Galatians 1:6-9

[Kenngo1969]

If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days publications, then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles.

I Corinthians 15:29?

[David T]

Still, there was most certainly a canon of scripture by that time. (Acts 17:11; Hebrews 4:12; John 5:39; Luke 24:27, etc) What I said regarding that which was still to be written was that there were no entirely new concepts central to salvation that were introduced following Paul's statement. That cannot be said, as I see it, of the BOM. By its own admission, there are precious and plain truths (I would imagine these are vital to my salvation certainly sounds like something that could be called gospel) that it contains that are not found anywhere in the Bible. Anyone who asks for examples is missing the point; the BOM says that of itself. Isn't that by definition something other than or beyond what we can read that Paul and the other apostles taught to be vital for salvation? That is a sincere question.

Now, I have a full day ahead of me, so please don't panic if it takes a day or two to look at any responses and possibly comment further.

Actually, when it comes to Saving Doctrines, what the Book Of Mormon does is make what is mentioned and taught in the Bible clearer, and also give more details about things only hinted of, mentioned in the Bible without further details.

Examples: Discourses on Faith in Jesus Christ, discourses on the unmerited Grace of God, discourses on the Atonement of Christ and its deeper ramifications, discourses on repentance and sanctification, details concerning foreordination, details concerning death and resurrection, details concerning Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and both of their associated covenants, and greater detail concerning Priesthood Authority to administer such ordinances. What the BOM does is 'narrow down' the possibility of interpretations of these things that are widely interpreted elsewhere. It is truly a second witness that clarifies and confirms the biblical record, filled out by many events and individuals that give us lessons in application of these things.

I HIGHLY suggest you read the Book of Mormon with your questions in mind, and with a true desire to learn, and I promise you, you'll understand.

[erichard]

...

Very well said.

This is what Kenny needs to understand: The Gospel that Paul taught is not just what is found in the Bible, the Gospel that Paul taught was a Gospel given by continuing revelation.

Those men taught in the myriad of religious seminaries can claim to be the only ones who understand the Bible gospel correctly. But ironically, the true Gospel NEVER has at the head men trained by other men. The words of Paul clearly establish the manner the true Gospel comes forth.

(Galatians 1) "... 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."

The only way the true Gospel is ever brought forth is as led by men who receive the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Richard

[CV75]

By its own admission, there are precious and plain truths (I would imagine these are vital to my salvation â?? certainly sounds like something that could be called gospel) that it contains that are not found anywhere in the Bible. ...Isnâ??t that by definition something â??other thanâ?? or â??beyondâ?? what we can read that Paul and the other apostles taught to be vital for salvation?

The Gospel that Paul and the other apostles of his day taught was 1) vital for the salvation of the saints in their day and dispensation; 2) changed by wolves in the flock; 3) not completely documented in their surviving epistles, testaments or other scripture they wrote; 4) incompletely preserved through the centuries; 5)in part intentionally removed or altered by enemies of Christ, mistakenly removed by overworked scribes, or intentionally exclued by those who were preserving what they understood the Gospel to be; and 6) not preserved long enough to be translated, transcribed and incorportaed into the Holy Bible we have today. The authority (keys) to teach the Gospel correctly and administer its ordinances and covenants was lost when the apostles were separated and died and were not able to pass the apostleship on to others. Without the apostleship on earth, many incomplete and erroneous interpretations and assumptions about the Gospel were promulgated. That happened even without the wolves in the flock. This was all prophesied to occur, as well as the restoration.

The Gospel is that Jesus rose from the dead and made Himself known to His apostles and followers. He could do this because He is the perfectly obedient Son of God and fulfilled all His Father commanded Him to do in His mortal life, culminating in His sacrifice (the atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane and death on the cross). Everything else (priesthood authority and attendant doctrines, scriptures, covenants, ordinances and so forth) is an appendage to that, and these were lost or corrupted and had to be restored.

[cjwright]

That cannot be said, as I see it, of the BOM. By its own admission, there are precious and plain truths (I would imagine these are vital to my salvation â?? certainly sounds like something that could be called gospel) that it contains that are not found anywhere in the Bible. Anyone who asks for examples is missing the point; the BOM says that of itself. Isnâ??t that by definition something â??other thanâ?? or â??beyondâ?? what we can read that Paul and the other apostles taught to be vital for salvation? That is a sincere question.

I just want to address this part of your post. In the introduction of the Book of Mormon it states:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of Godâ??s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

This point needs to be stressed, both the Book of Mormon and the Bible contain the fulness of the everlasting gospel. What the Book of Mormon does, like was said in nackhadlow's post, is to clarify the gospel teachings in the Bible by providing another witness. The first prinicples and ordinances of the Gospel are faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and recieving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. This shown in the Bible from Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15+16, Acts 2:36-39 and Acts 8:14-17, to name just four. These are also clearly taught in the Book of Mormon. However, the arguements that there is no need for baptism, or receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, or having Priesthood authority, etc, and that we are saved by faith alone, are favoured by our critics and are thrown at us LDS regardless of what the clearly Bible says about them.

