The Book of Mormon is not a Strange Thing 

Yes, thank you

I'm glad you like it

I'm glad you like it

Glad you like them!

Yes!

I'm sorry sir Mormon is not a really Christianity I'm just letting you know

I think it's Denmark

Correct, this 15 second video doesn't

Read the book, it testifies of Christ as much as the bible

Oh dear, it sounds like you haven’t read the Book of Mormon. Have you?

@@CalledtoShare i don't need to read it to know that the BIBLE says not to add to the scriptures.

The Bible wasn't compiled unto 400AD. The Book of Revelation says don't add anything to the book of revelation. One of the biggest lies every told is that "The Bible alone" is the word of God. The Bible never says that.

@@CalledtoShare Proverbs 30:5-6 NIV “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.” Don’t see much about saying this only applies to revelation. Plus this is also in proverbs.

If we aren't supposed to add to God's word, why did John add to the words of Proverbs? "One of the arguments often used in any defense of a closed canon is the New Testament passage recorded in Revelation 22:18: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of … this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.” However, there is now overwhelming consensus among virtually all biblical scholars that this verse applies only to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. Those scholars of our day acknowledge a number of New Testament “books” that were almost certainly written after John’s revelation on the Isle of Patmos was received. Included in this category are at least the books of Jude, the three Epistles of John, and probably the entire Gospel of John itself. Perhaps there are even more than these. But there is a simpler answer as to why that passage in the final book of the current New Testament cannot apply to the whole Bible. That is because the whole Bible as we know it-one collection of texts bound in a single volume-did not exist when that verse was written. For centuries after John produced his writing, the individual books of the New Testament were in circulation singly or perhaps in combinations with a few other texts but almost never as a complete collection. Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after a.d. 1000. The fact of the matter is that virtually every prophet of the Old and New Testament has added scripture to that received by his predecessors. If the Old Testament words of Moses were sufficient, as some could have mistakenly thought them to be, then why, for example, the subsequent prophecies of Isaiah or of Jeremiah, who follows him? To say nothing of Ezekiel and Daniel, of Joel, Amos, and all the rest. If one revelation to one prophet in one moment of time is sufficient for all time, what justifies these many others? What justifies them was made clear by Jehovah Himself when He said to Moses, “My works are without end, and … my words … never cease.” One Protestant scholar has inquired tellingly into the erroneous doctrine of a closed canon. He writes: “On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the church now calls its Bible? … If the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?” We humbly ask those same questions." - Jeffrey R. Holland / My Words Never Cease www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/04/my-words-never-cease?lang=eng

Glad you enjoyed it

Glad you enjoyed it

Nope. These guys are the real deal.

To you, yes.

What's your favorite part?