- NEW!
by erichard on February 19th, 2005
Part 1
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. " Gal 1:8
Since Paul is warning Christians here not to preach another Gospel, what is the FIRST point he brings up as an example of the correct Gospel?
He brings up that the correct Gospel is NOT given out and taught by Seminaries and educated men, but by prophets who get it from the LORD. Notice what he says:
"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the REVELATION of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:12
So, the true Gospel is taught under the direction of men who receive revelation, or it is NOT the true Gospel. This is the first and main point Paul brings out here in Galatians.
Many ASSUME that the men trained in some religious seminary somewhere, studying the Bible in their great wisdom, obviously have the true Gospel-- when in fact, they obviously do NOT have the true Gospel. Since there are dozens of such seminaries which teach conflicting versions of the Gospel, all claiming the Bible as their source, it is obvious that continuing revelation is needed, and always has been needed, by the sincere followers of Christ.
No wonder Paul makes this his first and main point to distinguish the true Gospel.
Part 2
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18-19
Read the above warning carefully. Does it say ANYTHING about what GOD can or cannot do, or will or will not do?
No. It warns "every MAN" (and woMAN) to not add or take from the words that God has given. An almost identical warning is in Deut. 4:2. But it says nothing about whether God can or will call a prophet of Israel to bring forth more of His words. Yet the calling of Prophets is according to His ancient pattern in all generations of former Israel before it fell.
So this Bible verse in no way shape or form can be used as a "proof" that modern revelation cannot come forth. Men simply ASSUME that these verses say that the God is setting conditions on Himself, declaring that He will never call a Prophet again-- but clearly that is NOT what these verses say.
In fact those who try to use this scripture to teach against any modern revelation are actually ADDING to these verses, doing the very thing these verses warn against!
Part 3
On the other hand, notice this clear promise from Jesus, the evening before his final mortal day, that through the Holy Ghost MANY more things will be revealed to his disciples-- until they have ALL TRUTH.
John 16
12 I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you
into ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever
he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to
come.
Notice that the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Ghost, is the same source that gave the former Prophets of Israel the Bible revelations:
2 Peter 1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but
holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
So the Bible actually predicts more word of the LORD scriptures, not an end of it.
by Glenn Blaylock on January 23rd, 2005
There are several reasons why we don't take the admonition at the end of Revelation to be an absolute prohibition on adding to the record of scripture. First of all, let's look at just what that verse says.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19
So, when John wrote "the words of this *book*," of what book was he writing? It was not the Bible. The Bible as it exists today did not exist at that time. The New Testament had not yet been compiled. So, the book to which he was referring was the Book of Revelation. To further support this point of view, I would point you to the accepted fact that the Gospel of John and his epistles were all written *after* the Book of Revelation. If the admonition in the above verses were an absolute prohibition on adding to the record, then John, himself, violated it as did those that included his other writings in the New Testament.
Another reason why we don't accept this as an absolute restriction on adding to the record of scripture is because Moses included a very similar commandment in Deuteronomy. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2. If we take the verses in revelation as an absolute restriction, then it seems to me that we should be consistent and take this one as an absolute and throw out everything that comes after Deuteronomy. That, of course, would be absurd.
Another reason we don't take these verses as an absolute is because we know that the Bible is incomplete. To back this up, see the answers to http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/5118 , especially Nick Read's. Now, if the Bible is incomplete, how are we supposed to get the doctrines and teachings that are missing if the record is closed.
Finally, going back to the original verses, John writes, "If any *man*...." We agree with the rest of Christianity. A man, in and of himself, does not have the authority to add to the record of scripture. However, God does. If God commands a man to add to the record, then that man is operating under the authority of God and, therefore, has the authority to add new scripture. We believe that we are led by prophets who have been called of God. These men receive revelations from Him. When these revelations are elevated to the level of canonized scripture, it is because God commanded that we do so. Therefore, it is not man that is adding to the cannon; it is God.
by edndori on July 17th, 2009
The foundation of the Mormon belief in additional scripture is the Book of Mormon and other revelations given by God in recent times.
.