The Bible teaches faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism and recieving the gift of the Holy Ghost, so does the Book of Mormon, and so does the LDS Church, so who is preaching a different gospel?

Also I think what you are forgetting, or may not know, is that the text of the Book of Mormon was written between 600 B.C and 421 A.D, most of it coming before 34 A.D, well before Paul wrote Galatians. Only the books 4th Nephi, Mormon and Moroni were written after that period. What precious and plain things the Book of Mormon says were lost come from the O.T. not the N.T., so really your arguement stands or falls on whether you believe that what we have in the O.T is everything God ever said to his people prior to that time of the N.T, and that the people in N.T times didn't have more scripture (being the O.T., as that was what scripture was being talked about in the Bible references you used in your post) than we have.

[mrmendoza]

Everyone settle down please. I do work and have a wife that's recovering from tonsil surgery. I'm sincere in asking and sure didn't mean to offend anyone. I thought this was a place where I could get some deeper insight into a faith I would like to know more about. Some of the responses were interesting and beneficial. I don't understand the ones that resort to sarcasm and insults. I guess in an open forum that's going to happen.

I am not challenging anyone. I'll read the responses over and if I have more questions or want to comment more I will be sure to write again. Is everything cool now? Thanks.

Well I'll admit that it accured to me that maybe we jumped the gun on your lack of immediate response. Manytimes I'll write a post or two but not have the time to stick around for any response. Of course I've noticed that not too many people respond to me anyway, so I don't think anyone noticed that I'd left! Anyway, if we were too quick to judge on that I'm sorry.

Having said that though, you say that you're not challanging anyone, have you looked at the tone of your post? They certainly looked challanging to me! If you are truly just looking for information, then simply ask for it. But you don't really do that. You make statements as to what you think the BOM means, then you state why you don't believe it and the tone of your questions seem to imply, "How can you people be so stupid as to believe what is so obviously wrong?" Now I know that you didn't actually say that, but look at the way your questions are being asked. That is an old anti-Mormon trick of asking loaded questions in such a way as to get us to question our beliefs, when in reality you don't realy care about the answers!

If you want to see an example of someone who does not share our beliefs, but is always respectful and polite, even when he's chalanging us, I'd advise you to look up and down this board and read the things Mudcat says. He is IMO one of the best!

Mike

[Programmer]

Thank you. I guess I'm kind of faced with the same situation. I had three questions. I wrote them down in a word doc and then posted them at the same time. I then went to work, came home & took care of my wife, etc. and found that apparently I had been expected to be waiting by my keyboard ready to answer any comment immediately or be labeled a troll. There are so many comments on the three posts that I can't possibly just rifle off answers to; nor do I want to. I want to be thoughtful in my approach, trying my best to avoid further offending anyone. But also, I really don't want to get into debates with anyone. I had some questions. I am reading answers and will try to clarify my confusion if it seems like it would be helpful. I certainly don't want to fire up another round of insults (I'm not saying it came from everyone of course). If I were here just to lob insults back and forth then I'd really be missing the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15. I respect the LDS faith and just have sincere questions that are otherwise roadblocks to my moving any further in that direction.

If someone wants something off the top of my head, here goes: Everything in the OT pointed forward to the NT. The expectation and need for a Messiah was clearly spoken of in Daniel 9, Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12, and so many places. All of the events recorded in the NT were in complete harmony with what the Israelites should have been expecting. Their not accepting that is not a simple matter of "begging to differ". Everything recorded in the NT ties back to the OT. I also said in my original post that I know more was left to be written following Paul's statement, so I don't understand questions such as, 'you do realize the Bible didn't exist when Paul wrote that?' Still, there was most certainly a canon of scripture by that time. (Acts 17:11; Hebrews 4:12; John 5:39; Luke 24:27, etc) What I said regarding that which was still to be written was that there were no entirely new concepts central to salvation that were introduced following Paulâ??s statement. That cannot be said, as I see it, of the BOM. By its own admission, there are precious and plain truths (I would imagine these are vital to my salvation â?? certainly sounds like something that could be called gospel) that it contains that are not found anywhere in the Bible. Anyone who asks for examples is missing the point; the BOM says that of itself. Isnâ??t that by definition something â??other thanâ?? or â??beyondâ?? what we can read that Paul and the other apostles taught to be vital for salvation? That is a sincere question.

Now, I have a full day ahead of me, so please donâ??t panic if it takes a day or two to look at any responses and possibly comment further. Thank you!

Honestly, if you have read the Bible and LOVE it, then you will love the Book of Mormon the first time you read it. I don't feel at this time that you have read it yet.

