If Mormonism is false, should we do nothing about it?
There seems to be a pervasive notion among many non-Christians that even if Mormonism is a religion fundamentally based on lies, people who know about it should, in a manner of speaking, simply sit back, kick up their feet, and take up wine-tasting. To quote Kevin Barney, a Mormon apologist associated with FAIR:
“I like to think that were I ever to leave, I would simply walk away. This has been the case with those of my family who are no longer involved in the Church, and I hope that I would be able to follow their example should it ever come to that.
“But I may be deluding myself. I have a huge intellectual investment in Mormonism (much, much more than any of my family members who have disengaged), and I can see how it would be hard not to remain engaged in thinking and writing and talking about Mormonism, albeit from a different perspective. Still, I like to think that I would indeed just walk away, take up wine drinking and focus my scholarly sensibilities on something else. Even if I came no longer to believe, I think I would still see the value in the Church for others and would not want to interfere with anyone else’s beliefs.” (>>)
I do not find this to be very loving. I want to live my life in such a way that I treat people the way I would want to be treated if I were in their shoes, especially considering what I know now. It is hard for to think, “If I was a worshiper of Baal and Yahweh was the one true God, I would hope that people would help me stay in ignorance or delusion or hardheartedness.” If I was a Mormon, and if Mormonism was based on a con-man, and if the Bible were still trustworthy in what it says about God and salvation and false prophets, I would want someone to “interfere” with my beliefs. Letting me go my merry way in a delusion isn’t loving. That kind of “tolerance” is for the lazy and cowardly who lack the moral integrity to step up and be gutsy, iconoclastic whistleblowers. Jesus wasn’t lying when he said, “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
If Mormonism isn’t true, it would be incredibly loving and pro-Mormon to help destroy the religious system which enslaves the Mormon people with false promises.
Tragically, I have met scores of Mormons who disagree. I ask them, “If Mormonism isn’t true, would you want to know? If Mormonism isn’t true, and if it is leading people down a spiritually destructive path of damnation and enslavement to deceit, what should Christians like me do about it?” The answers are often shocking, but they reveal the heart’s condition. Apart from the radical, life-changing, perspective-revolutionizing, worldview-shaping work of the Holy Spirit, even the most relevant scripture and compelling arguments for the importance of truth cannot circumcise a calloused heart. As Jesus said, “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:7-8)
Knowing this, Christians are called to be patient and kind, to persist in teaching and correcting, praying that God would “grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:22-26). “What is impossible with men is possible with God” (Luke 18:27).
For discussion: How would you answer the two aforementioned questions?
Note: This thread is not about whether Mormonism is true or false, but rather about what one should do if it is indeed false. Even if you firmly believe Mormonism is true, I would hope that you would still be able to answer the question instead of merely criticizing the hypothetical.
Sorry Chuck, I think you misread my previous post. The “feelings” comment was meant to refer to the people who refused to accept the overwhelming evidence of a round earth, heliocentric universe, etc and was NOT given as a favorable method for figuring stuff out. I think that was apparent in the context of what I wrote, but if not, my apologies.
I don’t want an argument about this – you were just asking how we LDS interpret Matt 16:18. I know you probably interpret it differently so just listen and accept the answer.
We teach that the ‘rock’ that Jesus was talking about upon which the church will be built was revelation. We claim this as Jesus started the conversation about Peter knowing that Jesus was the Son of God by revelation. We do acknowledge that Jesus or the writer of this passage did play with words and Peter’s name, but His reference was to revelation. And true revelation from God can withstand the gates of hell.
As for Peter being a prophet, we believe that because of the succession of our prophets when the prophet dies – ie the senior apostle becomes prophet. Whenever all of the 12 apostles’ names are mentioned, Peter’s is always first – if I remember correctly. But really, this is from modern revelation about Peter being The Prophet to lead the church after Jesus’ death.
Thanks for being honest about this, it’s certainly not made apparent in the Bible.
Peter refers to specific prophetic scripture at the end of Acts 1 speaking of the downfall of Judas and his individual replacement, but there is no indication of a normative pattern for the succession of any others beyond that. Peter at times seems to have an influence of leadership, but at other times this isn’t so apparent. Peter never speaks of himself as of a top office of prophet, nor does any other apostle speak of Peter this way. James, not Peter, seems to have eventually taken the most prominent role of the “three pillars”, (James, Peter, and John). And then after that, of course, Paul (by influence of his letters). The way Paul speaks of his relationship with the other apostles at the beginning of Galatians (where he speaks of his authenticity and apostolic authority) seems odd if apostles were supposed to report to and receive specific direction from the alleged prophet (or the collective group of apostles). While Paul goes to those of influence to corroborate and validate his gospel, he doesn’t indicate that he goes to them to receive authority. In fact, he boasts in the Lord that he didn’t need to receive the authority or content of the gospel from others, including the apostles, which serves as part of his argument for his own apostolic authenticity.
Again, it seems like Mormonism is depending on there being a successful conspiratorial removal of Mormon doctrine from the New Testament—all without the evidence to show for it.
As to the main question. I guess it can be given to anyone about any belief they hold to for so long.
I would have to ask how this comes about. Is it simply the words of man or is it a direct revelation from God?
Remember that Noah must have gone over such ridicule for building a ship without any evidence that it would rain. I have my faith. I don’t have direct evidence to my faith, but I have personal evidence. That is why this would be such a difficult question for me to answer. For it it was men who taught me the basic principles, but it was God who confirmed that to me. So the only Person who could nullify that confirmation would be God.
I realize not much weight is given in this forum to personal truths, faith, or testimony, but to me it has carried me my whole life. It is apart of me, and to reject that part of me does not negate its existence. If we do look at the words of men, their philosophies, over the ages they have been ammended, modified, or outright deleted. But the word that comes from God is more powerful than the most carismatic leader, more profound than the deepest scholar, and more penetrating than the sharpest tounge.
How could I even doubt what I have felt in me for my whole life.
