saints of this and that (moved from GT)

[daydreamergurl15]

I am afraid that is just fantasy. 'They' did not have 27 books. The chances are each church community (ie Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth etc) would have had maybe two or three, but none of them would have had them all. Eventually further copies would be made and circulated, but that took time. And a lot of the writings that they circulated in this way ended up excluded from the canon. If there is no fixed canon, then there can be no extra canonical writings.

What are you talking about? They had the Holy Spirit and His gifts. They had the word in spoken form and they had the Apostles who were going around from place to place strengthening and establishing churches. And the fact that all 27 books in the NT were written in the first century, they had them. Regardless if one congregation had 3 books or another had 4 (letters I should say), they were all there for them with the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles, either in written or spoken form. If there weren't at least 27 books written from that century, then 27 books couldn't possibly be canonized because it all came from that century.

 

[sunlover1]

The Church came before the Bible.

If by "Bible" you mean Scripture, and if by Scripture, you mean
"God's Words" ... then I have to disagree,... God's Word came first.
But the truth of the matter is, this is a foolish petty argument
either way. Reminds me of the "my dogs bigger than your dog"
commercial.
God gave us His Words AND He gave us His Spirit to dwell within
us making up His Church, the body of Christ...of which I am a card
carrying member.
Of your denomination, or any other denomination.. I am not and will
not become a member ... unless you can show me where GOD said
that this is His desire.

If your motive is to try to undermine His Words so that you can
make up your own doctrine, then you go for it. Seems to be in
vogue in Churchianity nowdays ....

If I mistake your motives, feel free to correct me. But reading my post,
and then reading your response, I can't see any connection to what I
said. In fact, I pretty much agreed with everything you had first argued.

The Apostles always defined doctrine and then taught the Church.

This is the necessary order of things.
And then they recorded it for posterity.
And we have it in our hands thanks be to God!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. You lost me... How does THAT statement document that, as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a profound evolutionary leap so that their sense of hearing now can detect the prayers of all 2 billion believers on earth (at least) - including the unspoken ones - and ERGO they pass on all such petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petitions so forwarded in a way more in keeping with the hopes of the believer on earth, and that certain ones in heaven especially pass on such to those in specific vocations (such as Anne for miners)?


2. Yes, your denomination is older than my tome (which was printed in 2008). But your denomination is not older than Scripture (which dates to approx. 1400 BC). Is older always correct? IF so, then we should be Jews, shouldn't we? 2. You probably know this: all 12-14 Apostles are dead. Have been for a really long time. Is your point that we should pray to them that they ask the Father to tell us all? Or do I have to pray to the saint for grant writers?



2. If the Holy Spirit only guides the RCC denomination (CCC 85, 87, etc.) then why does it come into conflict with thousands of others who ALSO say they are guided by the Holy Spirit?



2. I agree. It's one of the reasons why I left the RCC (where such is replaced with "quiet docility as unto God").



2. BINGO! One of the main reasons I left your denomination. It's EXACTLY what it does and insist upon. I agree with you, that ALONE is reason to doubt and flee.



.

As far as the CC, Orthodox and EO and some Anglicans will contend no other Churches can prove a direct link to Christ through Apostolic Succession.

1. Lost me. I don't follow how that "response" relates to anything you quoted from me or the subject of this thread. You might want to read what you quoted from me.


2. It seems to me that from the RC denomination's perspective, history is entirely irrelevant (as it's claim of "Apostolic Succession" as one reason for it having unmitigated, unaccountable POWER) since many others have just as historical of a position as it does, but it at that point entirely side-steps history and turns the whole discussion to POWER - whether others have the POWER it does as it claims it has, history being irrelevant. "Sure, they all have the same 'chain of ordinations' we claim is the whole point, but they don't have POWER as a result of such, we do!" But again, I'm just at a loss to see how that desertion of a discussion of history in ordinations has to do with the ears of souls ascending into heaven undergoes an evolutionary leap so that the sense of hearing can now detect the prayers of all believers on earth (including unspoken ones) and ERGO they forward these specific, particular petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond as the believer desires, especially if that one in heaven or purgatory is the saint for that profession/job (Anne for miners, for example). I don't see how one proves the other. Could you explain?

