Does LDS doctrine clash with the Bible?

[the Ogre]

2Corn. 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. One of Satan's traps is to get people to think that the Bible is not reliable and another is to have people believe that they have to earn or merit their own salvation.

Actually, 2Cor 2.11 has nothing to do with what you just said. You are quoting only a sentence fragment again instead of going for the whole thought:

10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

First, who is speaking. The L-rd is not the person doing the speaking here. So, who is this "I" in verse 10? Paul of course. So who is this "we" in verse 10? Is it the same as the "ye" in verse 10? What is this "it"? These are some good questions that pertains to the next verse that you are throwing in LDS teeth out of context. This what I am saying, as I have said in the past that you don't read the scriptures appropriately.

The "I" is Paul. The "ye" is the Corinthian church. The "we" and the "us" is the body of Chr-st in general. The "it" is sin in general (the "anything" Paul mentions). Paul is saying he forgives the church in Corinth in the name of Chr-st as H-s representative. The reason is given in verse 11: "If I do not forgive you, then Satan will use this as a wedge between the Corinthian church and the body of Chr-st in general." This is a simple explanation and shows easily that you are cherry picking verses to condemn instead of using the language of Paul in context.

If there is any deception going on, this is it: quoting a prophet of G-d out of context (and yes, as an apostle, Paul was a prophet, but not the Prophet of the era. That prophet was Peter).

There is a righteousness that comes from man and one that comes from God. It is written that "My people says the Lord perish for lack of knoweledge." Ro. 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

So, here again we have to examine the context of the scripture you are using. Who is Paul talking about? In Rom 9.31-33 we find the answer: the Jews. Paul is saying "the Jews" are dying because of their lack of knowledge regarding G-d. I don't mind you using this verse, but this is another example of cherry-picking the scriptures. I do not think you understand the context for what you are saying. This is a problem.

I showed how you did this with the Ephesian Verses. You must work in context and look at each section carefully and make sure it does not conflict LDS doctrine. Forgiveness and correct Knowledge are key parts of LDS doctrine and neither of these examples you provided show a clash with the bible.

I will submit to the authority of the Bible, and I will learn from whatever clarifies and confirms what is written. If, however, something clashes with it, red flags go up for me and don't you think it should? That was a question:D

The biggest flags that should be going up is that you cherry-pick the gospel instead of working in context. Cherry-picking is dishonest and highly manipulative.

If you want to oppose Latter-day Saints, do so in context and with honesty.

Cherry-picking . . . oh, my.

Edited May 26, 2009 by the Ogre

[aj4u]

Rameumptom: The LDS teachings do not agree with the Bible 100%. The thing is, the Bible does not agree with the Bible 100%, either. Many scholars have written on the disagreements within the same Bible. "Jesus, Interrupted" by Prof Bart Ehrman gives several examples. So, since you have a 100% insistence on perfection, does this now mean you will abandon the Bible, because it disagrees with itself? If not, how do you tell which parts are true and which are not?]

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.

Paul taught that there needs to always be prophets and apostles as the foundation of Christ's church, to keep it from straying (Eph 2:19, 4:11-14). Amos 3:7 states that God only speaks through prophets. Prophets have a tendency to change things that previous prophets have proclaimed. Noah gave a conduct/obedience code, which was changed by Moses, which was changed by Jesus, which was changed by Paul. Jesus commanded his disciples to only preach to the Jews, but this was changed by Peter in vision. So, if the God calls a prophet today, and that prophet is inspired to change some commandments around that we find in the Bible, is he still a true prophet following an ancient pattern, or is he suddenly a heretic?

Paul is referrring 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. 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: I've answered many of your questions in the past. You just seemed to always ignore those answers and reask your questions again and again. It is because of this that others have called you a troll. A sincere person would engage the whole discussion, not just toss in some controversial issues and then run to the next controversial issue, pretending you haven't been "answered."

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.

Rameumptom: In his book, "Jesus, Interrupted" (and many of his other ones), Prof Ehrman describes it well. He was a conservative Southern Baptist that attended Moody's Bible College. They taught him doctrinal beliefs. What they didn't teach him was "historical criticism" of the Bible, as he learned at Princeton's Divinity School. Virtually every seminary teaches a few classes on historical criticism, but for some reason, many preachers never bother teaching these truths to their congregations.

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?

