To All former Evangelicals/Protestants

[Elphaba]

My intentions here are clearly stated above. I am here to learn, but also to learn from former evangelicans and protestants who converted. here, I am answering or clarifying certain teaching she did not understand. She is not a Mormon. However, I have gone a bit far on salvation.

If I am here to convert her, I would have used scripture to back myself up in this but i've stated only what I believed. And if I am here just to debate the LDS and convert them, I would have started a thread and placed my argument for them to answer.

Please know that I will only debate if someone fired the first shot, and then I will naturally return fire but in a respectful way.

So much for:

I am here to learn from you, on why you believed that the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and I feel that there is no better group or place to ask than here.

I am an ex-Mormon atheist, so it doesn't matter to me who "wins" the discussion. I just get irritated at the disinegenuousness. You're not asking questions to learn from the Mormons here. You're answering questions to mock their Mormonism, hoping we won't notice.

Elphaba

[Galatians220]

So much for:

I am an ex-Mormon atheist, so it doesn't matter to me who "wins" the discussion. I just get irritated at the disinegenuousness. You're not asking questions to learn from the Mormons here. You're answering questions to mock their Mormonism, hoping we won't notice.

Elphaba

How am I mocking Mormonism here? Now if your referring to the debate that is going on here, I didn't start it. Please look back and see if I jumped at any Mormon here.

[jadams_4040]

Before I post my question my coming here is for my learning about the LDS Church. I began my search when I met an LDS in class and from then on I attended on Sundays going on all three classes (Communion, Doctrines, and Mens) for six months. I wanted to learn from the LDS thenselves instead of learning only from the Apologist themselves.

I've ended my visits because of a lack of time, church priorities, but also learning enough to know that, unfortunately have more disagreements with the LDS doctrine than agree. However, I have promised my friend to continue reading the Book of Mormon so that the Spirit can enlighten me on things that may confirm the truth you all believed in, and I will keep that promise.

I am here to learn from you, on why you believed that the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and I feel that there is no better group or place to ask than here. I want to talk to those who use to believe in:

1. The Word of God being the primary source of Truth.

2. The Trinity (One God in 3 persons opp. to personages)

3. In Salvation by Faith Alone (as well as Eternal Security, "Once Saved, Always Saved")

I want most especially to talk to those who have read the Bible for many years as an Evangelical/Protestant and if any, those who have experiences and learning in Apologetics, defending the 3 fundamental doctrines above. My primary question to you is this:

What argument most convinced you from the Word of God, to change from believing in these fundamentals to believing just the opposite of them?

This is pretty much the last part of my learning about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. apart from the Book of Mormon. I look forward to reading all of your feedbacks.

God bless :)

we pretty much rely on the spirit for knowledge; not what some angry confrontational gathering of self proclaimed religeous leaders put together in 350 A.D. :)

[Islander]

Evangelical and Protestant Churches, particularly the fundamentalist does not believe in that part of the Chicago Statement; the question in my mind is whether he has always believed that or has he been convinced that the Bible can have inconsistencies due to human influence.

From my reading, and understanding, if any inconsistancy is found in scripture, then God's Word is not inspired. See my Statement of Faith submission on my profile

I read the bible, history, archaeology and Near eastern languages before and without any defined theological or religious affiliation. I am, for the most part, a social scientist and I am not impressed by philosophical abstractions, insights developed from circular reasoning or the theological bends or traditions of many religious celebrities. I can read and research on my own as well as the next.

Most Evangelicals I have discussed the subject with bring to the conversation a standpoint gained from training and indoctrination received. Acceptance and adherence to such and a total disregard for a divergent opinion clouds and interferes with any true genuine exchange. In other words, most come to the conversation with their minds made up and ready for an argument.

The Scriptures as we know them, inspired as they may be were not meant to be what they are today. The NT, for example, was NOT meant to be the WHOLE and ultimate word of God. Beyond the Gospels account, what we have is a collection of surviving letter of the hundreds that may have existed, between co-religioners addressing specific problems and issues among geographically dispersed congregations. To claim that such is the FULL extent of the word of God seems naive, especially when God Himself did not say such a thing.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Islander

[Elphaba]

How am I mocking Mormonism here? Now if your referring to the debate that is going on here, I didn't start it. Please look back and see if I jumped at any Mormon here.

It doesn't matter who started it. You continued it.

If you were interested in learning about Mormonism, and why the members believe in it, as was your stated intention, you wouldn't be debating it. You'd be listening, and accepting what they tell you they believe.

