Tell me what you think of this chapter in the Book of Mormon

[croix_de_fer]

I have a question for Mormons. Can you please tell me if Christ appeared to Native Americans or another people before the Native Americans? If He appeared to another people, can you tell me the archeological and anthropological evidence of the people preceding the Native Americans? I only know of evidence of Native Americans and artifacts from the Vikings such as helmets discovered, but I do not know of any evidence of a people and their civilization preceding the Native Americans and Viking visitation.

If Christ appeared to Native Americans, can you tell me where in Native American history is the evidence that Christ appeared to them?

Can you tell me where I can find the archeological and historical evidence of the events in the America’s proclaimed by Joseph Smith? Thanks to all… I appreciate it.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee Drifter,
I think it will be easier to break down the items you noted into each separate point and briefly discuss them, so here goes:

But that contradicts the Bible itself.

Yes, God’s word is Truth, and should be sought after to bring sanctification to the soul of each person who seeks after Truth.

Yes, one should test all beliefs against the entire Word of God, not just little pieces and isolated verses.

If you are Catholic (not sure if you are), then there are a great amount of writings that you “rely on” besides the Holy Bible.

If you’re saying that He is the Rock, and the Great High Priest who performed the Great and last sacrifice, and certainly the only Mediator between man and God, and the Prophet whom the Lord raised up as prophesied by Moses, then I totally and completely agree.

I totally agree.

If you’re saying what you have literally written, and also believe that Jesus is omnipotent and omniscient and is the “First Cause” of all creation, then every subsequent action by any spirit or angel or person was ultimately caused by that first cause, since He would by definition know precisely what every one of those created angels or spirits or people was going to do at every point in eternity. That is what omniscience and omnipotence means.

(By the way, I don’t think of Jesus and satan as brothers, at all.)

The Bible disagrees with you on that point.

I certainly do agree with all of those points.

Indeed, if you honestly believe that “Jesus is not the literal Son of Heavenly Father”, then the concept you have of Jesus is very different than the living Christ of the Bible, of whom the apostles and prophets bore witness.

If you really believed that God’s Word is Truth, then you would not belong to a church that claims its full of errors and was corrupted by scribes and copyists. You would not add the clause:…as far as its translated correctly. Your founder would not have made extensive revisions and nor give his own translation such as the JST. This is similar to what the JWs have done. The fact is mormons do not believe the Holy Bible is completely reliable.

As far as the Bible disagreeing that its the sole source of Truth, I see no disagreement here because the author is the Holy Spirit. All other writings are those of men.

God’s Word nowhere says that Jesus is the literal son of God the Father the same way we are literal children of our parents. This was Joseph Smith’s teaching. The Holy Bible says that the virgin Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost and found to be with child. It is blasphemous to claim that God had relations with Mary. That he knew her in the natural way in the capacity of husband and wife.

God has always been self existent and unchangeable. He is a spirit.

Your church does not teach that Christ alone is the Mediator. As Jesus is now the sole Prophet and Priest of true Christians, the true believer does not need anyone other than Jesus to be his mediator between himself and God. No church, organization, or individual can ever claim to be the “only way of salvation” for trusting in Jesus and developing an intimate personal relationship with Jesus is the only way one can truly be saved and connect with the living God of the universe.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”—John 14:6

If you truly believe that Jesus Christ alone is the High Priest, then you would not give men the Melchizedek priesthood. That priesthood was never passed on. Only Christ qualifies. Hebrews 7 tells us what those qualifications are.

The Mormon god has a body of flesh and bone. He had a father and his father before him and so on. This god then was once a baby and once a son who somehow progressed to godhood. This is not the God of the Holy Bible. Its the god of Joseph Smith.The problem with your god is that you cannot explain how he got his body. How and where did he get his first wife? Did he ever sin while as a man? Did he pass through all of the experiences of mortal life, including death? Where did the first man come from? The Holy Bible says that God made Adam. Adam was the first man. Since Adam was the first human, how then can you claim that God was once a man when He created Adam the first man? Mormonism causes more confusion than it offers answers.

Parker this is not the Christian God. God said in Isaiah that there are no other gods beside Him. None were formed before Him, nor shall there be any after Him. He said He alone is God. He knows of no others. Yet it seems that if God had a father He would know it, wouldn’t He? The Apostles never taught that God and Mary, the mother of Jesus, had intimate relations like a husband and wife. This is blasphemy. Your church has made the One True God into a man. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…” Romans 1:22-23

And no Parker, the lds church does not test all beliefs with the Bible. You use other sources, all the writings of men.