The Bible was never intended by its original authors to be a single book. The Old Testament goes like this, according to scholars: The writings of Moses actually come to us via oral traditions that disagreed with one another. The authors of Moses' books are now called "E, J, P, D, and R." Each had political reasons for writing into the books their own version of what happened. For this reason, we have two versions of the Creation (Genesis 1, 2), which do not agree on many points. Were Adam and Eve created before or after the animals? It depends on which version you follow. Evidence suggests that the book of Isaiah was written by at least 2 if not 3 authors. The Book of Daniel was probably written around the 2nd century BC (at least as we now have it). These were not compiled into a book by the Jews until after Jesus' death. The Dead Sea Scrolls show us that there were many other books considered sacred that did not make it into our current Bible. Why not? Because they lost out over the Rabbinical Jewish faith. Do you think the Rabbis were inspired in putting together the Old Testament?]

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. 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.

Of course, even our current Bibles differ, as the Catholics consider the Apocrypha to be a part of the Bible (for more details, read, "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Friedman). And of course, which ancient manuscripts should today's Christians use in creating their modern Bible?]

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.

Regarding the New Testament, Prof Ehrman has written several books on how we got it. In "Jesus, Interrupted", he states that most Bible scholars believe that only about 8 books were actually written by the individuals claimed to have written them (7 of Paul's letters and Revelation). The others are pseudipigrapha, religious forgeries. Mark was the earliest gospel written, about 30 years after Jesus' death. Matthew and Luke are based upon Mark and another source, called "Q" (Quelle means Source in German). He describes in his books the fight that lasted for centuries over which books were true or not. He notes that the belief in the Trinity is not found in the Bible, and later scribes actually tried to add evidence of the Trinity into the Bible (see the Johannine Comma). There were several competing versions of Christianity, with one winning out in the 5th century AD. Today's New Testament reflects some of the competing views, such as: Paul's reliance on faith without works versus Jesus' and James' insistence on righteous works. The early Christians fought over concepts such as the Trinity, continuing revelation, priesthood authority, etc. ]

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?

Several books that are found in some of the earliest Bible lists are no longer in the Bible, including the Book of Enoch (quoted 39 times in the New Testament - see Jude for an example), the Odes of Solomon, the Gospel of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Here I've given you a quick history of the Bible. I suggest you read more about it online, such as at wikipedia or the websites of Biblical scholars (Margaret Barker, Professor Bart D. Ehrman - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor, and April D. DeConick for starters). These will open your eyes to the things your pastor hasn't told you about the Bible.]

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.

Rameumptom: Pray must be sincere and with real intent. You have to be open minded that perhaps God does have more instruction for you. Second, you must be willing to do whatever God asks of you. Third, you have to believe that God will answer you with the wisdom you lack (James 1:5-6). God reveals to all mankind the level of truth and light they are willing to receive (Alma 29:8). Therefore, if you are missing any of these requirements, there is no reason for God to give you more truth, as you are already settled on the truths you have, mixed with human philosophy.]

Well, you'll get no arguement from me on this. Lord, I ask sincerley in prayer that you would open my eyes to see where this posts is coming from and where it is going. In Jesus' names I bind Satan's deception from blocking me or anyone from seeing the truth you want us to see. I thank you for dong it Lord.

Rameumptom: Are you saying that you believe Satan has greater power than God? Satan can deceive, yes. How do you know he isn't already deceiving you with what you already believe? How is it that you have a testimony of Christ and the Bible? Are you certain that the Devil didn't deceive you, to prevent you from becoming Jewish or Muslim?]

NO, I believe the devils tremble when I come around because of Jesus in me.

The earliest version of Galatians is dated about 200 AD, almost 150 years after Paul's death. Yes, Satan can come as an angel of light. But do you choose your beliefs based upon fear of Satan, or faith in Christ? If angels can deceive, how do we know Paul wasn't deceived by Satan dressed up like Jesus? Simply because he tells us of his conversion in Galatians 1, right after warning about angels with other gospels? We believe because of faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit has its method of working that is not easily matched by Satan. In the same letter to the Galatians (ch 5), Paul wrote: " 22 But the afruit of the bSpirit is clove, djoy, epeace, flongsuffering, ggentleness, goodness, hfaith, 23 aMeekness, btemperance: against such there is no law."

Love, joy and peace are feelings that the Spirit brings. If we study, ponder and pray about a doctrine, and the Spirit sends us such feelings, then we can be assured it is of God. It increases our faith and hope in Christ.

]

Oh, brother! They are not feelings.

Also note that right after the quote in Galatians 1 that you give, Paul tells us: "

10 For do I now apersuade men, or God? or do I seek to bplease men? for if I yet cpleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I acertify you, brethren, that the gospel which was bpreached of me is not after man. ]

I take this seriously.

12 For I neither received it aof man, neither was I taught it, but bby the crevelation of Jesus Christ."]

Yes, I agree.

