Galatians 1:6-9

[JAHS]

Whenever this subject comes up I think of what Jesus said to His Apostles shortly before He died:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

Jesus had something important to tell his apostles but they were not yet ready to receive it. He was crucified shortly after this and never got the chance to tell them about these other "many things". In subsequent verses He goes on to say how the Spirit will reveal more things to them from the Father. Perhaps through latter-day prophets we now know what those things were that Jesus did not tell them.

[LeSellers]

Whenever this subject comes up I think of what Jesus said to His Apostles shortly before He died:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

Jesus had something important to tell his apostles but they were not yet ready to receive it. He was crucified shortly after this and never got the chance to tell them about these other "many things". In subsequent verses He goes on to say how the Spirit will reveal more things to them from the Father. Perhaps through latter-day prophets we now know what those things were that Jesus did not tell them.

The fact that we also have, in Acts, the account of His teaching them as He had promised makes the case as well as anything else.

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Lehi

[Ron Beron]

The fact that we also have, in Acts, the account of His teaching them as He had promised makes the case as well as anything else.

Lehi

Good points both, but there are some discrepancies. Acts was written much later than Galatians and contradicts Paul's own story. Secondly, while I agree that Jesus taught other teachings I doubt seriously he would contradict himself by saying, "Remember all that stuff I told you about keeping the Law?.... Well, forget about it!"

[mrmendoza]

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?

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

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.

Okay, now I'm really confused! I still don't get what you're trying to establish here. The only thing about me that's rock hard is my head I guess! Are you saying that Paul may have just been deluded? I know there have been some who have said that maybe his "vision " was simply an hallucination.( No, I can't document that, but I heard it a long time ago so obviously someone said it!)

You didn't answer my question. Then again, are you just playing the devils advocate here? What side of your allegation are you taking? You simply answered my question with a different wording of my questions!

Since you say you're a member of the Church I shouldn't need to debate the grace vs works with you, I would think you should know where the Church stands on that. It's not germane to the subject on your post because if Paul was crazy and not to be trusted, then it doesn't matter what he thought about it!

Since you are a Temple Recommend holder, I have to assume that you know that JS accepted Paul�s teachings as being valid scripture, and never, to my knowledge, indicated anything like what you're saying here. This Hyam Mccomb, who is he? Is he an apostle? Is he a Prophet? Is he even LDS? He may have an interesting interpretation of history, how does it compare with Hugh Nibblys? I�ve cracked a book or two, (And not just over my head!) but I've never seen what your saying here. Of course I don't have time to read what every crackpot writes either!

To say that you�re "on the outer envelope of understanding" is an understatement! You�re in outer space! Maybe you need to find some better books to read. You know, like the scriptures,all of them! Or maybe some of the teachings of the modern apostles and Prophets!

Mike

[Ron Beron]

'mrmendoza' writes,

Okay, now I'm really confused! I still don't get what you're trying to establish here. The only thing about me that's rock hard is my head I guess! Are you saying that Paul may have just been deluded? I know there have been some who have said that maybe his "vision " was simply an hallucination.( No, I can't document that, but I heard it a long time ago so obviously someone said it!)

If you read his epistles Paul states that he is presenting a gospel not of men(the apostolic record as recorded in the synoptic record) but of the spirit as per revelation. In short, Paul is saying what the apostles offered was incorrect and what he was teaching was more important and germane.

You didn't answer my question. Then again, are you just playing the devils advocate here? What side of your allegation are you taking? You simply answered my question with a different wording of my questions!

I thought I did answer the question. I'm sorry if you didn't understand it. Paul taught what he did because he believed the theophony he received was more important than that received by the apostles. He said as much. Was he wrong? To some degree he was. He was wrong in ignoring the authority of the Jerusalem Church. He wasn't wrong in understanding the role of the Jesus' gospel to the gentiles. Frankly, Jesus' Jewish gospel would have been too extreme for the gentiles, e.g. circumcision, etc.

Since you are a Temple Recommend holder, I have to assume that you know that JS accepted Pauls teachings as being valid scripture, and never, to my knowledge, indicated anything like what you're saying here. This Hyam Mccomb, who is he? Is he an apostle? Is he a Prophet? Is he even LDS? He may have an interesting interpretation of history, how does it compare with Hugh Nibblys? Ive cracked a book or two, (And not just over my head!) but I've never seen what your saying here. Of course I don't have time to read what every crackpot writes either!

