Clearing up misconceptions: Galatians1 6-9 VS TBOM

[Byron]

@mordorbound I am not an authority on what makes a Gospel. However in my understanding, Gospel simply means good news shared about Christ. This good news would be anything in the original writings that professed he was the Son of God, come to die for our sins so that no further sacrifice need be made. (My concern here is that I may be misquoting the bible and in turn become the falseness that Paul spoke of so please take the intent I understand about Christ and judge it against Biblical scripture)

[Byron]

@Eowyn I am doing my best. I am between classes now and may have to disappear again soon.

[Byron]

@Eowyn as for answering the questions, thus far I can see that only prisonchaplain and just_a_guy have answered my questions. I have in turn answered many of yours. (as a group)

 

I think it important to remember I am not trying to upset you with questions. I am seeking to understand your faith and reasoning behind an apparent opposition to something I have held as truth for decades.

 

Could I be wrong? I am open for correction. As should we all be.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Byron

[Byron]

No. The Book of Mormon is the gospel preached in the Bible.

 

How so?

[Byron]

Despite my impatience and irritation with your leading questions, I am going to jump in.

 

First of all, let's use the text from the King James version. That is the translation we use. Others change wording and sometimes obscure things. 

 

 

 

So what I'm reading there is that anyone who preaches a Gospel different that Christ is cursed. It says nothing about another book, just another Gospel. The prophets in the Book of Mormon and, of course, Christ himself, taught the same things as Christ taught in His earthly ministry. Have you read the subtitle to the Book of Mormon? Another Testament of Jesus Christ. 

 

Another of your threads had some excellent advice from prisonchaplain, a member here who is not LDS. He suggested that you read our Articles of Faith. For this thread, pay special attention to #8: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far is it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

 

I can understand your frustration, you likely have had to defend your faith often. I know what that can be like having lived in the middle east and now in China. However As a Christian I can tell you that we must defend our faith with love, compassion and understanding. We must do this despite affronts (real or perceived).

 

As for the subtitle on the BOM. I hope you can understand that as a Christian indoctrinated in the Lutheran church, I do not subscribe to the validity of the words. But that is not why I am here.

 

I am here to try and understand people of differing faiths to help me grow in my own, and in turn become closer to God. It is purely a selfish thing I do.

 

As for reference material, I think it was Vort who pointed out how people can misconstrue documents. (re: Jeff Lindsay's comic thesis). I find a forum a good way to get to the bottom of things.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Byron

[jerome1232]

Are you asking us to prove to you that one anthology (The Book of Mormon) teaches the same Gospel as an anthology of works assembled several hundred years after Christ's death (The Holy Bible)?

I am not about to play that game. I am not trying to convert you to the Gospel of Christ. PrisonChaplain had a great suggestion, if there is something we teach rooted solely in the Book of Mormon that you feel conflicts with Christ's Gospel by all means we can discuss those points. I'm not sure this thing exists. Granted my scriptural prowess isn't what I'd like it to be at but as a general rule our doctrines are rooted in both books.

The Book of Mormon is a collection of works which was abridged, edited, and hidden by the prophet Mormon. It is the record of a group of Jews which fled Jerusalem prior to it's destruction and came into a promised land. It teaches of Christ's Gospel. Why is one anthology so suspect but the other not? I suspect your issue is not with it's teachings but with it's origin and the man who translated it.

Edited November 2, 2015 by jerome1232

[Byron]

Are you asking us to prove to you that one anthology (The Book of Mormon) teaches the same Gospel as an anthology of works assembled several hundred years after Christ's death (The Holy Bible)?

I am not about to play that game. I am not trying to convert you to the Gospel of Christ. PrisonChaplain had a great suggestion, if there is something we teach rooted solely in the Book of Mormon that you feel conflicts with Christ's Gospel by all means we can discuss that points. I'm not sure this thing exists. Granted my scriptural prowess isn't what I'd like it to be at but as a general rule our doctrines are rooted in both books.

