Mormon Condemned?

[Tantalus]

"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!" - Galatians 1:8

I saw someone quote this. Was wondering if it's accurate, and if so what is the Mormon rebuttal to it. Thanks.

Edit: Sorry for the misspelling in the title.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Tantalus

[slamjet]

Read the next verse. I don't think we preach to please "men" (quotes to not offend the fairer sex). Quite the contrary, what we preach is contrary to what the human race wants, which is a supposed easy way out. But what they need, a path to Eternal Life by exhorting people to follow the example and teachings of Christ.

[Tantalus]

Read the next verse. I don't think we preach to please "men" (quotes to not offend the fairer sex). Quite the contrary, what we preach is contrary to what the human race wants, which is a supposed easy way out. But what they need, a path to Eternal Life by exhorting people to follow the example and teachings of Christ.

I don't think you answered my question. The verse condemns any other gospel after the New Testament. Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon?

[Mute]

I don't think you answered my question. The verse condemns any other gospel after the New Testament. Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon?

I'm going to cut and paste answers to this question that I have written in the past since this is something I've already looked into and don't want to type something fresh for.

Where did the Bible come from? Can there ever be anymore scriptures? One of the most common assaults on the LDS faith is the accusation that they have added to the Bible with the Book of Mormon being the addition. This claim is on virtually every site with negativity towards the LDS faith and used by many who seek to provoke ill feelings towards the LDS.

Deuteronomy 4:2

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32

32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Galatians 1:6-12

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Proverbs 30:5-6

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:18-19

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Few people understand how the Bible came to be. The Bible is a collection of books and letters. The word bible literally means books. It wasn't until many years later after these individual books and letters were written that some of them were collected into "The Books" or "The Bible". There are many other writings which are spoken of through out the different books but are not in the collection of the Bible. Not all of these books were written at once. They were written over a large period of time by many different people, yet the Bible contains writings after Deuteronomy. Why is this? It clearly states do not add or take away from what the Lord has said in Deuteronomy. The Lord gives other scriptures to later prophets and says the same of do not add or take away. Would this mean the Lord could never speak again or there can be no future writings? Obviously it would not mean this or no one would use anything past Deuteronomy.

The LDS believe the Book of Mormon to be other scriptures from prophets which were not included into the collection of the Bible.

There are alot of religious books that they didn't include in the Bible because they weren't certain how accurate they were. The Apocrypha, which the Catholics use, are books which were written by prophets and there are a lot of books that are even mentioned of in the Bible but no one knows where they are. We have a collection of some books but we don't have all of them and when they were written, they weren't in any official collection.

Here is an example. Lets take Toytoa the car company. There is a president of Toyota (God). He speaks to his representatives (prophets) that speak to the public about the company (company being the gospel). I'm a representative for Toyota and I write four books or letters. A year later another representative writes two books and in it it talks about other books another representative wrote (some of the books not included into the collection of the Bible). Six months later another representative writes some books and says do not add or take away from this writing. Four months later another Representative writes some books and letters. This goes on and on till you eventually have say 50+ representatives who wrote over 100+ books and letters. Now 20 years after the last known book was written, a group of people gather together 25 books from 10 representatives and they put it into a collection (The Bible). Then 50 years later someone else (Joseph Smith) says they found some other books and old letters written by representatives that weren't included into the that collection which other people wrote. So you go to one of the books in the Bible that says do not add or take away from this book and say "well it says right here don't add or take away so that obviously discredits what you say".

The books through out the "The Bible" were written many years apart. The fact that there are books and letters after Deuteronomy in the the Bible shows that there can be other writing besides that of Deuteronomy. The fact that there are other books and letters mentioned of in the Bible but not included in it show that we do not have them all. Recently there were the other writings discovered which are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So to say Deuteronomy is refering to all of the books of the Bible or all books ever written, when many were not even written till hundreds of years later does not make sense. There was no Bible then. God still spoke to prophets after Deuteronomy.

So to say because one book in a collection of books says not to add or take away from it and that it would some how mean you can never have anymore writings makes absolutely no sense or noone would use any books past Deuteronomy. Some people look at the Bible as though it is one book and it is not. This is a fact. If a person knew the origin of the Bible they would know that it is very possible that someone could find and even have found (Dead Sea Scrolls) additional writings.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Passages from the Book of Mormon.