This is also consistent with the Bible which says that God is unchanging, and demonstrates a clear pattern of ongoing revelation (scripture, in its simplest definition, is revelation which has been written down).
If God does not change, but revelation has stopped, it can only be that men have changed and refused to accept further revelation.
by Weird Science on December 31st, 2007
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15 KJ)
"6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 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." (Galatians 1:6-9 KJ)
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on November 19th, 2009
The only reason I can see that Joe needed additional scriptures....
Oh that’s an easy one.
These are just a few of the things Joey had to change, to acomidate his new found ego. Not that he didn't have an ego before this, but now he had hundreds of zombies following him and worshipping him.
The sad thing is, the Morg here will read this and argue that it is not true. Even if you show them there own scriptures. Very Very Sad indeed.
Alleged Book of Mormon had
God and Jesus as one being.
Polygamy was a sin
Physical death was the end of your chances to except God.
There was only One God.
God was from everlasting till everlasting
Doctrine and Covenants - Pearl of Greeeeeeat Price (that price being your soul)
All of a sudden,
God and Jesus are two separate beings.
It is not only ok to have plural wives, it is a commandment. And one cannot go to the highest level of LDS heaven without it.
Again, the LDS god made a mistake. Apparently, when you die you can still earn your way into heaven. Not only that, but you can pray someone else who died into heaven. Or at least baptize their stinky corpse.
Now there are more gods than one could imagine.
God has only been god since he progressed through and from another planet.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on November 15th, 2009
SHORT ANSWER: A corruption of the Pentecostal Doctrine of Prophetic Utterance. The LdS Church wasn't the first or the last doctrinal cult to corrupt this doctrine.
[This is in addition to the fact that Joseph Smith was attempting to consolidate power unto himself within the 19th Century Restorationist Movement - which I addressed in my first answer to this question]
LONG ANSWER:
First let's establish the fact that the Early Mormons were dyed in the wool, tongues speaking "Cane Ridge" style Pentecostals. I've addressed this using first person citations in my White Page entitled, "Mormons: Pentecostals Gone Bad" in which I state:
"Tongues speaking, vision seeing, holy rolling Mormons? For many the fact that primitive Mormonism was Pentecostal may come as a shock but it's a historical fact!...
... Please note, that I am NOT saying that these experiences are Biblically or evidentially legitimate nor that they would be accepted as orthodox in today's Charismatic/Pentecostal Church."
(http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&catid=10&id=&id=76819&catid=10)
Now that we've established the fact that Mormonism was birthed from Pentecostal roots (a fact that no Mormon Studies Scholar disputes), this classic - and common - corruption can be examined from within that framework.
A mark of a Doctrinal Christian Cult is that they will either covertly or overtly add to the Canon of Scripture (the Bible).
For Pentecostal groups this will manifest itself as the leader's words being considered equal to, or above the Bible - which is the case with today's LdS Church.
However, before we go too far let's establish the baseline for the Pentecostal doctrine of Prophecy. This link contains several interesting articles on the Pentecostal Doctrine of the Gift of Prophecy I encourage the interested reader to consider it's content in light of the question being posed: http://lighthouseangel.webs.com/propheticutterances.htm .
I refer the interested reader to that link in the interest of time and space with just this light guidance: notice how the language that's used by both modern Pentecostals and modern Mormons to describe the prophetic gift and the prophetic office are both similar in language (The correlation is quite interesting!) yet dramatically different in application.
Specifically, in a Biblically orthodox Pentecostal setting the words of the Prophet are weighed, scrutinized, and compared to the Bible - this is commonly referred to as "plumblining". If a prophetic utterance isn't "plumb" it is immediately rejected.
I am a Charismatic/Pentecostal and have, in fact, seen this done on several occasions.
However, in cults even errant utterances are left to stand since the "living revelation" of the leader are superior to the "dead words on paper".
Ironically, in some cults these "living revelations" are transcribed and over time become "dead words on paper" which get subordinated to NEW "living revelations" from succeeding "Living Prophets".
Sound familiar Mormons?
In other cases the words of the founding "Living Prophet" are left to stand thus becoming "new scripture" that gets tacked onto the Biblical canon.