I read it when I was 13 years old, and understood it on an adult level. You obviously being an adult can also read it, and can have no excuses for reading it, since you are much older, and have more freedom to do so. All the questions you ask beg questions that cannot be reduced into 3 sentences. You cannot get a college education in 3 days, nor can you understand the book of Mormon in 3 sentences.

So read it.

If you don't like it, then you can always put down the book. The book won't hurt you.

[mfbukowski]

So from this we can assume that urroner is not a troll?

Not sure about that, but you sure are a cutie!

[Cold Steel]

If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days...then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles. This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against. Sure, there was more to be written after what Paul stated, but it all harmonized with everything that had been written up to the time of his letter to the Galatians. There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

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. (Galatians 1:6-9)

In context, Paul was warning the saints not to accept other teachings that were making the rounds in his day. There were Judaizers and Gnostics and all manner of others competing with the apostles and Paul was simply telling them not to accept these pretenders.

First, you assume that what we have in our Bibles is the sum of everything that the apostles taught. What the Latter-day Saints teach is the same gospel that Paul and the other apostles taught. (At least that's our position.) What we teach is, literally, a restoration of that gospel, in all its purity. In fact, if you look at the various Christian religions today, which of them teaches that gospel? Which of them has the greatest resemblance to the ancient church? And what, exactly, was the gospel that Paul was talking about? Simply, it was that fallen man is redeemed through the shedding of Christ's blood, and that Christ was resurrected in the flesh. Everything else are simply appendages.

At the time Joseph Smith arrived on the scene, many others in the United States and Europe were asking why modern religion seemed so far removed from the simple gospel that the apostles taught. First, there seemed to be no church on Earth that was organized like the ancient church. There was no church built with a foundation of apostles and prophets, none that had the authority, taught that pure gospel and had the gifts of the Spirit.

One of the early LDS apostles was Parley P. Pratt. As a youth, he and his father worked side by side. At one point he asked his father about what troubled him the most about the religions of his day:

It was during these toils in the wilderness that my mind was drawn out from time to time on the things of God and eternity. ... I said to my father one day while we were laboring together in the forest: "Father, how is it there is so manifest a difference between the ancient and modern disciples of Jesus Christ and their doctrines? If, for instance, I had lived in the days of the Apostles, and believed in Jesus Christ, and had manifested a wish to become his disciple, Peter or his brethren would have said to me, 'Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for REMISSION OF SINS, and you SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' I should then have known definitely and precisely what to do to be saved. Whereas, now we go to the religious minister for instruction, and he tells us we must experience a mysterious, indefinite and undefinable something called religion before we can repent and be baptized acceptably. But, if we inquire how, or by what means we are to come at this experience, he cannot tell us definitely; but will tell us that it is the work of God in the soul; which he will accomplish in his own due time, for his own elect; and that we can do nothing acceptably till this is done. That even our prayers and repentance, and all our good works are sin; so long as this work of God is not done within us.

"Now, father," said I, "how is this? I believe in Jesus; I wish to serve him and keep his commandments; I love him: He has commanded all men to repent and be baptized, and has promised to remit the sins of all those who obey the gospel ordinances, and to pour out the Holy Spirit upon them. Yet, if I apply to the Presbyterians they will sprinkle some water in my face instead of baptizing me. If I go to the Methodists it is the same. And if I go to the Baptists they will not baptize me for remission of sins, that I may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; but they will require of me to relate an experience, and to tell of some time and place where I had already experienced that which I am only seeking for, and have not found. This, of course, I cannot do; and, therefore, they will not receive me unto baptism. How, then, can I observe the ordinances of God and keep his commandments?"

To these inquiries my father could give no satisfactory answer; but observed that times and circumstances had changed. With this I was not satisfied, of course; for who had a right to change the ordinances, transgress the law, or break the covenant of the everlasting gospel? (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, edited by his son, Parley P. Pratt, p.6 - 7)

He wasn't the only one. His brother Orson, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Orson Hyde, Lorenzo Snow and countless others left journals and writings where they, too, reported having been troubled by the fact that no church on Earth seemed to be anything remotely like the ancient church. Orson Pratt later wrote:

Other churches do not profess to have inspired apostles, prophets, prophetesses, evangelists, etc., hence we know, if the New Testament be true, that they cannot be the church of God. But the Latter-day Saints profess to have all these officers and gifts among them, and profess to have authority to administer in every form, ordinance and blessing of the ancient church; hence we know, that so far as the officers, doctrines, ordinances, and ceremonies are evidence, this Church can exhibit a perfect pattern. In these things, then, both ancient and modern Saints are exactly alike. By the New Testament then we cannot be condemned. If the Latter-day Saints are not what they profess to be, one thing is certain, that no one ever will be able to confute their doctrine by the scriptures.... (Orson Pratt's Works, p.4-5)

The church is more than just the gospel message. It was the guardian of the gospel. There was no canon of scripture in Paul's day, nor any evidence that apostles and other church officers would be vanishing, leaving what we now know as Catholicism and Protestantism.

