How can you convince me?

[Connie]

I cannot convince someone who has their mind already made up.

Pax vobiscum.

[slamjet]

Now we see what your real intent is. JosephP is correct in his assessment. This is less a discussion than trying to prove the LDS faith is wrong. Go read Matthew 16:4.

[NeuroTypical]

Can you show evidence to your claim that the BoM predated the New Testament?

Something to consider:

Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists found the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, examples of a 'reformed egyptian' language, and Nephi's grave, where a DNA analysis showed definite ties to various hebrew groups living in and around the palestinian areas of the time.

Would you bend your knee, confess Christ, accept Thomas Monson as your prophet, and seek to be baptized into the LDS church?

[BadWolf]

Thanks for the replies.

Let me start by saying i would disagree with some of you already. It is our job as Christians to try to convince people to believe. (2 Timothy 3:14, Hebrews 6:9, Romans 14:5)

With regards to the Book of Mormon. How can we take it as true if we don't see a prophesy of it in the Gosples?

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion, still.

[ThreeInOne]

This is a good question. The premise though appears to be incorrect in association with the verses provided. The verse represents doubting Thomas, who was first told of the risen Lord by the other disciples, by which he replied, "I will not believe until I have seen" (paraphrased obviously).

By which the Lord, after showing himself and allowing Thomas to touch him, said,

Wouldn't it be nice if all of us could be "convinced" as Thomas was, by actually seeing the Lord and touching his scars?

Alas, we are not, thus we rely on the promise given to the disciples John 14: 26, and the promise within the Book of Mormon Moroni 10: 3-5.

An anti-Mormon statement doesn't need to be untrue to be anti-Mormon. There are plenty anti-Mormon statements which are true.

As I specified, the "burning in the bosom" is foreign to me. I have never experienced it.

Thank you for taking kindly to my rebuttal. I'm here to learn as well. I like what you said about if we could be convinced by touching Jesus' scars.

"Wouldn't it be nice if all of us could be "convinced" as Thomas was, by actually seeing the Lord and touching his scars?"

Yes, I agree!

The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it's not foretold or spoke of in the NT.

[beefche]

Is there ant scripture that says we should not convince people to believe?

Why are you on this site?

[Anddenex]

Scripture tells us a church was established in Matthew 16:18 and then later in chapter 18:17, he talks more about "the church".

1 church, not church(es). That issue doesn't exist until the Protestant reformation in 1517

Well, this is surely from your perspective. Whereas, we don't believe the Catholic church to be the same Church the Lord established, thus, the Catholic church would have been the first of the "church(es)" you mention.

Can you show evidence to your claim that the BoM predated the New Testament?

Sure, read the Book of Mormon. It specifies Lehi, the first prophet of the Book of Mormon lived 600 years B.C.

[ThreeInOne]

Something to consider:

Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists found the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, examples of a 'reformed egyptian' language, and Nephi's grave, where a DNA analysis showed definite ties to various hebrew groups living in and around the palestinian areas of the time.

Would you bend your knee, confess Christ, accept Thomas Monson as your prophet, and seek to be baptized into the LDS church?

I would be convinced if Jesus said it were so in the scriptures. Yes.

However, I don't think archaeology is making a good case for this point.

[skippy740]

The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it's not foretold or spoke of in the NT.

There is no problem with The Book of Mormon.

The problem is whether or not you are going to choose to accept it as scripture.

Why do you choose to accept the Bible as scripture? Have you prayed about it? Do you feel the Holy Spirit as you read?

Or do you accept it simply because it's the most widely known book of scripture on the Savior and more churches use it over anything else?

[ThreeInOne]

Well, this is surely from your perspective. Whereas, we don't believe the Catholic church to be the same Church the Lord established, thus, the Catholic church would have been the first of the "church(es)" you mention.

Sure, read the Book of Mormon. It specifies Lehi, the first prophet of the Book of Mormon lived 600 years B.C.

