Paul: Hero Or Villian

[Stone holm]

I can't speak for the majority of Mormons.. I'm probably as mainstream LDS as they come in my theology. However I tend to be very generous with what I believe God will reveal to us. IE; We are all beneficiaries of the knowledge explosion of the last 200 years or so. God really has opened up the heavens and poured out a bounteous blessing of knowledge. I really do believe we are just at the beginnings of that blessing.

Unless there is something cataclysmic at hand, The Lord tends not to bulldoze away cultural constraints right now the Church is heavily invested in cultural constraints, and although culture is changing rapidly, there is going to be a conservative lag time. I like to think of it the same as what a GA once said about the Church and technology. He said that the Church would not be the first to adopt a technology, nor would it be the last. I think that holds true with positive cultural change as well. I sincerely doubt that we are likely in relatively calm times to see the Church leading out in cultural change. The Lord would only interfere if our cultural conservatism was starting to adversely affect his time schedule .

[Ron Beron]

In the following quote from the New Testament, a Church leadership comtemporary of Paul. namely the Apostle Peter, shares with us his view of Paul,:

"13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable rest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."

So we may gather that Paul was a beloved leader of the Church, and that he was doctrinal in harmony with the mainstream of the Church. But Peter tells us Paul often taught deep doctrine that was difficult to understand and subject to misconstrual.

So there you have it, right from the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Meridian-day Saints. Paul was on point and in full fellowship. Nevertheless, some unleaned and unstable members of that day misinterpreted or deliberately twisted his orthodox, though somewhat arcane, presentation of the gospel; and this misconstrual of the Apostle's teachings led some into errors that resulted in wickedness. I suspect it was the false docrine of "saved by grace without any effort of one's own," that stood foremost among those heresys that were propigated by the twisting Paul's teachings.

Except Peter wasn't the leader of the church...James was. Paul was in constant disagreement with the Jerusalem Church and only was tolerated by them. They were not happy with this man who earlier sought their lives as he did Stephen.

[Ron Beron]

I was sat in one of the Sunday school lessons earlier this year when they were discussing the apostasy. It's usually presented as a "bad thing" caused by wicked men.

It occurred to me that the only way in that era to have avoided apostasy would have been to restrict to a small localised sect which would have eventually died out. The nature of 1stC communication meant that as soon as the message went beyond the immediate supervision of the apostles it would start to be locally personalised and adapted. Paul's prolific travels and preaching hastened the arrival of the apostasy because the Christian message spread further and faster than they could personally control. We see this in many of his letters.

Instead, we should see the apostasy as a "good thing." Probably the only way it could have spread in those early days of Christianity was through the ability of leaders to personalise it, adapt and adopt it. Even abuse it. The outcome was that it spread far and wide and became the primary religious teaching among the European Gentiles of the day and merging, morphing and replacing paganism.

I think Paul was indeed an instrument in the apostasy. But I also think the apostasy was probably part of the plan. Rather than simply being a corruption of that which was pure, it was an localisation to make it globally relevant.

I saw a video recently of a Chinese village who were visited by a German missionary some 70-80 years ago. They still held local, adapted Christian services with smatterings of Confucianism/Buddhism thrown in. They sang psalms from their Chinese Old Testament in European 4-part harmony.

The LDS restoration had to be confined to a localised area as much as possible for many decades and could only truly go global and not apostatise after the communication and travel advances of post-WW2. Before that there was probably plenty of 'candles on sacrament tables' going on.

I agree completely, but I disagree that it was a good thing given the later persecution of the Jews, the Inquisition, the exploitation and killing of natives around the world in the name of the church.

[Ron Beron]

Paul's statements regarding the Law are some of the most misinterpreted of his words. Paul was extremely fond of the Law, being from the Pharisaical school of thought. The assumption that leads to Paul's holding a differing position on this is from a perspective that forgets this.

Really?! I guess that is why he was constantly contradicting himself.

I. Anti-Israel:

• “All who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Galatians 3:10).

• “No one is justified before God by the law” (Galatians 3:11).

• “For [some manuscripts add ‘in Christ Jesus’] neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is everything!” (Galatians 6:15).

• “No human being will be justified in his [God’s] sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20).

• “Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law” (Romans 9:31).

• “But their minds were hardened. Indeed, for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil is still there, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day, whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds” (2 Corinthians 3:14–15).