Yes, and this is a conflict for me, because I have incredible respect for JS. In essence JS agrees with my antipathy towards Pauline theology. Remember, Pauline theology was the basis for 2000 years of Christian, i.e., apostate, theology. He was told to join none of the churches because, 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: â??they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.â?

What exactly did the sect and creeds teach that were an abomination?

To say that youre "on the outer envelope of understanding" is an understatement! Youre in outer space! Maybe you need to find some better books to read. You know, like the scriptures,all of them! Or maybe some of the teachings of the modern apostles and Prophets!

You were doing so well up to this point in avoiding the sarcasm and the personal attacks. You don't know and you obviously feel you can get off some 'shots". Don't. It makes you look silly and I don't argue with sarcasm. You will find that I call them like I see them. There is nothing celestial about my arguments, but generally they are well thought out and in many case peer reviewed by others in field. While I accept the teachings of the prophets I also learn from the best books in addition to the scriptures. Do us both a favor and discuss this subject with evidence and logic and not sarcastic juvenilism.

[mrmendoza]

'mrmendoza' writes,

If you read his epistles Paul states that he is presenting a gospel not of men(the apostolic record as recorded in the synoptic record) but of the spirit as per revelation. In short, Paul is saying what the apostles offered was incorrect and what he was teaching was more important and germane.

I thought I did answer the question. I'm sorry if you didn't understand it. Paul taught what he did because he believed the theophony he received was more important than that received by the apostles. He said as much. Was he wrong? To some degree he was. He was wrong in ignoring the authority of the Jerusalem Church. He wasn't wrong in understanding the role of the Jesus' gospel to the gentiles. Frankly, Jesus' Jewish gospel would have been too extreme for the gentiles, e.g. circumcision, etc.

Yes, and this is a conflict for me, because I have incredible respect for JS. In essence JS agrees with my antipathy towards Pauline theology. Remember, Pauline theology was the basis for 2000 years of Christian, i.e., apostate, theology. He was told to join none of the churches because, 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: â??they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.â?

What exactly did the sect and creeds teach that were an abomination?

You were doing so well up to this point in avoiding the sarcasm and the personal attacks. You don't know and you obviously feel you can get off some 'shots". Don't. It makes you look silly and I don't argue with sarcasm. You will find that I call them like I see them. There is nothing celestial about my arguments, but generally they are well thought out and in many case peer reviewed by others in field. While I accept the teachings of the prophets I also learn from the best books in addition to the scriptures. Do us both a favor and discuss this subject with evidence and logic and not sarcastic juvenilism.

I'm sorry if I seemed to be too personal in my views about what you have been trying to assert here. I guess it's just my hard head! I just can't see the point of anything you're saying! I've read a lot of books that give many diferent (sometimes radically so) views on the whole of the gospel story. Many of them have obviosly been well thought out, from an unbelievers point of view. But I don't take them to heart, nor do I equate them with the "best books" alluded to in the scripture! I also like to read sci-fi & fantasy. I especially like Horror stories, but when I'm looking for actual scripture related information and/or stories I know to stay in the realm of those who are not trying to go off on tangents!

I also apologies for sounding sarcastic, but I wasn't really, I meant what I said! But don't feel to insulted by it, I was called an "embarassment to the church" for one of my post! And that by a dear sister whom I would have thought if she disagreed with me would have been nicer about it! I did have a few others who agreed with me as well as some who didn't , but at least knew where I was comming from!

From all appearences, the evedences and logic that you're looking for is in abundence on this thread, but since I'm too juvinile to see the logic of what you've been saying I guess I'll just have to let them take over!

For now at least!

Mike

[Cold Steel]

What in the world happened to this thread? Has Kenny abandoned it? Although Pauline theology is apparently suspect to some, the Pauline gospel is, in my view, the same gospel as preached by modern and ancient apostles. Kenny argued it was "clear" that the gospel of Mormonism and the gospel of the ancients were completely different. These differences, however, were never laid out, nor did the OP ever develop his arguments.

