Matthew 7:1 JST and 3 Nephi 14:1

[canterdogs]

If Paul's writings are "hard to be understood", does that mean that they are easy to be MIS-understood?

Yes they are easily misunderstood, particularly by groups like Mormons who have historically not taken the Bible seriously - and can only interpret them by means of their prophets.

ummmm you agree that at one point we were all unrighteous, therefore God justified us while we were still ungodly. As for Abraham, scripture is clear that he was justified by faith alone. He was looking forward to the great atoning sacrifice of Jesus (as all the OT prophets were). We now look back at the cross for our salvation.

I'm glad you can agree on my other points.... but let me make clear, sanctification and holiness are fruits of those who have been truly saved. I can agree with LDS that mainstream Evangelicals (especially in the US) have perverted the gospel by saying all one needs to do is pray one time in their whole life, then they are saved no matter what they do after that. This is surely wrong because the scriptures make clear that the result of true faith is a changed life. There are a few good preachers that proclaim this message. Paul Washer does this very well. But the fact that a great bulk of Evangelicals in the US have gone astray is not proof that Mormonism is true. Mormonism is the greatest system of salvation by works ever introduced to man. The openining chapter of the epistle to the Galations seems written exactly for the Mormons. Paul hypothetically describes the most extraordinary of circumstances in which a false gospel should come: "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." Yet this is what we find in the Joseph Smith story. The angel Moroni presents another gospel to Joseph Smith. Pauls words were certainly prophetic. Now of course latter day saints are going to say that Moroni didn't bring a different gospel and so on and so forth. But for me, the parralell between this text and the history of Joseph Smith is undeniable.

[Vance]

Yes they are easily misunderstood, particularly by groups like Evangelical anti-Mormons who have historically not taken the Bible seriously - and can only interpret them by means of their non-prophets.

There! Fixed it for you.

ummmm you agree that at one point we were all unrighteous, . . .

True!

. . . therefore God justified us while we were still ungodly.

False!

As for Abraham, scripture is clear that he was justified by faith alone.

True, but irrelevant. He was justified BEFORE Christ was even born due to obedience. So justification didn't occur while he was ungodly.

I'm glad you can agree on my other points.... but let me make clear, sanctification and holiness are fruits of those who have been truly savedCONVERTED.

I can agree with LDS that mainstream Evangelicals (especially in the US) have perverted the gospel by saying all one needs to do is pray one time in their whole life, then they are saved no matter what they do after that.

Simply the result of MIS-understanding Paul. And they will say YOU have it wrong. Ergo, the Bible is insufficient.

This is surely wrong because the scriptures make clear that the result of true faith is a changed life. There are a few good preachers that proclaim this message. Paul Washer does this very well. But the fact that a great bulk of Evangelicals in the US have gone astray is not proof that Mormonism is true.

Of course not, but it is proof that the Bible is insufficient.

Mormonism is the greatest system of salvation by works ever introduced to man.

Wrong. Pharisaical Judaism was far worse.

The openining chapter of the epistle to the Galations seems written exactly for the Mormons. Paul hypothetically describes the most extraordinary of circumstances in which a false gospel should come: "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." Yet this is what we find in the Joseph Smith story. The angel Moroni presents another gospel to Joseph Smith. Pauls[sic] words were certainly prophetic. Now of course latter day saints are going to say that Moroni didn't bring a different gospel and so on and so forth. But for me, the parralell[sic] between this text and the history of Joseph Smith is undeniable.

That is one of the most juvenile approaches you Evangelicals have. Can't you come up with a better one?

[canterdogs]

Because some Evangelicals have strayed from Bible teaching does not mean we need more scripture or a prophet who tells us how and when we should pick our nose! It simply means that they should get back to taking scripture seriously.

There are other arguments against Mormonism apart from Galatians 1, but this is the simplest and most obvious and it appears to be a constant thorn in LDS sides. Their solution is to just ignore the argument. The fact is that the parallel between what Paul is describing and how Mormonism came forth are obvious. It is a false gospel.

[David T]

The fact is that the parallel between what Paul is describing and how Mormonism came forth are obvious. It is a false gospel.

Which part of this Gospel that Jesus Christ presented in the Book of Mormon do you believe is false, and unbiblical?

