Does LDS doctrine clash with the Bible?

[the Ogre]

Yes, that I agree with!

I think you are making a mistake in not addressing Pam's suggestion.

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps PC, it is time for a greater change where your faith will be like that of Paul of Taurus.

Just remember, that same Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone!

[the Ogre]

Just remember, that same Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone!

Yet, he would rather prophesy (1 Cor 14.5-6).

[prisonchaplain]

Yet, he would rather prophesy (1 Cor 14.5-6).

The gifts of the Spirit are no zero-sum game. I'm pretty sure he did both. I have.

[Islander]

In so many ways this...and your entire post could be offered by the generic Christian to those that aren't. The irony is, you offer such an impassioned testament to one I believe you would consider a fellow Christian. Do not misunderstand, irony is not necessarily bad. In fact, we Pentecostals faced the same uncomfortable position, particularly in the early years of the revival. "What do you mean you're FULL gospel--are you implying that we are not??? What do you mean your Spirit-filled--are you saying we don't have the Spirit???" We too offered a restoration of sorts, and implored our non-pentecostal bretheren to taste and see that it is good.

So, be assured, I track with your sense of commitment, and your belief that so many Christians could be experiencing so much more.

Sorry PC. I was rather sharing with you the current situation with AJ and why we should terminate this endless diatribe with him. It was not directed at you.

[aj4u]

Let's go back to a previous question asked by Justice to aj4u. As of yet I have seen it unanswered.

The Bible commands (says) go ye into all the world and preach the gospel baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If it were not necessary, it wouldn't have been mentioned. On the other hand, it is not always possible to baptize someone. Does that mean they can't be saved or have eternal life? NO, of course not. Baptism is like a marriage vow. The commitment has to be there (born-again) first otherwise it is just a ritual that means nothing. I have answered this question many times and in many ways. The thief on the cross didn't get baptized, but still received eternal life. I believe in being baptized and I was, but I put my trust only in Christ for the salvation of my soul not in any works, baptisms, tithing or any other such things. I am hid in Christ that is what baptism means to me. I died with Christ and now I am a new creature. He took my sin on him and His righteousness has come on me because I put on and receive Christ as the Lord of my life; therefore, I stand perfect before God because of Christ in me the hope of glory! The just shall live by faith. Faith is better than a known path. God is still completing the work He started in me. The path of the just is as a shinning light - It shines more and more until the perfect day. When God looks at me He sees Christ in me who is my hope, my ressurection, my life, my salvation and the lifter of my head! I live by faith and I don't trust my emotions or feelings, but God's word is always true.

Edited May 27, 2009 by aj4u

[the Ogre]

The gifts of the Spirit are no zero-sum game. I'm pretty sure he did both. I have.

Interesting . . . in church (elder's quorum) we differentiated between the gift of tongues and the gift of language. I speak Korean and I am learning French, but I do not think this is the result of a spiritual gift. The difference is between an LDS missionary who learns Korean fluently in six-months (trust me, Korean is one of the world's hardest languages, this is a real feat) and someone in fast-and-testimony meeting spontaneously speaking Korean without ever having studied it and an hour later cannot understand a single cha of Korean (I've seen it once, my ex translated for me).

I think those are fabulous gifts. How do you feel about the differentiation?

Edited May 27, 2009 by the Ogre

[aj4u]

Sorry PC. I was rather sharing with you the current situation with AJ and why we should terminate this endless diatribe with him. It was not directed at you.

It will end. The only thing that is endless is eternity

[the Ogre]

The Bible commands (says) go ye into all the world and preach the gospel baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If it were not necessary, it wouldn't have been mentioned. On the other hand, it is not always possible to baptize someone. Does that mean they can't be saved or have eternal life? NO, of course not. Baptism is like a marriage vow. The commitment has to be there (born-again) first otherwise it is just a ritual that means nothing. I have answered this question many times and in many ways. The thief on the cross didn't get baptized, but still received eternal life. I believe in being baptized and I was, but I put my trust only in Christ for the salvation of my soul not in any works, baptisms, tithing or any other such things. I am hid in Christ that is what baptism means to me. I died with Christ and now I am a new creature. He took my sin on him and His righteousness has come on me because I put on and receive Christ as the Lord of my life; therefore, I stand perfect before God because of Christ in me the hope of glory! The just shall live by faith. Faith is better than a known path. God is still completing the work He started in me. The path of the just is as a shinning light - It shines more and more until the perfect day. When God looks at me He sees Christ in me who is my hope, my ressurection, my life, my salvation and the lifter of my head! I live by faith and I don't trust my emotions or feelings, but God's word is always true.

Can you see the parallels between what you said and what is said in Acts and in the Articles of Faith. Faith comes first. For Latter-day Saints that means conversion or being born again. We believe that it is first. Faith, then the ordinance. Why? If you do not accept the S-vior, then what point is the ordinance? There is none. With the faith followed by obedience to what we feel is a commandment, we then have begun the first steps in the path towards salvation. It sounds like you believe the same thing.

Where is the conflict?

