Joseph Smith claimed to be a heretic.

[Avatar4321]

So we believe in a different Gospel now? Here is the Gospel that Joseph Smith taught:

[BenjaminL.Toms]

There is here a huge gap in understanding...

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

I don't see the gap your talking about. This is a part of what I said.

What Moses claims he heard and what he wrote may not be the same thing.

This is speculation and amounts to nothing. Joseph Smith could be an alien. If that's his real name?

G-d leaves even prophets freedom to make errors.

Where did you get this? Did you make this up? We learn who, what and how God is through His revealed Word and the application of it in our lives and not through subjective speculation.

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.

So this is your example of God allowing prophets to make errors when recording the Word of God... that Moses made an error in judgment in his life?

This is a non-sequitor fallacy. one does not connect with the other.

For God to be sovereign over what a man writes down so that it is fully His word, while leaving room for the structure and color of the writing to take on that of the man, He does not have to take the man's freedom of choice away from him. God answered this problem for us in His conversation with Moses at the burning bush

Then Moses said to the LORD,

[Joseph Antley]

Benjamin, can a person die as a believing Mormon and inherit eternal life?

[Deborah]

In fact, it should be quite obvious that I am educated and well informed about the Bible, the BoM, your doctrine and the words of your prophets by now and I would appreciate not having to deal with this kind of passive aggresive insult about what I know or don't know. If I state your doctrine and it's correct I don't expect to hear sarcasm about me telling you what you believe in and if I'm wrong then quoting the correct doctrine from the source will do just fine.

Unfortunately being informed and educated about our doctrine doesn't mean you understand it. It has to be taken in context and historically those who come in here to tell us what we believe may use quotes (out of context) but they show no understanding of what it really means or how it fits together as a whole.

[thesometimesaint]

BenjaminL.Toms:

Please answer my question: What Bible did Paul have?

[semlogo]

This is Kindergarten-level anti-Mormonism. BOOORING.

[Vance]

In fact, it should be quite obvious that I am educated and well informed about the Bible, the BoM, your doctrine and the words of your prophets by now and I would appreciate not having to deal with this kind of passive aggresive[sic] insult about what I know or don't know.

Well, that ISN'T obvious.

What is obvious is that you got your information, not from a direct source, but from a typical "Kindergarten-level" Anti-Mormon source.

You will have to do better than that around here, if you want to be effective.

If I state your doctrine and it's correct I don't expect to hear sarcasm about me telling you what you believe in and if I'm wrong then quoting the correct doctrine from the source will do just fine.

I thought you just said that you were "educated and well informed about" . . ."your doctrine".

When you claim that you KNOW, and still get it wrong, how do you expect people to respond?

I believe that would be the definition of being civil.

And some think that being civil would require you to show more humility with regard to declaring our doctrine.

I hear all this accusation against me for not being civil but don't see your civility and I can't see how I am being uncivil.

Would you think me civil if I declared what you believed and got it wrong?

Is it because I disagree with you?

Is your incivility do to your disagreement with us?

Or is it because I am bold with what I know to be true?

It just might be that you come across as arrogantly and ignorantly bold with what you think you know to be true.

You think that the gospel that Paul . . . would not think the BoM was a different Gospel.

I don't think that, I KNOW that!!!!

So now what?

He would rather think that it was the restored Gospel and believe all of the Mormon doctrines as if they were his own.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

[Vance]

So if it is possible for man to screw up God's Word then it's possible and even most probable that he did since he is faulted, which makes perfect sense why God's quality control for us to have the Gospel is to basically send a correction into the future by burying it and revealing it later.

?????????

So it must be really important for you to believe that man was able to screw up God's Word[sic] and that is why we are talking about this

Are saying that men CAN'T "screw up God's Wword"?

... can we agree that JSJr claimed with his own mouth that what he was given was a more correct, better, improved and therefore different Gospel (at least than what is contained presently in the Bible) and that he received it from an angel of light from heaven; and not only did JSJr claim it but it is also written in the volume itself? Can we agree on that?

No!