#

2nd Nephi. 29: 3-4, 6, 10

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

The Lost Books of the Bible.

The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they are considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22).

The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that he gave to his people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (Matt. 2: 23) is interesting when it is considered that our present O.T. seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11: 1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23: 5; Jer. 33: 15; Zech. 3: 8; Zech. 6: 12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.

The Book of Mormon makes reference to writings of O.T. times and connection that are not found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or in any other known source. These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19: 10; Alma 33: 3-17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3: 4-22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46: 24-26. These writings were evidently contained on the plates of brass spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5: 10-13).

[Dravin]

"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!" - Galatians 1:8

I saw someone quote this. Was wondering if it's accurate, and if so what is the Mormon Rebuttal to it. Thanks.

The simple (LDS) answer is that Mormon, Nephi or Alma (and others) preach the same Gospel as Paul in the same sense that the Gospel of Matthew and the Revelation of John teach the same gospel as Paul.

It boils down to how you are figuring what was preached (what exactly is encompassed by the term gospel) and what exactly is meant by it. Was he trying to warn about people teaching of salvation by other than Christ? Or is as some suggest is it a condemnation of any doctrine hasn't been shared at that point? You need to be careful though, if you clamp down too hard then you pretty much invalidate anything that Paul's audience (the church at Galatia) had not personally heard and condemn any scriptures that post-date Galatians, which would include several of the books in the Bible. If we take that strict interpretation then the author of the Book of Revelation stands condemned as it post dates Galatians.

P.S. It should be noted that LDS do not believe that the Bible is inerrant and that plain and precious truths were lost. So we do not necessarily believe that what you find in the pages of the Bible is all of the revelation the early Christian Saints where taught or aware of.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Dravin

[captmoroniRM]

Simply put, Mormons teach the Gospel as Christ and 1st century Christianity. The different gospel is what men without proper authority did with the teachings of Christ after they killed off all the apostles and distorted it. They shattered it into thousands of denominations who teach portions of the truth, mixed with the philosophies of men. Christ called upon Joseph Smith to restore the truth and priesthood authority to the world.....enter the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

[prisonchaplain]

My guess is that in Paul's day, the "Super Apostles"--who opposed Paul as being a poor speaker, etc.--were primary suspects. There were pre-Gnostic teachings that were arising, that may have caught his attention. Certainly the teachings of the Nicolaitans, referenced in John's words to the seven churches of Asia-minor (Revelation 2-3) would fit the description.

In modern times, the worst of the Prosperity Gospel is a candidate. That form of "easy grace" teaching that says we can do what we want, and God has to forgive us because "once saved always saved" could fit. I'm cautious here, because many embrace the OSAS teaching without using it as an excuse for sin.

As for whether groups that we find heretical, caution should be used. Not too many years ago, many of our churches and doctrines were considered heresies by those with longer ties to the ancient creeds.

[Tantalus]

Wow, thanks soooo much guys. The elaborately constructed responses were on point and extremely detailed.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Tantalus
sorry I love this smiley

[NeuroTypical]

"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!" - Galatians 1:8

I saw someone quote this. Was wondering if it's accurate, and if so what is the Mormon rebuttal to it. Thanks.

I got a much more concise answer.

We figure it's accurate, and we don't need a rebuttal. Any angel associated with any mormon, has been pretty much preaching the same gospel that you find in the Bible. God is real, Christ is His son, who came to earth to atone for our sins, so we can be washed clean through accepting Him as our savior, and live again with God. That's the Gospel - same in the Bible as it is in the BoM. We might have an extra detail or two here, but the story is the same.

LM

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

"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!" - Galatians 1:8

I saw someone quote this. Was wondering if it's accurate, and if so what is the Mormon rebuttal to it. Thanks.

Edit: Sorry for the misspelling in the title.

The person who quoted this was probably making the point that the Gospel preached by the LDS Church is not in fact the true Gospel, the Gospel preached by Jesus, Paul and the twelve. The Mormon rebuttal to this is quite clear I think: "all their creeds [are] an abomination in [Jesus'] sight" (Joseph Smith Hist. 1:19, PGP). The LDS church simply would not need to exist without this premise: that all the other Christians have got it wrong at the most important point. Of course we would say the same about them. So the Mormon and the non-Mormon Christian could, in theory, quote Galatians 1:8 at each other all day long!

