Baptist minister embraces Book of Mormon

  • Thread starter Thread starter BartBurk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridenhour’s essay shows how he as a Baptist minister can see that Book of Mormon teachings are basically warmed over Protestantism – that’s why he can accept it so easily. Knowing that he had become a baptized Mormon and then separated from them is also interesting. Perhaps he was able to see that LDS theology is very different from Book of Mormon theology. I think if folks read Ridenhour’s essay there is an excellent summary of Book of Mormon teachings.
I found his essay to be a good starter for this thread topic, but I don’t feel anyone should take it as too authoritative.
His observatins start an interesting discussion, that the overlap is much greater than the differences.
Unfortunately, in religion we always seem to focus on the differences (hence the 33k Christian denominations)
 
I found his essay to be a good starter for this thread topic, but I don’t feel anyone should take it as too authoritative.
His observatins start an interesting discussion, that the overlap is much greater than the differences.
Unfortunately, in religion we always seem to focus on the differences (hence the 33k Christian denominations)
The differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity are too great to be ignored. If you would accept the Trinity and accept that God created all things out of nothing we would have something to discuss. Denial of those two doctrines denies the heart of Christianity. And then when you teach that many Gods exist you’ve completely lost any credibility.
 
And this is the reason why so many people who appreciate the best parts of the BoM (that don’t come directly from the Bible) reject Mormonism. Mormonism has radically departed from those best parts, and therefore is in apostasy to itself.
 
And this is the reason why so many people who appreciate the best parts of the BoM (that don’t come directly from the Bible) reject Mormonism. Mormonism has radically departed from those best parts, and therefore is in apostasy to itself.
You are so right on this one.

What I have learned so far about the LDS is that most parts of the doctrine/theology of the BoM are not there anymore…

Therefore I highly value the RLDS Churches (in particular the Community of Christ) - they are the “real Mormons” for me… 😉

Esdra
 
There we part, although I respect RLDS. You are a Restorationist, I am a Catholic. Your religion is therefore opposed to my religion. But not as seriously as is the CoJCoLDS.
 
The differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity are too great to be ignored. If you would accept the Trinity and accept that God created all things out of nothing we would have something to discuss. Denial of those two doctrines denies the heart of Christianity. And then when you teach that many Gods exist you’ve completely lost any credibility.
relax bart, I’m not arguing for BFF status. I’m simply pointing out that most people, (including you) focus excessively on the differences.

I’m fine if you don’t want to call me Christian, based on your Trinity definition. I only ask that you get Websters etal to also adopt your definition for Christian. The conflict between your def and common usage is what causes heartburn for LDS. If you were to pursue this, I think you would also find many protestants try to exclude catholics via their further enhanced definition of Christian.

Wow, I wasn’t aware the origin of matter was such a controversial issue? Not having investigated the subject before now, I read we disagree on the translation of the hebrew word baurau and whether it means organize or create. I’m certainly not qualified to discuss it beyond saying, I don’t think the bible was written to teach us physiucs and the origin of matter,

Your two doctrinal examples highlight our focus on divisive issues, and maybe it’s just human nature.
I wish we focused more on how the 33k Christian denominations teach living a Christlike existence, while here on earth.
 
relax bart, I’m not arguing for BFF status. I’m simply pointing out that most people, (including you) focus excessively on the differences.

I’m fine if you don’t want to call me Christian, based on your Trinity definition. I only ask that you get Websters etal to also adopt your definition for Christian. The conflict between your def and common usage is what causes heartburn for LDS. If you were to pursue this, I think you would also find many protestants try to exclude catholics via their further enhanced definition of Christian.

Wow, I wasn’t aware the origin of matter was such a controversial issue? Not having investigated the subject before now, I read we disagree on the translation of the hebrew word baurau and whether it means organize or create. I’m certainly not qualified to discuss it beyond saying, I don’t think the bible was written to teach us physiucs and the origin of matter,

Your two doctrinal examples highlight our focus on divisive issues, and maybe it’s just human nature.
I wish we focused more on how the 33k Christian denominations teach living a Christlike existence, while here on earth.
I actually am not afraid to give the LDS the description of non-Trinitarian Christians. There are Unitarian Christians as well in my opinion insofar as they accept the atonement and the resurrection. The origin of matter is actually more of a controversy than the Trinity in my opinion. If we say that God did not create matter then we are saying that God may be in some way dependent on the universe rather than the other way around.
 
