To All former Evangelicals/Protestants

Galatians220 · #1 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 12:41 PM

Before I post my question my coming here is for my learning about the LDS Church. I began my search when I met an LDS in class and from then on I attended on Sundays going on all three classes (Communion, Doctrines, and Mens) for six months. I wanted to learn from the LDS thenselves instead of learning only from the Apologist themselves.

I've ended my visits because of a lack of time, church priorities, but also learning enough to know that, unfortunately have more disagreements with the LDS doctrine than agree. However, I have promised my friend to continue reading the Book of Mormon so that the Spirit can enlighten me on things that may confirm the truth you all believed in, and I will keep that promise.

I am here to learn from you, on why you believed that the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and I feel that there is no better group or place to ask than here. I want to talk to those who use to believe in:

1. The Word of God being the primary source of Truth.
2. The Trinity (One God in 3 persons opp. to personages)
3. In Salvation by Faith Alone (as well as Eternal Security, "Once Saved, Always Saved")

I want most especially to talk to those who have read the Bible for many years as an Evangelical/Protestant and if any, those who have experiences and learning in Apologetics, defending the 3 fundamental doctrines above. My primary question to you is this:

What argument most convinced you from the Word of God, to change from believing in these fundamentals to believing just the opposite of them?

This is pretty much the last part of my learning about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. apart from the Book of Mormon. I look forward to reading all of your feedbacks.

I've received a lot of feedback but it wasn't what I was expecting. Some came out of curiosity but others came suspecting yet another attacker of their faith and that 's understandable. Let me assure you all that I am not here to debunk any doctrine or beliefs. My purpose here is only to learn and encourage.

If anyone would like to tell their story on how they've converted from a fundamentalist Protestant/Evangelical Church to the LDS, I'd be happy to hear and learn from you. You will not be condemned by me nor will I let anyone do that.

Debating will also be prohibited here, this is a neutral thread. I will however answer questions but if anyone wishes to challenge me, then set up your own thread but not here.

God bless

bytebear · #2 (**permalink**) 08-25-2009, 01:40 PM

Can I assume by your first point, that you mean Sola Scritura?

May I recommend reading the book, "How Wide the Divide?" by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson. One author is an evangelical scholar, and the other an LDS scholar. Both have excellent credentials, especially in Bible studies. The book covers the topics you have pointed out, and discusses the differences and similarities in belief. I think it would be a great study guide for you.

Galatians220 · #3 (**permalink**) 08-26-2009, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bytebear

Can I assume by your first point, that you mean Sola Scritura?

May I recommend reading the book, "How Wide the Divide?" by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson. One author is an evangelical scholar, and the other an LDS scholar. Both have excellent credentials, especially in Bible studies. The book covers the topics you have pointed out, and discusses the differences and similarities in belief. I think it would be a great study guide for you.

Yes, it is sola scriptura, I didn't want to use terms that some may not be familiar with. Do you know if this Evangelical is one who originally is a believer in the inerrancy of scripture?

I would like to read it when I have time but I'd like to know from those who use to believe in it.

Elohel · #4 (**permalink**) 08-26-2009, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galatians220

What argument most convinced you from the Word of God, to change from believing in these fundamentals to believing just the opposite of them?

No argument ever convinced anybody. Nobody ever gained a true witness from the Holy Spirit through debate and argument.

You seem like a well versed scriptorian, and a true Evangelical. I think I might be a bit mentally outclassed, especially when it comes to these subjects. As a matter of fact, I don't even meet your criteria for a well read previous Protestant. What I do know, however, is that the Book of Mormon is true scripture.

To entertain your idea, though, I will give my common reply to my issue of the Trinity. It is by no means a complete discourse of all my issue with the Trinity, but it seems to be my strongest.

There were some discussions about what this term meant on my mission, as I served around many Catholic areas. One of the scriptures I heard the most from the Bible to support Trinitarianism was John 10:30. Some time after I returned I looked up the meaning of the greek in Strong's concordance as well as verified it's authenticity in Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus.

The word was "heis".

This is what Thayer's Lexicon had to say about the use of the greek word: "to be united most closely (in will, spirit)"

This is what Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words had to say on the use of the greek word: "(b) metaphorically, "union" and "concord," e.g., Jhn 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22; Rom 12:4, 5; Phl 1:27;"

Anyway, just my .02. Thanks!

Maxel · #5 (**permalink**) 08-26-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galatians220

Do you know if this Evangelical is one who originally is a believer in the inerrancy of scripture?

My own copy of How Wide the Divide is at the bottom of a suitcase right now so I can't double check to make sure, but IIRC:

Professor Blomberg (the Evangelical professor) cited the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as what he believes an ideal approach to the subject of 'biblical inerrancy'. I'm no expert on the Chicago Statement (though, from what I've read, I think it's a very good approach to the subject) but a large part of it deals with the idea that the scriptures as they were written by prophets are inerrant, but inconsistencies may have cropped up over time due to man's fallibility. However, such inconsistencies don't render any part of the canonized Bible fallacious.

If anyone knows more than I, feel free to chime in and correct me/add to what I've said.

Lilac · #6 (**permalink**) 08-26-2009, 01:25 PM

I did not read the other posts because I'm supposed to be working and I'm taking a quick mental break.

I am a practicing Protestant.

Sola Scriptura? I believe it but I'm having some problems...mostly, why is there so many denominations and everyone is reading the same Bible? I'm a little worried about that. Maybe there is a need for a shepherd? However, I am very concerned about a "shepherd" leading people astray...which is why I feel comfortable with Sola Scriptura. It feels like a safety net to me.

