Joseph Translating out of a Hat

[canterdogs]

LDS have considered the other possibilities and have done as Paul directed. My question Why do anti-mormon detractors not consider # 1?

We test all things by scripture (the Holy Bible). It is our opinion that the BoM and the church that brought it forth does not teach the right gospel. This is how we know whether the first option is valid. If it doesn't pass the scriptural tests, then the other two apply.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We test all things by scripture (the Holy Bible). It is our opinion that the BoM and the church that brought it forth does not teach the right gospel. This is how we know whether the first option is valid. If it doesn't pass the scriptural tests, then the other two apply.

Define scripture? Were does the bible claim to be the sole source of scripture? That is what you are implying.

And what is that different gospel that the BoM teaches?

You mean to follow Christ and live by his example. That is indeed a different gospel.

[canterdogs]

This argument reminds me of the pharisees and sadduccees in the bible who attributed the miracles that Christ did to satan. I think that Christ's response is as applicable to what you have said as to what was said in the N.T.-

"If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub."

Why would an evil spirit do something that would eventually persuade millions of people to repent, have faith in Christ, and desire to live a life centerned on Christ and shun satan from then on out?

Isn't that the very definition of a 'house divided'?

I understand this argument. But note also that Jesus and the apostles warned time and time again that there would be false prophets. Paul taught that there would be those that teach false gospels. So, to me at least, just simply using the name of Christ does not mean that you are representing Him in the way that is set forth in scripture. Scripture is the test of truth.

[canterdogs]

Define scripture? Were does the bible claim to be the sole source of scripture? That is what you are implying.

And what is that different gospel that the BoM teaches?

You mean to follow Christ and live by his example. That is indeed a different gospel.

Scripture consists of the Old and New Testaments. The Hebrew canon was complete and closed by the time Christ arrived on earth. Additionally we have Peter attesting that Paul's epistles are scripture in 2 Peter.

Mormonism teaches a false view of the Godhead, creation, atonement, nature of salvation, the nature of sin, the sovereignty of God and so on. Mormonism is not consistent with Biblical Christianity in any respect. That is why Christians believe that Mormonism is a false gospel.

[urroner]

We test all things by scripture (the Holy Bible). It is our opinion that the BoM and the church that brought it forth does not teach the right gospel. This is how we know whether the first option is valid. If it doesn't pass the scriptural tests, then the other two apply.

Circular logic

[canterdogs]

The vision of Paul's conversion has three possible implications:

1. The source of the vision was of God

2. The source of the vision originated with some other spirit

3. Paul was pretending to see things and was simply making it up.

Any questions?

Paul's teachings were verified by careful study of already revealed scripture. In the Book of Acts, we have the Berean church who Paul commends for carefully weighing his teachings against the scriptures. Additionally, in the Book of Acts we have Paul going to the synagogue every Sabbath to reason from the scriptures. How do we know that Paul was a genuine apostle? Because he has been tested.

Additionally, Peter provides a statement in 2 Peter that puts Paul's epistles on the same footing as the "other scriptures". We know Paul was a genuine apostle. Interestly enough, Peter also makes the statement that "untaught" people would misinterpret what Paul was trying to say. They "wrest" Paul's teachings to their own "destruction".

[urroner]

Scripture consists of the Old and New Testaments. The Hebrew canon was complete and closed by the time Christ arrived on earth. Additionally we have Peter attesting that Paul's epistles are scripture in 2 Peter.

Mormonism teaches a false view of the Godhead, creation, atonement, nature of salvation, the nature of sin, the sovereignty of God and so on. Mormonism is not consistent with Biblical Christianity in any respect. That is why Christians believe that Mormonism is a false gospel.

In the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, there are several books that are not in the KJV or any of the Western Bibles. Is the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible a true Bible or not?

The KJV originally had several books in it that are not in it now. What happened? Did those books all of a sudden become non-scriptures

[Vance]

I understand this argument. But note also that Jesus and the apostles warned time and time again that there would be false prophets.

So why warn about false prophets unless there were going to be true prophets?

Paul taught that there would be those that teach false gospels.

True, he did give that warning, and he quite clearly stated when that false gospel would come into play. See Acts 20:28-30

So, to me at least, just simply using the name of Christ does not mean that you are representing Him in the way that is set forth in scripture.

And this also applies to your brand of faith.