I am glad to hear that you don’t believe Jesus and satan are spirit brothers, but this is what your church teaches. How are you honoring God staying in this church?

No, I am not catholic. I am a born again Christian and believer in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior

 

[yankee_drifter]

And why were the believers in the Book of Mormon called “Christians” in 73 B.C. which was so many decades before Christ was born?

 

[ParkerD]

I have a question for Mormons. Can you please tell me if Christ appeared to Native Americans or another people before the Native Americans? If He appeared to another people, can you tell me the archeological and anthropological evidence of the people preceding the Native Americans? I only know of evidence of Native Americans and artifacts from the Vikings such as helmets discovered, but I do not know of any evidence of a people and their civilization preceding the Native Americans and Viking visitation.

If Christ appeared to Native Americans, can you tell me where in Native American history is the evidence that Christ appeared to them?

Can you tell me where I can find the archeological and historical evidence of the events in the America’s proclaimed by Joseph Smith? Thanks to all… I appreciate it.

Croix de Fer,

Christ appeared to a small tribal group numbering about 10,000 to 20,000 people, and the book explains that their tribal group was later decimated (starting in about 300 AD) by both internal fighting and external tribal groups, but that a small number of descendants of the original founding ancestor (Lehi) would survive all the devastating impact of the external groups who would take over the land. It is not clear where in the Americas they lived, so among the hundreds of tribal groups of Native Americans who are known about today, it would be conjecture on anyone’s part to say which if any of those happened to be descendants of the Lamanites, or if the blood line survival was by intermarriage and mixed tribal groups only.

But the Book of Mormon also says that no group of people would be led to colonize the Americas who were not led there by the influence of God’s hand, and that the Americas are a “choice land” for people who seek to follow the “God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which [the Nephite prophets] have written.” (Ether 2:12) (see also 2 Nephi 1:5-12).

Pinning down extant archeology to one single tribal group of Native Americans, besides the large archeological finds left from some of the dominant groups who are known about, is pretty much conjectural.

 

[JeanMichel]

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves.And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

John the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees (the religious leaders of his day) “a generation of Vipers” (snakes) (Matt. 3:7). Today, he would be accused of being unloving, unkind, and unchristian.

Standing face to face with these false teachers, Jesus Christ the Son of God, called them “hypocrites”, “blind guides,” "blind, " “whited sepulchers,” “serpents,” and “ye generation of vipers” (Matt. 23:23-34).

Paul publicly exposed those who taught falsely for the sake of the preservation of the Gospel.

Every message, messenger, and method is to be judged according to the Word of God. The church at Ephesus was commended because they had "tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars " (Rev. 2:2). The church at Pergamos was rebuked because they tolerated those that held "the doctrine of Balaam, " and “the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate” (Rev. 2:14,15). It is never right to tolerate false teachers, but they are to be tried by the Word of God, and exposed.

How many times did Jesus use violence with others? Was it a common occurrence? How many more times did he respond in complete calm, with love, and compassion toward all others?

Apocalypse states in the 2nd Chapter: [2] I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: [3] And thou hast patience, and hast endured for my name, and hast not fainted. [4] But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. [5] Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

I like it even better in the KJV: I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast labored, and hast not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

How do we forget our first love? We begin to do things with no thought of Jesus and his examples. We forget why we do things; our first love, our first motivation has been lost in the turmoil of self-righteousness.

There is a time and a place for all things, but Christ is clear in the teachings of the first two great commandments. We might try to rationalize, but at the end of the day we will be condemned for those actions that go against Christ Jesus.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Croix de Fer,

Christ appeared to a small tribal group numbering about 10,000 to 20,000 people, and the book explains that their tribal group was later decimated (starting in about 300 AD) by both internal fighting and external tribal groups, but that a small number of descendants of the original founding ancestor (Lehi) would survive all the devastating impact of the external groups who would take over the land. It is not clear where in the Americas they lived, so among the hundreds of tribal groups of Native Americans who are known about today, it would be conjecture on anyone’s part to say which if any of those happened to be descendants of the Lamanites, or if the blood line survival was by intermarriage and mixed tribal groups only.

But the Book of Mormon also says that no group of people would be led to colonize the Americas who were not led there by the influence of God’s hand, and that the Americas are a “choice land” for people who seek to follow the “God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which [the Nephite prophets] have written.” (Ether 2:12) (see also 2 Nephi 1:5-12).