I suppose this is a moot point in that some of the members here are happy to debate you, so I'll back off now.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

It doesn't matter who started it. You continued it.

And so help me, if I have to pull this discussion thread over you two are walking all the way home!

[Elphaba]

And so help me, if I have to pull this discussion thread over you two are walking all the way home!

Bad Elphaba!

[Galatians220]

So much for:

I am an ex-Mormon atheist, so it doesn't matter to me who "wins" the discussion. I just get irritated at the disinegenuousness. You're not asking questions to learn from the Mormons here. You're answering questions to mock their Mormonism, hoping we won't notice.

Elphaba

I never had that chance to ask questions and follow up questions because none of them here are Former Evangelicals or Protestants. the ones who did came and posted are the curious LDS members who haven't had that background I was looking for. None of them I challenged, but only answered their questions.

The one I am debating now, may have not visited for their curiosity because i am already debating him on a separate thread. He introduced himself, I recognized him. He submitted bible difficulties, so I've answered them but asked him why he came here when we could have had that talk on another thread. He didn't answer my question (maybe he accidentally overlooked that question, I don't know), but submitted another challenging post. I believed he wanted a debate so gave it to him.

On the bible, I just assumed that it wasn't an issue. I thought that both sides believed in the scriptures as much as I did only that the Mormons believed that Joseph Smith came to correct false teachings by giving the right interpretation of scripture, not undermine it. I was wrong; not on Joseph Smith, but a few who were here. Not all believed in what I believed.

I supposed I should have made my challenger to bring his points to the thread we are already engaged in but I thought my answers will serve to strengthen both LDS and Christian trust on the Bible; it was never my intention to undermine their faith.

There is one other issues I could have raised here on this site... it is Salvation by Faith Alone because it's the doctrine that saves. It s also a doctrine I am passionate about but I know I differed greatly with the LDS. That said, I never did engage in a wide debate by going to a thread that have dealt with it or started my own thread. What I have done was to submit my Personal Beliefs and that's all I have done.

I will end my debate here with Rameumptom and will no longer entertain a debate. The debate will continue on another thread we are already on: "The Bible is so Confusing."

If you think I am out-of-line, and not in keeping with my stated intentions, you are welcome bring that to my attention.

God bless you.

[rameumptom]

Galatians,

You noted several omissions in a variety of versions of the Bible. Let me explain why. It is because they have chosen different ancient manuscripts to create their translation. What happens when their translation is correct, but the ancient manuscript already has missing information? Professor Bart Ehrman notes there are more differences between the various New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament! Granted, most are small differences, but even some of the ones you demonstrated can make a big difference. There's a huge difference on being saved by having faith in Christ versus just having faith in general, for instance. But they are BOTH from ancient Bible manuscripts. Which one is right? Which one did God preserve in purity, and which one did he somehow slip up on? (personally, I do not believe he slipped up, but rather allowed man to do what they would with their agency).

Your insistence on purity of Bible, versus purity of the word of God (which can be two different things), means that we must then insist that ALL the ancient manuscripts of the Bible are kept in purity, for God would not allow any of them to be left in an impure state.

Whereas, LDS believe that scripture is inspired, but not perfect. For this reason, we are given living prophets and apostles to clarify and establish God's doctrine in purity for us.

[Galatians220]

Galatians,

You noted several omissions in a variety of versions of the Bible. Let me explain why. It is because they have chosen different ancient manuscripts to create their translation. What happens when their translation is correct, but the ancient manuscript already has missing information? Professor Bart Ehrman notes there are more differences between the various New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament! Granted, most are small differences, but even some of the ones you demonstrated can make a big difference. There's a huge difference on being saved by having faith in Christ versus just having faith in general, for instance. But they are BOTH from ancient Bible manuscripts. Which one is right? Which one did God preserve in purity, and which one did he somehow slip up on? (personally, I do not believe he slipped up, but rather allowed man to do what they would with their agency).

Your insistence on purity of Bible, versus purity of the word of God (which can be two different things), means that we must then insist that ALL the ancient manuscripts of the Bible are kept in purity, for God would not allow any of them to be left in an impure state.

Whereas, LDS believe that scripture is inspired, but not perfect. For this reason, we are given living prophets and apostles to clarify and establish God's doctrine in purity for us.

