The Bible vs The Book of Mormon

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
This is not good Regret 😕

" I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, TO A DIFFERENT GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL TO YOU THAN WHAT WE HAVE PREACHED to you, let him be accursed."

Galatians 1:6-8

but, if you continue reading

Galatians 1:9-12

9 As 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.

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.

before the Angel came that led Joseph Smith to the Golden plates, he was visited by God and Christ, who then sent the Angel Moroni, to Joseph to tell him about the plates and where to find them, it took Joseph years before he was allowed to take the golden plates therefore the messenger of Christ, and trust me the Mormon church is not appealing to man at all, man is appealed to drugs, alcohol, sex, and many other things that the Mormon church teaches against, and therefore not appealing to man, as the scripture states a religion should not do. it isn't preached to appeal to man, but to God, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I am glad I am, I'm extremely happy, my life is healthier then most of my non-mormon friends, i honestly feel i know my Savior and even if the LDS church is incorrect then I'm living a clean life, and we are told we need to be clean to be with God again, so even if the church teaches false doctrine, at least i'm clean and can be with my father again, if everybody in the world lived the lifestyle of the LDS church think about how much better the world would be, no wars, no murders, no crime whatsoever. sure the members of the church aren't perfect and they make mistakes, but they admit when they've done something wrong and do their best o not do it again.

Or in other words, we aren't turning away from the original gospel for a new one like the scripture says - instead we're going back to the original one after generations of people disregarding that scripture.

do you have a copy of the original? 🙄

Originally posted by Regret
I am not, as of yet offended.

No, there is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that would say this was inappropriate. I believe the gospel of the LDS church in no way is different than that found in the Bible. It may be different than your interpretation of the gospel, but not in the language itself as interpreted by myself and those of my faith.

There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal. I am by no means out to bash you as a believer in Mormonism. But again, the Gospel according to Joseph Smith has enough variation to clearly qualify it as "A different Gospel" in which according to the bible, would place it as a "different gospel" of which the Apostle Paul to the gentiles warned the church would come. 😕

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal. I am by no means out to bash you as a believer in Mormonism. But again, the Gospel according to Joseph Smith has enough variation to clearly qualify it as "A different Gospel" in which according to the bible, would place it as a "different gospel" of which the Apostle Paul to the gentiles warned the church would come. 😕

Like yours that includes teachings that did not exist for 100-300 or more years after the Bible (New Testament) was written? Trinity as believed in by the majority of Christians was not "Gospel" until the council at Nicaea. Pre-existence was taught until 150-250 years after the New Testament. More examples exist.

Originally posted by Regret
Like yours that includes teachings that did not exist for 100-300 or more years after the Bible (New Testament) was written? Trinity as believed in by the majority of Christians was not "Gospel" until the council at Nicaea. Pre-existence was taught until 150-250 years after the New Testament. More examples exist.

I will let God's Word do what it was sent out to do. I am not in the mood for a shooting match today. We could easily get into a back and forth ping-pong game and thier would be no winners. I will keep off this thread since rebuke about the Book of Mormon is apparently a tender subject. 🙂

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I will let God's Word do what it was sent out to do. I am not in the mood for a shooting match today. We could easily get into a back and forth ping-pong game and their would be no winners. I will keep off this thread since rebuke about the Book of Mormon is apparently a tender subject. 🙂

To all those people who are sensitive about criticism of their beliefs, I would like for you to think about this.

If something is so week that we have to protect it, then is it worthy of following? If something is strong, people could beat against it all day and it will not brake.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I will let God's Word do what it was sent out to do. I am not in the mood for a shooting match today. We could easily get into a back and forth ping-pong game and thier would be no winners. I will keep off this thread since rebuke about the Book of Mormon is apparently a tender subject. 🙂

There are always ways to interpret statement other than literal.

And besides...you yourself have gotten upset when we revoke your relgion. You yourslef didn't respond to any of Regret's points.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I will let God's Word do what it was sent out to do. I am not in the mood for a shooting match today. We could easily get into a back and forth ping-pong game and thier would be no winners. I will keep off this thread since rebuke about the Book of Mormon is apparently a tender subject. 🙂

I apologize if I came off as overly aggressive. It was not meant as aggressively as it seems you took it. I do believe I have valid points. It seems that the issue at hand is merely a matter of interpretational difference.

You stated that "There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal." I believe that Regulus' statements were a literal interpretation of the scripture you were referring to.

I didn't think you were overagressive....

...but thats coming from me.

