Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[madhatter85]

#1 i don;t know what cersion of the bible you are reading.
1st Peter 2: (KJV)

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

He is talking to the converts to the church (the saints).

He also is saying that Christ is the Cornerstone to the Gospel (of course)

and:

11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; 12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

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

He is talking about how we are in subjugation to the laws of mankind, and that it is pleasing unto the lord that we suffer through the laws of man because it is just as christ suffered the laws of the time. he suffere for us because we were as sheep going astray that we might return unto him, the bishop of our souls

 

[sojourner]

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.

Why not? Why can't the priesthood authority exist outside the group? God obviously went "outside the group" when Christianity became a separate religion from Judaism...

How do you know what I've got and what I don't? In what way are you qualified to make any kind of assessment about anything outside your group? Perhaps you're being dishonest by stating that no non-Mormon has any authority.

Perhaps what you really mean to say is that no one outside your group has any priesthood authority within your group. Which is a much more honest answer, in my opinion.

 

[SoyBeane]

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.

Just in the same way... Non-LDS Christians will never accept the Book of Mormon and any LDS scripture or Joseph Smith as a man that God spoke too... Why should they? There is no reason to believe in anything that Joseph Smith said... No proof of the Nephites, Lamanites existence
whatsoever, the Hill Cumorah location is unknown, Reformed Egyptian is also unknown of, Golden Plates gone, and LDS Church being dishonest about its history... Any authority that the Church claims is solely from Joseph Smith and no one else and that's the Whole Truth...

 

[sojourner]

Just in the same way... Non-LDS Christians will never accept the Book of Mormon and any LDS scripture or Joseph Smith as a man that God spoke too... Why should they? There is no reason to believe in anything that Joseph Smith said... No proof of the Nephites, Lamanites existence
whatsoever, the Hill Cumorah location is unknown, Reformed Egyptian is also unknown of, Golden Plates gone, and LDS Church being dishonest about its history... Any authority that the Church claims is solely from Joseph Smith and no one else and that's the Whole Truth...

Well...Isn't that special!?

 

[!Fluffy!]

#1 i don;t know what cersion of the bible you are reading.
1st Peter 2: (KJV)


He is talking to the converts to the church (the saints).

He also is saying that Christ is the Cornerstone to the Gospel (of course)

and:
He is talking about how we are in subjugation to the laws of mankind, and that it is pleasing unto the lord that we suffer through the laws of man because it is just as christ suffered the laws of the time. he suffere for us because we were as sheep going astray that we might return unto him, the bishop of our souls

You need to do your homework. Here, I'll do it for you:
BLB Versions (KJV) 1Pe 2

There are 13 translations found within 10 minutes with the same wording.

Greek: hierateuma
which denotes a priesthood (akin to hierateuo - the same word used elsewhere when speaking of the priests of the temple in Jerusalem), a body of priests, consisting of all believers, the whole church (not a special order from among them), called "a holy priesthood," 1Pe 2:5; "a royal priesthood," 1Pe 2:9

 

[SoyLeche]

Why not? Why can't the priesthood authority exist outside the group? God obviously went "outside the group" when Christianity became a separate religion from Judaism...

It can, but it doesn't.

How do you know what I've got and what I don't? In what way are you qualified to make any kind of assessment about anything outside your group? Perhaps you're being dishonest by stating that no non-Mormon has any authority.

Perhaps what you really mean to say is that no one outside your group has any priesthood authority within your group. Which is a much more honest answer, in my opinion.

Because I believe that God is a God of order. He has laid out that order, and he follows it.

I'm arguing for the way that I believe God set things up, and you are arguing for how you believe God set things up. Neither one of us can provide any proof that is going to convince the other. Go ahead and believe that I am wrong. I fully expect you to. I believe that you are wrong, and I'm not appologetic about that. Heck, I even accept that most things that I believe are wrong (in some detail or other) - I'm just doing the best I can.

