1. Did a angel help Joseph Smith with the start of this "Original Gospel" that I see as another message?
An angel showed him where to find the ancient record, yes.
2. Are there any other religions today that claims "a Angel or Angels" helped to get started?
I have no idea.
3. Does Jesus tell us that an angel will help restore the "Original Gospel" or Warn us to be careful of angels with messages that seem different?
Actually, Jesus didn't do either of those things.
What makes you believe that LDS is the "One Faith"?
I couldn't possibly answer that in a brief statement. There are many reasons I believe this.
Do you also see that the Church of Philadelphia cannot be closed? (Rev 3) Also, i would like to add that Satan is Satan because he wanted to be God or a god himself. Something I hear could happen to the best LDS believer. (Not sure how true)
I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Do you at least understand how I see it as a "Different Gospel"? Specially when the cover of your bible says, "Another testament of Jesus Christ"... The word "another" means "one More, in addition, some other"...
I can, of course, see how you would see it as a "different gospel," but that's because you are comparing it to Christianity as it has existed primarily since the time the Nicene Creed was established. Yes, it definitely is different from that Christianity. I see it as having enormous commonalities with Christianity of the first and second centuries. When I read about the beliefs of people living during the apostolic age, I realize how different their beliefs were from "traditional" Christianity of today.
Actually, the cover of our Bible says, "Holy Bible: King James Version." It is the Book of Mormon that says "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." The Book of Mormon does not replace the Bible. It was never intended to. We Latter-day Saints love the Bible. I actually enjoy reading the Bible more than I do the Book of Mormon. You seem to be getting all worked up over the use of a completely innocent word: "another." Matthew is our first testament of Jesus Christ. Mark is "another" testament. Luke is still "another" testament. And John is yet "another." We have four different gospel accounts of Jesus Christ's ministry. Certain events are mentioned in more than one of these, but other events are described in only one of the gospel accounts. Each of them, however, testifies to the divinity of Jesus Christ and of His power to redeem mankind. You don't feel that you have to choose just one of them and toss the others out, do you? Well, the Book of Mormon is simply "another" testament. Like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Book of Mormon is a witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is merely an account of His post-resurrection ministry among the people of the Western Hemisphere. It is "another testament," not "a different gospel." There is a huge difference between those two phrases. If you were going to stand trial for a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want as many different people as possible to testify of your innocence? Why would you want to fight against another account testifying of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Thats your belief, I dont believe as you do... Do you have the originals that he translated from?
No. Is that proof that they did not exist? We don't have the original stones upon which the Ten Commandments were inscribed either. That's hardly proof that they never existed.
The Bible as we know it today only has differences because of the translation between Hebrew to English and Greek to English.
The Bible as we know it today is vastly different from the Bible as it existed nearly two millenia ago. If you don't believe that, I would be happy to provide you with the specifics.
But since the Book of Morman was translated Directly to English by an inspired "Smith" or "Angel" I would expect no errors in this "Restored Religion"...
That's true to some extent. The fewer transcriptions and translations are involved, the greater the liklihood of an accurately preserved document. However, whenever human beings are involved in any translation or transcription process, there is always the possibility of error. This is why, on the title page of the book, Joseph Smith inclouded the statement, "Now if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men."
Agreed. But you must see how this looks to a person like myself. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives you spiritual discernment today?
Icebuddy, I honestly do see how this looks to you, and I'm sorry that it looks to you the way it does. In answer to your other question, yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit gives me spiritual discernment today.
i have 2 LDS at my work and we seem to agree on allot of things. of course the Trinity is something you dont believe, but the LDS at my work totally misunderstood it.
That is entirely possible. On the other hand, do you believe that it is possible that you totally misunderstand the LDS belief on the nature of God? (Because I suspect you do.) Let me put it this way: There is nothing about Mormonism's doctrines about God than contradicts anything the Bible has to say about Him. You may believe otherwise, but that is because you only think you know what we believe and why we believe as we do.
i believe that most religions that reject the "Trinity" become the ones "Outside" what I see as mainstream Christianity. JW(WTBS) & LSD(Mormons) to name the Top 2...
Oh, I would most certainly agree that the LDS are not part of "mainstream" Christianity. We don't even claim to be part of "mainstream" or "traditional" Christianity. Of course, that doesn't mean that we don't believe Jesus Christ is our Savior and the only means by which we can be reconciled to God. Trust me, if you could prove that any of Christ's Apostles believed in "the Trinity" the way "traditional" Christians do today, I would take a serious second-look at those Churches.
But, all my spiritual alarms go off when i hear "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" and "Restored Religion"... It just couldnt of happend, God must be powerful enough to keep his promises to the Churches...
Well, I think your spiritual alarm's setting is a tad messed up. I don't believe that God ever promised that the Church Jesus Christ established would continue to exist in its pure form until the end of time. Besides, there is ton of evidence that it hasn't. That doesn't mean that Christianity has ever ceased to exist. It simply means that it has changed over time. The great Protestant Reformers recognized that, but they also knew that they did not have the authority to reestablish the original Church. Here are some of the things some of them had to say on the subject:
I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been
absolutely destroyed
I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it. (Martin Luther, as quoted in
Luther and His Times, page 509)
[There is] no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the great head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking. (Roger Williams, as quoted in
Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In; edited by William Cullen Bryant; 1872)
It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries
. From this time
the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian church
The Christians
only had a dead form [of Christianity] left. (John Wesley, as quoted in
John Wesleys Works, volume 7)
The bottom line is that either the apostasy Paul predicted would take place never did take place or else it did. If it didn't, then there was no need for a "Reformation" of any kind. If it did, then a "Reformation" was insufficient. Only a complete "restoration" or "reestablishment" of the Church from the ground up would be legitimate and valid.
anyone.
