Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[sojourner]

It occurs to me that, instead of grousing about who gets to play on what ball field, with what rules and by what authority; instead of tearing each other down and trying to discredit each other; instead of stepping on each others' toes in order to get to the top of the ladder; we should be cheering each other on toward the goal. We should be helping each other along as each needs help. We should be building each other up and celebrating each other as valid children of God.

I think we should ask ourselves a question: "WWJD -- Who would Jesus dis?"

 

[Scuba Pete]

we should be cheering each other on toward the goal.

Frubals on your head! What a wonderful sentiment!

 

[SoyLeche]

See, you can take this cavalier attitude and dish it out when it comes to the rest of us, but yet you whine and moan and can't take it from others. "How come people have to say that we're not real Christians?"

My take is this: Why can't all of us play nicely in God's sandbox, and share the toys equally? That's what God wants.

Because my problem is with the definition of a word. I am willing to bet that a majority of people would accept my definition of the word "Christian" unless and until they find out that that definition lets certain people into the "group" that they don't want in.

You are arguing against a doctrine that I happen to believe in. I can't and won't back down on that doctrine. Unless you believe that the definition of a word is a matter of faith, you are trying to compare apples and oranges here.

My take on your take: you don't know what God wants any more than I do.

 

[SoyLeche]

It occurs to me that, instead of grousing about who gets to play on what ball field, with what rules and by what authority; instead of tearing each other down and trying to discredit each other; instead of stepping on each others' toes in order to get to the top of the ladder; we should be cheering each other on toward the goal. We should be helping each other along as each needs help. We should be building each other up and celebrating each other as valid children of God.

I think we should ask ourselves a question: "WWJD -- Who would Jesus dis?"

Which I do. I don't have to believe that you have priesthood authority in order to do this.

 

[sojourner]

Which I do. I don't have to believe that you have priesthood authority in order to do this.

But that's talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't celebrate someone, build them up and cheer them on as children of God, if you don't believe that they're as validated by God as you are. We're all in this together.

Unless you're saying that carrying a certain amount of authority from God isn't some kind of validation by God. Or unless you're saying that having a certian authority isn't necessary or valuable in some way.

See, if only LDS members can have a certain authority, then you're automatically playing some kind of hierarchical game, which isn't building up others. Why doesn't the LDS ever grant authority to someone outside the group?

 

[DeepShadow]

But that's talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't celebrate someone, build them up and cheer them on as children of God, if you don't believe that they're as validated by God as you are. We're all in this together.

Unless you're saying that carrying a certain amount of authority from God isn't some kind of validation by God. Or unless you're saying that having a certian authority isn't necessary or valuable in some way.

The authority issue is a denominational thing. It's dealing with groups, not individuals. The definition of Christianity that I'm familiar with is on an individual basis. If it were on a denominational basis, then I'd have no problem with Scott1's definition of Christianity.

Having the authority does not amount to having a personal validation from God. Hence your latter statements are correct, as far as defining who is Christian is concerned.

 

[sojourner]

The authority issue is a denominational thing. It's dealing with groups, not individuals. The definition of Christianity that I'm familiar with is on an individual basis. If it were on a denominational basis, then I'd have no problem with Scott1's definition of Christianity.

Having the authority does not amount to having a personal validation from God. Hence your latter statements are correct, as far as defining who is Christian is concerned.

But, in effect, what you're saying is that, unless I'm baptized in an authorized manner (Mormon) by an authorized person (Mormon), I'm not saved. Therefore, the authority (from your perspective) does affect me and my relationship with God, as well as God's "validation," since God is unwilling to save me without such baptism (In your POV). I just don't have God's validation unless I'm one of you, is what all this boils down to.

Sooner or later, this all comes down to "Who's better in the eyes of God?" That's an illusory game that Jesus asks us not to play.

 

[madhatter85]

Alot of LDS people on this forum do try to appease everyone, it's because we are a nice people and don't like to offend. But, the reality of it is, that to us, the LDS church is the only church with proper authorty to act or speak in God's name, to baptise and perfom other saving ordinances in a House of the Lord. We don't recognize or believe that God recognizes baptism by any other method aside from his appointed way, by one who holds the proper priesthood authority conferred upon him by those, through priesthood lineage, who recieved it directly from the Lord Jesus Christ, which in our belief is fulfilled by every worthy man in the church. We believe that authority has been restored by the hands of John the Baptist for the Lesser priesthood. and then the higher Melchezidek priesthood by Peter, James, and John, Then translated beings, on the banks of the Sesquehanna river

That's how it's always been that's how it's always going to be. I'm not an apologist or try to sympathize with other religions.

 

[SoyLeche]

But that's talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't celebrate someone, build them up and cheer them on as children of God, if you don't believe that they're as validated by God as you are. We're all in this together.

Unless you're saying that carrying a certain amount of authority from God isn't some kind of validation by God. Or unless you're saying that having a certian authority isn't necessary or valuable in some way.

See, if only LDS members can have a certain authority, then you're automatically playing some kind of hierarchical game, which isn't building up others. Why doesn't the LDS ever grant authority to someone outside the group?

Because the priesthood authority doesn't exist outside the group. I'm not trying to say "I have authority and you don't - nyaa nyaa" - I'm merely stating something that I believe to be a fact. I could say "sure, you've got authority", but that wouldn't mean that you do have authority. You still wouldn't, and I would be dishonest in stating it.