II. Pro-Israel:

• “What is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way” (Romans 3:1).

• “Do we not overthrow the Law by this notion of faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the Law” (Romans 3:31).

• “What shall we say? That the Law is sin? By no means” (Romans 7:7).

• “Thus the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12).

• “To the Israelites belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the Temple, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ” (Romans 9:4).

• “Has God rejected his people? By no means” (Romans 11:1).

• “All Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26).

• “Is the Law then opposed to the promises of God. Certainly not!” (Galatians 3:21).

[Glenn101]

Except Peter wasn't the leader of the church...James was. Paul was in constant disagreement with the Jerusalem Church and only was tolerated by them. They were not happy with this man who earlier sought their lives as he did Stephen.

It is pretty well established that Peter was chosen as the chief apostle. He was the one to whom Christ was speaking when Christ said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven" in chapter 16, verse 19. The preceding verse establishes that Christ was speaking directly to Peter.

If you are referring to the Acts 16:19 concerning "my sentence is" James (who was the brother of Jesus, not the brother of John) could only have been acting as spokesman for the first presidency.

Paul pretty implicitly acknowledges that in Galatians chapter 2, verses 7 and 8.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Pete

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Glenn

[Stone holm]

I don't have a problem with Paul and his various statements about the law. My problem has always been with his overly flowery and convoluted verbiage which was ready made for people to take wrong and run with which is exactly what happened in the apostasy and Reformation.

[Stone holm]

It is pretty well established that Peter was chosen as the chief apostle. He was the one to whom Christ was speaking when Christ said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven" in chapter 16, verse 19. The preceding verse establishes that Christ was speaking directly to Peter.

If you are referring to the Acts 16:19 concerning "my sentence is" James (who was the brother of Jesus, not the brother of John) could only have been acting as spokesman for the first presidency.

Paul pretty implicitly acknowledges that in Galatians chapter 2, verses 7 and 8.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Pete

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Glenn

It has always been my understanding that the First Presidency after the ascendency of Christ was Peter, James, and John and that Peter was the President.

[Storm Rider]

I have always admired the conversion experience of Paul; it clearly defines the value of visions and how they are used in Christ's dealings with mankind. The man Paul was very human and yet of inestimable value in spreading the gospel among such a wide audience. He certainly had a penchant for independence. I wonder how the other apostles thought about him and his rather prickly nature. I suspect that people were seldom neutral in their feelings toward him. Because his language is often confusing he does open the door to much conflict IF one seeks to take a stand on his writings or a few of his verses. For me, it is taking the scriptures as a whole that we find the greater truths.

[Yep]

Really?! I guess that is why he was constantly contradicting himself.

I. Anti-Israel:

• “All who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Galatians 3:10).

• “No one is justified before God by the law” (Galatians 3:11).

• “For [some manuscripts add ‘in Christ Jesus’] neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is everything!” (Galatians 6:15).

• “No human being will be justified in his [God’s] sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20).

• “Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law” (Romans 9:31).

• “But their minds were hardened. Indeed, for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil is still there, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day, whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds” (2 Corinthians 3:14–15).

II. Pro-Israel:

• “What is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way” (Romans 3:1).

• “Do we not overthrow the Law by this notion of faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the Law” (Romans 3:31).

• “What shall we say? That the Law is sin? By no means” (Romans 7:7).

• “Thus the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12).

• “To the Israelites belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the Temple, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ” (Romans 9:4).

• “Has God rejected his people? By no means” (Romans 11:1).

• “All Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26).

• “Is the Law then opposed to the promises of God. Certainly not!” (Galatians 3:21).

All of your above simply proves my point, Paul's statements concerning the law are often misinterpreted. You cite Paul as being internally inconsistent, do you really believe he was? Read his words with an assumption of internal consistency and there is no other conclusion, imo, than that Paul loved the law.

Paul states three main concepts with regards to the law.

• Without law there is no sin, no death.
• In the presence of the law we are condemned in sin, or death.
• We are no longer constrained by the consequence of the law, or death. Faith in Christ allows for repentance, or life, and freedom from the consequence of the law. Faith in Christ allows for His redemption of us, brings us to life being born again.