But, can we agree that JSJr claimed with his own mouth that what he was given was a more correct, better, improved and therefore different from the false apostate gospel (at least than what is contained presently in the misinterpreted and misunderstood version of the Bible) and that he received it from an angel of light from heaven; and not only did JSJr claim it but it is also written in the volume itself? Can we agree on that?

The reason I say this is because you are all defending an absurdity.

The same is said of you.

JSJr most definitely said it was different.

From the false apostate gospel. YES it different.

The BoM definitely claims to have different doctrines that we are missing.

Yes, you are missing them. They are in the Bible, but you are still missing them.

Either we needed to have a different Gospel preached to us (than what we had at the time)

You already had a different/false gospel preached to you. What you need is to have the true gospel preached to you.

. . . and what is in the BoM is the same stuff as in the Bible;

That phrase is true.

. . . in which case I would say, "why is the BoM needed then?

To restore the TRUE understanding of the Bible.

. . . and what is with this priesthood thing?

Good question. Do you really want to know?

That seems to be new to me."

Well, if you understood the Bible correctly, it wouldn't be new to you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All I keep thinking is BLT. mmmmmmm, pork products.

[Zakuska]

[MDalby]

In fact, it should be quite obvious that I am educated and well informed about the Bible, the BoM, your doctrine and the words of your prophets by now and I would appreciate not having to deal with this kind of passive aggresive insult about what I know or don't know.

"Often wrong but never in doubt"...

Not a great combination.

[USU78]

I don't see the gap your talking about.

Yes, I know. Pity, that.

Where did you get this? Did you make this up? We learn who, what and how God is through His revealed Word and the application of it in our lives and not through subjective speculation.

No. "We learn who, what and how G-d is through" His spokesmen. Those spokesmen speak and write. Reliance upon the mediation of the recorded word, preserved and, occasionally, perverted by those who are not G-d's spokesmen is a chancy proposition indeed.

Only G-d's Holy Spirit, that same medium by which much of what G-d's spokesmen receive G-d's word, is reliable. Everything else is approximation.

So this is your example of God allowing prophets to make errors when recording the Word of God... that Moses made an error in judgment in his life?

This is a non-sequitur fallacy.one does not connect with the other.

It's not a non sequitur. Prophets throughout the Bible go to great lengths to teach that they are human and fallible. Moses is but one example. And remarkable clay he proved to be in the Potter's hands. But he made sure we saw examples of his fallen humanity in his writings.

For God to be sovereign over what a man writes down so that it is fully His word, while leaving room for the structure and color of the writing to take on that of the man, He does not have to take the man's freedom of choice away from him. God answered this problem for us in His conversation with Moses at the burning bush

"My ways are not your ways, neither are your thoughts my thoughts." Best man can do is his best, which, by his very nature, limits his ability to convey the Divine to other men. Sola scriptura is unscriptural, my friend. It's also a heretical notion to most of the world's Christians.

I think that if God is with a mouth teaching the one with the mouth what to say... we can rest our doubts about quality assurance. What Moses wrote was what God wanted written; unless your going to propose that God can be with a mouth but not a hand. Did not the LORD also make the hand?

That is an extrabiblical notion. Nowhere is Moses assured he won't make mistakes in speaking or writing. He is made powerful in speech. He is made powerful in writing. He is assured G-d will teach him what to say. He is never assured that G-d would prevent him, either by killing him or by immediate intervention, from saying or writing the wrong thing. This sola scriptura notion or yours, in which the Bible is some kind of magically perfect thing, is in the nature of magical thinking. Nowhere does the book make that claim for itself. It makes clear time and again that imperfect, backsliding men are involved in its composition. G-d works with the tools He chooses. If it were important for him to have flawless human tools, He'd make flawless humans. He didn't. He made us.

