Wayfarer

“I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.” (2 Nephi 33:6)

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

I spend a lot of time hearing other Christians tell me I'm not Christian, that the LDS Church is false, that I need to leave.

So I actually sat down and asked myself: If someone convinced me to leave, where would I even go?

I couldn't find a good answer.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@Josh32002429054 @stackerco By the same logic, Romans only applies to Romans. Scripture regularly teaches general principles through specific circumstances.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@Josh32002429054 @stackerco It’s a “Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery.” My statement still stands.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@jaredadairbell Seriously. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a more one sided debate. @Lets_Talk_HC absolutely crushed it!

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@LukeFHan @kylebeshears I was able to find it in the gospel library app too.

https://t.co/OAVk8MMXrr

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@WaiyuIV @taco_talks Yeah, why deal with the actual arguments when you can just be a religious bigot peddling lies about someone else’s faith. Pathetic.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

What exactly do you think Paul’s “gospel” was? In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 he identifies its core as Christ’s atoning death, burial, and resurrection.

Paul clearly wasn’t condemning continuing revelation. He’s literally writing new revelation while making this argument.

He also wasn’t condemning heavenly manifestations. His apostleship begins with a revelation of Jesus Christ, and the New Testament continues to feature angels giving divine messages after Christ’s resurrection.

So we’re right back where we started: show what specific LDS teaching contradicts Paul’s gospel, in Paul’s own terms.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

You still haven’t answered the argument. You’ve just substituted an insult for exegesis.

Thomas Schreiner, hardly an LDS apologist, says Paul is using hyperbolic language in Galatians 1:8. He explicitly says Paul mentions himself and “an angel from heaven” as hypothetical cases to show that the gospel’s truth depends on its content, not the status of the messenger. He even contrasts v. 8’s more hypothetical construction with v. 9, where Paul turns to the people actually preaching the rival message.

Matthew Harmon and John Sloat make the same point in The Gospel Coalition’s commentary: the angel reference is “more likely hyperbole to make a point.”

And your “angel appeared = false religion” reading would make the Bible self-destruct. Gabriel announces Christ’s birth in Luke 1. An angel directs Cornelius in Acts 10. Revelation 14:6 literally depicts an angel proclaiming an “eternal gospel.”

So Paul’s test plainly isn’t “Did an angel show up?” It’s “Is the message contrary to the gospel?”

You’ve still got to establish that the Restoration teaches the contrary gospel Paul is condemning. Calling me “retarded” doesn’t get you one inch closer. It just makes your absence of an argument louder.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

You’re still assuming your conclusion.

Restoration scripture says intelligence “was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). Reality never emerged from absolute nothing because absolute nothing was never the prior state.

Do I know exactly how eternal spiritual beings, matter, and divine life all function metaphysically? No. Restoration scripture hasn’t yet given us a complete schematic, and I’m fine admitting that.

But your model has its own burden. You posit an eternal, uncaused reality and call it “necessary.” Fine. That doesn’t prove only your conception of God can occupy that category.

And your model, built on creation ex nihilo, creates a much harder problem. In your view, God alone is the ultimate source of every person’s existence, freely creates each one from nothing, and knows infallibly who will ultimately be damned. He wasn’t forced into creating them that way, and He could have created them with different characteristics, placed them in different circumstances, or simply not created them at all. Yet He knowingly chose the exact set of persons and conditions under which some would end in eternal ruin.

So answer this: why is your eternal, uncaused reality allowed to terminate explanation, while mine must have something behind it? And why would a perfectly good God freely create ex nihilo people He already knows will end in eternal ruin?

That’s the burden your model has to carry.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

Reading the Bible didn’t make me Catholic.

Reading the Bible made me leave Catholicism and join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Cameron Riecker @riecker]

If you’re a convert,

Did reading the Bible help make you Catholic?

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@Ducdenghien @dttpeople Man came in swinging with “why is there something rather than nothing?” against the religion that literally teaches matter and our spirits are eternal.

Elite scouting report.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@BlackBlessedLDS

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@WaiyuIV @taco_talks Me: Thoughtful, informed exegesis of the text.