He received it by revelation. Even then, he counseled with the apostles, who guided him in his mission to the Gentiles, because they were God's chosen leaders. He gave the warning he did about "another gospel" because some were going around teaching false things: Jesus had already come for his 2nd Coming, there was no physical resurrection, etc. I highly doubt Paul was warning the followers to ignore revelations that Peter or other prophets and apostles received, especially given that Paul followed such counsel himself.]

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.

Yes, there are translation errors in the KJV. One easy one is the Johannine Comma found therein, which I explain above with a link. No scholar disagrees that it is an add on that occurred centuries after the death of the apostles.]

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

(edit) Don't forget, that the first Christians did not have the Bible. No one had the Bible until about the 4th or 5th century AD, and then because it was expensive to hand print, only a few had it. Even later, most Christians did not learn from the Bible, but from the creeds. Most Christians can quote the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, but have never read the entire Bible themselves. So, how do they really know what it is they are reading, except they are taking their pastor's interpretation of things?

]

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.

Now, I have answered your questions and concerns. If you respond sincerely to my answers, I'll continue working with you on your questions. If you ignore this one (as with previous posts), then I will also consider you a troll.

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!

Edited May 26, 2009 by aj4u

[the Ogre]

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

Isn't he like the forth person to think this of you? I think you need to either recognize this as true or rethink your strategy.

[the Ogre]

. . . 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? . . .

You are not specific, but I believe you are referring to 1 Jn 5.7? This dovetails nicely with 3 Ne 11.27 & 36.

We believe the G-dhead consists of 3 distinct individuals as a unified governing body with G-d the F-ther as the president of this all-important quorum. G-d and H-s S-n J-sus Chr-st have physical bodies and the H-ly Gh-st does not.

The pronoun "him" in 3 Ne 11.36 refers to the person who the H-ly Gh-st bears witness to of G-d the F-ther and of J-sus Chr-st.

[Justice]

aj4u, is it necessary to be baptized?

What does the Bible teach?

[MikeUpton]

...Can't you see that that will never allow you to understand our beliefs?

...it's what I've been trying to tell you for a couple weeks now.

Ram: I've answered many of your questions in the past. You just seemed to always ignore those answers and reask your questions again and again. It is because of this that others have called you a troll. A sincere person would engage the whole discussion, not just toss in some controversial issues and then run to the next controversial issue, pretending you haven't been "answered."

There is a fabled behavior of the ostrich, that it hides it's head in the sand at the sign of danger. Ostrich sticking head in sand It is apparently not a correct behavior of the ostrich, but the fable sets a likeness for something that can be a tendency for humans. It is the problem of denial.

You, my friend, show every sign that this is a problem, even a serious problem with you. We have not only been giving you adequate argument to consider and respond to, we have been collectively wiping the floor with you. Then you fail to respond to the arguments, and continue running off in another direction. I would be more gentle with you, save that you have not proven worthy of such gentleness, you have come into an LDS forum and have started a thread entitled "Does LDS doctrine clash with the Bible?" and then you have shown by your actions there is in fact no question with you, you are attempting to make a statement about why our church is wrong, under the pretense of sincerity. You are NOT sincere.

The problem with denial is that you are seeking to hide your behavior, while you cannot begin to hide it from others, you are only hiding from yourself. Denial is by definition a lie one creates inside to hide themselves from the truth. As such, I can see that you will really need to work on your devotion to truth before you can ever realize truth when you find it. Until such time, your behavior is embarrassingly apparent on this board to us, I would say to most people who read this thread.

You have time and time and time again failed miserably in your scriptural arguments by this very behavior you exhibit, where you fail to address the topic that has been adequately responded to and questions re addressed.

You have said a prayer right in the thread, which was unexpected, but refreshing because you prayed against the very thing you were doing:

Lord Jesus I pray that you would open both of our eyes to see you and what you are doing here. In fact, I ask it of all viewing this thread. My understanding is limited, but yours is not. I am weak but you are strong. I pray that you have you way on this thread and in my life in Jesus' name. Satan the Lord rebuke you from blocking and twisting truth. You will not be able to hinder any from seeing the truth of what Jesus doing here and from others seeing in Jesus name. I pray Lord for a clean heart and a right spirit in the percious name of Jesus Christ my Lord.

Unfortunately I do not believe most people here have any difficulty seeing this prayer will work, and has been working, but not to your favor. You have started an attack thread against the church under the pretense of a question, every time a question you give is answered, you run away and pretend it hasn't been, people end up saying the same thing over and over to you in exasperation because you will not open your eyes to what is around you, instead preferring to hide and not answer our posts.