Pinning down extant archeology to one single tribal group of Native Americans, besides the large archeological finds left from some of the dominant groups who are known about, is pretty much conjectural.

Then I have a question for you Parker, not regarding conjecture.

When did you make first contact with Catholics in order to ask them questions?
Did you get the answers you expected from those who do know their faith?
Were the answers conjectural? Such as why we pray to dead saints, or how Catholics worship Mother Mary, or going to a Priest to confess sins, or about the Trinity etc…

This is not a baited question, its just that as I learned about the Catholic faith it was not at all what I was told by my Mormon family. When I went to tell them truth about what they had been told they did not want to hear it at all. They pretty much shut down, formed their opinion of Catholics without ever going to Catholic sources. I know you could turn the tables here but I did learn Mormonism first hand so I could see the discrepancies at a much later date in my life. I came to the conclusion that if I was told just one passed on lie about the Catholic Church how many others were suspect. I found it all suspect as I found a completely different church than what I was taught as a Mormon child by Mormons. Just one was them laughing at the Stations of the cross, I remember this. Then when I mearned about the stations of the cross I found it beutiful, very eye opening. Things like this make you stop and pause and say “what is wrong with this” what do they have against the stations of the cross? I can only assume they were told the wrong things about it. Where does this all come from?

On the other hand I also found many others in my life telling about Mormon beleifs, even laughing in my own face at one point when I was a teen. Then when I dug deeper in to my own faith at that time I found them to be correct. Things I was never told.
Like the multiplicity of gods not even found in the Book of Mormon. Back then I beleived in Jesus but did not know anyhting about the Holy Trinity. So in a sense I knew nothinb about Jesus as I I do now in my life. He is much bigger

Back to my question

When did you make first contact with Catholics in order to ask them questions?
Did you get the answers you expected from those who do know their faith?

 

[ParkerD]

Then I have a question for you Parker, not regarding conjecture.

When did you make first contact with Catholics in order to ask them questions?
Did you get the answers you expected from those who do know their faith?
Were the answers conjectural? …Back to my question

When did you make first contact with Catholics in order to ask them questions?
Did you get the answers you expected from those who do know their faith?

Catholic-RCIA,
I had never questioned Catholics about their beliefs (nor had I had any reason to think I understood Catholic beliefs, nor do I now other than superficially), but coming to this website a couple of years ago gave me an opportunity and while answering questions about my beliefs for them, we could trade answers as to their beliefs and sometimes clarify, which is often a good idea to do.

If a belief is not directly found in the Bible, then I simply am not interested in finding out about the “whys” of it. It has been interesting to see the thinking processes that lead to some beliefs I have conversed about held with such vigor. (That’s OK–it’s a human nature thing to do.)

Christ will indeed be victorious in overcoming all the misunderstandings and allowing all humankind to make valid, knowing choices by the time it’s all over and done with, and the “gates of hell” will not have ultimately prevailed against Him or His followers (the many who lay claim and take advantage of His atoning grace through repentance and coming unto Him.)

 

[NucleicAcid]

If a belief is not directly found in the Bible, then I simply am not interested in finding out about the “whys” of it.)

Should non-Mormons take the same stance with Mormon beliefs that are not directly found i the Bible?

 

[ParkerD]

Should non-Mormons take the same stance with Mormon beliefs that are not directly found in the Bible?

NucleicAcid,
Yes, I suppose that that would be a good idea for anyone who is thoroughly familiar with Biblical teachings on all subjects. One should bear in mind that often what they read are “Mormon beliefs” (such as what Yankee Drifter posted earlier this morning) are not “Mormon beliefs”. I would say “Mormon beliefs” are founded in Biblical teachings, but some certainly disagree with that perspective.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-RCIA,
I had never questioned Catholics about their beliefs (nor had I had any reason to think I understood Catholic beliefs, nor do I now other than superficially.)

Did you serve on an LDS Mission? And can you see the importance of understanding Catholic Beliefs regarding serving on an LDS Mission?

