LDS Question from a Baptist


Recommended Posts

Perhaps you are right about my baptism into the LDS church. As I said, my allegiance is to Christ, not you as an LDs member, or the (or any )church in general.

I find it puzzling, and comical, that you chose to cite scripture about being "born again" when so many in the LDS church openly ridicule this concept amond those of us who are from predominant Christian faiths. Either you are, or you are not. Pick a side. There is absolutely nothing that you, or I, can do to attain exaltation of our sins. Christ paid that price for us. To deny this, distort it, or otherwise cast it into another light is heretical in my opinion. John 3:16 is clear. It doesn't say that whosoever believes in him PLUS does XYZ shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Your works are important, in that they determine your reward in heaven. Only the Blood of Christ and your acceptance of that will get you there. Period.

As for your crass remark about my "opinion" that I would be doing a favor to the church by joining it, I will not even dignify that infantile remark with a response. I am a social science scholar. I am paid to analyze and question things. I use this method to understand things, and God has opened my eyes to so many things. I generally find that people who can't rationalize or carry on conversations outside of their comfort zones resort to remarks such as those you chose to make. So be it. You are entitled to your opinion. Just please refrain from being rude and keep it to yourself. Thank you for understanding.

As for your ideas about holding the keys to the kingdom, I await the day we meet in the afterlife, only to see the look on your face when Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and LDS stand side by side in God's kingdom.

If you meant no offense, no worries. I came here for an enlightenment and a mutual discussion about beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RedPhoenix,

Not to inject myself too much into your conversation with SpamLDS, but I'm not aware of any LDS who openly ridiclule the concept of "born again". This is a concept that in integral to our understanding of the first principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now, we do reject doctrine that teaches that man has no moral agency, or free will, or that we are not capable of good works.

You seem have a little contradiction in your beliefs. If there is "absolutely nothing that you, or I, can do to attain exaltation (you mean forgiveness?) of our sins", then how can your "acceptance" of the "Blood of Christ" be necessary for salvation? On one hand you are saying we can do nothing, and on the other you are saying we must accept. Is accepting not something a person does?

Vanhin

Edited by Vanhin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my fellow LDS members on the forum. I have found this discussion very interesting, but my "spidey senses" have been tingling since this discussion started. I have the feeling that our brother RedPhoenix is more of a "Red Herring."

He has lured us into a well-intended discussion of his objections as to why he has not been baptized. Each step of the discussion has uncovered additional layers of fallacy and misinformation in his thinking about core LDS doctrines.

If he was close to baptism, then at some point he would have received missionary discussions. Those discussions are very basic. They would include the concepts of being saved by the grace of Christ, of repentance, of being born again. Certainly Alma's powerful witness about being born of God is a key element of those discussions. I can't imagine a missionary not teaching that doctrine.

Anyone prepared for baptism would know about and understand the doctrine of the degrees of glory. They would know and understand that Mormons don't believe that God will send anyone to a fiery hell and they would know that we teach that there are varying degrees of glory. Those who reject the fulness of the restored gospel will end up being saved in kingdoms of lesser glory. Again, that's a core tenet of our religion.

This statement by RedPhoenix is telling:

"As for your crass remark about my "opinion" that I would be doing a favor to the church by joining it, I will not even dignify that infantile remark with a response. I am a social science scholar. I am paid to analyze and question things. I use this method to understand things, and God has opened my eyes to so many things. I generally find that people who can't rationalize or carry on conversations outside of their comfort zones resort to remarks such as those you chose to make. So be it. You are entitled to your opinion. Just please refrain from being rude and keep it to yourself. Thank you for understanding.

"As for your ideas about holding the keys to the kingdom, I await the day we meet in the afterlife, only to see the look on your face when Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and LDS stand side by side in God's kingdom.

The worldly pride evinced in the statement, "Ï am a social science scholar" is very revealing. The scriptures I posted have nudged him into a defensive posture and now, like most sectarians, he leans upon his secular credentials, whereas we lean upon scripture and divine authority. At no point was I rude, just very frank. The scriptures I used are very direct.

