Biblical Keys For Discerning True And False Prophets

[Bobbieaware]

Thanks for posting the podcast link, Tacenda. Really enjoyed it!

Edited March 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[NotaMormon]

   NaM Perhaps we should start at the Beggining [ First Things] - Grace What is it ?, do we agree on that or not  ?.

   No anaylisis by you of the substance of my links to my posts #s 136/139

   Where do you Worship ? [Church Denomination] Thank you.

 

In His Debt/Grace

        Anakin7

No, we don't agree on what grace is. What does that have to with the question of why so many core LDS gospel doctrines are missing from every gospel sermon in the Bible?

 

I go to a non-denominational church, but it's basically protestant.

 

I refuse to get bogged down in another 300 page Christianity debate.  It serves absolutely no purpose.

The scriptures in the New Testament teach the doctrines of Mormonism.  Sectarian Christianity has blinded themselves to the truths contained therein.  I cannot force you to see them.

And Paul did not get the gospel directly from Jesus.  They never met.  Jesus called Paul to the ministry.  Peter got the gospel directly from Christ and he and Paul disagreed on doctrine at times.

 

As for NT pre-existence, the apostles understood it as evidenced in John 9:2.  Christ corrected their error on sins, but did not correct any premortal notions.

That's it? Paul never teaches the doctrine of 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, yet you want me to accept just because you and the LDS church say so?

 

Paul didn't get the gospel directly from Christ? Then what was Paul talking about in Gal 1:11-12, I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

 

I hadn't heard that verse used in that way before, but I found someone who has done more research on it, http://blog.mrm.org/2012/07/does-john-91-3-prove-human-pre-existence/

 

Some Jews believed babies can sin while in the womb, yet Jesus didn't refute that idea. If Jesus took the time to correct every false preconception someone had every time they spoke, he would have spent most of His time talking to a few people, especially since He often knew what they were thinking as well. The Bible never teaches about pre-existence or 3 separate heavenly kingdoms.

 

Who erased all those doctrines from scripture and why did they do so?

 

With all the ammunition in his rhetorical arsenal, why in the world would Paul cite a 'false and apostate' (according to you) practice in order to prove to the saints there is going to be a bodily resurrection of the dead? Go back and read the verse in context: Here we see Paul engaged in a most solemn and critically important endeavor to prover to the saints that those among them who say there is no physical resurrection believe in a spiritually fatal doctrinal error. So what does the great Paul do in the midst of this incredibly intense polemical battle (as with baited-breath the saints awaited Paul's monumentally important rejoinder)? Well he says -- "Just look at those apostates over there who practice the heretical and ineffectual ordinance of baptism for the dead. Why do these apostates (who are going to hell if they don't repent) believe in being baptized for the dead if there is no bodily resurrection?" ... Really??? In this

all-important doctrinal battle of such great consequence, this is the best the great prophet and theologian named Paul can come up with? He points to damned apostates and says, "Look at those heretics over there. The false practices of these apostates prove beyond doubt that there is going to be a bodily resurrection of the dead." Ridiculous and totally unworthy of a mind as great as Paul's. To think he couldn't do better than this is to think that which is not possible.

Without living apostles and prophets, the people are doomed to be carried about and tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

Paul was a lawyer and he had a variety of logical tactics, including using someone's own logic against them. When he was on Mars Hill in Acts 17, he said the 'unknown God' they worshiped is actually the 'God who made the world.' In verse 28, he quotes from pagan poetry. When Paul was arrested and almost flogged in Acts 22, he got out of it by mentioning that he was a Roman citizen.

 

The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs, like the nearby city Eleusis and a pagan religion that practiced baptism in the sea to guarantee a good afterlife. Some people in the Corinthian church were being influenced by those pagan beliefs of baptism, yet they were saying there is no resurrection from the dead. So Paul used their own pagan logic of baptism for the dead to support his point, just like in Acts 17 where he uses pagan poetry to support his point.