If there are seeming inconsistancies I only say, “Wait.” Give it time. My testimony comes not from whether or not it is proven a horse existed in the Americas before a certain date, or whether every since word out of Brother Brigham’s mouth was truly prophetic, but upon my Lord and my God.
How do I know? He tells them to me. I have experiences that have led me further in my knowledge of His gospel. Some of which are very personal. If I reject these things then I know I would be rejecting my faith and who I am.
I tell you all, that 177 years is far too short a time to be calling in all that our church has claimed, or for any church for that matter. How long did it take for the Dead Sea scrolls to come to light?
I’m really eager to get some recorded testimonies from true fundamentalist Mormons on MP3 for you guys. It’s really intimidating for a lot of mainstream Mormons (i.e. liberal Mormons who have rejected original fundamentals) to hear them because they share a lot of the same expressions of emotions, crying, phrases, motifs/themes, talk of experiences, talk of “I can’t deny what I’ve felt”, etc.
You’d think you were hearing a mainstream Mormon, but it’s really just someone bearing witness of the truthfulness and divinity of their own clan and of the beauty of polygamy.
Jacob, I know I’ve said this elsewhere, but just for the sake of observation please notice that you seem to be distinguishing the Bible from the revelatory word of God, implying that the Bible is the word of man and not also the direct word of God.
I’m willing to listen to the evidence, but so far I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that the Bible was changed to the degree that any major (or even minor?) doctrines were impacted. On the other hand, it seems like much of Mormonism has been radically “amended, modified, or outright deleted”. I think for example of the more classically monotheistic Lectures on/of Faith (since removed from the mainstream LDS canon), the evolution of the concept of priesthood authority in the early 1830’s (retroactively embellishing early stories about priesthood ordination), the evolution of the First Vision accounts which correspond to parallel theological developments in Mormonism, the Adam-God teaching integrated in the St. George temple, the teaching that polygamy—an everlasting covenant and principle intimately woven into the early usage of the term ‘Celestial marriage’—was absolutely necessary for Celestial exaltation, the evolution of the meaning and usage of the terms Jehovah, Elohim, and Michael (authoritatively promoted in 1916 to counteract the confusion caused by, among other things, the still-surviving Adam-God teaching), the modified “divine investiture” doctrine used as a sort of damage-control Band-Aid to deal with an internally conflicting canon, and the shifts to and from traditional Lorenzo Snow couplet theology.
On some of these issues I heartily recommend this essay by Thomas G. Alexander, a renowned Mormon historian.
Pingback: Mormon Coffee » On Fruits of the Spirit, a Particularly Bad Work of the Flesh, and Satan’s Power
That’s fine about getting the testimonies from true Fundamentalists – They come from the same background so of course they would have similar teachings, sayings and attributes in their testimonies.
I wonder if I got a testimony from a homosexual who identifies with being Evangelical Christian. Would it be the same as yours? Would they say that they prayed for forgivness of sins and accepting Jesus as their Saviour and received knowledge that they were saved. I know most of you will not accept an open homosexual as a true Christian, but there are those out there which do say they are Christian and they have become saved by accepting Jesus. So are they correct because they follow your teachings? Does their similar testimonies and teachings prove that your beliefs are wrong?
My point – Just because they sound the same and do things the same because of a common background does not prove that both, either or neither are false.
So go ahead Aaron, get the recordings if you can, it won’t make a difference to how I feel about the truthfulness my beliefs. It would be interesting to hear though.
I just wanted to comment on this idea from the Mormons on how God answers prayer…
Seems like the Mormons pray about an issue, and then wait to feel something in their heart, as the answer?
I guess I’ve never found that to be reliable.When I pray about a problem, and ask God to fix it, or what I should do…I never wait for a “feeling”. I always wait for a clear answer. For example, when I had a situation where someone was persecuting me unjustly, I prayed about it and waited to see what would happen…and at the same time tried to maintain my standards of behavior in line with scripture…and lo and behold the situation was resolved in a way that was clearly a “miracle”. (This person was removed entirely from the situation, by an outside source.)
I’m curious how other Christians interpret their answers to prayer requests like this…
lillym, that is truly an answer to a prayer and it sounds like God delivered you without you only having to ask. A true testimony to the fact that prayer works. Now answer this question honestly. How did you feel afterward?
I would dare say you felt happy, relieved, loved by God, grateful, over joyed, etc. If you didn’t, then there is something missing.
Just a reminder, if you haven’t already, be sure to pray again and express your gratitude for the miracle you received.
It is a big question amongst members of our faith, “How do you know if what you are feeling is from God or it is just an emotional response.” What I have heard is, if you put yourself in order with keeping the commandments, saying your personal prayers, and reading the scriptures, that through those things you can make yourself receptive to the spirit. And through much practice you eventually learn to dicern the difference between the two.
So, I can see your concern over our “feelings” (how do we truly trust our feelings) but when I have felt these things it was when I had placed myself in the proper situation.
Perhaps it isn’t that we LDS say that following the commandments is a saving situation, but perhaps following the commandments puts us into a more spiritual setting to be more receptive to God’s word.
Ralph, just want to comment on the homosexual as Christian reference. First of all, this is off topic, but I think brings out some important items. Of course we believe gays can become Christian. What follows is that once they accept Christ, they are to leave their behavior behind and follow Christ. If they don’t leave that behind, can they be Christian? Well, again, yes, they can be. But I would have to wonder about their sincerity to God and his word.
Bringing in the topic of the post here, if it is a lie, if homosexuality is a lie, if whatever is a lie and someone tries to endorse or practice it, it is up to the rest of the church and those involved to speak up and teach and encourage the person to leave that way of life or belief and follow Christ. If they reject this teaching, then I would not call them Christian.
So in short, while they may still believe in Christ, they may still need correction from those who are more mature.
I have a hard time with your statement that if you “put yourself in order with keeping the commandments” that you can eventually gain the ability to discern between right and wrong. The issue that I have is that the Bible teaches that we are all suffer from sin and that none of us clean without being made so by Christ:
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (I John 1:8)
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:19-21)
According to the Biblical worldview, God’s commandments don’t exist as a test by which we can prove our righteousness to God. The commandments exist to keep sin in check and yet show us our own condemnation so that we will want Christ more and become righteous by faith in him(Romans 5, Gal 3)
There is still the question that hasn’t been answered satisfactorially. Why do varied groups claim to know the “truth” through spiritual epiphany and feelings and yet their “truth” is conflict with the teachings of the mainstream LDS church.
