Rommelator Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Evangelical critics of the Church often like to quote that passage in Galatians that speaks of how even an "angel of light" can deceive us and bring "a different Gospel". They also like to apply this to Joseph Smith and his story of the angel Moroni coming and revealing to him the Book of Mormon which, in turn, is a different Gospel because of one pesky verse in 2 Nephi that speaks about how we are saved "after all we can do".This has got me thinking. In order for this verse form Galatians to apply to Joseph Smith, then doesn't having a real being of light visiting him therefore become a prerequisite for this verse to work? And if this is so, then are Evangelical critics admitting that Joseph Smith was in fact visited by a being of light? And if so, then doesn't this mean that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he was visited by a being of light? But also, then what is stopping us from accepting Joseph Smith's other claims of visions and angelic beings if we accept this one? Just some thoughts that I have been mulling around recently.
jadams_4242 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Evangelical critics of the Church often like to quote that passage in Galatians that speaks of how even an "angel of light" can deceive us and bring "a different Gospel". They also like to apply this to Joseph Smith and his story of the angel Moroni coming and revealing to him the Book of Mormon which, in turn, is a different Gospel because of one pesky verse in 2 Nephi that speaks about how we are saved "after all we can do".This has got me thinking. In order for this verse form Galatians to apply to Joseph Smith, then doesn't having a real being of light visiting him therefore become a prerequisite for this verse to work? And if this is so, then are Evangelical critics admitting that Joseph Smith was in fact visited by a being of light? And if so, then doesn't this mean that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he was visited by a being of light? But also, then what is stopping us from accepting Joseph Smith's other claims of visions and angelic beings if we accept this one? Just some thoughts that I have been mulling around recently. One powerfull word. "confirmation".
Aquilifer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 In order for this verse form Galatians to apply to Joseph Smith, then doesn't having a real being of light visiting him therefore become a prerequisite for this verse to work? And if this is so, then are Evangelical critics admitting that Joseph Smith was in fact visited by a being of light? And if so, then doesn't this mean that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he was visited by a being of light? But also, then what is stopping us from accepting Joseph Smith's other claims of visions and angelic beings if we accept this one? Just some thoughts that I have been mulling around recently.Depends on the critic. Some have absolutely no problem with the idea that JS received visitations, they just question the source of the visitations.The inconsistent critics are the ones who throw every accusation in the book at JS, plus the kitchen sink, in the hopes that something sticks. He was a lying scoundrel who didn't have visitations. If he thought he had visitations, they were all in his head because he was a crazy farmboy. If the visitations really did happen, it was the Devil appearing as an angel to deceive him. If the visitations really were angels, then he was a fallen prophet who abused his position through things like polygamy. Etc.
cdowis Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 My response is pretty simple == "Did Paul see an angel of light on the road to Damascus?"
Robspectre Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 My response is pretty simple == "Did Paul see an angel of light on the road to Damascus?"STRONG
Aquilifer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 My response is pretty simple == "Did Paul see an angel of light on the road to Damascus?"Now, now. We all know that unverifiable, two-millenia old accounts written in a book are intrinsically more trustworthy than someone claiming the same less than two centuries ago.
Hoops22 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Now, now. We all know that unverifiable, two-millenia old accounts written in a book are intrinsically more trustworthy than someone claiming the same less than two centuries ago. So Joseph Smith yet again trumps the Bible?
Aquilifer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 So Joseph Smith yet again trumps the Bible?Where did I say that? Neither trumps the other. However, all things being equal, I see no reason why the account of Paul should be more trustworthy than the account of Joseph Smith.
Hoops22 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Where did I say that? Neither trumps the other. However, all things being equal, I see no reason why the account of Paul should be more trustworthy than the account of Joseph Smith.Why would that be?