Secular credentials as a "social scientist" don't qualify anyone to judge spiritual truths that God has ordained to be "spiritually discerned." If I went around and polled 1000 florists, network engineers, or dentists and asked them if they thought Mormonism was true, based on their expertise and credentials, would they be anymore qualified to judge than a social scientist? No! It's oranges and apples.

Dear brother "RedPhoenix,"although I respect your worldly acheivements, they have absolutely no value in determining the truth of what can only be assessed by the Spirit of God. If you find that offensive, I'll leave you to study how Jesus had run-ins with the learned men (scribes and Pharisees) of his day. They rejected him because of their supposed learning.

The more I read the replies of RedPhoenix, I'm more convinced that he's toying with us. There's no sincerity. He doesn't show any inkling of having been close to being baptized. Maybe we're the subjects of some "social science"project he's working on for his PhD.

In the two years I operated the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism web site, I ran into people who posed as sincere investigators who were actually trying to post questions they thought would trip up members and introduce doubts into their hearts. They seemed to be surprised when we had good, scriptural answers to their "objections" and then they either ignored the answers or moved on to other prepared-in-advance "doubt-inducing" questions.

Let me just go ahead and say so--IMHO, this guy's a plant, a subtle anti-Mormon trying to stir up some trouble. My gut tells me so and after running S.P.A.M. for a couple of years, I have very good instincts for sniffing out these types.

To my LDS fellows, don't get sucked into trying to provide speculative "evidence" about ruins, ancient battlegrounds, archaeology, or DNA. To paraphrase my friend, Ronnie Bray, finding out the gospel is true is as simple as finding socks in the sock drawer. Just open up the drawer and "voila!' There they are!

A person who persists in asking for "proof" and who refuses to seek to find answers as James 1:5 and Moroni 10:4 direct is not sincere and they're not looking for truth. When we continue to insist upon that method for finding truth, they get increasingly agitated and end up hostile.

As for us Mormons, if we preach the gospel without the Spirit (i.e., trying to present scientiific evidence, etc.) we cheat sincere seekers of the only way to get a testimony. Don't get sucked into those questions. Stay on the high ground of testimony and personal revelation. If that's not good enough to suit someone claiming to seek the truth, let them go. It may be that the light in the rear-view window is best seen from a distance. There's always the possibility that they'll return with true purpose of heart.

Edited by spamlds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that studying ancient archeology is quite interesting especially when you compare it with the B.O.M. and the bible. Its quite fascinating how accurate they can be. The only way to gain a testimony of the B.O.M. is through faith and the spirit but why cant we study history with DNA and such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that studying ancient archeology is quite interesting especially when you compare it with the B.O.M. and the bible. Its quite fascinating how accurate they can be. The only way to gain a testimony of the B.O.M. is through faith and the spirit but why cant we study history with DNA and such?

Who said anything about not studying history or DNA? The scriptures teach us that "all truth is independent" in the sphere where God has placed it to act. So it's important to learn truth from all sources. I'm not anti-intellectual in the least. I have studied lots of things that are confirmations of my testimony, such as the "Tree of Life Stele" at Izapa (Chiapas, Mexico). It shows what appears to be a depiction of the tree of life vision. There are six figures, a boat, the tree of life. Two of the figures (Laman and Lemuel) are facing away from the tree. Here's the link to it: Izapa Stela 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

But I would never, ever recommend it as "proof" of the veracity of the Book of Mormon to someone who has not received a testimony by personal revelation. If a person's testimony comes from "evidence" like this, then some scholar has the potential of convincing that person that his testimony is in error by merely presenting contrary "evidence."

Thus it is important to always direct investigators to seek their answers from the Lord alone. When someone seeks evidence, his or her heart isn't right before the Lord. You don't need humility to have evidence presented to you. You don't need to consider "how merciful the Lord has been unto the children of men." You don't need a sincere heart or real intent to find evidence. All of those things are necessary along with faith in Christ to get a testimony.