The Book of Mormon is a collection of works which was abridged, edited, and hidden by the prophet Mormon. It is the record of a group of Jews which fled Jerusalem prior to it's destruction and came into a promised land. It teaches of Christ's Gospel. Why is one anthology so suspect but the other not? I suspect your issue is not with it's teachings but with it's origin and the man who translated it.

 

Actually If you claim that they are the same then yes I am asking how that is possible. Unless the BOM is simply a translation of the Bible or the writings are quoted from the bible, the BOM would be by all definitions "a different gospel".

 

So yes I ask for your evidence.

[jerome1232]

What? I have claimed they teach the same Gospel. Sort of like how Paul, John, Peter, James, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Abraham, Moses, Adam, Enoch, and all of the prophets teach the same Gospel of Christ despite their geological location or chronological place in time. These prophets aren't all mirrors of each other saying the exact same things.

Edited November 2, 2015 by jerome1232

[jerome1232]

So yes I ask for your evidence.

Evidence of what? I have read both. They teach the same gospel. Do you want me to go through picking verses to demonstrate that? That would prove nothing. You would have to read the Book of Mormon yourself and find points that you feel conflict with the Bible, and ask clarifying questions for there to be any headway made into this discussion.

I invite you to do so Bryon, if all you want is to understand our belief it is enough for me to provide the assertion that we believe they teach the same Gospel of Christ. If you want to decide that for yourself then I invite you to read the Book of Mormon, pray to God for His spirit, and discuss any conflicts you feel rise up.

[Ironhold]

@ Ironhold, the keyword there is "everlasting" being that only God is everlasting, so too would his word be.

You still have an angel carrying the gospel.

[Guest]

Byron,

 

I need you to give consistent definitions for me to properly answer your question.

 

First you state:

in my understanding, Gospel simply means good news shared about Christ. This good news would be anything in the original writings that professed he was the Son of God, come to die for our sins so that no further sacrifice need be made.

 

Then you say: 

 

Actually If you claim that they are the same then yes I am asking how that is possible. Unless the BOM is simply a translation of the Bible or the writings are quoted from the bible, the BOM would be by all definitions "a different gospel".

 

So your first definition is that the "doctrine" or "teaching" of the good news = the Gospel of Christ.

 

Your second definition requires that it be word for word the same as the four gospels as currently canonized in the Bible.

 

CLARIFICATION

1) I need to clear up an assumption you seem to have.  Much of the BoM is not the story you see in the Bible.  It's a completely different book.  It is to go side-by-side with the Bible just as the History of the United States would go side-by-side with the History of Europe.  It does not replace it.  We have several books which we consider as canonical.  These are simply two of them.  And they are to be used in conjunction with each other so we can get a better understanding of the gospel as a whole.  These are simply additional testaments of the SAME beliefs and doctrines of Christ.  They share the same good news.

 

ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION

2) There are many passages, such as the sermon on the mount, that are the same quotes as in the Bible.  And if you take the time to read it you'll understand why they are there.

 

3) The BoM teaches the same doctrine of Christ as is taught in the Bible in MULTIPLE LOCATIONS throughout the BoM.  The section you would probably be most interested in would be the 3rd book of Nephi (abbr. 3 Ne).

 

.....a) Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh and born of the Virgin Mary.

.....b) He lived a perfect life.

.....c) He taught the people to live by his true and virtuous principles (the same as taught in the Bible).

.....d) He suffered more than it is possible for man to suffer that he might  perform an atonement for us.

.....e) He is the only means under Heaven whereby man can be saved--through His atoning blood and in no other way.

.....f) Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One of God.

.....g) He was crucified and died.  He rose again on the 3rd day in an immortal body never to die again.

 

If you disagree with this gospel of Christ as I've outlined above, then yes, the BoM apparently is a different gospel than what you are talking about.  Because this message is woven throughout the BoM.  Just read it and you'll see.  And if you don't believe the above points, then I wonder what you do believe in.

