Help Us Please To "Come Out Of Mormonism!"

But come out of Mormonism and into WHAT?

They always say to 'come out of Mormonism" but into what? not ONE of my Christian brothers could agree on anything except for, "Just Not Mormon." (BY THE WAY, All credits to this piece goes to: D Lawrence Barksdale of the "Fair Mormon Apologetics Page" on Facebook)

This is an open invitation to our non-LDS friends, who are so eager to help us "come out of" Mormonism.

Here it is: "Witness to us." Really. We'd love to hear your witness, as long as it centers on what you DO believe, and not what you DON'T.

Speaking for myself, I'm ready to accept the Jesus of the Bible as my personal Savior and walk away from Mormonism forever..

But here's my deal...

1) Since you've told us (repeatedly) that we worship the "wrong" Jesus, you need to show us from the Bible where the 'homoousios' ("One-in-actual-substance-or-being") Jesus of the consubstantial Trinity is taught in the Bible. I'll need at least one passage that includes that all-important word, "homoousios," to be be acceptable. After all, it is the ONLY word in Koine Greek that means "one-in-actual-substance-or-being." I need the assurance that the Jesus YOU want me to believe in is the "right" Jesus.

2) Since you've told us that the "Bible Alone" is the ONLY source of spiritual truth, I need you to show me with irrefutable, incontrovertible evidence WHICH Bible I should accept... the one WITH the apocrypha, or the one WITHOUT. Which translation? They all differ. Which Codex? None of them agree. Then I need you to explain to me how a collection of books with over 350,000 textual variants is "infallible" and/or "inerrant."

3) Since the doctrine of salvation is so important, I need to be assured that you're not inviting me to believe in "another gospel" than what Paul taught. Therefore, you need to show me a) where Jesus taught Sola Fidianism, b) Where the NT teaches that obedience is not necessary, c) Why the Early Church Fathers never taught Sola Fidianism, and d) why NO ONE in Christianity taught Sola Fidianism until Martin Luther.

4) Since Jesus Himself established a very specific church organizational structure, complete with offices and authority, I need you to show me who your proposed church's prophets and apostles are. They are, after all, the very foundation of the church Christ established.

I have more, but these will suffice for now. I'm an open book. I'm ready to be "saved." The requests I have above are more than reasonable. The Bible teaches, if I'm not mistaken, to "give a good answer" to those who ask. Thanks in advance.

I'm Staying Put In The Church Firm To The End

An open letter to ex-mormons, critics of the church, or otherwise to those who have had no desire to unite with the LDS church but would like to sway me to think after their manner of thinking but for one reason or another, then this letter is for you.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the laws or commandments given to us by the Lord are time tested and have been proved over the centuries. This is why I believe what I do and why I live the gospel. I have put Malachi 3: 8-10 to the test. I have seen the windows of heaven open themselves up to me hence this and many other things I have participated in as a member of this church has brought me peace, in my life. I have witnessed too much of the hand of the Lord in my life by obedience to the Laws and Ordinances of the gospel to now return and doubt. I have been 'born again' and snatched from an awful hell.

For any man or any one to come to me to then suggest I depart from or turn away from this and do so based on a 'quote I heard somewhere' or 'aren't Mormons just a bit too weird because of this or that' just isn't going to phase me. One have better luck prying a Jewish man from a quarter he found on the ground than one would have at successfully luring me outside the church to then find, as they suggest, the correct Jesus.

(Finding Jesus would then mean to get me to agree with their assessment of what Mormons really believe and then transition over to some form of Christianity or over to their church because it's "Jesus should be enough. Mormons teach you that his atonement isn't powerful enough to save you! Here, read this verse! "...then his grace is sufficient for you." but we know that in Ephesians, it says... etc" - SEE, the BIBLE disagrees with the Book of Mormon. Only a real idiot couldn't tell you the difference. Down with the impossible gospel of the Mormons!" or whatever they happen to say, using their own words of course... (sigh) - I testify to you and all who read this, that they make quitting sound so easy and so worth your time.

Call me a 'go against the current' kind of guy but that still, inviting water may not always be that still and safe, for long. Something turbulent may be awaiting. You may think you're trying to do me a favor by ensuring me that the water was supposed to be fine and that I should hop in, but I've made my choice. If it so be that there is safety zones ahead, then so be it. I'll stay on the shore where at all possible.

I trust and know myself only so much. So no, you'll find me on the shore over there. If you want, I'll wave at you all as I see you pass by. I have a life preserver tied to a rope in case you want one...for this is my charge, my privilege, my sacred duty. I am FAR from perfect at what the Lord would have me do. I have already missed many opportunities and in my weakness, I have failed to help several others along on the path.