Orson Pratt also noted:

In ancient times, many great prophets were sent of God, and we have no record of their doing miracles, yet their respective messages were of infinite importance, and could not be rejected without condemnation. Where is there a man, no matter how great his attainments, that can show Mr. Smith's doctrine to be false? Did the ancient saints teach baptism to the penitent believer for the remission of sins? So did Mr. Smith. Did they teach the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit? So did Mr. Smith. Did the former-day saints teach that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, deacons, bishops, elders, etc., all inspired of God, were necessary in the church? So did Mr. Smith. Did the ancient saints teach that dreams, visions, new revelations, ministering of angels, healings, tongues, interpretations, and all other spiritual gifts were necessary in the church? So did this modern prophet. Where, then, is the discrepancy between the ancient and modern teachings? Nowhere. The teaching of the one is as perfect as the other; and we again assert that this perfect coincidence in teaching, in every point, is a strong presumptive evidence that Mr. Smith was sent of God. (Orson Pratt's Works, p. 6)

One other thing that Orson Pratt noted: "If it could be proven from scripture that God had revealed to man all that He ever intended to reveal, then a professed revelation would not require investigation; for it would be known at once, that everything of the kind was an imposition. It would be folly in the extreme to inquire whether a professed new revelation were true or false; for if God had declared in His word that no more was to be given, all writings or books purporting to be a new revelation could not be otherwise than false." Since the Bible says no such thing, it stands to reason that however God would speak to man in latter days, it must be through revelation, for how else would it come? Which of the Christian sects today is capable of relating God's word through revelation?

The LDS church is the closest thing on Earth to the ancient order. If it's a mere counterfeit, then where, today, is the original? If it does not teach the pure gospel that Paul taught, which church does? If the canon of scripture is closed, where do we find that in the scriptures? And in Revelation, we read of the two witnesses, or "prophets" that are to be raised up. If they're not raised up through revelation (small-r, no pun intended), then through what will they be established?

[William the Conqueror]

Not sure about that, but you sure are a cutie!

Ditto! (on Hoops)

[KennyBallgame9]

First Nephi 13:26 says, â??â?¦for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most preciousâ?¦â? (Italics mine)

I feel that this is turning into an exercise in semantics. The verse above says plainly that parts of the gospel would be taken away. So by putting them back, we now have parts of the gospel that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. This is not a simple matter of giving depth to existing gospel or clarifying it. This is new gospel that had never been seen before. It, again, seems so plain to me that this makes it gospel â??other thanâ?? or â??something beyondâ?? what was taught by the Apostles in the first century. It is a gospel that can only be found in the BOM, et al.

Some previously have suggested that the context in some way limits the scope of what Paulâ??s saying here. But if this letter is truly inspired, then it has to be considered a warning for all Christians in the first century, and all that were to follow.

These are my thoughts on the matter and I will leave you to what you choose to believe. I appreciate this opportunity to express my doubts and concerns and will look forward to reading any final thoughts you may have on this topic. Thank you.

[Ron Beron]

Everyone settle down please. I do work and have a wife that's recovering from tonsil surgery. I'm sincere in asking and sure didn't mean to offend anyone. I thought this was a place where I could get some deeper insight into a faith I would like to know more about. Some of the responses were interesting and beneficial. I don't understand the ones that resort to sarcasm and insults. I guess in an open forum that's going to happen.

I am not challenging anyone. I'll read the responses over and if I have more questions or want to comment more I will be sure to write again. Is everything cool now? Thanks.

Let me see if I can give a different although not necessarily orthodox approach to this. In Galatians Paul is doing something very unusual. First of all this epistle is among the very first things written about the Christian church up to that point. We probably have other writings but many of them were either destroyed or repressed. Second, lets look at the epistle itself.

1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are following a different gospel â?? 1:7 not that there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ. 1:8 But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! 1:9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell! 1:10 Am I now trying to gain the approval of people, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ!

The different gospel Paul is referring here to is not gnosticism or any other heretical faith but is the primitive church of James, Peter, and Paul themselves. In other words the beliefs that the physical Jesus began. Paul is railing against the teachings of the Jerusalem church itself. He is preaching against a belief in the Mosaic Law, circumcision, sabbath observance, dietary restrictions and other laws within the Mosaic Laws. At this point it is my belief that Paul was teaching the apostasy itself not against it.

For an example look at verse 1 where he states, "From Paul,¹ an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)

Paul is stating that he teaches not through an authority gained while Jesus was alive but by a risen cosmic Jesus whom he saw in theophony. He preaches by what he considers a superior authority than the apostles and as such they (the Galatians) should listen to him and not the Lord's anointed apostles.

If you look at verse 12 you will see that Paul further dismisses the apostles by stating he learned the gospel not through them, the eyewitness of Jesus' ministry, but through revelation, "1:12 For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received itby a revelation of Jesus Christ. ^"Therefore, the apostles and their gospel is irrelevant. He further confirms this in verse 16, " 1:16 to reveal his Son inme so that I could preach him among the Gentiles, I did not go to ask advice from any human being,1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem ³⁷ to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus."

