It's not my interpretation; it's what the Bible actually states. Like I said before, I don't say these things on my own authority, but I base my arguments on the Word, which can be directly compared to the teachings of the LDS Church as-written in LDS publications. In other words, because we can open a Bible and the Book of Mormon or another LDS publication and directly compare what they state, this isn't an argument based on some subjective standard, but rather an objective one.

See, I find this level of self-unawareness kind of fascinating.

You're literally claiming that the bible's words are not open to interpretation.

You are, with a straight face, claiming that your understanding of the words in bible as you read them does not constitute your "interpretation" but rather an official, undisputable, and self-evident objective standard.

That level of arrogance and blindness is just... Impressive. Bravo. Seriously. For someone who seems very interested in objective analysis of arguments for their logical soundness, you seem completely incapable of viewing yourself objectively.

I mean, there are literally 44,999 other denominations of christianity that would disagree with you. But I guess if you're measuring everyone by your "objective standard," none of them are actually Christian anyway.

Again, a Mormon's interpretation of the bible isn't contradictory to his beliefs, just contradictory to your interpretation of the bible.

At this point I seriously think you may need to look up the definition of "interpretation".

Here's a classic example:

For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Compared with:

It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. 2 Nephi 25:23


I don't see how one could say that these two verses (directly quoted) don't contradict each other. One is saying that we are not saved by works, but by grace through faith, the other is saying that we need grace and "all we can do." In this case, there is not a matter of interpretation, but rather of direct contradiction as-enumerated in the two texts.

Are there other facets of the faith that are more open to interpretation? Sure. But some are not, and those include several critical issues I've mentioned earlier. And assuming for the sake of argument that all the differences in the teachings between Biblical Christianity and the LDS Church were based on subjective interpretation, I think you run into a same issue of reasonableness, such that a reasonable person could not come to a different conclusion than that the LDS Church's teachings on many critical issues differ from that of Biblical Christianity. Like I said earlier in the thread, there seems to be a disingenuous attempt on the part of some LDS members to sweep these distinctions under the rug and characterize them as being de minimis in nature, when any reasonable person who examined and compared the teachings of the two faiths would say they are not.  

With that, I'm out. I think we aren't going to agree on these issues, and I have better things to do with my time.

Much of the beliefs on the nature of God espoused by "creedal Christians" don't necessarily come from the Bible per se. They come from the early creeds.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that God is eternal and immortal and without sin. The Bible and Book of Mormon and Latter-Day scripture are uniform on the topic of Gods eternal, perfect, and immortal nature.




“Creedal Christians” can be wrong, and I can still see that even though they have accepted false doctrine as correct, they are still, “Christians.

On the subject of the origin of God, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints just does not necessarily know officially. Christ lived and died and was resurrected, and we accept that with most of the rest of the Christian world. So someone saying God did the same, even though it is speculation and is un-scriptural and –clearly-- postulation, I believe Christ did it  so it isn’t much of a leap for me.


We believe God (our Father in Heaven)  is eternal and immortal and perfect.


We also don’t believe the scriptural canon is closed, so maybe the origin of God is revealed in scripture at some point. But right now, it is speculation and postulation.

You have also stated that our reliance on worshipping Christ in Temples is a difference in beliefs between the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other (primarily post-creed Christians). But Temple scriptures abound in the Bible.




The Book of Mormon testifies that the Bible is Gods word. I accept the Book of Mormon is true, through faith. I also accept the Bible is true, through faith. Both things are true, and it is logically possible because I see clear-cut agreement between the two books of scripture.

If I get where you are coming from, then The Book of Revelation is obviously false. Along with the rest of the New Testament… Since it was written after the Old Testament directive not to add to Gods word…

Deuteronomy 4:2

Proverbs 30:6

If you pay attention to Bible scholars, (across the board, not just Latter-Day Saint scholars) John was talking about the Book of Revelation, The New Testament wasn’t a thing yet. John was brining condemnation on anyone who interfered with the Book of Revelation, not the New Testament or the Bible itself. Link

Even antagonists tell other antagonists not to use this scripture against faithful followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because when John wrote Revelation, the New Testament wasn't a thing yet, and we are right to point that out (in the link).

We believe that corrupt individuals sought and seek to change the word of God. John is correct to identify that evil and corrupt individuals wanted to change and corrupt the teachings of God. That is a teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. John was right. Evil and conspiring individuals attempt to twist Gods truth. Look at the video that was posted in this thread. The antagonist took our truth, twisted it around, added some lies, and suddenly the antagonist was attacking not just our faith but faith in general and claiming -they- didn't need faith because they can walk in the streets in Jerusalem. Unbelievable. John was right. Evil and conspiring individuals seek to corrupt Gods word.

And... this is a moot point since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints accepts the Bible as scripture from God. We believe John was correct to add the warning to Revelation because we believe that plain and precious parts of the Bible were lost.  And we believe the Bible is Gods word. We consider the Bible to be part of our scriptural canon.

Your posts –clearly—say otherwise. But lets roll with it.




Smith was called by God as a Prophet in the Biblical sense.

Smith restored teachings that were lost. The Temple? The Bible is full of references to worship in the Temple for true followers of God. In the Bible, followers of Christ worshipped in the Temple after Christ was killed. Smith brought-back a lost Biblical belief, a lost -Biblical- practice.

Scripture? Bible prophets produced scripture. Smith used a rock? The Bible prophets used, “casting lots” to receive revelation.

Smith taught from the Bible, and quoted from the Bible in his teachings as a Prophet.



The Scribes/Pharisees/Sadducees who were eager to kill Christ found anger with Christ and justified their anger towards Christ based on Christ twisting what they considered sacred. They were willing to kill Christ over their hostility and anger towards Christ. They went looking for reasons to hate Christ, they did not look for truth. If they were looking for truth, they would have recognized it when Christ taught it. They looked for reasons to find fault with Christ.

I don’t miss the point you are making. I can’t give you a good answer, other than to encourage you to speak personally with a Mason who is an active and faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I have read accounts that are friendly to both of us, and see a pathway to being both a Mason and a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I see a pathway to accept Smith was a prophet of God, commanded to restore the ancient Temple. In the accounts that are favorable to both Masons and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I see reasonable explanations for Smiths Prophetic calling from God to restore the ancient Temple practices.

I believe Smith was commanded by God to restore the ancient practice of Christ-centered Temple worship, and Smith did what he was commanded by God to do.

Your answers will come from a faithful member of The Church who is also a Mason, if you have the chance to speak with one.



You asked for evidence of our Christ-centered beliefs in the Bible, and you were given Bible scripture.

Out of context? No. You asked for Biblical evidence, and were given Biblical evidence.

Antagonists: “What faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe is not in the Bible.”

Me: It is in the Bible, actually.

Antagonists. “Ok, its in the Bible, but its out of context!”

Moving the goalposts. Plenty of “Christians” are still considered “Christians” and disagree over scriptural context and scriptural interpretation.