It is apparent this sort of behavior is from no divine source, it stems from the father of all lies, and is the lie known as denial. You will be able to make no real spiritual progress before your father in heaven until you first begin to admit that you have a problem. Your words will carry no weight with us, and you continue to appear as a fool.

May I recommend to you a scripture in the bible which addresses this need?

"15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

Revelation 3

In the case you again make the mistake that I ought to be overly gentle in response to your insincerity, let me recommend the next verse to you. It appears immediately after the call to stop the denial:

"19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."

Revelation 3

When you have mended your ways and your heart is sincere, it is my thought that most on this board will respond to you warmly, for then even if your interpretation of doctrine is different, you are then not a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Edited May 26, 2009 by MikeUpton

[Justice]

Oh, brother! They are not feelings.

We need to come back to this. But, first I'd like for you to answer the question, is it necessary to be baptized.

[bytebear]

Paul is referrring 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. 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?!

There is nothing in the Bible about a "five fold ministry." That is a made up term by a bunch of men who were not prophets of God. It is the learing and understanding of men, pretending to be the understanding of God. It is false doctrine.

As to your "test" of a prophet, that concept would negate the entire New Testiment, because it did away with a large chunk of the doctrine and practices of the Jews. So, who was right? Moses or Paul? You say a new prophet cannot contradict an old one, but there are far to many examples in the Bible of that to believe that is truly the case. As to prophecies not coming true... again, the Bible is filled with contradictory examples.

Finally, if Jesus warned of false prophets, woudn't that imply that he meant to seek out the true prophets? Otherwise he would have said "beware all men who claim to be prophets."

[Maya]

Scolars... you say they know about ALL the translation mistakes. So why there are coming in dayslight all the time things that the scolars did not know? However I do agree that the MAIN message is correct in the Bible and so it is in the BoM. Jesus is the son of God and he was born to virgin Mary and he was crusified so we could have eternal life and forgiveness for our sins.

Not missing from the scriptures either; soon after Jesus death Organisation chages, Jesus gave clair orders how his church should be lead. It was given, how ever apostles, leaders did not agree about it.

Pretty much missing also is the Templework, but not totally either, hints to it can be found here and there. Today new Christian Temples are beeing found all over the mediterainian. Read Margret Barker, she has studied a long time anicent temples. Jesus did go in the Temple and he used it and so did everyone else. There is nothing much about Temples in the Bible, how could there be, as it is sacret. But there is a lot on the wall paintings of early cristian curches also a lot of hints are found in the Bible as well as other scriptures found lately.

Titings are in the Bible.

Even the 3 kingdoms of Heaven are in the Bible they are just more explained in the D&C.

Polygamy is in the Bible.

To stay strong to the end is in the bible.

To love your neigbour ans to help those that need help is in the Bible.

It says in the bible that one can NOT take the priesthood to oneself but will get it from brothers by putting their hands on the person receaving the priesthood.. this is also in the Bible.

Are you implying that JSs propheties are wrong? That is not nice to claim my profet a liar! JS had many propheties and only now many of them begin to show to have been correct: Meridian Magazine:: Ideas and Society: Joseph Smith and the Origin and Progress of Life

Even Sodoma and Gomorra could have been saved... remember how?

Lest call a spade a spade... you are NOT interested in mormonism at all you just want to get a lot of people in hre to read your inputs so they would start doubting... but quess what ... you loosing!

Did that hurt... oh I am sorry. But the spade is a spade.

Christ used same languages as in KJV? or ??? Really tell me about it! Scriptures that Lehi had with do not totally match with the ones in OT. The ones in OT are cahnged Lehis are the original ones. Only a smal protition is translated. And the language they were written was not Hebrew but changed Egypt. As it says in 1 Nefi 1 I think... right in the beginning. Why JS used KJV in his translation.. ask him. He probably asked God if that was close enough and got yes as an answer. He did not fall in the sinn of doven... did he not!

In many places in the Bible it is prophesied that the truth will be forgotten. I leave taht to someone else....

Father and son are one in their toughts, in their aim and possibly lookalikes too. It do not mean they are one beeing. What Son has seen Father do He does too! Son like Father!

I have the gift of feeling the spirits and now I am exhausted....

[Justice]

Maya, I want you to know that I appreciate you. You have a language barrier, yet you make every attempt to bridge the barrier.

I know when I see a long post of yours it's going to take my full attention to understand it. But, I have never been disappointed I took the time or made the effort to understand you. You speak (type) with the spirit, and you are uplifting.

Thank you.