Acts 19.3-5

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Article of Faith #4:

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Edited May 27, 2009 by the Ogre

[Carl62]

About this whole thing of Evangelicalism vs. Mormonism, I'd just like to say that I have truly accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and I know that he's died on the cross for my sins. Now, according to your teachings, that would mean that my name would then be written in the book of life. A truly wonderful feeling to know.:) Now along with that, I also believe that God has given us living prophets and apostles who guide us in what I believe to be the Lord's church here today on the earth. I believe this because I don't believe in limiting God in what he can do for us today through the Bible as well as even more additional writings he has given us. Now that I have true faith and a belief in Christ in my life, I want to do what I can for him through my works which I know someday I will be rewarded for, with each person receiving a different degree of reward. (John 14:2) Yes, I do believe in works in order to show our love for the Savior. My works actually make me feel closer to God. The biggest work of all is baptism. This shows that I've truly accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, just the same way that Evangelicals perform the work of rasing their hand in a church service and walking to the front of a pulpit to show their accepting of Jesus. Between the two faiths, what is the difference there? We're both doing a work to show our faith in Jesus, right? I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says that the way to Jesus is to raise your hand in a church and go to the pulpit. Oh, and tithing is a really important work as well. It's a charitable act in which we as Christians can show others our love by helping them with what He has given us. Does Jesus command this? He most certainly does. As a matter of fact, it's the least we can do considering how much Jesus asked financially of a certain young person in order to inherit the kingdom of God (Luke 18:18-24). With me, I feel like I have the best of both worlds in that I have both God and Jesus in my life, as well as a church that teaches that our families can be together forever and that I may one day see my closest friends and deceased relatives through the beautiful doctrine of baptism for the dead. My life in knowing that the Lord is in my heart and in my life, as well as having the added bonus of being a part of His Church, is all good.:):)

Edited May 27, 2009 by Carl62

[Traveler]

So when Jesus says to us that we'll do what He did, do you really take that to mean we should individually be turning over money tables, condemning religious authorities as "white-washed sepluchres," and radically reinterpreting religious writ? I took Jesus words to mean something more along the lines of us proclaiming the Good News, healing the sick, casting out demons, declaring deliverance to the bound, and setting the captives free.

I believe Jesus' words meant that the "acts" and "leters" of his apointed apostles would be recorded and considered sacred scripture according to the covenants.

It's an interesting contention--that Baptism for the Dead is ultimate fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Not only will Baptism go forth to all but so with the teachings that prepare them for baptism.

I'd humbly suggest to you that we Pentecostals have faced our faced ostracization, and have seldom been accused of clinging to learned interpretations, staid liturigies, etc. Out of early persecution, our thousands gave birth to tens of millions. Our preaching may not be retroactive, but it surely is global.

Had I not met and conversed with you I would not have taken this statement or seriously considered it. Others I have encoutered have not left such an impression.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I think those are fabulous gifts. How do you feel about the differentiation?

Pentecostals view the gift of tongues, when used in a group setting (i.e. church), not as a means of speaking a human language so a foreigner can understand, but as a means of preparing the congregation for a word from God. What follows the tongues is an interpretation in the venacular.

Sometimes, the Lord will simply anoint someone to speak out in the venacular, with no tongues preceeding. This is called the gift of prophecy. So, the purpose, again, is not to allow for foreigners to understand, but rather, for God to quiet us to receive a word from Him.

It is these very gifts that allow me to say that we Pentecostals do believe in modern day revelation. We do not call those who exercise the gift of prophecy prophets...rather, we say they prophesy--in the vein of Joel 2:28-29.

[the Ogre]

Pentecostals view the gift of tongues, when used in a group setting (i.e. church), not as a means of speaking a human language so a foreigner can understand, but as a means of preparing the congregation for a word from God. What follows the tongues is an interpretation in the venacular.

Sometimes, the Lord will simply anoint someone to speak out in the venacular, with no tongues preceeding. This is called the gift of prophecy. So, the purpose, again, is not to allow for foreigners to understand, but rather, for God to quiet us to receive a word from Him.

It is these very gifts that allow me to say that we Pentecostals do believe in modern day revelation. We do not call those who exercise the gift of prophecy prophets...rather, we say they prophesy--in the vein of Joel 2:28-29.

Right. I remember seeing this when I was in the army (a squad-member invited me to attend with him). I was very surprised to say the least. Pentecostal meeting are much different than LDS meetings. I remember the speaking in tongues part. I do not recall prophesy, but it was quite a long time ago. To be clear though, when speaking in tongues it does not mean to actually speak in a known language?

I have read old journals where Brigham Young discouraged "speaking in tongues" as you mention it from the pulpit while he was on one of his missions in England. I know now, if tongues are spoken, there has to be an interpreter. This is an interesting parallel.

I, however, am not sure what you mean by prophesy. The section on Joel does not explain the process that well (I think the section you indicate is a post-apocalyptical/millennial prophesy. Ie.. coming after the 2nd coming). Can you give me web site that might help?

[Snow]

The thief on the cross didn't get baptized, but still received eternal life.

I think you are making that up.

