Joseph Smith claimed to be a heretic.

[thesometimesaint]

BenjaminL.Toms:

What Bible was available to Paul in his ministry?

[BenjaminL.Toms]

We believe in Jesus -- the same Jesus that you believe in,

My Jesus is not the brother of Satan; I think He's different. And that is just one difference.

I know you think we are at war, but we aren't. We are on the same side. The battle is with the great adversary, Satan. Let's have civil discussion, and learn about each other through love, not contentment.

Your Founder did not think we were on the same side and neither did Brigham Young.

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"

(Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 270)

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."

(Joseph Smith, Jr. , The Elders Journal, verse 1, number 4, page 60)

"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."

(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, verse 8, page 199)

And as for me I have been civil and in love and will continue without contentment, thank you.

...the Journal of Discourses and the King Follet Discourse, although interesting and insightful much of the time, are not doctrine of our church. These things are not sticks with which to beat us. In return, we will spare you from quoting some of the inane and nasty, yet very human things preachers, pastors, priests, and other clergy from all of Christendom have said in the past. We understand that, just because someone in the history of your Church said it, doesn't mean it is doctrine of the church.

Actually, your doctrine is that what the prophet says is scripture while we have no such doctrine. So you can't bring up the crazy things some men have said half cocked just because they profess Christianity anyway. Now I do not take your doctrine to mean that every idle word that proceeds from the mouth of your prophet should be considered scripture and will not hold them to that standard but for certain a sermon or a statement of faith will be. It is the heart of what that doctrine means. Furthermore, holding you to that standard is not nor should be characterized as beating you with a stick. You are putting imagery to my words that is not there, to cast them in a bad light.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

For starters, do you agree with me that the ultimate purpose of the gospel is to bring us to Christ and enable us to grow in faith to become like him?

yes

If so, what, if anything, is there about your faith that you believe would better enable me to realize the purpose of the gospel than my current faith? In other words, what insentive would I have for shifting from my current faith to your's?

The incentive of eternal life. As it is now you believe in a lie.

[Joseph Antley]

The incentive of eternal life. As it is now you believe in a lie.

Are you contending that no one who dies believing in Mormonism will inherit eternal life?

[wenglund]

The incentive of eternal life. As it is now you believe in a lie.

But, I already have the incentive of eternal life--though I may understand in a more broad and indepth way than you what all eternal life entails (which disinclines me to want to change from my more favorable and enlightened beliefs to yours).

And, why should I take your word over God's as to whether my beliefs are true or a lie? What is there about your dogmatic expressions that would, in any reasonable sense, cause me to deny what I believe God has told me?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Of course. Just as Hebrews is different from James.

Hebrews doesn't claim to be more correct or to be replacing missing doctrine

Oh? What of those who say certain books of the New Testament are more doctrinally relevant than others?

(Similar argument - same unnecessary conundrum.)

Who are those who say? Does the Bible itself say that some books are more doctrinally relevant than others? no. Do we hold that doctrine? The fact is that anyone can say anything but it doesn't amount to doctrine. Because you have a doctrine that says what JSJr said was doctrinal it becomes a whole other thing.

OK, here's part of the message they preached:

"And I saw another angel...having the everlasting gospel..."

That book, according to John, was "to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass..."

So a Christian would, by definition, seek for the fulfillment of such a promise, wouldn't you agree?

I believe your guidelines at this site say to give the reference or be able to produce it upon asking and to put it in the correct context. I would like for you to do that please.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

But, I already have the incentive of eternal life--though I may understand in a more broad and indepth way than you what all eternal life entails (which disinclines me to want to change from my more favorable and enlightened beliefs to yours).

And, why should I take your word over God's as to whether my beliefs are true or a lie? What is there about your dogmatic expressions that would, in any reasonable sense, cause me to deny what I believe God has told me?

I would answer but it would completely steer of course. I believe your guidelines here say to stay on topic or post another thread. I gave you the honor of at least not ignoring you but your purpose was to steer away. tsk tsk.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Why not? If you had bothered to actually read the BoM you would know that it's better because it restores some of the things that had been removed from the Bible. So it can't possibly be a different gospel, just a more complete one.

I did bother to read it, thank you. A more complete gospel is a different gospel. It can't possibly be the same if it restores removed items. This is not a doctrinal issue here but mere logic. Why you cannot understand that: adding things that were claimed to have been removed is changing the doctrine, when it is something that should be clear and simple to perceive with just a basic cognitive grasp, can only have a spiritual origin.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

This is an interesting verse but one also needs to know the context. The early church lost some members because they embraced paganism or were led away by people teaching a different doctrine than Paul. Paul is cautioning them.