You ignore multiple verses that show Christ worshipped in the Temple in his ministry, Christ protected and defended the Temple, and followers of Christ worshipped in the Temple and received a vision in the Temple. Temple worship abounds in the Bible.



I don’t necessarily disagree. There are some similarities. But there are major differences as well.

Deification is a –huge- difference. There are scriptures all over the Bible supporting our doctrinal beliefs of Deification and Theosis. All over the Old Testament, all over the New Testament. And the pre-creed Church espoused the belief and defended the belief based on what scripture they had at the time. Smith would have had no idea it was a belief and practice of the pre-creed Church. No other Church Smith was familiar with believed it (some Eastern Orthodox have kinda similar beliefs, but they were not around in Smiths areas). I can point to the creeds destroying many important doctrines of Christianity.

There are some similarities, but there are mountains of difference in our beliefs compared to post-creed Christianity.

But… Here is the kicker… You are still a “Christian.”

That is the difference. We believe in the pre-creed doctrine of Deification, and point to the Bible as a source. And in the antagonist video in this thread and others have mentioned, “You think you will be made a God with God, therefore you are not Christian.”

Yes, it is a difference.

No other Churches believe it.

But its clearly Biblical, and its clearly “Christian” and it was clearly believed before the creeds in the pre-creed Church.

Are there similarities between us and post-creed “Christians” which make up the majority of other “Christians?” Sure. But the differences are huge. The differences are gargantuan.

But here is the kicker… We follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.



Smith was Gods leader, and like Christ, had people seeking his life for most of his life.

“Casting lots” in the Bible was a tool for receiving revelation in the Bible. “Making decisions” among Gods anointed is another word for “receiving revelation.”

I don’t think it is a hard leap from believing “casting lots” in the Bible can be a thing done to receive revelation, and Smith using a rock to receive revelation.

Smith was commanded by God to bring forth scripture, and Smith found a way to do what he was told to do by God.


Link

Lol. Way to completely dodge the fact that you just claimed to possess a literal and objective understanding of the bible that is authoritative over anyone else's.



Here's another classic example

For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Compared with:


James 2:14, 24
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?


24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.






I don't see how one could say that these two verses (directly quoted) don't contradict each other. One is saying that we are not saved by works, but by grace through faith, the other is saying that we need faith and "works." In this case, there is not a matter of interpretation, but rather of direct contradiction as-enumerated in the two texts.



So according to your reading of the this verse in Ephesians... Catholics, Orthodox, or Methodists aren't Christian. Because their beliefs in the necessity of good works to be justified or sanctified contradict "biblical christianity."

Or maybe it just contradicts YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the bible. But if they understood the bible the same way you did, you'd both be the same denomination.

Compare Ephesians 2:8-9 to Mark 16:16

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

--Clearly—in the Bible, Baptism is required to be saved.

Compare Ephesians 2:8-9 to Romans 10:9-10

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation"

--Clearly—in the Bible, confessing sins is required to be saved. Can't possibly be any clearer.

2 Nephi 25:23 lines-up perfectly with the Biblical teachings. For context, it was scripture received prior to Christ coming, while the people were living the “law of Moses” which emphasized sacrifice, and “works.”

For context:

Link



This not-Latter Day Saint “Christian” Bible scholar and Christian theologian sees that we focus on Christ and Christs atonement and grace in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints…

Link




Maybe we can put who is and isn’t a true follower of Christ to a vote, like they did in the early councils to create the creeds. And define what is "Christian" theology.

Most post-creed “Christians” disagree with points of doctrine in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, even though we believe the Bible is scripture and can show our points of doctrine are found in the Bible.

The creeds did a number on “Christian” teachings.  








There is a disingenuous attempt to mis-state and mis-interpret the teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in an effort to portray them as non-scriptural and not in alignment with Biblical teachings and beliefs.

Your antagonistic video attacking faith? No need for “Christians” to have faith when they can walk in Jerusalem, but faithful followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints need faith to sustain our beliefs. Your antagonistic video, and cut-and-pasted antagonistic information was disingenuous. It was lying liars lying.

If the question is asked, “are the codified and canonized scriptural teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints found in the Bible?” Then the answer is yes. We believe the Bible is scripture.

If the question is asked, “does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follow Jesus Christ?” Then the answer is yes. We follow Jesus Christ. We are saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ.



I could have told you that from the beginning.

That being said, don’t believe the video you posted. You need to have faith just as much as I do. It is a mistake to believe the video. Even though you can walk in Jerusalem, you still need faith to –believe- it. And I can see evidence that Smith was inspired by God, evidence like the ancient phrase, “land of Jerusalem” which included Bethlehem. Even though there is evidence (miracles follow those who believe), there will be no shortage of evidence for those who believe) I still have faith. I still need faith to believe.

Your antagonist video was an example of a false prophet. The antagonist crouched antagonism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saiints with attacks on central Biblical doctrines… The antagonist attacked prayer as a tool to seek Gods knowledge. The antagonist attacked the spirit of God working in people’s hearts. The antagonist attacked faith.  The antagonist attacked all those Biblical teachings in an effort to antagonize the Church. Something to be aware of. Clearly the works of a false prophet.

I could have told you from the beginning that there is not agreement between post-creed “Christian” theology and pre-creed “Christian” theology. There are stark and extreme differences.

And there are stark and extreme differences between the teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and post-creed “Christians” which are the majority of “Christians” today.

Explaining the doctrine in such depth is a waste of time when he can't even get his head around the subjectivity of the way he interprets scripture.

I was just using his own words to hopefully help him see that the standard he's trying to apply to LDS scripture can also be applied to the bible itself.

There are many many different interpretations of the bible. Even core doctrines. Even the nature of God. Or the mechanism of salvation. That's why there are 45,000 different Christian denominations.

But he's trying to say the way HE reads the bible isn't his interpretation, but a universal and objective interpretation.

He doesn't even see how ridiculous that sounds. Lol

Is there any evidence that the modern Mormon temple rituals of washing and anointings,  endowments, baptisms for the dead, or eternal marriages were performed in the ancient temples?

If you believe, miracles follow those who believe. There is no shortage of evidence for those who have faith and believe. And likewise, no amount of "evidence" will be enough for someone who does not believe.

If your question is if I --as a believer-- see evidence that there were Temple practices that reflect ours... Sure. I see evidence.

Like the poster who posted, "land of Jerusalem" as a slight, not knowing that "land of Jerusalem" is an ancient phrase that included Bethlehem.

Or the antagonist video with the antagonist who stated that we believe we will be deified and cherry-pick scripture to prove our point when there are a myriad of scriptures that prove our position.

Sure. I see a need for Temples from the Bible. The Bible is chock-full of examples of Temple worship, and I can see where our Temple worship has Biblical and ancient origins.

I guess the problem here is that there was a falling-away from truth, many sacred practices were lost, including Temple worship, and we have nothing to compare it to. So even though I can see "evidence" I still have to walk by faith.