I would find which Church has an unbroken link back to Christ himself.

ALL Christians have an "unbroken link." No denomination does.

But again, I'm just at a loss to see how that desertion of a discussion of history in ordinations has to do with the ears of souls ascending into heaven undergoes an evolutionary leap so that the sense of hearing can now detect the prayers of all believers on earth (including unspoken ones) and ERGO they forward these specific, particular petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond as the believer desires, especially if that one in heaven or purgatory is the saint for that profession/job (Anne for miners, for example). I don't see how one proves the other. Could you explain?

Christ said he would be with his Church through all times and the Gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Yes. But, obviously, He didn't promise any denomination ANYTHING - including yours and mine. And to date, Satan has not prevailed against Christianity, as you know. But again, I'm just at a loss to see how that desertion of a discussion of history in ordinations has to do with the ears of souls ascending into heaven undergoes an evolutionary leap so that the sense of hearing can now detect the prayers of all believers on earth (including unspoken ones) and ERGO they forward these specific, particular petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond as the believer desires, especially if that one in heaven or purgatory is the saint for that profession/job (Anne for miners, for example). I don't see how one proves the other. Could you explain?

What Church makes that claim to be the one Jesus started? Does that Church provide documented Scriptural and historical evidence for that claim?

Anything and anyone can claim anything. But NO denomination (including yours) has ANY documentation to support it - just a claim which it demands all accept "with quiet docility as unto God" (CCC 87, etc., etc.). But again, I'm just at a loss to see how that desertion of a discussion of history in ordinations has to do with the ears of souls ascending into heaven undergoes an evolutionary leap so that the sense of hearing can now detect the prayers of all believers on earth (including unspoken ones) and ERGO they forward these specific, particular petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond as the believer desires, especially if that one in heaven or purgatory is the saint for that profession/job (Anne for miners, for example). I don't see how one proves the other. Could you explain?

You have been told on many occasions that Catholics, Orthodox, EO's and some Anglicans pray directly to God and ask Saints to pray for us as well, why you have chosen to ignore this

No.


NO ONE yet has posted that some Christians don't do that. There seems to be a complete consensus that some do. There are some Christians that get abortions and drive drunk - simply nothing that some do doesn't equal that such is a good and sound practice.


You're not addressing the issue before us, which is not "Do some Christians pray to those in heaven and/or purgatory?" The issue is do with the ears of souls ascending into heaven undergoes an evolutionary leap so that the sense of hearing can now detect the prayers of all believers on earth (including unspoken ones) and ERGO they forward these specific, particular petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond as the believer desires, especially if that one in heaven or purgatory is the saint for that profession/job (Anne for miners, for example)?

Christians need to be discerning.

I TOTALLY agree.

It's one of the reasons why I left the RCC (where such is replaced with "quiet docility as unto God"). Read the Catechism of the RCC # 87 for starters.

I would be a fool to take your word for it e.g. 'Trust me the Holy Spirit told me so'. Why should I take your word for it?

I TOTALLY agree!


This of the main reasons I left your denomination.
It's EXACTLY what the RC denomination does and insist upon.
I agree with you, that ALONE is reason to doubt and flee.






.

 

[Tzaousios]

The so called "early Church Fathers" were just men who were busy building a religion and its institutions complete with traditions, requirements and rules, who contributed nothing to (and whose teachings cannot be found in) the Bible.

So, without those dastardly, Catholicism-tainted religious features, traditions, requirements, and rules, how exactly does your "church" distinguish itself from Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and non-Christian religions?

It appears you are defining everything specifically against what you think might be Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy in order not to bear any likeness to them.

Why should anyone take your particular interpretation of Scripture over the "so-called Church Fathers," who fought heresy and died for the faith? Hint: calling your interpretation "what the Bible plainly says" is not a valid answer.

Many of those teachings and traditions are not found in the Bible and are contrary to Scripture so they cannot be considered experts in the faith only in the religion they have help build.