If you mean to say that Paul was only talking to the people at that time and that it cannot have relevance now to any other thing that would fit that discription, then you do not understand one of the basic principals of scripture: that it is timeless and speaks to everyone everywhere whenever. The context is important but it does not negate my point. The context just establishes that the verse is a warning against false teaching which is exactly how I am using it.

Notice where it says: or an Angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you...Mormons would claim that a different doctrine is not being preached by the lds church but the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, and we are actually talking about one Mormon in particular who said quite the opposite... Joseph Smith Jr. And it happens to be that what he said is considered doctrine. So regardless of what any Mormons say, if they are Mormons they have a doctrine that says a better and more complete and therefore different Gospel was handed down to men by an angel from heaven.

Paul is not closing the door on the administering of angels at all. But gives caution not to follow those who would led them away from christ. And mormons are certainly not leading people away from christ. Just the opposite when one sees just how mormons live their lives.

I never said that angels can't administer; just that they will not be administering gospels or doctrines contrary to scripture if they are God's angels who have not fallen. Thusly, if they are preaching a changed gospel then they are leading away from Christ. Living a good life does not mean one is not leading people away from Christ. All of the people who don't think they are bad and in need of a savior can say that they live good lives but it is in fact a snare of the enemy and certainly keeps them away from Christ. Good behavior is one the enemies best tricks.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Mormons are basically a Pauline people and follow paul's teachings quite well.

That's interesting because we are talking about one of Paul's teachings that Mormon's don't actually conform to. You don't follow Gal. 1:6-9 very well.

[wenglund]

I would answer but it would completely steer of course.

Your steering a course? What course would that be? I am getting dizzy from all your swurves.

I believe your guidelines here say to stay on topic or post another thread. I gave you the honor of at least not ignoring you but your purpose was to steer away. tsk tsk.

I didn't realize that was my purpose. I thought I was attempting to find common ground upon which to have a productive conversation. But, since you insist, I will open a new thread so as to continue on the course we were headed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

That's interesting because we are talking about one of Paul's teachings that Mormon's [sic] don't actually conform to. You don't follow Gal. 1:6-9 very well.

And you don't seem to understand it all all, so we're still ahead because we follow it at least a little bit by your wording.

Paul only wrote to the Galatians because they were already in apostasy, they had, he said, turned away from the Gospel, just as most of the others to whom any Apostle wrote.

Furthermore, you keep making the claim that he Bible doesn't say it may contain errors, and that is a good thing, because the Bible has a myriad of errors all the way from a conflict between the Kings and the Chronicles accounts of how big the molten sea in front of the Temple were (not to mention the error in the representation of ? as precisely equal to 3) to lacking an unambiguous declaration the baptism is a salvific ordinance (oh, wait, there is one of those).

From Romans to Revelation, the Apostles and other writers of the scriptures castigated their readers for falling away form the Gospel. That being the case, how could anyone have any faith at all that the Church the Christ founded in I remained intact for twenty centuries? And the answer is, of course, that they cannot, not least because God, through His prophets and Apostles foretold that there would be both an apostasy and a Restoration. (Please don't bother to bring up the failed argument from Matthew 16:13~19 passage, because it does not

[BenjaminL.Toms]

We do not know what all Paul preached to the Galatians during his visit. There are no records of his speeches, only the letters that he wrote trying to correct errors and contentions that were creeping into the congregations he had set up.

Paul always taught the same thing

For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church. -1 Cor. 4:17

And we see him repeat himself over and over in all his letters. And what wasn't covered by him was covered by James, John, Peter, Luke and the author of Hebrews, who all were following the great commission which says for us to teach disciples the things Christ taught, which is covered in the gospels also repetitively. I think it was covered. We know what was taught.

However, in a letter to the Ephesians Paul is also known to say:

Ephesians 4:

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

From that, since we definitely have not come to a unity of faith, an onlooker could easily conclude that a church that a Church that claims to be Christian but does not have apostles and prophets would fall into the heretic category. That was part of the Gospel that Paul preached.

It says, "Till we all come IN the unity of the faith" not TO a unity of faith. the basic statement there is this

Till we all come unto a perfect man

This basic statment is modified by two phrases

1. in the unity of the faith ...and

2. of the knowledge of the Son of God.

So the end goal is for the church (body of Christ) to become perfect. We do this IN the unity of the faith. The faith is unified already.

There is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" - Eph. 4:5

We must use this unity of the faith like a vehicle and get IN it so it can take us on to perfection and when we are perfect we will be in perfect unity; not before. Disunity is not an indicator of a heretical Church but rather just the opposite. It is an indicator of what one would expect of a growing church who's destiny (and not their current state) is perfect unity. And as far as the apostles and prophets... We have the apostles for sure and their doctrine right there in the good ole Word of God. The apostles were given for the edification of the church and I see them fulfilling that function every time I go to my new testament and read from the epistles. The prophets... they are all around. I know several. In fact, even according to your doctrine I, myself am a prophet.

