Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[DeepShadow]

Oh cut it out.... it's freakin common sense.

Just use the analogy of the game of baseball.... a game that has an established set of rules and guidelines about the proper way to play the game.

All of a sudden, a team (we'll call them the Latter Day Red Sox) decides that they want to play baseball.... except they use a basketball.... a hockey stick.... and run around the bases backwards.

"It's baseball" say the LD Sox......

Ummm.... no, actually, it's not.

"Yes it is..... our prophet came up with a NEW rule book for baseball.... it's a companion to Major league baseball"

Call it what you want gang.... but that ain't baseball.

"HOW DARE YOU! It's so sad that your bigoted views can't accept this is true baseball!"

Ummmm.... I respect your right to play whatever game you'd like, but we've been playing baseball for a long time... we've got a rule book(Bible).... hall of fame(Saints)... a pretty cool commisioner (Pope)...the whole deal. I think we have the right to say what is and what isn't baseball.

"ARROGANT BIGOTS!"

But as an analogy doesn't prove but only demonstrates, what if it went like this:

The game of baseball changes from time to time. These changes come about in a particular manner--an open canon. Now the Latter Day Red Sox arrive, and they have a problem with the changes that have been added. They believe a different set of changes should have been made, and they implement those for themselves. Their changes are not a return to the original game, nor are they the contemporary rules.

So the LDRS look pretty wierd to everyone else.

But wait! Over the years, some people didn't like certain changes, and they split off to go back to the traditional rules. Yet they are still called baseball players. Others anticipate new rules coming, and play with them even though they aren't official yet, and despite this, their game is still called baseball.

So on what grounds is it fair to reject the LDRS as something else?

If you don't consider any non-Catholics to be Christian, that's one thing, but many others who criticize us are not being so fair.

 

[DeepShadow]

Hehe... keep trying... still not working.... you can stop trying to make it personal and respond to the point I was trying to make.... the poor me stuff does not suit you my friend.

I don't think she's trying to make it personal. I think she's taking it personally. There's a difference.:foot:

I'm not taking it personally, FWIW. I think it's a very interesting analogy you've brought up. For further clarification, would you mind answering a few questions:

1) Are there any other groups you consider good people but non-Christian? Do you consider only Catholics to be Christians?

2) I can see from the analogy why that might upset some people. The real question would seem to be, how should people respond when they are upset? Any thoughts on this?

 

[Scott1]

The game of baseball changes from time to time. These changes come about in a particular manner--an open canon.

... but it has actually been changed from time to time.... designated hitter etc.... but those who play baseball accept that there are some BASICS ESSENTIAL to calling a game baseball. These CORE ELEMENTS can not be changed without changing the nature of the game into something else.

Now the Latter Day Red Sox arrive, and they have a problem with the changes that have been added. They believe a different set of changes should have been made, and they implement those for themselves. Their changes are not a return to the original game, nor are they the contemporary rules.

Again... there lies my problem... if a group wanted to change things for themselves to suit what THEY want, fine... have at it.... but it would be a total disconnect of reality to then call what they play baseball.... get it? Play the game however you'd like to .... but call it what it is : A NEW GAME.

If you don't consider any non-Catholics to be Christian, that's one thing, but many others who criticize us are not being so fair.

I know ... I know... and I hate the thought of being lumped up with the crazies who just attack the LDS as a sport, but I'm just trying to explain why orthodox Christians find it utterly ridiculous that you folks demand to be called Christians.

If I was a Mormon, I would embrace the fact that we were unique.... I think the LDS leaders have sold you folks a bill of goods in the attempt to conform to "mainstream" Christian America.... and while that was important during all those years of persecution, I really believe it is time for some honest talk about the reality of the situation.

 

[Scott1]

1) Are there any other groups you consider good people but non-Christian? Do you consider only Catholics to be Christians?

For the record... I don't "judge" anyone individually as good/bad people.... I'm speaking in general terms about Christian history/theology and how it relates to different groups of people.