This pattern can not only be seen in the Mormons but in many other doctrinal cults as well. Examples include (but are not limited to):
1) The ORIGINAL Quaker Movement
2) The Shakers
3) The Way International
4) The Watchtower Society (aka 'Jehovah's Witnesses')
6) The Seventh-day Adventists
7) The Children of God (aka "The Family International")
8) The Oneida Community
9) The Spiritualism Movement
10) The ORIGINAL Unitarians
11) The Swedenborgians
etc., etc., etc., AND, of course . . .
12) The Latter Day Saint Movement
The latter, of course, includes ALL nearly 200-denominations who have come out of the LDS Movement over time (approximately 67 still acive) the best known of which are the LdS Church, the RLDS/Community of Christ, and the Fundamentalist LDS Churches.
In closing, neither time or space allows me to develop this subject to the degree that it merits and deserves. My hope this that this answer will spur myself - or others - to do so in a more adequate and fully developed format. This is a sketchy, cryptic outline, nothing more!
And, of course, I hope that I have answered the question to the satisfaction of many.
CONCLUSION:
Suffice to say this is yet another example of how Mormonism uses common Christian words, terms and forms and changes the underlying meaning and application.
by John Cox on December 1st, 2009
The Five to Six Thousand year precedent God set in giving additional scripture. God has given His word to all His children in all ages and all places, the Bible is a testament to that. Why should our day be differant?
by Moongrim on July 17th, 2009
Rough guess:
http://www.thelostbooks.com/
by whew4 on February 20th, 2009
I must ask, additional scripture to what? Are you implying that the Bible is the end of all revelation from God? If so what is your foundation for such a belief? I know of no scripture in the Bible which says God will no longer speak His truths to mankind. I know of no scripture in the Bible which says God will no longer call Prophets who speak for Him. Does your version of the Bible have such scriptures? I would be glad to know where these are found. We believe God is still in charge of things here on earth, and He can do what ever He so chooses. whew4
by the Otter on November 16th, 2009
Um… the fact that we’re already receiving it? ^_^
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on July 16th, 2009
SHORT ANSWER:
Joseph Smith's doctrine of "continuing revelation" and the Book of Mormon that resulted from it was a misguided attempt to provide spiritual answers to the profound religious, social, and political controversies of North Eastern America during the early 19th Century .
As Alexander Campbell, a contemporary of Joseph Smith and an early leader in the Second Great Awakening of the religious movement that has been referred to as the Restoration, or Stone-Campbell Movement, wrote in 1831:
"This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in N. York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to. How much more benevolent and intelligent this American Apostle, than were the holy twelve, and Paul to assist them!!! He prophesied of all these topics, and of the apostacy, and infallibly decided, by his authority, every question. How easy to prophecy of the past or of the present time!!"
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&catid=520&id=80486#80486
LONG ANSWER:
"Robert Hullinger's book, Mormon Answer to Skepticism, examines the major thought patterns of the Book of Mormon in relation to Joseph Smith's personal development...
Hullinger argues that Joseph Smith was responding to the critics of the Bible in his day, such as Thomas Paine. Paine, often referred to as the father of the American Revolution, became notorious for writing The Age of Reason, published in 1793–94, advocating deism and arguing against Christian doctrines.
Lucy Smith, Joseph's mother, wrote about the family's encounter with the writings of Thomas Paine. Shortly before Joseph Smith was born, while the Smiths were living in Tunbridge, Vermont, Lucy became interested in religion and started attending the Methodist meetings. Asael Smith, Lucy's father-in-law, disapproved and tried to convince Joseph Smith, Sr., to quit attending. Lucy wrote that Asael "came to the door one day and threw Tom Pains age of reason into the house and angrily bade him read that until he believed it."1
Hullinger observers:
Prophecy in the Book of Mormon is a massive response to deistic objections. Smith traced prediction back to the time of Jared, including the note that prophecies from the time of Adam were on the brass plates of Laban (1 Ne 3:20) and, soon after the publication of the Book of Mormon, produced prophecies of Adam himself. . . .
No room was allowed for Paine's charge that the prophets were "liars and impostors," for Smith made the gift of prophecy depend upon merit. Prophets were identified by their genealogies, their properly recorded calls from God, their exemplary lives, and their fulfilled predictions.