 

INTERPRETATION

If you're hanging your hat on the belief that the "gospel" Paul spoke of was the "four gospels" of the NT--and it must be word for word the same without a single deviation, then we have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of those verses.

 

Our interpretation (as Prisonchaplain explained and seems to agree with) is that the "gospel" spoken of by Paul was the doctrines and beliefs and overall story of Christ and what made him our Savior.  It does not need to be a word for word copy.  That really wouldn't make sense. 

 

HOW YOUR INTERPRETATION IS SELF CONTRADICTORY

Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians before the Gospel of John was even written, probably before Luke, and a decent possibility before Matthew and Mark.  By YOUR OWN interpretation, we should discount the four gospels you already believe in.

 

Of course the four gospels are true and correct and guide our belief in the Savior.  But your interpretation of Paul would require that we discount them.  That is obviously not correct.  Thus your interpretation is also incorrect.

 

I'd like to make a suggestion.  It is clear that you've never read the Book of Mormon.  Please read it.  Just reading it would have answered a lot of questions that you have posted on this site.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Guest

[estradling75]

Actually If you claim that they are the same then yes I am asking how that is possible. Unless the BOM is simply a translation of the Bible or the writings are quoted from the bible, the BOM would be by all definitions "a different gospel".

 

So yes I ask for your evidence.

Question for Byron

If Peter was off teaching in one country... And Paul another are they preaching the same gospel or a different gospel?

 

If you say that Peter and Paul preached the same gospel then you acknowledge that the person speaking doesn't matter and that the location they preached doesn't matter.  Just that the person preaching must be called of God to do so.  And that is the answer to your question about the Book of Mormon.  Location does not matter, who the person preaching is does not matter.  Only that the person preaching is called of God.

 

That is the testimony of the LDS church.  That the Book of Mormon contained the words/preachig of men called of God to preach the Gospel.  The location they preached in is not relevant to it being the gospel, they being different people is not relevant to it being the gospel.  No more the Peter and Paul preaching in different area is relevant to the Bible.

[MrShorty]

If I may suggest a different direction. Some of what I see in this discussion, such as

"Actually If you claim that they are the same then yes I am asking how that is possible. Unless the BOM is simply a translation of the Bible or the writings are quoted from the bible, the BOM would be by all definitions "a different gospel".

Suggests to me that the real "question behind the question" is more about the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are THE COMPLETE and can be the only revelation from God to man) than "what Gospel is preached by the BoM".

 

If this the real "question behind the question", then my response is that there is no way to reconcile Mormonism with the Protesant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. To be fair, Mormonism is not a Protestant religion, so there is no real need (at least from Mormonism's point of view) to reconcile the two. Because Sola Scriptura is such a foundational doctrine for Protestants, it should not come as any surprise that they would use this as a "filter" to judge other religions against.

 

That's my little observation on the direction of the discussion.

[Guest]

Burden of proof lies with the accuser. Prove that the Book of Mormon does not preach of Christ.

[Guest]

Here's my answer on this question from the other thread:

 

 

Byron, when Paul wrote that letter to the Galatians, there was no "The Holy Bible" compiled yet.  Therefore, it couldn't possibly be that Paul meant for that letter to say, you shouldn't have any other gospel than that written on The Holy Bible because it didn't exist.

 

So, what did he mean by Gospel?

 

Well, Gospel is the Good News that Jesus Christ has atoned for our sins that we may be saved.  Any authentic work that proclaims this Good News is not another gospel... it's the same gospel.  Whether it is Paul who is declaring this news or Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Moses, Isaiah, or.... Nephi, Alma, or Mormon.

 

It will be a different gospel if such work does not affirm this Good News but rather give a different gospel that Anatess is the savior or that there is no need for a Christ as we can save ourselves, etc.

 

The Book of Mormon is another Testament of the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the covenants between God and Man.

