Biblical Keys For Discerning True And False Prophets

[Antoni]

 

"Why do you assume the writings of the apostles were lost? Were any writings of Old Testament prophets lost? Jesus and the apostles certainly didn't say anything about having to restore or correct any of those scriptures. So since God supernaturally preserved the OT scriptures for 2000-3000 years, why can't we have faith that the same God preserved the NT scriptures for the next 2000 years? God certainly had the power to preserve the scriptures. Why wouldn't He?"

 

This is not an assumption it is the testimony of the early church Father's and writings. You talk about faith - so you rest your faith on the aforemetioned committee that voted by committee (and political motivations) which books to include in NT centuries after they were written. That's a BIG position of faith to have.

 

Do you include the Apocrypha in your OT? (if not, why not? Millions of Christians do) Do you include the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas in your NT? If not why not - early Christians saw those as scripture.

 

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll and Nag Hamadi library / Gnostic gospels show that writings were "lost".

 

There were many, many OT prophets, not just the ones we have books in OT of. It seems remarkable to think only this handful wrote anything down.

 

Jesus said He gave all authority and power to his apostles. Not to "the books you will write"

 

Light, Love and Peace

Edited March 8, 2015 by Antoni

[Sevenbak]

 

 

The gospel taught in the BoM and D&C is not the same Gospel taught in Galatians and Romans, so why should I consider them scripture at all?

 

NotaMormon, 

 

As I've read through your OP and comments, I think this last statement of yours best summaries your complaint. I'm wondering if you are truly trying to find answers or just argue about old hashed out anti talking points?

 

Plenty has been said here to point you in the right direction for seeking truth.  Remember that the Jews were in apostasy when Christ came, that is why they rejected Him, especially the religious leaders, even though they had the "scriptures".    Why is it a surprise that the same thing has happened 2000 years later, and the world has splintered into thousands of denominations teaching from the same bible?  It's not the bible that makes the true Gospel, it is the living God, through revelation.  

 

 

I would only add one other references, as this is one of my favorites.  

 

2 Corinthians 3:3  "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 

Edited March 8, 2015 by Sevenbak

[JLHPROF]

The gospel taught in the BoM and D&C is not the same Gospel taught in Galatians and Romans, so why should I consider them scripture at all?

 

Oh sure it is the same.  It may not be the same as the same old traditional creeds, but the true gospel is contained in both.

The BOM & D&C just clarifiy and give additional "words that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God".  There is only conflict with the creeds, not with the true meaning of Romans and Galatians.

 

This thread is rapidly turning into the same old evangelical nonsensical attacks.  I see little interest in truth.

Edited March 8, 2015 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

So once you receive the Gospel from the Spirit, do you ignore all scripture and get all further guidance from the Spirit? Of course not. Yes, the Spirit guides us to truth, but we still need to rely on scripture for learning specifics about the Gospel.

 

To be clear, yes, I do believe the Spirit plays a very important role in how we find and know what truth is. I'm just saying the role of the Spirit shouldn't take priority over testing by scripture. Putting such a big emphasis on the role of the spirit would be like deciding to marry someone simply because you like talking with them. Of course, a marriage won't work if you don't like talking to each other, but there are bigger issues to be concerned about. It doesn't matter how much you like talking to each other if you disagree on basic doctrinal issues. Why can't we apply at least the same level of criticism to what faith we're married to?

As I’ve been pointing out, all the available scriptural texts on a subject should be considered together, with the help of the Spirit. You seem to want to limit your position to five verses; I’m inviting you to look at all that Paul and John said on the subject to ascertain the general principle and a model.

 

The Spirit not only helps us understand Christ’s gospel and doctrinal when we rely solely on scriptural text, but also when we rely on living prophets and apostles (as the hearers of John and Paul did), direct whisperings, tender mercies, life experiences, the various physical, mental and other temporal/spiritual gifts He has given us, etc. I’m inviting you to consider all media through which God reveals and teaches us His word.