Although Paul may have had some differences with the other apostles, I see no evidence in the book of Acts or in the epistles themselves that would indicate that he was in rebellion. Jesus prayed that the apostles be one, even as he and the Father were one. And the apostles urged the churches to all speak the same things and that there should be no contentions among them. It would be rather hypocritical to urge unanimity and then not practice it.

In the end, I see Paul's words to the Galatians cited often by sectarians, but if the Latter-day Saints don't preach that gospel, I don't know of any who do. Certainly, every part and parcel of the Book of Mormon is the New Testament gospel, and I've yet to see anyone make a case otherwise.

[Ron Beron]

I'm sorry if I seemed to be too personal in my views about what you have been trying to assert here. I guess it's just my hard head! I just can't see the point of anything you're saying! I've read a lot of books that give many diferent (sometimes radically so) views on the whole of the gospel story. Many of them have obviosly been well thought out, from an unbelievers point of view. But I don't take them to heart, nor do I equate them with the "best books" alluded to in the scripture! I also like to read sci-fi & fantasy. I especially like Horror stories, but when I'm looking for actual scripture related information and/or stories I know to stay in the realm of those who are not trying to go off on tangents!

I also apologies for sounding sarcastic, but I wasn't really, I meant what I said! But don't feel to insulted by it, I was called an "embarassment to the church" for one of my post! And that by a dear sister whom I would have thought if she disagreed with me would have been nicer about it! I did have a few others who agreed with me as well as some who didn't , but at least knew where I was comming from!

From all appearences, the evedences and logic that you're looking for is in abundence on this thread, but since I'm too juvinile to see the logic of what you've been saying I guess I'll just have to let them take over!

For now at least!

Mike

Mike,

Don't take me wrong. I love a good challenge, but one that places evidences at the heart. One of the delights in my life is to be proved wronged (for that reason alone my wife is a joy!). While I reject Paul where he disagrees with the Savior I accept a good deal of his instruction especially in regards to faith, hope and charity. Nothing better. I disagree with wholeheartedly about works preferring James instead. Please continue to challenge me...I need it.

[Ron Beron]

What in the world happened to this thread? Has Kenny abandoned it? Although Pauline theology is apparently suspect to some, the Pauline gospel is, in my view, the same gospel as preached by modern and ancient apostles. Kenny argued it was "clear" that the gospel of Mormonism and the gospel of the ancients were completely different. These differences, however, were never laid out, nor did the OP ever develop his arguments.

Although Paul may have had some differences with the other apostles, I see no evidence in the book of Acts or in the epistles themselves that would indicate that he was in rebellion. Jesus prayed that the apostles be one, even as he and the Father were one. And the apostles urged the churches to all speak the same things and that there should be no contentions among them. It would be rather hypocritical to urge unanimity and then not practice it.

In the end, I see Paul's words to the Galatians cited often by sectarians, but if the Latter-day Saints don't preach that gospel, I don't know of any who do. Certainly, every part and parcel of the Book of Mormon is the New Testament gospel, and I've yet to see anyone make a case otherwise.

I guess we are going to have to see the differences differently. What to me seems self evident obviously escapes the understanding of others. I can accept this and I don't want to belabor the point or belittle the believer. As I mentioned to earlier I find much of Paul satisfying and consistent with the gospel as espoused by Jesus. It is only when it talks about works and the need to keep the commandments that I disagree.

[stux]

... 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.

The problem with your conclusion is that you're not fully grasping the meaning of that verse in the Book of Mormon. If you understood it correctly and its implications then you would realize that the Galations scripture has no significance. If plain and precious truths were TAKEN away and Lost or Changed, they would of necessity had to be there in the first place. So the Book of Mormon not only clarifies and expands the Gospel and doctrines of Christ, but restores much of what was ORIGINALLY there. If it was there to begin with, how can it ever be called a new Gospel? The Book of Mormon is simply stating that what was ORIGINALLY taught was distorted, changed, or taken out of the Holy Bible. There are some wonderful scriptures in the Book of Mormon that explain in part its purpose in clarifying and restoring those plain and precious truths that were originally there and its purpose in restoring doctrine and bringing an end to confusion.