Flyonthewall Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 So Joseph Smith yet again trumps the Bible?Joseph Smith does not "trump" the bible, but as far as concerns of the day, Joseph Smith is closer to our times, and President Monson is more so.The Bible includes things about everyday life that would not be tolerated today....Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. The day to day living of 2000 years ago is different and how the gospel is applied is different than in Joseph Smith's time, and is slightliy different still today. We have things in our daily lives today that Joseph Smith never had to deal with. Our prophets don't "trump" any scripture, but their counsel is more meaningful because it deals with what we are currently dealing with.
TJane Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Where did I say that? Neither trumps the other. However, all things being equal, I see no reason why the account of Paul should be more trustworthy than the account of Joseph Smith.Why would that be?My guess is that one 'unverifiable' account vs another 'unverifiable' account are equal in their trustworthiness or untrustworthiness. As he said, neither one should trump the other.Jane
Hoops22 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Why would that be?My guess is that one 'unverifiable' account vs another 'unverifiable' account are equal in their trustworthiness or untrustworthiness. As he said, neither one should trump the other.JaneThat's not what he wrote. He wrote: However, all things being equal, I see no reason why the account of Paul should be more trustworthy than the account of Joseph Smith.So, my question, does one trump the other? And why?
Doctor Steuss Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 [...]doesn't this mean that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he was visited by a being of light? [...]Worthless factoid: Joseph himself claimed that he saw an angel of light (the Dark Lord, he who inspires Mars Volta albums). It was on the banks of the Susquehanna. Luckily Michael was there to point it out for him.
Aquilifer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 That's not what he wrote. He wrote: However, all things being equal, I see no reason why the account of Paul should be more trustworthy than the account of Joseph Smith.So, my question, does one trump the other? And why?I also wrote:Neither trumps the other.You're taking what was initially a facetious comment and blowing it out of proportion. If you think that one should trump the other on an objective level, I'm dying to hear why.
Lightbearer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 The passages in Galatians I believe you are referring to is here:(Galatians 1:6-12) "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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. 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. 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. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."It is interesting to note that here he does not refer to an "angel of light" but "an angel from heaven" which is quite interesting. Note also that Paul is later (in the second bolded part) explaining that his gospel was not from the teachings of men or the theological rubble of the past (as in the case of the Jews) but he received it as a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. This same method is that which we proclaimed how Joseph Smith received his gospel, just as Paul did. He did not get it at the feet of Gamaliel or from reading the scriptures... he got it through revelation. As for the "angel of light" comment it is found here:(2 Corinthians 11:13-15) "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."Paul is here warning the Corinthian Saints of false apostles or false ministers who are inspired of Satan (who can transform himself into an angel of light) and so we see just because someone claims to be a minister of the gospel, they may not be, in fact they could be inspired of Satan. As for the EV's and others who use this passage to point to our belief in living apostles and prophets and the ministering of angels in the Church I just point the finger back in their direction and say what authorization do you have to proclaim anything? Did Paul grab up a Bible and go our preaching? Or did he testify of spiritual manifestations? The point is how is Paul's testimony any more credible than Joseph Smith's? Just because it is contained in the Bible? Or is it something more? As for Joseph "trumping" Paul I say that Joseph Smith testified of Paul and likened his own experience to be similar:(Joseph Smith History 1:24) "However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise."
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 So, my question, does one trump the other? And why?You seem to think Pauls does, so why dont you let us now why Pauls is more reliable.
ERMD Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 You seem to think Pauls does, so why dont you let us now why Pauls is more reliable.Because it's in the Bible, Silly.
Hoops22 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 You seem to think Pauls does, so why dont you let us now why Pauls is more reliable.I didn't fire the first salvo. So the question remains.