If your question is to me, do --I-- as a believer with faith-- see evidence in the Bible and ancient evidence that shows evidence of what I believe? Sure. I see plenty of evidence. But I already believe. I already have faith.

That’s a pretty long non-answer to the question.  And my question to you is exactly as I originally phrased it, not as you tried to re-characterize it above.

It’s pretty simple, really.  Were modern Mormon temple rituals practiced in the ancient temples?  And if not, how can you say that the ancient temple practices were restored by Smith?

It is along the same lines as the antagonistic video posted in the thread...

"All followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have is faith." "The rest of us Christians can walk in Jerusalem. We don't need faith."

I answered your question. My position was already pretty clear, I guess I can keep repeating it, if that is what you want... Temple worship took place among Gods followers in the Bible, and Christ worshipped in the Temple, and followers of Christ gathered, taught, worshipped, and received revelation in the Temple after Christ was killed.

We believe the ancient practice of Temple worship among Gods "covenant people" was restored through Smith, and is on the earth today among followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I have already explained all that.

I have been clear.

You can keep asking, I guess.

Do I believe there is evidence that our Temple worship was also practiced anciently? Yes.

But I will never be able to convince a non-believer that there is evidence. Miracles follow those who believe. There is no shortage of evidence for those who believe. I have faith. I believe. And I see evidence for ancient Temple worship in the pre-creed Church, and in ancient Jewish rituals.

The problem of trying to convince a non-believer that there is evidence is they will simply say, "I am not convinced," even if there is evidence.

Like in this thread, I show Bible verses to show where our beliefs match up to Biblical teachings, and "I am not convinced, its not enough, and you are cherry picking."

I guess you can keep repeating the question. But it was asked and answered. I just repeated what I had already written in the posts earlier in the thread.

Gods "covenant people" worshipped in the Temple in the Bible. Christ worshipped in the Temple and defended the temple. After Christ was killed, His followers met, worshipped, and received revelation in the Temple. Clearly the Temple is important to Christ and His Church.

Smith a Prophet in the Biblical sense, restored Temple worship to the earth. We believe Temple worship is ancient in origin. Obviously, in the Bible, Temple worship was sacred. Christ defended the Temple. So do we. Yes, the Temple is ancient in origin. Yes, I see evidence in the pre-creed Church and in ancient Jewish rituals and themes that shows some "evidence" and credence to our claims. But I also have faith. I already believe. And to someone who does not believe and does not have faith, there is no amount of evidence that will convince them.

You haven't given any examples of what he asked. You just keep asserting it's the case without any evidence.

For example: In the Ancient Jewish Temple they offered a multitude of sacrifices, many of which were not even animals but cakes, etc. and then you could say something like, "Yes, we burn cakes in sacrifice to God."

That would be a link to actual Temple ceremonies in Ancient Jerusalem.

That’s the fun part about being like Mohammed.  You can claim that the Jews and/or Christians really just messed things up.  The Bible is sort of true but not infallible like what I’m telling you.  It really frees you up on what is the truth or right tradition tradition.

We know some of what happened in ancient Temples. We don't know exactly what exact ceremonies were practiced in Solomons Temple. Masons claim to have a direct line to the ancient Temple practices.

Evidence?

Evidence?

I have seen believers argue with atheists, with the believers presenting "evidence" the atheists laugh at.

If the religious "evidence" you are seeking is faith, yes I have faith. If you are asking for "evidence" we can argue about like atheists laugh at but a believer sees as solid evidence, yeah, I see plenty of evidence in ancient Temple worship that has made its way to modern Temple worship.

Following your line of thinking, Christians are "like Mohammed" because they claim Jews are wrong.

And Jews are "like Mohammed" because they claim Christians are wrong. They also claim that Christians are polytheistic.

I think your thinking is a little wonky.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not consider the Bible, "sort of true." We believe the Bible is scripture and include it in our scriptural canon.

Unsurprisingly, you don’t want to answer the question, so I will

There is NO evidence, none, not even a little bit, that the modern Mormon temple practices of endowments, baptisms for the dead, eternal marriage, etc. we’re practiced in the ancient temples.

There, that wasn’t so hard to do, was it?

I hope you’re not confused as to why so many find it incredibly difficult to have a discussion about this topic with you.  If you could provide clear simple answers, rather than the long, tortured prose that is your calling card, everyone would be better off.

Be honest.  You believe the Bible is true, as far as it is translated correctly.

More deflection. Boring.

So many deflections and whataboutisms.

I see plenty of evidence of ancient Biblical Temple worship commonality in modern Temple worship by Gods followers.

Where you see no evidence, I see -plenty- of evidence.

But we are not commanded to have evidence, we are commanded to have faith.





Your original question was to a point I had already made. I had -already- stated that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints worships in Temples as did Gods followers did anciently.

It is like I am arguing with Pharisees/Sadducees/Scribes trying to repeat the pointed question in a new special way when I have already answered the question.

If my answer is boring, its probably because you have seen it already.

Be honest. We don't have the actual documents created by the actual Prophets and Apostles in the Bible. We have copies of their words. That is a significant truth in this discussion.

Total honesty... Antagonists to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will criticize us for emphasizing correct translations.

While Bible scholars from their own religious persuasions will talk about "original Greek" and "original Hebrew" and "errors in the King James version."

Turns out when it all goes full-circle that our emphasis on correct translations is shared by many other followers of Christ.

If you love and believe the Bible contains the word of God through Gods anointed Prophets and Apostles, then you care about the proper and correct translation of the Bible. The truth... Pretty much all followers of Christ who believe the Bible contains the word of God through Gods chosen Prophets and Apostles, then you care about the proper and correct translation of the Bible.

The Pharisee/Sadducee/Scribe "gotcha" here is not so much a "gotcha" when you look at the big picture and that all followers of Christ pre-and post-creed Christians -all- care about proper translations of Gods word through Prophets and Apostles contained in scripture.

Juni4 you are much more patient than I. I will put it thus. Creed Christianity is not biblical. Whether Nicean or Athanasian. In the gospels Jesus was pretty clear on who he was. The Son of God, whose will he followed. Even to his death. (Father forgive them, for they know not what they do) Who, even Islam denies his divine sonship. I would rather side with the words of Christ than the Creeds or Islam.

LDS believe in eternal progression, that as Jesus promised, all that the Father hath, you can have. To stop a river, it is damned. To not be able to continue on in the after life and gain what the Father promised is damnation. That which is reserved for the disobedient.

I go back to my original statement. Creed Christianity is not Biblical. I find that people who were not taught Creed Christianity, who just read the Bible, don’t believe God and Jesus are the same person. Satan was the deceiver. Worship me, I am God. Jesus on the other hand said I came to do the will of my Father.  He would be in the same boat as Satan had he claimed he was the Father. He claimed Sonship and as such the same powers. But not that he was the Father.