 

Also, notice that Paul never says anything that suggests the church was practicing baptism for the dead. The verse says "those" and "they" were baptizing for the dead, not "we."

 

No, Paul didn't go straight to bringing up pagan practices. The topic of resurrection from the dead starts in verse 3. Paul makes a very strong case for resurrection of the dead just by talking about Christ's resurrection. But then he rounds out his point by bringing up pagan logic like he does in many other places.

 

The Bible never teaches baptism for the dead.

[Freedom]

 

 

Also, notice that Paul never says anything that suggests the church was practicing baptism for the dead. The verse says "those" and "they" were baptizing for the dead, not "we."

 

No, Paul didn't go straight to bringing up pagan practices. The topic of resurrection from the dead starts in verse 3. Paul makes a very strong case for resurrection of the dead just by talking about Christ's resurrection. But then he rounds out his point by bringing up pagan logic like he does in many other places.

 

The Bible never teaches baptism for the dead.

|No it does not say this at all. It is an if-then statement. the 'they' was added later by non-inspired scribes proving more clearly that the bible is flawed since it has lead you to have a false understanding of biblical doctrine. An 'if-then' presents a truth and a lie together to prove the lie false. For example, is smoking does not cause cancer, why are there an alarming amount of smokers with cancer?  

 

The original Greek uses the passive: "Otherwise, what will do the ones being baptized for the dead?" So you argument about 'they' falls apart as a false assumption based on a poor translation. 

Otherwise, what shall do the ones being baptized for the dead (truth), if the dead rise not at all (falsehood)? Why are ones then baptized for the dead (truth)?

[NotaMormon]

|No it does not say this at all. It is an if-then statement. the 'they' was added later by non-inspired scribes proving more clearly that the bible is flawed since it has lead you to have a false understanding of biblical doctrine. An 'if-then' presents a truth and a lie together to prove the lie false. For example, is smoking does not cause cancer, why are there an alarming amount of smokers with cancer?  

 

The original Greek uses the passive: "Otherwise, what will do the ones being baptized for the dead?" So you argument about 'they' falls apart as a false assumption based on a poor translation. 

Otherwise, what shall do the ones being baptized for the dead (truth), if the dead rise not at all (falsehood)? Why are ones then baptized for the dead (truth)?

There's more to the Greek than that. The term in question, "baptizontai," is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is 'they are being baptized' or 'they are baptized.' How else do you translate 3rd person plural? If Paul was including the church in practicing baptizing for the dead, he would have used 1st person plural, or 'we,' but he didn't. Don't just take my word for it. Most translations, including the KJV, translate the 3rd person plural as "they." What reason to do you have to not trust that part of scripture?

Edited March 20, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Bobbieaware]

No, we don't agree on what grace is. What does that have to with the question of why so many core LDS gospel doctrines are missing from every gospel sermon in the Bible?

I go to a non-denominational church, but it's basically protestant.

That's it? Paul never teaches the doctrine of 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, yet you want me to accept just because you and the LDS church say so?

Paul didn't get the gospel directly from Christ? Then what was Paul talking about in Gal 1:11-12, I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

I hadn't heard that verse used in that way before, but I found someone who has done more research on it, http://blog.mrm.org/2012/07/does-john-91-3-prove-human-pre-existence/

Some Jews believed babies can sin while in the womb, yet Jesus didn't refute that idea. If Jesus took the time to correct every false preconception someone had every time they spoke, he would have spent most of His time talking to a few people, especially since He often knew what they were thinking as well. The Bible never teaches about pre-existence or 3 separate heavenly kingdoms.

Who erased all those doctrines from scripture and why did they do so?

Paul was a lawyer and he had a variety of logical tactics, including using someone's own logic against them. When he was on Mars Hill in Acts 17, he said the 'unknown God' they worshiped is actually the 'God who made the world.' In verse 28, he quotes from pagan poetry. When Paul was arrested and almost flogged in Acts 22, he got out of it by mentioning that he was a Roman citizen.