Being a latter-day saint in the times that are coming will require deep spiritually-rooted testimonies. Those who don't have a testimony from the Spirit won't abide the day. Each of us needs to dig our roots deep into gospel soil and draw nourishment from the Spirit. If our testimonies are weak, we need to strengthen them.

This is not an objection to scholarship. It's about learning things the proper way the Lord intended. D&C 50:18-20 plainly teaches that, if we preach the gospel by some other way than by the Spirit, it is not of God. The Lord will hold us accountable for the unbelief of those we could have saved, if we had only taught them the gospel in the Lord's way.

Edited by spamlds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only browsed through all the messages, but in reading about evidence of Christ's resurrection based on the lack of a body, I immediately thought of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Three men swore testimony of not only being witnesses to the golden plates, but also to angelic visitations. In fact, there are so many miracles and heavenly messengers that are beyond the stories of Joseph Smith, that my intellect tells me that if these events didn't occur, then a lot of people were really loyal to Smith's fables. But, then history tells us that many of these same men, were so mad at Smith that they abandoned him and decried him as a fallen prophet. But they never denied their witness to the miracles that they claimed to be a part of. They never denied Smith was a prophet, nor their testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. That is more than enough intellectual evidence for me.

But, my testimony truly comes form the spirit, which has given me the same witness as those men, which I cannot deny. The Book of Mormon is true. It just is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit off-topic, but the reference to the Three Witnesses keeps coming up during the thread. People often ask why men who saw the gold plates would turn against Joseph Smith. To me, the fact that they did turn against him, but never denied their testimony strengthens their witness even more. They knew and recognized that Joseph was a mortal man. He could have (but didn't) fail in his ministry. Nevertheless, the gold plates did exist and witnesses saw them.

The Church split into two factions after the Kirtland period. The splinter group, which later made up the folks who established the Reorganized Church, represented what I call "Kirtland Mormons." This group of saints believed that Joseph indeed translate the Book of Mormon by inspiration, that he received keys of authority, received revelation, etc. Nevertheless, they rejected plural marriage, temple ordinances, and other doctrines that matured in the Nauvoo years. In other words, they were saints who drew a line and said essentially, "this far and no more." They believed that Joseph lost his prophetic mantle and died.

The other faction, which was the core of the Church, believed that Joseph lived and died a prophet of God. This group of saints went west following those who held the keys.

The three witnesses were all part of the "Kirtland Mormons." Thus they found it perfectly consistent to testify of the plates, the angel, the revelations, etc., all while declaring was a fallen prophet. They never doubted that the plates were real. To me, that actually strengthens their testimony of the plates.

I have learned that the testimony of the three witnesses is something the Adversary truly despises. You wouldn't believe all the hateful emails I still get about this video after more than a year.

Joseph had some gold plates. Eleven men saw them. Eight men touched and handled them. Three of the men saw an angel and heard the voice of God bear record that the translation was correct.

OK, that's far enough off-topic for now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to respond to some of the questions that RedPheonix has asked...I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his motivations for asking them.

1. My take on the Galations scripture...I am of the knowledge that the gospel is the same gospel...our church is the same church that existed then.

2. If you will read the book of Mormon in its entirety, it will answer the questions you have about the battles all on it's own...

Here are a couple of scriptures for you to look up if you really want to know, I use the King James version of the Bible, one is John 10:16, another is John 21:25, one in the Old Testament, which I'm sure you've heard before is

Ezk 37:16 The stick of Joseph which is in the hand of Ephraim...the people in the book of Mormon say they are decendants of Joseph while the OT and NT both come from the tribe of Judah...is there another stick of Joseph which is in the hand of Ephraim that you know of?

There are more if you would like me to tell you, please just ask.