It is all well and good to make a general statement like this if it serves your rhetorical purposes. However, what specific teachings and traditions "are not found in the Bible"? Have you done your homework to back up the rhetoric? Are you an "expert in the faith" in contradistinction to the Church Fathers?

The world and followers of the Lord do not need those religions but a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

What happens when people find a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ specifically in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches? Are they still saved if they follow the sacraments?

So they were editors (some say with the help of the Holy Spirit). They have no teachings in the Bible and didn't get it in chronological order.

In other words, according to your "understanding" of history, and your interpretation of Scripture, God would not dare use any of those men tainted by Catholicism, and who lived chronologically prior to the twelve apostles, to bring the canon into order? What kind of reasoning is that?

Any doctrine they dreamed up is contained in extra-biblical books that the RC, EO and Anglican churches consider as important as the Bible (much like the Mormons and JWs).

Please be specific and tell what "doctrine they dreamed up" and "extra-biblical books" the RC and EO consider to be more important than the Bible. If you cannot, and tell how it is, it is just prototypically Protestant, paranoiac anti-Catholic, and historically-ignorant rhetoric.

 

[revrobor]

Non-biblical doctrine: Praying to dead people (Mary and "Saints"), making "Saints" out of dead people, purgatory, an infallible, Pope just to name four.

 

[Tzaousios]

Non-biblical doctrine: Praying to dead people (Mary and "Saints"), making "Saints" out of dead people, purgatory, an infallible, Pope just to name four.

How are these specific doctrines made up by the Church Fathers and not the stereotypical canards that are lobbed by anti-Catholic Protestants in the us vs. then game? You demonstrate no understanding of how they actually talk about such things.

You are not doing a very good job of distinguishing/legitimizing your argument from the standard "saint- and Mary-worshipping, RCC is the Babylon harlot" rhetoric.

 

[Incariol]

Non-biblical doctrine: Praying to dead people

Which no one does anyways.

(Mary and "Saints"),

I disagree.

making "Saints" out of dead people,

Agreed. Christians have eternal life.

purgatory, an infallible, Pope just to name four.

Wow, that was off topic.

 

[LOCO]

If by "Bible" you mean Scripture, and if by Scripture, you mean
"God's Words" ... then I have to disagree,... God's Word came first.
But the truth of the matter is, this is a foolish petty argument
either way. Reminds me of the "my dogs bigger than your dog"
commercial.
God gave us His Words AND He gave us His Spirit to dwell within
us making up His Church, the body of Christ...of which I am a card
carrying member.
Of your denomination, or any other denomination.. I am not and will
not become a member ... unless you can show me where GOD said
that this is His desire.

If your motive is to try to undermine His Words so that you can
make up your own doctrine, then you go for it. Seems to be in
vogue in Churchianity nowdays ....

If I mistake your motives, feel free to correct me. But reading my post,
and then reading your response, I can't see any connection to what I
said. In fact, I pretty much agreed with everything you had first argued.



This is the necessary order of things.
And then they recorded it for posterity.
And we have it in our hands thanks be to God!

No, I would argue that Gods people who make up the Church came first.

To me, Gods Word is Yeshua, a living breathing being who I can have a relationship with, not a book.

Why limit God to words on a page?

The Bible is Sacred Scripture but it is inferior to Yeshua, you cannot have a relationship with a book.

I'm not interested in prosletysing, I'm here to debate, be challenged, be entertained and offer another point of view just like you are. I also want to understand how others practiced the faith and engage with fellow Christians.

Trying to rewrite Church history is intellectually dishonest. The Apostles decided doctrine by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and then they taught the congregation, and that is the way it functioned for hundreds of years from Jesus Assumption till the Reformation. Individual interpretation of Scripture is a new invention.

This is also true of the Old Testament days, doctrine was decided by the Priests and Rabbis and then taught to the congregation.

No Christian is an island. A non-denominational church is based on the bible according to the way that particular pastor wants to interpret it. In a sense, the pastor of each such church acts as his own pope. If a group of people from that church don't agree with him they break away and start their own based on what they think.


