Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[nutshell]

Katz, I understand more clearly now were you are coming from. Again I am just trying to be bold and explain the Churches position. I am sorry if it seems hurtful to you. I understand that you guys teach that our All other Christians especially the Catholic Church belong to apostate Churches(Hence you may think we are slapping Jesus in the face after all we are the great abomination teaches false things according to your tradition) and I do not get offended.

The difference is in the delivery of the message. Joseph Smith or LDS members today do not use the term "slapping Jesus in the face." That is you and you alone. Joseph Smith described the the creeds as an abomination - not the people. You've attacked a person - not the beliefs. Further, LDS today don't use the word apostate as you seem to think we do. We say that most if not every church has truth in it, but they don't have all the truth or authority. Obviously, there is a difference in the delivery of the message. LDS offer there message in general, positive terms while you attack an individual.

I am just trying to show you why Most devout Catholics who know their faith and live it well would have a real hard time accepting Joseph smith and the Book of Mormon. Because to us it is slapping Jesus in the face. I mean that s just what Jesus said himself basically. In LK 10:16 he tells his Church "He who hears you hears me but he who rejects you rejects me." Now If someone rejects the Churches teaching or declarations they Reject not just the Church but they reject Jesus himself, a serious sin. I equate this with slapping Jesus in the face. I am not saying that you do this. I do not think you do. I am saying that Joseph Smith sure did when he rejected the Christian Church, her councils and her teachings and began to claim extra or new revelation like the book of Mormon and water for communion.

Your scriptural reference is the basis for your section above. However, you have applied in incorrectly. The LDS hear and accept Jesus. Joseph Smith heard and accepted Jesus. The scripture you've quoted say accept Jesus NOT the creeds.

The Catholic Church's doctrines do develop as the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church over the centuries and cause the Church to mature in her understanding of already existing revelation. Like a Acorn that develops into a oak tree all Catholic dogma is found either in Scripture or Apostolic Tradition in its full or root forms. No new revelation is given. We cannot ever change the Words or actions Jesus instructed us to do when he himself gave us the sacraments.. actions like Using Wine for the Eucharist. What we can change is practices. We can never change dogmas which are revelation from God. God's truth doesn't change.

God's truth doesn't change. But we fundamentally disagree as to what that truth is. You use tradition, but that proves nothing. Slavery was a tradition practiced for some time. Does that make it right?

I understand that you believe that LDs are Christians. But please understand that most of Christianity as a whole(Myself included and my church) does not consider them to be Christians.

Actually, you're wrong here. Recent polls and research demonstrate that the majority do believe Mormons are Christian. Further, the percentage of people who believe Mormons are Christians increases as the people's knowledge of Mormonsim increases. In other words, when people quit making biggoted assumptions and actually get to know the LDS, they recognize that they are Christian.

We do not consider the declarations given by the Pope to be prophesy or revelation. The Canon was given by God through the apostles. It was already apostolic revelation. We used already existing revelation in tradition and scripture figure this out. it was nothing new. some communities used these books other did not. we just needed a universal decree so one would finally know. And that is what happened. This is not revelation though in our eyes. The pope cannot come out and say things like "Lets use water and Pizza for the Eucharist" when our Lord already revealed that wine and bread is to be used. I hope that makes sense.

A universal decree? So you're referring to the creeds? What about the traditions that were lost due to the creeds?

its not that we don't belevie that Jesus ministered to other sheep as he said, its that we do not belevie he minister to the sheep your talking about. God could do anything he wants. But he just didn't do it that way. That is why we believe Joseph Smith to be a lier and a false prophet and all the other books of scripture the LDS Church uses to be fictional at best. it is funny that you guys believed my church to totally apostate though because If it wasn't for the Catholic Church and her Infallible decrees on the new testament canon Joesph smith would not have had a new testament to call scripture. So on one hand you guys by even believing in the new testament canon that you do are picking fruit from a tree you didn't plant. And in your eyes your borrowing from a Apostate Church(US) their sacred Book and accepting thier decrees on the canon just as Joseph Smith did. Why would you guys do that?

Like I said earlier, Joseph Smith and the church today recognize truth in most if not all churches. We also believe there were some inspired people throughout history who did their best to preserve truth. You're on slippery ground here and I encourage you not to make assumptions.

why would Jesus let the Church Completely apostatize for 1800 years? So there were no Christians and no Christian Church until Joseph smith came around? and Yet you borrow from the (Non-Christian-Apostate chruches) Bible canon all the time. That is not logical! do you see the problem that I do with Joseph smiths logic?