I have mentioned John Wesley and the early Methodist movement. I have known pentecostals who have claimed the same. Every cult that I met on my mission used the same teaching to gain converts.
What about fundamentalist Mormons? I knew a family that left the mainstream LDS to follow the Allred group. They were descent people who valued God, and yet gained testimonies that the mainstream LDS church had gone astray, that Owen Allred was God’s prophet, and that they needed to live polygamy in order to please God. Why didn’t your method work for them?
Ed, that is easy. You must be obedience to the commandments also. You must obey Gods law to know that the fruits of the spirit are coming from God. If you are outside the lines of the law, then you are feeling your will and not the will of God.
To know if something is a lie, you cannot be deceived yourself. You all continue to say, “According to Biblical worldview”… who cares what the world thinks. We are commanded to be IN the world, not OF the world. I live “according to Biblical Gods view.” I’m not certain how you can claim to have the truth when “according to Biblical worldview” there isn’t even any further communications with God. How can you pretend to know what God is thinking by reading a few select books of inspired men, canonized by the Catholic church? Don’t get me wrong, I accept the Bible as the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly, but with so many people interpreting it a different way, how do you know your interpretation is correct without God being able to confirm it?
I think you missed my point. Aaron said he would like to get some testimonies from Fundamentalists to show us that they have the same testimony as the mainstream LDS church – ie same attitude, attributes and words. This was (in my understanding) to show us that we are wrong with our teachings of the feelings of the Holy Ghost – which then can be used to try and show we are wrong altogether. My point was that there are people out there that identify with being Evangelical Christian and have the same testimony as other Evangelical Christians but are excluded from the mainstream Ev movement because of their lifestyle/slightly differing opinions/etc. I used homosexuals because I know SOME (not all) on this site are totally against them being classed as Christian if they are living in a homosexual relationship. Just because two groups with a similar or same background uses the same words/attitutes/etc does not show that one, both or neither are correct.
As for homosexuals being Christian – The Uniting Church in Australia (compromising Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregational Union) have decided that they will accept homosexuals into the fold and ordain them as ministers. This happened a couple of years ago around the same time as the Church of England in America decided to ordain a homosexual man as a Bishop or priest (I can’t remember which but he leads the parish). So there are some Christian churches that are starting to accept openly homosexuals as Christian and allowing them to live their lifestyle while partaking of the Christian benefits (for lack of a better word).
Just two comments one everyone has a worldview, that is a view of the world, as you stated we are commanded to be in the world but not of it. Thus how we view the world, our worldview, should be shaped by this. Everyone in the world has a worldview, it is what shapes this view of the world around us that differs.
Also you state that you believe in the bible so long as it is translated correctly. I may be mistaken but I believe the word you were looking for is transmitted, as any student of language will say that Bible translations such as the KJV, NASB, and ESV are accurate translations from Greek and Hebrew to English. Christians too make this statement as we reject the New World Translation and the Joseph Smith Translation, as errors in translation from the original languages into English can be seen by any first year student of Greek or Hebrew. However I must wonder why you doubt the transmission, that is the copying of the words in the same language is in question? Is it because God could not preserve His written word, or some other reason? Also if you claim that there have been changes how do you account for the changes in the Mormon scriptures, mainly the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants, as anything different?
The way we can accurately determine the difference between a worldview and a biblical view is to search the scriptures. This also applies to determining spiritual truth as well as the scriptures themselves. Test the scripture with scripture.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).
The differences between the BoM & the Bible are very obvious. The thing about the Bible is we don’t have to pray about it to prove to ourselves that it is true. As Christians we accept it as true. It would be sinful to ask God if his word were true. Besides that there is plenty of evidence to prove it is true.
“Jesus replied, ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God’ ” (Matthew 22:29).
“A man who strays from the path of understanding comes to rest in the company of the dead” (Proverbs 21:16).
Again, you can’t say you believe the bible and then question if its words are true.
Everyone is at a different place on their walk with God. Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little. I’m one of those fundamental Mormons that has a testimony of the BoM and Joseph Smith. I left the LDS Church and went to the EV churches and realize I do not need a Church to practice my religion. From my experience with both sets of people intolerance would describe most people in the various churches if you try to have a religious conversation with them. If I wanted to convince or “SAVE” someone living a “lie” I would try and understand how they came to believe what they believe. What teachings they grew up with and what do they love most about their religion. I would listen and get to know that person. But 99% of the people just don’t want to go there. So who are we to teach the meat of the gospel too? You guys argue over the tickest things. Our purpose is to build the Kingdom of God does anyone even care what that is about?
This is the second time that you have misunderstood what I have posted (and I am starting to wonder if you are just looking for reasons to get angry). The Biblical worldview is NOT what the world thinks about the Bible (I agree with you, who cares what the world thinks), but rather what the God through the Bible says about the world around us.
At any rate, your answer to my question still doesn’t cut it, even though it is the same that I always hear from Mormons and use to give myself. The answer is lacking for two reasons:
1) Your reasoning is circular (you are arguing on grounds that are still in dispute). Essentially you are saying that it works right for the LDS because they have the right teachings, and wrong for everyone else because they are wrong. Anybody can make the same argument and conclude that you spiritual epiphany is from your own making because you have the wrong teachings (as many Jehovah’s witnesses, oneness Pentecostals, and fundamentalist Mormons do).