The short sighted letter of the law view:

"I am saved by grace because of my faith. I don't have to do good works. I don't even have to try. Because I have faith."


The long view:

"I am saved by grace if I demonstrate faith in Christ. Faith is more than lip service. If I am not obedient my proclamation of faith was a lie. It was not true faith in Christ or I would do everything I can to follow his instruction."


We are not saved by our works, but good works are the direct byproduct of true faith.

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

How therefore can a man have faith in Christ and not obey? If we do not obey then we never truly had faith. We just said we did.

Agreed. This is really what James 2:26 is getting at: good works do not act as the mechanism by which we are saved; rather, our faith in Christ is what leads to salvation. (Ephesians 2:8-9). Rather, works that naturally flow from our faith constitute the evidence that our faith is legitimate, such that faith that does not result in works is dead.

Who in any Traditional Church claims the Son is the Father? None that I know of. You don't seem to understand 1) that the Creeds do NOT teach the persons are the same (and would know this if you had actually read them) 2) Christ claimed He was God many times as we know from Scripture, the Apostles and many witnesses claimed Him to be God, He was worshiped, etc. (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus-christs-divinity-many-examples/)

So you agree with the Athanasian Creed then, that:

"Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits."

Then we agree.
The Father has a body as tangible as mans (or Christ’s if that makes you feel better) Christ also. And the spirit AKA has no body of flesh and bones. God being the writer if you will. Jesus the director who under God, put this world ?? in motion. Who at the meridian of time offered himself as a sacrifice for sin. And the Holy Spirit who testified to our hearts it’s truth. Whom God put in charge of mans judgement. Who will be our mediator with the Father. Whose presence we shall return to. Three beings, one mind, or one purpose.

The above is all backed by scripture and much easier to understand than either of the Creeds. Nicean or Athanaisian. Or to use the words of Stephen. (Paraphrasing here) .. looked into Heaven and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

Why the need to write up a creed 300 years after the fact? To say Mormons/ members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aren’t Christians because some doctrine made up hundreds of years after the fact, is funny to me.

To argue other points of doctrine such as temples, the difference between salvation and exaltation, eternal progression. I can see other Christians having a different opinion, but the Godhead is pretty cut and dry in the Gospels.

Edit to add. Who ever taught there were 3 Fathers, 3 Sons and 3 Holy Spirits?  As the quote at the end of your statement seems to be refuting.???

No, it is taught that it is the most correct book on earth. I was told several times by the Mormons and their leaders.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints considers the Bible to be scripture and the Bible is included in the canon of teachings of The Church.

Here is the quote attributed to Smith that I believe you are referring to, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Smiths quote makes several points. That the Book of Mormon or the Bible are devoid of any error and are "perfect" is -not- one of them... The Book of Mormon itself states that it -may- contain error... Mormon 8:16-17 "16 And blessed be ahe that shall bring this thing to light; for it shall be bbrought out of darkness unto light, according to the word of God; yea, it shall be brought out of the earth, and it shall shine forth out of darkness, and come unto the knowledge of the people; and it shall be done by the power of God. 17 And if there be afaults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that bcondemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

Why can the Book of Mormon bring people closer to God by abiding by its precepts? The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ, teaches of Christ, and points people to Christ. It also testifies of the Bible. Lots of people disagree and contend over interpretations of Bible scripture. The Book of Mormon provides clarification and answers.

I appreciate your steadfast defense of the gospel.

This is also my experience as a non-Mormon. I admire their moral values, and they're crackerjack preppers. That's good enough for me.

I'm wasn't aware that my own salvation as a Christian required me to declare others are not Christians... so I tend to avoid doing that.

As to Joseph Smith, the golden tablets, and the rest... I simply regard those as different reasons from my reasons to be a good person.
As I see it, the end result is the same, for it is our actions which make the world around us what it is, rather than our beliefs.

While I agree that verse is true... at the time John wrote those words, the books of the Bible had not yet been compiled, so it could only refer to his own revelation itself and nothing else.

Pelagianism is every bit the heresy today as it was 1600 years ago.

Swing and a miss.  Especially since revelation was written last.

Link

The Church fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus, Tertullian... All made claims the scriptures were tampered with in the early centuries after Christs ascension. Link

Not-Latter Day Saint sources...





Link

Strike three, you're out.

John's Revelation was written between the years 43 to 47ad. At that time John had no idea the books of the "New Testament" even existed, because they had not yet been compiled.

That admonition applies to John's Revelation alone.

Amen. I don’t have the time or patience.  I’d just resort to go eff yourself I get so tired of it.  No matter how many times we tell them we do or don’t believe this or that they just won’t believe it.

I say you’re right on with the revelation thing. It gets misquoted a bit.

Out of genuine interest I decided to read the article about corrupt writings because I hadn’t heard that.

The site would be more convincing if they quoted things that made sense.

Example
Attached File


Attached File


These things have nothing to do with each other.

Then you’ve got footnotes like these. That’s a big no for me. Gnosticism was a heresy then and it’s a heresy now.
Attached File


And then on Tertullian, leaving out context for what’s being said. It just smacks of ignorance or dishonesty
Attached File


The irony being that Tertullians real gripe was here and which I levy against the LDS Church
Attached File

I think it makes perfect sense.

If you believe in the absolutely untenable position that there are no possible errors or mistakes in or associated with the Bible... then you are probably going to disagree and have problems with all of the information in the article.

The easily documentable truth: The Church fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus, Tertullian... All made claims the scriptures were tampered with in the early centuries after Christs ascension.

The article is well-referenced from an academic and professional standpoint. No errors or mistakes or omissions in the Bible is an untenable position.



Yes they do. In 3 John 13-14 we read that teachings of Christ were not put to "pen and ink."

And the further references:

"Matthew 13:11-16; 19:11; Mark 4:2,33; Luke 18:34; 22:67; John 3:12; 6:60-61; 8:43; 10:27; 16:12, 18, 25; Acts 10:41. See also William J. Hamblin, “Aspects of an Early Christian Initiation Ritual,” in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also By Faith, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret and Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1990),204-207"

Back up the point.




There were -seven- sources to back up the point, including a book titled, "The Gnostic Gospels" written in 1979.

The Christian Gnostics were Christians, and kept some good records, and they make an excellent reference as to beliefs and practices of early Christianity.

Some aspects of the Gnostic Christians were apostasy. Some aspects of post-creed Chrisianity were apostasy as well. But the historical record is the historical record.

The historical record is clear: The Church fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus, Tertullian... All made claims the scriptures were tampered with in the early centuries after Christs ascension.






The quotes from Tertullian (and the other Church fathers) describing a corruption of the Bible are accurate and honest.

The context and quotes from Tertullian are absolutely damning to anyone making the untenable position that there are no errors, mistakes, or omissions in the Bible.