Scripture is the test of truth.

Actually, the Holy Ghost is the test of truth. See John 16:13.

As an aside I would recommend that you look at 1 John 4, and compare what "antichrist" teaches compared to what Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon teach.

[canterdogs]

Circular logic

God, in His providence, has preserved the scriptures. There is no circular logic. We have the testimony of the ancients who verify that the Bible (we have now) is the Word of God. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the thousands of NT manuscripts and so on. These writings have passed the test of time in leading men to the Lord. The Holy Spirit, who is the inspiration of all scripture, also testifies as we search earnestly through the Word.

[bluebell]

I understand this argument. But note also that Jesus and the apostles warned time and time again that there would be false prophets. Paul taught that there would be those that teach false gospels.

True.

So, to me at least, just simply using the name of Christ does not mean that you are representing Him in the way that is set forth in scripture. Scripture is the test of truth.

I agree.

But we're not simply talking about using His name. How can teaching someone to have faith in Christ, repent of their sins, and follow Him be something that the devil would want to create?

Also, i believe that the Holy Ghost is the test of truth.

[urroner]

God, in His providence, has preserved the scriptures. There is no circular logic. We have the testimony of the ancients who testify of the Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the thousands of NT manuscripts and so on. These writings have passed the test of time in leading men to the Lord. The Holy Spirit, who is the inspiration of all scripture, also testifies as we search earnestly through the Word.

What is the evidence, outside of the Bible of course to prevent circular logic, that God, in His providence, has preserved the scriptures?

[Vance]

The Hebrew canon was complete and closed by the time Christ arrived on earth. Additionally we have Peter attesting that Paul's epistles are scripture in 2 Peter.

Please provide a reference that clearly and plainly says that the canon is closed.

Thanks.

Mormonism teaches a false view of the Godhead, creation, atonement, nature of salvation, the nature of sin, the sovereignty of God and so on.

No, it doesn't.

Mormonism is not consistent with Biblical Christianity in any respect.

Mormonism is TOTALLY consistent with Biblical Christianity.

That is why Christians believe that Mormonism is a false gospel.

Only some Christians believe that, other Christians believe that Mormonism is true Christianity.

[canterdogs]

So why warn about false prophets unless there were going to be true prophets?

True, he did give that warning, and he quite clearly stated when that false gospel would come into play. See Acts 20:28-30

And this also applies to your brand of faith.

Actually, the Holy Ghost is the test of truth. See John 16:13.

As an aside I would recommend that you look at 1 John 4, and compare what "antichrist" teaches compared to what Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon teach.

Hebrews 1 gives a clue. It says that in times past God spoke to His people through prophets. But in these last days He has spoken through His Son. This is actually a strong warning against all those who claim to be prophets. God has spoken to us by His Son. What is the need of a prophet who is the only spokesperson for God on earth? All have access to the Father through Jesus. The Holy Spirit ministers to all who have faith. So God is not silent, as LDS accuse Christians of saying.

I agree with the warning in Acts 20. In fact Protestantism believes that for centuries the Catholic church distorted the gospel and that is why the Reformation was needed. And, in case you haven't noticed, when Paul says "after I leave you", that means any time after Paul. Including Joseph Smith's era. False prophets were foretold in the Bible. And I believe that Joseph Smith is one of these.

1 John 4 provides one test of a prophet. There are others. The false gospel test that Paul sets forth in Galatians comes to mind.

[Vance]

canterdogs,

Since you are so new here you apparently missed this post of two days ago.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/49720-cult-master-2000-updates/

I recommend that you go to the links in the OP. You apparently could use the "cult master 2000".

[urroner]

Hebrews 1 gives a clue. It says that in times past God spoke to His people through prophets. But in these last days He has spoken through His Son. This is actually a strong warning against all those who claim to be prophets. God has spoken to us by His Son. What is the need of a prophet who is the only spokesperson for God on earth? All have access to the Father through Jesus. The Holy Spirit ministers to all who have faith. So God is not silent, as LDS accuse Christians of saying.

Let's say that we all work for a big company in a far away land. The owner of the big company sends representatives out to us all the time to see how we are doing and give us advice on how to do better. One day the owner comes out and visits us for a while, helps us become a better part of the company, and then leaves. The local leader of the company stands up the next day and says "In the past, the owner of the company has sent up his representatives, but in these last days, he was here with us and spoke to us himself." Nobody would disagree with that, but did the local leader mean that the owner would stop sending his representatives and that if anybody came around saying that he was a rep, that we should reject him outright?