2) The second problem with your response is more fundamental and underscores a self-righteous attitude that so many LDS have. You speak of people who are “oustide the lines of the law” not having any promise. The issue is that the main theme of the New Testament is that ALL MEN are outside the bounds of the law. (Romans 3:9, Romans 3:23, Gal 3:22, etc). That means you, me, every prophet, and everyone else on the earth who has ever lived. When we try to say that we are right with God’s law (or that you can be right with God’s law), we deceive ourselves (I John 1:8), and pride takes root in us (Romans 2:19-23, Matt 7:3-5). When we undertake an honest self-inspection, we painfully realize that we fall short. Given that we are all under sin and commit sin, we are all outside the bounds of God’s law, and your argument falls apart. Since nobody is within the bounds of the law, nobody can claim the promise you make.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not angry, I just think you all talk in circles so I can never get any clarification on where you stand.
woenigma, I agree with most of your comments. But none of you have yet to show why you believe you have the truth. The most common response is, “because the Biblical worldview shows” or “the Bible says.” Yet I have shown biblical reference that contradicts how you interpret the scriptures. So again, how do you know you have the truth and that your interpretation of Gods word is not skewed?
mikeb, you say “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching…” yet you reject the Book of Mormon saying “The differences between the BoM & the Bible are very obvious.” How? The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. It testifies that he is the savior of the world. How does that conflict with the Bible?
Ed, you say “ALL MEN are outside the bounds of the law” and we all “fall short”? So then, if we only have to have faith in Christ to be saved, why do we have commandments? How can we be judged according to our works? If we are completely helpless as you claim, why do we even have the bible? If it were that simple, the bible could contain one phrase alone and it would suffice: “Have faith in Jesus Christ your redeemer, and through him and him alone, regardless of what you do in this life, you will be saved.” That is the essence of what you all teach. So why does the Bible teach about Baptism, being judged by our works, the Holy Ghost, the priesthood, etc.? If it is all just for historical reference, who cares? Who needs it? What does it matter?
I don’t claim to offer any promises, God does. But you refuse to accept the scriptures as they are. So please answer the questions I have asked so I can begin to try to understand what you all are saying. It is extremely unclear what you stand for. Can we simply have faith in Christ and throw out the rest of the Bible?
I do not understand your logic about the Bible being true. There are many people who are either athiest or agnostic who are high in their fields of work including scientists and archaeologists, and you say there is “plenty of evidence to prove it is true.” There is NO evidence of Jesus’ miracles or resurrection. There is very little evidence of things, people and places named in the OT before King Ahab. The oldest manuscripts we have of the Bible are NOT the original. So your statement about evidence is not true. It may be to you or I because we CHOOSE to believe in them, but not to many learned people who research into these things.
And as for your scriptures supporting the validity of the Bible – that can only work if we are sure of the correctness of the manuscripts we have. The original manuscripts would be 100 percent correct and it would be the word of God. But we do not have them and thus cannot say how accurate the manuscripts we have are. For example there is discussion about the 2 verses in 1 Cor 14 (I think) where it discusses women not being allowed to talk in church. One side says that it is Paul’s original writing, the other says that it is an inclusion – But this inclusion would have been made by either Paul himself or a contemporary of his on the original manuscript, like a marginal note, because of the use of references to it in other manuscripts. This would invalidate these verses as scripture. So unless we have the originals, we cannot assume that men are perfect and will translate or copy the scriptures correctly.
I really enjoy your posts. I have not detected any anger only an extremely patience person in your responses. I have only become more cynical with age.
My walk in EV churches has me as confused as you are. What do they believe? Just confess that Jesus is the Savior and throw everything else out? You EV do talk in circles. How many scriptures need to be pointed out that works are part of it! Yet you ignore those scriptures. Also, EVERYONE gets saved even if you don’t CONFESS Jesus is the Christ; once again throw those scriptures out. We all will sin we get it, we need grace, but why not try and follow Jesus’s example isn’t that what Christ asked us to do? Roman’s 5 is still so miss understood. The plan was for Adam to fall! If ONE man(Adam) could make us all DIE then ONE man(Jesus) could save us all. This established the LAW of one man for MANY souls, before this Adam and all of us could not die in our current state. It’s a fact that we all die! This is what Adam gave us. It’s a fact that we all get saved that’s what Jesus gave us. It’s what we do with this life that is important to the Kingdom of GOD and why we were given the opportunity to come to this earth. Read Roman’s 5 pray about it and ponder it with sincere intent. It’s just that simple!
I have been very consistent with the point I’ve tried to make but here it is again. I’ve noticed a pattern with these threads from all of the different topics.
Mormons will say they believe the Bible as true and even use scripture to support the teachings of LDS. But every time there is a rebuttal by an EV using Bible scripture then all of a sudden it’s corrupt and can’t be trusted for numerous reasons. The point is you can not have it both ways. Either the Bible is all correct or it is all corrupt.
Ralph, the point is at least there is evidence with the Bible whether its places, people, events, manuscripts. It’s all there. I challenge you to show any scientific proof to support the BoM.
The BoM is not a complement of the Bible it is plainly another gospel and here is what the Bible warns us not to do…Galatians 1: 6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
This is an example of using Biblical scripture to test scripture. You say the BoM is holy scripture but I just proved using Biblical scripture that it isn’t.
mikeb, let me ask you to resolve the bible issue another way as well. Can you explain why the bible contradicts itself?
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
As for the people and places, you know it references the Americas. I’m not certain why “scientific” proof is the key to evidence.
Rev. 14:6 And I saw another angel (the angel Moroni) fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah (Bible), and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph (Book of Mormon), the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
John 10:16 And other sheep (the people in the Americas) I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
I have just proved using biblical scripture that the Book of Mormon IS Holy Scripture. The Book of Mormon does not contradict the bible. I challenge you to show me how and where it “preaches a different gospel” than the bible.
What James is referring to is…people who were claiming to be Christians but their works or the lack of works were proving other wise. I’m sure the same can be said in Mormonism. You probably know someone that says they are a Mormon but you wouldn’t know it by their actions. James is trying to show the difference between true and false wisdom and true and false faith. James is saying that the kind of faith that doesn’t produce good works is no faith at all.
You inserted the angel moroni’s name into Rev. 14:6 but my Bible doesn’t specifically mention any names. You inserted other name’s and place’s which are also not in my bible so that doesn’t prove anything accept how easy it would be to change God’s word to make it read what you want it to.