The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs, like the nearby city Eleusis and a pagan religion that practiced baptism in the sea to guarantee a good afterlife. Some people in the Corinthian church were being influenced by those pagan beliefs of baptism, yet they were saying there is no resurrection from the dead. So Paul used their own pagan logic of baptism for the dead to support his point, just like in Acts 17 where he uses pagan poetry to support his point.

Also, notice that Paul never says anything that suggests the church was practicing baptism for the dead. The verse says "those" and "they" were baptizing for the dead, not "we."

No, Paul didn't go straight to bringing up pagan practices. The topic of resurrection from the dead starts in verse 3. Paul makes a very strong case for resurrection of the dead just by talking about Christ's resurrection. But then he rounds out his point by bringing up pagan logic like he does in many other places.

The Bible never teaches baptism for the dead.

The unknown god was the true God whom those on Mars Hill were hoping one day to come to know. In other words, the unknown God was a blank space in the minds of Greek philosophers that they hoped to fill in, not an already acknowledged pagan deity like Zeus or Mercury. Poor example, weak argument. Please find a legitimate example of Paul resorting to using false teachings to demonstrate gospel truths.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

The Bible never teaches baptism for the dead.

 

This is the main point. There is no instruction, no commandment, not detailed description of said practice. Not from Paul, Peter, John, Jesus  or anyone, or anywhere in the Bible! 

Edited March 20, 2015 by danielwoods

[JLHPROF]

This is the main point. There is no instruction, no commandment, not detailed description of said practice. Not from Paul, Peter, John, Jesus  or anyone, or anywhere in the Bible! 

 

Except in

John 21:25

Acts 1:3

[teddyaware]

This is the main point. There is no instruction, no commandment, not detailed description of said practice. Not from Paul, Peter, John, Jesus  or anyone, or anywhere in the Bible! 

 

i've said it before and now I'm going to have say it again: The Bible does not contain all Gospel truth! Yet, for the life of me, I have never been able to understand why so many non-LDS Christians seem to think it does...

 

Is it not true that Christ had a forty day post-resurrection ministry among His disciples of which we know virtually nothing, except that He taught them many things pertaining to the kingdom of God? Is it not true the apostle John testified that if all Christ's teachings were put to print that not even all the books in the whole world could contain them? Is it not true that that the sacred truths uttered by the voices of the seven thunders in the Book of Revelation were known to John and the angel, yet we haven't a clue as to what it is they had to say? Is it not true that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews yearned to give the New Testament saints the deeper and more profound teachings of the Gospel, but he was unable to because they were still babes in the Gospel and only able to digest milk, not the harder to digest meat? Is it not true that in 1 Corinthians 3 Paul also wanted to give the saints the same deeper teachings of the Gospel, but was unable to do so because the people were yet carnal and unprepared? Is it not true that there will be two latter-day prophets who will teach and prophesy in Israel, yet we know not what it is they are going to preach? And is it not true the Bible tells us that there are inspired New Testament era writings (such as the original first epistle to the Corinthians) that are, for reasons unknown, lost to the world and not included in the Bible?

 

For all the above reasons and more, all of this talk of "if it's not in the Bible we won't believe it" will get you nowhere with Latter-day Saints who have the testimony of Jesus and the spirit of prophecy. Bottom line? The Latter-day Saints do not believe all Gospel truth is recorded in the Bible and we're not going to be convinced to walk down a road that forces God's mouth shut as the world goes insane. Get over it if you can...

Edited March 20, 2015 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

Except in

John 21:25

Acts 1:3

 

 

Below are direct quotes (in the NIV) of your references. Please tell me where Jesus mentioned, or instructed or said anything about baptism for the dead in these verses you say he did? 

 

John 21:25 - "25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Acts 1:3 - "3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."

[carbon dioxide]

This is the main point. There is no instruction, no commandment, not detailed description of said practice. Not from Paul, Peter, John, Jesus  or anyone, or anywhere in the Bible! 