It was foretold by Paul or do you not believe in his writings? Of course there were Christians, but all the Truth and God's authority were not present. We aren't called the Catholic non-Christian you are. Again, you're on slippery ground because you mistate or don't understand what you're talking about.

This I believe is why most educated Christian ministers at the time came down on Smith when he claimed this stuff. It just seems silly on a logical level That Smith would claim that stuff in light of history and the reasons I mentioned.

They came down on him because they were threatened, especially as the Church grew.

 

[madhatter85]

Katz, I understand more clearly now were you are coming from. Again I am just trying to be bold and explain the Churches position. I am sorry if it seems hurtful to you. I understand that you guys teach that our All other Christians especially the Catholic Church belong to apostate Churches(Hence you may think we are slapping Jesus in the face after all we are the great abomination teaches false things according to your tradition) and I do not get offended. I am just trying to show you why Most devout Catholics who know their faith and live it well would have a real hard time accepting Joseph smith and the Book of Mormon. Because to us it is slapping Jesus in the face. I mean that s just what Jesus said himself basically. In LK 10:16 he tells his Church "He who hears you hears me but he who rejects you rejects me." Now If someone rejects the Churches teaching or declarations they Reject not just the Church but they reject Jesus himself, a serious sin. I equate this with slapping Jesus in the face. I am not saying that you do this. I do not think you do. I am saying that Joseph Smith sure did when he rejected the Christian Church, her councils and her teachings and began to claim extra or new revelation like the book of Mormon and water for communion.

the problem with that argument is the great apostasy (prophesied of in amos), meaning that they were no longer considered "his church."

As for Joseph smith Rejecting things? he did not reject, he simply wanted to know who was indeed correct, and with and the hustel abd bustle and confusing ans contradictory doctrines at the time, he felt best to Ask God himself. Did he know? no, prophets hardly ever do, Moses, Noah, Abraham. did they know they were going to be called to be prophets? no. It was not a reformation, nor was it a rejection of teachings. It was a restoration.

The Catholic Church's doctrines do develop as the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church over the centuries and cause the Church to mature in her understanding of already existing revelation.

You are saying that the church recieves continuing revelation through the holy Spirit then. which is a contradiction to your teachings.

Like a Acorn that develops into a oak tree all Catholic dogma is found either in Scripture or Apostolic Tradition in its full or root forms. No new revelation is given. We cannot ever change the Words or actions Jesus instructed us to do when he himself gave us the sacraments.. actions like Using Wine for the Eucharist. What we can change is practices. We can never change dogmas which are revelation from God. God's truth doesn't change.

No, God's truth does nto change, that we can agree on. but, the sacrament is a practice, yet you say you can't change it, yet you can change practices? who authorized the change of practices?

Here's a question for you. do you believe Adam and eve were married? do you believe that Adam and Eve could not taste death untill they partook of the forbidden fruit? If that is the case, would that not constitute an eternal marriage principal? why the change from eternal marriage, to only mortality marriages? (i.e. till death do us part)

I understand that you believe that LDs are Christians. But please understand that most of Christianity as a whole(Myself included and my church) does not consider them to be Christians.

Actually, most of you are "trinitarians" because you believe in the trinity. because you don;t believe that Christ was who he said he is. You believe that Christ is God in the flesh, when biblical scripture states otherwise.

Why don't you take the name "trinitarian" and we'll take "christian" for ourselves.

We do not consider the declarations given by the Pope to be prophesy or revelation. The Canon was given by God through the apostles. It was already apostolic revelation. We used already existing revelation in tradition and scripture figure this out. it was nothing new. some communities used these books other did not. we just needed a universal decree so one would finally know. And that is what happened. This is not revelation though in our eyes. The pope cannot come out and say things like "Lets use water and Pizza for the Eucharist" when our Lord already revealed that wine and bread is to be used. I hope that makes sense.

no, not really, because if you cannot recieve new revelation. then how can you act in God's Name? how do you know the true will of God based on Books that arent relevant towards all of the facets of todays society?

Saying that the Cannon was given by God means that it was revelation. but the Canon was not established untill at least 100 years after christ's death. so how can this be?

Development of the Christian Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

matter in fact most of the New Testament was written Post-Crusifixion. meaning they recieved revelation after Christ's death.

its not that we don't belevie that Jesus ministered to other sheep as he said, its that we do not belevie he minister to the sheep your talking about. God could do anything he wants. But he just didn't do it that way. That is why we believe Joseph Smith to be a lier and a false prophet and all the other books of scripture the LDS Church uses to be fictional at best. it is funny that you guys believed my church to totally apostate though because If it wasn't for the Catholic Church and her Infallible decrees on the new testament canon Joesph smith would not have had a new testament to call scripture. So on one hand you guys by even believing in the new testament canon that you do are picking fruit from a tree you didn't plant. And in your eyes your borrowing from a Apostate Church(US) their sacred Book and accepting thier decrees on the canon just as Joseph Smith did. Why would you guys do that?