I'm sorry, but I don't want to have this debate continued here. This thread was never intended to be a debate forum. Lets continue our debate at the thread we're already on, or make your own thread for our debate/discussion.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Galatians220

[john doe]

I'm sorry, but I don't want to have this debate continued here. This thread was never intended to be a debate forum. Lets continue our debate at the thread we're already on, or make your own thread for our debate/discussion.

What exactly did you expect here? Your posting style has mystified just about everyone here who has tried to understand any of your points. If you don't wish your ideas to be shown as wrong, then don't write them out. Faulty reasoning gets found out pretty fast on boards such as this. If you are truly looking for Evangelicals and Protestants to discuss things with, I suggest you go to boards aimed toward Evangelicals and Protestants. Coming to an LDS board and asking that no LDS answer your questions is an exercise in counterproductivity.

[Galatians220]

What exactly did you expect here? Your posting style has mystified just about everyone here who has tried to understand any of your points. If you don't wish your ideas to be shown as wrong, then don't write them out. Faulty reasoning gets found out pretty fast on boards such as this. If you are truly looking for Evangelicals and Protestants to discuss things with, I suggest you go to boards aimed toward Evangelicals and Protestants. Coming to an LDS board and asking that no LDS answer your questions is an exercise in counterproductivity.

Well to me, it would be more fruitless when the group of converts I am looking for, are Mormons themselves. However, these Mormons I sought, have an Evangelical/Protestant background. I don't think they would frequent boards they no longer have a spiritual connection to unless they're reaching out to their former group.

Now, why are you telling me that if I didn't want my ideas to be proven wrong, I should post somewhere else? Did you think I started this thread to promote my ideas and debate with members here? If so, then let me ask you:

Did I challenge Rameumptom first? Have I ask him to come here?

Did I ask or lure any LDS without a fundamentalist background to visit?

Have I promoted any of my beliefs to any Mormon on this thread?

And have you received any word or complaint that I have been using this thread to put forth my faith?

As for this debate that has begun here, when I defended the word of God, I'm not defending a soley Protestant/Evangelical doctrine. It is God's Word. And so I'm not protecting my faith, I am protecting and upholding what should be, everyone's Faith which has it's origin in the pages of scripture, written by men yes, but moved by the Holy Spirit.

Now as far as how I debate, circular reasoning or not, it may not be logical, but its MY argument. To you and everyone else, it's circular reasoning, but to me, I have scriptures to back up my claim and from my point of view, the scriptures is irrefutable. They have their scholars, I have the Word of God.

God bless

Edited September 6, 2009 by Galatians220

[john doe]

Okay you caught me. My theory of why no one is talking to you is that you have yet to make a cogent point of any kind. Is there somewhere in your ramblings a point you want to make? Because most of the folks I have talked to can't figure out what you're talking about. And I do find it admirable that you understand that you are using illogical, flawed and circular reasoning.

[Galatians220]

Okay you caught me. My theory of why no one is talking to you is that you have yet to make a cogent point of any kind. Is there somewhere in your ramblings a point you want to make? Because most of the folks I have talked to can't figure out what you're talking about. And I do find it admirable that you understand that you are using illogical, flawed and circular reasoning.

Well I'll try to make mine more to the point. Most of my posts here are only rebuttals, so I've made very little points other then my going back to the scriptures. Now my arguments seemed to you, illogical, flawed, twisted, whatever I'm just trying to be as clear as I can. However...

I think you guys are so sure about the reasoning and clarity of your arguments that any disagreement from me will sound like whatever term you want to use while reverting back to my own points. Again, I'll do my best to be clear, but If I'm dodging a question committing a Red-herring, or whatever, just say it.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Galatians220

[rameumptom]

I have also used the scriptures. Galatians, if you are looking for ex-Mos to satisfy your curiosity, this is the wrong site. There are other sites where they hang out. Just be aware that several of them will also be anti-Christian, having become agnostic or atheist.

As for your reading of the Bible, I referenced several traditional Christian schools of thought, and you rejected them, as well. How does your version of literalness beat out any other school of thought? And if we have living prophets that DO speak with God, doesn't that trump your personal attempts? I've read the Bible dozens of times. How about you? I've studied many traditional Bible scholars' writings in regards to the Bible, so as to understand things better. And I've studied the ancient views to understand them, as well. The ancients did not believe the Bible to be as perfect as you think, but accepted a variety of versions, equally inspired. So we get the Masoretic, Septuagint, and a few other ancient variety of OT, for instance.