The problem I have is when you try and enter my mind and tell me what this means I must believe about others - because you are wrong about that. I'm the world's foremost authority on what I believe (not on Mormonism in general, but what I believe). Obviously (to me, at least), it is possible to believe that God loves everyone equally but does not hand out Priesthood Authority equally - because I do, in fact, believe that.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Regarding Galatians, Hebrews, I Peter, and the entire thematic structure and context of the New Testament (specifically the interpretation of I Peter 2):

Why do you think Christ confronted the Sadducees and Pharisees? Why do you think Christ called them whited sepulchres, tombs, barren, sons of Hell? Because they represented the opposite of Grace. They represented everything that was bad about legalism and fundamentalism in their time.


legalism = the opposite of grace.
legalism, and imo fundamentalism, being the opposite of grace are exclusive, not inclusive. As such any denomination with exclusivity as its doctrine is an offense to the inclusive message of the Gospel of Christ, which is Grace:

Christ conquered the chains of spiritual death and legalism on the cross and railed against fundamentalism and legalism during his ministry. He redeemed us. He freed us from bondage. He gave us the Kingdom - for free. There is no doubt for the believer: we are joint heirs with Christ. In every sense, we are saved - not by our works, not by our denomination or affiliation, not by our skin or sex or age or place of birth or residence but by Christ alone.

logic, reason, scholarship and knowledge are the mortal enemies of fundamentalism.

uncompromising insistence that its rules and regulations are the only acceptable practice and belief is a hallmark of legalism and fundamentalism

unceasing efforts to proselytize door to door and evangelize even within the ranks of Christians of other denominations is another trait of a legalistic fundamentalism:

"you travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are" (Matt 23:15)

Fundamentalism attempts to recast truth as synonymous with it own vision and message, while demonizing and making enemies of those outside its walls.

When a so-called Prophet comes along and casts every Christian outside his unique and peculiar "revelation" as apostate: we should be, and are instructed to be skeptics.

When a church with a Different Gospel claims to be the "one True living church" it has made itself a willing target of those believers it rejects as "apostate" - if such an institution cannot hold up under scrutiny, logic, scholarship, or conformity to the Gospel, we have every reason to reject it and its writings and prophets as false.

 

[sojourner]

It can, but it doesn't.

Because I believe that God is a God of order. He has laid out that order, and he follows it.

I'm arguing for the way that I believe God set things up, and you are arguing for how you believe God set things up. Neither one of us can provide any proof that is going to convince the other. Go ahead and believe that I am wrong. I fully expect you to. I believe that you are wrong, and I'm not appologetic about that. Heck, I even accept that most things that I believe are wrong (in some detail or other) - I'm just doing the best I can.

The problem I have is when you try and enter my mind and tell me what this means I must believe about others - because you are wrong about that. I'm the world's foremost authority on what I believe (not on Mormonism in general, but what I believe). Obviously (to me, at least), it is possible to believe that God loves everyone equally but does not hand out Priesthood Authority equally - because I do, in fact, believe that.

So, God has laid out the order that no authority may exist outside "the group," and yet, authority does exist (you believe) outside Judaism (which had the authority to begin with...).

I don't believe you are "wrong." If you believe you have authority, That's good enough for me. I believe I also have authority. Why is that not good enough for you? Why must you assert something about me, in order to validate your own faith? Why must something specifically not be true for me, in order for it to be true for you? Why are you giving me such power over your system of faith, when I'm not even part of your system of faith? I don't want that kind of power!

 

[SoyLeche]

So, God has laid out the order that no authority may exist outside "the group," and yet, authority does exist (you believe) outside Judaism (which had the authority to begin with...).

God can put the authority wherever the heck he wants to.

I don't believe you are "wrong." If you believe you have authority, That's good enough for me. I believe I also have authority. Why is that not good enough for you? Why must you assert something about me, in order to validate your own faith? Why must something specifically not be true for me, in order for it to be true for you? Why are you giving me such power over your system of faith, when I'm not even part of your system of faith? I don't want that kind of power!

That's fine with me. Believe whatever you want. Whether or not you believe you have authority doesn't bother me. Heck, whether or not you have authority doesn't bother me. I just don't believe that you do - that's all (this is, in my belief system, a statement of fact, not preference). I don't need to believe that - but it is how I belive things are organized.

 

[Scuba Pete]

legalism = the opposite of grace.
legalism, and imo fundamentalism, being the opposite of grace are exclusive, not inclusive. As such any denomination with exclusivity as its doctrine is an offense to the inclusive message of the Gospel of Christ, which is Grace:

My new hero... that was AWESOME!

There is one consistency about the legalists: they just don't get the freedom we have in Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

God can put the authority wherever the heck he wants to.

That's fine with me. Believe whatever you want. Whether or not you believe you have authority doesn't bother me. Heck, whether or not you have authority doesn't bother me. I just don't believe that you do - that's all (this is, in my belief system, a statement of fact, not preference). I don't need to believe that - but it is how I belive things are organized.

