Book of Mormon a copycat of the Holy Bible? (Jesus Christ, reject)

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

um...
'Cuase some people are equal opportunity bashers?

I.O.U Frubals,

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

How did this Mormonism thread become a Catholicism one?

Because it relates to quotes like yours:

An oral contract is worth nothing, much less thousands of years worth of chinese whispers being passed through a corrupt and sometimes wicked papacy, I will pit my eternal destiny on the written words of Gods promises not hearsay.
Biblical Christianity is historical Christianity regardless of who was faithful to it in the years that went by.

.... and I tried to make the point that Protestantism, with no regard for the history or foundation of the Bible, is in the same doctrinal "boat" as the LDS.

Both of you choose to ignore more than a thousand years of Christian teachings and "invented" new doctrines to suit your theology. At least the Mormons have the BOM/D & C ... "Biblical Christianity" can only close their eyes to history and pretend it didn't matter who formed the Biblical Canon or preserved the faith in the nascent Church... all that matters is the Bible in their hands.

That's why.

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Because it relates to quotes like yours:

I didn't realise what thread i was in.

.... and I tried to make the point that Protestantism, with no regard for the history or foundation of the Bible, is in the same doctrinal "boat" as the LDS.

Not so for we follow the Words of the Apostles and prophets and dedicate ourselves to their teachings, as did the first church.

Both of you choose to ignore more than a thousand years of Christian teachings

Only when they disagree with our understanding of scripture. They are not rejected simply because they are not scripture.

and "invented" new doctrines to suit your theology.

Invented doctrines? Do you not blush when you say that? Meat on Friday anyone? Treasury of merit? Indulgences? Rosary? All these doctrines are inventions of people who are not apostles or prophets. We on the other hand build our doctrines on their words they are not our inventions.

At least the Mormons have the BOM/D & C ... "Biblical Christianity" can only close their eyes to history and pretend it didn't matter who formed the Biblical Canon or preserved the faith in the nascent Church... all that matters is the Bible in their hands.

I don't share your canon do I? God preserved His faith, I agree with much of what Athanasius, Iranaeus, Augustine etc said, but only so far as I believe they agree with scripture. It makes perfect logical sense not to agree with a man when he seems to contradict the word of God.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

Not so for we follow the Words of the Apostles and prophets and dedicate ourselves to their teachings, as did the first church.

So you don't use the NT?

Only when they disagree with our understanding of scripture. They are not rejected simply because they are not scripture.

At least you admit it's your personal understanding at issue here.... cool.

Invented doctrines? Do you not blush when you say that? Meat on Friday anyone? Treasury of merit? Indulgences? Rosary? All these doctrines are inventions of people who are not apostles or prophets. We on the other hand build our doctrines on their words they are not our inventions.

All of the things you mentioned have their foundation in Scripture... but maybe that's for another thread.

I don't share your canon do I?

That's my point... just like the LDS modern day doctrines, your faith rejects historical Christianty.

Again, it's not a judgement... but an observation piqued by the attacks on the LDS by "Bible only" Christians.

In Christ,
S

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Scott1

.... and I tried to make the point that Protestantism, with no regard for the history or foundation of the Bible, is in the same doctrinal "boat" as the LDS.

Hello,

Actually the doctrinal thrust of Protestantism and Mormonism is distinct. Protestantism is tied to the tradition it defined itself against. Rhetorically, this is a problem. If the Roman Catholic Church failed, then the Protestant incorporation of that Tradition's text (the Bible), its theology (ala selective use of St. Augustine's work, the Ecumenical Councils etc.) is equally tainted. If the Roman Catholic Church is the earthly vehicle for salvation then Protestantism is a heresy. Mormonism appeals to a new revelation.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Orontes

Actually the doctrinal thrust of Protestantism and Mormonism is distinct.
Protestantism is tied to the tradition it defined itself against. Rhetorically, this is a problem. If the Roman Catholic Church failed, then the Protestant incorporation of that Tradition's text (the Bible), its theology (ala selective use of St. Augustine's work, the Ecumenical Councils etc.) is equally tainted.
If the Roman Catholic Church is the earthly vehicle for salvation then Protestantism is a heresy. Mormonism appeals to a new revelation.

My point has been... from OUR standpoint... I can see litle difference in the historical claims of either.

But what I respect about the LDS position is that it MAKES SENSE... post-apostasy revelation - BOM - Prophets etc etc.... everything falls into place.

The protestant sola scriptura claims have no basis in history.... their faith must come from the Bible alone, yet they appeal to historical dogmas like the Trinity to attack the LDS.... heck, that fellow Paul just stated he has no faith in oral traditions---- which ignore the fact that his faith survived for a generation before anyone even thought of a written NT.

My posts are not intended to "judge" the LDS faith... as I said before, it's just to point out to certain "attackers" how ridiculous it is to attack the LDS for basicly the same reasons we reject their faith.

S

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Scott1

But what I respect about the LDS position is that it MAKES SENSE... post-apostasy revelation - BOM - Prophets etc etc.... everything falls into place.

The protestant sola scriptura claims have no basis in history.... their faith must come from the Bible alone, yet they appeal to historical dogmas like the Trinity to attack the LDS....

I know what you're saying, Scott. Catholicism relies on scripture and holy tradition. Mormonism relies on scripture and continuing revelation. Every time I hear a Protestant claim that he relies solely on the Bible to support his beliefs, I want to laugh. There is no such thing as true sola scriptura.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I know what you're saying, Scott. Catholicism relies on scripture and holy tradition. Mormonism relies on scripture and continuing revelation. Every time I hear a Protestant claim that he relies solely on the Bible to support his beliefs, I want to laugh. There is no such thing as true sola scriptura.

Phew.... glad you understand I wasn't trying to "slam" you guys... enough of that on this thread without another!

... but I would like to point out that there is a way to be "sola" IMO: just like everyone's pal Scuba Pete. His faith is also LOGICAL... it's based upon the grace of God revealed in the Scriptures.... and he does not lay claim to ANY part of "traditions"... and while he surely has a firm grasp of Church history, he does not depend upon it to support or defend his faith. I can respect THAT... THAT makes sense to me. But these "quasi-Catholics" who like to pick and choose the parts of history based on how well it fits into their theology is absurd.