If God can do what he want's Whoa re you to judge what God did or did not do? We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We know the Bible to be falliable and false in certain aspects and areas. due to translations, retranslations, modifications and so forth. God gave the Book of Mormon to the world to restore his gospel. As more scripture is needed then he will give it. But this is the last dispensation of the Fullness of times that we live in. It was prophesied that the gospel would be brought by an angel at the beginning of this dispensation.

why would Jesus let the Church Completely apostatize for 1800 years? So there were no Christians and no Christian Church until Joseph smith came around? and Yet you borrow from the (Non-Christian-Apostate chruches) Bible canon all the time. That is not logical! do you see the problem that I do with Joseph smiths logic?

We do not borrow scripture from anyone. Jospeh Smith was even attempting to restore the bible to it's perfect form through direct inspiration from Heavenly Father. The Reason he lets peopel dwindle in unbelief is because of free-agency, and the wickedness of the people. his gospel would have perished anwyays during the inquisitions and the crusades of the Catholic Church.

This I believe is why most educated Christian ministers at the time came down on Smith when he claimed this stuff. It just seems silly on a logical level That Smith would claim that stuff in light of history and the reasons I mentioned.

even with all the "coming down upon" they have yet to prove the Book of Mormon false. you would think that after 200 years that there would be undeniable proof that someone was utterly false if it were in fact that. Archaeology at this point and even DNA at this point does not prove the book of Mormon false one bit as any educated person knows)

 

[athanasius]

The difference is in the delivery of the message. Joseph Smith or LDS members today do not use the term "slapping Jesus in the face." That is you and you alone. Joseph Smith described the the creeds as an abomination - not the people. You've attacked a person - not the beliefs. Further, LDS today don't use the word apostate as you seem to think we do. We say that most if not every church has truth in it, but they don't have all the truth or authority. Obviously, there is a difference in the delivery of the message. LDS offer there message in general, positive terms while you attack an individual.



Your scriptural reference is the basis for your section above. However, you have applied in incorrectly. The LDS hear and accept Jesus. Joseph Smith heard and accepted Jesus. The scripture you've quoted say accept Jesus NOT the creeds.



God's truth doesn't change. But we fundamentally disagree as to what that truth is. You use tradition, but that proves nothing. Slavery was a tradition practiced for some time. Does that make it right?



Actually, you're wrong here. Recent polls and research demonstrate that the majority do believe Mormons are Christian. Further, the percentage of people who believe Mormons are Christians increases as the people's knowledge of Mormonsim increases. In other words, when people quit making biggoted assumptions and actually get to know the LDS, they recognize that they are Christian.



A universal decree? So you're referring to the creeds? What about the traditions that were lost due to the creeds?



Like I said earlier, Joseph Smith and the church today recognize truth in most if not all churches. We also believe there were some inspired people throughout history who did their best to preserve truth. You're on slippery ground here and I encourage you not to make assumptions.



It was foretold by Paul or do you not believe in his writings? Of course there were Christians, but all the Truth and God's authority were not present. We aren't called the Catholic non-Christian you are. Again, you're on slippery ground because you mistate or don't understand what you're talking about.



They came down on him because they were threatened, especially as the Church grew.

Generally I do not answer questions when I am having conversations with other people (Like Katz) but since I have the floor and some time I would be happy to make a few observations.

to begin with if Joseph Smith condemns the creeds, then he condemns the church and her Infallible Authority and God given revelation in Tradition and Scripture and, If he condemns the Church, then according to Jesus in LK 10:16 he condemns Jesus. Ok so that is the dilemma Mr Smith was in. Now I am not attacking you personally I am however attacking the root of your church and beliefs and your highest most beloved prophet Joseph smith. I attack him because he taught formal heresy and if one leads people away from the Truth it endangers their salvation. Remember what James said about doing that(James 5:19-20).

Now you have not read LK 10:16 in context obviously because if you did you would realize that Jesus literally say'd to his Church "If they hear you they hear me but if they reject you they reject me". So what the Church teaches(Yes that includes Creeds) must be heard and obeyed because it is Christ speaking through her. And if you reject those teachings and preachings then you reject Jesus himself, which is what Mr Smith did. the same can be said in (Matthew 18:15-20). So it is you and Joseph Smith that has taken scripture out of context not me or the historical Christian church. LDs does not offer to much of a positive message when it says the historic Catholic church that Jesus founded and all other Christians and there teachings are false and apostate.