I don't think that I or the scripture has painted a picture like a puppet or an audio recorder into whom God dictates. I have stated that the personality, style and color of the man comes through which totally takes into account the value of the man. And God having control to make sure His perfect Word is being spoken does not devalue the man either or get in the way of His ability to deliver His perfect Word

By claiming the Bible is perfect, you discount the reality of human freedom to make errors . . . you discount the inevitability of human propensity to make errors. Errors can be in original composition, in transmission, and in translation. It is a childish notion that G-d will somehow magically cause humans not to act like humans when it comes to the Bible. That isn't how He works. The notion is extrabiblical, since the text doesn't claim it's perfect. Indeed, if the Revelator goes to so much trouble to warn folks against changing the words he wrote, and he's not insane and paranoid, then he must know there was a legitimate danger of change happening. How would he know to be worried unless it had already happened or was sure to happen?

Maybe your just condescending. I think it's quite obvious that I've considered it by looking at the first thing I said about it and it should be more than obvious now... it should be settled and definite.

Youth and inexperience always feels it's being condescended to by age and treachery. The only solution to feeling condescended to is to become older and more treacherous.

Good, me neither. What I have described about my beliefs of the Bible does not entail me worshiping a book. Jesus is the Word made flesh. Him I worship. I happen to be able to read that Word in a book made of paper and ink but I do not worship that paper and ink. The Word that is powerful and alive is Logos, the Son of God and worthy of all my praise.

If you don't worship it . . . if you view it as an historical artifact of G-d's dealings with His chosen prophets over a very long period of time . . . if you don't expect it to be a magically preserved snapshot of G-d . . . if you don't have a notion that "we've got a Bible, and we don't need any more Bible . . ." then maybe you're not what you're demonstrating yourself to be.

This whole thing is getting a little off topic. How does this really come to bare on whether or not what JSJr said was claiming to have been delivered an improved and therefore different gospel?

That's some unimpressive logic, kiddo. JSJr said nothing of the kind. G-d kinda made the point that the BoM was a different sort of critter than the Bible, in that He directed specifically that those specific records be compiled, edited, and preserved for release at a critical time. He makes the point. G-d does. JSJr admits his fallibility. So do Mormon and Moroni. I and my compatriots here are the most fallible of all.

Where's BLT's declaration of his fallibility?

[Zakuska]

That's some unimpressive logic, kiddo. JSJr said nothing of the kind. G-d kinda made the point that the BoM was a different sort of critter than the Bible, in that He directed specifically that those specific records be compiled, edited, and preserved for release at a critical time. He makes the point. G-d does. JSJr admits his fallibility. So do Mormon and Moroni. I and my compatriots here are the most fallible of all.

Where's BLT's declaration of his fallibility?

Bible writers time and again prove THEIR fallibility for us... such as when the author of Matthew misattributes a prophecy by Zeceraiah to the Prophet Jeremiah.

Matt 27

9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

10 And gave them for the potter

[Pahoran]

Now speaking generally to all:

In fact, it should be quite obvious that I am educated and well informed about the Bible, the BoM, your doctrine and the words of your prophets by now and I would appreciate not having to deal with this kind of passive aggresive insult about what I know or don't know. If I state your doctrine and it's correct I don't expect to hear sarcasm about me telling you what you believe in and if I'm wrong then quoting the correct doctrine from the source will do just fine. I believe that would be the definition of being civil. I hear all this accusation against me for not being civil but don't see your civility and I can't see how I am being uncivil. Is it because I disagree with you? Or is it because I am bold with what I know to be true? I have been polite. And this does not apply to everyone... you know if you've been snippy and insulting or not. Let's leave it out shall we?

Benjamin,

the problem is that your civility is purely verbal; nothing more than skin deep. There is a fundamental incivility in your underlying approach, of which you seem entirely oblivious.

When engaged in interfaith dialogue -- that is, interacting with those of a different faith -- there is one, and only one, approach which qualifies as being civil, and it is this:

1. You speak for your faith tradition, and not ours; and
   
2. We speak for our faith tradition, and not yours.
   

When you arrogate to yourself the role of telling us(!) what we(!) believe, you have abandoned civility in any substantive way.

There are a number of very good and valid reasons why this is the only acceptable approach. There are no good or valid reasons why this approach should be circumvented. If you feel that refraining from telling us(!) what we(!) believe would somehow put you at a disadvantage, then that can mean only one thing: you have come here with canned, prepackaged anti-Mormon propaganda that relies upon you controlling both sides of the conversation.

