Good Bashing Scriptures

I don't really know how better to categorize this, and I'm not really all that interested in bashing. But I thought these were cool.

First, a "doctrinal change" in the New Testament. Maybe that's a stretch, but still. Examine Luke 22:35-37. The apostles were originally commanded to go preaching without purse or scrip. Now all of a sudden this command was revoked. Judging from verse 37, it might have something to do with the political or religious climate, and the persecution they were going to go through. We might compare this to the revoked command to build a temple in Missouri, or to practice polygamy.

Second, did the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon have any indication that the Father and Son are separate beings? Yes. I may need to accumulate some examples, but I have found at least Alma 11:26-35. Granted, it gets more ambiguous in v. 38-39, but it seems a reasonable argument that if Joseph believed they were the same, the phrase "Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?" is very uncharacteristic. Another separation can be found in Alma 30:39. Then there's the classic 3 Ne. 11:7-11, and so much more in 3 Nephi. The phrase "Son of God" also appears in Alma 7:9-13.

Salvation by grace or by good works? Or by ordinances? Let's ask none other than the grace expert himself, Paul. 1 Cor. 11:2 and Gal. 3:27 both talk about ordinances. Gal. 5:6 talks about faith working by love. 1 Cor. 3:8 talks about receiving our own rewards according to our labor.

Jesus is our brother. This point may not be so much in dispute but it has some far-reaching consequences, including pre-mortal existence and the divine potential of man. Haven't found much so far, just John 20:17 and Hebrews 2:10-18.

Now Stop This Constant Bickering!

I've been thinking that Protestants and Mormons keep getting into arguments over grace versus works, when really both sides are setting up straw men to do battle with, and both sides are probably closer to each other than they think.

Mormons will scoff at the idea that someone can be saved just by some meaningless superficial expression of faith, without a real change effected in a person's life. In fact, as I understand it (and I'm no expert on Protestant theology, so take this with a grain of salt), Protestants believe that good works are indeed a natural consequence of true conversion-- it's just that we aren't saved by them.

Protestants on the other hand look at all the ordinances Mormons believe in, and point at our answers that "we're doing the best we can" when asked if we have been saved, and claim that we don't truly believe in Jesus Christ. When in fact, strangely enough, we do indeed have such grace-centered teachings such as Mosiah 2:21-24. Let me propose two arguments that perhaps we can agree upon: first, if Jesus Christ commanded me to do something, can I truly say "well, I accept you, but I'm not doing that"? It's not that we are removing him from the focus, it's that we believe this is what he asks us to do. Second, is it possible for a person to feel "born again," and truly feel it, but then lose his focus and even his faith later in life? You might argue that in this case he wasn't truly "born again" in the first place, but you can only say that in retrospect. He wouldn't have known this would happen to him later, and certainly didn't intend for it.

So basically, we're all arguing about the wrong thing, and viewing each other's doctrines with the wrong perspective. The real argument is whether we are indeed commanded to be baptized, etc. and how we can stay strong afterwards.