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you

[Vance]

Because some Evangelicals have strayed from Bible teaching does not mean we need more scripture or a prophet who tells us how and when we should pick our nose! It simply means that they should get back to taking scripture seriously.

We do take scripture seriously. All scripture available to us.

There are other arguments against Mormonism apart from Galatians 1, but this is the simplest and most obvious and it appears to be a constant thorn in LDS sides. Their solution is to just ignore the argument.

We don't ignore the argument. It is you guys that ignore the counter argument.

The fact is that the parallel between what Paul is describing and how Mormonism came forth are obvious to the juvenile.

Fixed it.

Your "argument" is flawed because you can't show that the Gospel taught by the LDS Church is different from that taught in the Bible.

It is different from your interpretation of the Bible, but not from what the Bible actually says.

[Vance]

Because some Evangelicals have strayed from Bible teaching does not mean we need more scripture or a prophet who tells us how and when we should pick our nose!

And they say it is YOU that have strayed from the Bible teaching. So, why should I believe you more than them? Or better yet, why should I believe either of you?

[canterdogs]

My link

Wrong. Pharisaical Judaism was far worse.

Ok, its the second to Pharisaical Judaism... make you feel any better?

i have been watching the testimony of ex mormons online - the degree to which the church controls every aspect of life is frightening. Also social and family disconnection and castigation that occurs when Mormons leave the church is terrible. It's undeniable that these things actually happen to people. The only answer that LDS seem to have is to character assasinate these people, which adds to the problems of these ex Mormons. It's an absolute scandal.

Consider the noted ex Mormon scholar Simon Southerton. Leaving the LDS church was so hard for him. His wife and family still believed and his realization that the church was false put enormous strain on these relationships. And he separated from his wife. In that time he became involved with someone else. This is understandable as he was feeling alone and had lost his family. The church, instead of excomunicating him for apostacy, excomunicated him for adultery (btw where do we find excomunication on the basis of adultery anywhere in the teaching of the Savior or the apostles? Instead we find Jesus showing mercy to the adultress). This was done, transparently, in a desparate attempt to discredit Simon and paint him as a depraved liar. It was done to divert attention away from his arguments against the BoM. LDS scholar John Butler, in an attempt to discredit Southerton (link attached, see slide 6), labels him an adulterer. It was a shameful tactic and it is typical. It's simply disgusting that he would bring in extraneous, off-topic personal information into the discussion. Especially because he knows very well how much strain leaving the church can have on former members. it's surely a tell tale sign of cultic behavior.

[Vance]

I have been watching the testimony of ex Evangelical online - the degree to which the church controls every aspect of life is frightening. Also social and family disconnection and castigation that occurs when Evangelicals leave for the LDS church is terrible. It's undeniable that these things actually happen to people. The only answer that Evangelicals seem to have is to character assassinate these people, which adds to the problems of these ex Evangelicals. It's an absolute scandal.

[canterdogs]

And they say it is YOU that have strayed from the Bible teaching. So, why should I believe you more than them? Or better yet, why should I believe either of you?

The scriptures are the only standard that has proved to be reliable. You should make up your mind based on your own study of the scriptures. the answer is not to read James 1:5, close the Bible and pray. We are to do what the Bereans did. They searched the scriptures to find out if the things Paul was telling them were true. Unlike Joseph Smith, Paul did not appeal to his supernatural conversion experience to convince people of the gospel. He reasoned from the scriptures and he commended the Bereans for checking him out carefully.

And why should I believe your prophet over some other prophet? No this is not the way. Scripture is the only way. There will always be men who twist the scriptures. This is not evidence that scripture is insufficient, rather it is evidence that men are sinful.

[canterdogs]

lol... to suggest that the same type of control exists in protestant denominations is just disingenuous. i'm sorry.

[Vance]

The scriptures are the only standard that has proved to be reliable.

Proven?

Proven by whom?

You should make up your mind based on your own study of the scriptures.

Been there, done that! That is why I am LDS!!

We are to do what the Bereans did. They searched the scriptures to find out if the things Paul was telling them were true.

Been there, done that! That is why I am LDS!