Edited November 2, 2015 by anatess

[Blackmarch]

Hi there. Unlike my previous posts where I had heard gossip from others and wanted to find the truth. This topic is one I found myself while reading the bible several years ago. So my question on this is quite personal. I know I made an attempt at the question previously but after reading many of your comments to other queries I wanted to be more accurate and concise so that the question does not get lost amid semantics.

 

 

Galatians1 6-9:

 

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

 

 

The word "gospel" comes from ancient Greek meaning "good news".

 

 

My question is two-fold:

 

 

1) Does TBOM preach the "Good News" of Christ?

 

2) If it does how do you rationalize this?

 

1) yes

2) Christ came and taught it to the people in america (as well as people in other places)

[mordorbund]

@mordorbound I am not an authority on what makes a Gospel. However in my understanding, Gospel simply means good news shared about Christ. This good news would be anything in the original writings that professed he was the Son of God, come to die for our sins so that no further sacrifice need be made. (My concern here is that I may be misquoting the bible and in turn become the falseness that Paul spoke of so please take the intent I understand about Christ and judge it against Biblical scripture)

 

Authority or not, there's obviously something in Galations about a different gospel that leads you to think the Book of Mormon is that different gospel. I'm trying to understand what it is. As Carborendum notes you've presenting 2 working definitions, one of which (the good news that teaches Chrsit was the Son of God who died for our sins) includes the Book of Mormon in the original gospel taught by Paul. The other standard (any text besides what was already accepted as a gospel at the time of Galatians' authorship) also proclaims the Bible to be cursed!

 

Can you please explain some more your understanding of what is an approved or original gospel and what constitutes another or different gospel?

[Vort]

How so?

 

How not?

[Vort]

Actually If you claim that they are the same then yes I am asking how that is possible. Unless the BOM is simply a translation of the Bible or the writings are quoted from the bible, the BOM would be by all definitions "a different gospel".

 

So yes I ask for your evidence.

 

So the, by YOUR definition, the book of Matthew preaches an entirely "different gospel" from the book of Mark. Right?

 

By the way, there are lots of definitions that don't fit your definition. In fact, pretty much any reasonable definition of the word refutes yours.

 

Show us how the Book of Mormon is not preaching the same gospel. (Your "definition" attempt above failed.)

[Just_A_Guy]

Byron, a couple of observations:

 

1. Scholars suspect that even some of the gospels were written after many of Paul's epistles.  Luke, for example, is the first half of The Acts, and Galatians was written during the missionary journeys described in The Acts--strongly suggesting that the Gospel of Luke, at least, did not exist when Galatians was written.

 

2.  It seems like a bit of a cheap shot for you to keep insisting that the Book of Mormon is an "other gospel" when you can't or won't articulately define what the original "gospel" actually is.  But, let me help you out a bit on that with another cite from Paul, this time in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4.  I'll even cite the NIV rather than the KJV:  :)

 

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

 

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

 

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

 

that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

 

Now, if you agree that the above is essentially what the Gospel is, then permit me to renew my earlier question to you:

 

Surely you aren't suggesting that once one author/missionary/prophet has taught the gospel, other authors/missionaries/prophets are divinely enjoined from repeating, expanding, or clarifying that message?

Edited November 2, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Okay.  Let's bring this back to basics.  I'm going to assume that Byron posted this question due to his belief in Sola Scriptura.

 

Paul's epistle to the Galatians, obviously, does not teach that ONLY THE HOLY BIBLE is the Gospel... simply by the fact that many parts of the Bible - including some, if not all, of the 4 gospels and most of Paul's epistles (Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians before the epistle to the Corinthians and Romans and Philemon and Philippians, etc.) - was not yet written when he wrote this epistle.

 

So this thread is OBVIOUSLY not about whether the term "another gospel" refers to things written after Paul's epistle to the Galatians.  Rather, this thread questions whether the list of books that Saint Athanasius of Alexandria formally listed as canon in the 3rd century are the only true books of the Gospel.