What is found in the Book of Mormon was the same Gospel Paul taught, and if you cant find it clearly from the Bible one can only be lead to two conclusions. The Book of Mormon is false and indeed teachers a false Gospel or The Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be and plain and precious truths were taken away and apostasy occurred. I hope you read the Book of Mormon sincerely and with the guidance of God come to your own conclusion whether the Book of Mormon is scripture as is the Holy Bible.

[Cold Steel]

What to me seems self evident obviously escapes the understanding of others. I can accept this and I don't want to belabor the point or belittle the believer. As I mentioned to earlier I find much of Paul satisfying and consistent with the gospel as espoused by Jesus. It is only when it talks about works and the need to keep the commandments that I disagree.

Whew! Okay...but the reason others aren't buying into your literal interpretations is because we don't have enough writings by Paul to draw the kind of conclusions that you're drawing. You also are misreading the other apostles by supposing that they believe that works and commandments are not necessary.

Jesus said that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. One must then accept that baptism is part of the necessary "works" one must do to find that salvation. In fact, nowhere do any of the other apostles say that living the commandments isn't necessary. It's nowhere.

It is true that works do not save. But just because they don't save does not mean they're unnecessary. In the scriptures, men often had to go up a mount. Enoch did it, as did Moses, as did Elijah, as did the brother of Jared, as did Nephi. Even Christ and the apostles ascended the mount. This is all symbolic of meeting God to the extent one is able. So as far as works go, no work a man can do will ever make him worthy of God. But with the grace of God through Jesus Christ, a man is indeed judged by his works.

If you still feel I'm in error, please show me the scriptures and explain why they mean what you think. Keep in mind that we LDS believe that Joseph Smith was tutored by the apostles, including Paul. He knew Paul just as well as you know your best friend. He described Paul's physical traits and his style of speaking. Never did Joseph Smith draw on the differences you say you've seen. Most scholars don't see Paul the way you see him, either, but I'll still be happy to see how you draw your constructs.

[Ron Beron]

'Cold Steel' writes,

You also are misreading the other apostles by supposing that they believe that works and commandments are not necessary.

I am not sure who you mean here, but by the other apostles I can only assume you mean the apostles living at the time of Jesus and not necessarily Paul. Paul did not believe in works, but the others, including James, did. I am a complete and total advocate of works. There has been a huge miscommunication on this. I have stated that Paul denigrated the purpose of works by denying the basic earthly tenets of Jesus' ministry. As I stated before Paul denigrated the concept of works within the framework of salvation. Both Jesus and James advocated following the Torah which is ostensibly the works necessary. From this we get the fundamental discrepancy between the leadership of the church which advocated dietary restrictions, circumcision, temple observance, sabbath worship, etc., and Paul's denial of all the laws, but not only a denial but an outright curse on any who follows those laws.

Keep in mind that we LDS believe that Joseph Smith was tutored by the apostles, including Paul. He knew Paul just as well as you know your best friend. He described Paul's physical traits and his style of speaking. Never did Joseph Smith draw on the differences you say you've seen. Most scholars don't see Paul the way you see him, either, but I'll still be happy to see how you draw your constructs.

I agree, but Joseph also believed in works. I can only believe that JS and/or Paul saw the need for works within their ministries. Upon looking at the works of JS I could find little on any comments JS might have left on Galatians in general and works and specificity so I am uncertain how JS felt about Paul and this particular thing.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

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.

[...]

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe the Messianic age of world-wide peace and a world-wide belief in G-d has been happening for the last two-thousand years. If it has been and I just haven't been paying attention, it would certainly solve the problem that the concept of a Messianic "second coming" is foreign to Tanakh Messianic prophecies.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. 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. 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.

Asked and answered...here!

[LeSellers]

I find much of Paul satisfying and consistent with the gospel as espoused by Jesus. It is only when it talks about works and the need to keep the commandments that I disagree.

Paul was, as I see him, the Bruce R. M^cConkie of his dispensation. He's great at many, many things, but he had a hobby horse, rode it into the ground, and overwrought his position to the point that, absent living oracles (like Peter or Thomas S. Monson) knowing how to apply his teachings and knowing their proper context is difficult to the point of impossibility.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. 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.