I am no scriptorian but I'm pretty sure the bible says no such thing - so unless you are a prophet and God speaks to you personally about such things, you are just making things up to make some point.

[ztodd]

Wow, this has turned into quite a debate since I last posted here. Aj, if you get a chance, maybe you can read over my last post on page 2? :) I know it was kind of a long post, but maybe it might help with some of your concerns.

[MikeUpton]

What do you think sincerity is?

I agree with the dictionary definition given here: sincerity definition | Dictionary.com

"freedom from deceit, hypocrisy, or duplicity; probity in intention or in communicating; earnestness."

What have I said and then did another thing than what I said?

You have stated that we have not answered your questions. We have been answering your questions, you have simply said we are not answering them because you do not like the answers.

I have spoken to Mormons on a one to one and they haven't been able to answer it my questions.

Lie #1. Hmmm, I wonder what the Ogre said in response to this particular lie:

No, I think they have failed to support your positions. After reading your posts for weeks, I think you will never be satisfied with the LDS position.

I don't have a problem with new truth or restored truth, but it has to pass certain criteria; for instance, if anything clashes with he Bible, that sends up a red flag for me, but if I can see that it clarifies and confirms or reinforces Bible truth i am for it 100%.

Lie #2. That statement sent up a red flag for me.

You are attempting make us jump through a hoop of your own device, whereby you set the standard for what is, and what is not "Bible Truth." Here you are trying to set the appearance that if we can pass your test by agreeing with you, then you will accept restored truth, and therefore the church. Hmm, what did the Ogre say again?

No, I think they have failed to support your positions. After reading your posts for weeks, I think you will never be satisfied with the LDS position.

In pretense of "maybe I'll accept the restored gospel" you are asking us to answer on grounds you agree with, which grounds would be contrary to the teachings of our church. So you can "witness to the Mormons" and prove yourself right. Is that not a deceptive motive? Does that not spell out insincerity as the dictionary has defined it?

Paul was dead set against Christianity until the Lord dealt with him and he became one of the best apologists in the Bible.

You come in the pretense of hoping we will see you as a potential investigator, hoping to dispel our doubts in you and cover up your poor behavior with statements such as "No one should be able to judge someone about his or her motive," Which is a blatantly pathetic falsehood, one HAS to judge the motive of others. Tell me, do you often get misled in scams when you're applying this "Truth"? Or do you rather like to waste the time of others telling them they cannot judge the motives of others? If they believe this, then they cannot tell the elect from people like you, because they have to ignore all the very behaviors you exhibit! My judgment of you is a limited temporal judgment, which we are allowed by the Lord to make, and must make. I have engaged in no final condemnatory judgment towards you, condemning you to hell without any hope, I do believe there is hope for you as well as me, if you are willing to repent.

Who gave you the right to judge me?

Again, the Lord allows us a limited temporal judgement, not a final condemnation. If I were on my mission, the advice of my mission president would have been to not waste my time with you, as there were far too many people willing and ready to hear the gospel preached to them.

What has happened that I pretend hasn't?

You are incredibly dense beyond any reason if I have to answer this question again.

What do you call behavior that fails to back up judgmental statements against another's character?

In your case, I am now also calling it hypocrisy, as you have been ignoring most of the responses given to you, often simply preferring to repeat yourself rather than back up what you have said against our responses, which is what you are asking of me.

If you cannot back this up you owe an apology!

This should be apparent now. I can and have. Let me set an arbitrary action for you now. Since I have "backed myself up," you are now required to respond to our responses instead of running away from them. (this habit of running away and ignoring responses, even saying they never happened shows me a high likelihood of self deception on your part.)

Edited May 27, 2009 by MikeUpton

[Justice]

The Bible commands (says) go ye into all the world and preach the gospel baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If it were not necessary, it wouldn't have been mentioned. On the other hand, it is not always possible to baptize someone. Does that mean they can't be saved or have eternal life? NO, of course not. Baptism is like a marriage vow. The commitment has to be there (born-again) first otherwise it is just a ritual that means nothing. I have answered this question many times and in many ways. The thief on the cross didn't get baptized, but still received eternal life. I believe in being baptized and I was, but I put my trust only in Christ for the salvation of my soul not in any works, baptisms, tithing or any other such things. I am hid in Christ that is what baptism means to me. I died with Christ and now I am a new creature. He took my sin on him and His righteousness has come on me because I put on and receive Christ as the Lord of my life; therefore, I stand perfect before God because of Christ in me the hope of glory! The just shall live by faith. Faith is better than a known path. God is still completing the work He started in me. The path of the just is as a shinning light - It shines more and more until the perfect day. When God looks at me He sees Christ in me who is my hope, my ressurection, my life, my salvation and the lifter of my head! I live by faith and I don't trust my emotions or feelings, but God's word is always true.

OK, so the answer is no, you do not believe baptism is necessary (I think).

Do you believe it was necessary for Christ to be baptized?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Justice

[pam]

I think you are making that up.

I am no scriptorian but I'm pretty sure the bible says no such thing - so unless you are a prophet and God speaks to you personally about such things, you are just making things up to make some point.