Catholic Church instituted and established by Christ in the gospel (Mat. 16:18)

The Mormon church established in the early 19th century.

Big gap in time there..

Now lets look at Matthew 16:18;

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

It says church, not church(es)

This can't be the Mormon church can it?

[Anddenex]

Thank you for taking kindly to my rebuttal.

The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it's not foretold or spoke of in the NT.

Your welcome.

We disagree it is a problem. There is nothing mentioned in the NT that something must be prophesied, or spoken about in the NT, to be true.

There is nothing prophesied within the NT about computers, laser technology, or anything else. How have you come to the belief that something must be prophesied in the NT in order to be true?

I would be convinced if Jesus said it were so in the scriptures. Yes. However, I don't think archaeology is making a good case for this point.

I am a little confused about these two statements. They appear to be contradictory. Humor me for a moment:

First statement: I would believe if Jesus said it were true in scriptures.

Next statement: Archaeological evidence isn't making a good case.

Which do you value more, a witness from God, despite evidence, or evidence which contradicts Jesus witness?

Right now, archaeological evidence suggest the flood in the OT never happened. Our Lord, says in scripture it did happen.

The Book of Mormon is scripture, and Jesus has professed this through modern prophets, and within the Book of Mormon itself.

[MorningStar]

Catholic Church instituted and established by Christ in the gospel (Mat. 16:18)

The Mormon church established in the early 19th century.

Big gap in time there..

Now lets look at Matthew 16:18;

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

It says church, not church(es)

This can't be the Mormon church can it?

Do you apply this to all Christian denominations?

The Bible says, "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." We believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[skippy740]

I would encourage you to pick up a copy of this book:

A Marvelous Work and a Wonder: Le Grand Richards: 9780877471615: Amazon.com: Books

One of the conclusions that LeGrand Richards makes is that it is a choice between Catholicism and Mormonism.

I think nearly ALL of your questions can be answered from this book... to help guide you in your study of the scriptures.

[slamjet]

Well now, doesn't this open a whole can of worms.

[NeuroTypical]

Something to consider:

Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists found the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, examples of a 'reformed egyptian' language, and Nephi's grave, where a DNA analysis showed definite ties to various hebrew groups living in and around the palestinian areas of the time.

Would you bend your knee, confess Christ, accept Thomas Monson as your prophet, and seek to be baptized into the LDS church?

I would be convinced if Jesus said it were so in the scriptures. Yes.

However, I don't think archaeology is making a good case for this point.

Excuse me, but you did not answer my question. You said "yes", but the question you answered was not the one I asked. Let me ask it again:

Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists found the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, examples of a 'reformed egyptian' language, and Nephi's grave, where a DNA analysis showed definite ties to various hebrew groups living in and around the palestinian areas of the time.

Would you bend your knee, confess Christ, accept Thomas Monson as your prophet, and seek to be baptized into the LDS church?

If the answer is no, then why are you wasting time asking about evidence?

[slamjet]

Catholic Church instituted and established by Christ in the gospel (Mat. 16:18)

The Mormon church established in the early 19th century.

Big gap in time there..

Now lets look at Matthew 16:18;

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

It says church, not church(es)

This can't be the Mormon church can it?

Well now, doesn't this open up a whole can of worms.

[JudoMinja]

See also Acts 1:3

Hypothetical question for you; if I'm an atheist and I ask you if there is a God, what are you going to tell me?

Was Jesus on earth not trying to convince people to believe?

It's our job to convince people to believe in The Lord. It's not by our doing that people become convinced.

Just like if I read the Book of Mormon and pray for that burning in the bosom

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3)

Still not seeing how anything says it's my job to convince anyone of anything.

In answer to your hypothetical question, I would say "Yes, there is a God."

Of course me saying that doesn't mean the atheist is going to believe it. Is it my job to make him believe? No.

It is my job to bear witness of what I know to be true. To testify. To lead by example.