 

Using the courtship analogy, there are likewise many ways we learn about the person we decide to marry.

 

Going back to your original question, John and Paul’s model fits the LDS model of asking God if a thing is true so that the power of the Holy Ghost can bear witness that it is.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, that's it? I thought you were looking for some in depth interpretation. Of course a prophet needs to have a testimony of Christ. That should be obvious, but it's a low bar to set. People in most denominations would at least claim to have a testimony of Christ, so how is it a useful test of a prophet?

 

Secondly, the context of Revelation 19:10 makes no sense in this discussion. What is the marriage supper of the lamb(v. 9)? Has heaven opened and a white horse come down(v. 11)? If those events haven't happened yet, why do you assume verse 10 can be applied to any issue today?

 

Why do you assume the writings of the apostles were lost? Were any writings of Old Testament prophets lost? Jesus and the apostles certainly didn't say anything about having to restore or correct any of those scriptures. So since God supernaturally preserved the OT scriptures for 2000-3000 years, why can't we have faith that the same God preserved the NT scriptures for the next 2000 years? God certainly had the power to preserve the scriptures. Why wouldn't He?

 

The Gospel is described extensively in Acts, Galatians and Romans. Why isn't that enough to have a good idea of the Gospel they taught?

 

The gospel taught in the BoM and D&C is not the same Gospel taught in Galatians and Romans, so why should I consider them scripture at all?

 

Books missing from the Bible

Old Testament

Book of Covenants

Book of wars of the Lord

Book of Jasher

A book of Statutes

Book of Acts of Solomon

Books of Nathan and Gad

Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo

Book of Shemaiah

Book of Jehu

Acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah

Sayings of the Seers

 

New Testament

• The Protevangelion
• The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
• The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
• The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa
• The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate)
• The Apostles' Creed (throughout history)
• The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans
• The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca's to Paul
• The Acts of Paul and Thecla
• ♦ The Epistles of Clement (The First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians)
• ♦ The Epistle of Barnabas
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
• ♦ The Shepherd of Hermas (Visions, Commands, and Similitudes)
• Letter of Herod To Pilate the Governor
• Letter of Pilate to Herod
• The Lost Gospel of Peter
• ♦ The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

[cinepro]

How do Paul’s and John’s model of testing teachers fit with the LDS keys for discerning true and false prophets?

 

NotaMormon, basically anything in the Bible that supports LDS truth claims is considered 100% gospel truth, and anything that doesn't is a cultural artifact of the time, or the product of misinterpretation, mistranslation, or misapplication.  That's the short way of saying everything that everyone else is saying by way of explanation.  There is nothing in the Bible that validly contradicts modern LDS teachings.

 

I don't know if you were hoping for this thread to run another 30 or 40 pages, so apologies for spoiling it for you if you were.

Edited March 8, 2015 by cinepro

[Bobbieaware]

NotaMormon, basically anything in the Bible that supports LDS truth claims is considered 100% gospel truth, and anything that doesn't is a cultural artifact of the time, or the product of misinterpretation, mistranslation, or misapplication. That's the short way of saying everything that everyone else is saying by way of explanation. There is nothing in the Bible that validly contradicts modern LDS teachings.

I don't know if you were hoping for this thread to run another 30 or 40 pages, so apologies for spoiling it for you if you were.

Aside from Paul saying women shouldn't speak in church and should have longer hair than men, I'd like you to provide other examples from the New Testament of other so-called misinterpretations, mistranslations, and misapplications of which you speak. And before seeing any of the examples you may provide, I will venture to say I believe nearly all such examples are only called misinterpretations, mistranslations or misapplications by some LDS church members because they lack scriptural understanding.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

So once you receive the Gospel from the Spirit, do you ignore all scripture and get all further guidance from the Spirit? Of course not. Yes, the Spirit guides us to truth, but we still need to rely on scripture for learning specifics about the Gospel.