Tertullian also called what was to become post-creed "Trinitarianism" the "anti-Christ": " Away, then, with those "Antichrists who deny the Father and the Son." For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs." Link

Tertullian was quoted --accurately and honestly-- in the article several times, and each source checks-out as accurate and honest. Tertullian claims that aspects of the Bible were "adulterated" but its still true. Same position as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We consider the Bible to be the Word of God. It is important to note, though, that Tertullian claims it was, "adulterated." Tertullian also claimed, "...adulterations of the Scriptures, and false expositions thereof, are rather introduced by ourselves..."

The truth... The Church fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus, Tertullian... All made claims the scriptures were tampered with in the early centuries after Christs ascension.





That there are no errors, mistakes, or omissions in the Bible is an absolutely untenable position. Tertullian and the early Church fathers were correct that the scriptures were tampered with in the early centuries after Christs ascension.

Tertullian was also correct to describe what was to become post-creed Trinitarianism as "anti-Christ."

We accept the Bible (so did the Church fathers, even though they make the same claims we do) as Gods truth in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And we invite everyone to accept the truth of continuing revelation from God and Latter-Day scriptures. We invite everyone to read the Book of Mormon, another testifier of Jesus Christ. It also testifies of the truth of the Bible.

Give that Tertullian passage a better read:

He will come again on the clouds of heaven, just as He appeared when He ascended into heaven.431 Meanwhile He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit-the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of the Divine Majesty; the Declarer of the One Monarchy of God, but at the same time the Interpreter of the Economy, to every one who hears and receives the words of the new prophecy;432 and "the Leader into all truth,"433 such as is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, according to the mystery of the doctrine of Christ.

But, (this doctrine of yours bears a likeness) to the Jewish faith, of which this is the substance-so to believe in One God as to refuse to reckon the Son besides Him, and after the Son the Spirit. Now, what difference would there be between us and them, if there were not this distinction which you are for breaking down? What need would there be of the gospel, which is the substance of the New Covenant, laying down (as it does) that the Law anti the Prophets lasted until John the Baptist, if thenceforward the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not both believed in as Three, and as making One Only God? God was pleased to renew His covenant with man in such a way as that His Unity might be believed in, after a new manner, through the Son and the Spirit, in order that God might now be known openly,434 in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times was not plainly understood, though declared through the Son and the Spirit. Away, then, with435 those "Antichrists who deny the Father and the Son." For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs. But "whosoever shall confess that (Jesus) Christ is the Son of God" (not the Father), "God dwelleth in him, and he in God. "436 We believe not the testimony of God in which He testifies to us of His Son. "He that hath not the Son, hath not life."437 And that man has not the Son, who believes Him to be any other than the Son.

He's affirming the Trinity

Let's read 3 John again as well (in whole would probably be best)

The elder,

To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

2 Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well. 3 It gave me great joy when some believers came and testified about your faithfulness to the truth, telling how you continue to walk in it. 4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

5 Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers and sisters,[a] even though they are strangers to you. 6 They have told the church about your love. Please send them on their way in a manner that honors God. 7 It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans. 8 We ought therefore to show hospitality to such people so that we may work together for the truth.

9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. 10 So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God. 12 Demetrius is well spoken of by everyone—and even by the truth itself. We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true.

13 I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. 14 I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

Peace to you. The friends here send their greetings. Greet the friends there by name.

This is John writing to Gaius it has nothing to do with secret teachings of Christ.

I've read those other proof texts as well for my own uses (to justify that secrets aren't in themselves sinful in defending Freemasonry).

I'd be interested to know which secrets the LDS church thinks were concealed, I'm guessing the exaltation to the highest heaven and multiple marriage thing because apparently that didn't make its way to Paul who said it's better for man not to marry and that a pastor should be of one wife (or less).

Returning to Tertullian his adulteration he's speaking of is what the LDS has done to the scriptures and which is my complaint with the church.

The entire piece is a great read full of wisdom. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

And if you read the whole thing (not just the section that fits your side of the argument you will understand what he's saying.

"It is indeed a necessary consequence that they should go so far as to say that adulterations of the Scriptures, and false expositions thereof, are rather introduced by ourselves, inasmuch as they, no less than we maintain that truth is on their side."  

Who is they?

We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed) — so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.

They are heretics. He's saying heretics (which I would label the LDS as) are saying that Tertullian and the Church are adulterating scriptures, which sounds a lot like what the LDS says about the Church today.  This entire book is instruction in for people who would speak against those adulterating the given Gospel (they/heretics).

So I return to my earlier charge, this fairlatterday saints page is a horrible source as I've shown with just two passages from Tertullian. They have no idea what he's talking about. The scriptures weren't adulterated, heretics were adulterating them for their uses and then making that claim against the actual Church/non-heretics.

Tertullian is correct. Crystal-clear rebuke of what would become post-creed, "Trinitarianism." Crystal-clear. "Away then with those antiChrists who deny the Father and the Son. For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs."

Certainly a crystal-clear rebuke of what would become post-creed Trinitarianism.

Tertullian was no post-creed Trinitarian... "In opposition to these he asserted and developed logos christology in a unique way. Here is a graphic illustration of Tertullian’s trinity—not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member." Link

Its not unique that Tertullian was not a "Trinitarian" in the post-creed sense. Neither were any of the early Church fathers... "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Link




Not in the post-creed sense of the term, "Trinity."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in and worships God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Theologians and historians sometimes say that makes us, "Trinitarians" but not in the post-creed definition. In the same definition the Church Fathers were "Trinitarians."

"Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical...Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it." Link




Johns teachings in the Bible have everything to do with the -sacred- teachings of Christ.

As for what John wanted to write, but did not. John clearly communicated that he had additional teachings of Christ. As for what sacred teachings of Christ John -could- have written but did not, we simply do not know.






We simply do not know what sacred teachings of Christ John could have written but formally chose not to.

We -do- know that many sacred and important Christ-centered teachings and beliefs that were prominent in the first few centuries after Christ did not make it to post-creed "Christianity."

Deification. God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit being --one-- God but separate. Those things were prominent Christ-centered teachings before the creeds.

What knowledge did John possess about Christ that he did not write? We simply do not know.

Temple worship in early Christianity? Christ-centered Temple worship was -part- of early Christianity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is correct and right to follow Christs example and worship in the Temple...

"...It is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ's ascension (Acts 2:46, 3:1-10, 5:20-42). Even Paul worshipped there (Acts 21:26-30, 22:17, 24:6-18, 25:8, 26:21). Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, 24:18), and prayed in the temple (22:17, cf. 3:1); he claims that he has not offended "against the temple," implying he accepts its sanctity (25:8). Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (21:26, cf. Numbers 6:14-18), a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ's ascension. Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ ("The Just One" ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14-21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ's ascension." Link



Tertullian was speaking specifically about the folks in his day who were corrupting and changing the scripture.


Tertullian taught and defended deification. So do we... "Well, then, you say, we ourselves at that rate posses nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do - only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be ..."Link




Tertullian is full of wisdom. So were the other Church fathers. None of which were Trinitarians in the post-creed sense. And the truth... The Church fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus, Tertullian... All made claims the scriptures were tampered with in the early centuries after Christs ascension.