Yeah, compared to what I've seen and received from you I was not aggressive 😆

😄

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal. I am by no means out to bash you as a believer in Mormonism. But again, the Gospel according to Joseph Smith has enough variation to clearly qualify it as "A different Gospel" in which according to the bible, would place it as a "different gospel" of which the Apostle Paul to the gentiles warned the church would come. 😕

A different gosper perhaps when compared to mainstream christianity perhaps, but when you actually look at first and second century christianity? Not so much. There's a book by a guy named Barry Bickmore that was a good discription of that. I don't remember the title of the book, but you could probably google it or find it on amazon.com.

I suppose I'm just dittoing what regret said. I don't think anyone who accepts the BoM has gotten offended about people arguing it. But maybe that's just me.

Originally posted by Regret
I apologize if I came off as overly aggressive. It was not meant as aggressively as it seems you took it. I do believe I have valid points. It seems that the issue at hand is merely a matter of interpretational difference.

You stated that "There is no other interpretation possible here in these verses than literal." I believe that Regulus' statements were a literal interpretation of the scripture you were referring to.

yes it was a literal interpretation of the scripture because most people today rely on physical witnesses for their faith. So when talking with people who I don't know if they do or not, I use the literal interpretation because with that proof most people would understand and believe what's been said.

" I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, TO A DIFFERENT GOSPEL, WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL TO YOU THAN WHAT WE HAVE PREACHED to you, let him be accursed."

my personal interpretation of this scripture is

A gospel that does not teach that Christ is the literal son of God, that he isn't the savior of the world, that it is set out for men to gain, for selfish purposes. Which you could not say is true about the Mormon church,
The Mormon Church teaches that Christ and all of us are literal sons and daughters of God, that Christ is the savior and redeemer of the world, the leaders of our church are not paid, which it does mention in the scriptures that they should not be paid to teach the Gospel of Christ, and there is nothing selfish about the Mormon church.

oh, and here are Scriptures pointing out the whole unpaid ministry thing along with an interpretation, my interpretation

1 Corinthians 9:18

18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Somebody's reward in preaching the gospel of Christ should not be money, or anything temporal, which means anything on this earth, but an eternal reward in the world to come

John 10:13

13 The ahireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

Somebody who accepts payment to preach the gospel doesn't care about those he teaches

Originally posted by Alliance
There are always ways to interpret statement other than literal.

And besides...you yourself have gotten upset when we revoke your relgion. You yourslef didn't respond to any of Regret's points.

I find you so far most interesting of anyone here Alliance. Someone who can sit on a fense and lean one direction or the other...

Wow! What ever side works best huh?

Must be easy not taking a stand for something but taking a stand for anything.

🤣

Originally posted by Alliance
There are always ways to interpret statement other than literal.

This too is often used by those who don't understand context or use a Stong's greek/hebrew concordance to REALLY translate the scriptures. Another comment it seems from someone who is quick to judge and yet has no defined stand on anything.

Must be easy 😉 Reminds me of a Politician of sorts...

Originally posted by Regret
It seems that the issue at hand is merely a matter of interpretational difference.
[/B]

I will discuss other matters on other threads with you. The "interpretational differences" will be used no matter what I say here.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I will discuss other matters on other threads with you. The "interpretational differences" will be used no matter what I say here.

Interpretational differences will exist in most aspects of our discussions. They are at the core of the splintering that has occurred in Christianity since the time of Christ's death. Very few people agree as to the meaning and interpretation of much of the Bible. You used your interpretation of a Bible verse to attack the Book of Mormon, my response was a logical response to your attack, and was in defense of the Book of Mormon. It fit in the context of the debate. If you are leaving this debate due to this I will assume that you have conceded that there is an interpretational difference and that you were unable to rebut the statement that the Gospel described in the Bible could be different than the one you believe in. If this is the case then it is possible that the LDS (Mormon) Church is not teaching a different Gospel, and thus the verse you quoted does not conflict with the LDS view on the subject. And thus it does not conflict with the Book of Mormon.

Originally posted by Regret
Interpretational differences will exist in most aspects of our discussions. They are at the core of the splintering that has occurred in Christianity since the time of Christ's death. Very few people agree as to the meaning and interpretation of much of the Bible. You used your interpretation of a Bible verse to attack the Book of Mormon, my response was a logical response to your attack, and was in defense of the Book of Mormon. It fit in the context of the debate. If you are leaving this debate due to this I will assume that you have conceded that there is an interpretational difference and that you were unable to rebut the statement that the Gospel described in the Bible could be different than the one you believe in. If this is the case then it is possible that the LDS (Mormon) Church is not teaching a different Gospel, and thus the verse you quoted does not conflict with the LDS view on the subject. And thus it does not conflict with the Book of Mormon.

Well put Regret, I concur

Hey guys, I found that book by Bickmore. It's called "Restoring the Ancient Church". Great book, it has tons of references to the earliest known Christians - from just after the time of the apostles. It shows how many of the doctrines that other churches reject now where actually around back then.