.

13.  Colossians. 4:16 "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."   The Laodicea epistle is clearly shown to be on the same level as Colossians.

14.  Enoch's prophecies known to Jude (Jude 1:14)  Where is Jude citing?  Not found in the Bible but clearly it is scripture. Obviously Enoch did A LOT more than what is written of him in Genesis 5:21-24

15.  Matthew 2:23 "And he came and swelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." This prophecy is not found in the Old Testament. At least it is not in our current Old Testament. Some have tried to use passages like Judges 13:5 as a potential source but this has nothing to do with the Savior.

16. Paul quotes in Acts 20:35: "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." This quote does not appear an any of the 4 gospels and Paul is writing to those who were not around to hear Christ say this  so what was Paul referring them to?  There must have been a written record of Jesus saying this that existed in those days that got lost.

Clearly internal evidence does not support the claim that the Bible is complete.  In addition to this internal sources, we know from the early church writers that they believed in other books not found in the Bible as also scripture. One book in particular is the Shepard of Hermas.

"Evidently at Naples, the Shepherd won, at least for a time, its struggle to be received among the canonical books of the New Testament." (Robert Milburn "Early Christian Art and Architecture", 1988, Un. of Calif., Press, Berkeley and L.A., p.55)

The Shepherd of Hermas "was the most popular of books in the Christian community, i. e., from the second to the fifth centuries..." (John P. Lundy Monumental Christianity, Pub., in N.Y., J W Bouton, 1876, p. 196).

"The Shepherd of Hermas was treated by some of the early fathers as if it formed part of the canon of scripture,..." (Butler's Lives of the Saints, revised edition by Herbert Thurston, S.J., and Donald Attwater, Vol.III, July . August . September, Pub. P.J. Kenedy & Sons, N.Y., 1956, p. 678).

“Over the span of about four centuries, beginning with the initial appearance of ‘The Shepherd’ and ending with the final adoption of the New Testament, Hermas’s book stood as perhaps the strongest potential entrant that failed to join Christianity’s canon of sacred literature . . . ‘The Shepherd' received its strongest support for canonical adoption during the first 150 years of the Christian era. Church fathers before the early second century believed that Hermas’s work was divinely inspired; that is, that the Holy Spirit had infused the writer and moved him to convey God's message to mankind. In addition, the book met the test of ‘universality’-that is, all branches of the Church revered it as the word of God despite their disagreements on other matters of doctrine and ritual." (William Jardine, Shepherd of Hermas: The Gentle Apocalypse (Redwood City, CA: Proteus Publishing, 1992), p, 15)

"The Shepherd of Hermas was one of the most popular Christian texts in the first centuries of the church. True, it did not make it into the final cut; that is, it was not included in the New Testament. But it was considered canonical by the influential second century church father Irenaeus. Tertullian, another prominent church father of the next generation considered it scripture until his own theology changed and he disagreed with it. The third-century theologian and compiler of the Hexapla, Origen, highly revered it, as did many other Christian leaders." (Carolyn Osiek, "The Shepherd of Hermas: An Early Tale that Almost Made it into the New Testament," Bible Review 10/5 (October 1994): p.49)

Are the "mistranslations" which LDS claim are in the Bible corrected in the Inspired Version? One good example is in Is. 65:1, "I am found of them who seek after me, I give unto them that ask of me; I am not found of them that sought me not; or that inquireth not after me." Paul quoted this verse in Rom. 10:20, but in Joseph Smith's translation it says: "But Esaias is very bold and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me." Smith's "inspiration" speaks for itself!

Isaiah 65:1 "I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am  found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called  by my name."

Romans 10:20 "But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me."

The Inspired Version prophesies the coming of Joseph (Smith) in Gen. 50:24-33. But, you do not need to look beyond Gen. 1:1 to see that this is no ordinary Bible. Other texts that did not fit Smith's doctrine were changed so that they did fit. For example, Ex. 33:20 says, "Thou canst not see my face and live." But, the Inspired Version says, "Thou canst not see my face at this time. John 1:18 says, "No man hath seen God at any time." But, the Inspired Version says, "and no man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son" (John 1:19). I John 4:12 says, "No man hath seen God at any time," but the Inspired Version adds, "except them who believe." Since Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God and Christ in 1820, he made the Bible conform to his teachings! Smith changed hundreds of verses in his Inspired Version, but not one change can be substantiated by the original manuscripts!  Thus, the charge against the Bible made by LDS Apostle Mark E. Peterson certainly fits Joseph Smith's Bible! He said, "Many insertions were made, some of them slanted for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate fabrications were perpetrated" (As Translated Correctly, p. 4).

A COMPLETE, TRUSTWORTHY BIBLE

Since the LDS god is just a glorified man, it may be difficult for LDS to believe he can protect his word.

But, Christians trust the Bible as the Word of God for several reasons. Archaeology has verified many locations and events mentioned in the Bible which show that it is truly an historical document.

Some Biblical prophecies are known to pre-date their fulfillment, which suggests divine guidance. These things, along with the Bible's own claim that it is the Word of God, give Christians confidence in it.