Smith generally acknowledged the objections that skeptics had toward prophecy. He detailed the case gainst it as he saw it through the person of Korihor, the arch-villain and antichrist of the Book of Mormon. Korihor "began to preach unto the people against the prophecies which had been spoken by the prophets, concerning the coming of Christ" (Alma 30:6).2
Further on, Hullinger states:
Fulfilled prophecy was meant to inspire faith in future fulfillment. By including signs of the coming birth and death of Christ and notice of their accomplishment in the Book of Mormon, Smith pointed that reader who had been looking for such signs to those of the coming millennium. By what the Bible and Book of Mormon describe as signs of the last days, including the discovery of the latter book, the reader was encouraged and challenged to expect the imminent wind-up of this world's affairs and the beginning of the millennium.3
In discussing Smith's view of revelation, Hullinger concludes:
In defense of God, Joseph Smith assailed the natural revelation of deism and the static revelation of traditional Christianity. To enable revealed religion to overcome natural religion, however, he supported the deistic attack upon the view that the present Bible is God's complete and errorless revelation to mankind. Destruction of the traditional view left him free to preserve special revelation by his own means.4
1 Lavina Fielding Anderson, ed., Lucy's Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith's Family Memoir, Signature Books, 2001, p. 291. [link]
2 Robert N. Hullinger, Mormon Answer to Skepticism: Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon, Clayton Publishing House, 1980, p. 141.
3 Ibid., p. 142.
4 Ibid., p. 150."
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no112.htm#Skepticism
by laie_techie on July 16th, 2009
Amos 3:7 affirms that the Lord God will do nothing without first revealing His secret to the Prophet. Either we accept continuing revelation, or we accept that the Lord God has done nothing since the first century A.D.
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on July 16th, 2009
At first, Joseph Smith was relatively close to Christian views. Yet once he got rolling, he needed to back up such things as polygamy, murder, lies needed to be spoken for his god etc etc. So, new texts were needed to support these none biblical doctrines and beliefs.
MORMONS: Why does the Book of Mormon declare that there is only one God yet the Doctrine and Covenants teaches there are many gods?
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 2nd, 2010
| 1 person likes this
LdS: Why did God himself quote multiple times from the Song of Solomon in the Doctrine and Covenants if it's uninspired?
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 7th, 2011
| 4 people like this
MORMONS: If Jewish and Christian scribes added to the plain and precious truths in the Bible, why are the extant manuscripts so consistent?
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 16th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
If the plates were not used to translate the Book of Mormon, than why were they even needed?
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on February 3rd, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Am i the only one who doesn't know what a Mormon is?
by Alexandra_D on January 11th, 2011
| 3 people like this
You're reading What is the foundation of the Mormon belief in additional scripture?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Very telling... What is Mormon test for determining if a revelation is from God or not?
by pacella23 on April 22nd, 2005
There is NO end to Gods WORD!
by Anonymous on November 9th, 2005
Very good post!
What is Mormon test for determining if revelation is from God or not? It is called revelation from the Holy Ghost. If it is from God, He will let you know by the Holy Ghost. You do not have to take anyone else's word for it, the Lord will let you know. whew4
by whew4 on March 16th, 2009
.
Yes, indeed a GREAT answer if spewing LdS Dogma as fact is "great". The reader will notice that the only hands clapping and voices praising this wrong headed answer are all LdS.
.
However since the LdS doctrine is a corrupted reinterpretation of Pentecostal Doctrine regarding prophecy.
.
The key difference is that in Charismatic Theology any "prophecy" that contradicts the Bible is judged "false" and discarded. In LdS Theology this isn't the case.
.
Joseph Smith contradicted the Bible relentlessly and his "prophecies" are accepted as "inspired" by Mormons.
.
-4
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on July 16th, 2009
Did Joseph Smith contradict the Bible, or did he just contradict YOUR Pentecostal interpretation of the Bible? There is a big difference my friend!
by whew4 on August 19th, 2009
> Did Joseph Smith contradict the Bible, or did he just contradict YOUR Pentecostal interpretation of the Bible? <
.