Blessings

 

[LOCO]

Non-biblical doctrine: Praying to dead people (Mary and "Saints"), making "Saints" out of dead people, purgatory, an infallible, Pope just to name four.

I'll just answer one of those questions. I'm not sure some fully understand what the 'infallibility' of the Pope means.

He is only considered 'infallible' under the following conditions:

1. When he is teaching ex-cathedra (from the seat of Peter) AND
2. He is teaching about morals and faith only.

He is protected from error when he proclaims Doctrine because he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

If he says 'its going to rain tomorrow' that would not be considered an infallible statement.

This does not mean that he personally is impeccable (incapable of sin) or inerrant (incapable of error).


All non-Catholic church elders/pastors/individuals who define doctrine for themselves or a congregation are in essence mini-popes, they have declared themselves infallible (unable to teach error).

Why? Because they believe the Holy Spirit guided their interpretation.

Blessings

 

[sunlover1]

No, I would argue that Gods people who make up the Church came first.

I understand that.
I believe that God and His Words come first.
We disagree.

To me, Gods Word is Yeshua, a living breathing being who I can have a relationship with, not a book.

Why limit God to words on a page?

Why indeed.
God equals words on a page? Heavens no.

The Bible is Sacred Scripture but it is inferior to Yeshua, you cannot have a relationship with a book.

I don't consider Scripture " a book " and I dont seperate
God's Words from God Himself. And I never said that
Jesus is "inferior" to His Words..

Individual interpretation of Scripture is a new invention.

There is no other option BUT individual interpretation.
You interpret what you read OR what your priest reads TO you..
OR what your teacher TEACHES you...

And so do all of us.

 

[Dorothea]

Non-biblical doctrine: Praying to dead people (Mary and "Saints"), making "Saints" out of dead people, purgatory, an infallible, Pope just to name four.

That's interesting that you have put the EO in your list and manage to use 4 examples, 3 (Saints aren't dead) of which the EO's doctrines and dogma do not include. As far as the asking the Saints for prayers is most certainly biblical, and it's been mentioned ad nauseum on this very thread: We are to pray for one another, intercede for each other. We are alive in Christ. Not even death can separate us from Him. The communion of Saints. Many things were mentioned.

What you need to acknowledge and hopefully come to admit is that it isn't that we have man-made traditions. It is that our interpretation of the Bible's verses don't line up with yours. So, in essence, because they don't line up with yours and others, they are wrong. Your opinion, of course.

BTW, all Christians' roots come from one of two Christian backgrounds: Greek or Latin - because those were the only Christian roots from the start.

 

[revrobor]

Oh, c'mon now. When we are told to pray for one another it is talking about those of us who are alive on this Earth. There is no Scriptural evidence to support the idea the we here on Earth can communicate with those who have died or that they can hear us.

 

[Incariol]

Oh, c'mon now. When we are told to pray for one another it is talking about those of us who are alive on this Earth.

Unscriptural doctrine underlined.

There is no Scriptural evidence to support the idea the we here on Earth can communicate with those who have died or that they can hear us.

Yes, there is. I would reference specifics, but I've too much experience with inconvenient Scripture being ignored to bother. If you care, try Lazarus and the Rich man, the martyrs under the altar in Revelation for starters, the prayers of the saints being offered as incense in Revelation.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

No, I would argue that Gods people who make up the Church came first.

To me, Gods Word is Yeshua, a living breathing being who I can have a relationship with, not a book.

Why limit God to words on a page?

We do not have a relationship with a book....it is that book that foster the relationship that we have with our Heavenly Father.

The Bible is Sacred Scripture but it is inferior to Yeshua, you cannot have a relationship with a book.

No one is making the bible superior to Christ. Because we quote it and think it's the authority of doctrine, all of a sudden we consider it superior to the One it witnesses about? No, we think the Scripture is superior to those who have come after it, i.e. those who canonized it and no matter what they believe, if it is not in Scripture, I wouldn't take their word for it. And no, we don't think it is superior to the Holy Spirit as well because we are told that the Holy Spirit will convict men of their sins and that's exactly what the Scripture does, because it was written by the Holy Spirit through inspired men.