You do not understand what is meant by Tradition I see. this is just silly if your going to use that kind of argument because you have your own tradition, the Mormon tradition. Using the example you used I could say the same thing to you. We are not talking about mere customs or practices(one type of Tradition). When we speak of Oral apostolic tradition we mean the Oral teachings of the Apostles that were handed down orally concerning doctrine and worship and prayer that the fathers passed down to us that may not have been explicit in written tradition. These things are what Paul himself talked about and told us to hold to in a addition to written tradition or scriptiure or have YOU not read (2 Thess 2:15).

it is hard for me to beleive that recent polls demonstrate that most other Christian denominations view Mormonism as really Christian. Your churches views on who the historical Jesus is and God's nature are not in line with historic Christianity and that alone should be enough to discredit the LDS Church as a pseudo-Christian denomination. I know that I belong to the largest Christian Church worldwide(1.1 Billion members) and I know that my church officially teaches that you guys do not have a valid Baptism into the real God and real Jesus. So the Catholic Church doesn't consider you guys Christian at all. I also know the Baptist church(another rather large denomination) in her southern convention also does not consider you guys Christians. I personally know of no devout Christian who know there faith and history that does consider you guys Christians. So if someone is considering that then they really need to study Christology 101 better. However can you provide evidence for this amazing claim of yours/

You say we are not apostate we just do not have the fullness of truth,You have copied off the Catholic Churches stance on this. I know Mormons and I have talked with elders and they do teach that the Catholic Church and other chrisitian bodies have completly apostatized. Katzpur herself(a devout Mormon) even said I belong to a Apostate church. So Who's lying here? Either she and the elder's I spoke to are is or you are. Compete apostasy was the only way that Joesph smith could even claim to have been the restored Church. If there was no compete apostasy in demoninations why would there need to be a complete restoral. A reformation would be needed if the Churches still taught some good but not a complete restoration. So your logic is flawed.


what traditions that were apostolic were lost due to the Creed? The arian traditions? is that what you were talking about??? They were not apostolic in nature and were recognized as heretical by the ealry church and her councils.they certainly were not apostolic in nature and I ask if you could show me how they were.

General apostasy was talked in Paul. Not total Apostasy of the Christian truth or Church. the Church could never fail becausee Jesus promised this(Matt 16:18) and he would be with Church to guide it into all truth(Jn 16:12-14) and he would be guiding the Church till the end of time(Matt 28:19-20) or have YOU not read what scripture says.

You still haven't answered my questions or solved Josephs Smiths problem. Smith like yourself had to rely on the Catholic canon and decrees of the new testament that were decided by Catholic popes and councils just to have a new testamant and use it as he did. So he in one hand basically he implied that he would obey and believe the Catholic church and her infallible decrees about the canon but yet reject everything else. Why? He basically stole our Holy Book our New Testament canon. In doing this he used a decision made by a false and apostate Church. So you see the problem with that ? How could he do that?

No ,your wrong, the Ministers came out against Smith because they were well educated in things historically and of dogma and he was teaching heresy.

Now lets see if Katz can come up with something better than you did in response to my dialogue with HER(Not you). You may write waht you will back to me but I will no longer speak to you about this so answering me is useless. I want to see if Katz(you know the person I was talking to about this stuff) can hold her own theologically speaking.

Bless you always,
Athanasius

 

[nutshell]

Generally I do not answer questions when I am having conversations with other people (Like Katz) but since I have the floor and some time I would be happy to make a few observations.

Thanks for your consideration. Whether you wish to answer or not, I will continue responding to your posts, especially considering they are in error.

to begin with if Joseph Smith condemns the creeds, then he condemns the church and her Infallible Authority and God given revelation in Tradition and Scripture and, If he condemns the Church, then according to Jesus in LK 10:16 he condemns Jesus. Ok so that is the dilemma Mr Smith was in. Now I am not attacking you personally I am however attacking the root of your church and beliefs and your highest most beloved prophet Joseph smith. I attack him because he taught formal heresy and if one leads people away from the Truth it endangers their salvation. Remember what James said about doing that(James 5:19-20).

You are wrong when you equate condemning the creeds with condemning Jesus. Joseph Smith condemned the creeds and accepted Jesus (more technically, Jesus himself condemned the creeds - so was he condemning himself? I don't thinks so ). Obviously we have a fundamental difference of belief regarding this issue and there won't be any comprimise on either side, especially when you target the person rather than the belief.

