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

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by tomspug

If he meant the book specifically, why wasn't this comment included in any of his other books?

Because the other one's didn't need it.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by tomspug

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.

In Romans 8, Paul continues his epistle. He opens by describing the saving power of Christ and Spirit over sin and the flesh. He continues by emphasizing the need to be God's through the Spirit of Christ, even comparing the relationship to that of adoption (i.e. we are adopted by God through Christ). Finally, verses 16-18: "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. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

If you look at these verses, you'll see that we are children of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Heirs to what? Heirs to the "glory which shall be revealed in us."

[Captain Civic]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

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.

Thanks, haven't heard that before. Nice to get other points of view.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by 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.

The great and abominable church is synonymous with the church of satan/the devil. These are different than the apostate church. The apostate church was the Christian church that continued from the time of Christ until it lost the essential truths of the gospel and had its authority removed from the earth by God (likely in the first century A.D.).

[nutshell]

Here's a link to an LDS article from 23 years ago that might be applicable:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Early Signs of the Apostasy

[tomspug]

OK, glad we're clarifying things up in this discussion. So is 1 Nephi 13 referring to the Church of the Devil or the Apostate church? If I had to guess, it sounds like you believe it refers to the Church of the Devil.

Also, concerning Romans 8, now that we have context, I think that it is obvious that Paul is talking about life ON EARTH, not after death. He begins the paragraph that verse 16-18 is in by saying "Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation-but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to [the Holy Spirit]. ... if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory."

That's the first and last verse of that paragraph. I think it's pretty clear that he's talking about us living in the Spirit NOW and sharing with God's suffering and glory NOW because we are no longer slaves to Sin but living in the Spirit. It appears that the phrase 'co-heirs with Christ' is not referring to eternal glory at all but glory on earth. If you think otherwise, show me where Paul is talking about that (remember his audience is the church, who is concerned about what to do in the PRESENT, you'll find that Paul talks very little about the afterlife).

[tomspug]

Actually, I'd like to explore the revelation of Nephi more in detail.

In his vision, Nephi sees the 'church of the Devil' as a sort of unholy city. Then there is a group of people who use a rope to guide them to where Nephi is. It seems that this passage is dividing the world into two categories. So I would ask, where is the Christian church who does not accept the teachings of Joseph Smith? Are they the ones in the city or are they the ones climbing the rope?

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

Because the other one's didn't need it.

How do you know that? Why exactly did Revelation need it?

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by tomspug

OK, glad we're clarifying things up in this discussion. So is 1 Nephi 13 referring to the Church of the Devil or the Apostate church? If I had to guess, it sounds like you believe it refers to the Church of the Devil.

Also, concerning Romans 8, now that we have context, I think that it is obvious that Paul is talking about life ON EARTH, not after death. He begins the paragraph that verse 16-18 is in by saying "Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation-but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to [the Holy Spirit]. ... if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory."

That's the first and last verse of that paragraph. I think it's pretty clear that he's talking about us living in the Spirit NOW and sharing with God's suffering and glory NOW because we are no longer slaves to Sin but living in the Spirit. It appears that the phrase 'co-heirs with Christ' is not referring to eternal glory at all but glory on earth. If you think otherwise, show me where Paul is talking about that (remember his audience is the church, who is concerned about what to do in the PRESENT, you'll find that Paul talks very little about the afterlife).

I agree that it's about living in the Spirit NOW, but what is the result he tells us: that we are joint-heirs with Christ and will receive a glory that won't be taken away. I think it's speaking of what we do now and the result that is to come.