Tertullian is referring to those who, "used the knife, not the pen" to corrupt sacred scripture.

"Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject..."

The problem with using a knife to cut things out of the scriptures, is once its gone. Its gone.

Tertullian agrees with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on believing in deification. Tertullian agrees with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that scripture was corrupted. Tertullian agrees with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit being -one- God but separate. Tertullian is right on a lot of things.




Tertullian believed the scriptures were corrupted. So do we.

Tertullian believed in deification. So do we.

Tertullian did not believe in post-creed "Trinitarianism" and called it, "anti-Christ." So do we.







Tertullian identified that the scriptures were corrupted. So did several other Church Fathers. It is either lying or being tragically naïve to argue otherwise.

And Tertullian was not the only Church father to identify that the scriptures were corrupted. This is an accurate and honest argument: The Church fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus, Tertullian... All made claims the scriptures were tampered with in the early centuries after Christs ascension.

The article is a well-sourced, accurate, and honest. It is a well-referenced and well-informed academic article. Did Tertullian state that changes were made to the Bible with a "knife, not the pen?" Yes. Did Tertullian state that scripture was corrupted with a "knife, not the pen?" Yes.

Along with other statements of scripture corruption by several other Christian fathers.

Stating the Bible is perfect with no errors, mistakes or omissions is disagreeing with several early Church Fathers and is an absolutely untenable position.

The academic article meets the high-standards of accurate and honest interpretation of the -71-  sources.

It is an untenable position to state that the Bible is perfect with no errors, mistakes or omissions. The article is well-sourced and accurate and honest.





For context, Tertullian would consider you a heretic for you not believing in deification. "For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be ...'" -Tertullian

Tertullian taught and believed in deification... So do we.

Tertullian taught and believed and identified (along with other early Christian Church Fathers) that the scriptures were corrupted... We teach the same thing.

Tertullian was not a "Trinitarian" in the post-creed sense. He taught what we taught: God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are -one- God but separate and that post-creed "Trinitarianism" is "anti-Christ."

Justin Martyr says parts of the Bible were removed... "from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: ‘From the wood.’ For when the passage said, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood,’ they have left, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned."

Clement quoted --as scripture-- things that are nowhere to be found in scripture.

Ireneus claims scripture was corrupted: "by transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another." Irenaeus reveals that accusations of corruption of scripture were also applied to the orthodox church as well, for the so-called heretics “turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct.” Link

The scriptures were not corrupted? Not according to Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Ireneus.

It is an untenable position to state the Bible is perfect and there are no errors or mistakes, errors or omissions in the Bible.

What exactly do you think that creed confessing Christians believe?

The passages from Tertullian I’ve been speaking about are from his renunciation of Praxeas’ heresy which was as follows:  (from https://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm)
“Praxeas thought that the Father and the Son were so much the same that we could say that God the Father suffered on the cross. Tertullian points out that this isn't how scripture talks about God, and goes on to summarise the teaching of scripture on the persons of the trinity, and their relationship, thereby being the first to explicitly recognise the doctrine of the Trinity.”

Quoting again from the article
In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever-that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date.17 But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged;18 especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation19 is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order20 the three Persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition,21 but in degree;22 not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect;23 yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.24 How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.


You keep mentioning post-Creed, but which creed do you mean?

The Athanasian creed says

   That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
   neither blending their persons
   nor dividing their essence.
       For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
       the person of the Son is another,
       and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
       But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
       their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

Which is exactly the creed that Tertullian is espousing, and while it goes further the Nicene Creed affirms the same thing
    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
     of all things visible and invisible.
    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
     the Only Begotten Son of God,
     born of the Father before all ages.
     God from God, Light from Light,
     true God from true God,
     begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
     through him all things were made.
     For us men and for our salvation
     he came down from heaven,
     and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
     and became man.
     For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
     he suffered death and was buried,
     and rose again on the third day
     in accordance with the Scriptures.
     He ascended into heaven
     and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
     He will come again in glory
     to judge the living and the dead
     and his kingdom will have no end.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
     who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
     who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
     who has spoken through the prophet

His explanation of the trinity is the accepted version of the Trinity still to this day preached in most Christian churches.

The difference in this and LDS church is that the LDS at one point actually espoused the same heresy as Praxeas

“1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that aGod himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall credeem his people.
2 And because he adwelleth in bflesh he shall be called the cSon of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill of the eFather, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, abecause he was bconceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

But that teaching changed of course to
Though the Godhead is made up of three distinct divine beings with certain different roles and characteristics, They are perfectly united in purpose. They work in harmony to help us come to know God, live righteously, be forgiven, and ultimately return to live with Them again. Together, They work “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”

Regardless I’m not here to debate the Trinity, I’m here to say that the claim that Tertullian thought that the scriptures were corrupt is incorrect, badly sourced or really badly understood. I’m also not getting into the weeds about deification and temple worship. Let’s address one thing at a time.


I’ve just shown that Tertullian espoused the same trinitarian beliefs present in the two major creeds, not that of Praxeas which was God is Jesus and Holy Spirit, nor the LDS view which is they are three distinct divine beings. (Again I’m not debating this section of things, I think the trinitarian view of the LDS is incorrect but that’s the least of my worries with the church’s teachings).

You then mention Marcion, you again seem to misunderstand or distort what he’s saying. Marcion “excised” the bible because Marcion believed the God of the Old Testament was a horrible demiurge and not the Father of the New Testament.  He’s not saying scripture was tampered with, but heretics sought to do that, again in this case by taking away the entire OT, or in other cases adding to, taking away, or coming up with other nonsense and trying to justify it with existing scripture.

“One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence.”

So again I’m sticking to the one thing for the time being, you make the charge “Tertullian believed the scriptures were corrupted. So do we.” And I say Tertullian thought no such thing. (You then of course went on to call me a liar or naïve which seems on brand for LDS defenders but that’s neither here nor there). It’s not well sourced it’s blind to what it actually says. It took a passage or two ENTIRELY out of context and just ran with it (which is what heretical writings tend to do).

So let’s move to that Iraneus quote which I figure is also out of context…and of course it is. He’s making charges against heretics again. See the underlined portions and understand this is my issue w/ the LDS/ See the bolded portion…again, out of context, saying that heretics have twisted scripture, not that scripture is corrupt

“Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king's form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. In like manner do these persons patch together old wives' fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma.”

So that’s Irenaeus’ quote knocked down and shown to also be out of context.