Isaiah wrote, "The Word of our God shall stand forever (Is. 40:8). Peter said much the same: "The word of God which liveth and abideth forever" and "The word of the Lord endureth forever" (I Peter 1:23 & 25). Jesus also declared, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35).  Jesus who made that claim also said, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:18).  If He has all power in heaven and earth, and He says His word will not pass away, we ought to be able to believe it! Rev. 19:6 also calls Him "The Lord God omnipotent" (all powerful). And if God cared enough to give mankind His Word, then He ought to also be able to preserve it. If the All Powerful Lord God can "keep" believers (I Peter 1:5), it is reasonable to believe that He can keep His Word too!

"It is possible, however, to stress the Bible so much and give it so central a place that the sensitive Christian conscience must rebel. We may illustrate such overstress on the Bible by the often-used (and perhaps misused) quotation from Chillingworth: “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestantism.” Or we may recall how often it has been said that the Bible is the final authority for the Christian. If it will not seem too facetious, I would like to put in a good word for God. It is God and not the Bible who is the central fact for the Christian. When we speak of “the Word of God” we use a phrase which, properly used, may apply to the Bible, but it has a deeper primary meaning. It is God who speaks to man. But he does not do so only through the Bible. He speaks through prophets and apostles. He speaks through specific events. And while his unique message to the Church finds its central record and written expression in the Bible, this very reference to the Bible reminds us that Christ is the Word of God in a living, personal way which surpasses what we have even in this unique book. Even the Bible proves to be the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit working within us attests the truth and divine authority of what the Scripture says. Faith must not give to the aids that God provides the reverence and attention that Belong only to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hope is in God; our life is in Christ; our power is in the Spirit. The Bible speaks to us of the divine center of all life and help and power, but it is not the center. The Christian teaching about the canon must not deify the Scripture." (Floyd V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible, p. 20-21 cited in "A Bible! A Bible! The Canon and Ongoing Revelation"27-33 by John A. Tvedtnes and Matt Roper)

Gal. 1:8-9 warns against teaching any other Gospel than that which Paul had already preached. But, it is impossible for Mormons to show that Paul taught such LDS doctrines as: God is a glorified man, celestial marriage, a temporary hell, or protective sacred underwear.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.   As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

There is no Bible verse that says "this is the end of all scripture." But, Paul did write in Rom. 15:19, "I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ." Peter also wrote in II Peter 1:3 that "His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness." Paul said in Col. 2:10, "You are complete in Him" (Christ). Therefore, what could "more scripture" possibly add?

Christians already have all things that pertain to life and godliness, because the gospel has been fully preached and believers are "complete in Him." The only thing which can be added to that completeness is distortion or perversion which Paul warned against in Gal. 1.6-9.  Jesus also said, "the word that I have spoken - shall judge him (man) in the last day" (John 12:48).  Therefore, no new "scripture" can add anything helpful to the gospel.

Sometimes Christians use Rev. 22:18-19, to show that nothing should be added to the Bible. LDS respond that this verse applies only to the book of Revelation. While it does apply to the book of Revelation, it also applies to the whole Bible since it is located at the end of the last book of the Bible.

But, LDS claim that Duet. 4:2 and Prov. 30:6 teaches the same thing as Rev. 22:18-19, so most of the Bible should not have been written if that same logic is used with them. However, those texts simply say that the Word of God must not be changed by adding to or deleting from it. But, in his Inspired Version of the Bible, Joseph Smith did add and delete from the book of Revelation in texts like Rev. 1:1-8. Therefore Rev. 22:18-19 does apply to the LDS!

Jeremiah 36:4, 23 "And Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book...And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he [King Jehoiakim) cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire..."

Since Revelation 22:18-19 applies to man generally and not to a prophet of God restoring the text, it does not apply to the LDS.  After all, is Mr Cowan claiming that this passage is saying that if a man does take away from the text that it is not allowed to be restored at a future date by a prophet of God and if it is restored to what it should have been, then the prophet is under condemnation of changing an already altered text and correcting back to what it should be?   That is the clear suggestion to me at least.  This passage refers to changing the text from what it should be to what it should not be.  Not restoring it back to what it should be.  There is a clear difference there but frankly I don't think Mr Cowan has the ability to understand this difference but I do think the average reader will see it.

The New Testament writers were "eyewitnesses" of Jesus' earthly ministry (II Peter 1:15-18, I John 1:1-5) and recorded the things they heard and saw for our benefit.

Although Paul was not a disciple during Jesus' earthly ministry, he was specially chosen by the Lord as a witness while the other apostles were still alive (Acts 22:14-15; I Cor. 11:23; Gal. 1:11-17).  He also testified concerning the same thing as the other writers: what he had seen and heard of the Lord. Although much more could be written (John 20:30; 21:25), there is no need for more because we already have "all things that pertain to life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3; John 20:31). Most people haven't read the Bible through once, so more scripture probably wouldn't get read even if it existed. We do not need more scripture, but we do need to know the scripture we have!

Finally though most people have not read the Bible completely through, does this really mean anything?  Does God limit scripture based on what people will do or not do?  If less is better for Mr Cowan, perhaps he should eliminate the Old Testament and half of the New Testament.  Perhaps that would reduce the amount to read for our evangelical friends so that the amount of material will be more manageable for people like him.  I think Nephi did say it best for people like Mr Cowan.  Mr Cowan, hear the words of Nephi "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible... Thou fool, that shall say a Bible, we have got a Bible and we need no more Bible."   Clearly these words fit Mr Cowan and his horrible logic well.