Trinity: I will be studying this in further detail. Quite honestly, the concept of a Protestant/Catholic trinity is hard to grasp and so is the LDS (social but not physical trinity) concept. I'm not sure I truly understand any of them at this point in my life. I'm not sure we ever will. There is no mention of the trinity in the Bible. And Jesus often prayed to God. I was teaching my kids about that one day and one child asked "Was Jesus talking to himself?". Children often ask the best questions!

Faith Alone: You mean are we saved by faith or works? I believe it is a mix of the two and I don't think that conflicts with LDS, does it? You can't have good works without God...you need faith in God to live a Godly life because we can never be holy enough for God. However, we do need to try. It is our responsibility to live a holy life because as God's Child that is expected of me.

Good questions...

rameumptom · #7 (**permalink**) 08-26-2009, 02:13 PM

You said you attended for 6 months, but called our meetings "communion, doctrines, and mens"? That seems strange that you wouldn't have called them by the name we use: "Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School, Priesthood" had you really attended for such a length of time.

1. The Word of God being the primary source of Truth.
2. The Trinity (One God in 3 persons opp. to personages)
3. In Salvation by Faith Alone (as well as Eternal Security, "Once Saved, Always Saved")

I am an apologist for the LDS faith. However, I've closely studied all of these issues you bring up, from many viewpoints. The Bible is vague enough to allow these beliefs, or the ones the LDS believe in. There are non-LDS scholars who have written on these issues from both sides. As for #3, even traditional Christians disagree on this one, as some are Calvinist, others Arminian, and other Pelagian.

The "WORD OF GOD" IS the primary source of truth. But the definition of "word of God" is the kicker. Do you confine it to the Bible? Or do you realize that there are other words of God? If you are Bible only, what do you do with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the dozens of books that Jews and Christians once considered scripture, but were rejected centuries after Christ's death by St Jerome? How about the Book of Enoch, which is quoted 39 times in the New Testament? Should it be part of the Bible? Or if it isn't inspired, does that mean the apostles were wrong to quote it?

As for Trinity, there are now some non-LDS scholars who are beginning to accept the concept of a "social Trinity." And there are Christians who believe in modalism today, as well.

rameumptom · #8 (**permalink**) 08-27-2009, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxel

My own copy of How Wide the Divide is at the bottom of a suitcase right now so I can't double check to make sure, but IIRC:

Professor Blomberg (the Evangelical professor) cited the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as what he believes an ideal approach to the subject of 'biblical inerrancy'. I'm no expert on the Chicago Statement (though, from what I've read, I think it's a very good approach to the subject) but a large part of it deals with the idea that the scriptures as they were written by prophets are inerrant, but inconsistencies may have cropped up over time due to man's fallibility. However, such inconsistencies don't render any part of the canonized Bible fallacious.

If anyone knows more than I, feel free to chime in and correct me/add to what I've said.

The Chicago statement leaves much to desire, however. It does not give details as to how later interpolations would affect the Bible. It leaves it up to the Bible reader to try and determine what is originally from the prophets, and what was added later. There are still problems, for instance, with the Johannine Comma in the KJV (taken out of most later Bible versions). I still have many evangelicals use it to "prove" the Trinity, even though it was added centuries later.

anatess · #9 (**permalink**) 08-28-2009, 01:03 PM

I hope I won't sound harsh here. If it comes out as such, I apologize - it is not my intent.

The problem with scriptorians, bible scholars, etc., is that sometimes, in their quest for logical truth and exactness (mostly linguistic), they forget that the Bible is not intended to be read as a textbook.

I used to be Catholic, so I don't belong in this thread, but I'm just going to add my 2 cents in:

The reason I profess that the Book of Mormon is true is because I have spiritual revelation that the Great Apostasy is true. I fasted, prayed, sat on the beach with the book, the Great Apostasy, read it cover to cover and I had a screaming in my ear and a thudding in my heart to confirm that it is true. Flashes of my past experiences came to mind to support its truth. It is like I have always known it, I just never saw it! That was the start of my spiritual journey to conversion.

I believe, debating over scripture is not going to get you anywhere. Fast and pray and ask God. That works better, I think.

Galatians220 · #10 (**permalink**) 08-31-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elohel

No argument ever convinced anybody. Nobody ever gained a true witness from the Holy Spirit through debate and argument.

You seem like a well versed scriptorian, and a true Evangelical. I think I might be a bit mentally outclassed, especially when it comes to these subjects. As a matter of fact, I don't even meet your criteria for a well read previous Protestant. What I do know, however, is that the Book of Mormon is true scripture.

To entertain your idea, though, I will give my common reply to my issue of the Trinity. It is by no means a complete discourse of all my issue with the Trinity, but it seems to be my strongest.

There were some discussions about what this term meant on my mission, as I served around many Catholic areas. One of the scriptures I heard the most from the Bible to support Trinitarianism was John 10:30. Some time after I returned I looked up the meaning of the greek in Strong's concordance as well as verified it's authenticity in Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus.

The word was "heis".

This is what Thayer's Lexicon had to say about the use of the greek word: "to be united most closely (in will, spirit)"

This is what Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words had to say on the use of the greek word: "(b) metaphorically, "union" and "concord," e.g., Jhn 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22; Rom 12:4, 5; Phl 1:27;"

Anyway, just my .02. Thanks!

Your 2 cents is a good suppliment to me in the defense of the Trinity Heis does mean One but in a kind of a union as you just said. Thanks for your contribution Elohel

By the way, is your name in hebrew?