I can only hope that in God's great plan of happiness, that there is enough mercy that can be applied to me, his unworthy and slothful servant. I can only pray for mercy at this great, last day, and hope that the little that I have done may multiply into great blessings and that the great things I have done may have been accounted for righteousness' sake and to glorify he who sent them.

Do not think or suppose that a mis-quoted thought or word from a prior leader in my church is going to dictate how I feel about them based on someone else's assessment of that event or statement.

Do not suppose for a second that even if someone's decades of scripture study will trump what I have discovered through humble prayer and personal study.

It will have all been worth it if I can some day be responsible for helping MANY find that source to where they can receive peace so that THEY and myself may ALL receive that exaltation in the Lord's kingdom. This is my prayer, in his name, Amen.

The Truth About Galatians 1:6-9 Re-examined - A Christians Perspective

Pre-message conclusion. The doctrine of circumcision was a hot topic and the cause of heated debates between Paul and Peter. Most Christians like to use this passage of Galatians 1:6-9 to disqualify the claims made by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding any and all Angels from being trust worthy or for preaching a different gospel, then to hence, "from such turn away." But with close examination of Galatians, we discover the true reasons why Paul said what he did. Enjoy the article. (This was written by a Christian and is unaware, potentially, that his works have been quoted. I draw conclusions to my own assessment of this scripture passage based on his research. But use this and perhaps do you own research as well! Enjoy!

"Perverting the Gospel" by Larry Ray Hafley

For years, denominational preachers and brethren such as LeRoy Garrett and the Carl Ketcherside have argued that we may have differing views of "doctrinal matters," but that we must agree on the essential elements of "the gospel." In other words, one group may play a piano in worship and another may not; one might practice sprinkling while another church insists on immersion. Such "doctrinal issues" are irrelevant. However, they say, we must agree upon the "essentials" of the gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ). Let us examine this subject in light of Acts 15 and Galatians 1 and 2. Paul spoke of those who would "pervert the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:6-9). When they do so, he said, they are preaching "another gospel." Further, when the gospel is perverted, when "another gospel" is substituted, the result is that souls are "removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ" (Cf. Gal. 1:6; 1 Cor. 1:9; and Gal. 3:1; 5:7).

According to the distinction under review, by "perverting" the gospel and preaching "another," Paul must have had reference to a perversion of the facts of the gospel, i.e., the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If it be true that the gospel consists of those primary facts alone, while everything else is "doctrine," then the apostle must have been referring to a corruption of those basic gospel features. But was he? No, and here is why:

(1) The specific corruption of the gospel is outlined in Acts 15 when "certain men...said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (v. 1; Cf. Gal. 2; 5:1- 4). When they did this, the apostles said, "certain (men)...have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment" (Acts 15:24). In the Galatian letter, Paul agreed that the effect of their "doctrine" was indeed subversive of their souls. "Ye are," he charged, "fallen from grace" (Cf. Gal. 1:6; 5:4).

Thus, one could teach "doctrinal" error (circumcision, law keeping) and still be guilty of perverting the "gospel." But how is that possible if the gospel only consists of three basic facts while all else is doctrine? Those who make that distinction between gospel and doctrine need to tell us!

(2) When the apostles refuted the binding of circumcision, they did so "that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:5). Observe, that to deny the doctrinal error of circumcision was to establish "the truth of the gospel." How, though, could that be possible, if the gospel is simply Christ crucified, buried and risen? If the doctrinal error of circumcision had been tolerated, the gospel would not have continued. That being so, those who distinguish between "gospel" and "doctrine" are guilty of making a false dichotomy.

(3) Peter's separation from the Gentiles caused him to walk "not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:14). However, if association with the Gentiles involves "doctrinal" matters only, and not issues of the "gospel," how could his behavior be said to be contrary "to the truth of the gospel"? Peter certainly did not deny the "core" gospel facts, yet he walked not "according to the truth of the gospel."

Conclusion: The "doctrinal" error of circumcision resulted in a perversion of the "gospel" and negated the saving power of the "cross" (Gal. 1:6-9; 3:1; 5:1-4, 7, 11; 6:12-14). Therefore, it is not true that we may be in error in doctrine and remain true in the gospel. Refer to: http://www.bassfishing.org/thebiblespeaks/Articles/Authority/Obey/perverting.htm

If one would consider a faulty interpretation of Gal 1:6-9, then it erroneously could also apply to the Angel Gabriel, why by definition came to Joseph and Mary (not leaders in the Jewish Faith) and spoke of a Messiah who should come, but would later prove to bring to the world a "different gospel!"