Exactly!
And God chose to put the authority within baptism, in whatever form it takes. That's what I have come to know. You may believe that I'm wrong, but you'r belief don't make it so. You cannot make viable statements about my spiritual disposition.

 

[nutshell]

My new hero... that was AWESOME!

There is one consistency about the legalists: they just don't get the freedom we have in Jesus.

Actually, I've always found it's living God's law that brings freedom.

 

[Polaris]

He gave us the Kingdom - for free. There is no doubt for the believer: we are joint heirs with Christ. In every sense, we are saved - not by our works, not by our denomination or affiliation, not by our skin or sex or age or place of birth or residence but by Christ alone.

If belief in Christ alone is what qualifies us for salvation, then why did Christ put any emphasis at all on repentance and baptism?

 

[Scuba Pete]

If belief in Christ alone is what qualifies us for salvation, then why did Christ put any emphasis at all on repentance and baptism?

FAITH qualifies us for salvation, and faith is when we ACT on our beliefs.

 

[sojourner]

If belief in Christ alone is what qualifies us for salvation, then why did Christ put any emphasis at all on repentance and baptism?

Nothing "qualifies" us for salvation. If that were the case, the first Covenant would have been just fine. Grace assumes that we are not qualified in any way, but God chooses to save us because God loves us.

Baptism is an outward sign of inward grace. Baptism is the outward sign -- the witness to others -- that we have been given the authority to be God's children and to carry out God's ministry in God's Name.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Why do you think Christ confronted the Sadducees and Pharisees? Why do you think Christ called them whited sepulchres, tombs, barren, sons of Hell? Because they represented the opposite of Grace. They represented everything that was bad about legalism and fundamentalism in their time.

clarification regarding Priesthood:


Christ rejected their (the Pharisees) priesthood and authority. he destroyed their authority, he destroyed the priesthood (remember the rending of the Temple Curtain??) - he destroyed their Temple - and gave it (the temple - his body, and our heritage, his priesthood) to HIS people - the redeemed, joint heirs with Christ - as a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

He promised "this Temple would be destroyed, and raised up again in 3 days". Why? He destroyed the legalistic, enslaving, grace-denying priesthood, which was then resurrected in Himself 3 days later along with the church as a new body - the body of believers. This is the point of his resurrection. This is the point of grace. This is "the joy of our salvation". And this is exactly what IPeter 2 is talking about. There IS no other priesthood or authority for Christians, only Christ as their Bishop. We are given complete freedom in Christ. We are warned, told, instructed not to delegate our priesthood to others.

After all, Christ paid for our freedom on the cross.

---------

FAITH qualifies us for salvation, and faith is when we ACT on our beliefs

:yes: - and by the power of the HS, lest any man should boast.

 

[sojourner]

clarification regarding Priesthood:


Christ rejected their (the Pharisees) priesthood and authority. he destroyed their authority, he destroyed the priesthood (remember the rending of the Temple Curtain??) - he destroyed their Temple - and gave it (the temple - his body, and our heritage, his priesthood) to HIS people - the redeemed, joint heirs with Christ - as a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

He promised "this Temple would be destroyed, and raised up again in 3 days". Why? He destroyed the legalistic, enslaving, grace-denying priesthood, which was then resurrected in Himself 3 days later along with the church as a new body - the body of believers. This is the point of his resurrection. This is the point of grace. This is "the joy of our salvation". And this is exactly what IPeter 2 is talking about. There IS no other priesthood or authority for Christians, only Christ as their Bishop. We are given complete freedom in Christ. We are warned, told, instructed not to delegate our priesthood to others.

After all, Christ paid for our freedom on the cross.

---------



:yes: - and by the power of the HS, lest any man should boast.

Actually, the Romans destroyed the Temple...it was never rebuilt. The destruction of the Temple was what destroyed the priesthood. There are no more priests in Judaism.

 

[Polaris]

FAITH qualifies us for salvation, and faith is when we ACT on our beliefs.

So then belief alone is not sufficient for salvation?

 

[sojourner]

So then belief alone is not sufficient for salvation?

Nothing is sufficient for salvation, save the work of Christ on our behalf.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Actually, the Romans destroyed the Temple...it was never rebuilt. The destruction of the Temple was what destroyed the priesthood. There are no more priests in Judaism.

Sojourner I think we all know the Romans destroyed the Temple. Do you think Christ had nothing to do with it? In their view - He threatened to do it, he prophesied, and so it came to pass. It doesn't negate anything he said or i said, imo. You must read beyond the literal sometimes.