Jesus said these two items that directly refute the teachings of Mormonism
Matthew 22:30: 30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
Also Mormonism teaches that we existed as spirits before we came to this world but Paul’s teaching about the resurrection says in 1st Corinthians 15: 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
Mormonism teaches that the Bible can only be accurately interpreted by Mormons but the Bible says: 2 Peter 1:20 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
I could keep going but I hope you get my meaning.
I love the 2 Peter 1:20 verse you quote. It is absolutely true. Yet Christians continually provide private interpretations. Thus Mike, I don’t get your meaning. You are referring to what Mormonism teaches. I asked you to show me how the “Book of Mormon” preaches a different Gospel. You haven’t shown anything. You are merely contrasting your “private” interpretation of the scriptures with what you say Mormonism teaches. That does not prove the Book of Mormon teaches another gospel. That only shows that you have a different set of beliefs and “private” interpretations for those verses.
So please, keep going, only stick to the topic. I am not looking for your contrasting belief, I am looking for specific evidence that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Gospel of the bible.
Chuck, please let me know how we continually provide private interpretations? That’s a new one for me.
And here’s a staring point for a contradiction: the Bible claims after ascencion Christ went to sit on the throne, whereas Mormons say he came back to earth, to the Americas and other places (maybe). There is absolutely no Biblical evidence to support that claim.
You are right about 2 Peter 1:20 that would apply to everyone. Let me try to show you how to use Biblical scripture to confirm scripture. I say there isn’t any marriage in heaven. Is that just my opinion or is it in the Bible. I do a search and find Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. I do another search to confirm this statement and find Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. That’s two different books two different authors. But wait…I continue my search and find Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: That is three books of the Bible, three different authors and not only that but they are recorded as Jesus’ own words. Now if someone asked me are we going to be married in heaven? I could give them a sound Biblical answer.
The question is if Mormonism is a lie. What should people do about it? In light of the Biblical truth that is accurately presented above you should do everything you can to persuade people to the truth of the Bible and the falseness of Mormonism. How terribly sad it will be for the Mormon husband or wife who dies without the real Christ.
Jesus gave us a real example of what it will be like. Read Luke 16: 19-31
Michael, let me help by pointing you to Luke 24 for starters. After he was resurrected, he appeared to people on earth as evident in Luke 24. During the period right after his death, before he appeared to people as recorded in the Bible, he appeared to the people in the Americas. Then he appeared to those as recorded in the bible, then the ascension. That does not contradict the Bible at all. Besides, are you telling me that the Bible governs what God can do? If God is bound by what is written in the Bible, then how can he be omnipotent?
mike, I am not certain what you are getting at with the whole marriage thing. We believe the same thing. Marriage is not given in heaven. That is why you must be married here on earth. However, if you are not married ans sealed by the power and authority of the priesthood, your marriage ends when at “death do you part.” But the scriptures show that what ever Peter sealed on earth would be sealed in heaven. This is the same power and authority used to seal couples in eternal marriage here on earth. You cannot pretend that some preacher that performs marriage on earth is binding after death, especially when in the ceremony it is stated, “until death do you part.” So you are only arguing a point we accept as well. How does that prove Mormonism is false?
Quit avoiding the question. You brought it up, so please provide the evidence to support your claims. Scripturally show how the Book of Mormon is “another Gospel” and how it contradicts the Gospel of the Bible. I have asked twice before and now I am asking a third time. Reject your claim as false, or provide the scriptural evidence to support your claim. You could also state that you are simply repeating the lies you have heard about the Book of Mormon and we can consider the point resolved. I would bet the later is the case and you probably have not even read it to know what it is about.
So please, please, please… just provide the scriptural evidence.
I hope you don’t mind but if we are in the new covenant as the Prophets of old spoke of then would it be fair to say that that our sins once confessed are remembered no more? (Isaiah 43:14ff; Jeremiah 31:31ff; Psalm 103) Isn’t this in clear contradiction of D&C 82:7 which says if one sins again the former sins will return to the soul that sins again? Isn’t this a different Gospel? Some may argue that this [D&C 82:7] is simply like James 2:10 where it states “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Clearly this is not placing your sins back upon you rather it is stating that every sin equal in the eyes of God. Therefore one of two conclusions must be drawn, either 1)we are not yet in this new covenant that Jeremiah, Isaiah, and the Psalmist spoke of, in which case Isaiah 53 has yet to happen also, or 2) Either Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalmist were speaking untruth or Joseph Smith Jr. was.
It is interesting that everyone quotes 2 Peter 1:20 and say that the other has a private interpretation of the scriptures, but no one says how to get the true interpretation – ie the way God wants it to be. If one reads the next verse then we find the correct way to find the true interpretation of scripture.
2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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.
So scripture came to holy men (ie prophets) by revelation from God via the Holy Ghost. So how does this help us in interpreting scripture – easy, the process needs to be done the same way – by holy men who have the Holy Ghost guiding them. We LDS claim to have living prophets who do interpret the scriptures for us and we teach from these interpretations. Where do you Evangelicals get your interpretations from? Do you have ‘holy men’ who are moved upon by the Holy Ghost? Or is it from your own reading/studying? Or is it from a pastor – and if so where did he get his interpretation from?
I know there is more evidence about the Bible than the BoM, which is why they are both books of faith. One must choose to believe in them, just like one must choose to believe in God – we are not forced into it. This is part of our trial on this earth – to see if we will choose to believe or not. I have found my evidence/proof of the truthfulness of the BoM and so I choose to believe in it. Also, I am not ‘attacking’ the Bible – I too believe it is the word of God, but unfortunately man has some involvement in the transmission and translation of the text, and since man is fallible I do not believe it is perfect and infallible as traditional Christians do. But I also believe the same about the BoM, in fact it is written in the BoM many times that there are mistakes in it and they are human in origin.