Clearly Joseph Smith contradicted the Bible or ever:
.
1) He would have felt no need to "retranslate" it (via the Joseph Smith Translation) so that the retranslation didn't contract him.
.
2) The contradictions wouldn't have been pointed out by Biblical Christians since the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.
.
So, no, Smith didn't just contradict MY interpretation of the Bible he CLEARLY contradicted THE Bible, period.
.
And if you ever unsnap and can read the Bible with your Mormon Sunglasses off you will see that the contradictions are apparent.
.
And your comment exposes the fact that you know NOTHING about Pentecostal Theology in regard to prophetic utterances.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on August 19th, 2009
IT
The fact is the Bible is an inanimate object which can neither speak or teach anything. Therefore a person must read and interpret those words correctly, if they are to be understood as they were intended. Just look around you, of the 40,000 different Churches in the world today, exactly how many of them understand the bible in exactly the same way? No two Churches agree completely on everything! Why? Is it God's fault, or did men get hold of His words and mix and remove a few of their own things, in the process of copying those ancient records? If you really think it is possible for anyone to just read the Bible and understand it exactly the same, think again...Later
by whew4 on September 28th, 2009
Whew, I'm going to START with the same friendly reminder: PARAGRAPH!
.
Next, if you weren't so brainwashed by LDS dogma you would see how the evidence discredits your WHOLE answer.
.
"There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
.
As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 in copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 28th, 2009
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.
.
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.
.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 28th, 2009
If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament."
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability
.
And Whew the OLDEST and the NEWEST manuscripts - like the Dead Sea Scrolls proved with the Old Testament - are remarkably consistent.
.
So the textual "corruption" of the Bible that LdS tout so loudly is suspect at best.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 28th, 2009
.
Next . . .
.
>The fact is the Bible is an inanimate object which can neither speak or teach anything<
.
And that inanimate object is, as it says about itself:
"Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
.
And that "inanimate object" has spoken to men throughout the ages in that quick, powerful, sharp manner.
.
Further, your argument is based on the assumption that Christians don't believe in and have a relationship with the Holy Spirit. Well I hate to break the news to you Whew but the LdS Church hasn't "cornered the market" on the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit.
.
We believe in and rely on the Holy Spirit as much as any LdS. And like LdS we depend on Him to lead us into all truth. However . . .
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 28th, 2009
unlike LdS we do NOT equate feelings with the Holy Spirit. Rather we subject our feelings TO the Bible for we know that any subjective revelation that we receive from the Holy Spirit MUST be consistent with the unchanging absolute truth of the Bible.
.
And it is the Holy Spirit that breathes life into the "inanimate object" known as the Bible. Without the ministry of the Holy Spirit the Bible is just another book.
.
> If you really think it is possible for anyone to just read the Bible and understand it exactly the same, think again <
.
No I don't believe that. I believe the exact opposite in fact. However, that doesn't bespeak that the Bible is broken it bespeaks the fact that WE are broken, fallen sinners in need of the Holy Spirit as previously noted.
.
And the fact of the matter is that we DO agree on the Essential Doctrines. As I have said so many times before:
.
"In essentials unity.
In non-essentials liberty.
In all things charity."
.
In order to be considered . . .
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 28th, 2009
Biblically Orthodox one MUST be in unity with the Essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. Those essential doctrines are encapsulated in the Creeds - at least one of which was authored BY the Apostles.
.
Now I didn't say that you have to BELIEVE in the creeds - or even consider them authoritative - but what you teach must be aligned with them for they were developed specifically as a protection AGAINST heretical error.
.
And that is, of course, why Joseph Smith declared them "abominable": they threatened his authority.
.
Finally, though I know that you won't do anything with it, I would add that just as the LdS perception of Christianity is flawed, so is what the LdS Church teaches about the Creeds.
.
But that is another long post so I will stop with this:
.
Whew you really don't know or understand mainstream Christianity at all. All you know is what the LdS Church has told you and it is WRONG!.
.
Oh and . . . PARAGRAPH your posts please!
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on September 28th, 2009
Part 1: hog wash
Part b: hog wash
and letter three: hog wash
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on November 16th, 2009