"No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a prophet," -Joseph F. Smith

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Furthermore, you keep making the claim that he Bible doesn't say it may contain errors, and that is a good thing, because the Bible has a myriad of errors all the way from a conflict between the Kings and the Chronicles accounts of how big the molten sea in front of the Temple were (not to mention the error in the representation of ? as precisely equal to 3) to lacking an unambiguous declaration the baptism is a salvific ordinance (oh, wait, there is one of those).

The errors are not doctrinal and are in fact part of the perfection of God's Word to us. Otherwise free will would be at stake. And there is also the fact that what you deem an error may be just your own incompetence to understand (No offense intended towards you, merely stating the fact) of which your understanding of Baptism falls under.

From Romans to Revelation, the Apostles and other writers of the scriptures castigated their readers for falling away form the Gospel. That being the case, how could anyone have any faith at all that the Church the Christ founded in I remained intact for twenty centuries? And the answer is, of course, that they cannot, not least because God, through His prophets and Apostles foretold that there would be both an apostasy and a Restoration. (Please don't bother to bring up the failed argument from Matthew 16:13~19 passage, because it does not

[USU78]

So it claims to be more correct than any other book (which includes the Bible) but also claims to possibly be faulted due to human error (the Bible says no such thing about itself) and we are supposed to believe in what it says? If they can foul it up then it's their word not God's. If God is not powerful enough to speak His word through a faulted vessel but still retain quality control and deliver His perfect Word; while at the same time allowing it to be colored with the personality and style of the vessel, then I don't think I want to follow that God. That would seem to me to be a simple task for God; considering He is the one wanting to speak to us so we have His word to assure ourselves of the truth. I don't think He would let it be converted and subverted by our nature which He in fact is the author and creator of in the first place.

There is here a huge gap in understanding.

Moses writes 5 books, according to what's written in those 5 books. Why is it interesting that he did? Because he claims to have communed with G-d face to face and to have brought to Israel the record of her history and the law G-d wanted Israel to obey according to the covenant G-d wanted to fashion between Himself and Israel.

So . . . G-d spoke . . . Moses heard . . . then Moses wrote. Moses remains a man throughout this process. G-d remains G-d.

G-d did not appear to all of Israel, although He offered to do so. He appeared to Moses, then to certain leaders in Israel. But Moses was the one G-d chose and through whom He spoke.

What Moses claims he heard and what he wrote may not be the same thing. G-d leaves even prophets freedom to make errors. Moses' errors in judgment and, perhaps, character, kept him out of Canaan, for example. G-d didn't kill him or take away his freedom of choice and action to prevent him from making mistakes.

Moses' writings are inspired by G-d. They have great power. That doesn't mean everything Moses wrote was exactly what G-d said to Moses, however. "My ways are not your ways, neither are my thoughts your thoughts." This applies to the prophet as much as to the reader of what the prophet records, to the best of his ability, in scripture.

We devalue Moses if we invent a puppet who dances as the string-holder bids, or who is nothing but an audio recorder into whom G-d dictates.

Maybe you never considered these things. Maybe you never wondered how it worked for Moses.

Fact is, G-d's word to man, at the time it is spoken, is more than all the words in all the books that were ever written, including the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or anything else that man ever put down on paper (or gold plate).

We worship G-d. We treasure His words. We don't confuse, however, the necessarily imperfect recordation of that word through imperfect servants of G-d. We don't worship a book. We worship G-d. Were we to worship a book, claiming its perfection, we are ennobling something fashioned by man. We are breaking one of the fundamental commandments. We are guilty of bibliolotry.

G-d's words as recorded by imperfect men cannot be comprehended or apprehended other than by communing with Him Who spoke the words. We read, we ponder, we ask G-d for wisdom and for guidance in understanding what we read.

This is what you fail to understand.

This is where your ignorance . . . and the ignorance of those who lead you to Bibliolotry, one of many, many idolotries of which man is capable and is inclined . . . has left you.

Come on up the hill. There's a heavenly view.

[Skywalker]

Hi Ben,

Thank you for your reply. I hope we can continue this discussion in civility.

My Jesus is not the brother of Satan; I think He's different. And that is just one difference.

Here is an official Church statement dealing with this issue:

Like other Christians, we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel. As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

So, in actuality, you do believe this, don't you?

Your Founder did not think we were on the same side and neither did Brigham Young.