You: …

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@WaiyuIV @taco_talks Some of us have things like a job, family, and a life. We don’t live on X all day.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@WaiyuIV @taco_talks This questions has been answered countless times…

https://t.co/VU3qExgEvM

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

Galatians 1 is such a bad argument against the Restoration.

Paul’s point is rhetorical: “Even if we suddenly preached something contrary to the gospel, or even if an angel from heaven did, reject it.” He’s piling up absurd hypotheticals for emphasis. It’s a rhetorical technique called adynaton.

Notice he says an angel from heaven. He’s not secretly warning about Satan impersonating Moroni 1,800 years later. He’s stressing how inconceivable it would be for Paul, the apostles, or even a heavenly messenger to distort the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection.

You still have to do the actual work: prove the Restoration teaches a gospel contrary to Paul’s. Quoting Galatians 1 and assuming that conclusion is just begging the question.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@CatholicDrip___

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@SalManila8 @stackerco Reading’s hard, huh?

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@CatholicDrip___ https://t.co/6PbM6KfvdD

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

One of the most common arguments against the necessity of baptism is the thief on the cross:

"He wasn't baptized, and Jesus still promised him paradise."

But this argument rests on assumptions the text doesn't support.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

@Mrs_Monica_Rose @unrak01 @WSeymore1986 @taco_talks Thanks for actually engaging with the actual arguments.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

Yes, I’m familiar with Heiser. I also know he rejected LDS theology. But that doesn’t settle the question, because Heiser’s broader theological commitments aren’t the same thing as the textual evidence he analyzed.

Heiser certainly wasn’t alone in reading Psalm 82, Psalm 89, Deuteronomy 32, Job 1, 1 Kings 22, etc. as genuine divine-council material. His distinctive move was insisting that YHWH is ontologically unique and categorically unlike every other elohim. Other major scholars of Israelite religion, including Mark S. Smith, have reached very different conclusions about Israel’s earlier conception of YHWH and El. Smith specifically argues that some older material preserves a stage in which YHWH and El were distinct before their identities were eventually merged.

And Deuteronomy 32:8–9 doesn’t actually say YHWH is the one allotting the nations to subordinate gods. In the older “sons of God” reading, Elyon divides the nations according to the bene elohim, and YHWH receives Jacob/Israel as his allotted portion. Heiser identifies Elyon with YHWH, but that identification is precisely one of the debated interpretive questions. Scholars such as Smith have read the passage as preserving an older distinction between them.

Isaiah 43-44 doesn’t settle the issue either. Statements like “before me there was no God formed” and “besides me there is no God” function as claims of incomparability and exclusive sovereignty, especially in Isaiah’s anti-idol polemic.

The same sort of idiomatic language is used elsewhere of cities. Babylon says, “I am, and there is none besides me” in Isaiah 47:8, 10. Nineveh says essentially the same thing in Zephaniah 2:15. Obviously neither text means Babylon or Nineveh was literally the only city in existence. The idiom means “none compares with me,” “none rivals me.”

And I’m honestly not sure what the Book of Mormon point is supposed to accomplish. For the sake of argument, I could concede that Joseph Smith fabricated every Restoration text, and it still wouldn’t change what Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, Psalm 89, Job, or 1 Kings 22 meant in their ancient Israelite contexts.

So appealing to Heiser or Isaiah 43-44 doesn’t resolve the question. The real issue is what these texts themselves say about YHWH, the bene elohim, and the development of Israelite theology. Joseph Smith can be completely removed from the discussion and that historical-critical question remains.

[Wayfarer @WayfaringWord]

You just proved my point.

Isaiah itself uses virtually the same formula for Babylon in Isaiah 47:8: Babylon says, “I am, and there is no one besides me.”

Then again in Isaiah 47:10: “You said in your heart, ‘I am, and there is no one besides me.’”

And Zephaniah uses it for Nineveh in Zephaniah 2:15: Nineveh “said to itself, ‘I am, and there is no one else.’”

Obviously Isaiah isn’t teaching that Babylon was literally the only city in existence, and Zephaniah isn’t teaching that Nineveh was the only city in existence. It’s exclusivity/supremacy language.

Unless you think Babylon and Nineveh were literally the only cities that existed, you’ve got to recognize the idiom. All Isaiah 45 is proclaiming is YHWH’s unrivaled supremacy and Israel’s obligation to worship him.