Conclusion: Faith, through the atonement, allows mercy to exist without robbing justice. Pauls' statements in the scriptures show a consistent pattern of these concepts with varying degrees of emphasis. If you take a statement where he is speaking on one of these and compare it to a statement where he is speaking on another, it may appear inconsistent, but I do not believe that Paul was internally inconsistent. I stand by my position that Paul held a pharisaical position, perhaps not an extreme position, but a pharisaical position nonetheless. Paul loved the law as a Pharisee would, he simply truly understood what the law was and is.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Yep

[Stone holm]

I have always admired the conversion experience of Paul; it clearly defines the value of visions and how they are used in Christ's dealings with mankind. The man Paul was very human and yet of inestimable value in spreading the gospel among such a wide audience. He certainly had a penchant for independence. I wonder how the other apostles thought about him and his rather prickly nature. I suspect that people were seldom neutral in their feelings toward him. Because his language is often confusing he does open the door to much conflict IF one seeks to take a stand on his writings or a few of his verses. For me, it is taking the scriptures as a whole that we find the greater truths.

Agree with this. Unfortunately the written word has a very robust and long trajectory through time, and when you have a group actively destroying some of the plainer writers writings as occurred, it tends to distort matters. I think much of the language which misled people in the writings of Paul, might have been counteracted had they not destroyed the writings of people like Thomas and perhaps the accounts of the teachings of Mary Magdalene. I know of one author who argued that Paul along with Peter were favored by the Roman Catholics because of their connection to Rome in death.

[Damien the Leper]

Slight correction...He wrote most of the accepted NT, but even there were many of the epistles were written by others, probably disciples. Only seven are undisputed:

1. Romans
   
2. First Corinthians
   
3. Second Corinthians
   
4. Galatians
   
5. Philippians
   
6. First Thessalonians
   
7. Philemon
   

In my NT studies and based on my own conclusions of the arguments and evidence I agree that Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are pseudonymous and that 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are pseudepigraphal.

[Damien the Leper]

I think Christ was a type of Pharisee. Thus Christ frequent condemnations of them. They knew the law, but were overzealous in applying it to everyone, but themselves. Christ brought repentance and forgiveness.

And yet Christ intensified the Law in his Sermon on the Mount via the Antitheses of Matt. 5.

[Damien the Leper]

Except Peter wasn't the leader of the church...James was. Paul was in constant disagreement with the Jerusalem Church and only was tolerated by them. They were not happy with this man who earlier sought their lives as he did Stephen.

I agree. The Jewish-Christians of the 1st Century, James and Peter for example, believed in Jesus + The Law.

Others who believed similarly to Paul believed in Jesus + Some Law - Circumcision.

[thesometimesaint]

Unless there is something cataclysmic at hand, The Lord tends not to bulldoze away cultural constraints right now the Church is heavily invested in cultural constraints, and although culture is changing rapidly, there is going to be a conservative lag time. I like to think of it the same as what a GA once said about the Church and technology. He said that the Church would not be the first to adopt a technology, nor would it be the last. I think that holds true with positive cultural change as well. I sincerely doubt that we are likely in relatively calm times to see the Church leading out in cultural change. The Lord would only interfere if our cultural conservatism was starting to adversely affect his time schedule .

I'm a product of my culture, and at fast approaching 62 years old its not likely I'm going to take on any significant changes. That being said I oppose the effort by some to conflate the Restored Gospel with 1950's Utah culture.

Like any big organization there is a natural time lag between development of a new technology and its wide spread application. But the Church has a good tract record of adapting new technologies to our needs. I'm optimistic that as more and more people join the Church, more and more inventions and technologies will come from the Church members. That more and more inventions and technologies will bless the lives of the Saints and the rest of the world.

[Damien the Leper]

Really?! I guess that is why he was constantly contradicting himself.

I. Anti-Israel:

• “All who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Galatians 3:11).

• “For [some manuscripts add ‘in Christ Jesus’] neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is everything!” (Romans 3:20).

• “Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law” (2 Corinthians 3:14–15).

II. Pro-Israel:

• “What is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way” (Romans 3:31).

• “What shall we say? That the Law is sin? By no means” (Romans 7:12).

• “To the Israelites belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the Temple, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ” (Romans 11:1).

• “All Israel will be saved” (Galatians 3:21).

You should read E.P. Sanders' book Paul and Palestinian Judaism and James D.G. Dunn's book The New Perspective on Paul and Ben Witherington's Paul's Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph.