I also believe that you will have every opportunity to enjoy the benefits of said authority, and hold it yourself, as will everyone else who has ever lived.

It is a hierarchy, whether you like it or not.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hebrews teaches us that ALL Christians are priests. Do Mormons not believe in the book of Hebrews?

 

[SoyLeche]

Hebrews teaches us that ALL Christians are priests. Do Mormons not believe in the book of Hebrews?

Sure we do - we just interpret it differently. No surprise there.

 

[madhatter85]

Hebrews teaches us that ALL Christians are priests. Do Mormons not believe in the book of Hebrews?

Wrong, Hebrews Chapter 5:

1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

According to Hebrews

You must have recieved the Aaronic priesthood before you can recieve the Melchezidek priesthood. and nobody is a High Priest unless it is called of God.

Same for our Church, all men who hold the [M.P.] are Elders, untill they have been called of God to a psoition in which requires the office of High Priest. (Bishop, Stake President, High Councilman, ect...)

just because you are "christian" does not make you a priest.

 

[SoyLeche]

You must have recieved the Aaronic priesthood before you can recieve the Melchezidek priesthood.

Not entirely true. May be true today, but probably hasn't always been that way.

 

[madhatter85]

Yes, it has alwasy been that way, it started with Jospeh Smith, they recieved the Aaronic priesthood first, then they baptised eachother, then they recieved the Melchezidek priesthood later.

When onlder men join the church they have to wait to recieve the aaronic priesthood, and then they have to wait to recieve the melchezidek, also you must hold the M.P. before going through the temple. it's always been like that.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Wrong, Hebrews Chapter 5:

According to Hebrews

You must have recieved the Aaronic priesthood before you can recieve the Melchezidek priesthood. and nobody is a High Priest unless it is called of God.

Same for our Church, all men who hold the [M.P.] are Elders, untill they have been called of God to a psoition in which requires the office of High Priest. (Bishop, Stake President, High Councilman, ect...)

just because you are "christian" does not make you a priest.

But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, ...

From I Peter 2:

7For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve,
The stone which the builders rejected,
The same was made the head of the corner;
8and,
A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence;
for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
...
(I interpet this to mean: As believers we inherit our priesthood through Christ, the head of the royal priesthood)

25For ye were going astray like sheep; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

 

[SoyLeche]

Yes, it has alwasy been that way, it started with Jospeh Smith, they recieved the Aaronic priesthood first, then they baptised eachother, then they recieved the Melchezidek priesthood later.

You think that the Melchezidek priesthood started with Joseph Smith????

When onlder men join the church they have to wait to recieve the aaronic priesthood, and then they have to wait to recieve the melchezidek, also you must hold the M.P. before going through the temple. it's always been like that.

Like I said, true today, not necessarily always that way.

There's no indication that there was an "Aaronic Priesthood" before Aaron.

That's one common misconception. It isn't so much that there are two priesthoods - there is only one - the Priesthood after the order of the Son of God - more commonly known as the Melchezidek Priesthood. The Aaronic Priesthood is a "subset" - or an "incomplete version", as it were, of the Melchezidek Priesthood.

Also, durring the OT times only the descendents of Levi received the Aaronic Priesthood - but there were many prophets who had the Melchezidek Priesthood - whether or not they were descendants of Levi.

 

[Scuba Pete]

just because you are "christian" does not make you a priest.

Wrong... being a Christian makes us a ROYAL priest;

I Peter 2:1 Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. 2 Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3 now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8 and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. NIV

 

[!Fluffy!]

But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, ...

From I Peter 2:

7For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve,
The stone which the builders rejected,
The same was made the head of the corner;
8and,
A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence;
for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
...
(I interpet this to mean: As believers we inherit our priesthood through Christ, the head of the royal priesthood)

25For ye were going astray like sheep; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Scuba Pete is right. All believers belong to the royal priesthood, all are members of His holy nation, a people for God's own possession. Christ is our shepherd. Christ is the bishop of our souls - no human can claim that position over another believer.

 

[!Fluffy!]

ha, great minds think alike...

 

[sojourner]

Alot of LDS people on this forum do try to appease everyone, it's because we are a nice people and don't like to offend. But, the reality of it is, that to us, the LDS church is the only church with proper authorty to act or speak in God's name, to baptise and perfom other saving ordinances in a House of the Lord. We don't recognize or believe that God recognizes baptism by any other method aside from his appointed way, by one who holds the proper priesthood authority conferred upon him by those, through priesthood lineage, who recieved it directly from the Lord Jesus Christ, which in our belief is fulfilled by every worthy man in the church. We believe that authority has been restored by the hands of John the Baptist for the Lesser priesthood. and then the higher Melchezidek priesthood by Peter, James, and John, Then translated beings, on the banks of the Sesquehanna river

That's how it's always been that's how it's always going to be. I'm not an apologist or try to sympathize with other religions.

"To us." It's a pretty glaring qualifier. So there is an "us" and a "them." And "us" are the only ones who make up the "real Church."

So what you're saying is that there is more than one Church and that those "other churches" aren't real churches, because they don't have "real authority" to baptize anyone into Christ.

If Mormons are "nice people" and don't like to offend, I don't see how you can count yourself a "nice person" and make statements like this. It's really sad.:foot: