Skip to main content

An Addition to the Revelation from the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants

In Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), The LDS (Mormon) church says about the D&C that,


Though there may be those who consider the Doctrine and Covenants prophecies pertaining to this last day (D&C 45:42; D&C 64:24) before Christ’s coming to the world as mere hyperbole, such is not the case. There is an undeniable literalness to the Doctrine and Covenants. Hence, the admonition to “search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.[1]


So then, we are to take the D&C undeniably literally, according to the above citation. This is not only devastating to the Mormon faith, but also to Joseph Smith himself.

In D&C section 45, we find several things that not only take away from the Revelation of Jesus, but that also add to the Revelation of Jesus in the Bible. For instance, in verses 64-66 in D&C, it says,


Wherefore I, the Lord, have said, gather ye out from the eastern lands, assemble ye yourselves together ye elders of my church; go ye forth into the western countries, call upon the inhabitants to repent, and inasmuch as they do repent, build up churches unto me. And with one heart and with one mind, gather up your riches that ye may purchase an inheritance which shall hereafter be appointed unto you. And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God…[2]


This is a very different description of the New Jerusalem and how we are to be a part of it than what the book of Revelation says:


Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God…

The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.[3]


One (D&C) says that the New Jerusalem is purchased through the gathering of riches, and the other (Bible) says that the New Jerusalem will come down from heaven and is offered without price.[4] The D&C, by saying this, both takes away from the Revelation and adds to it. The reason this is an issue is because in the Revelation, we find the following:


I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.[5]


The idea here is that the description of the objective reality found within the Revelation is not to be changed in any way. But as we can see, this is exactly what the D&C does.


In the first citation from the LDS website above, we also find the confession that “The Doctrine and Covenants is the only one of the standard works to be produced in modern times.”[6] This book was produced in modern times, according to the LDS church. This makes the D&C to come chronologically after the Revelation, and without question takes away from and adds to “the words of the prophecy of this book,” speaking of the Revelation itself.


I think this should cause a stir in the mind of the Mormon. How is this issue dealt with theologically speaking? It seems that likely Deuteronomy 4:2 will be considered by the trained Mormon person. It says, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.”[7] Mormons often use this to say that there is more words after this verse, so then basically it doesn’t matter. The problem is that this verse is strictly speaking of commandments. It should be understood as adding or taking away from the commandments. If it were mere words that were the issue in this verse, then the human author himself would be breaking the Law that he just wrote down. So would Joshua, Ruth, Samuel, King David, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. The idea that Deuteronomy 4:2 is a strong argument for the permission that Mormons can add to scripture is absurd. In fact, it fails completely. The Revelation passage above speaks of prophecy, the Deuteronomy passage speaks of commandments. These are two different subjects entirely.


Since the Doctrine and Covenants are admittedly written by Joseph Smith as discussed above, it seems safe to believe that he is cursed with the plagues described in the Revelation, and also that God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city which are described in the Revelation. What does this say about the rest of the things that he said and did? What does this tell us about what kind of a man was Joseph Smith?


The Book of Mormon, because it teaches a different gospel than what the Bible teaches, in fact, different than what the Revelation specifically teaches, can be included in the curse from the Revelation. Take for instance Revelation 1:5-6, “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”[8] This verse is the gospel. The good news that people are freed from sin by the blood of Christ. The gospel (which is really no gospel at all), in the book of Mormon is found in 2 Nephi 25:23, which says, “…for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”[9] This is saying something very different than what the gospel in the Revelation says. It is through this that we can understand how the Book of Mormon adds to, and takes away from, the Revelation. As far as prophecy is concerned, the entire book of Revelation is prophetic. A prophet is one who speaks the will of God to others. It is in this sense, that a prophet can reveal the future through the power of God, which is most of the content of the Revelation, and a prophet by definition, can reveal the will of God by stating what is already known, such as the gospel in Revelation chapter one. When we read Revelation 22:18-19, we should understand this as meaning the entire book, not just certain parts.


Because the Revelation agrees with the rest of the Bible, especially considering the New Testament, we could also say that the Book of Mormon is an addition to the Bible, which would fall under the same curse, because the New Testament agrees with the Revelation chapter one passage discussed above. Whereas the Book of Mormon does not.


This is devastating to the Mormon faith because it was written by a man who will because of his actions (or has) apparently receive curses from God according to Revelation chapter 22, and because it flat out contradicts what the Bible teaches. It is not the Bible that is corrupted, it is Joseph Smith.


Where else does the D&C or Book of Mormon contradict what the Bible teaches or add to the prophecy of the Revelation? Tell us in the comments!



Written by Nace Howell through the grace of the Lord Jesus

© Nace Howell, 2022


[2] D&C 45:64-66. Emphasis mine.

[3] Revelation 21:1-3, 17. Emphasis mine.

[4] The point of the New Jerusalem being a bride is because God will be her Husband and will attend to “her.”

[5] Revelation 22:18-19.


[7] Deuteronomy 4:2.

[8] Revelation 1:5-6.

[9] 2 Nephi 25:23.,Christ%2C%20who%20is%20the%20Holy%20One%20of%20Israel.


Popular posts from this blog

Joseph Smith had the same Demon that influenced Muhammad

What does Islam have in common with Mormonism? Seriously, the similarities are uncanny. Like human beings, demons are creatures of habit . The Bible does not tell us much about them, but from what it does tell us, we can learn a lot. Jesus reveals to us some things about their behavior: When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first… [1]   Jesus clearly knows that demons have typical behaviors. He has seen it many times before. He lets us know that a typical behavior for a demon is that home is where the heart is . When your house crumbles to the ground, you move to a new one. Likewise, when a person dies, the demon is f

Sharper than Any Two-Edged Sword: The Integrity of the Bible is Second to None

The Bible, in comparison to other religious texts specifically, is the absolute truth. People sometimes assume that the Bible cannot be true because there are so many other options of biblical interpretation as well as so many other options of religions that claim to have sacred texts. With such availability, one often assumes that we cannot possibly know which religion is true, if any at all. The arguments in this article will discuss some of the issues directly concerning the veracity of the Bible in comparison to other supposed, sacred or holy writings, and will establish the idea that the qualities of one sacred text does not necessarily mean that the next sacred text in line has those same qualities. Finally, there will be a discussion on truth, discerning the idea of relevance, and a brief ethical discussion of whether or not it is morally correct to explore the truth claims of other religions. Ultimately, this article as a whole will seek to answer the question, “How can the Bib

“I don’t have a religion, I have a relationship.”

Many people make this claim, but why do so many run from the label of religion? To define religious and religion is not an easy task, because there isn’t really a consensus on what precisely, a religion is. Why is there something rather than nothing? Because something transcends us. A practical understanding of when one is called “religious,” is that it means that this person is devoted to their beliefs about that which transcends them . [1] So also, a religion is a system of practices that reflect belief and understanding of one’s worldview; specifically, this system focuses on the relationship between the human element and the spiritual element. It seems that the word religion is being understood as an insult in today’s language. This probably comes from newer generations coming up through the works and seeing the problems that religions of the world create and do not want to have any association with something that places their relationship with Jesus in the sa

What is a Cult?

There are many ways to answer this question, because there are many facets to the question itself. Often when we hear the word,  cult , we think of something bad, or downright evil, based on our own experiences which possibly came about through watching the Children of the Corn [1]  or something to that nature.  Sociologically speaking, a cult is “a religious or semi-religious sect or group whose members are often controlled or dominated almost entirely by a single individual or organization.” [2]  This lens of understanding is different than a theological perspective, or even an anthropological perspective.  Anthropologically speaking, a cult is any religious belief system that has its origins in another established religious belief system. If you picture an upside-down tree, for instance, the trunk of the tree is the lineage of a religion through time, and the branches that stem off of that trunk are the cults of such a religion. From this perspective,  Mormonism  is a  Christian cul

All Bark and No Bite: A Book Critique of Dan Barkers, "godless"

As I read through Dan Barker’s book, “ godless ,” I became more and more heartbroken as the pages turned. Barker explains that he was, at the early age of fifteen, on fire for God. In chapter one, he recalls that he came from a Pentecostal background and admits that at a revival meeting he attended was “spirit-filled… intense, bursting with rousing music and emotional sermons.” [1]  It seems that right off the bat, that his experience was only based on emotion. This is the opposite of what the Bible teaches. Jesus said,  Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and be