If that is not the case, and you feel that you are able to interact with us and allow us to speak for our faith, then by all means, you will be welcome. But if you continue to attempt to speak for us -- as if you really did have either sufficient good will or sufficient knowledge enough to do so -- then you will really only be advertising your insecurity.

So how about it, Ben? Can you cope with a conversation you where you're not in complete control?

Regards,

Pahoran

[MDalby]

BLT was a hit and run poster?

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

BLT was a hit and run poster?

Thats affirm. Just like 90 percent of his types that come up here and later can be found on the board not to be named, its Spanish equivalent, or RfM saying that they put us down.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

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?

Yes, basically for the most part. I won't quible with this statement for now; however, your book says that Jesus and satan were brothers and that satan was mad when the Father chose Jesus to be the savior and not him. So if this is your official church statement about Jesus then I think there is some misleading going on... perhaps some false representation to ensnare Christians. This is off topic and perhaps at a later time I will post a discussion about the different statements of the Bible and the LDS concerning Jesus; who, what, when, why and how He is.

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:

Perhaps you just misunderstood me. When I said, "... your doctrine" I meant Mormon doctrine as stated in the LDS scriptures. I don't know if you believe it but that is what it says. It is not in any way arrogant of me to state what has been presented to me as Mormon doctrine as just that... Mormon doctrine. Sorry that you were misunderstanding me and subsequently upset. I hope that what I said is clear now and also not offensive. If you are unaware of that doctrine then perhaps some study is required of you. The doctrine in the Bible does not include this idea. So whether or not you bring up those things you mentioned or not and claim that we (Bible believing Christians) have the doctrine that was stated is irrelevant to me. We do not hold that doctrine (that we have a head prophet at all or that what he says or any other preacher or speaker says is scripture or doctrine)

I love and am kind to the people who believe in Mormonism but I do not have to accept any and all "faith's" that are not my own. For instance my faith is one that is marked by being the only one that is the way to a relationship with the Father. I cannot accept other "faith's" and still retain this one. There is nothing at all wrong with this.

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

Do what you want but it is irrelevant.

Wow, what an evil God you have.

irrelevant.

[urroner]

So if this is your official church statement about Jesus then I think there is some misleading going on... perhaps some false representation to ensnare Christians.

Duh, Mormons are Christians. You, yourself are continuing to put forward a blatantly false representation to ensnare Christians in the webs of Satan. I find it rather humorous that you accuse us of what you relish doing.

What is the word for that, hypocrystalline, hippopotamus, hyperventilate? I know it's something like that. BLT, could you help me remember that word?

[LeSellers]

your book says that Jesus and satan were brothers and that satan was mad when the Father chose Jesus to be the savior and not him. So if this is your official church statement about Jesus then I think there is some misleading going on... perhaps some false representation to ensnare Christians.

I'm trying to figure out

1. Why you think there is "misleading going on", and what, exactly, that "misleading" is. You do recognize that we publish this fact, so it is not misleading at all.
   
2. Why Jesus' being the Superior Sibling of Lucifer is a problem in the first place. You realize that, given our point of view, that Satan is no longer Jesus' brother (he's divorced himself from the family), and that, even if this first were not the case, it is not at all whatever you imagine it to be?

Lehi

[ERayR]

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

Yes, basically for the most part. I won't quible with this statement for now; however, your book says that Jesus and satan were brothers and that satan was mad when the Father chose Jesus to be the savior and not him. So if this is your official church statement about Jesus then I think there is some misleading going on... perhaps some false representation to ensnare Christians. This is off topic and perhaps at a later time I will post a discussion about the different statements of the Bible and the LDS concerning Jesus; who, what, when, why and how He is.

BLT which is it, is satan a child that went bad by choice or did God create evil?