[Traveler]

I understand what you’re saying and agree to a great point, however, you do not understand what the Bible is saying. It doesn't preach a unilateral message. It is saying that you are saved by God's grace through your faith. In other words, a person can have and be full of good works in their lives and still be none of Christ's. But it is impossible that a man of faith will not have good works. God's grace is the divine enabling and the unmerited favor with God. If our trust is in the doing for God, then we are falling from God's grace and will be judge on how well we followed the commands, laws and so on. I will not be judge by my works, because I live by faith. It is written, "The just shall live by faith." Do I have good works in my life? Yes, but I don’t put trust in that to get me anywhere with God. It is not what we do for God that counts; it is what He does through us by faith that counts!

Ro. 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. I do not want to be ingornant of Satan's devices or for Satan to get an advantage over me. Does that make sense to you?

2 Corn. 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

No - what you are saying does not make sense to me at all. You say that faith is the only key then you talk about Satan getting an advantage. It is not by the grace of G-d that Satan gets or does not get the advantage you need to understand scriptures. Satan gets an advantage when people of faith do not do their part – do not blame this on G-d.

Again consider forgiveness. Forgiveness does not come by grace only but by grace after the works of forgiveness. How can a person be forgiven without the works of forgiveness? Jesus said himself by his own mouth that without the works of forgiveness there is no forgiveness from G-d (Matt 6:14-15). Who is a greater authority than Jesus? Do you think Paul’s opinion is greater that Christ? The works of forgiveness must come before the grace of forgiveness. There are no such exceptions in scripture except by misinterpreting scripture and misinterpreting scripture is a device of Satan. (See Luke 4:10-11)

How can you have salvation except you have forgiveness and can you have forgiveness without the works of forgiveness? I do not think so. To believe to be forgiven without the works of forgiveness is falling to a device of Satan to prevent one from preparing themselves to receive the grace of G-d unto forgiveness. But you insist on doing it your way – I cannot stop you; only recommend that you consider otherwise.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO, true prophesy will not clash with a correct understanding of the Bible. On the other hand, it may conflict with traditional interpretations. Jesus turned Judaism on it's head. On the other hand...He hasn't returned yet.

Joseph Smith more or less claimed to do just like Jesus. The faith has gone apostate, the original spirit has been lost, Father God is restoring faith to it's true purpose--and it's going to look very different from what you've been hearing the last several centuries.

So, the bottom line question is...is Joseph Smith really a prophet of God, and can the prophet do that which the Savior did? In fairness to us evangelicals, understand that we would place the burden of proof quite high.

[the Ogre]

So, the bottom line question is...is Joseph Smith really a prophet of God, and can the prophet do that which the Savior did? In fairness to us evangelicals, understand that we would place the burden of proof quite high.

PC:

I think you are wrong about the role of Joseph Smith. In no way, shape, or form does he take the place of the S-vior. Joseph's role is only as a prophet and restorer. He is not our mediator with G-d. We do not revere him as deity at all, he is most definitely human. He translated the Book of Mormon and he gave us the will of G-d, but he does not take the place of G-d.

Joseph Smith cannot lead us to ressurection or give us salvation. Latter-day Saints know who their G-d is. We also know just how human a man Joseph was.

Joseph's role was to restore the church, give us a direction and three-part mission, and be the mouth-piece of G-d as H-s prophet. Joseph does not take the place the S-vior at all.

I am sure this is merely a mistake in phrasing and you did not mean to imply the Joseph was our G-d (as in do the same as J-sus).

Aaron the Ogre

[bytebear]

The comparison of Joseph Smith to Jesus Christ is an uncomfprtable one, because Smith did not suplant Christ's role in any way. I compare Smith to Peter or Paul, or to Moses, or Abraham. Or to Noah or Isaiah. All of the prophets really. They all shook up the status quo. Smith just did it a couple hundred years ago, as opposed to a couple thousand. That is why he is questioned with more scrutiny. If you were a Jew at the time of Paul, would you convert? or would you mock him as a false prophet? Would you follow Moses through the desert? Would you build an ark, just in case? Yes, of course you would. All Christians say they would, but would you accept new scripture if God presented it to you?

Edited May 26, 2009 by bytebear

[Traveler]

IMHO, true prophesy will not clash with a correct understanding of the Bible. On the other hand, it may conflict with traditional interpretations. Jesus turned Judaism on it's head. On the other hand...He hasn't returned yet.

Joseph Smith more or less claimed to do just like Jesus. The faith has gone apostate, the original spirit has been lost, Father God is restoring faith to it's true purpose--and it's going to look very different from what you've been hearing the last several centuries.