 

[SteveVH]

Croix de Fer,

Christ appeared to a small tribal group numbering about 10,000 to 20,000 people, and the book explains that their tribal group was later decimated (starting in about 300 AD) by both internal fighting and external tribal groups, but that a small number of descendants of the original founding ancestor (Lehi) would survive all the devastating impact of the external groups who would take over the land. It is not clear where in the Americas they lived, so among the hundreds of tribal groups of Native Americans who are known about today, it would be conjecture on anyone’s part to say which if any of those happened to be descendants of the Lamanites, or if the blood line survival was by intermarriage and mixed tribal groups only.

But the Book of Mormon also says that no group of people would be led to colonize the Americas who were not led there by the influence of God’s hand, and that the Americas are a “choice land” for people who seek to follow the “God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which [the Nephite prophets] have written.” (Ether 2:12) (see also 2 Nephi 1:5-12).

Pinning down extant archeology to one single tribal group of Native Americans, besides the large archeological finds left from some of the dominant groups who are known about, is pretty much conjectural.

Parker,

You challenged me to fiind anything false in the Book of Mormon. In my last response to you on this thread I told you that the entire basis of the Book of Mormon was erroneous and consisted of nothing more than a claim. I also told you that I was not compelled to go further and pick it apart any more than someone picking up a book on World War II that was based on the premise that we had been attacked by Canada would feel compelled to read further in order to find error. You have confirmed my position. There is really no evidence of the truth claimed in the Book of Mormon concerning the civilizations on which it is based. It is at best a claim without evidence.

I do not say this to slam your beliefs, Parker. What I am asking you to do is to step outside for a moment and consider what it may be like for someone looking in. Can you see that one may want something, anything, that would support the premise that Jesus appeared to a great civilization when there is no evidence that this civilization ever existed? When the best that can be said is that, well it could have existed and maybe someday someone will find the evidence, can you understand that it may at least give someone great pause and a degree of scepticism?

You and I have a tendancy to butt heads and I know we both grow weary as the conversation ensues. I have purposely given it a rest so that we can both take a deep breath. Maybe we can get a little further down the road if we both try to understand each other’s point of view. Your faith is very important to you, as is mine to me, there is no doubt about it. I have told you before that admire you even being on this forum. It must take an immense amount of courage and dedication and you are to be commended for it.

God bless.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

You challenged me to fiind anything false in the Book of Mormon. In my last response to you on this thread I told you that the entire basis of the Book of Mormon was erroneous and consisted of nothing more than a claim.

SteveVH,

The Jews had the temple and the gravesite of Abraham and prophetic writings to substantiate their claim and strong, fervent beliefs that they were the chosen people and that Jesus could not possibly be their promised Messiah. This is why He told Peter that His Father had revealed to Peter that Jesus was indeed the promised Christ, the Anointed One, the Rock of salvation of Whom Peter was familiar from his scriptural background, but Whom Peter knew of a surety because it had been revealed to him. Others scoffed at such “spiritual-based knowledge.” They had their sure proofs around them, and their substantial scholarly approach to the prophetic writings.

The Book of Mormon does indeed make a claim, but it is a spiritual claim and that means it can and will be scoffed at when approached intellectually or using archeological and physical proofs. That is entirely consistent with what happened in Biblical times, and entirely consistent with what was prophesied for the end times.

But what it does do is give anyone who wants a basis for not reaching upward for greater insights into the gospel, the basis they seek. That is just fine as far as I’m concerned–I wouldn’t want it to be any other way, knowing how God’s gift of free will and choice is so vitally important for individual progress.

You have confirmed my position. There is really no evidence of the truth claimed in the Book of Mormon concerning the civilizations on which it is based. It is at best a claim without evidence.

That is precisely the case that would have been made to Peter if he had told the unbelieving Jews that he had found the true Messiah, the Christ promised in their scriptural records.

What I am asking you to do is to step outside for a moment and consider what it may be like for someone looking in. Can you see that one may want something, anything, that would support the premise that Jesus appeared to a great civilization when there is no evidence that this civilization ever existed?

It was one civilization among many others. But the point is that truth is a gift from heaven to be sought after, not be granted automatically and proven by outward proofs that make everyone either feel guilty or deny because the proof wasn’t sufficient for them personally.

When the best that can be said is that, well it could have existed and maybe someday someone will find the evidence, can you understand that it may at least give someone great pause and a degree of scepticism?

Absolutely, yes. Spiritual knowledge is not for sceptics.

You and I have a tendancy to butt heads and I know we both grow weary as the conversation ensues. I have purposely given it a rest so that we can both take a deep breath. Maybe we can get a little further down the road if we both try to understand each other’s point of view. Your faith is very important to you, as is mine to me, there is no doubt about it. I have told you before that admire you even being on this forum. It must take an immense amount of courage and dedication and you are to be commended for it.