It appears that you have not fully understood LDS teachings on repentance. The process of repentance is – Recognising the sin; Remorse for the wrong doing; Confessing it; Making recompense if able; and refraining from doing it again. True repentance means that you will never commit the same sin again. Since the person has committed the sin in the past, they know the warning signs if they get close to it again. The best thing they can do is to keep away from any thing that reminds them of it, if at all possible. Its like an alcoholic who is giving up – they need to keep away from the pubs and clubs and any other place they can get some booze – until they are at sufficient strength to resist. So if part of repentance is not committing that same sin again, then if someone goes ahead and does repeat the offence, then their first repentance was not sincere/true and so the episodes the person supposedly repented of is still on their heads.
The part in the scriptures where God says that He will remember the sins no more comes more into play at the final judgment. If someone has fully and properly repented then their sins will not be brought into account, neither will it be mentioned because it will be as if the sin was never committed. Where-as if someone keeps on repenting and recommitting the sin, then their sin will be acknowledged for judgment. This is to stop people from going through a cycle of committing a sin, then repenting, then committing then repenting, when they were never really sincere about their repentance.
To try and make it easier, its like your idea of faith and works. If someone has true faith in Jesus they will perform works because they are saved. Where-as if they do not perform the works, they were never really saved to begin with and their faith was not a true faith.
So if you followed that, then you can see that all of the people and scripture you quoted are correct and are not in conflict.
According to that interpretation of true repentance, do you know anyone who has truly repented of all sins? If so I would love to meet them, if not who in this view of repentance is the Grace of God sufficient for in light of Moroni 10:32
Lautensack, the Doctrine and Covenants is not the Book of Mormon. However, I will entertain your suggestion with the following answer. First of all, in your attempt, as feable as it is, you are trying to disprove the LDS belief of the new and everlasting covenant of the priesthood (which only Mormons accept) against itself. First of all, your reference to Isaiah is incorrect. I think you may have been referring to Isaiah 24:5 (1-6 inclusive).
Many may think Isaiah is referencing the violation under the law of Moses. But remember, nowhere in scripture is the Mosaiac Law refered to as or called the everlasting covenant. This is a prophecy spoken by Isaiah that the “everlasting covenent” would be broken because of the changed ordinance and transgression of the law.
Ralph summed it up nicely. Only one thing I would add and that is the reason it will be remembered no more at the judgement, if the person truly repents of their sin, is because through the atonement of Jesus Christ, He paid for that sin already and will grant mercy, that is his to grant, for the justice required for that sin.
That being said, it still does not show ANY scriptural evidence that the Book of Mormon is a different Gospel from the Bible. Just as I suspected, this is now the fourth post I am asking for scriptural evidence that the Book of Mormon preaches a different Gospel than the bible and there is no evidence. Nobody, in over 150 years has been able to show how the Book of Mormon teaches anything contrary to the bible. It only clarifies it’s teachings. Otherwise, someone could show where. Even more interestingly, Lautensack you are showing how the Book of Mormon coincides with your beliefs.
Actually if you read Isaiah 24:5-6 thinking of the previous everlasting covenant (Genesis 8:20-9:17) As this is a covenant with all the inhabitants of the earth and not just Israel, or Israel and later the elect as realized in Christ (Psalm 105:9-10;Ephesians 3:6) therefore the Mosaic Covenant, as you said, is not the covenant being spoken of here. These verses is intamently connected with Genesis prior to the scattering of the nations (Genesis 11:4).
5The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant(Genesis 9:16).
6Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt(Genesis 3:17-19); therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left.
This really does not say anything about the New Covenant, but rather it is much more closely connected to the Covenant God made with Noah and the whole Earth.
Therefore your concept falls short and you have yet to answer my counter question to Ralph therefore I pose the question to you as well. Accepting your interpretation of true repentance, do you know anyone who has truly repented of all sins? If so I would love to meet them, if not who in this view of repentance is the Grace of God sufficient for in light of Moroni 10:32.
Chuck, I’ll stand by my point that Jesus coming to America as an example of evidence. You see no evidence Christ went anywhere than coming back to Israel after raising from the dead. Any assumptions you make that it (the Bible) says he could come here are exactly that: assumptions.
This is what I spoke of in another post today, about how you take some obscure verses and make huge claims from them.
And let me also ask you a question in the same vein: what does the BOM add to your walk that the Bible does not, besides “clarification”?
If you read all of Isaiah 24 you will see that it actually is discussing the last days of the earth. In verse 1 we read See, the LORD is going to lay waste the earth and devastate it; he will ruin its face and scatter its inhabitants. Then in verse 3 we read The earth will be completely laid waste and totally plundered. The LORD has spoken this word. And in verse 6 (which you quote) Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Therefore earth’s inhabitants are burned up, and very few are left. We know that the ‘burning’ of the earth will be when Jesus Christ comes a second time. Through the rest of the chapter more prophecies about the end of the earth are given, but the one which definitively shows its about the end of the earth and Jesus’ Second Coming is verse 23 <The moon will be abashed, the sun ashamed; for the LORD Almighty will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before its elders, gloriously.
So the people broke the everlasting covenant and God burns the earth. If you read the covenant God made with Noah, which you believe this is in reference to, God put a rainbow in the sky as a symbol/reminder of this covenant and said as long as it is showing the covenant is in force and He will never flood the earth. If people broke the covenant then wouldn’t it be logical that the earth would be flooded again as that is the premise of the covenant – people should multiply and replenish the earth – God will not flood it?
Also, if the everlasting covenant was made in the OT, why isn’t it called the Everlasting Testament? And why did Jesus say that it has all been fulfilled by Him? If it was everlasting, why did a new covenant need to be made?
Jesus visiting other people after His resurrection is not ‘gospel’ truths. There is nothing in the Bible saying He didn’t visit others. Read John 21:25, we do not know all.
I just find the question to be altogether preposterous. How do you ask a people who believe in their faith to argue against it. What if I said, “If Chrsitianity is a lie, what should people do about it.” Even that is a bogus issue because it only serves the purpose of those who do not believe in it in the first place.
Or how about this question. “If Mormonism is true, what should people do about it.”
If many argue that the claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true church is, I don’t know what exactly you claim, but an arrogant stance, then what about those who are not Christian? Wouldn’t they have the same right to lay such arguments about Christianity?