Clement is mentioned here but his teachings aren’t of what you’d call the same quality as the above. He was very clearly influenced by Gnosticism, Hellenism, and esoteric Judaism, which if that’s your bag, fine, but it’s also not biblical (which is why we most likely he see him talking about things that are also not biblical) but not only unbiblical but very clearly gnostic and pagan in origin. While once a saint in the Roman Catholic Church he no longer is nor has been since the 17th century nor does the Orthodox Church regard him as a saint in the majority of their congregations. Among his odd teachings (which the RCC did take to heart at some point but thankfully it was discarded by most other denominations) are that “he argues that adultery, coitus with pregnant women, concubinage, homosexuality, and prostitution all should be avoided as they will not contribute toward the generation of legitimate offspring” and also odd unbiblical teachings such as

•His belief that matter and thought are eternal, and thus did not originate from God, contradicting the doctrine of Creatio ex nihilo[98]
•His belief in cosmic cycles predating the creation of the world, following Heraclitus, which is extra-Biblical in origin[99]
•His belief that Christ, as Logos, was in some sense created, contrary to John 1, but following Philo[100]
•His ambivalence toward docetism, the heretical doctrine that Christ's earthly body was an illusion[101]
•His belief that Eve was created from Adam's sperm after he ejaculated during the night[102]
•His belief that Genesis 6:2 implies that angels indulged in coitus with human women (in Chalcedonian theology, angels are considered sexless)[103]
•His belief in reincarnation, i.e., the transmigration of souls[104]

Some of these I would say the LDS would also reject and rightly so. But basically it matters not that he quoted from other unknown sources because he’s not much of a reliable source at all.

As to him talking about corruptions since that’s our issue at hand, again it’s out of context (and again no surprise)

Here is the text, paying attention to the underlines again here

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
He's saying this group were trying to twist both “regular” Mark and also “secret” Mark and if you read further they were basically doing so to make it appear that James and John were gay. It’s not about scripture being corrupted but rather fools corrupting it with their bad teaching

Moving on (I'm sure there's loads of interest in Secret Mark but again that's not within our purview at the moment)

Now, the Justin Martyr quote is correct and in context, but it’s not speaking of the New Testament. That is an exchange between Justin and Trypho, and in it he says that the Jewish leaders took out passages that pointed to Christ, in particular the portion “ For when the passage said, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned.'  And Justin believes it was a passage saying that Jesus would reign and reign from the wood, or in his reckoning, “the cross”. He makes no such charges regarding the New Testament or Christians/Catholics, etc.

So I could buy this possibly and it’s quite profound if true, but this is Old Testament. What do you charge exactly has been changed in the New Testament? It's mostly there that I have arguments against the LDS in going contrary to the words of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.

Back to John, yes he had other things he wanted to share but he didn’t and he made plain why he didn’t, the books couldn’t contain all the wonderous things he’d seen. So what did he do? He shared the most important, none of which contains the litany of ritual works required of LDS members to be exalted, etc. But you take the verse entirely out of context just as you say others have with the line in Revelation about not adding to the book. They take that out of context, you take this out of context. He’s writing a letter to Gaius but had things he wanted to discuss in person. It was a dangerous time, he ended up exiled, clearly he needed to keep a low profile in some regards.

Also you keep bringing this up “It is an untenable position to state that the Bible is perfect with no errors, mistakes or omission” I’ve made no claim that I believe it’s perfect. God alone is perfect (as expressed in a trinitarian way if we wanna go there….)”Why do you call me good, no one is good but God alone” Those double meanings are some good stuff.

So no, the article at hand is not well researched, it has things wildly out of context whether out of confusion or dishonesty I don't know.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are confessed and admitted followers of Christ. And we do not prescribe to -any- of the extra-Biblical, non-Biblical creeds.




I directly quoted from Tertullian. Tertullian was not a post-creed "Trinitarian."

The Athanasian Creed and the Nicene Creed both came after Tertullian.

What Tertullian believed was not what would become creedal "Trinitariansim." What Tertullian believed would be considered heretical by creedal Trinitarians. "Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical.."








The non-Biblical creeds that destroyed and eliminated the pre-creedal Christian beliefs.




Tertullians beliefs would be considered heresy in many Christian churches today. But not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

"Away then with those antiChrists who deny the Father and the Son. For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs." -Tertullian.

Tertullian considers those who say The Son is the same as The Father to be anti-Christs. So do we.




The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in and worships God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as --one-- God. According to some theologians and historians, that makes us (not-creedal) "trinitarians."





I don't see any difference between the Bible, early Christian, Book of Mormon, and Latter-day teachings on God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit being --one-- God and worshipped as --one-- God and being united as --one-- while also being (as Tertullian and Martyr and others believed) separate from God.




Tertullian, among other early Christian leaders saw corruption in the gospel... "proof of the Gospel. . . having become meanwhile adulterated." Making the position that there are no errors, omissions or mistakes in the Bible a completely untenable position.

Did Tertullian state that the Gospel was "adulterated?" The answer is -yes-. You are going to hate that position if you claim the undefendable position that there are no errors, mistakes or omissions in the Bible.







What Tertullian believed is considered heresy by non-Biblical "creedal" Christians.

"...Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it."

" Tertullian’s trinity—not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member." Link




I am not sure what your point is.

We do not have the -actual- writings of the -actual- Prophets and Apostles. We have writings  and copies of their writings.

If the "knife not pen" was used to adulterate scripture, then we don't have the scripture.





If your question is whether early Christians claimed the scriptures were perverted, the answer is yes.




Tertullian would consider you a heretic for you denying (the crystal-clear in the Bible) doctrine of deification. Which is ironic.

Tertullian in crystal-clear language stated that saying Christ and God were the same is "anti-Christ." Tertullian also stated, "proof of the Gospel. . . having become meanwhile adulterated."

Since we only have copies of copies of the original writings of the Bible, that there is a smoking-gun. An early Christian saying the gospel/scripture was corrupted.

Making it an absolutely undefendable position to say that there is no possibility for there to be errors, omissions, or mistakes in the Bible.




Heretics change scripture.

Evil doers change scripture.

It is an untenable position to claim that there are zero errors, omissions or mistakes in the Bible.

Irenaeus claims the scriptures were changed, "by transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another." Not much to really argue about with Irenaeus. According to him, the scriptures were changed.

Tertullian claims changes were made with "knife not pen." Ireneaus claims changes were made by "transferring passages." If the question is was there -changes- made to the Bible? The answer is -yes.-

Ireneaus clearly teaches that the scriptures were changed... "In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions."






That there was no changes and errors in the Bible is absolutely an untenable position based on the entirety of Irenaeus's quote.



Ireanaeus stated that changes were made in the scripture. His full quote shows him saying that changes were made in scripture.




Does Clement quote as scripture verses that we do not possess? Yes. That is important considering the "knife not pen" method for destroying Gods word.





John stated he had more knowledge and information about Christ. But he did not write it.

Any follower of Christ would like to see more information and testaments of Jesus Christ.





The statements from the early Church fathers make it crystal-clear that there are errors, omissions, and mistakes in the Bible.



If Tertullian is correct, and a "knife not pen" was used to change the scriptures... Then we do not know what was -cut- out.



The principles, doctrines, and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are in-line with the Bible.