 

To be clear, yes, I do believe the Spirit plays a very important role in how we find and know what truth is. I'm just saying the role of the Spirit shouldn't take priority over testing by scripture. Putting such a big emphasis on the role of the spirit would be like deciding to marry someone simply because you like talking with them. Of course, a marriage won't work if you don't like talking to each other, but there are bigger issues to be concerned about. It doesn't matter how much you like talking to each other if you disagree on basic doctrinal issues. Why can't we apply at least the same level of criticism to what faith we're married to?

Would you marry someone because the scripture told you to?

 

There are "Christian" groups who actually do that- because their leader speaks "scripture".  This is no better!

 

Of course you must prove each principle, otherwise you are following by blind faith.   Here, come follow me.  Give me your tithing and I will be sure you get into heaven.

 

It's no better than that unless God has told you personally that the message you are following is right.  Send your 5 bucks to a televangelist and get your magic prayer cloth, and that will get you into heaven.

 

That makes no sense and surely you don't believe that.

 

 

. I'm just saying the role of the Spirit shouldn't take priority over testing by scripture

 

Circular- can't you see that???  Scripture tells you to follow itself so you ignore the spirit telling you NOT to?

 

Makes no sense!

Edited March 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Why does one have to be a Mormon to understand that to be a prophet or have the spirit of prophesy, you must have a testimony of jesus christ?

One just has to think.

 

THAT is what is not happening here.  Unquestioned obedience to the bible.  Bible idolatry.

[mfbukowski]

NotaMormon, basically anything in the Bible that supports LDS truth claims is considered 100% gospel truth, and anything that doesn't is a cultural artifact of the time, or the product of misinterpretation, mistranslation, or misapplication.  That's the short way of saying everything that everyone else is saying by way of explanation.  There is nothing in the Bible that validly contradicts modern LDS teachings.

 

I don't know if you were hoping for this thread to run another 30 or 40 pages, so apologies for spoiling it for you if you were.

Cinepro has spoken.

 

The thinking is over.

Edited March 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

 

Why do you assume the writings of the apostles were lost? Were any writings of Old Testament prophets lost? Jesus and the apostles certainly didn't say anything about having to restore or correct any of those scriptures. So since God supernaturally preserved the OT scriptures for 2000-3000 years, why can't we have faith that the same God preserved the NT scriptures for the next 2000 years? God certainly had the power to preserve the scriptures. Why wouldn't He?

 

Jesus and his apostles came before the apostasy so of course they would not have mentioned the loss of books. Besides, since God is a God of ongoing revelation, He would have had no need to report on missing books. He came to reveal his own teachings and only referred to the old testament as support for his teachings. To say 'why wouldn't he' is a logical fallacy called an appeal. It is an argument from silence. For that matter, why did God allow the dark ages or the spanish inquisition, or the crusades or a host of other terrible atrocities perpetrated by his 'disciples'. God allows choice and he allows people to bastardize his doctrines. A superficial reading of the Old Testament will show a constant pattern of apostasy and Restoration. Clearly doctrines have been last in the distant past, otherwise there would have been no need for a Moses. 

 

If God would not allow his record to be lost, why did Moses have to restore so much? The first 5 books of the bible were all restorative works. What were the teachings that Adam relied upon? If books never get lost, why did we need the prophesies of Isaiah or the council of Malachi? If Jesus restored his gospel, why do we need the teachings of Paul? To use your logic, couldn't Jesus have taught all that needed to be taught during his three year ministry? why do you insist on using the teachings of Paul who never even met the Savior? His teachings certainly do not fit well with the teachings of the Savior. 

[Freedom]

I would add this question, what are the teachings in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that are not consistent with the teachings of the New Testament?