People have tried to prove/disprove the divinity of Christ, the divinity of the Bible, and the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Much empirical evidence has been brought by both sides. I read the Book of Mormon and prayed whether it was not true. I received an answer. I have followed it's teachings, and find myself much more like my Savior than I have ever been, yes, the Jesus that is in the New Testament.

3. As far as being reborn...our baptismal fonts, the temple ones ,too, are on ground level...to represent death and rebirth...so I have no idea where you got the idea that we don't support that principle. In fact in one of our books of scripture,

the Book of Moses found in the Pearl of Great Price ch. 6:59 It says: "Inasmuch as ye were born in to the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten"

Salvation does not mean the same thing as exaltation, Salvation means that through the blood of our Savior, the worlds (everyone's) sins are taken away, and we can enter into the Heavenly Kingdoms...Exaltation, on the other hand refers to the highest kingdom available to us. See Paul's descriptions of these in 1Cor 15: 40&41, also see 2Cor 12:2. The Savior ensures our Salvation, while our works will decide our Exaltation to the Heavenly glory of the sun.

I really hope this helps...regardless of what kingdom I get I would do the same works, as much like Jesus Christ as I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your honest and sincere questions. I was born and raised as a Baptist. In fact, my heritage is predominently Methodist, my upbringing was Baptist, and in 1998 I became a Mormon. I have heard the argument used over and over again using the passages found in the book of Revelation. I believe that what most people don't understand is that first of all the Bible is not written in chronological order. Second, and there are a lot of Bible scholars who will agree, the passages found in the book of Revelation are referring to that particular situation. There is a similar passage found in the book of Deuteronomy. If we are to follow the thought patterns of the passages found in Revelation that we are not to add to nor take away from Scripture, then would it not logically follow that after reading the passage in Deuteronomy that we should not read any further?

The Bible is indeed the Living Word of God. Having read it several times in its entirety, I know it to be true. Having read the Book of Mormon several times in its entirety, I also know it to be true. As Latter-day Saints, we are not in any way preaching any thing that is new. We preach and teach of Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. THe Book of Mormon does not take anything away from the teachings of the Bible, but in fact it enhances our understanding of the Sacred Scriptures.

Sadly, I have found in some cases that people base a lot of what they think they know about the Book of Mormon from what they have heard not necessarily on what they have actually read from the Book of Mormon. Having been raised as a Baptist, I find this very similar to an atheist who refutes the Bible and what it says based on things he has heard not necessarily on anything that he has read from the Bible. I have read and studied both the Bible and the Book of Mormon and know of a surety that both are the Word of God and both testify of a Savior that loves us all.

In my humble opinion, we cannot judge something based on one statement (i.e. one passage of Scripture). We need to read and understand the context in which that Scripture is being used. When I was in Bible college my professors taught us that we should read the verses before a particular passage and sometims the verses after in order to get the full meaning. Many a misconception and wrong teaching has been the result of lifting one passage of Scripture out of context. The Bible is just as much a part of our teaching and preaching as the Book of Mormon is. Both testify of and teach of Jesus Christ.

I hope that my response is of some help.

Edited by KeithLBrown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would like to simply address the concern that our good baptist friend has expressed about "another" gosple. And I would like to do it using the Book of Mormon itself. As has already been declared by so many wonderful members of this forum, we believe it to be the word of God and ANOTHER testiment of Jesus Christ.

Early in its pages a young prophet, Nephi, desired to see in vision what his prophet father had seen about a tree of life. In his account he beheld in revelation the end of times, similar to what John the revelator had seen. He said that he saw in vision the 12 apostle of the Lamb of God go forward preaching the plain and precious truths of the eternal Gosple of Jesus Christ and that as they went forward he saw a book that "proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God, 1 Nephi 13:24"

As that book went out to all the world Nephi saw the formation of a great and abominable church, just as John saw the mother of all harlots, Satan, who is the enemy of all righteousness and his followers, "for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away, v26"

He then sees the people of our recent past, God fearing and faithful, but missing those plain and precious truths that were taught in purity by the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and makes this promise to them and to us, "...I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb. For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb. And in them shall be written my agospel, saith the Lamb, and my brock and my salvation vs 34-36"

"39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.