Well, according to what you said in your quote above, you would.

[MCB]

Canterdogs:

That is the reason why they are so anti-Catholic, because they believe in an open canon. They believe in an open canon in order to justify the BoM, In order to justify the BoM, they are anti-catholic, because the Catholic Church closed the canon, in order to justify the BoM, they believe in an open canon.

This line of argument does not work with them. If you familiarize yourself with the issues around the BoM, at least they will talk to you, but that is about as far as it gets.

Luv y'all, anyway.

[Vance]

Hebrews 1 gives a clue. It says that in times past God spoke to His people through prophets. But in these last days He has spoken through His Son. This is actually a strong warning against all those who claim to be prophets.

No, it is a description of God's MO, He works through prophets. Who do you think wrote Hebrews any way?

God has spoken to us by His Son.

Yes, He has. So?

What is the need of a prophet who is the only spokesperson for God on earth?

See Eph 4:11-14

All have access to the Father through Jesus.

So? All do not have authority so act for and in behalf of God. The Bible is quite clear on this.

The Holy Spirit ministers to all who have faith.

So?

So God is not silent, . . .

True, He speaks through His prophets and through His Spirit.

. . . as LDS accuse Christians of saying.

Well, when you claim that the canon is closed, you are basically admitting that you know that God doesn't have any thing else to say to us worth writing down.

I agree with the warning in Acts 20. In fact Protestantism believes that for centuries the Catholic church distorted the gospel and that is why the Reformation was needed.

Can you get a live branch from a dead tree? I think not!

And, in case you haven't noticed, when Paul says "after I leave you", that means any time after Paul.

And Peter talked about the RESTITUTION of all things, (See Acts 3:21) as did Christ, (See Matt 17:11).

False prophets were foretold in the Bible.

True, but it is an absolutely worthless warning UNLESS there were going to be TRUE prophets.

And I believe that Joseph Smith is one of these.

You are free to believe what ever you want. But don't think that we can't defend our beliefs using Bible scripture, because we can.

1 John 4 provides one test of a prophet. There are others. The false gospel test that Paul sets forth in Galatians comes to mind.

You missed it. The "antichrist" teaches that Christ isn't in the flesh. The "antichrist" refuses to recognize that Christ has a body of flesh. The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith teach that Christ has a body of flesh. Now do you understand the clue?

[Vance]

Canterdogs:

That is the reason why they are so anti-Catholic, because they believe in an open canon. They believe in an open canon in order to justify the BoM, In order to justify the BoM, they are anti-catholic, because the Catholic Church closed the canon, in order to justify the BoM, they believe in an open canon.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, there pal.

We are not "anti-Catholic". One of my best friends is Catholic. Most of the people I baptized on my mission were Catholic.

So BACK OFF!!!

[bluebell]

The Hebrew canon was complete and closed by the time Christ arrived on earth.

I don't believe this is correct. Can you please supply some references to back up this statement?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Canterdogs:

That is the reason why they are so anti-Catholic, because they believe in an open canon. They believe in an open canon in order to justify the BoM, In order to justify the BoM, they are anti-catholic, because the Catholic Church closed the canon, in order to justify the BoM, they believe in an open canon.

This line of argument does not work with them. If you familiarize yourself with the issues around the BoM, at least they will talk to you, but that is about as far as it gets.

Luv y'all, anyway.

Nothing like a false dichotomy.

The doctrine of a closed canon and the Catholic church are not the same thing. We're anti-closed canon for the simple reason that it cannot be justifed using the text of the bible alone. But saying were are anti-Catholic because we disagree with one of their doctrines is a huge stretch.

[bluebell]

Canterdogs:

That is the reason why they are so anti-Catholic, because they believe in an open canon. They believe in an open canon in order to justify the BoM, In order to justify the BoM, they are anti-catholic, because the Catholic Church closed the canon, in order to justify the BoM, they believe in an open canon.

This line of argument does not work with them. If you familiarize yourself with the issues around the BoM, at least they will talk to you, but that is about as far as it gets.

Luv y'all, anyway.