[NotaMormon]

Out of all the responses so far, no one has directly addressed Gal. 1:8-9. Of course, context is very important, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the verse in question. If someone asked you what John 3:16 means, would you spend all your time talking about Jesus' birth and quote from Revelation? That might be part of your response, but you would also probably directly address the verse by talking about what 'believe' and 'eternal life' means. So can someone directly address Gal. 1:8-9. What does it mean?

 

 You are assuming that it's not possible to make a serious mistake. The Bible is full of accounts of people rejecting true prophets. If you've read all of my essay, and didn't just dip your toes in, you can see some discussion. The point of using the full range of information is to be able to make a better, well informed decision.

 

That also would be the point of reading the Margaret Barker essays on The Secret Tradition, on the unwritten teachings of Christianity and "Text and Context" on how the Old Testament scriptures were transmitted.  She wrote both essays before she came into contact with LDS scripture, both both have remarkable relevance to what they contain.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

What do you mean by "serious mistake"? Who are you saying made what mistake?

 

Okay, some people rejected prophets in the Bible. What's your point?

 

The essay has notes on some of the verses, but I didn't see any that explain what Gal. 1:8-9 means.

 

This is not an assumption it is the testimony of the early church Father's and writings. You talk about faith - so you rest your faith on the aforemetioned committee that voted by committee (and political motivations) which books to include in NT centuries after they were written. That's a BIG position of faith to have.

 

Do you include the Apocrypha in your OT? (if not, why not? Millions of Christians do) Do you include the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas in your NT? If not why not - early Christians saw those as scripture.

 

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll and Nag Hamadi library / Gnostic gospels show that writings were "lost".

 

There were many, many OT prophets, not just the ones we have books in OT of. It seems remarkable to think only this handful wrote anything down.

 

Jesus said He gave all authority and power to his apostles. Not to "the books you will write"

 

Light, Love and Peace

The God of the Bible often used rebellious Israel and even pagan people and nations to fulfill His will. Jesus and the apostles seemed to have faith that the Old Testament scriptures didn't need to be restored at all. Why isn't it reasonable that we also have the same faith that the same God would preserve the New Testament scriptures in the same way?

 

It would be one thing if the disagreement on the Gospel involved different interpretations of grace, faith and works, but the LDS Gospel involves a lot more than that. Having faith in the LDS gospel means many important doctrines were completely lost, not just changed, including 3 separate kingdoms in heaven (1 Cor. 15 talks about bodies, not kingdoms), premortal existence, various temple ceremonies and sealing in marriage. Was God unable or unwilling to preserve even part of those doctrines? What other explanation is there? Why is that God even worthy of our faith?

 

NotaMormon, 

 

As I've read through your OP and comments, I think this last statement of yours best summaries your complaint. I'm wondering if you are truly trying to find answers or just argue about old hashed out anti talking points?

 

Plenty has been said here to point you in the right direction for seeking truth.  Remember that the Jews were in apostasy when Christ came, that is why they rejected Him, especially the religious leaders, even though they had the "scriptures".    Why is it a surprise that the same thing has happened 2000 years later, and the world has splintered into thousands of denominations teaching from the same bible?  It's not the bible that makes the true Gospel, it is the living God, through revelation.  

 

 

I would only add one other references, as this is one of my favorites.  

 

2 Corinthians 3:3  "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 

There's a major difference between the formation of the New Testament church and the restoration of the LDS Church. Yes, the Jews were in apostasy and Jesus and the apostles were completely right in correcting them. But Jesus and the apostles never said anything about needing to restore lost scripture. How can the restoration be the 'same thing 2000 years later' when restoration wasn't even part of what happened 2000 years ago? That's hardly the same thing.

 

Isn't the doctrine of 3 separate kingdoms of heaven an important, fundamental part of the LDS gospel? The doctrine isn't in the Bible. 1 Cor. 15:35-44 contrasts heavenly and earthly bodies. The term 'kingdoms' doesn't come up at all. None of the passages that mention the Gospel say anything about separate kingdoms in heaven. Revelation goes into great detail about what heaven will be like, but separate kingdoms aren't mentioned.

