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

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by farfignewton

you must have a diffrent bible that I have.

Mathew 28
18. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Only the King James Version......
Matthew 28:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

According to the Joseph Smith translation this is correct, how does this correlate to what you are saying?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by farfignewton

you must have a diffrent bible that I have.

Mathew 28
18. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

No, that looks exactly like mine. So where does this say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are a single substance?

[nutshell]

Farfig, I would have gone with this one: 1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[Captain Civic]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Revelation 2:26-27 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

I see that you put stock in Revelation. I'm sure you've heard this question before, but how do LDS reconcile the idea of inclusion of the BoM when the last line in Revelation says:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."

As I've written this, it occurs to me you have made the BoM separate from the Bible for this very reason, but I would like to hear your opinion. Not attacking your beliefs, just curious.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

I see that you put stock in Revelation. I'm sure you've heard this question before, but how do LDS reconcile the idea of inclusion of the BoM when the last line in Revelation says:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."

As I've written this, it occurs to me you have made the BoM separate from the Bible for this very reason, but I would like to hear your opinion. Not attacking your beliefs, just curious.

Hello, Cap'n. Thanks for your question. First of all, Revelation is the last book in the Bible, but it was not the last book in the Bible to have been written. Most biblical scholars today believe that John's Gospel as well as his three epistles were written after Revelation. If he'd interpreted that warning as you are interpreting it, do you think he'd have gone on to write anything afterwards? The warning against adding to the words of the prophecy of this book could not possibly have been referring to the Bible as a whole, since the Bible did not even exist at the time Revelation was given to John. "The book of this prophecy" was clearly referring to the book of Revelation itself. Furthermore, there is a warning against men adding to "these things," there is nothing anywhere in the Bible that says God cannot add to His own words. If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, it was not written by Joseph Smith; it was written by ancient prophets who, like the prophets and apostes of the Bible, were inspired by God.

The Book of Mormon may be "separate" from the Bible but it is for no other reason than that it is the sacred history of an entirely different group of people. It's definitely not in some kind of attempt to circumvent what Revelation says.

[tomspug]

ROMANS 8:16-17, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

I apologize for not responding earlier. There were a lot of posts to respond to. I would like you to clarify the context of this passage. Paul's writings are to specific churches and are rhetorical in nature, which means that he is trying to illustrate a specific point using MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE. If you could give me your exegesis on the whole chapter I will consider your point.

(why are all of the biblical responses I'm getting one-liners? Notice how when I quote the Bible, I actually quote the passage so that the context is clear. That's how I was taught to read the Bible)

Also, anyone who quotes C.S.Lewis as supporting any LDS doctrine that differs from Christianity CLEARLY hasn't read very much C.S.Lewis.

[athanasius]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Some people can be both bold and tactful. Others lack the ability. What more can I say?

We don't single any denomination out as being "more apostate" than another, and it was specifically the creeds that were said to be "an abomination." Finally, we don't believe that any Church or any individual that teaches of Christ as our Savior is "slapping Him in the face." I cannot conceive of saying that about one of your Popes.

Well, if that's what you mean, then we would see the situation as being reversed. We believe that the post-Apostolic Church did reject many of Jesus' teachings in favor of the philosophies of men.

I think you're starting to repeat yourself. We've already gone over this more than a few times.

What the hell difference does it make what you think. If God considers us to be Christians, your opinion hardly matters.

Yeah, it makes sense. If God were to speak to the Pope and tell him something, I suppose the Pope's reaction would be to say, "Who told you you could talk?"

And I guess in your next post, you're going to say something like, "Oh dear! I'm afraid I hurt your feelings. That wasn't my intention."

Obviously, you don't understand what we mean when we use the word "apostate." We don't believe the Catholic Church was working under the direction of the Holy Ghost when it decided upon the canon. More importantly, we don't believe the Catholic Church held the authority necessary to make the decisions it did. On the other hand, we believe that the writings of the Apostles were inspired, as were the four gospels, so any decision to include them would have been entirely logical. Please note that I said it was "logical"; I didn't say it was due to inspiration or God-given authority. We To the extent that the biblical canon is complete and accurate, we accept it. We just don't reject other inspired writings, and find no biblical rationale for doing so.

When might have been a good time for Him to restore it? During the Inquisition? Or maybe during the Crusades? Had Jesus decided to try to restore His Gospel at any other time or in any other place than when and where He did, the Prophet through whom He chose to restore it would have been deemed a heretic and killed by the authority of the Catholic Church.

I never said that. Of course there were Christians. There has never been a time since Christ's ministry when there have not been Christians. Likewise, there were Christian Churches -- yours, for instance.

The Apostles were Christians, and they were not apostate. They wrote the scriptures we use. They belong to us as much as they belong to you. They're not yours to loan and there is no need for us to borrow them.

Obviously not.

Given the fact that Paul prophesied both of an apostasy and of a restoration, it's the most logical thing imaginable.