[Galatians220]

I have also used the scriptures. Galatians, if you are looking for ex-Mos to satisfy your curiosity, this is the wrong site. There are other sites where they hang out. Just be aware that several of them will also be anti-Christian, having become agnostic or atheist.

Actually to the contrary, I'm looking for Ex-Evangelicals and Protestants turned Mormon who use to believe in all three things I've listed, but changed their beliefs.

I wanted to know what argument convinced them from Scripture. I think I may revise that to include the Book of Mormon. I remember reading something there that was very surprising and it has to do with a theological concept that was way ahead if it's time.

As for your use of scripture I guess its from my own point of view. I'll explain that at the other thread we're on.

As for your reading of the Bible, I referenced several traditional Christian schools of thought, and you rejected them, as well. How does your version of literalness beat out any other school of thought?

If you're talking about my own understanding of the bible vs. others, I follow the Dispensationalist not matching the Reformed. We are Pre-tribulationist believing that the Rapture will happen before the Tribulation Period. We tend to interpret the scriptures literally. Reformed theologians differ slightly but are usually, Post-Tribulationist and they interpret the scriptures systematically. I have a friend who is a Calvinist, and have read the most common book written by Louis Berkhof and he said that our interpretation and theirs differed only a little bit, it is just that our understanding of the minor doctrines that sets us apart.

While there are many more different kinds of Theology, those two are the main persuasion and you're making it sound like I'm all alone in my beliefs, a renegade believer.

And if we have living prophets that DO speak with God, doesn't that trump your personal attempts? I've read the Bible dozens of times. How about you?

My personal beliefs are also nothing, they are vain imaginations but if I am supported by scripture, then scripture trumps those prophets no matter who they are.

8 But though we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. - Galatians 1:8

I've studied many traditional Bible scholars' writings in regards to the Bible, so as to understand things better. And I've studied the ancient views to understand them, as well. The ancients did not believe the Bible to be as perfect as you think, but accepted a variety of versions, equally inspired. So we get the Masoretic, Septuagint, and a few other ancient variety of OT, for instance.

Just because it is common to believe in a certain thing doesn't mean it is true with the Bible. For example, many of the religions believe that God is many, does that mean that the God of the Bible aught to be many as well? The Bible is clear that there is only 1 God.

And as I also said before, if the Bible is God's word, and He does keep his words pure, then there's a reason why God doesn't allow some text to be included in scripture. They are either redundant, have practices that aren't recognized in Scripture, or doctrines that differs from the Word. Do you remember the question I asked you about why we deny the Gospel of Thomas? Here's one of the reasons why:

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven." - A Translation of the Gospel of Thomas

According to the site, this verse was added later but do you see why some text are denied? God denies books from his word for a reason.

[rameumptom]

Galatians: I'm looking for Ex-Evangelicals and Protestants turned Mormon who use to believe in all three things I've listed, but changed their beliefs.

I wanted to know what argument convinced them from Scripture. I think I may revise that to include the Book of Mormon. I remember reading something there that was very surprising and it has to do with a theological concept that was way ahead if it's time.

And here is a major point where we differ. When I converted to Mormonism, the Scriptures (Bible) were a major reason for my conversion.

In the Bible, I saw patterns and teachings that traditional Christianity no longer taught. The Bible teaches an anthropomorphic Heavenly Father, who is the literal Father of our Spirits, as Paul taught. The Bible teaches the importance of both grace and works. The Bible teaches the need for modern apostles and prophets, being the foundation of the Church. In Proverbs, we read that where there is no vision, the people perish. Amos taught that God only reveals his secrets through the prophets. The apostle John taught that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. I learn from the Bible the importance of proper priesthood authority, as the Old Testament shows how one is ordained to the calling, and as Jesus stated to his apostles that they had not chosen him, but he had chosen them and ordained them. Later, that pattern continued as Judas was replaced by Matathias.

I found that the pattern established by God in the Bible was not found in the traditional Church. I did find it in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

[Galatians220]

And here is a major point where we differ. When I converted to Mormonism, the Scriptures (Bible) were a major reason for my conversion.

In the Bible, I saw patterns and teachings that traditional Christianity no longer taught. The Bible teaches an anthropomorphic Heavenly Father, who is the literal Father of our Spirits, as Paul taught. The Bible teaches the importance of both grace and works. The Bible teaches the need for modern apostles and prophets, being the foundation of the Church. In Proverbs, we read that where there is no vision, the people perish. Amos taught that God only reveals his secrets through the prophets. The apostle John taught that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. I learn from the Bible the importance of proper priesthood authority, as the Old Testament shows how one is ordained to the calling, and as Jesus stated to his apostles that they had not chosen him, but he had chosen them and ordained them. Later, that pattern continued as Judas was replaced by Matathias.