40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in bone; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth. "

In my mind that simple declaration settles all doubts as to whether there is another gospel being taught. Ezekiel taught the same concept that two book would be used together as one to establish the truth of God.

I add my own testimony that the Book of Mormon is what we declare it to be, the word of God, another witness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I pray this helps answer your question.

Edited by AR_Member
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two ways to answer the question raised about Galatians 1:8-9. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him!"

There are two ways to interpret this passage.

A.) Another Gospel = Any Revelation from Heaven. So all Scripture and Revelation has ceased.

This would be a tad depressing certainly. This and A VERY LONG LIST of passages used to support the rather strange theory that "The Bible is A Closed Record, No New Scripture Can Ever Be Added." The one thing that really kills this theory in every case is Chronology. As we know, the Bible did not simply fall out of the sky, whole and complete. The New Testament was written over several decades time and not compiled until about 400AD. So if we can find a passage that we think says, "No more scripture allowed" then logically we must apply that to everything -- including the New Testament itself.

If our understanding of the Galatians passage is correct and really means "No More Scripture" then anything written after this Epistle cannot be valid nor scriptural. So we would lose: First and Second Corinthians, Romans, Luke, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Hebrews, Acts, First and SEcond Timothy, Titus, Epistles of John 1 thru 3, First and Second Peter, Jude, the Revelation of John, the Gospel of John.

If Revelations 22:18-19 means "no more scripture," we would lose The Gospel of John.

Now let's consider 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Though it's really stretching things to say this passage says or implies "No more scripture", it certainly is used to that end. If valid, we lose: Titus, Epistles of John 1 thru 3, First and Second Peter, Jude, the Revelation of John, the Gospel of John.

Some make very interesting use of John 17:6-8

"6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." The approach here: "I already gave them all of my words" so it naturally follows that "There can't be anymore."

Taken literally and enforced to the fullest, this passage would cost THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT!! After all, every scrap of the New Testament was written after Christ uttered these words. If we interpret a little more loosely, then we can at least accept The Four Gospels, as they are a rehearsal of the words which Christ gave to the Apostles. But everything else is invalidated -- most especially all Pauline Epistles. Everything that makes Paul an Apostle and witness of Jesus Christ happened well after Christ spoke these fateful words. So NONE of his writings can be considered scripture, in compliance with this understanding of John 17.

B.) As "Gospel" means Good News, then we are being told to reject any other "Good News" that contradicts or tells a different story from the New Testament.

In this case, the onus is on the student of the Bible to conclusively prove that the Gospel message received by Joseph Smith was actually contradictory to the Gospel message of the New Testament. Often, this leads us to the fact that Joseph Smith rejects the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as explained at the Council of Nicaea. The problem is, teachings like the Nicean Trinity are not explicit in the New Testament, and the LDS viewpoint on the nature of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is equally valid, based on the New Testament alone.

Any Latter Day Saint can attest that the Restored Gospel does not contradict the Original Gospel in any way. It is simply a restoration of the Gospel Message in it's entirety. A person could spend years trying to pick over the New Testament to thoroughly prove that it really is the same message. Old incorrect interpretations or understandings can create stumbling blocks. The same thing happened to the Pharasees and Jews.

In my opinion, every excuse for rejecting the Restored Gospel out of hand "because the Bible says so" demonstrates a lack of faith and a lack of trust in God. It seems to become more of an excuse to run back to what is comfortable and familiar, rather than taking a step into the darkness and trusting God to lead you. If the message we have for the you is true, then it is God's work, and walking away from it is rejecting God's message for you. So ultimately it is always incumbent upon the receiver to take the matter to God and find out if our message is truly from God. There is no other way.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it puzzling, and comical, that you chose to cite scripture about being "born again" when so many in the LDS church openly ridicule this concept amond those of us who are from predominant Christian faiths.