Now you have not read LK 10:16 in context obviously because if you did you would realize that Jesus literally say'd to his Church "If they hear you they hear me but if they reject you they reject me". So what the Church teaches(Yes that includes Creeds) must be heard and obeyed because it is Christ speaking through her. And if you reject those teachings and preachings then you reject Jesus himself, which is what Mr Smith did. the same can be said in (Matthew 18:15-20). So it is you and Joseph Smith that has taken scripture out of context not me or the historical Christian church. LDs does not offer to much of a positive message when it says the historic Catholic church that Jesus founded and all other Christians and there teachings are false and apostate.

No. I read it in context. But the Church is not yours or its creeds. And actually, when you consider it carefully, your condemning of Joseph Smith is condemning Christ because Joseph Smith was one appointed by Christ Himself just as those who are discussed in Luke 10.

You do not understand what is meant by Tradition I see. this is just silly if your going to use that kind of argument because you have your own tradition, the Mormon tradition. Using the example you used I could say the same thing to you. We are not talking about mere customs or practices(one type of Tradition). When we speak of Oral apostolic tradition we mean the Oral teachings of the Apostles that were handed down orally concerning doctrine and worship and prayer that the fathers passed down to us that may not have been explicit in written tradition. These things are what Paul himself talked about and told us to hold to in a addition to written tradition or scriptiure or have YOU not read (2 Thess 2:15).

Oral traditions? Have you ever played the telephone game? What you get at the end is very different than what you have at the start. That's exactly why a restoration was necessary. As for 2 Thess 2:15, of course we are to stand fast, and hold to the traditions that Paul taught. But that doesn't change what he said in verse 3, that there would be a falling away preceding the Second Coming.

it is hard for me to beleive that recent polls demonstrate that most other Christian denominations view Mormonism as really Christian. Your churches views on who the historical Jesus is and God's nature are not in line with historic Christianity and that alone should be enough to discredit the LDS Church as a pseudo-Christian denomination. I know that I belong to the largest Christian Church worldwide(1.1 Billion members) and I know that my church officially teaches that you guys do not have a valid Baptism into the real God and real Jesus. So the Catholic Church doesn't consider you guys Christian at all. I also know the Baptist church(another rather large denomination) in her southern convention also does not consider you guys Christians. I personally know of no devout Christian who know there faith and history that does consider you guys Christians. So if someone is considering that then they really need to study Christology 101 better. However can you provide evidence for this amazing claim of yours/

You might realize you were wrong if you stopped and realized your were making broad generalizations. Just becase a bigoted oranization says something does not mean that's what its members all think. As for the sources, here's one:

"A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that a majority of Americans view the Mormon faith as a Christian religion." msnbc.com

You say we are not apostate we just do not have the fullness of truth,You have copied off the Catholic Churches stance on this. I know Mormons and I have talked with elders and they do teach that the Catholic Church and other chrisitian bodies have completly apostatized. Katzpur herself(a devout Mormon) even said I belong to a Apostate church. So Who's lying here? Either she and the elder's I spoke to are is or you are. Compete apostasy was the only way that Joesph smith could even claim to have been the restored Church. If there was no compete apostasy in demoninations why would there need to be a complete restoral. A reformation would be needed if the Churches still taught some good but not a complete restoration. So your logic is flawed.

I didn't say you weren't apostate. I said that's not how we generally speak of it. Usually, we say you don't have all the truth or authority. The problem with you is the delivery of your message. We try to be positive. You spit in our face. So I wasn't a liar. You twisted words around...like Satan.

what traditions that were apostolic were lost due to the Creed? The arian traditions? is that what you were talking about??? They were not apostolic in nature and were recognized as heretical by the ealry church and her councils.they certainly were not apostolic in nature and I ask if you could show me how they were.

General apostasy was talked in Paul. Not total Apostasy of the Christian truth or Church. the Church could never fail becausee Jesus promised this(Matt 16:18) and he would be with Church to guide it into all truth(Jn 16:12-14) and he would be guiding the Church till the end of time(Matt 28:19-20) or have YOU not read what scripture says.

A fundamental understanding of God and Jesus Christ were lost. The Church never failed because Christ restored it. You don't understand the very scriptures you quote. They speak of the ultimate end game where Christ and his Church will triumph over all.