So, the bottom line question is...is Joseph Smith really a prophet of God, and can the prophet do that which the Savior did? In fairness to us evangelicals, understand that we would place the burden of proof quite high.

Jesus answered your question (John 14:12). And the proof is the Book of Mormon that is a companion witness to the New Testament that Jesus came into the world - and not to the Jews only but to others of the covenant of the house of Israel (other sheep that are not of the fold of the Jews) as prophesied in the New Testament. I would also submit that only in the teachings of the LDS is the gospel preached, according to prophesy, to every nation, kindred, tongue and people for in no other Christian faith is the gospel preached to those nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples that died without hearing.

But without the faith to believe such things are possible no amount of proof will ever suffice. And many – according to prophesy; have prepared themselves not to have faith in such things in the same manner that the Pharisees and Scribes by their religious traditions and their expert and studied interpretations of scripture rejected Christ.

The Traveler

[Rico]

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.

............

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!

I am only reading this original post and not the rest of the thread because I have something to say and what others have said has no bearing on what I have to say. I was a "born again Christian" and I was the guy who said, the Bible is the only word of God. I used to be the person who said if the bible didn't deal with it, then it wasn't true. I used to be a missionary for an evangelical church.

There is no new Gospel. Paul is completely correct. Do beware of ANYONE bringing you a NEW gospel. Paul's words should be heeded always. Don't let anyone tell you that there is a new gospel.

The gospel of the CJLDS is about the restored gospel. It's about the restoring of that which was lost. It's not anything new, it's returning it to its former state because others in the past didn't heed Paul's admonition and instead chased other paths to the point of changing the gospel. In effect, many of the Churches out there are following the new gospels that Paul is warning you about.

For me, I long had questions concerning the Bible. The Bible didn't quite answer all of my questions, but I was told to be content about it. I still don't know the reason why, but I requested a book of Mormon and I read it. I remember closing it several times with a tear in my eye because a question of mine had been answers. Still that was no proof that it was true. That truth came first through realization and then praying.

I say realization because I needed to get to a certain point before I could even pray as to whether it was true or not. I know where you are coming from, aj4u. I was able to make it through the realization thinking about these things(and realize that I wasn't talking to any missionaries at the time)

1) Could the word of God be altered over time by men?

2) Could the Gospel have been changed over time by men?

3) Could and should their still be prophets of God?

I sat and pondered these questions for many days and even weeks. I studied history and studied the Bible, but most importantly, I prayed.

Here is what I realized:

1) Yes, the word of God could be altered, just look at the different translations of the Bible and how they alter things based on who is doing the translation.

2) If the word of God, meaning the bible, could be altered by men, then the Gospel could be as well and in fact since there are many conflicting Gospels, it 's certain that most of the gospels out there have been changed and corrupted.

3) I believe that God would always send us prophets to warn us and direct us. I see nothing in the bible to tell us that it wasn't true.

These realizations helped me to get the point where I could honestly say that there was a reasonable chance that the Book of Mormon could be true and that Joseph Smith could have been a prophet of God.

Then, I started looking at the fruit of Gospel as revealed in the BOM and seeing if it met the test that Christ gives us. Is the fruit good? It certainly is a good fruit.

I read the Book of Mormon with this honest possibility and I prayed to ask about the truth. And do you know what? I got the answer, time and again, that the Book of Mormon was true.

But I just didn't stop there, I read the Book of Mormon and compared it to the Bible and all that I knew in the Bible. If there was a problem in agreement, I reread both books and then prayed for direction in how they agreed. Guess what? After praying, I received wisdom on the fact that yes those passages did agree.

Nowadays, I see the Bible as a perfect companion to the Book of Mormon and they both fully support each other. The Book of Mormon is a key to help understand the Bible. I would even go so far as to say, that if you properly understand the Bible, then you can live the Gospel without the Book of Mormon. (But that is extremely difficult since it's extremely difficult to properly understand the Bible without the help of the Book of Mormon.)

My advice is not to look at the Book of Mormon supporting the Bible. You'll never come to any the truth and you'll be ever seeking.

Anyways, this is what I had to say. I hope that you take it in and you can use and benefit from it.

[prisonchaplain]

PC:

I think you are wrong about the role of Joseph Smith. In no way, shape, or form does he take the place of the S-vior. Joseph's role is only as a prophet and restorer. He is not our mediator with G-d. We do not revere him as deity at all, he is most definitely human. He translated the Book of Mormon and he gave us the will of G-d, but he does not take the place of G-d.

Joseph Smith cannot lead us to ressurection or give us salvation. Latter-day Saints know who their G-d is. We also know just how human a man Joseph was.