If we went in the direction of fleshing out what the two opposing Gospels are, then I think we would find one being in harmony with the BoM, and the other with the NT, without any cross over.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with most of the above, except the idea that there is an unambiguous "gospel" contained within the NT on which all major Christian faiths agree.

The BoM version of the Gospel squares quite nicely with the NT as we interpret it.

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

I agree with most of the above, except the idea that there is an unambiguous "gospel" contained within the NT on which all major Christian faiths agree.

The BoM version of the Gospel squares quite nicely with the NT as we interpret it.

Yes, the question is the interpretation: who is reading it correctly? That's the rub.

By your first sentence, do you mean the the NT itself does not present a coherent Gospel message, or simply that many variations of Christianity all have their own spin on it?

If the former, you have nothing to interpret and may as well chuck it. If the latter, then of course I agree.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, the question is the interpretation: who is reading it correctly? That's the rub.

Indeed.

By your first sentence, do you mean the the NT itself does not present a coherent Gospel message, or simply that many variations of Christianity all have their own spin on it?

The latter.

[Traveler]

"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!" - Galatians 1:8

I saw someone quote this. Was wondering if it's accurate, and if so what is the Mormon rebuttal to it. Thanks.

Edit: Sorry for the misspelling in the title.

Why would anyone teach a gospel they do not believe? This scripture is clear in stating not to believe when someone teaches doctrine that is not theirs. In particular those groups that are are not LDS trying to publish to the world their version of our LDS gosple doctrine.

The Traveler

[mrmarklin]

I don't think you answered my question. The verse condemns any other gospel after the New Testament. Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon?

This simplistic argument might cut it in the shallow Bible discussions you have somewhere, but it reflects an ignorance of how the Bible was compiled at the most, and a further ignorance of Book of Mormon teachings at the least.

[Jamie123]

Quite the contrary, what we preach is contrary to what the human race wants, which is a supposed easy way out.

I'm not sure that's true. Putting it rather crassly, Christianity (in many Christians' interpretation) offers:

• A certainty of eternal suffering to anyone not lucky enough to be "evangelised to" during their lifetime.
• And that would include children who die too young to understand the Gospel. (Though of course we don't like to talk about that!)
• "Fatherhood of God" confined only to a pre-chosen elect.
• No free will. God decided before the beginning of the world who will be "saved" and who will not. We're all really (though we're not allowed put it this way) just clockwork robots.
• A God who is incapable of love in any real sense of the word. He doesn't love the reprobate (for obvious reasons) and He doesn't really love the elect either: Their only purpose is for Him to "show forth His Glory..." (whatever that means) "...through mercy".

Of course not everyone who calls himself a Christian necessarily agrees with all the above, but "fundamentalist" Christians call such liberals heretics and backsliders (and worse). Mormonism on the other hand offers:

• The possibility of eternal suffering confined to a small number of very evil people.
• The possibility of conversion after death.
• "Fatherhood of God" applied literally to all Humanity.
• Free agency. God hopes we will choose to follow Christ, but has not pre-programmed our decisions.
• A God who genuinely loves all his creation and wants the best for everyone.

Given an either-or choice, which do you think the human race really wants? It was precisely because it offered an "easy way out" (of the first option) that I always found Morminism attractive - and that's also the very reason why I've always been suspicious of it.

[bert10]

You forget...

That it was prophesied from the Beginning that there would be a Restitution of all things....and all things means also the scriptures and not what Christians shall say to God that need restoring. This promised restitution is an end run around the wicked who changed some of the doctrines.

And in Revelations...

Revelation 14:6 - And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people

A restitution would mean many things lost would be restored to its Original...and this includes many of the stories and doctrines of the bible.

We do not teach a different gospel that God first delivered we teach the restored Gospel which is different than what has been handed down because of the tampering of the wicked.

Since people today have no certainty what was first delivered by Jesus and the Apostles they cannot claim to know what is "Another Gospel" is. Because the Restored Gospel would have differences.

Men may know the truth only by the Spirit of truth...And this Spirit is given to men by promise if they but only repent so that they can hear God in their hearts.

bert10

"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!" - Galatians 1:8

I saw someone quote this. Was wondering if it's accurate, and if so what is the Mormon rebuttal to it. Thanks.

Edit: Sorry for the misspelling in the title.