You are correct the Bible doesn't say that. In Luke it says that when Christ and the thief were on the cross, Christ said to him..."today shalt thou be with me in Paradise." However, Joseph Smith says that is a mistranslation of the Bible and what he actually said was, today you will be with Him in the world of spirits.

[Jamie123]

You are correct the Bible doesn't say that. In Luke it says that when Christ and the thief were on the cross, Christ said to him..."today shalt thou be with me in Paradise." However, Joseph Smith says that is a mistranslation of the Bible and what he actually said was, today you will be with Him in the world of spirits.

My understanding of Mormon doctrine is that "paradise" is that part of the Spirit World where the righteous are at rest, whereas the unrighteous and those waiting for proxy baptism will be in "spirit prison". I suppose Smith was saying that Jesus meant that both he (Jesus) and this man (the thief) would be together in the Spirit World, but in different parts of it.

[Pause while I scan the last paragraph. OK...I think it makes sense.]

But if that is true, what was Jesus' purpose in saying it? I always took it (the original translation) to mean that the man's faith - even after his life of crime - would be rewarded in heaven. Smith's interpretation muddies the water somewhat.

[Gatorman]

aj...I can not provide your own testimony for you. Nor can I quote chapter and verse very well. What I can provide is the one thing that is my own. My testimony. While I believe that all members of the LDS church are converts <You are not born with a testimony>, I am your standard convert. I grew up around the Baptist, Episcopal, and Catholic faiths. Talk about an easy way to get confused. In my teenage years, my mom attended a Methodist church and I was playing softball and attending a Southern Baptist church. So, at an early age, I learned that the churches did not agree.

1 - What is the right way to do Baptism?

2 - What is the right way to do Communion?

3 - Do you need to perform these acts?

4 - Is the Pope 'Holy'?

etc...

It never added up to me. It was not until I was much older that I realized I already had a testimony of the truth, I just had not heard the truth taught as my churches scripture. Christ is the example of how we are to live our life. Period. If you have faith in him, you will choose to do the works. That is why faith without works is dead. If you choose to not do the work, then you are rejecting the faith that you claim to have.

So, I continue to grow up, go off into the mililtary, study some non standard religions and start to learn more. I learn more deeply that the Bible was translated and retranslated by men, in some cases, with agendas. I learn that the churches subverted other faiths holidays and created 'Christian' holidays to remove those other faiths. IE: Do I celebrate Christmas as we have it today? Of course. It is when I remember the birth of my Savior, regardless of the time of his actual birth. But, I also recognize that the Christmas we know today was a manufacture of the churches to subsume some of the Pagan beliefs of that time of year. Now, whlie this is not necessarily important to your question specifically, it is what led to my belief of the Bible as we know it today.

The Bible we have today is a book created and translated many times by men, in some cases, with agendas or to prove their own power. It no longer can stand scrutiny by itself, because Men have corrupted what is written in the book and offered as the bible. The Bible is the Word of God in as much as it is correctly translated. The Book of Mormon is another testimony of that Word and of Christ which was written by the original authors, sealed up, and translated by a young man. Does this make it scripture? No, that still took prayer for me to learn. Just as prayer taught me that the Bible is partially right and partially wrong. And, the ONLY way for me to be able to discern the truth is to study these things and take them to the Lord in prayer. Ogre can not make them true for me. Prisonchaplain can not make them untrue for me. It is my own testimony, sought hopefully in humility and earnest, gained through study and prayer, and finally put in the Lord's hands to have faith that he would not lead me astray. This is how I reached my testimony.

My testimony is this. The Book of Mormon is true. The Bible is true in as far as it has been translated correctly. The only way for any to know the 'real' truth is to learn it for themselves, which requires humbleness, study, and prayer. This is part of the Bible that is still correct, when James teaches us to seek in prayer. The testimony most LDS will give in regards to that prayer is due to our faith. If you TRULY seek, we have faith in the answer you will receive. Yet, we are not to judge why you may not get that answer.

Christ's life is my example. I should live to do as he did. However, while he was man, my faith is not as strong as his. Nor do I have the authority in some of the stories he excercised. So, I can not duplicate Christ's life completely. But, there are some things that even Christ had to do. Christ had to be baptized by immersion by one who held the keys of baptism. If it was so important for Christ to do so, how can it be ANY less important for us?

I believe that I should be able to complete the miracles Christ did. But, I can not because of my own weaknesses, sins, and lack of faith.

I believe that the Church Christ instituted on Earth was removed by men for a time. I believe that Joseph Smith did not 'create' a new church. He was simply used to help bring the original Christ's Church back.

This is my testimony aj. I am willing to speak to it and explain it. But, I will not defend it from attack. It is pure and strong and I will not allow it to be attacked or assailed. For, it is my testimony in the goodness, forgiveness, and purity of my Savior.

I live this testimony, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

[rameumptom]

In the area of foundational truth pertaining to etenal life there are NO contradictions or innaccuracies. Scholars know where the translational errors are, but even those errors do not damage the truth revealed in God's eternal Salvation paln for mankind along with warnings from deviating from God's plan. If you know foundational errors in the Bible please inform of them specifically. God has given me His spirit that leads me into all truth. I also have the gift of discernment.