I found that the pattern established by God in the Bible was not found in the traditional Church. I did find it in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

Were you an Evangelical or a Protestant before you became a Mormon?

[rameumptom]

I was non-denominational.

[Galatians220]

I was non-denominational.

Well why didn't you say so?

So you use to believe in all three that I've listed?

How long have you been *"Saved" before your conversion to the LDS?

Does your church lean towards Arminianism, Calvinism, or in the middle?

How much have you read and know the Bible before your conversion?

And have you had any training or study in Apologetics prior to your conversion?

*Some believe in Eternal Securuty while others believed that one can walk away from salvation. Some believed that God predestines and some don't.

Non-denominationals are a range of every denominational and theological influence. NDs de-emphasize Church names because it's not in the Bible and to avoid "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ" (1 Corinthaisn 1:10-14). Many of these churches are Evangelicals because they stress the spreading of the Gospel and its fundamentals.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Galatians220

[rameumptom]

I was disatisfied with the religion. I actually checked out several other Christian churches, as they taught some stuff I believed in, but just did not have everything. I felt that there was a spiritual hole in my chest needing to be filled, and none of them accomplished it.

Being saved meant little to me, as I still felt empty. I believed that Jesus could save me, and I could go through life without attending church. But it did not fill up that spiritual need I knew needed filling.

I came across the LDS church by accident. A friend invited me to play on his Church basketball league, and I went. That first night, his bishop invited me into the office for a chat, to explain some of their standards. I didn't know what it was then, but now know that the Holy Spirit was so thick in his office that it could have been cut with a knife. That very next day, I cut my long, hippy hair, and began attending the LDS church. Several of my unChristian habits immediately were abandoned, without receiving any teachings from the LDS Church.

The Spirit filled that empty spot in my soul, and I was soon baptized. Since then, I've studied through the Bible and other LDS scriptures dozens of times. I've read many scholarly books and documents, both LDS and traditional Christian, regarding the Bible and spiritual things. And I've become an LDS apologist, because that is what the Spirit has trained me up to do.

So, you can say that I knew that the other churches were good, but incomplete. The Spirit guided me into looking at various churches, but none filled my soul. Only by divine accident, did I find what I was looking for - and I wasn't investigating the LDS Church, nor talking with missionaries, etc., when it occurred.

I am certain the LDS Church is led by living prophets and apostles, has the full authority of God, and offers the higher knowledge and truth of God, which cannot be found in any other Christian church. Other Christian churches can save people in lower kingdoms/heavens of God, but cannot exalt. And my soul hungered for that exalting witness. It has been filled ever since, and the spiritual experiences I've received since, continue to confirm that witness.

[StallionMcBeastly]

I say True, but I will NOT believe that the Word of God is 90% inspired.

I don't believe that's what he was implying. He was saying that although the Word of God was inspired, it can still be 90% accurate - a man can be inspired of God and create a work that isn't perfect.

Not that God only inspired them 90%....

Correct me if I'm wrong, ram.

[rameumptom]

Stallion, that's exactly what I meant. If something is mostly true and inspired, does it mean that it is useless, simply because it isn't 100% perfect? Rather than the 90% I used earlier, what if it is 99% inspired? Do we toss it out, because it is missing or is imperfect in 1%?

What if it is only 80% inspired? Is it totally wretched and terrible, because 20% of it might incorrect, uninspired, or lacking in some way?

Joseph Smith stated that the Song of Solomon is uninspired. However, he did not toss it out of our Bible. It is ancient, and it is beautiful poetry. But it doesn't spiritually inspire us, or give us greater spiritual knowledge. We do not reject the Bible, simply because the Song of Solomon is in it.

[Galatians220]

I was disatisfied with the religion. I actually checked out several other Christian churches, as they taught some stuff I believed in, but just did not have everything. I felt that there was a spiritual hole in my chest needing to be filled, and none of them accomplished it.

Being saved meant little to me, as I still felt empty. I believed that Jesus could save me, and I could go through life without attending church. But it did not fill up that spiritual need I knew needed filling....

Your testimony is a nice example of someone who has that void that nothing can fill but after, as done a lot of research and found more evidence of the truth you now hold.