Among the Evangelical Christians, there exists the teaching of "once saved always saved" -- which holds that once Christ saves you and grants you assurance of eternal life, there is nothing whatsoever that you can do to lose it. Become a serial killer, serial rapist, kidnap children and torture them to death -- according to that understanding of being "Born Again" you are still saved in the Kingdom of God. There is no possibility of walking out of the Kingdom of God.

It is not universal to Born Again Christians, but it is that concept that we reject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Interesting. In my opinion, I think something like that is plausible. Let me ask you this though, and this is where my concerns rose primarily. Didn't a major battle allegedly take place on the Hill Cumorah? I have read many things about this. If so, it would seem to me that there would be some type of evidence of this historical event. Or, is the Hill Cumorah symbolic of another place where a great battle took place? If that level of carnage took place, it would seem like something would have been left behind.

Like I said, I hold a special place in my heart for the church. There are just a few pieces of the puzzle missing for me at present moment.

Take care

It did take place at a place called cumorah... however when Moroni buried the plates he did not say that it was at the same or near the same location.

But even if they were at the same place there's also a big problem; preserving things like cloth, flesh, bones, and wood take very special conditions to cause it to happen.. which most likely did not. Probably the only thing that would have been preserved would have been the stone/obsidian heads and cutting edges. Nor are we told if the dead were left there untouched throughout time (think about it - a dead army would likely have many usable items still on them... if anyone was willing to work among the stench and corpses)...

All which amounts to a probable conclusion: by joseph smith's time there would not be much evidence left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello all,

I'm new here. Great site!

I will preface this by saying that I have been investigating the LDS church for about 6 months now. This week, I made my decision to remain in the Baptist Church. I will say that I do believe the LDS church is an upstanding place, its members are sincere, and it is morally upright. My decision however was based on two sticking points that no matter how hard I tried to look away from, I couldn't. I'd like to get your opinions on them, especially from the LDS folks.

I will agree that alot of what has been said about the LDS church Biblically is questionable. I do believe there is some Biblical evidence that supports, and confirms the LDS church.

My concerns lie with the Book of Mormon itself. I said that some folks....admittedly mostly Baptists....throw mud at the LDS church because of the Book of Mormon. An often used scripture to refute the BofM is Revelations 22:18-19: "I testify to everyone who hears the propheti words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the Holy City written in this book." In my intepretation, this admonishment applies specifically to the Book of Revelation. My issue with the BofM from a Biblical perspective arose in Galatians 1:8-9. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! Thoughts?

As a PhD student, here's a major issue for me. I can get on a plane and fly to Israel tomorrow. I can travel to Jericho. Bethlehem. The Dead Sea. I cannot, however, travel to Zarahemla or Moriantum. Why? Because to date, we have no clue...none, where these places are, or if they even existed.

I ask these questions seriously. I do not seek an argument. I am really interested to understand how the LDS folks explain this. Because in all honesty, these nagging issueskept me away from Baptism.

All of you be safe.

Although not an LDS member, I've investigated most Churches, including Baptists. After study of the teachings of Jesus, I have to agree that LDS seem to be the only ones to recognize a significant truth: that our part fo the gospel of Jesus Christ is to keep His commandments. Jesus said exactly this, and it is the part of the knowing the truth that most miss. "The truth shall set you free" was preceded by 'If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth (because you are abiding in His word) and the truth shall make you free." The great commission is about discipleship: make disciples of Jesus, baptize them, and teach them to observe His commandments.

LDS may not realize how many commandments of Jesus are in the Bible from Matthew through Revelation, but they are surely there. No where did Jesus teach He did it all for us and we cannot do anything, and that when He said 'It is finished' He was talking about His work - not ours. Ours is to grow in knowing and doing His will.

Which Baptist doctrine teaches that? And if they don't, have they taken away plain and precious truths that Jesus preached? The once for all revealed gospel of Jesus Christ?

