[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Fish-Hunter

That's a nice post, but it appears you are still avoiding the Apostle Paul. We are not even talking about the interpretation of the Scriptures at this point, because you have not even attempted to support the Mormon Gospel through the writings of Paul. The Bible does not change; therefore I assume you know the content of Paul's letters. I think Paul's writing on the gospel is very clear which would not require much debate. If you need extra-biblical revelation to explain away the clear teaching of Paul, are you being dishonest with the biblical text? It's very interesting what Peter writes about Paul's writing. In many liberal and unorthodox religious circles, Paul is attacked by those who reject the gospel of grace. Roman Catholics avoid Paul like a plague too. I believe there is even a thread on here that attacks the credibility of the Apostle Paul. Do you see the Apostle Paul to be as authoritative as Joseph Smith and additional LDS Prophets?

So we are clear: there are nine distinct points where you have either ceded the point or failed to respond.

As to avoiding Paul? That is an odd charge. I attempted to engage on both Romans 1:16-17 or Romans 4:5 repeatedly but you refused. Unless you feel Paul didn't write Romans your charge is confused. As to the clarity of Paul and your own sense as to what the meaning is: your position is demonstrably false. I offered to explain your failing with Romans 1:16-17, but, as noted, your refused. Of course, simply looking at larger Christendom also illustrates the erroneousness of your idea. There is no single view on Paul's thought. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelicals, such as yourself, etc. all have different positions on the meaning of Paul. Now, you certainly feel your stance is the right one, but the fact there are differing views held by literally hundreds of millions of other Christians clearly indicates the folly of claiming Paul is "very clear". Also note, your comment about Roman Catholics avoidance of Paul is laughable. Roman Catholicism can be credited as part of the very Tradition that both preserved and canonized Paul's writings.

To the notion any extra-biblical revelation used to clarify Paul being dishonest: this notion is incoherent. It doesn't follow that any further revelation of a subject is thereby dishonest. If you wish to make an argument that Paul's work is somehow immune from Divine comment, do so. Otherwise the notion the Divine cannot speak concerning any subject previously given is absurd.

On interpretation: if you are going to apply any meaning to a text then you are by definition engaged in interpretation given there is necessarily both the object (in this case a text) and a subject responding to the text. The theological positioning you opt for is an interpretation. The theological stance of Roman Catholicism is yet another, Mormon views again, another.

As to Joseph Smith or other LDS prophets equaling Paul's authority or no: a living prophet always trumps a dead one.

Though I have already offered up Romans 1:16-17 and Romans 4:5 I will present another Pauline verse this time from a separate work, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and point out one simple feature that supports Mormon positioning:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

"That day" refers to the Second Coming. "Falling away" is the Greek Apostasia, commonly anglicized to apostasy. Apostasia is a common military term in Greek. This could be rendered as rebellion or better still, mutiny. Thus, the notion entails an internal violence and rejection of authority. At its root the verse is claiming that prior to Christ's return X there will be an apostasy Y. The notion of apostasy is fundamental to Mormon belief. Paul asserts the notion of apostasy. Therefore, Pauline Thought supports Mormon belief. Quite simple.


Note: The Bible can and does change. This occurs on a number of levels. The Protestant removal of the deuterocanonical works is a simple illustration. Clear examples of textual corruption (i.e. John 5: 7-8) is another. What occurs with translation is yet another rather obvious example.