But on the experience you had prior to the invitation to meet with the Bishop, were you "saved" as in you've accepted Christ by Faith Alone or you were searching for the truth and you've come by the idea but it meant very little to you? Have heard of the 4 Spiritual Laws?

You said that you were in the non-denominational church so what did you do there while you were in that church? Did you join any bible study, were you under someone's wings (Mentored by an experienced seasoned believer, a teacher, or an elder)? Or is it simply that you've just grown up in church?

[Faded]

I am here to learn from you, on why you believed that the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and I feel that there is no better group or place to ask than here. I want to talk to those who use to believe in:

1. The Word of God being the primary source of Truth.

2. The Trinity (One God in 3 persons opp. to personages)

3. In Salvation by Faith Alone (as well as Eternal Security, "Once Saved, Always Saved")

I want most especially to talk to those who have read the Bible for many years as an Evangelical/Protestant and if any, those who have experiences and learning in Apologetics, defending the 3 fundamental doctrines above. My primary question to you is this:

What argument most convinced you from the Word of God, to change from believing in these fundamentals to believing just the opposite of them?

This is pretty much the last part of my learning about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. apart from the Book of Mormon. I look forward to reading all of your feedbacks.

God bless :)

I've been away for quite some time so I'm kinda sad I missed the beginning of this thread.

The three items that you list and then saying "How could you abandon these?" are:

1.) The Bible is the primary source of all truth.

2.) The Trinity Doctrine.

3.) The Born Again "Once Saved Always Saved" Doctrine.

For starters, all three of these fundamentals doctrines of evangalistic Christian belief are based upon interpretation of the Bible, but are not explicitly taught by the Bible. If a completely uninitiated person with no background and no understanding of Christian doctrine whatsoever were to happen upon a Bible, would they come to the same conclusions? In all three cases, they most likely wouldn't.

1.) The Bible never specifically says, "The Bible is the primary source of truth" and it certainly never says that the word of God is limited to The Bible alone. This is simply because the world "Bible" actually appears in the Bible. All passages pointed to by the Evangelistics to attempt to prove this point say "Scriptures", "Word of God" etc. Ultimately, concluding that the writers were directly referring to a book that didn't exist yet is preposterous. "The Bible" as we now refer to it, would not be compiled into one and formally canonized until the Ecumenical Councils from 393 AD to 419 AD. Essentially, the interpretation is making an enormous logical leap by assuming that the authors of the New Testament were directly referring to the compiled work that would not exist until they had been dead for at least 300 years. So to call the acceptance of the Book of Mormon a betrayal to the Bible is nonsensical and counter-intuitive. If God wishes to reveal more of his word to mankind, that is HIS prerogative alone. Humankind has absolutely no right to tell him he can't.

2.) Even if we were to assume that number 1 was correct and that the Bible is our only source of truth, where in the Bible is the Trinity Doctrine clearly and unequivocally taught? There are many references to "oneness" but neither Christ nor any of the Apostles mentions anything about "of the same substance" nor "one being". All it says it "one." Does that mean "united in intent, thought and deed" as the followers of Christ are supposed to be, or does it mean they are literally "one being"? Well, the Bible doesn't say one way or the other, so it's up to the interpretation of the individual. Other passages used to "prove" the Trinity doctrine are similarly not specific enough and can be understood either way. I think it's unlikely that anyone reading the Bible without any outside coaching would recreate the Trinity Doctrine by their reading of the Bible. This is an example of a long-held tradition. We know from Christ himself that not all long-held traditions are right. A lot of Chistians who belong to Trinity-believing denominations don't believe in the Trinity and think it's a lot of nonsense, but continue to go to Church and feel the Spriit.

3.) The concept of "Once Saved Always Saved" is also not specifically and unequivically taught anywhere in the Bible. There are passages that are interpreted by some to come to that conclusion, but it's nothing more than that: Interpretation.

I think you're setting up a concept of "Betraying God, betraying the Bible and betraying every truth you once held dear" mostly by pulling it out of thin air. Should a Jew be ashamed to accept Christ just because he was taught to disbelieve? Of course not! But it's the same circumstance. Evangelical Christians who are converted to the Restored Gospel are ridiculed by their former flock for their "betrayal" just as a practicing Jew is for converting to Christianity. Nobody should be condemned when they are led by God to something different than what they were taught growing up. In virtually all cases, they will affirm that they know is true. How is being led by God a betrayal of God?

Many of the people who leave Evangelical Christianity for the Restored Gospel never actually believed any of the three core teachings you outlined to begin with.