I'd caution using the Revelation verse against LDS if you aren't up to the exposure of the truth that Jesus DID teach. The fact is that Jesus said those of the light come to the light to see that what they do is of God and that those who do not come to the light of His words don't want their evil deeds exposed.

Truth is a double edged sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?? When signing up the bar had Mormon and Christian on the same thing. I didn't see there was a distinction anywhere. Looking around trying to find the profile link to check it out again, but having trouble. It says to go to an account button, but I'm man blind to finding anything where I don't already know it is!:-) Any help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason they are combined on the bar like that is a lot of people either don't know LDS are Christian (Also LDS and Mormon are both on it because some don't make that connection either) or contend otherwise. To change it go to the "My Account" link up above and click on "Profile Settings" on the left hand side of the page it takes you to, they'll be a drop down box next to Religion:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

i have bin investagating the mormon chuch for 12 months and have similar problemes did you know joseph smith did his own version of the bible witch he directley messed with the book of revalation and took out song of solman its called the j s t when the missionares asked me to visulise angels giveing him the gold plates that verse came in to my head as well. they will say it is the same gospel but we no it is not oh and do you know about the pearl of great price and doctrine and covenants god bless dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have bin investagating the mormon chuch for 12 months and have similar problemes did you know joseph smith did his own version of the bible witch he directley messed with the book of revalation and took out song of solman its called the j s t when the missionares asked me to visulise angels giveing him the gold plates that verse came in to my head as well. they will say it is the same gospel but we no it is not oh and do you know about the pearl of great price and doctrine and covenants god bless dean

I find the reordering of verses in a couple of chapters of revelations by Joseph Smith to be rather interesting. do you have any questions or concerns about them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have bin investagating the mormon chuch for 12 months and have similar problemes did you know joseph smith did his own version of the bible witch he directley messed with the book of revalation and took out song of solman its called the j s t when the missionares asked me to visulise angels giveing him the gold plates that verse came in to my head as well. they will say it is the same gospel but we no it is not oh and do you know about the pearl of great price and doctrine and covenants god bless dean

Dean,

Anciently there was a problem with books and letters written by prophets and apostles: unauthorized people would change them to match their own views. You'll note that John's warning is also a curse that was commonly placed on writings anciently to keep unauthorized people from changing it. However, his warning that no man can change it, does not mean God cannot change it through man in an authorized way.

Anciently, it was very common for ancient scripture to be updated later by authorized servants. We see this frequently occur. Others would write authoritative commentary (known as Pesher or Midrash) that was also considered sacred (there are many examples in the Dead Sea Scrolls).

Joseph was commanded to review and revise the Bible by God. He was authorized to do this. The revisions were to help clarify and expand on ancient teachings that had been changed over the millennia or needed clarification. Additionally, he received revelation on things that are not even found in ancient Biblical texts, because they were additions that the Lord wanted included. Modern critical study shows that many of the additions were accurate. For example, in the Book of Moses, we learn of Enoch being questioned by a man named MHJH (Mahijah or Mahujah). In the Dead Sea Scrolls' text of Enoch, we find the prophet being questioned by a man named MHJH. No where else but in these two texts do we find this story. Clearly, Joseph restored ancient teachings that God wanted restored.

Joseph Smith did not take out the Song of Solomon from the Bible. LDS Bibles still have it. He stated it was not inspired, though it is ancient and has some beautiful imagery of love between a king and his wife, it was not originally written by the power of the Holy Ghost.

As for it being the "same gospel", yes it actually is. You are mentioning a verse in Galatians, where Paul warns the people of not believing just any old person who wanders into town and claims they've seen an angel and try changing the gospel message. What pretty much all evangelicals miss, however, is what Paul states next: that he did not receive the gospel from man, but through revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Joseph Smith also received the message through revelation of the Holy Spirit. Yes, there were angels involved. But those angels helped restore many ancient teachings that have been long lost. As mentioned above, many of those ancient teachings are recently being found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient documents that were not available until the last 60 years.