mfbukowski Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Evangelical critics of the Church often like to quote that passage in Galatians that speaks of how even an "angel of light" can deceive us and bring "a different Gospel". They also like to apply this to Joseph Smith and his story of the angel Moroni coming and revealing to him the Book of Mormon which, in turn, is a different Gospel because of one pesky verse in 2 Nephi that speaks about how we are saved "after all we can do".This has got me thinking. In order for this verse form Galatians to apply to Joseph Smith, then doesn't having a real being of light visiting him therefore become a prerequisite for this verse to work? And if this is so, then are Evangelical critics admitting that Joseph Smith was in fact visited by a being of light? And if so, then doesn't this mean that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he was visited by a being of light? But also, then what is stopping us from accepting Joseph Smith's other claims of visions and angelic beings if we accept this one? Just some thoughts that I have been mulling around recently.Yeah but what about the angel of light who appeared to Mary and told her she would be the mother of the savior?The message of the incarnation was ..... uh..... definitely a "different gospel" from Judaism.So how does that fit? I guess we are all just Jewish apostates, following that false prophet Jesus Christ
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 I didn't fire the first salvo. So the question remains.I think both are reliable. Now it is your turn.
cksalmon Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Hi Rommelator--Evangelical critics of the Church often like to quote that passage in Galatians that speaks of how even an "angel of light" can deceive us and bring "a different Gospel". They also like to apply this to Joseph Smith and his story of the angel Moroni coming and revealing to him the Book of Mormon which, in turn, is a different Gospel because of one pesky verse in 2 Nephi that speaks about how we are saved "after all we can do".2 Nephi 25:23 is not the only, and certainly not most important, factor to consider for the evangelical attempting to weigh Joseph Smith's claims. One must consider the corpus of Joseph Smith's purported revelation, precipitated by the coming forth of the BoM, in evaluating his claim to prophethood and the truthfulness of the religion he founded. In order for this verse form Galatians to apply to Joseph Smith, then doesn't having a real being of light visiting him therefore become a prerequisite for this verse to work? And if this is so, then are Evangelical critics admitting that Joseph Smith was in fact visited by a being of light?Personally, I neither concede nor deny the claim. I don't know what did or did not happen to Joseph Smith. And if so, then doesn't this mean that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he was visited by a being of light?Perhaps he was. My rejection of the LDS religion is based neither on merely 2 Nephi 25:23 or Galatians 1:8 nor on the possible application of the latter to the former. Best.cks
Rommelator Posted October 18, 2008 Author Posted October 18, 2008 2 Nephi 25:23 is not the only, and certainly not most important, factor to consider for the evangelical attempting to weight Joseph Smith's claims.You would be surprised if you knew how many Evangelicals I have spoken with or read who say that this verse is enough for them to reject the Book of Mormon.My favorite example is Shawn McCraney, who, in a moment of candor, said that even if the Book of Mormon had all of the archaeological evidence in the world behind it he would still refuse to accept the Book of Mormon because of that single verse. This, he said, is enough to constitute "another Gospel" despite all of the evidence for it.So I don't think it is really that farfetched.
Cold Steel Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 This is just one more contradictory passage if you're going to interpret it like many sectarians.If Jesus warns of false prophets, then ALL prophets are false.If Paul warns of Satan appearing as an angel of light, then, consequently, ALL angels of light are the devil. Joseph Smith didn't pull any punches, neither was he a fallen prophet. He warned the saints to be wary of visions and revelations and not take them automatically to be of God. In fact, he warned the saints to "try the spirits." If ALL future angels were to be Satan, then why did the Lord use an angel as a characteristic element of preaching the gospel in the last days? He said he saw an angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto the inhabitants of the Earth? If ALL future prophets were to be false, why did the Lord say two prophets would be raised up to minister to and protect the Jews in Jerusalem?My brother just sent me this account by a woman who claims to have had visions about the end of the world. The church is full of people like this who can go into detail about every little thing that will happen to us in the next two years, yet can't tell us who the next president will be! It all goes back to the premise. If Joseph Smith was of God, then his revelations are true and noteworthy; if he was not, we can't rely on him or his followers for the time of day.
cksalmon Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 You would be surprised if you knew how many Evangelicals I have spoken with or read who say that this verse is enough for them to reject the Book of Mormon.You overestimate my potential for being surprised, Romm. cks
cksalmon Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 It all goes back to the premise. If Joseph Smith was of God, then his revelations are true and noteworthy; if he was not, we can't rely on him or his followers for the time of day.Proof that Mormons can't tell time.I suppose I haven't misunderestimated you folks after all. cks
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.