[Yep]

And yet Christ intensified the Law in his Sermon on the Mount via the Antitheses of Matt. 5.

I agree. While stripping the Law of the minutia of tradition and interpretation he caused it to become more strict applying it internally as well as externally to the individual. I believe Paul understood this and spoke to it.

[Stone holm]

I'm a product of my culture, and at fast approaching 62 years old its not likely I'm going to take on any significant changes. That being said I oppose the effort by some to conflate the Restored Gospel with 1950's Utah culture.

Like any big organization there is a natural time lag between development of a new technology and its wide spread application. But the Church has a good tract record of adapting new technologies to our needs. I'm optimistic that as more and more people join the Church, more and more inventions and technologies will come from the Church members. That more and more inventions and technologies will bless the lives of the Saints and the rest of the world.

I cannot remember for certain which of the GAs made the comment about technology, I believe it was Elder Packer because it sounds like his down to earth type remark. It was made back when they were debating whether to install micro-wave dishes at all the Stake Centers and Chapels. Technology obsolesence hadn't accelerated quite to the extent that it has today at the time. The reasoning behind his remark was that the Church didn't want to make the mistake of betting on the wrong technology format like say Beta instead of VHS in the day of taped videos. When I was first a branch clerk and executive secretary back when dinosaurs roamed the earth they were still typing on tithing on long rolls with a typewriter with special German type sets so a huge computer out in Utah could read it, then they went through the period when they consolidated all the accounts and clerks would put their telephone receivers down on a special cup to transmit data, now it is even simpler. I remember as Bishop we were whining that our PC was out of date which problem was solved when an ex-con who was living in a nearby motel broke into the chapel and stole our boat anchor of a computer. We didn't know whether to cry because we had to replace all the locks on the chapel or give a rousing cheer since we had gotten rid of the computer -- actually it was total chaos for about three weeks as we struggled with back-up records. The point of my comment was the same thing applies to adapting to culture changes, we are unlikely to be leading and found at the cutting edge of culture change, even beneficial culture change -- more likely to be about 50 to 60 years behind.

[Maidservant]

I was introduced to the Holy Sarcasm by an institute teacher. I loved the take on it and have been fond of it ever since.

Wasn't Jesus rather fond of it himself?

the Church would not be the first to adopt a technology

. . . . hmmmm, unless it's communications technology? ha ha ha . . .

Anyway, on Paul, it has been a long time since I have sat with his words, but these are some takeaway bits from when I did:

I have a great love for Paul. He acts tough, but he's vulnerable. And he never does stuff half way--whatever he's doing, right or wrong, he's on full speed, even when he's calling Peter on the carpet.

In his explanations of faith, Paul's choice of the concept of faith was very carefully chosen so as to include the element of living and acting--the dynamism of faith. That IS why he selected that word, as I understand. It is only since then that readers have a different base definition to faith. To repeat--he chose the word faith so his listeners would know there was action involved, not so they would think there wasn't. In fact, it can be argued that to rest in the tokens of the 'law' is the path of inaction--to say, hey, I'm circumcised, thus I am saved. There is no action or daily living involved in that paradigm. So Paul was challenging that and saying you have to live every day--the law or token is not where it's at.

Paul was a man who sacrificed for what he believed and for his Savior. He wore out his life travelling. He suffered flogging. I imagine that moment--being flogged. He did what he did for love including suffering that.

[thesometimesaint]

I cannot remember for certain which of the GAs made the comment about technology, I believe it was Elder Packer because it sounds like his down to earth type remark. It was made back when they were debating whether to install micro-wave dishes at all the Stake Centers and Chapels. Technology obsolesence hadn't accelerated quite to the extent that it has today at the time. The reasoning behind his remark was that the Church didn't want to make the mistake of betting on the wrong technology format like say Beta instead of VHS in the day of taped videos. When I was first a branch clerk and executive secretary back when dinosaurs roamed the earth they were still typing on tithing on long rolls with a typewriter with special German type sets so a huge computer out in Utah could read it, then they went through the period when they consolidated all the accounts and clerks would put their telephone receivers down on a special cup to transmit data, now it is even simpler. I remember as Bishop we were whining that our PC was out of date which problem was solved when an ex-con who was living in a nearby motel broke into the chapel and stole our boat anchor of a computer. We didn't know whether to cry because we had to replace all the locks on the chapel or give a rousing cheer since we had gotten rid of the computer -- actually it was total chaos for about three weeks as we struggled with back-up records. The point of my comment was the same thing applies to adapting to culture changes, we are unlikely to be leading and found at the cutting edge of culture change, even beneficial culture change -- more likely to be about 50 to 60 years behind.