 

Sure, the doctrine of 3 heavenly kingdoms may not directly contradict the Gospel in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it's the same Gospel.

 

Oh sure it is the same.  It may not be the same as the same old traditional creeds, but the true gospel is contained in both.

The BOM & D&C just clarifiy and give additional "words that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God".  There is only conflict with the creeds, not with the true meaning of Romans and Galatians.

 

This thread is rapidly turning into the same old evangelical nonsensical attacks.  I see little interest in truth.

See above.

 

As I’ve been pointing out, all the available scriptural texts on a subject should be considered together, with the help of the Spirit. You seem to want to limit your position to five verses; I’m inviting you to look at all that Paul and John said on the subject to ascertain the general principle and a model.

 

The Spirit not only helps us understand Christ’s gospel and doctrinal when we rely solely on scriptural text, but also when we rely on living prophets and apostles (as the hearers of John and Paul did), direct whisperings, tender mercies, life experiences, the various physical, mental and other temporal/spiritual gifts He has given us, etc. I’m inviting you to consider all media through which God reveals and teaches us His word.

 

Using the courtship analogy, there are likewise many ways we learn about the person we decide to marry.

 

Going back to your original question, John and Paul’s model fits the LDS model of asking God if a thing is true so that the power of the Holy Ghost can bear witness that it is.

I'm not limiting my position to 5 verses. I also have some questions about passages in Acts that I might make a thread about later. Yes, looking at the Bible as a whole is very important. But if our big picture view of the Bible fails to take into account a passage where Paul is making such a strong point, then there's a problem with the big picture. I'm asking how Gal. 1:8-9 fits in that big picture.

[thesometimesaint]

Aside from Paul saying women shouldn't speak in church and should have longer hair than men, I'd like you to provide other examples from the New Testament of other so-called misinterpretations, mistranslations, and misapplications of which you speak. And before seeing any of the examples you may provide, I will venture to say I believe nearly all such examples are only called misinterpretations, mistranslations or misapplications by some LDS church members because they lack scriptural understanding.

 

The earth is not flat despite Jesus going onto a very high mountain just outside Jerusalem, and seeing the whole thing.

SEE Matthew 4:8New International Version (NIV)

⁸ Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

[NotaMormon]

Books missing from the Bible

Old Testament

Book of Covenants

Book of wars of the Lord

Book of Jasher

A book of Statutes

Book of Acts of Solomon

Books of Nathan and Gad

Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo

Book of Shemaiah

Book of Jehu

Acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah

Sayings of the Seers

 

New Testament

• The Protevangelion
• The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ
• The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
• The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa
• The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate)
• The Apostles' Creed (throughout history)
• The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans
• The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Seneca, with Seneca's to Paul
• The Acts of Paul and Thecla
• ♦ The Epistles of Clement (The First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians)
• ♦ The Epistle of Barnabas
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans
• ♦ The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
• ♦ The Shepherd of Hermas (Visions, Commands, and Similitudes)
• Letter of Herod To Pilate the Governor
• Letter of Pilate to Herod
• The Lost Gospel of Peter
• ♦ The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

 

So why hasn't any LDS prophet restorred any of those books? Why didn't Christ or the apostles restore any of those OT books? Either they weren't inspired scripture from God or the doctrines they mention are already explained in other books we have. So can we agree that none of those books need to be restored? Then what's the problem?

 

NotaMormon, basically anything in the Bible that supports LDS truth claims is considered 100% gospel truth, and anything that doesn't is a cultural artifact of the time, or the product of misinterpretation, mistranslation, or misapplication.  That's the short way of saying everything that everyone else is saying by way of explanation.  There is nothing in the Bible that validly contradicts modern LDS teachings.

 

I don't know if you were hoping for this thread to run another 30 or 40 pages, so apologies for spoiling it for you if you were.