God bless.

Thanks.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

The Jews had the temple and the gravesite of Abraham and prophetic writings to substantiate their claim and strong, fervent beliefs that they were the chosen people and that Jesus could not possibly be their promised Messiah. This is why He told Peter that His Father had revealed to Peter that Jesus was indeed the promised Christ, the Anointed One, the Rock of salvation of Whom Peter was familiar from his scriptural background, but Whom Peter knew of a surety because it had been revealed to him. Others scoffed at such “spiritual-based knowledge.” They had their sure proofs around them, and their substantial scholarly approach to the prophetic writings.

I don’t understand your point. The Jew’s fervent belief that they were God’s chosen people was correct as was their belief that the Messiah would be one of their descendants. Your argument would only make sense if the Messiah had indeed come from another people, whereby they would have then been incorrect in defending their position. We have a real, historical people from which to trace his descendancy. That’s the difference. The claim did not rely purely on “spiritually-based knowledge”. Once He had been revealed we can see that He was indeed the Messiah that had been prophesied by the Jews themselves based upon their own history.

In other words, it wasn’t as if Peter said “the Messiah has come from Norway and I know this because God revealed it to me” with nothing else with which to back up his claim. The reason that many Jews did not recognize Him is another storey entirely and mostly political. They wanted one who would vanquish their enemies with the sword, not one who tell them to turn the other cheek.

The Book of Mormon does indeed make a claim, but it is a spiritual claim and that means it can and will be scoffed at when approached intellectually or using archeological and physical proofs. That is entirely consistent with what happened in Biblical times, and entirely consistent with what was prophesied for the end times.

But what it does do is give anyone who wants a basis for not reaching upward for greater insights into the gospel, the basis they seek. That is just fine as far as I’m concerned–I wouldn’t want it to be any other way, knowing how God’s gift of free will and choice is so vitally important for individual progress.

I certainly don’t scoff at the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Messiah when I approach it intellectually. It makes perfect sense when we study salvation history and read the prophecies which He alone fulfilled, the miracles He performed and the testimonies of trustworthy people.

Your comment is entirely inconsistent with what happened in Biblical times. It remains nothing but a claim which can be neither proven nor dis-proven. As I have said before, you cannot prove that Jesus did not appear to me last night. Neither can I prove that He did. I can always claim that you do not have the spiritual maturity or insight to believe what I have told you. The fact remains that there would be nothing of substance to my claim. That is why true revelation is always consistent with real events; with real evidence. It does not conflict with reason.

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t understand your point. The Jew’s fervent belief that they were God’s chosen people was correct as was their belief that the Messiah would be one of their descendants. Your argument would only make sense if the Messiah had indeed come from another people, whereby they would have then been incorrect in defending their position. We have a real, historical people from which to trace his descendancy. That’s the difference. The claim did not rely purely on “spiritually-based knowledge”. Once He had been revealed we can see that He was indeed the Messiah that had been prophesied by the Jews themselves based upon their own history.

In other words, it wasn’t as if Peter said “the Messiah has come from Norway and I know this because God revealed it to me” with nothing else with which to back up his claim. The reason that many Jews did not recognize Him is another story entirely and mostly political. They wanted one who would vanquish their enemies with the sword, not one who tell them to turn the other cheek.

SteveVH,

You and I and millions can see that “He was indeed the Messiah who had been prophesied”, but the scholarly Jews of His day and the vast majority of Jews of today don’t “see” what we see. They refuted then and refute now what we see as obvious to us, even though they had and have the writings that were the prophecies about the coming of the promised Messiah.

Peter used a sword to defend Christ, as you know, so it is not so clear that even he understood perfectly the difference between the Messiah of the prophecies and the Messiah of reality. But he knew that Jesus was “that Christ”, and knew it spiritually within his soul, while still learning what that reality was going to mean to him and to mankind generally.

I certainly don’t scoff at the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Messiah when I approach it intellectually. It makes perfect sense when we study salvation history and read the prophecies which He alone fulfilled, the miracles He performed and the testimonies of trustworthy people.

No, clearly you don’t. But the Jews as a people do reject Him as the Messiah, and they are approaching the subject intellectually, and some today have read the New Testament while there were those who lived in His midst and saw what was described (the miracles) and still didn’t believe He was the Messiah.