So what.  The New Testament only consists of  27 writings and many of them are short letters from Paul.  Does anyone really believe that everything that Jesus or the Apostles taught over decades is found in a collection of books that can be read in a week or two?  The fact that those writings really does not cover that practice or doctrine or any other practice or doctrine does not prove anything.  I can't even find evidence that 1% of the New Testament doctrines and practices are found in the New Testament.  It is like the claim that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality.  Really?  How does on know that Jesus did not speak about the subject in great detail on March 3, 29 A.D.  Just because it is not written in the the current records does not prove he did not speak about it on that day or any other day.  The New Testament is not a daily minutes record of Jesus life.  Which is a strength of the LDS position.  We don't rely just on the Bible. 

[danielwoods]

i've said it before and now I'm going to have say it again: The Bible does not contain all Gospel truth! Yet, for the life of me, I have never been able to understand why so many non-LDS Christians seem to think it does...

 

The Latter-day Saints do not believe all Gospel truth is recorded in the Bible and we're not going to be convinced to walk down a road that forces God's mouth shut as the world goes insane. Get over it if you can...

 

And that's fine. I am responding to the claim that all the LDS beliefs are found in the Bible. They are not. 

 

There are many groups that believe in their prophet or teaching, and again that's fine. But, if they claim that those teachings are found in the Biblical text, which they often do as well, then I feel it's my duty to point out the error of that belief. 

 

As for why I might believe that the Bible contains the whole gospel truth? Because of the evidence. There is no evidence that vital things were taken out, or made up along the way. We have not just the Biblical text. We have the history surrounding the text, then we have the church fathers writings that quote the same text, and talk about it, then we have the early history of the Catholic church. None of which point to vital things being taken out, and as such yes the evidence points to the Bible being very accurate on the topic of containing all of the Gospel truth. 

[carbon dioxide]

And that's fine. I am responding to the claim that all the LDS beliefs are found in the Bible. They are not. 

 

There are many groups that believe in their prophet or teaching, and again that's fine. But, if they claim that those teachings are found in the Biblical text, which they often do as well, then I feel it's my duty to point out the error of that belief. 

 

As for why I might believe that the Bible contains the whole gospel truth? Because of the evidence. There is no evidence that vital things were taken out, or made up along the way. We have not just the Biblical text. We have the history surrounding the text, then we have the church fathers writings that quote the same text, and talk about it, then we have the early history of the Catholic church. None of which point to vital things being taken out, and as such yes the evidence points to the Bible being very accurate on the topic of containing all of the Gospel truth. 

If LDS believed that all truths was found in the Bible, there would be no need for the Book of Mormon, D&C, ect.  Many of the foundational, fundamental truths of the LDS faith are in the Bible but saying all truth is found in the Bible is like saying all truth in mathematics is found in an Algebra book. 

 

We don't have the original biblical texts.  We have copies that post date the originals by hundreds of years.  The fact that the Bible maybe fairly accurate to what was originally written does not mean that it has been perfectly preserved.  No evidence to support that claim though it is a very easy claim to make.

[UtahTexan]

And that's fine. I am responding to the claim that all the LDS beliefs are found in the Bible. They are not. 

 

There are many groups that believe in their prophet or teaching, and again that's fine. But, if they claim that those teachings are found in the Biblical text, which they often do as well, then I feel it's my duty to point out the error of that belief. 

 

As for why I might believe that the Bible contains the whole gospel truth? Because of the evidence. There is no evidence that vital things were taken out, or made up along the way. We have not just the Biblical text. We have the history surrounding the text, then we have the church fathers writings that quote the same text, and talk about it, then we have the early history of the Catholic church. None of which point to vital things being taken out, and as such yes the evidence points to the Bible being very accurate on the topic of containing all of the Gospel truth. 

 

How can you say there is no evidence of things taken out?  Start with all the Books mentioned that do not exist.  Where are the Books?  and if you do not know what the books contain, how can you make any judgments?