We have quite few respected and well-liked Catholic posters here who would take an issue with your false assertions. Simply believing in a God who continues to reveal scripture to His children today as He did before does not make someone anti-Catholic.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Scripture consists of the Old and New Testaments.

How do you know this? The bible never makes this claim.

The Hebrew canon was complete and closed by the time Christ arrived on earth. Additionally we have Peter attesting that Paul's epistles are scripture in 2 Peter.

So the canon was complete and closed by the time Christ arrived on earth. Would that statement not then exclude the NT as all of it was written after Christ was born. And that also includes the very thing that Peter wrote in 2nd Peter.

CFR scripture verse that tells me that "The Hebrew canon was complete and closed by the time Christ arrived on earth".

Mormonism teaches a false view of the Godhead, creation, atonement, nature of salvation, the nature of sin, the sovereignty of God and so on.

You are simply mistaken. I can back up any offical doctrine of the LDS faith about God using the bible. You have simply set up a false statement.

Mormonism is not consistent with Biblical Christianity in any respect. That is why Christians believe that Mormonism is a false gospel.

Hello..... Mormonism is biblical Christianity. And this Christian happens to think that the LDS faith is the true gospel. Complete with living prophets and apostles who write scripture just as Peter, James, and John did.

[urroner]

Canterdogs:

That is the reason why they are so anti-Catholic, because they believe in an open canon. They believe in an open canon in order to justify the BoM, In order to justify the BoM, they are anti-catholic, because the Catholic Church closed the canon, in order to justify the BoM, they believe in an open canon.

This line of argument does not work with them. If you familiarize yourself with the issues around the BoM, at least they will talk to you, but that is about as far as it gets.

Luv y'all, anyway.

I bet Rory and David Waltz, some of the best Catholics I have ever met, would be totally surprised that we are anti-Catholic. David was even debating between joining the RCC or the Mormon Church and when he choose to join the RCC, everybody I knew and respected on that Mormon oriented message board congratulated him on making that decision.

MCB, Joseph Smith might have looked into his hat while translating the BofM, but you are definitely talking through your hat about my or the other Mormons' hate for Catholics and the RCC.

[canterdogs]

Let's say that we all work for a big company in a far away land. The owner of the big company sends representatives out to us all the time to see how we are doing and give us advice on how to do better. One day the owner comes out and visits us for a while, helps us become a better part of the company, and then leaves. The local leader of the company stands up the next day and says "In the past, the owner of the company has sent up his representatives, but in these last days, he was here with us and spoke to us himself." Nobody would disagree with that, but did the local leader mean that the owner would stop sending his representatives and that if anybody came around saying that he was a rep, that we should reject him outright?

Well, according to what you said in your quote above, you would.

The owner has sent His representative to us - the Holy Spirit who continues to minister to the faithful now that the Son has gone away. Additionally, we have leaders who tend the flock. Pastors, elders, deacons and so on.

This notion that God has only one authorized representative on earth, who is given superior knowledge and access to Him than all others is simply wrong. In times past this was true, but in the Christian era it is not. This is what Hebrews is saying. We can go directly to the Father. We can read and understand scripture without a church President telling us what to think.

The essentials of scripture are plain and not in dispute amongst Protestant Christians i.e. Who is God. Who is man. What is sin, Who is Christ. What is salvation. On all these things Protestants are in agreement. Mormonism strikes at the very foundation of these things. Joseph Smith said that all our creeds were an abomination and all our professors were corrupt. How can we have fellowship with such people? Mormons don't believe what we believe - in fact it was LDS who first held us to ridicule and scorned our beliefs. I have LDS friends. These are good people and I get along with them very well. But I cannot endorse their beliefs any more than I can endorse the beliefs of my Hindu and Buddhist friends. I cannot say that Mormons are the same as me. They are not. LDS doctrine is fundamentally different to what I believe.

There was one comment above that stated that LDS doctrine is Biblical. Well I'd like to quote one scripture that does show that the teachings of Joseph are opposed to the Bible:

"Hear O Isreal the Lord your God, the Lord is one."

When Smith preached the King Follet discourse, he separated himself from the Biblical God.

[canterdogs]

On the point of continuing scripture: When was the last time a modern prophet canonized scripture in Mormonism? Why have there been no additions to the D&C for years?

Surely God has not become mute to his own prophets has he? I see no evidence of continuing revelation Mormonism. No additional scripture.