Ram: WHAAAAATTTTT????? This is the biggest load of baloney I've read in a long time. Which Bible scholars "know" what you claim? I've given many instances of doctrinal errors, not just translation errors. There ARE contradictions. How does Jesus and James insisting we obey God's commandments to be saved NOT contradict Paul's statement that we are saved by grace only????

So far, the spirit you are following is leading you into making huge errors on this list. Ogre has shown how you are taking several scriptures out of context. Just how does the spirit lead you to do that and then into all truth?

Paul is referring to the five fold ministry. God has given Apostels first then prophets evangelist teachers and preachers. It wouldn't be just one prophet by many prophets God has given. Even these prophets must conform to what is written in the Bible. there has to be checks and balances even in god's Kigdom. If they don't and give a prophecy that doesn't happen, God tells us not to be afraid of such a prophet. There have been many prophets who gave a word that never happened. That means false prophecy which can only represent a false prophet.

Ram: Once again you take the scriptures out of context. If you really believe one false prophecy makes a person a false prophet, then you have just condemned Jesus Christ to being a false prophet! He prophesied several times in the gospels that the 2nd coming would be in his generation, clarifying it by stating that there would be some in that generation who would not taste of death before it happened. Guess what? It didn't happen. Unless you go through severe theological gymnastics to explain it away, it didn't happen. And if you have to jump through such hoops to understand the Bible, then what good was God in making a perfect book so confusing?

Yes, there are prophets. But there was also THE prophet. Just read the Bible, you'll see that is so. There was a school of the prophets, but they all followed Elijah, and later Elisha, for example. Miriam and Aaron were prophets, but they were chastised by God for trying to make themselves equal to Moses' authority. See a pattern? Or are you still trying to force the Bible to fit into your view?

I know because I used to follow one. Jesus even told us to beware of false prophets. If we didn't listen to Jesus, guess what?

Ram: Jesus also stated we were to keep the commandments and repent if we wished to be saved. Do you believe that, or just hang onto Paul's words? John and Paul taught of true prophets in the future. Who are you going to dispute? Jesus also warned about false Christs. Does that mean there will not be a true Christ return for the 2nd Coming? You see how your logic is leading down strange paths?

So repeat them. What is the big deal. There is no need for name calling. It is not what Jesus would do nor is it a good testimony. let's call a spade a spade.

Ram: And if it isn't a spade, what shall we call it? You are cherry picking verses, taking them out of context, and then insisting we are wrong. That's the spade. I've quoted the Bible and Biblical experts on what the Bible really says. You have barely used any scripture, and then twist it to fit your presumptions. The Bible shows a pattern of apostles and prophets, with occasional periods of apostasy where there are none. That IS the easily viewed pattern in the scripture. That is what Jesus is teaching AND it is good testimony. What you are teaching is something entirely different than what the Bible teaches.

By the way, Jesus DID use name calling. What do you think it is when he called the Pharisees, "hypocrites"?

Okay let's look at some history. Tell me, first if I understand correctly. From what I understand it is LDS belief that Christ preached or allegedly appeared on the American continent after His resurrection and preached to the Nephites. What I would like for you to explain is how he quite naturally used the same language as recorded in the KJV along with its translation errors. Moreover, when Nephi came to the Americas he brought copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, which of course accounts for quotations from the OT. The problem I am having along with the translation errors as I mentioned in detail on the “Faith and works” thread that was closed is the miraculous plates that was inscribed, some how some way in the King James version with translation errors and all without variation approx. 1000 years before the 1611 version of written. Can you help me make sense of that without judging me?

Ram: Oh, good jump! Instead of dealing with my last group of statements, you are now jumping to a new issue. Just like a true troll would do. I'll be glad to answer these issues when you have either answered my previous posts sufficiently, OR you admit I was right.

Yes, I believe that God is in control. There is nothing written that states that God's plan of salvation needed or will need restored or was incomplete.

Ram: Let me share a couple verses that show you are wrong. Acts 3:19-21:

19 ¶ aRepent ye therefore, and be bconverted, that your sins may be cblotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the dpresence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send aJesus Christ, which before was preached unto byou:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of arestitution of all things, which God hath bspoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Why would Peter state there would be a restitution (restoration in other versions of the Bible) prior to the 2nd Coming, if it wasn't needed?

Let's see what John states in Revelation 14:6:

6 And I saw another aangel fly in the midst of heaven, having the beverlasting cgospel to dpreach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, aFear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his bjudgment is come: and cworship dhim that made eheaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Why would God have to send an angel in the last days with the everlasting gospel to every nation, IF the gospel was already upon the earth in its fullness? I can provide other scriptures that show a restoration occurring. Once again, I refer you to the following web page to show that even many Reformers believed there needed to be a restoration with apostles: Apostasy - Life, the Universe, and Etcetera

lEzraStiles - Life, the Universe, and Etcetera

Just how much evidence will it take before you realize the LDS DO have a leg to stand on, whether you agree with it or not? I'm not interested in convincing you that we're right. I'm interested in showing you that your reading of the Bible is not the only reading, and is perhaps not as good a reading/understanding as you may think.