 

And how abut the different changes in meanings from translation to translation?  Sometimes, even though the changes have been subtle.....they are significant.  So....?

 

And if no the Gospel truth is soooo clear and complete....why is there such disagreement?  Like, on John 6?  

 

Do not make claims about the Bible that are not accurate, please

[JLHPROF]

And that's fine. I am responding to the claim that all the LDS beliefs are found in the Bible. They are not. 

 

There are many groups that believe in their prophet or teaching, and again that's fine. But, if they claim that those teachings are found in the Biblical text, which they often do as well, then I feel it's my duty to point out the error of that belief.

 

I don't think that ALL LDS beliefs are found in the Bible in their fullness.

However, I do believe that Christ and his apostles practiced the same religion (mostly) as the LDS Church today.  As such I believe that hints and allusions to MOST LDS beliefs are found in the Bible.

[danielwoods]

If LDS believed that all truths was found in the Bible, there would be no need for the Book of Mormon, D&C, ect.  Many of the foundational, fundamental truths of the LDS faith are in the Bible but saying all truth is found in the Bible is like saying all truth in mathematics is found in an Algebra book. 

 

We don't have the original biblical texts.  We have copies that post date the originals by hundreds of years.  The fact that the Bible maybe fairly accurate to what was originally written does not mean that it has been perfectly preserved.  No evidence to support that claim though it is a very easy claim to make.

 

Notice I said, "There is no evidence that vital things were taken out, or made up along the way. "

 

I didn't say we had the originals, I didn't say it was perfectly preserved. If you have evidence that vital doctrines were taken out, then I'm all ears. 

[danielwoods]

How can you say there is no evidence of things taken out?  Start with all the Books mentioned that do not exist.  Where are the Books?  and if you do not know what the books contain, how can you make any judgments?

 

And how abut the different changes in meanings from translation to translation?  Sometimes, even though the changes have been subtle.....they are significant.  So....?

 

And if no the Gospel truth is soooo clear and complete....why is there such disagreement?  Like, on John 6?  

 

Do not make claims about the Bible that are not accurate, please

 

Your accusations don't match what I said. 

[UtahTexan]

Your accusations don't match what I said. 

 

They do.  

 

If you cannot explain the missing Books, just say so.  If you cannot explain the different interpretations, just say so,

[carbon dioxide]

Notice I said, "There is no evidence that vital things were taken out, or made up along the way. "

 

I didn't say we had the originals, I didn't say it was perfectly preserved. If you have evidence that vital doctrines were taken out, then I'm all ears. 

Unless we have the originals, we can't say one way or the other if a vital doctrine was taken out.   One can believe that no vital doctrine was take out but proving that from evidence is not possible.   Its another reason why I believe the LDS position is a stronger position.  LDS don't need every doctrine in the Bible to be there.  If vital doctrines were taken out, they can be restored by other ways.  The whole warning in Rev 22:18-19 by John that nobody should add or take away from that book is a strong indication that John thought it was indeed possible to corrupt the scriptures and remove important stuff or add stuff that should not be there. 

[Freedom]

There's more to the Greek than that. The term in question, "baptizontai," is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is 'they are being baptized' or 'they are baptized.' How else do you translate 3rd person plural? If Paul was including the church in practicing baptizing for the dead, he would have used 1st person plural, or 'we,' but he didn't. Don't just take my word for it. Most translations, including the KJV, translate the 3rd person plural as "they." What reason to do you have to not trust that part of scripture?

Is this your way of ignoring the reality that it is an if-then construct?

[Freedom]

Notice I said, "There is no evidence that vital things were taken out, or made up along the way. "

 

I didn't say we had the originals, I didn't say it was perfectly preserved. If you have evidence that vital doctrines were taken out, then I'm all ears. 

I am afraid that you have it backwards. You are the one that has to prove that the bible contains all the vital doctrines. You see, the bible never makes such a claim, so for you to propose such a doctrine, you have to provide evidence that it is so. Otherwise, we have no evidence that anything in the bible is of any value at all. 