This from a current book by Barrie Wilson in "Taking Paul at His Word",

He satiricallyhopes that those who circumcise would suffer an accident and castrate themselves(Galatians 5:12). He says that those who follow the law have fallen away from grace(Galatians 5:4). He counts his former life in Judaism as â??rubbishâ? (Philippians 3:

. Hedoes not give any credence to the position that there might be another legitimateunderstanding of the new movement. In particular, he provides no support to those inthe Jesus Movement who see matters differently. For Paul, there is only one way ofunderstanding the message, namely his!

In summary, IMO Paul is not preaching against the apostasy but adding to the destruction of the Jerusalem Church and leadership of that church after the death of Jesus.

[Ron Beron]

I had my tonsils removed when I was very young and recovered very quickly. I resumed my role as terror of the house the very next day, but I had a sister who had her tonsils removed when she was an adult and she was miserable for a couple of weeks.

Me too! And they LIE about the ice cream!! Not only do they NOT give you tons of it, you feel that your throat would jump out of face if you did eat it. What a rip.

I hope your wife is feeling better....

[mrmendoza]

Let me see if I can give a different although not necessarily orthodox approach to this....

For an example look at verse 1 where he states, "From Paul,¹ an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)

Paul is stating that he teaches not through an authority gained while Jesus was alive but by a risen cosmic Jesus whom he saw in theophony. He preaches by what he considers a superior authority than the apostles and as such they (the Galatians) should listen to him and not the Lord's anointed apostles.

WELL!!!!! You're right about one thine, that's definatly a different and unorthodox approach!

Would that not turn all the teachings of any, including ours, Christian church on it's head? Would that not turn the NT itself against itself, pitting the teachings of Paul against all others? Did I undrestand you to say that Paul himself WAS the aposisty? Or was he just caliming that all the rest of the Church, including the Lords own anointed apostles, had all fallen away already and he had the restoration of the true Gosple of Christ?

And people think we're unorthodox!

And people think some of my ideas are strange!

BEGONE HERETIC!!

[Cold Steel]

First Nephi 13:26 says, â??â?¦for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most preciousâ?¦â? ... [This] says plainly that parts of the gospel would be taken away. So by putting them back, we now have parts of the gospel that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible.

Like what, exactly? While we're waiting for that, consider I Corinthians 15:29: "Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead...." The verse simply appears in sacred writ with no explanation as to its meaning either way. In other words, it's neither condemned nor condoned, yet there it is. The Lord said that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved in the Kingdom of God; however, there's no provision in the scriptures for those who have died. But the Lord did speak on the matter and now there's an answer. It was something that was plain and precious, and yet it was taken away.

Not all revelation in the Restoration necessarily needs to be restored. There is nothing saying that God cannot reveal new doctrines and new information. Our Articles of Faith says that we believe in all that God has revealed, everything He may presently reveal and all that He might, at a future time, reveal.

Finally, don't assume that the entire Gospel necessarily resides in the New Testament scriptures. What we have is only what survived. If you could speak to an informed Christian in the First Century, you might find that he or she might know of many things not included in those writings.

This is not a simple matter of giving depth to existing gospel or clarifying it. This is new gospel that had never been seen before.

Again, you assume that what we have in our Bibles is the sum of everything that the apostles taught. What the Latter-day Saints teach is the same gospel that Paul and the other apostles taught. If not, where do we depart from it?

What we teach is, literally, a restoration of that gospel, in all its purity. As I said earlier, if you look at the various Christian religions today, which of them teaches that gospel? And which of them has the greatest resemblance to the ancient church? And what, exactly, was the gospel that Paul was talking about? Simply, it was that fallen man is redeemed through the shedding of Christ's blood, and that Christ was resurrected in the flesh.

It, again, seems so plain to me that this makes it gospel â??other thanâ?? or â??something beyondâ?? what was taught by the Apostles in the first century. It is a gospel that can only be found in the BOM, et al.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard critics complain about just the opposite. They say that the gospel taught in the Book of Mormon is simply a rehashing of what's already in the New Testament. In my own view, you're both wrong. If we can assume that Joseph Smith was a liar and a deceiver, then which church on Earth does teach the old time gospel? Do the Baptists teach it? Do the Methodists? How about the Catholics? Or how about the Seventh Day Adventists? Looking at the scriptures, I don't see anything specifically authorizing a change from the sabbath from the seventh day to the first day. Without revelation, the SDA might be the only church that teaches the original gospel.

Some previously have suggested that the context in some way limits the scope of what Paulâ??s saying here. But if this letter is truly inspired, then it has to be considered a warning for all Christians in the first century, and all that were to follow.