You still haven't answered my questions or solved Josephs Smiths problem. Smith like yourself had to rely on the Catholic canon and decrees of the new testament that were decided by Catholic popes and councils just to have a new testamant and use it as he did. So he in one hand basically he implied that he would obey and believe the Catholic church and her infallible decrees about the canon but yet reject everything else. Why? He basically stole our Holy Book our New Testament canon. In doing this he used a decision made by a false and apostate Church. So you see the problem with that ? How could he do that?

I did explain. You chose not to accept the explanation. Joseph Smith said that we believe the Bible to be the word of God so long as it is translated correctly. We don't believe the Bible is all God ever said or will say to mankind. Do you? Just because we accept the Bible does not mean we accept the whole tradition. As I stated before, you've lost the fundamental teachings of the nature of the Godhead - an LDS view completely supported by the Bible.

No ,your wrong, the Ministers came out against Smith because they were well educated in things historically and of dogma and he was teaching heresy.

No. You're wrong (and my grammer is better). He was teaching truth and they were threatened. Another example of xenophobia.

Now lets see if Katz can come up with something better than you did in response to my dialogue with HER(Not you). You may write waht you will back to me but I will no longer speak to you about this so answering me is useless. I want to see if Katz(you know the person I was talking to about this stuff) can hold her own theologically speaking.

Katz will have her answer and I'll have mine. You might not answer (in a debate that means I'm the likely winner). And, this is a public forum, I can answer whatever posts I want. If you want to only speak to Katz - start a one-on-one debate with her. Or don't you know the rules?

 

[DeepShadow]

Generally I do not answer questions when I am having conversations with other people (Like Katz) but since I have the floor and some time I would be happy to make a few observations.

Now lets see if Katz can come up with something better than you did in response to my dialogue with HER(Not you). You may write waht you will back to me but I will no longer speak to you about this so answering me is useless. I want to see if Katz(you know the person I was talking to about this stuff) can hold her own theologically speaking.

I missed the part where this became a one-on-one debate.

 

[athanasius]

I missed the part where this became a one-on-one debate.

Its not a one on one forum. But I do not personally debate with two or three at a time because that is not fair to me. So I will limit my answers to Katzpur so as to keep on track and not get off the topic or get buckshot by three or four people.

 

[tomspug]

Wow, this is a long thread.

Well, my understanding is that according to 1 Nephi the LDS are the only TRUE church of Jesus Christ. It even goes so far as to describe the legacy of other Christian faiths as 'abominations'. I'd think that would be a pretty good reason for other Christian denominations to reject the book, among other things.

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, my understanding is that according to 1 Nephi the LDS are the only TRUE church of Jesus Christ.

That's a common misunderstanding. 1 Nephi says there are two churches only: the Church of the Lamb of God and the Church of the Devil. Nowhere does it say that these are organized denominational churches, rather they are more like Augustine's invisible church of believers.

It even goes so far as to describe the legacy of other Christian faiths as 'abominations'.

Now that's simply not true. Where in 1 Nephi are you reading?!

I'd think that would be a pretty good reason for other Christian denominations to reject the book, among other things.

It might be, if it were tru, but it isn't, so it's not...

 

[madhatter85]

Wow, this is a long thread.

Well, my understanding is that according to 1 Nephi the LDS are the only TRUE church of Jesus Christ. It even goes so far as to describe the legacy of other Christian faiths as 'abominations'. I'd think that would be a pretty good reason for other Christian denominations to reject the book, among other things.

among other what things?

 

[tomspug]

among other what things?

Well, if you ignore that one, there's the belief that man can become God (and no, Jesus quoting Psalms in John 10 for rhetorical purposes does not a theology make) in spite of the fact that the Bible teaches that man's desire to become like God was essentially the BIRTH of sin and the reason he was kicked out of paradise.

There's also the belief that works is tantamount to faith, even though Jesus spent almost his entire ministry criticizing the Pharisees for being hypocrites in this same respect.

Another one is the belief that not only is the Book of Mormon scripture, it holds higher authority than the Bible, therefore negating any supposed contradictions.

By the way, for the sake of discussion, it would be polite for you to respond to my comments rather than simply goading me until I say something you want to respond to.

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, if you ignore that one

I didn't. I refuted it, because it's false.

there's the belief that man can become God (and no, Jesus quoting Psalms in John 10 for rhetorical purposes does not a theology make) in spite of the fact that the Bible teaches that man's desire to become like God was essentially the BIRTH of sin and the reason he was kicked out of paradise.

Man's hubris doesn't override God's love. Don't force a contradiction where there isn't one.

There's also the belief that works is tantamount to faith, even though Jesus spent almost his entire ministry criticizing the Pharisees for being hypocrites in this same respect.

Same song, second verse. James said that faith without works is dead. Do you disagree?