Your comment is entirely inconsistent with what happened in Biblical times. It remains nothing but a claim which can be neither proven nor dis-proven. As I have said before, you cannot prove that Jesus did not appear to me last night. Neither can I prove that He did. I can always claim that you do not have the spiritual maturity or insight to believe what I have told you. The fact remains that there would be nothing of substance to my claim. That is why true revelation is always consistent with real events; with real evidence. It does not conflict with reason.

If there were a sufficient reason for Jesus to appear to you, and He did so, then that would not “conflict with reason” based on what happened to Paul. You might tell people about it if He had told you that you could, and they might reject your declaration, but it would not “conflict with reason.”

The Book of Mormon is consistent both with the Bible and with “salvation history” and with the expectations of salvation history based on the prophecies in the Bible. It is so consistent that for me it is just as “evident” as the evidence that Jesus is the Messiah who was rejected by the Jews–but not for someone like you though a student of the Bible. So, we have different lenses and different expectations and a different experienced reality.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

You and I and millions can see that “He was indeed the Messiah who had been prophesied”, but the scholarly Jews of His day and the vast majority of Jews of today don’t “see” what we see. They refuted then and refute now what we see as obvious to us, even though they had and have the writings that were the prophecies about the coming of the promised Messiah.

Peter used a sword to defend Christ, as you know, so it is not so clear that even he understood perfectly the difference between the Messiah of the prophecies and the Messiah of reality. But he knew that Jesus was “that Christ”, and knew it spiritually within his soul, while still learning what that reality was going to mean to him and to mankind generally.

No, clearly you don’t. But the Jews as a people do reject Him as the Messiah, and they are approaching the subject intellectually, and some today have read the New Testament while there were those who lived in His midst and saw what was described (the miracles) and still didn’t believe He was the Messiah.

If there were a sufficient reason for Jesus to appear to you, and He did so, then that would not “conflict with reason” based on what happened to Paul. You might tell people about it if He had told you that you could, and they might reject your declaration, but it would not “conflict with reason.”

The Book of Mormon is consistent both with the Bible and with “salvation history” and with the expectations of salvation history based on the prophecies in the Bible. It is so consistent that for me it is just as “evident” as the evidence that Jesus is the Messiah who was rejected by the Jews–but not for someone like you though a student of the Bible. So, we have different lenses and different expectations and a different experienced reality.

Ok Parker. I see no reason to go over your responses point by point again. The questions have been asked and answered by us both, so I will just make a general comment here. This is my view of the basis for your faith.

The “Great Apostasy” is the one legged stool on which your church stands or falls. There is no indication in history that it ever occurred. No mention of it from the earliest Christians to the earliest historians. It contradicts what Christ Himself promised. If true, it had to have been the biggest cover-up in the history of the world.

The Book of Mormon is based upon a story with no evidence. You have admitted as much and rely purely on “spiritually-based knowledge” in order to defend it.

Those who disagree with Mormon doctrine are said to be less than spiritually enlightened. This is very much akin to Gnosticism which relies on “secret knowledge” for its defense. It is based upon interior feelings, (“the burning in the heart”) which no one can either prove nor disprove. Those who don’t agree are lacking the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In short, there is absolutely nothing of substance upon which one can hang their hat. Therein lies the problem for me personally. It is “another gospel” which I have been warned against accepting and in my personal opinion, it just lacks any credibility.

Parker, I hope to see you in heaven one day. I believe you, and the other members of your church, have a sincere heart and are truly seeking the Lord. The Mormons I know, for the most part, live extraordinarily good and wholesome lives and there is much I admire. I just believe you have been misled and much of your doctrine has placed you in spiritual danger. You would probably have to say the same about me. Someday, we will both know.

God bless you.

 

[catholic-rcia]

First Parker, I asked if you served on an LDS Mission. Did you? I understand you are busy. Yes or know will help in where I am going with this.

In all sincerity let’s not forget that you two are writing about two entirely different Jesus’ here. This is very important. Otherwise you might start thinking you are speaking about the same Jesus? He is much more than just our Savior or the savior of the world. To us Christians He is God. Our God is not solitude; He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three in One, One in being. This seems to be the first thing that needs to be sorted. Or at least pointed out often. Otherwise some viewing this post who do not understand Mormonism may think that you Parker are speaking about the same Jesus that we believe in. When you say the name Jesus maybe you can point this out in captions (Mormon Jesus) as to prevent confusion.