Certainly it was a warning, but when Paul says, "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you other than the one we have preached, let him be accursed," he isn't saying to reject all angels, for how else would a restoration of the gospel come except through an angel? John said, in Revelation, that he saw an angel flying in the midst of heaven having the everlasting gospel to preach to the nations. Angels are messengers of the gospel; albeit that angels who preach any other gospel should not be believed. Such would be the case of Muhammad, who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah, but denied His divinity and resurrection. The Latter-day Saints, however, deny neither, but teach the gospel in its purity. So unless you can tell us where our gospel differs, you still haven't made a case.

[Ron Beron]

WELL!!!!! You're right about one thine, that's definatly a different and unorthodox approach!

Would that not turn all the teachings of any, including ours, Christian church on it's head? Would that not turn the NT itself against itself, pitting the teachings of Paul against all others? Did I undrestand you to say that Paul himself WAS the aposisty? Or was he just caliming that all the rest of the Church, including the Lords own anointed apostles, had all fallen away already and he had the restoration of the true Gosple of Christ?

And people think we're unorthodox!

And people think some of my ideas are strange!

BEGONE HERETIC!!

You heard correctly and yes I am a heretic at least to Pauline Christianity. If you read Galatians and other of Paul's epistles you cannot come away with feeling he was with the program. In fact, he railed against the leadership of the Jerusalem Church time and time again. Not only the church but Jesus himself. How else can one explain Paul's antipathy to the Mosaic Law while Jesus advocated a stricter adherence to the same? If you will please give me examples of where Paul agreed with the leadership of the church and an adherence to the law? Additionally, do you believe that it is only through grace we are given eternal glory or are works involved? Paul taught that works were shallow and had nothing to do with salvation while Mormons believe we are given eternal life through grace and through our faith and works are given eternal blessing or condemnation.

You claim I am a heretic. That is what Paul said about the early leadership. I must be in good company. Instead of being sarcastic and critical, tell me where I am wrong. Have I wrenched the scriptures to my own end or are you simply being submerged by centuries of Pauline propaganda? Remember JS and his willingness to do away with this hubris.

[Cold Steel]

[Paul] railed against the leadership of the Jerusalem Church time and time again. Not only the church but Jesus himself. How else can one explain Paul's antipathy to the Mosaic Law while Jesus advocated a stricter adherence to the same? If you will please give me examples of where Paul agreed with the leadership of the church and an adherence to the law?

What in the world are you talking about? Paul had some disagreements with the other brethren on some issues, but when Peter made a decision, Paul abided by it. His writings also at times reflected his own personal predilections, but I don't see him being the rebel you make him out to be.

Paul taught that works were shallow and had nothing to do with salvation while Mormons believe we are given eternal life through grace and through our faith and works are given eternal blessing or condemnation.

I certainly don't buy this, and Paul certainly never said it. He said that man isn't saved by works, and that's true; but he never said that a man could be saved without them. For example, baptism will not save a person; however, a man cannot be saved without it. You're making the same mistake that the EVs make by applying an extremely narrow meaning to a passage without there being any additional supporting passages. He never called anyone else in the quorum of the twelve a "heretic," nor did he ever imply such.

[Glenn101]

This is so easily explained when we realize what the New Testament is and isn't. It is the writings of a few men who were either bearing their testimonies of Christ along with a short sketches of his ministry or trying to correct errors that had crept into the church, for the most part, except for the Revelation Of john.. Except for the testimonies of Matthew, mark, and John, they are all in the form of epistles, letters written by Luke, who was not listed as an apostle, Paul, Peter, James, Jude (who was he?), etc. These letters, testimonies etc. were collected by the early church members and were held in great reverence by them. No where do any of these authors claim that what they have written is all there was, is, or would ever be. None of them even seem to be aware that that what they are writing would become a part of the Church canon.

Galatians 1:8 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.

Is talking about the gospel that paul had already preached to the Galatians on his missionary journey to them. We do not have any records of what Paul actually taught them or any other of the Gentile groups that he taught the Gospel to. We cannot ascertain from the Bible what Paul's actual conversion message was and what other messages other than than the ressurection that he taught. We have a few clues from his epistles, but that is all. Until we know what was originally taught, we cannot ascertain who will be accursed.

The restoration brings all of those things to light, "the restitution of all things" spoken of in Acts 3:21.

Glenn

[Zakuska]

This is so easily explained when we realize what the New Testament is and isn't. It is the writings of a few men who were either bearing their testimonies of Christ along with a short sketches of his ministry or trying to correct errors that had crept into the church, for the most part, except for the Revelation Of john.. Except for the testimonies of Matthew, mark, and John, they are all in the form of epistles, letters written by Luke, who was not listed as an apostle, Paul, Peter, James, Jude (who was he?), etc. These letters, testimonies etc. were collected by the early church members and were held in great reverence by them. No where do any of these authors claim that what they have written is all there was, is, or would ever be. None of them even seem to be aware that that what they are writing would become a part of the Church canon.