Just because there are different demoninations does not mean that the Bible was destroyed or needed to be reinterpreted or written. Truth is truth regardless of how ancient it is. Why should the Bible conform to the Book of Mormon when the Bible was written first? These are questions not judgemnets on your believe nor am I cutting down Mormonism. I have questions needing answers that I consider revelant to making informed decisions not just for me but for others as well.

Ram: The Koran is ancient, do you believe it? The Bhagavad Gita is ancient, how about it? I personally enjoy the writings of Lao Tse, since they are ancient. The Bible wasn't destroyed. But many inspired and true books were left out of it. Plain and precious truths that were once taught to Jews and Christians alike, are now lost. Conflicting information and doctrine has Christianity fragmented. Do you believe that homosexual Christians will be saved in heaven? How about the African native who lived centuries ago, but never heard nor accepted Jesus as his Savior? Will he be saved? How so, when traditional Christianity insists he had to accept Jesus in this lifetime? What hope is there for the billions who never have heard of Jesus? Shall they all burn in hell for eternity, simply because they didn't hear of Jesus in their 35 years of existence? How does that make God a loving God? Obviously, either God is a tyrant, or there is information missing out of the Bible regarding the salvation of those who don't hear about Jesus in this life. Which one do you think? Do you accept God as a tyrant who creates beings and then places them in a position where they cannot be saved? Or do you believe God has prepared an escape for them, which is not expounded upon in the Bible?

Seems to me, the Bible is missing some important information here. Or God is a tyrant God.

The Bible doesn't have to conform to the Book of Mormon. It is just a compilation of writings from a variety of sources, of which we have copies of copies of copies. Nothing from the original source, except a few books from Paul and the Revelation from a guy named John (see Prof Bart Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted."

We believe that GOD can always add more stuff or change it around as he sees fit. Why? Because the Bible shows us that pattern. "Thou shalt not kill" was given by Moses to Israel from God. Yet, God had Joshua and Israel kill every man, woman and child in Jericho. Can God change things? You bet!

There have always been those believers who have challenged the prophets of God. Moses was challenged on many occasions, even by Aaron and Miriam. Isaiah and Jeremiah were challenged by kings of Israel and Judah. Jesus was challenged by the Jewish high priests. What does it matter if many Christians today challenge modern prophets? The pattern is still the same as it was anciently.

The questions you demand to be answered for yourself and "others" is a ploy we've heard from many trolls in the past. I suggest you spend a few weeks studying the in-depth articles at fairlds.org and also the fairwiki.org, which gives quicker answers to these questions.

Once again, I'm answering your questions, but you are not really responding to anything I've written. It is a hit and run tactic done by anti-LDS trolls, seeking to make themselves feel good that they are somehow going to win over the "others." Try using logic and reasoning. If you did, you'd see that some strong arguments are being used to support our beliefs. That is what true sincerity is about. Do you wish to know these things because you are open-minded but want to vigorously test the waters? Or do you demand these answers because you smugly want to later be able to claim that you squashed the Mormons with the truths you provided? The former will bring you to the truth. The latter will just confirm your personal prejudices.

This doesn't not present a problem to me. The Apocrypha does not go against the foundational truth of the Bible as a whole nor does it contain God's plan of salvation for the whole world as written in the NT.

Ram: But you are making the claim that the Bible is complete and should not be added to nor taken away from. How can the Apocrypha not be a problem for you, but the Book of Mormon IS a problem? Let's be consistent in our views, okay?

The "Trinity" is not mentioned in the Bible, but the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are. 1 Jn 5: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. This verse is an interpolation in the King James Version that is not in all major manuscripts of the New Testament, but it appears as a paraphrase in 3Nephi 11: 27, 36. Can you explain that?

Ram: Troll alert! This proves you are not reading anything I've written before. I've given links concerning this already. This is called the Johannine Comma and was added to the Bible several centuries AFTER the death of Jesus. It was added by Trinitarians who were seeking to prove their views contra the Arians. The Wikipedia explains this on it:

The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation. In translations containing the clause, such as the King James Version, 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows (with the Comma in bold print):

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers. The words "apparently crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages... [possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist. Erasmus omitted them from his first edition; but when a storm of protest arose because the omission seemed to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity (although that doctrine had in fact been formulated long before the textual variant), he put them back in the third and later editions, whence they also came into the textus receptus, “the received text.”[1] Modern Bible translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes.

So, you are clearly mistaken here. AND this is definite proof of doctrinal problems within the Bible and how it has been changed over the centuries. THIS is why we need additional guidance from God through the pattern he has set up since Adam: through prophets and apostles.

I don't depend on my pastor or prophets. I do my own study of Scripture. If I make a mistake, it will be mine and not another's.

Ram: That is fine, but realize that you are studying it with one hand tied behind your back (perhaps even both). You are not studying from the writings of Biblical scholars who have studied this for years. You are also not considering that living prophets have an open door to God that you do not have.