 

[ParkerD]

Ok Parker. …
Those who disagree with Mormon doctrine are said to be less than spiritually enlightened. … It is based upon interior feelings, (“the burning in the heart”) which no one can either prove nor disprove. Those who don’t agree are lacking the gift of the Holy Spirit.

…Parker, I hope to see you in heaven one day. I believe you, and the other members of your church, have a sincere heart and are truly seeking the Lord. The Mormons I know, for the most part, live extraordinarily good and wholesome lives and there is much I admire. I just believe you have been misled and much of your doctrine has placed you in spiritual danger. You would probably have to say the same about me. Someday, we will both know.

God bless you.

SteveVH,
I haven’t said those who disagree are “less than spiritually enlightened.” Some haven’t explored, some haven’t asked, some may have different purposes at this time in their lives which God enlightens and guides, for the good of those around them.

I haven’t said and don’t agree that “your doctrine has placed you in spiritual danger.” Living by the Bible and its teachings gives you as much of the doctrine as you need to keep out of “spiritual danger”.

Nor do I live my life just worrying about keeping out of “spiritual danger”. I want to do something “spiritually good, spiritually uplifting, spiritually refining, spiritually satisfying”, through spiritually following the Savior and Redeemer, and guide my children toward doing the same in their lives. It is not conjecture on my part to experience those realities.

 

[ParkerD]

First Parker, I asked if you served on an LDS Mission. Did you? I understand you are busy. Yes or know will help in where I am going with this.

In all sincerity let’s not forget that you two are writing about two entirely different Jesus’ here. This is very important. Otherwise you might start thinking you are speaking about the same Jesus? He is much more than just our Savior or the savior of the world. To us Christians He is God. Our God is not solitude; He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three in One, One in being. This seems to be the first thing that needs to be sorted. Or at least pointed out often. Otherwise some viewing this post who do not understand Mormonism may think that you Parker are speaking about the same Jesus that we believe in. When you say the name Jesus maybe you can point this out in captions (Mormon Jesus) as to prevent confusion.

Yes, I did.

(I guess it depends). If you are writing about the Jesus described in the New Testament and prophesied about being the promised Messiah through the prophets of the Old Testament, then we’re talking about the same Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God.

If you’re not talking about the Rock of salvation and the chief cornerstone whom the builders rejected, then we aren’t talking about the same Jesus. If you’re not talking about Jehovah, Who is the One and only Savior and Redeemer and came to earth as the one promised Savior and the Son of David, then we aren’t talking about the same Jesus. If you’re not talking about the literal Only Begotten Son of God the Father, then we aren’t talking about the same Jesus.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I haven’t said those who disagree are “less than spiritually enlightened.” Some haven’t explored, some haven’t asked, some may have different purposes at this time in their lives which God enlightens and guides, for the good of those around them.

Not in so many words, but the implication in the majority of your posts is that one who uses their intellect as an aid in determining truth lacks spiritual discernment. See your post concering the Jews and the Messiah.

I haven’t said and don’t agree that “your doctrine has placed you in spiritual danger.” Living by the Bible and its teachings gives you as much of the doctrine as you need to keep out of “spiritual danger”.

Then does it matter what one believes?

Nor do I live my life just worrying about keeping out of “spiritual danger”. I want to do something “spiritually good, spiritually uplifting, spiritually refining, spiritually satisfying”, through spiritually following the Savior and Redeemer, and guide my children toward doing the same in their lives. It is not conjecture on my part to experience those realities.

Nor do I live my life "just worrying about keeping out of “spiritual danger”. But if I am raised to believe that I should worship a golden calf, I believe that I would be in spiritual danger regardless of how I live the rest of my life. God revealed Himself to us for a reason; that we may know the truth. If this is unimportant, then there was no reason for His revelation and following any faith tradition would be pointless.

 

[onenow1]

Hi All,
The fact is Jesus said He would be with His Church forever, unless the LDS can be substantiated in antiquity, or they would like to embrace the Gnosticism,{and I discern this to be the case.}So I would just remind all, Lucifer also used scripture after all he was God’s #1 angel at one time.
There is one true Church this is what Jesus prayed for ! And this is what He gave us :Matt 16: 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

A good definition of Gnosticism : “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' He said to them, An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn’” (Matt. 13:24-30).

Bottom line if Christianity failed even for one instant Christianity is a lie,and Jesus is a liar.

God Bless All
onenow1