Galatians 1:8 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.

Is talking about the gospel that paul had already preached to the Galatians on his missionary journey to them. We do not have any records of what Paul actually taught them or any other of the Gentile groups that he taught the Gospel to. We cannot ascertain from the Bible what Paul's actual conversion message was and what other messages other than than the ressurection that he taught. We have a few clues from his epistles, but that is all. Until we know what was originally taught, we cannot ascertain who will be accursed.

The restoration brings all of those things to light, "the restitution of all things" spoken of in Acts 3:21.

Glenn

To further drive this point home... What Gospel DID Paul preach? The Bible account... or Should I say Pauls own account contradicts itself as to what his message really was...

Acts 26

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.

22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.

28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Why is Pau teaching Works and repentance in one Breath...?

Eph 2

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

And Grace in the next? Did he lie to the King?

One might also ask... Where Did Paul get the idea that an Angel would come preaching the Gospel?

Rev 14

6And 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,

7Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Riddle me this... How can the Earth and the People on it have the Gospel if an Angel has to come from heaven with it to preach to them?

[Ron Beron]

'Cold Steel' writes,

What in the world are you talking about? Paul had some disagreements with the other brethren on some issues, but when Peter made a decision, Paul abided by it. His writings also at times reflected his own personal predilections, but I don't see him being the rebel you make him out to be.

With all respect have you read Galatians? There are other sources that speak of the animosity between Paul and the leadership of the church. By Paul's own admission he visited Jerusalem only once in 18 years to visit first with Peter and then with James. Essentially Paul was given carte blanche to teach what he wanted as long as he remembered to collect for the poor in Jerusalem. If you read the epistle in total you will the amount of animosity presented by Paul to the other apostles. For example

I. Anti-Israel:

â?¢ "All who rely on works of the law are under a curse" (Galatians 3:10).

â?¢ "No one is justified before God by the law" (Galatians 3:11).

â?¢ "For [some manuscripts add 'in Christ Jesus'] neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is everything!" (Galatians 6:15).

â?¢ "No human being will be justified in his [God's] sight by works of the law, since through the

law comes knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).

â?¢ "Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law" (Romans 9:31).

â?¢ "But their minds were hardened. Indeed, for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil is still there, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day, whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds" (2 Corinthians 3:14â??15).

In addition to the above Paul contradicted Jesus on ritual foods, circumcision, the fate of the deceased, the Eucharist, etc.

These are in direct contradiction to not only the apostles but to Jesus himself who advocated the all should follow the very least of the commandments.

Hyam Maccoby writes in his excellent book, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity

From certain of Paul's letters, particularly Galatians, it seems that the friction was more serious than in the picture given in Acts, which thus appears to be partly a propaganda exercise, intended to portray unity in the early Church.

I certainly don't buy this, and Paul certainly never said it. He said that man isn't saved by works, and that's true; but he never said that a man could be saved without them. For example, baptism will not save a person; however, a man cannot be saved without it. You're making the same mistake that the EVs make by applying an extremely narrow meaning to a passage without there being any additional supporting passages. He never called anyone else in the quorum of the twelve a "heretic," nor did he ever imply such.

Doesn't it though? He proclaimed that those who follow the other "gospel" (and what would that gospel be?) would be cursed not only cursed but,

1:8 But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach

11

a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you,

12

let him be condemned to hell!

13

1:9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell!

As to the value of obeying the law look at the scriptures above. Paul certainly discounted if not downright condemned the use of works.

Most certainly he confronted Peter with, "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." His animosity with the Jerusalem saints didn't end with just a condemnation.

While specifically he never used the word heretic to describe the Jerusalem leadership he did use words of equal and negative veracity in dealing with the Jerusalem church.

[Ron Beron]

This is so easily explained when we realize what the New Testament is and isn't. It is the writings of a few men who were either bearing their testimonies of Christ along with a short sketches of his ministry or trying to correct errors that had crept into the church, for the most part, except for the Revelation Of john.. Except for the testimonies of Matthew, mark, and John, they are all in the form of epistles, letters written by Luke, who was not listed as an apostle, Paul, Peter, James, Jude (who was he?), etc. These letters, testimonies etc. were collected by the early church members and were held in great reverence by them. No where do any of these authors claim that what they have written is all there was, is, or would ever be. None of them even seem to be aware that that what they are writing would become a part of the Church canon.

Galatians 1:8 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.

Is talking about the gospel that paul had already preached to the Galatians on his missionary journey to them. We do not have any records of what Paul actually taught them or any other of the Gentile groups that he taught the Gospel to. We cannot ascertain from the Bible what Paul's actual conversion message was and what other messages other than than the ressurection that he taught. We have a few clues from his epistles, but that is all. Until we know what was originally taught, we cannot ascertain who will be accursed.

The restoration brings all of those things to light, "the restitution of all things" spoken of in Acts 3:21.

