Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid? (Jesus, Earth)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Bathsheba

Man, you guys really have the traditional christians freaked out, huh.

Yeah, well it's kind of like my signature says.

I looked for parallels between your catholic distortion and an equivalent Mormon distortion. I suppose the best example (imho) was the bit about how Mormons have endless sex in heaven. You guys don't come right out and say that you will be having endless sex in heaven; I think you are probably much more discrete about that by referencing the creation of worlds without end. Either that, or you really don't have much information on how these things work and sex (to make spirit babies) is beside the point because you are just trying to get to the Celestial Kingdom at this point. Hell if I know, it's all speculation (becoming a God yourself and creating a world per your belief of how God created this world), right? G. Hinckley said y'all didn't really teach that anymore.

Well, just as a point for you to consider... Sex is the means by which a physical being is created. There is nothing in any of our scriptures (including the Bible) to say how a spirit is created. The Bible does say, though, that God is the "Father of spirits." If God was able to father spirits by some unknown process (as most Christians would have to believe, if they believe the Bible), why do they assume that the Latter-day Saints see having endless sex in heaven as the means by which this would be accomplished in the eternities to come?

[neillien]

Mormonism is Christian, but historical Christianity is Judaeo-Christian. In short, Christianity came out of Judaism; its prophecies, people and archaeology. But Mormonism works backwards. It comes out of Christianity and references Judaism.

The new covenant that stems from the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, does 1 (one) most-major event. It ends the old covenant. There is no more Aaronic priesthood. To a believer who follows historic Christianity, there is no righteousness that comes from the law (served by the priesthood). And none of the LDS Aaronic priesthood rituals come from Judaism anyway. [space limits discussing Melchizedek]

* Christ gave us a righteousness from faith, without Aaronic law.
* The Aaronic priesthood is no longer efficacious for serving God.
* The Aaronic priesthood is actually an anti-christ of sorts.
Because, if you want the law and a priesthood you are saying (according to the Bible) that Christ died in vain. Read Romans and Hebrews. You can't have a literal priesthood and a personal faith.

Mormonism is a Christian religion but highly undocumented. Plus, any burning you receive has nothing to do with the facts of the Judaeo-Christian belief.

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by neillien

Mormonism is Christian, but historical Christianity is Judaeo-Christian. In short, Christianity came out of Judaism; its prophecies, people and archaeology. But Mormonism works backwards. It comes out of Christianity and references Judaism.

The new covenant that stems from the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, does 1 (one) most-major event. It ends the old covenant. There is no more Aaronic priesthood. To a believer who follows historic Christianity, there is no righteousness that comes from the law (served by the priesthood). And none of the LDS Aaronic priesthood rituals come from Judaism anyway. [space limits discussing Melchizedek]

* Christ gave us a righteousness from faith, without Aaronic law.
* The Aaronic priesthood is no longer efficacious for serving God.
* The Aaronic priesthood is actually an anti-christ of sorts.
Because, if you want the law and a priesthood you are saying (according to the Bible) that Christ died in vain. Read Romans and Hebrews. You can't have a literal priesthood and a personal faith.

Mormonism is a Christian religion but highly undocumented. Plus, any burning you receive has nothing to do with the facts of the Judaeo-Christian belief.

John the Baptist held the Aaronic Priesthood (in fact, he was the only one on earth at the time who did), which gave him the authority to baptize Christ. Which is why Christ sought him out to be baptized.

If I understand your first paragraph correctly, I agree with it.

[Bathsheba]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Well, just as a point for you to consider... Sex is the means by which a physical being is created. There is nothing in any of our scriptures (including the Bible) to say how a spirit is created. The Bible does say, though, that God is the "Father of spirits." If God was able to father spirits by some unknown process (as most Christians would have to believe, if they believe the Bible), why do they assume that the Latter-day Saints see having endless sex in heaven as the means by which this would be accomplished in the eternities to come?

Actually, I think there is the potential to fall into their trap by considering this point. Getting side tracked by these sensational details is one of the things that the film makers want, imho. Perhaps your point makes for good apologetics, but is it really something that has lasting value? (ie. more people brought to a knowledge of the "restoration" through a "spiritual conversion") If I was a marketing consultant for the LDS church I would strongly advise the membership to stay out of these discussions, for their own sake and for the sake of the church. But such restraint is not likely gonna happen because people (by their nature it seems) love to get off "message". It's like running a good campaign; you don't wanna let your opposition get you off message. But some campaigns seem like they don't want to win (oh I'm sure they want to win, or in other words, they do want to achieve the stated goals but the unconscious drivers set up another agenda), and they demonstrate a lack of control, focus, discipline and vision. They get side-swiped by the mundane base arguments (I'm speaking relative to Mormons memes), I dunno, maybe because of ego and the almost neurotic need to explain and defend. It's all just a crazy distraction and it seems to be working on some of the membership.

But to your last question, "why do they assume that?” maybe they are just yanking your chain.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Starfish

John the Baptist held the Aaronic Priesthood (in fact, he was the only one on earth at the time who did), which gave him the authority to baptize Christ. Which is why Christ sought him out to be baptized.

If I understand your first paragraph correctly, I agree with it.

John wasn't a Christian. John was a Jew. Christ was baptized with John's baptism, which was a Jewish baptism, for remission of sin -- not a Christian baptism into the Church. It was not any priesthood that gave him authority to baptize Christ. It was Christ who gave him the authority.

[sojourner]

The new covenant that stems from the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, does 1 (one) most-major event. It ends the old covenant.

Actually, it fulfills, not "ends" the O.C.

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by sojourner

John wasn't a Christian. John was a Jew. Christ was baptized with John's baptism, which was a Jewish baptism, for remission of sin -- not a Christian baptism into the Church. It was not any priesthood that gave him authority to baptize Christ. It was Christ who gave him the authority.

John was the last legal administrator from the Mosaic era. His authority bridged the old law of Moses to the new law of Christ. He received this authority as an infant and his mission was to prepare the way for Christ. (Isa. 40:3) Since Christ was the God of the Old Testament, then yes, you could say John received his authority from Christ. And you could also say that Christ hadn't yet organized his church (Christianity) at the time of his baptism.

The law of Moses, Judaism, was the correct religion in it's day (though by the time Christ came it was greatly corrupted), and Christ is the fulfillment of that law. True Christianity is, in a sense, the current and correct version of the old law.