Unlike Joseph Smith, Paul did not appeal to his supernatural conversion experience to convince people of the gospel. He reasoned from the scriptures and he commended the Bereans for checking him out carefully.

Yeah right!!

That is why he said this.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Hey! Look at that! Gal chapter 1.

And why should I believe your prophet over some other prophet?

Ask God!

[Vance]

lol... to suggest that the same type of control DOES NOT exist in protestant denominations is just disingenuous. i'm sorry.

[canterdogs]

Proven?

Proven by whom?

Been there, done that! That is why I am LDS!!

Been there, done that! That is why I am LDS!

Yeah right!!

That is why he said this.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Hey! Look at that! Gal chapter 1.

Ask God!

The testimony of his conversion is given to us in Acts and Paul does speak of it in Galatian. Its there for our edification. But ALL of the reasoning he gives comes from the scriptures. He expected people to test his claims by the scriptures not because of his supernatural conversion. Mormons ask us to pray and get warm fuzzies to know whether or not Joseph was a prophet.

I'm sorry to say, but your study of the scriptures comes from a skewed LDS perspective that is not considered valid interpretations of scripture. In fact your interpretation of scripture coincide with whatever your prophet tells you. If you were around 40 years ago, you'd be saying that blacks couldn't join the priesthood, but now they can. If you were alive before 1890, you'd be saying that polygamy is an eternal principle, but now its not anymore, if you were around when Brigham Young was your prophet, you'd believe that Adam is your god. you get blown about whichever way your current prophet wants to blow you. I'm sorry but that's a fact.

[canterdogs]

Yes scripture is the proven standard. Study of the scripture was the sole reason for the Reformation. Whenever there has been a falling away, reformation has only come by going back to the teachings of scripture!!!

[canterdogs]

Proven?

Proven by whom?

Been there, done that! That is why I am LDS!!

Been there, done that! That is why I am LDS!

Yeah right!!

That is why he said this.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Hey! Look at that! Gal chapter 1.

Ask God!

And what if God tells me Mohammad is his true prophet and not Joseph? No this is not the way. Search the scriptures to see whether Joseph, Muhammad or anyone else is of God.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The testimony of his conversion is given to us in Acts and Paul does speak of it in Galatian. Its there for our edification. But ALL of the reasoning he gives comes from the scriptures. He expected people to test his claims by the scriptures not because of his supernatural conversion. Mormons ask us to pray and get warm fuzzies to know whether or not Joseph was a prophet.

So how does one come to know that Paul is a prophet? Because he is in the bible? That sure is impressive.

How does one come to know that Jesus really appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus?

[Vance]

<SNIP>

Paul had been taught the scriptures (Old Testament) his entire life. Did that understanding help him recognize the true gospel when it was presented to him? No! It didn't. The personal manifestation of the Lord to him didn't teach him the gospel either. All it really did was slap him up the side of the head with a very BIG 'you are WRONG' and 'Jesus is Lord'!!!

But through REVELATION he came to understand the Old Testament correctly.

So, having the scriptures isn't the primary factor in finding the Gospel. The revelation of the Holy Ghost is the primary factor.

As Jesus said,

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Both Jesus and Paul agree that revelation from God is more important than scriptures. The fact that you don't get that from the Bible is very interesting to me. What good is your study of the Bible if you don't even learn what it teaches about the better source of truth?

[canterdogs]

So how does one come to know that Paul is a prophet? Because he is in the bible? That sure is impressive.

How does one come to know that Jesus really appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus?

when you read scripture, one is convicted of it's truth. Scripture is a double edged sword, we read in scripture. It is a living word that convicts one of his sin and turns him to Jesus. We believe in scripture because it is self evidently true. by its very nature it is God-breathed. It is God speaking to us.

you may say the same for the BoM.... but that comes from you wanting it to be true. That is why the BoM explicitly asks you the pray about its truthfullness. that is because, unlike the Bible, it is not self-evidently true. it's a record that came forth out of the blue about a people no one had ever heard of, with copious plagiarisms from the Bible itself and probably also from other sources as Jockers and others have found. It is not self-evidently correct, therefore one must convince himself of its truthfullness under the guise of divine revelation.