Glenn

I agree that the gospel preached by Paul is that which he had previously preached, but the question is what the "other gospel" is. Given the anti-law tenor of Galatians one could easily surmise that it was part of the Judaizers of Jerusalem, i.e., pro-Jewish Gentiles or even pro-law apostles from Jerusalem.

[Glenn101]

I agree that the gospel preached by Paul is that which he had previously preached, but the question is what the "other gospel" is. Given the anti-law tenor of Galatians one could easily surmise that it was part of the Judaizers of Jerusalem, i.e., pro-Jewish Gentiles or even pro-law apostles from Jerusalem.

He could have been warning against those who were coming in preaching that there was no resurrection, sort of like that (in?)famous First epistle to the Corinthians in chapter fifteen.

Glenn

[Ron Beron]

He could have been warning against those who were coming in preaching that there was no resurrection, sort of like that (in?)famous First epistle to the Corinthians in chapter fifteen.

Glenn

I would think that the epistle of Galatians actually discusses the issue that Paul was warning about that being the re-acquisition of the Mosaic Law. The only religious group at the time that would have denied the resurrection would have been the Sadducees.

[mrmendoza]

You heard correctly and yes I am a heretic at least to Pauline Christianity. If you read Galatians and other of Paul's epistles you cannot come away with feeling he was with the program. In fact, he railed against the leadership of the Jerusalem Church time and time again. Not only the church but Jesus himself. How else can one explain Paul's antipathy to the Mosaic Law while Jesus advocated a stricter adherence to the same? If you will please give me examples of where Paul agreed with the leadership of the church and an adherence to the law? Additionally, do you believe that it is only through grace we are given eternal glory or are works involved? Paul taught that works were shallow and had nothing to do with salvation while Mormons believe we are given eternal life through grace and through our faith and works are given eternal blessing or condemnation.

You claim I am a heretic. That is what Paul said about the early leadership. I must be in good company. Instead of being sarcastic and critical, tell me where I am wrong. Have I wrenched the scriptures to my own end or are you simply being submerged by centuries of Pauline propaganda? Remember JS and his willingness to do away with this hubris.

The problem here is, in your alegation that Paul was opossed to the teachings of the apostles, and even those of Jesus himself, how is it that he calims to be teaching the true Gospel of Christ? How is it that Paul can claim to be an apostle of Christ, and then teach against the very things that Jesus taught?

Also what's not clear here is, are you in favor of following what you call "Pauline Christianity", or the opossing (In your view.) teachings of the apostles? And for that matter, The Lord Himself?

As to the issues of grace vs works, that subject has been gone over a thousand times on this board, and really has nothing to do with what you're alleging.

Are you wrenching the scriptures to your own end? Duh!!

When you take the Pauline scriptures and attempt to use them against all of the other scriptures, and then throw in something about Joesph Smith (I don't have the slightest idea what you meant by that statement!) I'd say your are doing a pretty wild job of wresting the scriptures!

To say you must be in pretty good company I would ask, to whom are you in company with? Paul? Jesus? Hyam Maccoby, whoever he is?

Perhaps you should start your own church, because I don't presently see that you're in any company at all!

Mike

[Ron Beron]

[quote name='mrmendoza' writes,

The problem here is, in your alegation that Paul was opossed to the teachings of the apostles, and even those of Jesus himself, how is it that he calims to be teaching the true Gospel of Christ? How is it that Paul can claim to be an apostle of Christ, and then teach against the very things that Jesus taught?

Also what's not clear here is, are you in favor of following what you call "Pauline Christianity", or the opossing (In your view.) teachings of the apostles? And for that matter, The Lord Himself?

He claimed so because he believed so. Belief is not always tantamount to reality. You tell me. You know what Jesus stated regarding observance of the law. How is it that Paul was speaking against such observance and maintain himself as a Christian. Could he possibly have been a Hellenized Jew who was willing to compromise the legal aspects Christian observance?

As to the issues of grace vs works, that subject has been gone over a thousand times on this board, and really has nothing to do with what you're alleging.

Okay, then tell me how it isn't germane.

Are you wrenching the scriptures to your own end? Duh!!

When you take the Pauline scriptures and attempt to use them against all of the other scriptures, and then throw in something about Joesph Smith (I don't have the slightest idea what you meant by that statement!) I'd say your are doing a pretty wild job of wresting the scriptures!

To say you must be in pretty good company I would ask, to whom are you in company with? Paul? Jesus? Hyam Maccoby, whoever he is?

Perhaps you should start your own church, because I don't presently see that you're in any company at all!

Ahhh... the last vestige of a scoundrel. I have answered all the temple questions correctly just like you have and so rest assured my membership is secure. These boards are not just for the rock hard conservatives but also for the those who are at the outer envelope of understanding. I am not asking that we kick Paul out, just understand the background of 1st century Christianity. Perhaps you need to crack a book or two.