As I and others have said elsewhere, this is exactly the case. The Restoration does include those things that went missing from biblical (as constituted today, not those that should have been included, or excluded, from the canon) scripture.

This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against.

In a tangential way, you are correct. However, this position ignores completely the fact that we do not have the "Gospel" Paul preached to the Galatians!

One may try to synthesize his preachings by correlating his writings, but it seems a task beyond our meager resources to cobble together what he actually taught them.

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.

Paul did not mention what he (nor the other Apostles) had written, he railed against what others would teach in contrast to what he (and the other Apostles, by implication) had preached. As I noted above, we do not have those words.

There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

How do you know this?

Paul did introduce "faith without works". None of the other Apostles, nor did Christ Himself, neither the ancient prophets, speak as did Paul on this matter. Quite the contrary. The entire thrust of the Bible is on obedience, and this applies as much in the non-Pauline pieces of the new Testament as it does to the Old.

Show us one place in the entire Bible that tells us that obedience is not a consideration in salvation, and I will show you Paul's work. It will not be Peter, nor will we see John. Jude does not tell us anything like this, nor does James.

Obedience runs through the Bible like water in a river: it is the essence of the Gospel from Genesis to Revelation, with the sole exception of Paul's work.

Why, we may ask, does Paul go off on his own tear? I believe it is because of the "Judaizers", those Jewish converts to the Way, who, knowing the ancient prophets to have been called of God, and knowing the Law of Moses to have been inspired from the same Source, felt compelled to follow its strictures as part of the new Covenant, and compel Gentile converts to do the same. Paul was, rightly, telling them that the old had been completed, and that it was no longer necessary to be circumcised, to offer blood sacrifices at the altar of the Temple, et cetera, etc., &c. But that's only because of his immediate audience, not for us today. We have no impulse to chop of body parts, to spill blood as offerings. His message, in this matter, does not apply to us because our cultural circumstances are wholly different.

This is the precise reason that God has called living prophets for our day, why He restored His Gospel Plan, His Priesthood, His ordinances and covenants for us â?? because they had been lost and misunderstood by people who, for all of their desire to follow Him, tried to do so based on the words of ancient scripture that no longer fit their needs.

Lehi

[mrmendoza]

Mike,

Don't take me wrong. I love a good challenge, but one that places evidences at the heart. One of the delights in my life is to be proved wronged (for that reason alone my wife is a joy!). While I reject Paul where he disagrees with the Savior I accept a good deal of his instruction especially in regards to faith, hope and charity. Nothing better. I disagree with wholeheartedly about works preferring James instead. Please continue to challenge me...I need it.

I think I get it now! But I don't think you should reject Paul as disagreeing with the Savior, but maybe you should take what he's saying into proper context, both as to who he's talking to and the times he lived in. To some extent I'd say that Elder Dallon Oaks is our Paul today in that he has pointed out to us that it is not our works that save us, but the Atonement of Christ, which He has already , by his grace, provided, while at the same time we are required to perform the proper ordenences, and good works that His grace may be applied to us! The Jews who had accepted the gospel in Christ time, still clung to the law of Moses as the source of their salvation, believing that if they didn't do all the things the LOM required ie; circumsion, etc. they couldn't be saved! Just a couple of years ago, in my ward High Priest Group meeting, some of the brethern said that they had been taught (Or at least that is how they understood it!) that they must save themselves through their works! Paul himself told the Philippians "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phil.2;12.

Elder Oaks has sought to clarify and put that type of thinking into proper perspective.( I need some help here, I'm not computer savey enough to figure out how to go back and find Elder Oaks talk and and paste it here, so I need some to find it and post it please!) I personally think that Paul was simply trying to do the same thing. While it's obvious that there many of the Galatians, who were trying to impose the LOM on their flock, but I get the impression that they may have introduced other even more pernicious, at least to Paul, doctrines as well!

Mike

[Ron Beron]

Paul was, as I see him, the Bruce R. M^cConkie of his dispensation. He's great at many, many things, but he had a hobby horse, rode it into the ground, and overwrought his position to the point that, absent living oracles (like Peter or Thomas S. Monson) knowing how to apply his teachings and knowing their proper context is difficult to the point of impossibility.

Lehi

I kinda like this analogy. I would hate to think that we had fashioned an entire religious belief system around him though.