[mnn727]

I don't think you answered my question. The verse condemns any other gospel after the New Testament. Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon?

No it condems a DIFFERENT gospel, which ours is not.

[rameumptom]

The verse does not condemn anything after the New Testament, as the New Testament was compiled centuries after Paul wrote this. What Paul was concerned about was that there were apostates in his day that were preaching things that were against what the apostles were teaching. The apostle John explained that the anti-Christ was anyone who taught that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Such were the ones they were preaching against.

In reality, Joseph Smith received his conversion in the same manner that Paul did: both saw the resurrected Jesus, and then had revelations afterward to guide them further.

Those traditional Christians who claim LDS preach "another gospel" are using the creeds of the later Christian church to judge us. The early Christian Father Eusebius of Caesarea wrote strongly against those Christians who attacked others who did not believe in consubstantiation or homoousious of Jesus (made of the exact same substance as God, so they are the same being), because the term never appears in the scriptures. His point was we should not condemn others for extra-Biblical beliefs we may have.

In essence, we could rightly claim that portions of the Nicene Creed are extra-Biblical and so are "another gospel." I guess it all depends upon the definition one wants to use.

God works through prophets and apostles. That is his pattern. He does not work through voting or popularity contests. He reveals what is needed for men to progress. Paul's point is that we receive inspiration from God, not man.

[bert10]

Absolutely not....The restoration of the Gospel must be on the earth so that Zion can be on the earth as in the days of old. Let's face it...Christians has had over 1800 years and they could not even translated a small community with their gospel never mind the feats of Enoch and Melchizedek with their cities. The Christians do not even have an original copy of Books of the NT. They do not know what is true from what is false. The only people that would know would be the Elect as they are taught of GOD and not of Men.

Tribulations could not come if the Restored Gospel was not on the earth. This type of condemnation that will fall on the earth is only possible when the majority of men sin against the greater light. And they also compound their error by calling evil GOOD and good evil. As it was prophesied would happened.

True it condemns a different gospel....the problem is the people do not know the fullness of the gospel and cannot discern by themselves what is correct teachings from what is false teachings.

bert10

No it condems a DIFFERENT gospel, which ours is not.

Edited December 26, 2010 by bert10

[bert10]

You can say this all the day long and as often as you like. But the fruits tell a different story. The Wrath of God on Christian nations are not diminishing but increasing. Why is that?

I can tell you why. In this past decade alone...God has removed all their wealth and they are all deeply in debt. And yet there is no repentance coming from these nations...except they dig themselves deeper in their false religion. In the past they were not held fully accountable of their errors. Today, they still reject the Restored Gospel the condemnation is greater...since the law of heaven is where much is given much is required. And as long as they continue in their false path the wrath shall continue to grow in frequency and intensity.

That is how you will know that I am telling you the truth. - You will see things continue to get worse in Christian nations from year to year.

Bert 10

No it condems a DIFFERENT gospel, which ours is not.

[rameumptom]

Bert, calm down. You are welcome to your opinions. I agree that many Christian nations no longer hold to their Christian faith. And they will ripen in iniquity if they do not repent.

However, it isn't an all or nothing when it comes to true and good teachings. God loves those who live a terrestrial lifestyle. He considers them friends, and will give them a great blessing in the next life, according to D&C 76,

[Guest messenger]

You blaspheme the Holy Spirit with your lies about the true Church and Her creeds. It was the regula fidei of the early Christian community that shaped what true Christianity and the canon of the Church is. Mormonism was a fabrication 1800 years later that is utterly unfaithful to the Gospel. It is a gross corruption of the Gospel and those who spread its lies are amongst the most condemnable of people.

[Traveler]

Perhaps I should say what I have said in another way. We are admonished to teach and demonstrate the light of Christ and his gospel of repentance. Therefore let us teach the Gospel of Christ that enlightens us and turn from the temptation to proclaim the darkness of the world’s religions and that which is falsely presented as gospel by others. Never at any time did Jesus ever attack the doctrine of another religion. He did, however, condemn the false practices of those of his same religion and faith – specifically the Scribes and Pharisees widely accepted and popular within the Jewish community – to which Jesus was also a member.

The Traveler

[HEthePrimate]

I don't think you answered my question. The verse condemns any other gospel after the New Testament. Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon?

Erm, no. The Book of Mormon is another expression of the same gospel, not another gospel.