Jesus did the exact same thing. He took the Jewish scriptures and expanded them, giving them the higher law to replace the law of Moses. Just as you condemn Joseph Smith, the Pharisees condemned Jesus Christ.

Yet, that does not take away from the fact that Jesus was and is the Messiah. Jesus also saw angels and was strengthened by them. Does that mean he brought "another gospel" than the teachings of Moses? Should you apply Paul's warning to our Savior? If not, then why apply them so thoughtlessly to one called as God's prophet in these last days?

Study the things Joseph restored, rather than just condemning them from the get go. Paul taught us to abstain from all evil, but to also "prove all things" and to "hold fast to that which is good." How can you prove or test the things of Joseph Smith, if you haven't really studied them? If you take the word of your pastor, who is just as liable to be wrong as anyone else, then you are not doing the actual testing/proving of all things.

In accordance with such sloppy efforts and posing it as research, the prophet Isaiah warned about calling "good evil and evil good", and that God's ways are not our ways.

If you wish to truly test Mormonism, then you need to stop reading anti-LDS jargon (as you must have done to come up with the weak arguments you have posted), and do some real study. Read the Book of Mormon. Dig deep to see where it contradicts God's will. Ask God in prayer if it is real or false, but do so only AFTER you have read it, so that you are proving it, and not just giving the test lip service. Isaiah also warned against lip service in chapter 29, where many honor God with their lips, but their hearts are far from him. Do the actual test.

This is what I did. I read the writings. I read the book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. I prayed diligently about them, pondering over the teachings. I can tell you that the Holy Spirit testified to me that these things are true. They are as true as the Holy Bible, which I also have a testimony of from intense study, prayer and pondering.

I have read and considered the arguments made by anti-Mormons. And I've found that the arguments against Mormonism fall short. Their reasoning is weak on evidence, not well thought out, and not equally applied everywhere. Many of their arguments can also be used to prove that Jesus is a fraud. Yet, they do not apply their argument to Him. They argue that Joseph was both an idiot and a genius. They insist he made it all up, yet when we show how he was right from things in the Dead Sea Scrolls, they guess he must have had an ancient copy of these writings available to him - but have no evidence of it whatsoever, as those writings weren't available to even the greatest scholars a century after Joseph's death!

I've answered all of your concerns here. And I gave greater evidence that Joseph was right, and was called a prophet of God. Now it is your turn to test things by reading and pondering over the Book of Mormon with an open mind, seeing both pros and cons, then prayerfully finding out whether it is true or not. If you are a true Christian, then you will take Paul's test. If you are a Christian in name only, then you will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus taught that His words are imperishable by any means. When I considered the record of the teachings of Jesus in the Bible and compared them to the teachings of Jesus in the Book of Mormon, there are some notable differences.

In the Bible record we see the great commission in Matthew as discipleship to Him.

make disciples of Him.

baptize these disciples.

teach them to observe whatsoever He had commanded them (the original eye witness disciples.

So the Bible record has Jesus declaring the doctrine of God and seeking to do His will, then that there would be some things which the eye witness disciples would be given by the Holy Spirit that they were not able to receive when Jesus was with them, and also that the Holy Spirit would enable them to remember all that He had taught them.

Oddly, in the Book of Mormon, instead of a full accounting of the doctrine of God that Jesus gave in the Bible, we find Jesus telling everyone present to do whatever the apostles tell them to do.

I see this as the primary difference in the teachings of Jesus between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but no 'anti-Mormon' book I've ever read even mentions this.

Since LDS believe the Bible is Scripture, I'll just invite you to consider the fullness of the Bible accounting of the doctrine Jesus said we are to both hear and do, and I greatly appreciate the general LDS acceptance of this principle - those that I know and converse with locally appreciate the added insight to the teachings of the Lord - and we both know that LDS teach that keeping the commandments of Jesus Christ is our part of the gospel covenant.

One Disciple to Another

I'll invite anyone who loves the Lord to recognize the whole truth as taught by the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Book of Mormon:

3 Nephi 11:

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share