[NotaMormon]

The unknown god was the true God whom those on Mars Hill were hoping one day to come to know. In other words, the unknown God was a blank space in the minds of Greek philosophers that they hoped to fill in, not an already acknowledged pagan deity like Zeus or Mercury. Poor example, weak argument. Please find a legitimate example of Paul resorting to using false teachings to demonstrate gospel truths.

Okay, 1 Cor 6:12 and 10:23.

 

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.

 

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

 

Those verses make it sound like Paul is teaching a relativistic, pragmatic philosophy. Since all things are lawful, then we have the freedom to sleep around, get drunk and live our lives however we want as long as we're not being dominated by those things or hurting anyone. Right? Paul says "All things are lawful," without directly condemning the idea, so it must be a good idea as long as we're not dominated by it.

 

Except in

John 21:25

Acts 1:3

So where are those books? Why hasn't any LDS prophet restored a book of Jesus teaching the apostles about baptism for the dead, 3 separate heavenly kingdoms, the pre-existence, marriage sealing in the temple, etc.? Yes, the Book of Mormon has Jesus in it, but most of His teachings there are, as you put it, "a rehash of stuff they'd already covered in the recorded gospels." How can the LDS church have the restored gospel without restoring those lost books?

 

I think we actually agree on this: We don't need a transcript of everything Jesus said and did every minute He was on earth as long as we have scripture teaching us the doctrines He taught. It's coming off as hypocritical for you to claim all other churches are in apostasy without those lost books when your "restored" church doesn't have those lost books either.

 

i've said it before and now I'm going to have say it again: The Bible does not contain all Gospel truth! Yet, for the life of me, I have never been able to understand why so many non-LDS Christians seem to think it does...

 

Is it not true that Christ had a forty day post-resurrection ministry among His disciples of which we know virtually nothing, except that He taught them many things pertaining to the kingdom of God? Is it not true the apostle John testified that if all Christ's teachings were put to print that not even all the books in the whole world could contain them? Is it not true that that the sacred truths uttered by the voices of the seven thunders in the Book of Revelation were known to John and the angel, yet we haven't a clue as to what it is they had to say? Is it not true that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews yearned to give the New Testament saints the deeper and more profound teachings of the Gospel, but he was unable to because they were still babes in the Gospel and only able to digest milk, not the harder to digest meat? Is it not true that in 1 Corinthians 3 Paul also wanted to give the saints the same deeper teachings of the Gospel, but was unable to do so because the people were yet carnal and unprepared? Is it not true that there will be two latter-day prophets who will teach and prophesy in Israel, yet we know not what it is they are going to preach? And is it not true the Bible tells us that there are inspired New Testament era writings (such as the original first epistle to the Corinthians) that are, for reasons unknown, lost to the world and not included in the Bible?

 

For all the above reasons and more, all of this talk of "if it's not in the Bible we won't believe it" will get you nowhere with Latter-day Saints who have the testimony of Jesus and the spirit of prophecy. Bottom line? The Latter-day Saints do not believe all Gospel truth is recorded in the Bible and we're not going to be convinced to walk down a road that forces God's mouth shut as the world goes insane. Get over it if you can...

See above response to JLHPROF. If those lost books are so crucial to having the right beliefs, why haven't they been restored?

 

Is this your way of ignoring the reality that it is an if-then construct?

I'm not denying Paul used an 'if-then' statement. I'm saying his use of a 3rd person, plural form of the word for 'baptized' indicates using 'they' in an English translation is valid. Again, how else would you translate 3rd person plural? If Paul was talking about his own church and his own beliefs when he mentioned the doctrine, he would have used a 1st person plural.

Edited March 21, 2015 by NotaMormon

[JLHPROF]

So where are those books? Why hasn't any LDS prophet restored a book of Jesus teachings the apostles about baptism for the dead, 3 separate heavenly kingdoms, the pre-existence, marriage sealing in the temple, etc.? Yes, the Book of Mormon has Jesus in it, but most of His teachings there are, as you put it, "a rehash of stuff they'd already covered in the recorded gospels." How can the LDS church have the restored gospel without restoring those lost books?