Another one is the belief that not only is the Book of Mormon scripture, it holds higher authority than the Bible, therefore negating any supposed contradictions.

If we believed that, that would be a valid argument for disliking the BoM. But we don't believe it.

By the way, for the sake of discussion, it would be polite for you to respond to my comments rather than simply goading me until I say something you want to respond to.

I responded to them. I refuted them. Have you nothing to say to me?

 

[nutshell]

Well, if you ignore that one, there's the belief that man can become God (and no, Jesus quoting Psalms in John 10 for rhetorical purposes does not a theology make) in spite of the fact that the Bible teaches that man's desire to become like God was essentially the BIRTH of sin and the reason he was kicked out of paradise.

There's also the belief that works is tantamount to faith, even though Jesus spent almost his entire ministry criticizing the Pharisees for being hypocrites in this same respect.

Another one is the belief that not only is the Book of Mormon scripture, it holds higher authority than the Bible, therefore negating any supposed contradictions.

By the way, for the sake of discussion, it would be polite for you to respond to my comments rather than simply goading me until I say something you want to respond to.

This post demonstrates the misinformation you've received concerning LDS beliefs. Perhaps we can start a separate thread and give you accurate information.

 

[tomspug]

Hey, I'm really sorry LordShadow. I totally didn't see your post. I was responding to madhatter. I'd be happy to answer your responses.

According to scriptures.lds.org, the passage of 1 Nephi 13 is described as the revelation of Nephi where he observes as the creation of a 'gentile apostacy' (which when I read the scripture myself, seemed to imply the Gentile Christian church, lds.org seems to confirm this). Here is the passage:

1 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld many nations and kingdoms.
2 And the angel said unto me: What beholdest thou? And I said: I behold many a nations and kingdoms.

3 And he said unto me: These are the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles.

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the a Gentiles the formation of a great church.

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

Man's hubris doesn't override God's love. Don't force a contradiction where there isn't one.

You're going to have to explain yourself better than that. I want a straight answer as to why the Bible describes the pursuit of godhood to be the basis of all sin. It's black and white, right there. It's not a vague concept. The very definition of sin is the desire to BECOME GOD. I don't see how God being a God of love gets around that somehow.

Same song, second verse. James said that faith without works is dead. Do you disagree?

Of course I don't, but you again dodged my point. You're not using any rhetoric to counter my argument, you're just making blurbs. Try Paul instead of James:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Romans 9:30-33[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33 As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[/FONT]In other words, God accepts works as an act of faith, but it also has the ability to make visible those hypocrites who regard their works as something of value. Elihu explains this to Job:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Job 35:4-8[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 5 Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you. 6 If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many, what does that do to him? 7 If you are righteous, what do you give to him, or what does he receive from your hand? 8 Your wickedness affects only a man like yourself, and your righteousness only the sons of men.[/FONT]

But we don't believe it.

Not that I don't believe you, but I would like a quote from the Book of Mormon to prove that your church really believes that the Bible has authority over all other texts.

 

[Bishka]

Hey, I'm really sorry LordShadow. I totally didn't see your post. I was responding to madhatter. I'd be happy to answer your responses.

Here's a bright idea. If you want to know what Mormons believe - ask a Mormon. This is LDS doctrine and we are LDS. Do you expect a Baptist to explain Catholic doctrine? No. That's ridiculous. It's our beliefs, we know our interpretation and what our doctrine says. How about letting us explain it to you?

Note: The "Gentile Church: you think you know about isn't so. Any Church that preaches of Jesus Christ and lives by His precepts is the Church of the Lamb, any that leads us away from Christ is the Church of the Devil. Satisfied?

 

[Bishka]

the Book of Mormon to prove that your church really believes that the Bible has authority over all other texts.

We don't. Where the hell did you get that idea?

 

[nutshell]

According to scriptures.lds.org, the passage of 1 Nephi 13 is described as the revelation of Nephi where he observes as the creation of a 'gentile apostacy' (which when I read the scripture myself, seemed to imply the Gentile Christian church, lds.org seems to confirm this). Here is the passage:

1 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld many nations and kingdoms.
2 And the angel said unto me: What beholdest thou? And I said: I behold many a nations and kingdoms.

3 And he said unto me: These are the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles.

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the a Gentiles the formation of a great church.

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

I'm not sure what you'r getting at. The great and abominable church is not a specific organization. Rather, it is the collection of those who fight against Christ/God.

You're going to have to explain yourself better than that. I want a straight answer as to why the Bible describes the pursuit of godhood to be the basis of all sin. It's black and white, right there. It's not a vague concept. The very definition of sin is the desire to BECOME GOD. I don't see how God being a God of love gets around that somehow.