It is not a statement of a debate when you, in the opening statement, already set a biased stance against those whom you wish to debate with.
Why don’t we make a general statement of how LDS members and the rest of the Christian world agree and disagree? That would be a more thoughtful tone for which some may want to participate.
So, if you wish to stay with the current course, I will simply say, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true, and no one person here has proven otherwise.
Micheal, you hit the nail on the head when you ask, “what does the BOM add to your walk that the Bible does not, besides “clarification”?” That is exactly what it adds. Clarification. However, the comments you and others have made is the Book of Mormon is false and it contradicts the Bible. Yet even Lautensack is using it to defend his beliefs while quoting Moroni 10:32. What gives? If the Book is false, please show me where.
Christ appearing in America has nothing to do with the teachings of the Doctrine. It is merely an event. Saying that makes the book false would equate to someone saying, “The great flood never covered the earth as it is impossible to cover the entire earth with water. So the Bible is false.” And then asking you to prove there was a great flood. It ridiculous.
I am beginning to believe my assumption was true. You are merely all repeating what you have heard have have taken no care to even read the Book of Mormon for yourselves. I would encourage you to read starting in 3 Nephi 11, where it talks about Christ visiting the Americas.
Yes, you are right, I have no definitive proof he was here, but there are telltale signs. But there definitely was talk in Mesoamerica among the Mayans of a bearded white god. Could that have been Jesus Christ? Maybe.
But let’s avoid assumptions and stick to the question posed. mikeb has made some serious allegations that need evidence. He said, “The differences between the BoM & the Bible are very obvious”. If the differences are so obvious, why is everyone skirting the question? Why is it nobody has yet provided these “obvious” differences?
So either provide the evidence that the Book of Mormon contradicts the gospel of the bible, or retract your statement and admit that it is scripture; another testament of Jesus Christ.
I agree that this is speaking of the end times. I disagree that the rainbow is the covenant God made with Noah, the sign of the covenant yes, but the covenant no. I disagree that God would have to carry out His wrath in the same way if we broke this covenant, rather that God in His divine Justice would keep that which He called everlasting and show wrath in a different manner. Also it seems you are confusing covenants in the Old Testament. The Adamic Covenant is not the Noadic is not the Abrahamic is not the Mosaic is not the Davidic. Those are five different covenants, and Jesus did not say that the covenant was fulfilled in Him but that the Law was. Two are referred to as everlasting.
The Clearest reason that this is not the new covenant is verse 6 which states “The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants;for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth” this echoes the promise God made with Noah in Genesis 8:21 “And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.” Since the earth, the actually ground is cursed distinctly, separate from the inhabitants.
As for your question on everlasting I will answer that when you answer my previous question which you have been neglecting.
Paul did the same thing to defend His position in Acts 17 quoting Epirmenides, Cleanthes, and Aratus. Do we think Paul believed in Zeus? No, therefore I must ask why you avoid the question? Assuming Mormonism is true and repentance is what you describe it as in your post is has the grace of God sufficient for anyone in light of Moroni 10:32?
I want to let you know I’m not avoiding you or not answering your questions regarding the differences between the Christian biblical gospel message and the Mormon gospel message. I would like to clarify something first. To an EV person the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Yes it was written by men but, we believe (have faith) that God’s Holy Spirit inspired these men and what is written in the Bible is the very truth of God without any error what so ever. We believe the Bibles we have today are still that same inerrant word. So we don’t have any reason not to put our entire trust in it. Now please correct me if I’m wrong…a Mormon person also believes the Bible is the word of God but, because it was written by men and recopied it could contain errors. So you do not give it ultimate authority?
There have been numerous biblical scripture references given that show the difference but you won’t accept them. Let me ask you a couple of questions. If I’m not Mormon am I saved? If not what do I need to do?
I don’t think you understand…I want to know everything there is to know to be a better follower of Christ so I’m willing to listen to the Mormon message of salvation. If I can reasonable accept it who knows. So far I haven’t been convinced that Mormonism is based in reality.
Chuck, but you know, here’s the deal, if a major part, actually the entire premise of the book is not true, then then whole book is not true.
I do not know all the doctrine presented, and won’t pretend to, but I do know there are factual and historical problems presented. Jesus coming to America is but one, but there are so many things stated that did not exist here in the time the book took place.
This really puts serious doubt into the whole thing. And this is exactly why you hear us asking you to find one example of archeology or history that disproves the Bible. Such integrity actually strengthens the book. The BOM lacks this integrity.
“Give it time, give it time” I hear often from you guys, but we do know enough to know certain things are true.
Oh, and the great white god has too many questions to truly consider a source of evidence
I couldn’t get to it in the recording, but we are not talking about historical evidence, archeology, or premise. Show me where the Gospel taught in the Book of Mormon contradicts the Gospel taught in the Bible. The “litmus” test, as the versus from the Bible speak of, is if someone preach any other Gospel. It speaks nothing of history, archeology, DNA, or anything else. These are the things people seek, the validation and “proof” is a human requirement. God spoke of faith, not proof.
So again, please show me how the Book of Mormon preaches a different Gospel than the Bible. Otherwise the false statements need to be retracted as false.
I hope you can see how evidence in Biblical context does not equate to proof. The evidence IS the faith we have. You may say there are places and locations of spoken in the Bible that can be found today, but how is that proof? Steven King writes novel about real live locations, does that provide evidence his stories are real? If you want proof about the things that matter, there is none other than the faith you have they existed. Otherwise, show historical, archaeological, or DNA evidence of the following:
1 Jesus Christ came to earth
2 The great flood
3 Parting of the red sea
4 River of blood
5 The tablets of the 10 commandments given to Moses.
6 Moses spoke to God face-to-face
7 Daniel in the lions den
8 Shadrach, Meshach, & Abednego surviving the fiery furnace
9 David and Goliath, there are no giants
The only “evidence” is written in the Bible. If someone does not accept the Bible, as you do not accept the Book of Mormon, what “evidence” do YOU have to prove these things listed?
Chuck, let me summarize, because I think you are not following me.
1– You say the BOM clears issues in the Bible and is a correct document.