Anyone who wants to teach and support any false doctrine would say the same thing. So how do you tell the difference between false teachings and gospel truth?

 

Yes, I know, 'pray and ask God.' Yes, Paul did say prayer is very important. But when it comes to discerning true and false teachers, his instructions were simply 'reject anything that doesn't match the Gospel I taught.' Why should I believe any differently? Or is Paul's teaching to pray to know the true Gospel another lost doctrine? You can literally support any teaching with that logic.

[Freedom]

Galatians 1:8-9 talks about teaching another gospel. Our gospel is the one that he is referring to that we must be teaching. Has it ever occurred to that  your gospel is the one he is warning us about in these verses?  

[Antoni]

"Notamormon" Sorry but you're not listening to us. We're giving you an holistic view of scriptures and you can't seem to understand that.

I studied at an evangelical bible college and grew up in that culture so can empathise with where you're at.

But more than enough has been written here. "seek first to understand then be understood" is my advice for you. As you failed to address my questions I have neither time nor inclination to discuss this further.

Read,study, ponder and pray is my final advice.

Light, love and peace

A

[Bobbieaware]

The earth is not flat despite Jesus going onto a very high mountain just outside Jerusalem, and seeing the whole thing.

SEE Matthew 4:8New International Version (NIV)

⁸ Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

[Vance]

Jesus and the apostles seemed to have faith that the Old Testament scriptures didn't need to be restored at all. Why isn't it reasonable that we also have the same faith that the same God would preserve the New Testament scriptures in the same way?

 

 

So why hasn't any LDS prophet restorred any of those books? Why didn't Christ or the apostles restore any of those OT books? Either they weren't inspired scripture from God or the doctrines they mention are already explained in other books we have. So can we agree that none of those books need to be restored? Then what's the problem?

 

As usual, TOTALLY missing the point.

 

The point is that the Bible is insufficient/incomplete to determine what the Gospel of Jesus Christ really is.

 

Here is a clue for you.  God does NOT prevent evil from happening.  He compensates for it.

 

God does not and did not prevent the loss of scripture and authority, but rather compensates for it.  Thus the restoration.

[Bobbieaware]

The earth is not flat despite Jesus going onto a very high mountain just outside Jerusalem, and seeing the whole thing.

SEE Matthew 4:8New International Version (NIV)⁸ Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Really weak. See Nephi's and Moses' visions from the summits of "exceedingly high mountains" for examples of how visions of this sort work. The high mountain in all three of these instances functioned as a sort of temple/Urim & Thummim, rather than as a high vantage point from which to see long distances. Even back in the days of Christ's ministry, this interpretation would have been considered absurd.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[NotaMormon]

Jesus and his apostles came before the apostasy so of course they would not have mentioned the loss of books. Besides, since God is a God of ongoing revelation, He would have had no need to report on missing books. He came to reveal his own teachings and only referred to the old testament as support for his teachings. To say 'why wouldn't he' is a logical fallacy called an appeal. It is an argument from silence. For that matter, why did God allow the dark ages or the spanish inquisition, or the crusades or a host of other terrible atrocities perpetrated by his 'disciples'. God allows choice and he allows people to bastardize his doctrines. A superficial reading of the Old Testament will show a constant pattern of apostasy and Restoration. Clearly doctrines have been last in the distant past . . .

If it's so clear, could you give some examples of doctrine taught by OT prophets that were lost by the time Christ was born?

 

Yes, there is clearly a pattern in the Bible of God allowing bad things to happen. But none of that bad behavior in the Bible includes examples of doctrines being lost. The Pharisees certainly didn't understand many prophesies in the OT, but that's not the same as those prophesies being lost. The pattern of bad behavior continued during and after after the apostles lives, so why wouldn't the pattern of doctrines not being lost also continue?