The Bible promises that we can be joint heirs with Christ. This is not accomplished by lifting ourselves up. Rather, it can be accomplished through humility - making ourselves low and submissive.

Try Paul instead of James:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Romans 9:30-33[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33 As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[/FONT]In other words, God accepts works as an act of faith, but it also has the ability to make visible those hypocrites who regard their works as something of value. Elihu explains this to Job:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Job 35:4-8[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 5 Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you. 6 If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many, what does that do to him? 7 If you are righteous, what do you give to him, or what does he receive from your hand? 8 Your wickedness affects only a man like yourself, and your righteousness only the sons of men.[/FONT]Not that I don't believe you, but I would like a quote from the Book of Mormon to prove that your church really believes that the Bible has authority over all other texts.

A quote from the Book of Mormon? Again, it's questions like that that make it evident you don't know LDS scriptures, what they contain, or what they're about. Can you please separate what you're trying to say in the above block. What is it you'd like to know: 1) The LDS position on faith and works; or, 2) The LDS position on the Bible and the Book of Mormon?

 

[nutshell]

Tomspug: If you go here: Scriptures you'll see the LDS canon (excluding the study guides). As you can see, the Bible and Book of Mormon are both listed and we value them equally.

 

[tomspug]

The Bible promises that we can be joint heirs with Christ. This is not accomplished by lifting ourselves up. Rather, it can be accomplished through humility - making ourselves low and submissive.

What does 'joint heirs with Christ' mean? I've been in the church my whole life and have never heard of anything like that. Last time I knew, Christ sits alone on the right hand of God, and he never spoke once about 'inheritance'. I think I see the confusion, because the doctrine of the Trinity is that God and Jesus are the same person, not separate souls. Obviously our religions aren't exactly the same. If you say 'in the Bible', you'd should have a quote from the Bible as a source. That's apologetics 101.

The great and abominable church is not a specific organization. Rather, it is the collection of those who fight against Christ/God.

So you're saying that you don't believe any Christian denominations to fall into this category?

 

[madhatter85]

In 1 Nephi chapter 13 we read of Nephi’s vision of the great and abominable church – whose founder was the devil (6) – which would take many precious teachings away from the scriptures (26-29). Some Latter-day Saints have supposed that the “great and abominable church” refers to the Roman Catholic Church. The source of this belief is often laid at the feet Elder Bruce R. McConkie who made such charges in his first edition of Mormon Doctrine:

• It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.(McConkie [1958], 130.)
  
  Then speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, he [Nephi] designated the Catholic Church as ‘the mother of harlots’... (Ibid., 314-315.)
  
  [Under the heading, “Church of the Devil”] The Roman Catholic Church specifically – singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5). (Ibid., 129.)

Later editions of Mormon Doctrine (the second edition didn’t appear until 1966) removed such references, but not before the LDS bestseller popularized the belief among many Latter-day Saints. (See Quinn 2002, and Mauss, 162-3.1) McConkie, however, was not the first general authority to suggest that the Book of Mormon’s “great and abominable church” and “church of devil” referred to the Catholic Church. In 1854, Orson Pratt wrote that the founder of the Roman Catholic Church was “the Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God” and that they derived their “authority from the Devil....” (Orson Pratt, 2:4, 205.)
.....
Pratt and McConkie were not alone, however, in their classification of the Roman church as the “great abominable church.” In 1882, for instance, an article in the Contributor claimed that many scriptures (including ones from Revelation) “point to the Roman Catholic power as that great and abominable church.” (“Inconsistencies of Modern Christianity,” Contributor, [November 1882], 4:2, 65.) A dozen years before McConkie published his book, President J. Reuben Clark made some remarks in a Conference address about “that great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth....” “I am not going to say what that church is,” he said cryptically, “though I have a very definite and clear idea.” (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, April 1946, p.156.)

From Mormon Myths -- Great and Abominable

 

[tomspug]

See, I've got a major problem with that belief, and so does Jesus:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Mark 3:22-30[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons." 23 So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." 30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."


[/FONT] This is known as the only 'unforgivable' sin, to believe that any work of the Holy Spirit is an act of the Devil. If the Catholic Church is 'founded by the Devil', then you're going to have to explain why the 'Devil' has made one of the single, largest contributions of evangelism to the world. Even if you believe the church is corrupt now, it was founded by the original Roman church, which was persecuted and murdered for standing up for their faith. Not to mention if there wasn't a Catholic Church, we might not HAVE a Bible right now.