[Ron Beron]

I think I get it now! But I don't think you should reject Paul as disagreeing with the Savior, but maybe you should take what he's saying into proper context, both as to who he's talking to and the times he lived in. To some extent I'd say that Elder Dallon Oaks is our Paul today in that he has pointed out to us that it is not our works that save us, but the Atonement of Christ, which He has already , by his grace, provided, while at the same time we are required to perform the proper ordenences, and good works that His grace may be applied to us! The Jews who had accepted the gospel in Christ time, still clung to the law of Moses as the source of their salvation, believing that if they didn't do all the things the LOM required ie; circumsion, etc. they couldn't be saved! Just a couple of years ago, in my ward High Priest Group meeting, some of the brethern said that they had been taught (Or at least that is how they understood it!) that they must save themselves through their works! Paul himself told the Philippians "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phil.2;12.

Elder Oaks has sought to clarify and put that type of thinking into proper perspective.( I need some help here, I'm not computer savey enough to figure out how to go back and find Elder Oaks talk and and paste it here, so I need some to find it and post it please!) I personally think that Paul was simply trying to do the same thing. While it's obvious that there many of the Galatians, who were trying to impose the LOM on their flock, but I get the impression that they may have introduced other even more pernicious, at least to Paul, doctrines as well!

Mike

Certainly we need the grace, but without works we cannot achieve celestial glory. EV's believe that grace only will secure them eternal glory. Mormons believe it will guarantee eternal life but not eternal reward or punishment. Paul would have seemed to speak of the former argument. I will try and find Elder Oaks talk.

[mfbukowski]

Paul was, as I see him, the Bruce R. M^cConkie of his dispensation. He's great at many, many things, but he had a hobby horse, rode it into the ground, and overwrought his position to the point that, absent living oracles (like Peter or Thomas S. Monson) knowing how to apply his teachings and knowing their proper context is difficult to the point of impossibility.

Lehi

This position could very well capture the entire issue. I have always seen Paul as the creator of christianity, and have not had problems with that notion, but still have been conflicted with some of his teachings like his apparant over-emphasis on celebacy, and the "saved by faith" thing we are discussing here. Yet there are elements there that take the gospel Jesus preached and imo point it toward Joseph Smith and our temple rites. And as has been pointed out, we have no way of knowing how much of what he "really" preached is still extant in what we have.

RON

What I think is the strongest part of your argument from an LDS pov is that it shows that even in what we have of Paul's teachings, there is conflict with the Jesus of the gospels.

At the very least, these conflicts in the bible itself show a need for a restoration of the truth.

So I hate to disappoint you, but you may not be that much of a heretic after all

[Ron Beron]

This position could very well capture the entire issue. I have always seen Paul as the creator of christianity, and have not had problems with that notion, but still have been conflicted with some of his teachings like his apparant over-emphasis on celebacy, and the "saved by faith" thing we are discussing here. Yet there are elements there that take the gospel Jesus preached and imo point it toward Joseph Smith and our temple rites. And as has been pointed out, we have no way of knowing how much of what he "really" preached is still extant in what we have.

RON

What I think is the strongest part of your argument from an LDS pov is that it shows that even in what we have of Paul's teachings, there is conflict with the Jesus of the gospels.

At the very least, these conflicts in the bible itself show a need for a restoration of the truth.

So I hate to disappoint you, but you may not be that much of a heretic after all

Oh darn. When I was 19 newly baptized and getting ready for a mission my father said I was a 'fanatic'. I was just warming to the new title.

[Cold Steel]

Paul did not believe in works, but the others, including James, did. I am a complete and total advocate of works. There has been a huge miscommunication on this.

I'm not sure what you mean that Paul did not believe in works. By "works," there are two types: 1) ordinances such as baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit; and 2) charity and compassion, which would include feeding the hungry, clothing the poor. In both cases, I believe that you would find him an advocate. If you were to ask him whether circumcision and obedience to the law of Moses would save a person, he, like the rest of the Twelve, would say absolutely not! For man does not find salvation in mere obedience, neither can one work one's way into heaven.