 

If God would not allow his record to be lost, why did Moses have to restore so much? The first 5 books of the bible were all restorative works. What were the teachings that Adam relied upon? If books never get lost, why did we need the prophesies of Isaiah or the council of Malachi? If Jesus restored his gospel, why do we need the teachings of Paul? To use your logic, couldn't Jesus have taught all that needed to be taught during his three year ministry? why do you insist on using the teachings of Paul who never even met the Savior? His teachings certainly do not fit well with the teachings of the Savior. 

Who said Moses restored anything? What verse says anything about him restoring anything? Their culture heavily relied on oral history. Parents and grandparents would pass doctrine and stories to younger generations. But oral history had obvious limitations, so Moses wrote the history down.

 

Paul never met Jesus? Then who did he meet on the road to Damascus? Did that meeting with Jesus not count?

 

Jesus didn't fully explain the Gospel, so He had the NT authors do so. Plus, the NT wouldn't have as much credibility it was all written by one person. The multiple authors give us perspective of the Gospel from multiple walks of life. If God is a God of ongoing revelation and if the Gospel wasn't complete when Paul taught it, then why would he tell people to reject any Gospel different than the one he taught? Why didn't he leave a door open for further Gospel revelation?

 

Galatians 1:8-9 talks about teaching another gospel. Our gospel is the one that he is referring to that we must be teaching. Has it ever occurred to that  your gospel is the one he is warning us about in these verses?

The Gospel I believe only mentions one kingdom of heaven. Paul's Gospel didn't say anything about multiple kingdoms of heaven. But multiple kingdoms of heaven is a very important part of the LDS Gospel. It sounds like I'm closer to Paul's Gospel.

[carbon dioxide]

So since God supernaturally preserved the OT scriptures for 2000-3000 years, why can't we have faith that the same God preserved the NT scriptures for the next 2000 years? God certainly had the power to preserve the scriptures. Why wouldn't He?

God had the power to stop the hijackers on 9/11/01 did he not.  The issue is not whether God has the power to "preserve" the scriptures.  He has the power just as he has the power to stop people from flying planes into buildings.  LDS ask a different question which I believe is far more important.  That being a question of whether God used the power or not.  Its not an issue of can or can't but an issue of did or did not.  One can't assume that God preserved the scriptures because he had the power. One must prove through evidence that it was preserved.  That is much harder to do.

 

So if you believe that God preserved the OT, which version did he preserve?  The Greek and Hebrew versions are different in many areas.   The NT writers often quote from the Greek version which is not the Hebrew version that people read in their Bible.

Edited March 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Bobbieaware]

If it's so clear, could you give some examples of doctrine taught by OT prophets that were lost by the time Christ was born?

 

Yes, there is clearly a pattern in the Bible of God allowing bad things to happen. But none of that bad behavior in the Bible includes examples of doctrines being lost. The Pharisees certainly didn't understand many prophesies in the OT, but that's not the same as those prophesies being lost. The pattern of bad behavior continued during and after after the apostles lives, so why wouldn't the pattern of doctrines not being lost also continue?

 

Who said Moses restored anything? What verse says anything about him restoring anything? Their culture heavily relied on oral history. Parents and grandparents would pass doctrine and stories to younger generations. But oral history had obvious limitations, so Moses wrote the history down.

 

Paul never met Jesus? Then who did he meet on the road to Damascus? Did that meeting with Jesus not count?

 

Jesus didn't fully explain the Gospel, so He had the NT authors do so. Plus, the NT wouldn't have as much credibility it was all written by one person. The multiple authors give us perspective of the Gospel from multiple walks of life. If God is a God of ongoing revelation and if the Gospel wasn't complete when Paul taught it, then why would he tell people to reject any Gospel different than the one he taught? Why didn't he leave a door open for further Gospel revelation?

 

The Gospel I believe only mentions one kingdom of heaven. Paul's Gospel didn't say anything about multiple kingdoms of heaven. But multiple kingdoms of heaven is a very important part of the LDS Gospel. It sounds like I'm closer to Paul's Gospel.