 

Protestants believe that ONLY these books compiled centuries after Paul was beheaded is Gospel.  So much so that even the Catholic traditions and Papal authority are not considered Gospel which leads Protestants to believe that Catholics are heretics.  This is the same belief that Byron is questioning now with the Book of Mormon - a compilation of books that are not part of the Athanasius list.

 

We can debate all day long whether Athanasius - and other Church Fathers - had the authority to declare the canon closed with the compilation of the Holy Bible.  There is no logic that can be used to declare "these books are gospel while these books are not" if we all deem all the books authentic.  Even Paul's epistle to the Galatians cannot be used for this logic.  The only reasoning one can come up with is FAITH in one's understanding of what constitutes Gospel.

 

So, Byron, we, the LDS, believe that God gave Joseph Smith the Priesthood Authority to be the Prophet.  An angel appeared to him to reveal sacred texts on plates of gold.  As a prophet, he was given the authority to translate the books on these plates and compile them into what is now known as the Book of Mormon.  We, therefore, believe that The Book of Mormon is the Word of God and The Holy Bible is also the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

 

I have some advice for you, though.  If you're a believer of Sola Scriptura, I urge you to read and study and ponder the Holy Bible in depth.  I noticed that the questions you have posed, including this question you have on the text in Galatians, shows that your study of the Holy Bible is not quite as deep as it could be.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[prisonchaplain]

 

@prisonchaplin, Thank you. I had suspicions similar to this, but contrary to certain accusations I am trying not to ask leading questions.

 

Just for clarity, are you saying that the scripture was only validated once canonized? I do agree that with the lack of all the writings in the bible yet to be collected and categorized at the time it is quite possible that Paul was only referring to the 4 witness accounts of Jesus' life. (i.e. the Gospels).

But then I have to know, would that then not invalidate Paul's own writings?

 

The New Testaments writings were being circulated almost as they were being written.  So, of course they were valid--inspired--the word of God.  Also, that Paul could even refer to "the gospel" and "another gospel" suggests that some of these writings were agreed upon by the time of Paul's writing the letter to the Galatians. 

 

On the other hand, since Galatians was penned around 49AD and the gospel of John was between 80-95AD, it would be difficult to use the argument that Paul's accusation against "another gospel" referred to claims of a new scripture writings.  A good portion of the NT came after Galatians.

 

So, it is more likely that Paul is opposing any gospel teaching that contradicts the accepted teaching of the Church--i.e. "the Apostles' teaching."  Again, we know Paul opposed pre-Gnostic teaching (spiritual power gained through hidden knowledge), as well as the Judaizing of the gospel (requiring Gentiles to be circumcized, etc.).  So, rather than viewing Paul's "another gospel" as a specific writing, or book, I have always thought of it as heterodoxy--false teaching--instruction so wrong that it threatens one's soul. 

[mordorbund]

I'd just like to pause the discussion for a moment to point out what good Christians we Mormons are (and Prison Chaplain as well). Just look at the great lengths we go to in defending the Bible against those verses in Galatians that would make the holy book accursed!

[prisonchaplain]

Actually If you claim that they are the same then yes I am asking how that is possible. Unless the BOM is simply a translation of the Bible or the writings are quoted from the bible, the BOM would be by all definitions "a different gospel".

 

So yes I ask for your evidence.

 

I'm still unclear if we are defining "another gospel" as a false teaching, or as any writing, outside of the four gospels (or perhaps you mean the whole Bible, which was canonized  centuries later).  I'm using the first definition, but suspect you disagree.  Is that right?

[jerome1232]

Hmmm, I don't believe for a moment that the Holy Bible or the Book of Mormon *are* the gospel of Christ. Rather they both teach and expound upon the gospel of Christ. The Gospel of Christ is a set of beliefs which were explained earlier in the thread.