Stephen Smith

if all nephilims were wiped out during the flood... & Noah's 3 sons repopulated Earth (no nephilim genes) THEN HOW DID DAVID FIGHT GOLIATH??? WHERE DID GOLIATH COME FROM???

What Galatians 1:8 Is Really Talking About Latter-day Saints on this app, and pretty much everywhere online, see the same verse from Galatians thrown at them constantly. Sometimes dozens of times a day. A well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) mainstream Christian drops into the comments to remind us that Paul said in Galatians 1 that “even if an angel” preaches a different gospel, “let him be accursed.” To them, this is the slam dunk of all slam dunks. Their logic goes like this: Moroni was an angel → The Book of Mormon came from an angel → therefore Joseph Smith is “accursed” → and Mormonism is false. If only it were that simple. To understand what Paul meant, we have to ask basic questions: Who was he talking to? Who was he talking about? And why did he say it? Paul wrote Galatians because other missionaries (part of the early Christian factions that still followed the Law of Moses) were visiting the congregations Paul had founded. In this case, the churches in Galatia. These missionaries insisted Paul wasn’t teaching the “real” gospel. They argued that Gentile converts still needed to keep the Law of Moses, especially circumcision. These people are known in scholarship as the Judaizers. And here’s the part most critics never mention: These missionaries were sent by James, the brother of Jesus Christ and head of the original church in Jerusalem. In other words, the very leadership that knew Jesus personally disapproved of what Paul was teaching and sent representatives to correct him. They believed Paul was preaching the “other gospel.” That’s what Galatians 1:8 is actually about. Not angels, not future scripture, not visions in 1820, but the debate over whether Gentiles had to observe the Law of Moses. If you read Paul’s letters with this context, you’ll notice that a huge portion of the New Testament is Paul fighting this exact battle. Why was there a battle? Because Paul was not authorized by the Jerusalem apostles. Paul repeatedly mentions that his calling came through a personal vision of the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, not from Peter, James, or John. He openly admits he did not seek their approval and that his authority came from a direct revelation. That was precisely the issue: he was acting outside the recognized hierarchy, and the original apostles questioned the legitimacy of his message. Sound familiar? Now, let’s compare this with the Book of Mormon. Was Joseph Smith preaching a “different gospel”? Not according to the text. In 3 Nephi, when the resurrected Jesus Christ appears to the Nephites, He teaches the same gospel found in the New Testament and declares the Law of Moses fulfilled in Him. (3 Nephi 15:4-5) That’s the same doctrine Paul spent his entire ministry defending. And on the subject of visions and authority, the parallel is striking. Paul claimed an independent, personal vision that called him to preach to the Gentiles, even when established leaders pushed back. Joseph Smith claimed a personal vision calling him to restore lost truth and bring the gospel to a new people, outside the existing Christian hierarchy. In both cases, someone was called by God directly, not appointed by existing leaders, to do something new, something disruptive, something the established structure didn’t authorize. Paul’s mission: take the gospel to the Gentiles. Joseph Smith’s mission: bring the gospel to the New World. So if critics want to weaponize Galatians 1:8, they may want to take a closer look at the historical context. Paul wasn’t condemning future revelations, angels, or scripture. He was fighting a very specific dispute over the Law of Moses; and he was the one being accused of preaching the “other gospel.” When you understand that, the verse looks a lot less like a warning against the Restoration and a lot more like a story Latter-day Saints should find familiar.