Ok I see what your saying Katz. Try to understand the Catholic position. When your Church denounces the Creeds and says their apostate to us(Catholics) they are denouncing all the basics of the Christian faith and teaching and divine revelation which come from Jesus(which we believe the creeds summarize). To us this is like denouncing Jesus and his truth and revelation(Via Lk 10:16). So that is why I said that I do not think any LDS member does this personally today but I do think that Joseph Smith did slap Jesus in the face as I also think the Martin Luther did(In part).

I understand your input on being very happy that other Churches teach Christ. We are too. We do not think that everybody that is not Catholic is going to hell. We, like yourselves, also believe that we have the fullness of truth. The problem with the way the Catholic church views the Mormon church is not necessarily about them teaching Jesus or his resurrection. We think that teaching Jesus and loving him is awesome and your church has retained these truths and we want to cheer you on and support you in that . We understand that the Catholic faith only has the fullness of truth. The Problem the Catholic has with the mormon's understanding of Christian teaching or what makes one actually Christian is this. We differ on the understanding of the Nature of Christ and God. And to us that is the major thing that defines us Christian in our opinion.

When I started my first basic Catholic theology class(all my classes and lessons are certified by the Vatican to ensure doctrinal orthodoxy) the main thing we studied was the Doctrine of the Trinity. To us it is the center of all truth and everything else revolves around that mystery. We were taught that to be a Christian you must profess the Holy Trinity and the Holy Trinity is what makes Christians Christians. That is our belief as Catholics and many other churches follow that belief. This is why we spent many chapters in my first class studying the Trinitarian theology' and the Many heresies the early Church had that denounced it and the early councils that took care of them. So we take our Trinitarian Dogma seriously.

In our understanding if one doesn't profess the proper nature of God then one cannot be validly baptized into the proper or real God because his intention is not there. Baptism to us is the gate into the Church and what makes us Christians initially. This disagreement of ours over who God is or who Jesus is and what is Gods nature , is why the Vatican officially came down and said the LDS Baptism are invalid. Ok So please understand where we come from.

The nature of God is the main dogma of revelation. And if we do not know that then we are lost. For example Jw's teach that Jesus died for them. But we do not consider them Christians because they teach Jesus had a human nature only. They still love Jesus and teach he redeemed us but they think he was just a mere man or created creature and not God himself. So they teach a false Jesus. Jesus said that others
would come and teach false Christ. If they are baptized into a false Christ, then they are not baptized into the real Christ and we cannot consider them true Christians in the Formal sense.

In the same way Muslims love Jesus and revere him yet they teach he was not God(His nature) and not a savior. We cannot consider them Christians either. Some people may say they believe in Jesus but they may consider Jesus to be someone or something else then revelation reveals. I had one person say to me that Jesus was a white witch that did magic and not God. They loved Jesus but they didn't know the real Jesus or his real nature. Sop that is why its so important to us Catholics when we are defining who is really Christian in nature and who is not. We are not trying to be mean. We just have to stick with what revelation and the Church has taught because we beleive it to come from Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In their hearts they may yearn for the true Jesus and in that sense they could be Christian in the heart but not in actual reality. we believe its possible that Jesus will look at these peoples hearts and how much they want to believe the true Jesus and he will Judge them accordingly. They have a "possibility"(if they are truly ignorant of truth) to be saved depended on the state of their heart and the mercy and justice of God. If Jesus sees it fit they will go to heaven if not they will not. We cannot judge souls but we can judge doctrine and actions, and the safest way to salvation and the only sure way is through following all that Jesus revealed which is found in its fullness in the Catholic faith. If anyone is saved they are only saved by the true Jesus the second person of the Blessed Trinity and not by false Gods or false Jesus'.


Now Here is why I say that Joesph smith contradicted himself about the Canon of the New testament. Every Christian that believes the new testamant to be the new testament is simply following the Catholic Churches infallible authority and decisions.n why do I say that? Because before the canon of the new testament was decided, there were over 120 different competing gospels and several different epistles. Some of these were obviously phony and heretical but others sounded just like scripture. The Shepard of Hermas or the epistles of Clement were just two examples that were even used in the early Church before the declaration of the canon. The Catholic church by the power of the Holy spirit was moved in its councils to decree what the new testament canon even was. All protestants and non-Catholics follow the Catholic canon. So what they are doing is following and adhering to Catholic infallible Authority and teachings of Catholic Popes and Councils. If not then every person including Joseph smith would have to have read and studied all 120 Gospels and additional epistles and decide for himself. The fact that Joesph smith even had and used a new testament to begin with basically shows that he borrowed revelation form a supposed apostate Church. How can that be?? Why trust a apostate Churches infallibility declarations. That seems dubious to us.


I hope that helps,

Athanasius

[tomspug]

Wait, wait, wait. I'm getting confused here.

I called the apostate church the 'church of Satan' because I was told so by LDS posters that this was the church's stance. Yet you're saying that the Catholic Church IS an apostate but NOT the church of Satan?

Someone please clarify the ACTUAL stance of the LDS Church on the concept of apostacy before this confusion continue, cuz I'm getting mixed messages here.

Edit: Thanks for the clarity, Athanasius.