Oh, brother! They are not feelings.

Ram: If love, peace, and joy are not feelings, what are they? Thoughts? Chemical reactions in the body? Wikipedia describes love like this:

Love is any of a number of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection[1] and attachment. The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure ("I loved that meal") to intense interpersonal attraction ("I love my boyfriend"). This diversity of uses and meanings, combined with the complexity of the feelings involved, makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, even compared to other emotional states.

Hmmmm. I guess either love IS an emotion, or everyone else in the world besides you is wrong.

I take this seriously.

Ram: I'm not yet convinced of this. Were you serious, you wouldn't have quoted the Johannine Comma above to prove your point, after I just demonstrated it as evidence of the Bible being tampered with.

See the next post for the conclusion.

Edited May 27, 2009 by rameumptom

[rameumptom]

He was not led by apostels but by the Spirit of God. That was not the only reason he warn people about another gospel. But now that you mentioned it according to Jesus' own words His return will be in the clouds with great glory and every eye shall see Him. His comming will accompany a loud noise with every island and mountain being move from its place. The Sun will turn black, the moon to blood and every star will fall from heaven. Even Jesus warns don't fall for it if they say I have come and I am in a secret chamber.

Why does the book of Mormon follow the translational errors in the KJV?

Ram: Yes, Paul was guided by the Spirit. But he still sought the counsel and direction of the cheif apostles. In Acts 21, Paul returned to Jerusalem from among the Gentiles. James and the Brethren counseled him to purify himself according to the Jewish custom and present himself at the temple. He did as was ordered. In Acts 15, a problem arose as to whether the Gentiles should be circumcised. Did Paul solve the problem himself under direction of the spirit? No. He went to Jerusalem, where James, one of the chief apostles decided it. The apostles wrote letters to the Jews who lived in Asia, and gave the letters to Paul. If Paul were doing all the commands, why would he need the letters from James and the chief apostles? Because there was a hierarchy of priesthood authority, and Paul even admitted being the "least of the apostles."

they can do it the same way I did it. I read and studied it for myself. I was born and raised chatholic and didn't remain one because of my studies.

Ram: And I've known several Protestants who converted to Catholicism, because of their studies. Then again, I've also known many to convert to Mormonism, as well. What's your point?

You mean if I don't agree with you, you'll consider me a troll? Of course you have the truth and I don't!

Ram: I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. That does not make a person a troll. What makes a person a troll is where they do not engage the discussion sincerely and seriously.

You have not really responded with evidences for the things I've shown before. In fact, one of your few "evidences" that you just responded with was the Johannine Comma, which I'd already proven is from centuries after the apostles' death. That is what denotes a troll: someone who is so busy trying to make themselves feel good about their own words, they don't really engage what is written. You insist that we answer these things for you and "others." Well, I have answered them with Bible quotes, logic and reason, and the evidence from Bible scholars. Now it is up to you to prove to us and "others" that you are not just a troll, but are sincerely seeking truth by accepting what has been shown. Or at least acknowledge that we have strong evidence to show we might have something of value, even if you still do not agree with it.

[JohnnyRudick]

Most tell me it does not, but some say it does or it may. So I did my own research on the topic that has led to many questions that no one has been able to answer for me. Instead, I have seen a thread closed, and I have been accused of being a troll, hardening my heart, being insincere, of not interpreting Scripture correctly and you name it.

I don't have a problem with new truth or restored truth, but it has to pass certain criteria; for instance, if anything clashes with he Bible, that sends up a red flag for me, but if I can see that it clarifies and confirms or reinforces Bible truth i am for it 100%. No one should be able to judge someone about his or her motive. Paul was dead set against Christianity until the Lord dealt with him and he became one of the best apologists in the Bible.

I have spoken to Mormons on a one to one and they haven't been able to answer it my questions.

Some questions for starters: I know some things, but then I find out that I misunderstand a lot of what Mormons believe. I am trying to learn what it is they actually believe about the Bible and why they feel it was restored. What happened to the Bible that it needed restored? I never heard of such a thing.

I have a book of Mormon, and I have read some of it. I was told to pray sincerely about whether it be true or not, but for me to pray and ask God whether these things be so is a tall order for me because I wouldn't know how to do it sincerely, sincerely speaking. For example, I am already a born-again Christian. Why would I want to trade the eternal security or life I already have for a religion that says I cannot know if I have it right now. It would be like a Muslim telling me to pray and ask God if Muhammad is His prophet or the Koran is God's accurate word for today, but I would have to do it sincerely. If I could do it sincerely, than I am sure I will get a sign that Muhammad is god's prophet, but which god? Do you understand where I am coming from? Could you pray a prayer like that sincerely?