[ERayR]

Perhaps you just misunderstood me. When I said, "... your doctrine" I meant Mormon doctrine as stated in the LDS scriptures. I don't know if you believe it but that is what it says. It is not in any way arrogant of me to state what has been presented to me as Mormon doctrine as just that... Mormon doctrine. Sorry that you were misunderstanding me and subsequently upset. I hope that what I said is clear now and also not offensive. If you are unaware of that doctrine then perhaps some study is required of you. The doctrine in the Bible does not include this idea. So whether or not you bring up those things you mentioned or not and claim that we (Bible believing Christians) have the doctrine that was stated is irrelevant to me. We do not hold that doctrine (that we have a head prophet at all or that what he says or any other preacher or speaker says is scripture or doctrine)

I love and am kind to the people who believe in Mormonism but I do not have to accept any and all "faith's" that are not my own. For instance my faith is one that is marked by being the only one that is the way to a relationship with the Father. I cannot accept other "faith's" and still retain this one. There is nothing at all wrong with this.

Do what you want but it is irrelevant.

irrelevant.

Which Mormon scripture would that be? The Bible? The Book of Mormon? The Doctrine and Covenants? You exhibit a complete lack of comprehension about "Mormon scripture" and Mormon doctrine.

I am so glad you treat the people with kindness and love. It makes it so much easier to worship at your condescending feet.

[RubyHunter]

My first day back on the board and this is what I spend an entire hour reading.

WOW.

I am ever impressed by my fellow brothers and sisters.

BLT... dude... yeah... good luck with your crusade. You're gonna need it.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

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

I responded to everything except one sentence but then I covered it in the subject matter of my post; so I am not sure what your main point was.

Here is your sentence:

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.

I didn't respond to this because it is off topic but Paul did not say "TURNED away", what he said was "TURNING away". Paul did not "ONLY" write to the Galatians because they were already apostate (for there is other purpose in his letter and in God there is always multi-purpose, so looking at it as God's Word ...we are shortsighted to think there is only one purpose) but as I said whether or not they were apostate is another discussion.

I suppose you mean that I misunderstand the passage that clearly says it is baptism that saves us.

yes, you do... as follows:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

There is also an antitype which now saves us

[Nathair/|\]

Personally, I'm proud to be a heretic. One of the wonderful things about the restoration is the freedom to follow the evidence and my personal Awen wherever it leads while at the same time giving me stable ground to sink my roots into and plenty of rain and sunlight, rather than being bound to a single dogma by some uninspired politico-religious authority.

Have you ever seen the roots of a plant that has grown out of it's pot? Do you know how long such a plant lasts? Far better to root in the living earth of the restored gospel with the wide open sky above to reach for.

Yours under the free-range oaks,

Nathair /|\

[BenjaminL.Toms]

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.

Would it be arrogant to do so? I admit it would be wrong but not arrogant. I hope that I have not done so. It is not my intention. If I have and you show me the correct context, I will accept it and assimilate it into what I understand of the LDS church and its doctrine, thank you.

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.

That's fine and irrelevant at the same time, since one of us is on the wrong side.

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.

Your mistake is to think of the Pauline epistles as just letters from Paul. If they are scripture then they are God's Words that are describing God's Words, which the other Words not yet written still fall under the application of, since they are also... God's Word. God knew that what He would say later would still be the Word. It's not like God wanted us to believe that only the stuff written until that point was His Word or that any further Words would be capable of being differently characterized. If that were the case then Him saying anything about his Word in a declarative statement would thereby shut the inspired Word and declare anything else written later heresy. It's completely ridiculous. No offense. And that would also deem the BoM as less than alive and powerful and therefore not scripture. It would also qualify JSJr and his statement that the BoM was more correct as a lie, since everything written up to the point of those verses was sharper than a two-edged sword and everything after, by default, would be not as sharp. How would the BoM be more correct if it were duller?

You cannot accept the BoM as scripture and not apply those verses to all of God's Word.

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...

That specific interpretation stands and I will hear the others in due course I imagine.

It is of great import that you say that the principles taught within it are true. Incomplete or not, as long as what is in it is true, I will use it in it's incomplete form to correct any and all lies that exalt themselves against the name of Christ.