See above response to JLHPROF. If those lost books are so crucial to having the right beliefs, why haven't they been restored?

 

Why do we need those when we can get the word of God straight from the horse's mouth?  God still speaks to man and always will.  Amos tells us God will do nothing without revealing it to his prophets - if God isn't speaking he must be doing nothing.  Scriptures are FULL of places where we are told God will speak, instruct, comfort, reveal, etc, etc.

Much was revealed to Joseph Smith.  Just because you reject it doesn't make it any less God's word than the Bible.

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

See above response to JLHPROF. If those lost books are so crucial to having the right beliefs, why haven't they been restored?

What is more important.  The information or teachings or the lost book itself.  The D&C has plenty of information already in it regarding the organization of the priesthood, the 3 degrees of glory, baptism for the dead, ect.  Plus one also can find a number of things in the JST or inspired version of the Bible.  Remember that Jesus said we are to live by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.  He did not say that we were to live by ever word that would be found in a collection of books called the Bible and nothing else. 

[NotaMormon]

Why do we need those when we can get the word of God straight from the horse's mouth?  God still speaks to man and always will.  Amos tells us God will do nothing without revealing it to his prophets - if God isn't speaking he must be doing nothing.  Scriptures are FULL of places where we are told God will speak, instruct, comfort, reveal, etc, etc.

Much was revealed to Joseph Smith.  Just because you reject it doesn't make it any less God's word than the Bible.

So we essentially agree on the 'lost books' issue. We don't need to have those lost books as long as we get the doctrine through some other source, like maybe the NT epistles.

 

If God will always speak to man just like He did in the Old Testament, how do you interpret Hebrews 1:1-2? Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. It looks like the author was saying God used to speak through prophets, BUT that has changed now that Christ has come and spoken to us.

 

No, that doesn't mean God isn't doing anything. Hebrews goes on to make a very strong case that Christ is our High Priest and is vastly superior to all priests before him. He daily intercedes for our needs and sent the Spirit to guide us. There are other ways God can interact with us other than speaking through prophets.

 

Plus, it's hard to take these LDS claims of consistency seriously when the clams of the Great Apostasy is anything but consistent with the Bible. Yes, God was very consistent with people in the Old Testament. When people rebelled, God let pagan forces rise up against them. But when people called out for help, God usually responded within a generation. There was some variation in how long it took, but it never got even close to 1700 years. People in the 2nd and 3rd century were dying for their faith. Surely they called out to God for help. Why didn't God follow His consistent pattern and do something about it?

 

If your claims said God restored the church in the 3rd or 4th century, it would make a lot more sense. I've heard people say God couldn't restore the church because it wouldn't have survived. How is that consistent with the Old Testament? A god who can't restore and protect his church is not the God of the Bible. What's the point of talking about God's consistency in how He speaks to people if you ignore the consistency of how He responds to and protects people?

[Robert F. Smith]

 

I always find it interesting that critics ALWAYS stop at verse 9, when verse 12 has the key to understanding.

 

  10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

  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.

 

Did Paul get the gospel he preached from scripture?  Did he get it from the Bible?

 

No.

 

Correct.  Paul sincerely believed that Jewish-Christianity was a heresy within Judaism and had been assigned to stamp it out.  It was only via direct revelation that he discovered the truth.

 

Paul had the same Bible his fellow Jews used, the Old Testament (whether in the Septuagint Greek version, or in the Hebrew version) -- Paul was, after all, a trained Pharisaic Rabbi.  That Bible included, at the time, the Book of Enoch, which was later excluded from the Canon.

 

The New Testament did not exist in Paul's day, but now stands as a witness that revelation by the Holy Spirit is the normative way in which one discovers the truth.

 

Matthew 16:17, Jesus himself said to Peter:  "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

II Peter 1:20-21, " . . . no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."