Sacred teachings of Christ were not committed to writing at the time but kept in the minds and hearts of the followers of Christ.

Were they intended to be believed? Were the teachings and testaments of Christ meant to be shared but not written? Yes. Yes.

Did early Christians state that they believed things that the later-creeds would call "heresy?" Yes.

Sacred teachings of Christ were not committed to writing at the time. That is important when the discussion is corruption of the writings.




The article is well-researched the sources are crystal-clear and the conclusions match the data.

The article is honest and accurate.

John 14: 8-11

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."  Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip?  He who has seen Me has seen the Father: so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?  Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?  The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.  Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints accepts the Bible as scripture, and includes the Bible as a canonized and official scripture of the Church.

We believe that God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are --one-- God to be worshipped as --one-- God. They have --one-- purpose and --one-- mission.

While The Son, Jesus Christ was on the cross he cried out to His Father, "My God, my God, why hast thou left me?" He was not praying to Himself. He was praying to His Father. They are separate.

Justin Martyr among other early Christians explains that Jesus is, "another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things."

Aside from how you personally directed your comment, it actually holds true generally.

It's ironic how the differences WITHIN a religion can be GREATER than the differences BETWEEN religions.

I don't look for differences between religious doctrines as much as I look for similarities in moral values,
as I regard behavior as being more important than doctrine.

Who cares WHY someone does what's morally right
as long as they DO what's morally right.

While Christians should be concerned with what's morally right, that's not to be our chief aim. Our pursuit of the chief aim should produce these good morals. But good morals on their own are subjective and judged by varying standards.

We seem to have an issue with you actually reading what I've written. I asked what you think the common creed is that non-LDS Christians subscribe to. I'm genuinely curious as to what you think most protestant churches believe on this issue (out of purview but I'd like to know).


Yes, you may have quoted but apparently didn't understand what you quoted. I also directly quoted Tertullian and his explanation of the trinity which is the same as all the creeds the LDS deny (yet they still expect to be called Christians). Read that quote again if you would like, it's from the exact same document you quoted.



Again as I said I'm not discussing that right now. We can go there later but I am discussing exclusively the false claim that scripture was corrupted (aside Justin Martyr's discussion of Old Testament changes)




Again I question if you've actually read that in context. I'll post it again in hopes that you'll stop quoting it as you're attempting to and read the entire passage in context. The first portion in yellow is Tertullian's expression of the Trinity (which again is what you will find in the accepted creeds but that's out of the purview). The green is the doctrine Praxeas (which this letter is against). The second yellow portion again affirms his Trinitarian position. Then there is the teal section where he reverts back to refuting and reprimanding Praxeas claim that the entire letter is about. This is shown in the bottom section from Chapter 11 highlighted in gray and underlined as well. Praxeas said that there were not three persons of the godhead but rather Jesus was God entirely, no difference between the two, so much so that God himself was crucified. THAT is the anti-Christ that Tertullian is speaking against.



It would be like me saying you said "the Bible, that there is a smoking-gun" and saying that you claim the bible is literally a gun because I'm taking your response out of context and divorced from the rest of what you said.



Again, out of purview but that doesn't reflect what the LDS site says at all. It says they're one in purpose but seems to end there.





This is where you and the site are in error. He said no such thing as you put it. He said Praxeas and those like him adulterated scriptures for their end. That is QUITE a different thing than what you claim.

Also as proof of I don't think you're reading what I'm saying , I already said that I do believe there are some errors with the Bible though the important message is fully and totally there



I'm not sure how you don't understand what I said about Marcion.

I laid it out quite plainly.

Marcion sought to remove the Old Testament entirely. He was the first compiler of the New Testament and he thought that the God of the Old Testament was evil and so he didn't want the Old Testament included at all. So he metaphorically (and possibly literally) took knife and pen to the existing scripture to form his heretical thoughts.

There's more here about the heresy if you'd like to better understand what I and Tertullian were talking about.


That's yet to be proven


I'm not convinced that he would. You're welcome to provide proof but I have a good idea it'll be the same quality of the other proof which is things taken wildly out of every context.


See above, anyone with eyes to read can see what he was talking about, no guess work involved, no extra discernment, it's just there plainly


Again I see no proof in your evidence aside Justin Martyr's claim



AGREED


Why do you continue to copy and paste this especially when I never made the claim?



I already shared this again and apparently you didn't read it either. I will make this clearer for you again and show you are taking it wildly out of context so much so that it has lost its true meaning...which is a distortion...which is dressing it up anew, making one thing of another, transferring passages....

Here it is again in its entirety not just your snip along with the preface and other portions showing exactly who he is talking about distorting things. This is the preface to Against Heresies by Irenaeus

The green portion highlights exactly who he is righting about and he spends the next chapters going over their odd beliefs and refuting them.



Anyone who can read and understand can read the rest of the document and see that through Chapter 11 he is addressing their particular claims, and how they were changing scripture for their use, not changing the scripture the church actually used which is what you and this site allege.

And again the passage in question which is in Chapter 8 where Valentinus' teachings are being discussed exclusively as to the heresies being addressed.


The bolded sections show that "their" (the Valentinians) were adapting the oracles and scriptures for their opinions, aka. their heresies. This has nothing to do with the Bible being corrupted. Nothing. To think so is to ignore every bit of evidence at hand.



Clement make a great deal of claims that aren't biblical and again his sainthood was revoked possibly for just such that case. He is not a reliable witness to orthodox Christian thought. He is an outlier in many ways and not the norm nor accepted as the norm. He dealt in Hellenistic and Gnostic thought as equally as Christianity and combined them into another gospel, which Paul says is an act worthy of being cursed over.



Yes he did, and sure we would. Why he didn't write them I don't know, but clearly he covered the most important things, see also John 3:16. My issue is that you take this ending verse of the book of John and try to apply it to an unrelated passage in 3 John.



You have yet to prove that and i doubt that you will. I ask again what exactly does the LDS claim is missing? I know Smith didn't know he just kept changing his teachings as he went.


See again this is regarding Marcion cutting out the Old Testament. Read that wiki it's good info.


Sometimes, and then sometimes not. My sticking point is the exaltation teachings which are ridiculous and wholly unbiblical and totally in contradiction to several passages.


Again, such as what?


Source your well researched work because this article is anything but that.



You would think that someone such as Tertullian or Irenaeus would have mentioned this, but they don't. Clement does as he's walking around in all other manner of gnostic (heretical) thought. He is not a good source. I will read and listen to others aside him if you can provide it.




This article is trash as I've shown repeatedly




So before I go down this rabbit hole where I'm sure to find that this statement is also not true, are you affirming that God is a "thinking gas" as Tertullian is alleged to say? Your answer here decides whether I actually go read the rest of that article and parse it out.

I hate working with these quote trees, so i may have addressed something more than once, but please if you're going to make claims as you are at least read this before handing out something and calling it true when it's shown without question to be bad info.