I'm not interested in prosletysing, I'm here to debate, be challenged, be entertained and offer another point of view just like you are. I also want to understand how others practiced the faith and engage with fellow Christians.

Trying to rewrite Church history is intellectually dishonest. The Apostles decided doctrine by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and then they taught the congregation, and that is the way it functioned for hundreds of years from Jesus Assumption till the Reformation. Individual interpretation of Scripture is a new invention.[/quote]
The Apostles didn't "decide" doctrine. They were given what to say because of the Holy Spirit:

John 16:5-15
5 “But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.​

There are only 3 passages in Scripture where Paul tells us that what he is telling us is not the commandment of the Lord but they were his advice. But him and all the other writers make it known to us that they are writing what the Lord has command, some things the writers themselves would have no business knowing but you could tell that it was from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they would write such a thing.

This is also true of the Old Testament days, doctrine was decided by the Priests and Rabbis and then taught to the congregation.

No Christian is an island.]A non-denominational church is based on the bible according to the way that particular pastor wants to interpret it. In a sense, the pastor of each such church acts as his own pope.

Is that why we see such amazing attitudes and perfect righteousness in the OT from the Israelites? I mean, we don't see any prophets reprimanding them telling them to follow God's commandments because they were such perfect stewardship of following those doctrines that the Priest and Rabbis taught. And I mean because the Priests and Rabbis taught oh so well, there was not a division created, men calling themselves Pharisee's and Sadducee and Christ certainly didn't have to come, correct and teach them the actual ways of which things were supposed to be.
[/sarcasm]

And no.........the preacher doesn't act like a Pope because we don't take the preacher's word over what is taught in the bible. There are some people who listen to their preacher and don't bother reading the bible themselves to see what it says and make sure what they are being taught is what Scripture is teaching them, but that's not everyone. And I know my congregation does not take the preacher's word over what we see in the bible. It just so happen that the Preacher, preaches what the bible says.

If a group of people from that church don't agree with him they break away and start their own based on what they think.


Blessings

Some do. But not everyone breaks off because of disagreements with the interpretation. Some of us, if we feel that the preacher taught in error to what the gospel says, then they would go to the preacher and present them the word and it's up to both people to come to the truth of Scripture. I don't think God is happy with us when we decide to divide His church.

But disagreements and breaking away isn't always wrong. Paul and Barnabas broke away from each other but continued on doing God's will. They eventually made up, but they didn't stop doing God's will because of a disagreement.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As far as the asking the Saints [in heaven] for prayers is most certainly biblical

... a claim made over and over in this thread and yet not a single Scripture has been offered that so indicates. Not a one.

We are to pray for one another, intercede for each other.

What Scripture says this includes those in purgatory and heaven?

Where are the Scriptures that confirm that as souls ascend to heaven, their ears undergo a radical, evolutionary leap and then our sense of hearing can detect the prayers of all 2 billion + believers (all at once, even those unspoken) and ERGO these specific, particular petitions are forwarded by those in purgatory or heaven to the Father and ERGO the Father is more apt to reply to the specific petition in a way desired by the believer on earth, and that this is even more the case if the soul so requested is the patron saint of one's profession (for example, I so requesting the prayers of the saint of grant writers, whoever that might be)? THAT'S the issue before us.








.

 

[sunlover1]

Unscriptural doctrine underlined.
.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent
upon earth, concerning any thing
whatsoever they shall ask,
it shall be done to them by my Father
who is in heaven.

 

[Dorothea]

Oh, c'mon now. When we are told to pray for one another it is talking about those of us who are alive on this Earth. There is no Scriptural evidence to support the idea the we here on Earth can communicate with those who have died or that they can hear us.

Perfect example of what you glean in the Scriptures - your interpretation. Because we have a different one, we are told what you said as if we are dense and can't see what you see.

 

[tadoflamb]

We do not have a relationship with a book....it is that book that foster the relationship that we have with our Heavenly Father.