I view certain groups of people as Christians based upon a number of factors... the easy definition of a "Christian" group is one who is loyal to the historical precepts of the Church as defined in the early Church councils... to be specific, those groups who believe in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Beyond that... it gets a bit harder....

2) I can see from the analogy why that might upset some people. The real question would seem to be, how should people respond when they are upset? Any thoughts on this?

I don't care to chat about the sociological ascpects of anger on this thread... maybe another day.... how bout we stick to the topic at hand....k?

 

[nutshell]

If the early church hadn't lost the rule book we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[Scott1]

If the early church hadn't lost the rule book we wouldn't be having this debate.

Hehe.... way to play along with the analogy!

..... but here we come back to the "save the tears" aspect of the debate.... your entire faith is predicated upon the notion that after, what... AD 70?.... that God decided the Christian Church should be led by apostate morons for 1800 years until Mr. Smith found some golden plates?

Come on now.... really.... you expect ANY non-LDS to think this is anything but a pious delusion at best or a complete fraud in the worst case? Really.... come on.... you've gotta be able to disconnect a little and see it from our side for a second.

 

[Bishka]

God decided the Christian Church should be led by apostate morons for 1800 years until Mr. Smith found some golden plates?

God didn't decide that, men did.

 

[nutshell]

Hehe.... way to play along with the analogy!

..... but here we come back to the "save the tears" aspect of the debate.... your entire faith is predicated upon the notion that after, what... AD 70?.... that God decided the Christian Church should be led by apostate morons for 1800 years until Mr. Smith found some golden plates?

Come on now.... really.... you expect ANY non-LDS to think this is anything but a pious delusion at best or a complete fraud in the worst case? Really.... come on.... you've gotta be able to disconnect a little and see it from our side for a second.

13 million and growing. Apparently it's not as far-fetched as you'd like to think. Paul even prophesied it.

 

[DeepShadow]

If I was a Mormon, I would embrace the fact that we were unique.... I think the LDS leaders have sold you folks a bill of goods in the attempt to conform to "mainstream" Christian America.... and while that was important during all those years of persecution, I really believe it is time for some honest talk about the reality of the situation.

Now I get you. The only problem with this is that far too many people think define "Christian" only as "following the basic teachings of Christ." They would hear anyone who says they are not Christian as saying they don't believe in Christ. And we do.

I'm not sure where that fits in your analogy, apt as it is. It would probably require that there be people in the world who think that baseball is the only sport, so we have to say "we are playing baseball" in order to even book an arena. Maybe that's a stretch.

Am I making sense here? When people say Mormons aren't Christian, often that's a lead into "Mormons are evil." How are we to label ourselves "non-Christian" without people taking that to mean we reject the most fundamental teachings of Christ?

 

[Scott1]

Am I making sense here? When people say Mormons aren't Christian, often that's a lead into "Mormons are evil." How are we to label ourselves "non-Christian" without people taking that to mean we reject the most fundamental teachings of Christ?

The problem is not that you reject the TEACHINGS of Christ... it is that you reject who Christ was..... and in that discussion of the true nature of Christ is where fruitful discussion between us can come.... unless you want to jump on to the "13 million and growing" high school banter......

 

[DeepShadow]

your entire faith is predicated upon the notion that after, what... AD 70?.... that God decided the Christian Church should be led by apostate morons for 1800 years until Mr. Smith found some golden plates?

You could phrase that differently. You could say that God looked at the world and said that there was no safe place for his authority, and so he gave the wounded Church the wisest men he could find as doctors until the world was safe enough to allow the cure to flourish properly.

You might also mention that--as long as the authority eventually returned--all the people who lived in the interim would be judged as if the Church still had all the authority it needed.

I know much of our stance galls you, Scott, but it doesn't need to gall you as much. While we're pointing out that people can save their tears, stop hitting yourself with our stick. Ignorant Mormons will do that enough.

 

[nutshell]

The problem is not that you reject the TEACHINGS of Christ... it is that you reject who Christ was..... and in that discussion of the true nature of Christ is where fruitful discussion between us can come.... unless you want to jump on to the "13 million and growing" high school banter......