I cannot be ignorant of the Devil's devices he can appear as an angel of light and impersonate Jesus and or God without any problems to fool the human mind with all kinds of feelings and signs. We are dealing with supernatural forces. Do you realize or believe that too? Paul even warns that we should beware and consider accursed any that bring another gospel than that which we have heard already. Gal 1: 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Are you telling me to ignore Paul's words of wisdom because of the testimony of a 14 year old boy? I am sincere, and I think these questions are valid and constructive and need to be answered in order for me to make an informed decision that concerns my eternal soul! I wish you the best, but I would like these answered. PS. Do you believe the KJV is translated correctly? If not, do you know where there might be translation errors in that version? Take you time and answer them one at a time, but I have other questions, but this is a good place to start. Thanks, Aj4u

This is not another gospel this is the Restored Gospel pf Jesus Christ.

Also you will please note that this is a New Dispensation.

As each dispensation differs from another there is a distinct difference between the Dispensations given to Peter and another to Paul to the Gentiles and this Dispensation of the Restored Gospel for the preparation of the return of Jesus Christ in these Latter Days.

The King James Bible is the most accurate English bible we have in the world today but you must know that the term bible take into account all the hundreds of variants in circulation and each one varying against the other.

Most coming from mixtures of over 30 different manuscripts which differ from one another and the translator can pick annd choose to suit his or her personal feelings of what the verse aught to read of even if the verse aught to be included.

So we believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

Joseph Smith made a few minor corrections to the King James Bible by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

These corrections have been proven to be most helpful in many instances.

Although in many places they do not follow any known texts they may be what the Scripture wants us to have in these last days.

I have made many posts on this subject through out these forums and if you can try to find them and read them carefully and prayerfully and you may have many of your questions answered.

I hope;)

Good luck on your quest:)

Bro. Rudick

Edited May 27, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Spelling;(

[aj4u]

About this whole thing of Evangelicalism vs. Mormonism, I'd just like to say that I have truly accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and I know that he's died on the cross for my sins. Now, according to your teachings, that would mean that my name would then be written in the book of life. A truly wonderful feeling to know.:) Now along with that, I also believe that God has given us living prophets and apostles who guide us in what I believe to be the Lord's church here today on the earth. I believe this because I don't believe in limiting God in what he can do for us today through the Bible as well as even more additional writings he has given us. Now that I have true faith and a belief in Christ in my life, I want to do what I can for him through my works which I know someday I will be rewarded for, with each person receiving a different degree of reward. (John 14:2) Yes, I do believe in works in order to show our love for the Savior. My works actually make me feel closer to God. The biggest work of all is baptism. This shows that I've truly accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, just the same way that Evangelicals perform the work of rasing their hand in a church service and walking to the front of a pulpit to show their accepting of Jesus. Between the two faiths, what is the difference there? We're both doing a work to show our faith in Jesus, right? I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says that the way to Jesus is to raise your hand in a church and go to the pulpit. Oh, and tithing is a really important work as well. It's a charitable act in which we as Christians can show others our love by helping them with what He has given us. Does Jesus command this? He most certainly does. As a matter of fact, it's the least we can do considering how much Jesus asked financially of a certain young person in order to inherit the kingdom of God (Luke 18:18-24). With me, I feel like I have the best of both worlds in that I have both God and Jesus in my life, as well as a church that teaches that our families can be together forever and that I may one day see my closest friends and deceased relatives through the beautiful doctrine of baptism for the dead. My life in knowing that the Lord is in my heart and in my life, as well as having the added bonus of being a part of His Church, is all good.:):)

If your going to follow the law of tithing as many of my Christian brethern do. Please note that it is not a charitable act as you mentioned. When one tithes, they are not even giving. It is something that belongs to the Lord not you. I do not believe that 10% belongs to the Lord. I believe all I have does. I believe being a disciple requires that we forsake all the we have (ALL)because it is all the Lords. I don't mean forsake all symbolically; I Mean do it literally. Luke 14:33 I did it, and it caused my brothers and mother to disown me. I was like the rich youn ruler at the time and Jesus challenged me with forsaking all to follow him. I don't have time to get into the problems, but I have a feeling that we are only touching the tip of the ice-berg. I can't put my finger on everything, but there are major difference and many similarities, but the differencews are of major concern. With me you have a chance to see through the eyes of typical fundamental Christianity (Congregation of Churches world-view) All Christians agree with the basics of my doctrine in this area. They may not agree with my delievery, but that is another issue. I don't even agree with myself in those areas, but I am sincerely a follower of Jesus Christ. The two largest World religions are Isalm started by vision and an apperaring to Muhammad and Judo/Christianity that started with the Catholic Church after the Apostels. These major world religion are not considered to be cults, but there are many sects that shoot out of it that are such as JWs, Unification church, Christian Science and many others. What really gets me is that you think you have something I don't and that I need. Your view, also, of who Jesus is disturbs me greatly. Edited May 27, 2009 by aj4u

[the Ogre]

. . . With me you have a chance to see through the eyes of typical fundamental Christianity (Congregation of Churches world-view) All Christians agree with the basics of my doctrine in this area . . .

You're a Congregationalist!!!

Oh my, That explains a lot. Congregationalist attacks on Mormons are of the most cliched type. Wonderful. This is so good to know.

BTW: Not "all" Chr-stians agree; some Chr-stians agree. If all Chr-stians agreed, then everyone would be a Congregationalist.