Will my witness, testimony, and example convince anyone? No.

The Holy Spirit will.

[Backroads]

Now I'm curious about the Catholic faith. Is there a tenant that declares all truth must come from scriptures? (in response to your the-NT-must-fortell-it).

[Backroads]

Excuse me, but you did not answer my question. You said "yes", but the question you answered was not the one I asked. Let me ask it again:

Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists found the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, examples of a 'reformed egyptian' language, and Nephi's grave, where a DNA analysis showed definite ties to various hebrew groups living in and around the palestinian areas of the time.

Would you bend your knee, confess Christ, accept Thomas Monson as your prophet, and seek to be baptized into the LDS church?

If the answer is no, then why are you wasting time asking about evidence?

Stealing the question...

If I were a non-Mormon, I would probably most likely be excited at the discovery of a new civilization--conversion to anything would be neither here nor there.

[Anddenex]

Catholic Church instituted and established by Christ in the gospel (Mat. 16:18)

The Mormon church established in the early 19th century.

Big gap in time there..

Now lets look at Matthew 16:18;

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

It says church, not church(es)

This can't be the Mormon church can it?

I understand this is how Catholics believe this, however I wouldn't agree with this interpretation of scripture.

Can you tell me, why I should accept your interpretation over the LDS churches interpretation?

The idea of something being around longer than another religion doesn't make the other more true, or the other more false.

If the idea of how long a religion has been in existence to be true, then I must accept the Jewish religion to be true, and thus Christ the Messiah has not yet fully come.

Along the lines and theology presented, about the Book of Mormon not being mentioned in the NT.

Is there any evidence that the Catholic Church is the church established, because I don't see any mention of a Catholic church at all in the NT?

[ThreeInOne]

There is no problem with The Book of Mormon.

The problem is whether or not you are going to choose to accept it as scripture.

Why do you choose to accept the Bible as scripture? Have you prayed about it? Do you feel the Holy Spirit as you read?

Or do you accept it simply because it's the most widely known book of scripture on the Savior and more churches use it over anything else?

Why do I chose to accept the Bible as scripture?

I accept my faith and the Bible because history proves it.

My question to you is; who declared the books of the bible to be inspired?

[JudoMinja]

Our Lord had to convince his disciples who he was when he rose from the dead. You think if they wouldn't have believed him, he wouldn't have tried to convince him? (John 20:24-29)

Is the "burning in the bosom" anti-mormon because its untrue?

"But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:24-29)

I keep looking up the scriptures you're providing, and I keep failing to see how they back up your points. Jesus is not convincing Thomas here- he is chastizing him for his lack of faith.

[slamjet]

Why do I chose to accept the Bible as scripture?

I accept my faith and the Bible because history proves it.

Well, that's a new one. There is no "definitive" history of the flood, there is no archaeological support for Melchizedek and the flight of the Hebrews out of Egypt is still not archaeologically substantiated.

[MorningStar]

ThreeInOne, we would point you to 1 Corinth. 15:29 about baptism for the dead (which we do). The practice is used as evidence of there being a resurrection, but then you will probably tell me, "That's not what that scripture means!" I've had this conversation eleventy million times.

Or I could give you the scripture where Jesus says, "I have other sheep not of this fold." referring to other places He is going to visit, which we believe to be the people of The Book of Mormon. This is my favorite chapter. 3 Nephi 17 

We could talk about the stick of Judah (The Bible) and the stick of Joseph (The Book of Mormon) in Ezekial 37, but we'll probably disagree on that too.

There is a long list of scriptural evidences for The Book of Mormon, but they aren't helpful if you have already decided they are wrong.

[skippy740]

Why do I chose to accept the Bible as scripture?

I accept my faith and the Bible because history proves it.

My question to you is; who declared the books of the bible to be inspired?

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you accept your faith and the Bible solely because of how well known it is through history?

No prayer? Scriptural/spiritual study? It's all based on secular history?