Tibetan Buddhism and the Garden of One Thousand Buddhas

In the Flathead Indian Reservation located in the Rocky Mountains in Montana, in the middle of a considerable amount of farm land, lies a Buddhist sanctuary, known as The Garden of a Thousand Buddhas. The Buddha Garden represents the three vehicles of Buddhism: Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. The Garden is Tibetan in culture, and is owned by Ewam International: Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism, which is basically a franchise of Buddhist Dharma centers scattered throughout the world, but are primarily found in the United States and Asia. The Garden takes around either twenty minutes or forty minutes to walk around the entire Garden, depending on which path through the Garden one desires to take. Buddhism, across the board, holds to what is known as the four noble truths, which are: first, the idea that suffering exists; second, that we suffer because we are attached; third, the way to stop suffering is to release the attachment to things; and finally, we release the attachment by f

What is Classical Apologetics?

You may have heard of the phrase,   Classical Apologetics , from studying under people such as, William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Norman Geisler, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, B.B. Warfield, and others, and perhaps you wondered what it means.   Classical Apologetics is one method of doing apologetics… I personally like to think that it is classical for a reason. Some other methods of doing apologetics are first,  Presuppositionalism , which is that a person presupposes that God exists, and that the reason that a person does not believe in God is because he does not believe the Bible is the word of God. The issue is that from an unbeliever’s perspective, this is circular reasoning. It emphasizes revelation as opposed to reason.  Another method of apologetics is  Evidentialism , which is essentially to follow the evidence where it leads and using this evidence to support Christian claims. Sometimes people refer to it as being a subtype as Classical Apologetics, essentially being the second s

Identifying Self-Refuting Statements

Aside from sin, post-modernity is likely the most prominent disease in the human mind today ( Some   might even argue that Post-modernism is sin). Post-modernism is, in a nutshell, the idea that everyone has his or her own truth. It is found in many   cultures and worldviews , including tribal, new age, atheist, eastern religions,   Baha’i , and such, but is also found in   individuals’ thinking   in discussions regarding subjects like abortion (e. g. Roe v. Wade), Homosexuality, religion, politics and just about every other area of life. Learning how to detect them in conversations will help you and your conversation partner get to the truth.     A Self-Refuting Statement is a truth-claim that does not sustain its own weight; It fails to meet its own standard.    A Few Simple Examples to Start :   “ I cannot speak a single word in English .” This is simply a test for you to see the error in such a statement. How does this statement fail under its own weight? For one thing, If someone

Using Apologetics and Hermeneutics to Bridge the Gaps of Culture

If every culture is, in and of itself, salvifically hopeless, then one’s hope in Tribal culture, Asian culture, American culture, Viking culture, or any culture, is hopeless. Culture cannot save us.       1.       All cultures in and of themselves are salvifically hopeless.        2.       There are people who place the fullness of their identity in their culture       3.       Therefore, those people who place the fullness of their identity in their culture are salvifically hopeless.  Because a culture can completely change from what it began as, it can therefore not be timeless (given enough time, change in a culture is inevitable). If something is removed from that culture, or added to it, it is a different culture altogether, much like the Ship of Theseus. Winfried Corduan writes,  By the term  diffusion , I mean the distribution of cultural items apart from people changing their place of residence, e.g., by trade or imitation… On a more serious side, we see the global spread of ce

Does God Hate Certain Persons? Is there Any Truth to “Love the Sinner, but Hate the Sin?”

In an article from July 30, 2013 (I know, it’s old… ), John Piper teaches that God hates certain people. The problem with this is that there are  inconsistencies  in the mind of the person (usually a Calvinist) who believes this, and even Piper in the article recognizes the inconsistency but tries to pass it off as a paradox. “He hates — now here is the paradox — and he loves at the same time.” [1]  The problem is that it is not a paradox, but simply a contradiction.   Let’s look at some different texts from where the belief that God hates certain persons likely came…    Psalm 5  Give ear to my words, O Lord;     consider my groaning. 2 Give attention to the sound of my cry,     my King and my God,     for to you do I pray. 3 O Lord, in the morning you hear my voice;     in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for you[a] and watch. 4 For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;     evil may not dwell with