2– I say the Bible does not need anything clarified.
3– I say that there are some huge historical and factual troubles within the BOM.
4– I say the Bible is historically accurate.
5– I say the Bible then is a more reliable document.
6– And finally, since the BOM is factually challenged, and since the Bible is a reliable document, it makes no sense to believe the BOM.
You ask for certain proof.
That Jesus lived is accepted as truth by all, except nuts, and this is supported by the several third party accounts.
The rest are things that cannot be confirmed, but since the rest (all that has been discovered and enough prophecies have come to pass that confirm what is written in the Bible) it is fair to believe these things happened. And some there are strong evidences to show something indeed may have happened in the way the Bible speaks.
Now, again, contrast this with what is in the BOM… There are more problems in it than there than are solved.
You sound like you are trying to believe and making excuses for it, for another difference between our two faiths is this. You say God told you have faith no matter what. We view our God as one who encourages us to test all things in light of scripture. Its that all things that is telling, and consequently we use logic and rational thought to analyze all things, including the history and archeology.
Michael, you say “the BOM… There are more problems in it than there than are solved.” This is because that is all you are looking for. There is as much in the Book of Mormon to prove it’s validity as the bible. But you chose not to see it. I am not making excuses for anything.
I don’t know how to get you to open your eyes. You say that there are things that cannot be confirmed in the Bible yet you accept it. You say because there are other things that have been validated and enough prophecies given. I say the same about the Book of Mormon, yet you do not accept those things or those prophecies. You explain them away and I am not sure why.
Why is it God couldn’t possible speak to his children in the Western Hemisphere? Are they not his children too? Does he not love them too?
I agree we should test all things, but you have said yourself you don’t know what is in the Book of Mormon. Have you tested it’s doctrine to compare with the Bible? No. You take the “historical” and “archaeological” information you are fed, and accept it as it were truth without knowing for yourself what is taught. If you call that “testing all things in light of scripture” then you have not faith. You only seek signs. Read it. Find out what it says. Then we can discuss it further. Otherwise this discussion is a waste of time. You are arguing points YOU know nothing about. You are simply repeating what you heard unless you read it and know for yourself. But the claims you make and the claims mike makes are absolutely false.
When you have read it, we can continue this discussion. Until then, I consider this matter as closed, and the Book of Mormon stands as scripture as there is nobody who can show how it’s Doctrine is a different doctrine than the Bible.
Chuck, I still don’t think you understand my point. The point is this: there has not been one thing found to contradict what is in the Bible. There are things that contradict what is in the BOM. As such, you expect me to read something and trust it based on a burning of my bosom, when I know there are balatant falsehoods in it? Sorry, but this is a bit much of a request, one I cannot give. I wish not to offend, and hope you understand the criticism.
But this does bring up a big difference between Mormons and Christians. Mormons are told to beleive no matter what, where my pastor has said that if he is is given indisputable truth, he will leave Christianity. This is a very different attitude indeed.
I actually found a site, a Mormon site, going through all the troubles of the history of the BOM, and the author says he did so so that your faith may be greater. I just find this mindset interesting.
Dear Mormon friends,
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that the BoM is scripture. Please explain to us the way of salvation (resurrection) according to the BoM. This is what I read.
“But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Mosiah 3:12) That sounds like the BoM is teaching you don’t needs works to be saved.
There seems to be contradiction in your own teaching. The BoM states “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity?” (Moroni 8:18)
Also….”For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing (Mormon 9:9)
Doesn’t the LSD teach that God is an exalted man and that there are many gods? Yet the BoM says “Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said, Is there more than one God? And he answered no (Al. 11:27-29)
It sounds to me that what you believe and what the BoM says are two different things.
My final comments on this post are the following:
Micheal P., I still don’t know what “blatant falsehoods” you are referring to. Not to be rude, but your pastor reminds me of the time during the flood. They wall wanted proof, but by the time it started to rain, it was too late and they were all lost.
mikeb, notice it is saying through repentance and faith. Not faith alone. According to some previous posts, I have been told repentance is works. I find it interesting that you are showing more how the Book of Mormon teaches what the Bible teaches than the “other gospel” you said it contained; even if your interpretations follow your beliefs.
Like I have stated, case closed. The Book of Mormon teaches the same gospel as the Bible. Peace.
I’m sorry to hear you won’t be participating in this thread anymore. I did want to thank you though for answering part of my question. I think you did show the major difference between the Biblical Christian gospel and the Mormon gospel. EVs believe according to the Bible that we are “saved by faith alone” and the Mormon gospel is that “you are saved by faith plus good works”. If your way is true, my hope is that you can be good enough to please God.
Chuck, indeed, thank you for the discussion. Its too bad you don’t want to continue, as the resolution gets to the heart of this thread: if its wrong, what are we to do? Are we to shut our ears or let others continue believing it, or are we to try our best to inform others?
Here’s why I included the point my pastor made: if its wrong, we should let the whole world know and leave it all behind. We should try to seek to know if it is true or not, for if its not, we are doing ourselves and others a huge disservice.
Some final thoughts directly to our discussion, its nice that you give your thoughts on the flood, and behind drowned in it, but I can say the exact same thing, only you won’t have a second chance. Also, you know exactly the archeological and historical shortfalls I speak of: metals, animals, customs etc that the BOM records that were clearly not present in the New World at the time recorded. If I don’t believe it historically, why would I trust it spiritually?
I do appreciate the discussion, and hope we have challenged you to understand our objections more clearly, for my intent is not necessarilly to refute but to bring about differences between our faiths.
If someone were to tell me that the mormon church is some kind of santanic orginization that leads to damnation, I would look for clarification.would not leave the church at that instant. I would wait until I see it for myself.
For example, if someone were to tell me that missionaries practice dark arts. I would wait until I go on a mission and see for myself. If their clarification becomes true I would walk away from the church peacefuly. Or if someone told me that their mormon friend told them that the church doesn’t really believe in not drinking or smoking and did so infront of their very eyes, I would wait to see the same. If I never did I would stay firm in the church. A personal witness is all that will rip me away.