Does that mean obedience is unnecessary? No. Jesus clearly said baptism was a required ordinance for gaining the kingdom of heaven. At the same time, one does not find salvation in baptism alone, but (as Joseph Smith said) in gaining the Spirit of God and dedicating one's self to Christ and then enduring to the end. It's only through the grace of Christ.

Stephen E. Robinson's story of his daughter wanting a bicycle has turned into a popular parable. His young daughter wanted a new bicycle but had not money, so her father told her to save her money and she would soon have her bike. So she began saving, but because of her age, it was a long process. One day at the bike store, she saw a bicycle that was just what she wanted. But when she turned the price tag over, it cost more than a hundred dollars. Her father asked her how much she had and she dug into her pocketbook and came up with the change...sixty-one cents. So her father took her money and, in his compassion, made up the rest. As her daughter rode the bike later, it occurred to him that this was a perfect representation of what Christ has done for us.

Now some EVs would disagree and say that if it were to be a true parable, that he would not have taken her money, but would have paid the entire amount. On that we disagree. God requires of man everything he can do in his own power to gain perfection. Like the prophets trudging up the sides of mountains to commune with the Lord, man must meet God to the extent he can. To Robinson's daughter, sixty-one cents was everything, but she was lacking. And to a prophet on a mountaintop, it may appear as though he is nearly touching heaven; however, if he could see the mountain from the perspective of space, he would see that he was very much on Earth.

Both Jesus and James advocated following the Torah which is ostensibly the works necessary. From this we get the fundamental discrepancy between the leadership of the church which advocated dietary restrictions, circumcision, temple observance, sabbath worship, etc., and Paul's denial of all the laws, but not only a denial but an outright curse on any who follows those laws.

The church came to the conclusion that the laborious requirements of the law were no longer necessary, only they did emphasize, as did Christ, that a man could not mutter God's blessings on the hungry, yet not feed them, nor could they say they had found Christ, yet not offer the helping hand to those in need. Joseph Smith repeatedly said that to gain the kingdom of heaven, one must be willing to lay down one's life and endure the slings and arrows of the Adversary.

[jkfrost]

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. 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. 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.

What kind of gospel did Paul and Joseph have and how did they both

know about it?

Both were visited by Jesus Christ.

Both were taught by angels.

Both were guided by the Holy Spirit.

Kind of like Paul.

GALATIANS 1:8-12

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel

unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other

gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men?

for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached

of me is not after man.

And How did Paul receive the gospel message?

The same way Joseph Smith did.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it,

but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

ACTS 26:13-16

13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven,

above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them

which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking

unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why

persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick bagainst the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom

thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee

for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both

of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which

I will appear unto thee;

How did Joseph Smith receive the gospel message:

After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having

looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up

the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was

seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an

astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick

darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to

sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out

of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment

when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction--not to

an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world,

who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being--just at this

moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the

brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me

bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two personages, whose brightness and

glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me,

calling me by name, and said--pointing to the other--

"THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM."

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was

right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of

myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in

the light, which of all the sects was right--and which I should join. I was answered

that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who

addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those

professors were all corrupt; that "they draw near to me with their lips, but their

hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men: having

a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." He again forbade me to join

with any of them:

Joseph Smith and Paul as well as the Apostles

learned and taught the gospel as instructed by God in the self same way:

Here is the milk of the gospel.

to have Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and in his sacrifice and atonement.

to Repent of your sins turn from them.

to be Baptized and become a new man.

and to have the gift of the Holy Ghost and follow His promptings the rest of your life.

All other things are appendages to these things

[mfbukowski]

Oh darn. When I was 19 newly baptized and getting ready for a mission my father said I was a 'fanatic'. I was just warming to the new title.

Too bad, you'll have to try harder! Come on, surely you can come up with SOMETHING!

[mfbukowski]

GALATIANS 1:8-12

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel

unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other

gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men?

for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached

of me is not after man.

And How did Paul receive the gospel message?

The same way Joseph Smith did.

I always thought that it was kinda weird that Paul would say that, when in fact that is the way Paul received his "gospel" (assuming divine investiture...)

I also always thought it weird that many of the critics here attack us because Joseph received his "gospel" the same way Paul did.

Didn't Paul know that visions were not a reliable way to receive revelation? A little bit of "do as I say but not as I do?"