If you want the latest whizzbang super up to date technology. Go down to your local computer store plop down several hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Then as you walk out the door drop it into the garbage can, because it is already obsolete.

[Stone holm]

If you want the latest whizzbang super up to date technology. Go down to your local computer store plop down several hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Then as you walk out the door drop it into the garbage can, because it is already obsolete.

I do think we have reached something of a plateau of late as there does not seem to be a lot of zest for making things much smaller as we tend to lose them, and the speed increase now is approaching diminishing returns. Not sure where the next major break through is likely, but don't think it will be personal computing or communication gadgets -- it might be in 3D Printing, but unless I am completely unimaginative, which is possible, I don't see that affecting the Church much. While culture changes more slowly than technology, the speed of cultural change has been, it seems, accelerating since the 1920's and gained speed in the 1960/1970's. The Church is just now sort of catching up with the 1970's so I would guess that a 50 or 60 year lag is pretty much to be expected. Not suggesting we will change any core principals, just that some of the traditions and cultural artifacts may fall by the wayside along with some prejudices.

[Ron Beron]

I agree. While stripping the Law of the minutia of tradition and interpretation he caused it to become more strict applying it internally as well as externally to the individual. I believe Paul understood this and spoke to it.

By external I assume you are referring to the Gentile for which I strongly disagree. He spoke against the corruption of the Law not the abolition of it.

[Ron Beron]

You should read E.P. Sanders' book Paul and Palestinian Judaism and James D.G. Dunn's book The New Perspective on Paul and Ben Witherington's Paul's Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph.

Duly noted...thanks.

[teddyaware]

One interesting fact about Paul that has not found its way onto this thread is that Paul is refered to as an Apostle of the Lord six times in the Doctrine and Covenants. In the verses where his name is found, he is always mentioned in a positive way. Apparently, the Lord does not think of the Apostle Paul as a villian. Rather, I would say he is one of the greatest servants of the Lord of all time -- A true gospel hero:

24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?

30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.

31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. (2 Corithians 12)

[Stone holm]

One interesting fact about Paul that has not found its way onto this thread is that Paul is refered to as an Apostle of the Lord six times in the Doctrine and Covenants. In the verses where his name is found, he is always mentioned in a positive way. Apparently, the Lord does not think of the Apostle Paul as a villian. Rather, I would say he is one of the greatest servants of the Lord of all time -- A true gospel hero:

24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?

30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.

31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. (2 Corithians 12)

Yeah, I suspect he is favored of The Lord, but some of the above was probably part of the repentance process because it is not easy to be forgiven of the things that Paul did while acting as a thug for the Jewish establishment. Paul was very aware that he had screwed up and been a quasi participant in the deaths of the early Saints. Only his ignorance saved him from eternal damnation.

[teddyaware]

Yeah, I suspect he is favored of The Lord, but some of the above was probably part of the repentance process because it is not easy to be forgiven of the things that Paul did while acting as a thug for the Jewish establishment. Paul was very aware that he had screwed up and been a quasi participant in the deaths of the early Saints. Only his ignorance saved him from eternal damnation.

I can almost hear the Sadducees or Pharisees saying the same things about the sufferings of the Lord. And isn't the presumptuous attitude that folks usually deserve the sufferings with which they're afflicted the main point of contention between Job and his well-meaning but erroneous "friends?" Didn't they just presume Job's afflictions were prima facie evidence of his sinfulness, even though they had no actual evidence of the same?

To me, Alma the Younger is the ancient American "Paul." I tend to believe Paul's experiences on the road to Damascus were very similar to Alma's:

14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

15 Oh, thought I, that I could be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds.

16 And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul.

17 And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the ^cmemory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.

18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.

19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.

20 And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!

(Alma 36)

Similarly, Paul was likely fully forgiven as well. And just like Alma, he wore out his life and endured much for the gospel's sake out of deep love for his Saviour. Paul's, Alma's and the Lord's sufferings and afflictions were likely tests of faith, not punishments for egregious personal sins.

Edited May 1, 2013 by teddyaware