Because the following earlier post of mine was posted in response to another participant on this thread, you may have missed it. Since it's germane to the above, I'll repost it here:

"Excellent post. Throughout the years, I've been fascinated to hear Christian critics of the restored church quote that warning of Paul's in Galatians 1 with great confidence that their beliefs are in total harmony with Paul's teachings, when it's obvious to any critical thinker they are not. This non-critical view of their own position has always seemed rather odd in light of the fact that they're often such biblical literalists. Do the churches these critics attend have much resemblance to the Church of Christ Paul described and championed in his epistles? absolutely not.

The Church of Paul's day had living apostles and prophets, continuing revelation, an unclosed and expanding canon of scripture, visions of the Father and the Son, heavenly visions and visitations from angels, a belief that the gospel is preached to the dead, an ordinance of baptism for the dead, a belief that there are three degrees of heavenly glory, an ongoing and dynamic "worldwide" missionary effort, water baptism (often rejected as unnecessary by our critics), and ordinance of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (also rarely acknowledged or performed by our critics), a belief in theosis, a belief that there need to be living prophets of God on earth who possess the sealing power Christ gave to Peter, etcetera. So while claiming the LDS Church and gospel don!t square with Paul's teachings, they are oblivious to the fact that their churches and beliefs have strayed far from what's plainly taught in the Bible.

Many years ago, while at a very well attended anti-Mormon lecture, an Evangelical minister approached me and said, "I'll tell you what's wrong with you Mormons: you follow your prophets and not Christ!" I responded by asking him the following question: "If you were a follower of Christ during the New Testament era, could you have rejected the Church leadership and prophetic authority of Peter, James, John and Paul and still be considered a true follower of Christ?" With an expression like that of a deer with eyes caught in the headlights, he was speechless. it appeared obvious that question had never before crosses his mind. Such is the state of those who lack the ability to think critically."

[NotaMormon]

God had the power to stop the hijackers on 9/11/01 did he not.  The issue is not whether God has the power to "preserve" the scriptures.  He has the power just as he has the power to stop people from flying planes into buildings.  LDS ask a different question which I believe is far more important.  That being a question of whether God used the power or not.  Its not an issue of can or can't but an issue of did or did not.  One can't assume that God preserved the scriptures because he had the power. One must prove through evidence that it was preserved.  That is much harder to do.

 

So if you believe that God preserved the OT, which version did he preserve?  The Greek and Hebrew versions are different in many areas.   The NT writers often quote from the Greek version which is not the Hebrew version that people read in their Bible.

There is a clear pattern in the Bible of God letting people behave badly. Is there also a pattern of God letting important doctrines get lost? Could you give some examples? Why should we assume such a significant event, or series of events, happened when there's no pattern of that event in scripture?

 

Naturally, Hebrew scripture will be different if it's translated to Greek first than if it's translated directly to English. What differences are you talking about? Do they teach different doctrines?

 

Because the following earlier post of mine was posted in response to another participant on this thread, you may have missed it. Since it's germane to the above, I'll repost it here:

Yes, I saw it, but felt my other posts addressed the issues he brought up.

Edited March 9, 2015 by NotaMormon

[CV75]

Yes, looking at the Bible as a whole is very important. But if our big picture view of the Bible fails to take into account a passage where Paul is making such a strong point, then there's a problem with the big picture. I'm asking how Gal. 1:8-9 fits in that big picture.

I think I've covered this already.

 

So, in order to continue this conversation, I’ll simply ask what you don’t understand about what I have already said in relation to any other gospel than that Christ came into the world to do the will of His Father, to atone for our sins and be lifted up upon the cross, and according to the power of the Father draw all of us unto Him in the resurrection to be judged according to our works, having had the opportunity to wash our garments in His blood and become clean to enter His kingdom (this is where the attendant principles, doctrines and covenants come in). Of course anything supplanting, mimicking, denying, or contradicting a correct definition (in the big picture) would false.