Comments on: Could the Aklatan be additional scripture and approved by the prophet?

By: squirrel

squirrel — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 05:41:00 +0000

Could The Aklatan Be Additional Scripture And Approved By The Prophet ? a) I think that if it was approved by the prophet, you’d hear about it from the prophet, in general conference or in official church declaration or material.

By: Wax

Wax — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:54:00 +0000

In reply to TabachoyWarrior. It's your own personal scripture for you only. A patriarch is set apart by a GA who has been given the authority by a Prophet who is called directly from God...so in a sense we receive our PB's from the Prophet.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:50:00 +0000

I was very intrigued by this text, so I asked Gramps for any insight. Thank you Gramps for answering my question. Like I said, I see many correlations between this book and the Book of Mormon. Both surrounding the text and within the text itself, not to mention independent physical evidence of it’s authenticity. Nevertheless, until the Prophet were to canonize this text with our standard works, then I couldn’t consider it bona fide scripture. This “translator” is either very very familiar with the Church and it’s doctrines, as well as the Book of Mormon; and has set out to create a very good counterfeit. Or this text is inspired, and this “translator” could have been called apart from the Twelve, as was the apostle Paul from the other Apostles. In the end, the way I see it, the standard works and the words of the Prophet’s contain all that is necessary to acheive salvation. Although this is the case, and truly it is, how fitting would it be for the Lord to bring forth an additional, independent witness of His divinity and works among “the isles of the sea”? Thank you again Gramps, this is me throwing in my two cents :)

By: Gary Nd Crystal Vest

Gary Nd Crystal Vest — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:13:00 +0000

please read these carefully and be open for more.

2 Nephi 29

3 Nephi 15

3 Nephi 16

By: TabachoyWarrior

TabachoyWarrior — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:35:00 +0000

In reply to godbdian. I disagree with your comment. I know what you're trying to say but, I believe my Patriarchal Blessing to be a scripture and even though it didn't come from the Prophet I take it very seriously. You should have said something else like "If it was not canonized by the Church as scriptures then it probably doesn't follow and or pertain to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and its teachings shouldn't be considered doctrine by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:28:00 +0000

Pretty sure it’s bogus. Joseph Smith never used a pseudonym, and neither has any other prophet. Why should this guy? Something is definitely fishy about it.

By: godbdian

godbdian — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:24:00 +0000

If it doesn’t come from the prophet,then it’s not scripture to be taken seriously by Mormons.