My response was in direct response to your high-school claim that no one could believe it. Obviously, many do.

 

[DeepShadow]

The problem is not that you reject the TEACHINGS of Christ... it is that you reject who Christ was.....

And are you going to parse that for everyone we meet on this forum, so we can label ourselves "non-Christian"?

I think the real problem is that the world at large does not share your definition of "Christianity." If they did, I'd stop saying I was Christian in a heartbeat. The world at large--in my experience--defines Christianity as "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" rather than "believes in the Trinity."

 

[Scott1]

You could phrase that differently. You could say that God looked at the world and said that there was no safe place for his authority, and so he gave the wounded Church the wisest men he could find as doctors until the world was safe enough to allow the cure to flourish properly.

Nice way of putting it.....

I know much of our stance galls you, Scott, but it doesn't need to gall you as much. While we're pointing out that people can save their tears, stop hitting yourself with our stick. Ignorant Mormons will do that enough.

It does not gall me... I in fact don't give it much of a thought at all.... it seems some of your LDS friends FORGET WHAT THE THREAD TITLE IS.

Ask a question... get an answer... then whine about it.... not you DS, but you know what I mean.

The world at large--in my experience--defines Christianity as "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" rather than "believes in the Trinity."

So even an atheist who follows the basic Christian ethic is a Christian in your book?

Huh?

 

[Katzpur]

So even an atheist who follows the basic Christian ethic is a Christian in your book?

I'd say he'd comes about as close as a self-professed Christian who doesn't follow the Christian ethic.

 

[Katzpur]

The problem is not that you reject the TEACHINGS of Christ... it is that you reject who Christ was

Who was the Christ, Scott? Who did He tell us He was?

 

[Scott1]

I'd say he'd comes about as close as a self-professed Christian who doesn't follow the Christian ethic.

That's not an answer... I'm not looking for a definition of who "comes close" to being a Christian... but who is a Christian in Deep Shadow's way of thinking.

ANYONE can follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.... even those who all the while believe he was no more than a "nice character in a good story" ...... these people must be Christians as well, right?

 

[DeepShadow]

Nice way of putting it.....

Thank you. It's what I really believe, BTW, and I know I'm not alone. I know there have been plenty of awful things said about the Catholic Fathers by members of our church, and even a few by General Authorities, but there have been plenty of nice things, too. PM me if you'd like me to dig up a list.

It does not gall me... I in fact don't give it much of a thought at all.... it seems some of your LDS friends FORGET WHAT THE THREAD TITLE IS.

Hee hee...eh, what's in a name? We ride our tangents all over town, then someone like you busts in answering the OP with your honest opinion, and it seems all off-topic.

Ask a question... get an answer... then whine about it.... not you DS, but you know what I mean.

Of course. Frubals for putting up with us.

So even an atheist who follows the basic Christian ethic is a Christian in your book?

First of all, it's not my book, it's the world's book. I personally like to avoid judging whether people are Christian, as I think that's the job of...(wait for it)...Jesus Christ.

That being said, since I have already admitted that I feel forced to use the world's book at times in order to sit at the table, the general definition of "Christian" seems to be someone who follows the basic teachings of Christ as religious teachings rather than as a general moral guide.

So, if someone asks themselves "What would Jesus do?" and tries to do that when faced with a moral quandry, the world seems to call them Christian. If the person consults a schematic set of moral dichotomous keys instead, the world says they are not Christian even if they make the same decisions as a Christian.

And yes, based on that definition, I find the OP and thread title to be a mess. One that I seem morally impelled to clean up. Again and again.

 

[DeepShadow]

Who was the Christ, Scott? Who did He tell us He was?

I think that deserves another thread. Please?:help:

 

[Scott1]

PM me if you'd like me to dig up a list.

Read em all... the good, bad, and the ugly.... remember it's me.... I've been on this rodeo once or twice before my friend.

That being said, since I have already admitted that I feel forced to use the world's book at times in order to sit at the table, the general definition of "Christian" seems to be someone who follows the basic teachings of Christ as religious teachings rather than as a general moral guide.

What is the difference?