Joseph's role was to restore the church, give us a direction and three-part mission, and be the mouth-piece of G-d as H-s prophet. Joseph does not take the place the S-vior at all.

I am sure this is merely a mistake in phrasing and you did not mean to imply the Joseph was our G-d (as in do the same as J-sus).

Aaron the Ogre

In the context of my post, my comparison was not with Jesus the Savior, Mediator, or deity, but with Jesus who "turned Judaism on its head." What Joseph Smith taught was not mere improvements or improved understandings. He claimed to do what Jesus did--restore the worship of God to a true and pure form--and away from an apostate one. So, my question was--do prophets do that? Do they revolutionize and restore. IMHO, usually, prophets call for repentence and a return--not for radical spiritual restructuring. But, that's an observation on my part--something that raises questions in my mind--not a conclusive pro/con argument.

[prisonchaplain]

The comparison of Joseph Smith to Jesus Christ is an uncomfprtable one, because Smith did not suplant Christ's role in any way. I compare Smith to Peter or Paul, or to Moses, or Abraham. Or to Noah or Isaiah. All of the prophets really. They all shook up the status quo. Smith just did it a couple hundred years ago, as opposed to a couple thousand. That is why he is questioned with more scrutiny. If you were a Jew at the time of Paul, would you convert? or would you mock him as a false prophet? Would you follow Moses through the desert? Would you build an ark, just in case? Yes, of course you would. All Christians say they would, but would you accept new scripture if God presented it to you?

Most prophets do not change religion--but rather call a wayward people to return. They do not propose new practices, but a return to ancient ones.

I'll grant you that Abraham might be a better comparison, since he came out of a polytheistic family, and called his clan out of a comfortable place to found a place of God in an unknown frontier. To a lesser extent, Moses did establish a whole system of commandments.

But it's Jesus who revolutionized the worship of Yahweh. He condemned false practices and hard hearts, and called for a new direction. It is in this vein alone that I draw the comparison with Joseph Smith. And, yet, it is uncomfortable. And that's my question--did he have the authority to make the DEGREE of changes that Jesus did? The argument can be made--but again, the burden of proof is high.

[bytebear]

Most prophets do not change religion--but rather call a wayward people to return. They do not propose new practices, but a return to ancient ones.

I'll grant you that Abraham might be a better comparison, since he came out of a polytheistic family, and called his clan out of a comfortable place to found a place of God in an unknown frontier. To a lesser extent, Moses did establish a whole system of commandments.

But it's Jesus who revolutionized the worship of Yahweh. He condemned false practices and hard hearts, and called for a new direction. It is in this vein alone that I draw the comparison with Joseph Smith. And, yet, it is uncomfortable. And that's my question--did he have the authority to make the DEGREE of changes that Jesus did? The argument can be made--but again, the burden of proof is high.

Well, I think you need to understand the LDS view of Dispensationalism as well as the concept of Greater and Lesser prophets. Yes, most prophets simply call men to repentance, and do not turn the world upside down. But that is true today. From Brigham Young to Thomas S. Monson, those prophets are examples of what you describe, and would be called "lesser prophets." not because they were not as important, but because they did not open up a new dispensation. The major dispenstations that we know of from the Bible are: Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, The meridian of time (Jesus, and then Peter), and the dispensation of the fulness of times (Joseph Smith). Every one of these prophets turned the understanding of the people upside down and brought forth new knowledge. Moses created a new law for the people, coincidentally called the "law of Moses" Peter established a church, but even he was not the author of the dispensation of the last days. That was prophecied to come later.

Ephesians 1:10 "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him."

Assuming that God was going to do this great thing, wouldn't a prophet lead the event? I mean, we are all preparing for the second coming of Christ. Why would the most important event since the first coming of Christ NOT require a prophet to usher it in? So, why do we emphasize Joseph Smith? Because to us he is the second most important person, next to Jesus Christ/Jehovah. Just as to many Christians, Paul is the second most, and to Catholics, it's Peter. And to the Jews it's Moses.

Edited May 27, 2009 by bytebear

[aj4u]

Mom:

I'm listening to ya. He has time, but I doubt his sincerity, honesty, and willingness to learn. He has never shown this in the past.

We'll see.

Aaron the Ogre

Your doubting of my sincerity is not my problem; it is yours. I love the Lord and out of respect for Jesus Christ, I will not call anyone a name such as troll or judge anyone. I can even see all on the forum as greater than myself, but I can only live up to the light that God shows me. I don't operate according to your schedule or as fast as you think I should. I have been very patient with you. Your answers to my questions just don't cut it. You think that I am in deception, because I don't agree with your position. I don't agree because you haven't been able to back it up Scripturally and spiritually from the Bible. What is to stop anyone from claiming to be a prophet and lead others astray like happened to me. How do you know you're not being had like I was? What spiritual authority do you have besides the testimony of a 14-year-old boy?