As I said, people are entitled to their opinions. People are also entitled to change their opinions. If you are going to quote historical figures and then tell me that it is doctrine of my faith, then would you like me to dig up the centuries of hate that traditional, creedal Christianity participated in? Do you honestly think that I am going to proclaim that the Crusades constitute doctrine of your church? Fortunately for you, I am much more kind and accepting of your faith than you are of mine. In addition Brigham Young also had a lot of positive things to say about creedal Christianity:

Come, my brother Presbyterian; come, my brother professors of every persuasion of long standing and popular distinction in the world, who are dubbed with the word "orthodox;" come, we are all good Christians. I find no fault with you, why should you find fault with me?

Actually, your doctrine is that what the prophet says is scripture while we have no such doctrine.

Please, tell me more about what I believe. How arrogant.

So you can't bring up the crazy things some men have said half cocked just because they profess Christianity anyway. Now I do not take your doctrine to mean that every idle word that proceeds from the mouth of your prophet should be considered scripture and will not hold them to that standard but for certain a sermon or a statement of faith will be.

Then I will hold you to all "sermons or statements of faith" that have ever transpired in the various sects of creedal of Christianity. For example:

God will hold sinners with one hand over the pit of hell, while He torments them with the other.

Wow, what an evil God you have.

[Nathair/|\]

[T]he doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. . . . I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, 'In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,' or, as others have translated it, 'The head of the Gods called the Gods together.' I want to show a little learning as well as other fools. . . . The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, 'The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image.' I once asked a learned Jew, 'If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?' He replied, 'That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible.' He acknowledged I was right. . . . In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through

[mfbukowski]

Well all I can say is that you guys have a lot more patience than I do with this guy.

Don't you just love it when other people tell you what you believe?

Anyway, have fun, I am out of here.

[LeSellers]

You ignored the main points of my message, so I'll assume that you must agree with them.

there is also the fact that what you deem an error may be just your own incompetence to understand ... of which your understanding of Baptism falls under.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

First of all and to all of you: I do not aim to offend. My aim is to get at the truth and you are all called to the same thing. You believe what your prophet says is inspired and scripture (yes I am telling you what you believe or rather I am repeating what the LDS doctrine states you should. I think that is quite reasonable)

We believe what the prophets have said and are saying today as being inspired. However, it would be arrogant on your part to say what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young said, and then malinterpret it or even worse put it out of context. That's what many people do with the Scriptures, which have resulted in more than 30,000 churches all claiming to be the true church.

So I am well within my rights according to your own scripture. I am not the one who declared war; your founder did and he called you to the front lines. So let's put away the pretense. Does that mean that we have to fight the war without love? No, but let's not fool ourselves that it is a war. I am not nor will I be rude or out of love. If I am I will apologize. So let's continue.

More of a spiritual war than a physical war. The war that is referred is spiritual...kind of like how Paul in the Bible said that our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers.

Here is what the Bible claims (cited: 2 Tim 3:16-17 and Heb 4:12)

Yeah, or in other words, the Pauline epistles that had been written up to that part. Doubtful that it could be referring to the entire Bible (the Gospels had still not yet been written, as well as other things such as Revelation, and probably the epistles of Peter). So the Bible was not declared closed at that point.

How does one "be complete" with imperfect scripture? How can scripture inspired by God (or God-breathed) be imperfect? How would it be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" if it were imperfect?

Not so much imperfect as it is incomplete. The principles taught within are true. However there are quite a few bad interpretations of Scripture. One of them is applying 2 Tim 3:16-17 to the entire Bible (when it still was yet to be written, and would not be written in its present form until La Sacra Vulgata around 400 AD...

How does one come to a living and powerful Word and then strip it of parts of itself, unless that one is more powerful? And then who would be more powerful to do that? Men's faulted nature? Why would God choose to write through them then? And then say that His word is alive?

If God is inspiring human authors to write His word down, does that qualify as God's work? Yes. and it's perfect and living.

Jesus is the Way. Jesus is the Word made flesh. The Word is the Way. The Word is therefore perfect.

Hence the Bible = Jesus? That, my friend, is called commiting idolatry.

[thesometimesaint]

BenjaminL.Toms:

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to what Bible was available to Paul?

[ebeddoulos]

BenjaminL.Toms

Come on! You should avoid being both wrong and foolish when you sermonize. Pick one but not both. To avoid looking so foolish, you should first research your subject. For example, Ephesian

[Skywalker]

I am starting to doubt whether he is coming back.

[wenglund]

Ground control to Mister Tom's...

...as promised I have openned a new thread to continue our conversation. Not coincidentally, it is titled, "A Continued Conversation with Mr. Toms. You can participate on that thread by clicking the link above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Which three gospels do we throw out, in fact, why not dump all of them, they have differences and aren't exactly what Paul preached.