OP, sorry to be off-topic.
=KathleenGee;7363437]Talk about messing with the Bible…We have been forewarned not to even change one word of Scripture…or believe in unknown angels…
Then, Kathleen, we should not even translate them. 🤷
Martin Luther changed one word in Scripture and look what happened to Christianity in the past 500 years. He speaks of faith alone, yet he alone was the one responsible for removing those books from Scripture because they contradicted his hypothesis…including the apostle James.
Luther, like all translators, changed all the words, and when one translates from one language to another, words do not necessarily match up. Luther explains his reason for using the word “allein” in the German. In English, since it isn’t necessary, “alone” does not appear in Romans 3:28 in any translation English I am aware of.
As for the D-C books, Luther did translate and include 74 books in his translation. His concerns about the D-C’s, shared by Cr. Cajetan, a Luther contemporary, are concerned expressed by Catholic theologians all through history, including St. Jerome.
Finally, sola fide, properly understood, in no way contradicts James.

Jon
 
There we part, although I respect RLDS. You are a Restorationist, I am a Catholic. Your religion is therefore opposed to my religion. But not as seriously as is the CoJCoLDS.
Hi,

well actually, I’ve nowhere stated that I am a member of a RLDS Church. 😉 ----- I am not.

Nevetheless, I value and respect them and am often in email contact with some. And (although my Baptist pastor certainly’d say otherwise ;)), I think that they are protestants, in opposition to the CoJCoLDS… (which is another religion in my opinion [just like Muslims are no Christians], because of certain teachings that are to be found in the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price. But I guess these things I’m thinking of have been adressed often enough here in CAF, judging from the thread names ;))

Esdra
 
I think that they are protestants, in opposition to the CoJCoLDS…
Yeah, my co-conspirator is Dale Broadhurst, who is a rather unorthodox RLDS. 😃
 
Lynn Ridenhour’s a Baptist minister who claims to believe the Book of Mormon is true:

Here’s the site:

centerplace.org/library/bofm/baptistversionofbofm.htm

He continues as a Protestant even though he believes the Book of Mormon. I don’t think that he embraces any of the rest of Mormonism. I can’t imagine a Catholic could believe in the Book of Mormon and remain Catholic.
Good for him. He might not be a member of Christ’s church but at least he knows the truth about the Book of Mormon. By the way, the Book of Mormon can be backed by archeology & history.
 
Yes, I know this website where this extract is from.

I have read the whole article.

And actually, I have to agree this Baptist pastor: The BoM (as I have also read it) does really in no single point contradict the bible and is a very “protestant book” with lots of parts in it that are in the Baptist doctrine, but not explicitly in the bible (like the prohibition of the child-baptism in Moroni 8:11-12)

Although I of course don’t think that it describes the real history of the ancestors of the present day Native Americans. 😉
But I really value the BoM for it’s theology.

Esdra
No history for Native Americans? Check again.

mormontopics.com/new_findings/nahua.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=WYzNhh6aq4I
youtube.com/watch?v=lEzoO1SmC90&feature=related
israelect.com/reference/WesleyASwift/extra/WHITEGOD.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes#American_Indians
articlesbase.com/religion-articles/unique-translation-of-the-paleohebrew-tanach-558436.html
israpundit.com/2008/?p=1700
lionofgod.com/view_article.php?id=23

Have you ever read the book of Luke? One of the languages the sign on the cross was written in was Latin. Central & South America have romance languages of the Latin language, in other words languages that are part of the Latin language. Calvary comes from two Latin words while Golgotha is the Hebrew name. Calvary was just outside of the Jerusalem walls. Since the Latin language was known in that area & Central & South America has forms of the language, it had to come from somewhere. So, it’s no surprise people of the surrounding area knew Latin including Lehi & his family & possibly the others such as Ishmael & his family. How could Latin America (Central & South) know forms of this language? Migration.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Judaism#Central.2C_South_America_and_Caribbean
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_and_Portuguese_Jews#Hebrew
youtube.com/watch?v=WslRp5CnC1Q
youtube.com/watch?v=nw7fW19Sk1A&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=Yhm1B5wi7to
youtube.com/watch?v=p9O-KIviaxI
youtube.com/watch?v=EyA3j_Ajqrw
youtube.com/watch?v=rLK1aeUSzEY
mormonwiki.com/Book_of_Mormon_evidences
 
I wonder if any of the commenters have read the Book of Mormon? It’s not all that disagreeable, besides being historically false, it’s rather innocuous. Most of the disagreeable doctrines in Mormonism come from Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Articles of Faith, as well as the teachings of their supposedly inspired leaders.

What this particular minister seems to be saying is that he agrees with the moral/ethical teachings found or inferred in the Book of Mormon, which is not all that surprising, as it reads much like the Old Testament histories and prophets. The reason, of course, is that Smith ripped off stories from the Bible, changed the names and applied his overactive imagination to create fantastic scenarios.

I think this is still irresponsible to say for any Christian minister, because there is no historical accuracy to the Book of Mormon.
You’ve never read the Book of Mormon have you? There is a lot of proof backing the Book of Mormon. You notice how some of the words from the Isaiah portions don’t match the one in the King James Version? Know why that is? The portions from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon are more correct than the Bible’s version. The wording and meaning of the words in the Book of Mormon proves it is ancient scripture.

shields-research.org/Books/Sperry/Spry_Isa.html
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=2
 
When I read the Book I understood it to say that it was a second witness to Jesus Christ; that he was the promised Messiah, the Son of God. As I read the book I did not find anything that really contradicted those truths. We may disagree with it from a historical position, but what it teaches is very Christian.
Yep. The Book of Mormon is a second witness to Jesus Christ.

