Are Mormons Living "Another Gospel"or do paid anti-Mormons preach that they do?
Hello everyone. I'm back on the site during lunch today to give my opinion on a question continues to recur. Bear with me on posting my picture on the other thread. Techical difficulties I'll need to e-mial the administators about. Until then. Ponder on this post and let me know what you think.
Many professional, paid detractors of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter days Saints (Ed Decker, James White, The Tanners etc) often point to passages in Paul's epistle to the Galatians as evidence that Mormonism is really "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6). They quote Galatians 1:8, which says, "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." But their assertion is given undue credit; the "other gospel" to which Paul was referring was the one being polluted by the Jews (see Galatians 1:14).
I find it interesting that this passage of scripture was never used against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until the birth of the film and the later accompanying book "The God makers." Prior to 1982-1983, no Christian Evangelical Sect had really even presented the argument. However, once Ed Decker and Co. started to preach the notions that:[/b]
A. Mormons teach that Jesus and Lucifer were Spirit Brothers which in turn equals the notion that[/b]
B. Jesus and Satan could not possibly be brothers ergo[/b]
C. Not only do Mormons worship Satan they [/b]
D. Preach and another Jesus ergo. [/b]
E. If they preach another Jesus, then the Gospel they preach must be another gospel (Non Christian) therefore [/b]
F. The other Gospel was brought by the Devil and an angel of Light to Joseph Smith hence [/b]
G: Mormons worship the Devil, Joseph Smith and a false Jesus, Preach another Gospel and Mormons are not Christians THEY ARE A CULT![/b]
Despite the fact that all of these assertions by Decker and his infamous Saints Alive and Ex-Mormons for Jesus were proven untrue and incorrect by Latter-day Saints and by the non Mormon community at large, Decker still continued to promulgate such vicious lies. He started in Utah and the Northwest by showing his film, The Godmakers and selling book of the the same title.
He did it so well, that even a few of the local Evangelical leaders of were led to a pulpit in Salt Lake City in 1986 to make an official announcement to the Utah community that Mormons are not Christians and they should be branded a cult. With the backing of these few leaders, Decker and his detractors appeared to have the stamp of approval to mass produce his lies. That is exactly what they are. Lies! If one will actually look at the logic, reason and teaching of Decker, they could not possibly continue to support his claims. I would suspect that most of the people on this site gain their knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (correct me if am wrong) from either friends, pastors or web sites that have adopted Decker"s lies rather than think and research his claims for themselves.
If one will begin to look at the actual interpretation and history of Galatians 1:6-12 and other scriptures leveled at Mormons, one will truly begin to see that the claims against them are untrue. Let us begin by looking at Galatians 1:8.
What does Galatians 1:6-12 really mean?[/b]
If one will truly look at the historical narrative and spiritual implications of what Paul attempting to preach to the Galatians one will truly understand what Paul meant. As an appointed servant of Jesus Christ, Paul was simply taking appropriate ecclesiastical action to prevent the deterioration of gospel ideals. It was his responsibility to correct the members of the church when they erred--and they often did. Spiritual apostasy was rampant among the Galatian saints. Chiefly they were attempting to harmonize the Old law with their newly found faith. They were trying to preserve the laws of both covenants.
Paul was trying to get the Saints to understand that if any other gospel was preached by them or to them that did not follow or sustain the New Law of Christ as it had been taught to them, they could and would be deceived. Since the practices introduced by Christ were foreign to their traditions, the saints needed constant direction from Christ and his chosen leaders. After Paul and the other apostles, prophets, teachers and other Church legal administrators were killed, no one was left to make such corrections, and people fell away from the teachings of Christ. Consequently, churches established their own doctrines--apart from the revelations of God. Because of this, the gospel of Christ needed to be restored in our times, and the Lord has appointed new leaders to correct the Saints when they err.
It is interesting that those deceitful professors of scripture (Decker et al) who use Galatians 1:8 to establish their anti-Mormon position are, in reality, among those who are following a theology that has been altered from the original by the traditions and the "cunning craftiness" of men (Ephesians 4:14). Indeed, it is they who are following "another gospel" apart from the one established by Christ himself and restored in these last days through a prophet of God.
Even Non-LDS Christians understand what Paul was saying here. It is not the incorrect cultist twist given by Anti-Mormons who seek to indoctrinate and garner support from some of those who may be theologically illiterate.
This scripture has nothing to do with Joseph Smith or the Angel Moroni, gold plates or another gospel or another Jesus![/b]
In fact, I will cite commentary from Non LDS sources such as Broadman and Holman from the New American Commentary.[/b]
They state:[/b]
In the second place, Paul brought even the angels within the purview of his anathema. As Luther quaintly put it: "Here Paul is breathing fire. His zeal is so fervent that he almost begins to curse the angels themselves."
[2] This is the first of three references to angels in Galatians. In 3:19 Paul referred to the belief that the law was ordained through the mediation of angels, and in 4:14
he reminded the Galatians that they initially welcomed him as an angel of God,[/b]
perhaps a reference to the incident at Lystra recorded in Acts 14. But why did Paul raise the specter of an angel preaching an apostate gospel? If we identify the Galatian error with what Paul confronted at Colosse, then we may assume that the kind of angelic adulation that prevailed in that setting was also a part of the "higher spirituality" brought to [/b]Galatia[/b]
by the anti-Pauline missionaries (cf. Col. 2:16-18).[3] [/b]
Paul's opponents also may have cited the role of the angels in the giving of the law (Gal. 3:19) to give a supernatural enhancement to their own proclamation of a law-observant gospel.
In that case, Paul wanted to make clear that even if an angel, even an exalted angel such as Gabriel or Michael, were to preach a different gospel, the curse of God would be upon him. Early Christian preaching was aware of just such an angelic apostasy when the angels who rebelled with Satan "abandoned their own home" (Jude 6) for the change of darkness and eventual condemnation on the day of judgment. Moreover, Paul was aware that Satan himself could masquerade as an angel of light. Indeed, by this cunning he had led astray many sincere believers by their pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor. 11:3-15). [/b]
What is the fate of one who thus perverts the gospel of Christ, be it Paul, any other human teacher, or even a messenger straight from heaven itself? The answer is given in two words:
anathema esto , "let him be accursed!" Originally the word
anathema , which literally means "something that is placed up," referred to any object set aside for divine purposes, whether an offering in the temple set aside for divine blessing or the captured booty of Achan reserved for divine cursing (Josh. 7:11-12). In time the negative sense of the word prevailed, and
anathema became synonymous with anything or anyone under the "ban" (Hebrew,
herem ) and hence delivered over to God's wrath for the final judgment. Later in church history
anathema sit! became the standard postscript pronounced by the church on a notorious heretic. This is a derivative use of the word since, at best, the church's decision can only be a ratification of the pronouncement of God's own excluding wrath. To be anathematized then means far more.
I enjoy John Gill"s commentary on the Bible. I actually spent over $200 to have all of the volumes in print in my library. Here is an online version where you can read his supporting statements.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=ga&chapter=001&verse=6
An excellent Latter-day Saints review of this topic supports the aforementioned Non-Mormon Christian apologists heretofore quoted. It is found at this site. It is ever more explicit on the subject and denounces anti-mormon arguments and how they attempt to make these verses applicable to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Here is is:
http://www.fairlds.org/Reviews/Rvw01011.html
I hope this helps. Several of you have quoted this passage, so it felt it would be useful to start a new thread on it.
God Bless.
Porter.
Are Mormons really preaching "Another Gospel?' An exposition of Galatians 1:6-12