[canterdogs]

Paul had been taught the scriptures (Old Testament) his entire life. Did that understanding help him recognize the true gospel when it was presented to him? No! It didn't. The personal manifestation of the Lord to him didn't teach him the gospel either. All it really did was slap him up the side of the head with a very BIG 'you are WRONG' and 'Jesus is Lord'!!!

But through REVELATION he came to understand the Old Testament correctly.

So, having the scriptures isn't the primary factor in finding the Gospel. The revelation of the Holy Ghost is the primary factor.

As Jesus said,

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Both Jesus and Paul agree that revelation from God is more important than scriptures. The fact that you don't get that from the Bible is very interesting to me. What good is your study of the Bible if you don't even learn what it teaches about the better source of truth?

What of Paul's constant teaching from scripture? What of Paul's commendation of the Bereans?

We don't deny that it is the leading of the Holy Spirit that convicts us of our need for Jesus. But it is the study and knowledge of the scriptures that makes this possible.

Does God reveal Himself in remarkable, supernatural ways? Yes. Will He continue to do so? Yes. Protestants believe this also. But revelation is never separate or divorced from scripture - as Paul recognized.

God called him away from the teachings of men, and back to scriptures. Paul taught that we should search the scriptures to find what is true. Jesus taught from the scriptures too.

How do we know that Joseph Smith is false? Because his teachings fly in the face of scripture. Paul's teachings did not

[The_Monk]

unlike the Bible, it is not self-evidently true.

The Bible is self-evidently true? Is this meant to be an argument?

[canterdogs]

The Bible is self-evidently true? Is this meant to be an argument?

the Word of God is a double edged sword... so, yes, when we read it we are convicted. No need for its readers to strain for its truthfulness.

Not so with the BoM... one must want to believe its true. The BoM is so insecure that it must speak of the Bible negatively (e.g. a Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible and there can be no more Bible etc etc) and it must also exhort people to pray about its truthfulness (code for if you try really hard to believe its true then you can manufacture a testimony).

[The_Monk]

the Word of God is a double edged sword... so, yes, when we read it we are convicted. No need for its readers to strain for its truthfulness.

Not so with the BoM... one must want to believe its true. The BoM is so insecure that it must speak of the Bible negatively (e.g. a Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible and there can be no more Bible etc etc) and it must also exhort people to pray about its truthfulness (code for if you try really hard to believe its true then you can manufacture a testimony).

All right then. You have no credibility here in my book.

What of Jewish analysis of the New Testament? What of the billions who are convinced that the Quran is self-evidently true? Those who leave Christianity (any form) for some other tradition? What of those many Christians who struggle to read and believe the Bible (take Bart Ehrman on the one hand, of one educated Christian who lost his faith precisely because of the Bible, and Peter Enns, on the other, who has written just for those who really struggle to believe it.)

[Vance]

How do we know that Joseph Smith is false?

You don't!

Because his teachings fly in the face of scripture.

No. Not at all. Just as the false interpretations of men had corrupted the Saul's understanding, the false interpretations of men have corrupted your understanding.

Just as Paul needed REVELATION to correct his misunderstanding, you need REVELATION to correct your misunderstanding.

Like I said before. When I study the Bible, I find LDS theology all through it.

Paul's teachings did not

Neither do Joseph's.

[canterdogs]

All right then. You have no credibility here in my book.

What of Jewish analysis of the New Testament? What of the billions who are convinced that the Quran is self-evidently true? Those who leave Christianity (any form) for some other tradition? What of those many Christians who struggle to read and believe the Bible (take Bart Ehrman on the one hand, of one educated Christian who lost his faith precisely because of the Bible, and Peter Enns, on the other, who has written just for those who really struggle to believe it.)

As for people who lose their faith or have faith in other scriptures, i cannot give an explanation for this.

But i know a transparent charlatan when I see one and Joseph is he. And I don't think the answers to the above question is to follow some self proclaimed prophet on the basis of a subjective, possibly coerced testimony.

[Vance]

Not so with the BoM... one must want to believe its true. The BoM is so insecure that it must speak of the Bible negatively (e.g. a Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible and there can be no more Bible etc etc) and it must also exhort people to pray about its truthfulness (code for if you try really hard to believe its true then you can manufacture a testimony).

Just so you know. You are starting to sound hysterical.