3 Nephi 11

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.
10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.
11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.
14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole dearth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.
15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.

That should tell people the Christ of the Book of Mormon is the Christ of the Bible.
Mormons do not believe that we are punished for the sins of our ancestors. They believe that we are only punished for our own sins. It is my understanding that they baptize for the dead because they believe that baptism is required to enter heaven. They seek to have all their ancestors baptized in order for them to be able to enter heaven. It is not a belief that is practiced by the vast majority of Christianity, but I certainly never degrade it. I equate it to me praying for the souls of those who have died. Would that all could enter heaven and dwell with God. Just as Catholics have practices that are not spelled out clearly in the Bible, so the Mormons do too. I find beauty in all things that strive to bring people to Christ.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (baptism) and of the Spirit (receives the Holy Ghost by laying of hands), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Think of baptism for the dead like this: if we do not baptize for the dead then that leaves for either a weak law or total damnation. What about people that never heard of Christ? Would they instantly be under damnation? Christ has neither a weak law nor teaches of total damnation.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Believing in Him includes believing the words He says which means we must be baptized by proper authority. Why do you think Christ specifically went to John the Baptist?

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The spirits in prison are those in the spirit world that either denied or never heard of the gospel while alive. Look at verse 20. You have to read it carefully. The 8 that were on the ark were saved from sins by the flood, it wiping out the wicked. These verses use the flood in comparison for baptism for the dead. As the 8 were saved from sin by the water because they had listened to God, those in spirit prison would be saved by water by baptism through proxy. Here’s the best way I can explain how that works: now, the angels teach those in the spirit prison the gospel. We are baptized for them on their behalf since they’re kind of dead. Most people think that means they’ll instantly be baptized & a member of the church. Not so. If they accept the gospel taught to them then the baptism takes effect. Exactly the order of being taught the gospel & the baptism taking effect I don’t know because if I did I’d have to be an angel which would require me to be dead.
Let’s make sure we know about the beliefs of others before we begin to criticize or belittle them. When we criticize from a position of ignorance, we begin to look less than we are.
At least someone that’s not a member is rational and not attacking. The reason I put what I did on another post was because members of the Catholic church were attacking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and I will defend the church I go to.
 
No history for Native Americans? Check again.

mormontopics.com/new_findings/nahua.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=WYzNhh6aq4I
youtube.com/watch?v=lEzoO1SmC90&feature=related
israelect.com/reference/WesleyASwift/extra/WHITEGOD.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes#American_Indians
articlesbase.com/religion-articles/unique-translation-of-the-paleohebrew-tanach-558436.html
israpundit.com/2008/?p=1700
lionofgod.com/view_article.php?id=23

Have you ever read the book of Luke? One of the languages the sign on the cross was written in was Latin. Central & South America have romance languages of the Latin language, in other words languages that are part of the Latin language. Calvary comes from two Latin words while Golgotha is the Hebrew name. Calvary was just outside of the Jerusalem walls. Since the Latin language was known in that area & Central & South America has forms of the language, it had to come from somewhere. So, it’s no surprise people of the surrounding area knew Latin including Lehi & his family & possibly the others such as Ishmael & his family. How could Latin America (Central & South) know forms of this language? Migration.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Judaism#Central.2C_South_America_and_Caribbean
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_and_Portuguese_Jews#Hebrew
youtube.com/watch?v=WslRp5CnC1Q
youtube.com/watch?v=nw7fW19Sk1A&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=Yhm1B5wi7to
youtube.com/watch?v=p9O-KIviaxI
youtube.com/watch?v=EyA3j_Ajqrw
youtube.com/watch?v=rLK1aeUSzEY
mormonwiki.com/Book_of_Mormon_evidences
:eek:
 
Mormonism is going through alot of standardization. I don’t think their young people are quite aware of past documents.
Guess again. I’m 19, was born into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Christ’s church, and know a great deal about the history. I know history and the Bible proves the Book of Mormon is true.
 
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘true,’ but the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. Joseph Smith lied.
You do know he was a prophet of Jesus Christ right? The Bible and Book of Mormon are true. The Bible tells of the coming of the Book of Mormon as well as Moroni the angel & the Book of Mormon tells of the origin of the Bible. Denying one is denying both. Denying the Bible telling of the Book of Mormon is to deny the Book of Mormon which is to deny the lesson of the origin of the Bible which is to deny the existence of the Bible. See how it’s a domino effect?
 
Another thing, who were the “other sheep” Christ spoke of? Who was the remnant that fled Jerusalem? Here’s a hint: you won’t find the answer in the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top