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

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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?

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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?

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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]

Originally Posted by athanasius

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]

Originally Posted by nutshell

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]

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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.

Originally Posted by athanasius

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]

Originally Posted by athan