There has to be something in the Bible that backs the coming authority. The OT, for example, is replete with verses leading up to the coming of Christ Jesus. What, for instance, leads up to the gospel needing restored? Just because of some translation errors in the KJV of the Bible and different denominations coming out of the Catholic Church. It just doesn’t make sense. Why would anyone ask what organization to join? We shouldn’t be asking the Lord what church, organization, group or denomination to join; we should just join ourselves to Christ, and by doing that, we are automatically a part of His body. He only has one church and one body. I am part of it. I am His child by faith, and there is no devil in hell that can take that away from me. The devil is the accuser of the saints. I know who I am in Christ. Just because you say I am not sincere doesn’t make it so. It doesn’t matter how many say I am insincere. The Lord is the majority. If He doesn’t want me posting on here, He will close the door, because He is the one who is in control. Of course, I say all this by faith and in love. Remember, faithful are the wounds of a friend but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

[the Ogre]

In the context of my post, my comparison was . . . with Jesus who "turned Judaism on its head" . . .

Thanks for clearing that up. I was surprised with what you had posted. I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but I have heard such accusations from evangelicals in the past. I might be my fault for not being more clear with as many EVs as possible, but most are not interested in anything I have to say. I am a dirty cultist, so why would they care?

I suppose with that in mind, should Latter-day Saints be concerned with the judgments of the other faiths who typically have only treated us with animosity? Should we be concerned with "a burden of proof" (especially when we are satisfied)?

What about Matt 13.57, Mark 6.4, Luke 4.24, and John 4.44? Most opposition to Latter-day Saints is generated here in the US. There are hundreds of people who denounce any evidence of proof without a listen right here in Utah. That should also be a witness as to the possibility to the office Joseph Smith held.

The one thing that irks me the most is that fellow Chr-stians should at least show friendship and brotherhood and yet Chr-stian leadership appears to be as filled with hatred as lay members often are.

More people are falling away from faith than at anytime before and still Chr-stians waste their energy on the offense instead of working for some type of alliance regardless of doctrine.

"Burden of proof?"

You are a great person to talk to and someone I look up to and I do not categorize you with people like aj4u, but even then should you be concerned with evidences and rather than striving for fellowship in Chr-st?

I might be out of line. I apologize for the passion lodged in my keyboard.

[aj4u]

Assuming that God was going to do this great thing, wouldn't a prophet lead the event? I mean, we are all preparing for the second coming of Christ. Why would the most important event since the first coming of Christ NOT require a prophet to usher it in? So, why do we emphasize Joseph Smith? Because to us he is the second most important person, next to Jesus Christ/Jehovah. Just as to many Christians, Paul is the second most, and to Catholics, it's Peter. And to the Jews it's Moses.

To the Christian, Paul is not the most important all of the prophets and apostels are equally important. It is just that Paul addresses things we need to watch out for in the way of false prophets and doctrines of devils that try to make it so that the gospel does us no good. Paul does a good job at this. I trust both Paul a Peter very much. Because Jesus gave them authority that is good till the day Jesus comes back to judge the living and the dead. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Heaven and earth will pass away but His word will never pass away. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and Paul the gospel anointing for the gentiles. His message is clear to me. In other words, I don't see what neede to be restored.

[prisonchaplain]

Jesus answered your question (John 14:12).

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.

And the proof is the Book of Mormon that is a companion witness to the New Testament that Jesus came into the world - and not to the Jews only but to others of the covenant of the house of Israel (other sheep that are not of the fold of the Jews) as prophesied in the New Testament. I would also submit that only in the teachings of the LDS is the gospel preached, according to prophesy, to every nation, kindred, tongue and people for in no other Christian faith is the gospel preached to those nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples that died without hearing.

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

But without the faith to believe such things are possible no amount of proof will ever suffice. And many – according to prophesy; have prepared themselves not to have faith in such things in the same manner that the Pharisees and Scribes by their religious traditions and their expert and studied interpretations of scripture rejected Christ.

The Traveler

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.

[Islander]

For this AJ dude it is just argument for argument sake. He thinks he is "witnessing to the Mormons and trying to save them" He did not dare answer my post, like many others he ignored them for his strategy is just contention. We should just stop answering his borrowed circular reasoning theories.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Islander

[Justice]

All I want is for him to answer my question, "Is baptism necessary?"