I wonder how people who can't read manage.

 

[LOCO]

We do not have a relationship with a book....it is that book that foster the relationship that we have with our Heavenly Father.


Is that why we see such amazing attitudes and perfect righteousness in the OT from the Israelites? I mean, we don't see any prophets reprimanding them telling them to follow God's commandments because they were such perfect stewardship of following those doctrines that the Priest and Rabbis taught. And I mean because the Priests and Rabbis taught oh so well, there was not a division created, men calling themselves Pharisee's and Sadducee and Christ certainly didn't have to come, correct and teach them the actual ways of which things were supposed to be.
[/sarcasm]

And no.........the preacher doesn't act like a Pope because we don't take the preacher's word over what is taught in the bible. There are some people who listen to their preacher and don't bother reading the bible themselves to see what it says and make sure what they are being taught is what Scripture is teaching them, but that's not everyone. And I know my congregation does not take the preacher's word over what we see in the bible. It just so happen that the Preacher, preaches what the bible says.



Some do. But not everyone breaks off because of disagreements with the interpretation. Some of us, if we feel that the preacher taught in error to what the gospel says, then they would go to the preacher and present them the word and it's up to both people to come to the truth of Scripture. I don't think God is happy with us when we decide to divide His church.

But disagreements and breaking away isn't always wrong. Paul and Barnabas broke away from each other but continued on doing God's will. They eventually made up, but they didn't stop doing God's will because of a disagreement.

You believe that what your preacher is teaching as Doctrine is correct because conveniently it corresponds with your personal interpretation. Why, because you believe he/she/you are guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore 'infallible'.

The Holy Spirit protects interpreters from doctrinal error, therefore any individual who claims that the Holy Spirit guides them when they are interpreting Scripture regards themselves as 'infallible' (unable to teach error to themselves or their congregation) i.e. mini-popes.

If the Holy Spirit is:

1. Guiding everyone when they interpret Scripture, and
2. Never the author of confusion and chaos

Why are there so many differing, confusing interpretations of gods word in the world today?


You also contradict yourself, on the one hand you say "I don't think God is happy with us when we decide to divide His church."
and then you say
"But disagreements and breaking away isn't always wrong"


Debate is healthy, breaking away is wrong. Breaking away is why we have the mess we have today. Jesus did not want a divided Church, 15000 different 'churches' all proclaiming that only they know the Truth.
He wanted a universal, united church - one church. A single pillar and foundation of Truth.

The Devil wants a divided, broken Church in disagreement with each other, the more breakaways the happier he is. Once he divides we are weaker, he can attack the faith by altering doctrine to suit the world, when the world should be altering behaviour to please God. We see this in modern 'churches' for example: who allow divorce (in cases other than adultery) and allow divorcees to remarry in direct contradiction to Jesus words.

Read the OT again, you will see many examples of prophets and elders exhorting the Israelites to change their ways and when they don't, God punishes them. If there was division it is because MAN created it, God did not want division among his people. It's human nature, don't be so hard on them, we all have failings including the Pharisees, priests, pastors etc.

You refuse to accept Church history, that the Apostles practiced Sacred Tradition (tradition from God) e.g. Breaking Bread and Wine, Confession, Baptism, before these things were written down. These Sacred Traditions were passed on orally first from Jesus and then from the Apostles to the congregation until they decided to write it down because they realised Jesus was not coming back in their lifetime.

Documented history and the majority of christian scholars, Catholic and non-Catholic agree on this. To say otherwise is dishonest and historical revisionism.

Blessings

 

[Bryne]

None of those groups you've listed has "extra-biblical books" they "consider as important as the Bible" with the possible exception of the LDS, because I'm not sure if the Book of Mormon is considered by them part of the Bible proper or not.

The LDS church has 4 books that they consider Scripture: The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Doctrine and the Covenants. Of these 4 books, the Bible is considered less reliable than the other 3 because they believe it contains errors that have crept in over the years.

They also consider certain things said and written by their prophets to be direct revelation from God and equal to Scripture.