How can you convince me?

[Backroads]

Why do I chose to accept the Bible as scripture?

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

How is it faith if the only reason you believe it is because you have proof? Now, there's nothing wrong with believing something because you have accepted proof of it, but it certainly isn't faith.

[ThreeInOne]

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?

The term "catholic" comes from a letter of St. Ignatius. An early Christian from the first century addressing the universal church in a letter. The term "catholic" translate to "universal" (katholikos in Latin)

If you're gonna use that argument then you should know the word "bible" isn't in the bible either.

I don't think comparing Mormonism to the Jews would build a good case for you. Though they don't believe in Jesus, they don't think God was born on another planet.

[MorningStar]

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?

History doesn't prove Jesus was resurrected, suffered and died for our sins, that He walked on water, etc. If I were to write about spiritual experiences here in Washington and described in accurate detail the geography, the horrible feeling of stepping on slugs barefoot, the frequent rain, etc., that wouldn't prove I had spiritual experiences. It would prove I'm familiar with Washington.

[slamjet]

Matthew 16:4

[Backroads]

History doesn't prove Jesus was resurrected, suffered and died for our sins, that He walked on water, etc. If I were to write about spiritual experiences here in Washington and described in accurated detail the geography, the horrible feeling of stepping on slugs barefoot, the frequent rain, etc., that wouldn't prove I had spiritual experiences. It would prove I'm familiar with Washington.

I'm guessing ThreeinOne doesn't actually believe in Christ acting as Savior. I'm sensing a Cultural Catholic here.

[BadWolf]

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

To the best of my knowledge: Abraham wasn't told to mind the flood, Noah wasn't told not to look back at S or he'd be turned into a pillar of salt.

At no point in my studies (torah, ot/nt) have I ever come across the concept that our Heavenly Father was done speaking now, and had shared everything we'd ever need to know. Instead, over and over is the concept that all is yet to be revealed.

Indeed, a proverb from the same region (middle east):

"If every tree on earth was a pen refilled by the sea, and seven more seas besides, the word of God would not be exhausted. God is all knowing. All wise."

I do not believe that g-d is limited by man's writings, nor by 'publication dates'. I hardly believe that just because the editorial deadline had passed for the collation and publication of the NT tha g-d would be constrained by such an arbitrary construct.

What you believe is your own business, however.

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." The Articles of Faith

Which loops us back around again...

Not even our missionaries (whom some might see as dedicating 2 years of their lives to 'convincing') walk into another man's home and tell him which god to worship, or how. They do not threaten OR try to convince. They invite. Convincing isn't in our purview.

[ThreeInOne]

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.

We can't archaeologically prove the earth was created in 6 days either.

[Backroads]

We can't archaeologically prove the earth was created in 6 days either.

It wouldn't be archaeologically, it would be geolocially.

This also contradicts your earlier statement. You told us you believe in the Bible because of archaeological evidence. So your argument here is completely senseless.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Backroads

[JudoMinja]

If you see the original post you will see what I asked to be convinced of..

To answer your first question, all thee above.

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

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

Ah, here are some scriptures that actually explain your position.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)

As a Catholic, I know you interpret this scripture to mean that Christ's church established through Peter, the Catholic church, is HIS church. I can understand where you are coming from and why you believe that.

However- I do not share your belief because I do not interpret this scripture the same way you do. Peter's name comes from the Greek word "petros" which means rock, and the following word in the original scripture (where it says "upon this rock") was "petra" which means bedrock. Thus, Peter was to lead the church which was built on the "bedrock", which was Christ.

Christ used similar symbolic representations with others of His disciples. For example: "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone" (John 1:42). Many of His prophets and disciplies were representations of Himself in their names and deeds, and we can learn from His use of symbolism.

We can also come to a better understanding of the "building" of His church in 1 Corinthians 3:9-11

"For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

So, HIS church, is a church which is built on the foundation of Christ. And I can assure you that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that church.

"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall." (Helaman 5:12)

[slamjet]

We can't archaeologically prove the earth was created in 6 days either.

So, I believe you just contradicted your own statement of faith, being that it's built on historical fact when there is none. I suggest you start asking God to help you out with this. LDS, Book of Mormon, Bible, Protestant, Catholic, it doesn't matter. A spiritual confirmation is the only way to get a firm grasp of a loving God. And God is pure love so He will provide that assurance to anyone who asks.

I suggest you start there.

[skippy740]

I don't think comparing Mormonism to the Jews would build a good case for you. Though they don't believe in Jesus, they don't think God was born on another planet.

Are you genuinely interested/curious about the LDS faith?

Or are you just trying to challenge us to "justify our faith" to you?

[MorningStar]

How do you know The Bible is divinely inspired and not just a bunch of stories some guys in the Middle East made up?

How do you know the Red Sea was parted? Because The Bible says so? Agan, how do you know The Bible is divinely inspired?

How do you know a donkey really talked? The Bible.

How do you know Mary became pregnant without having sex? The Bible.

How do you know Jesus raised the dead, healed the sick, and caused the blind to see? The Bible.

"The Bible talks about Jerusalem and Jerusalem is a real place, so we know all of the stories in it are real" is not a logical conclusion.

Luke 24:32 says:

And they said one to another, Did not our aheart bburn within us, while he ctalked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

They recognized Jesus because the Spirit testified to them.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi ThreeInOne,

Just wanted to ask my question again, hoping for an answer from you. This is the third time I've asked:

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 not, why are you wasting time talking about evidence?

[Backroads]

ThreeInOne,

I was thinking about this thread, and I wonder if your real issue here is simply that you and we differ on our approaches to faith. Now, I'm sure most of this forum likes BoM evidence as much as the next person, but it's not really a faith basis. Are you just trying to pick our brains to find out WHY we believe?

[ThreeInOne]

Ah, here are some scriptures that actually explain your position.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)

As a Catholic, I know you interpret this scripture to mean that Christ's church established through Peter, the Catholic church, is HIS church. I can understand where you are coming from and why you believe that.

However- I do not share your belief because I do not interpret this scripture the same way you do. Peter's name comes from the Greek word "petros" which means rock, and the following word in the original scripture (where it says "upon this rock") was "petra" which means bedrock. Thus, Peter was to lead the church which was built on the "bedrock", which was Christ.

Christ used similar symbolic representations with others of His disciples. For example: "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone" (John 1:42). Many of His prophets and disciplies were representations of Himself in their names and deeds, and we can learn from His use of symbolism.

We can also come to a better understanding of the "building" of His church in 1 Corinthians 3:9-11

"For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

So, HIS church, is a church which is built on the foundation of Christ. And I can assure you that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that church.

"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall." (Helaman 5:12)

Origen of Alexandria says;

"Look at Peter, the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church."

(Homilies on Exodus 5:4) A.D. 249

Tatian The Syrian says;

"Simon Cephas answered and said, (you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God). Jesus answered and said to unto him, (Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Diatesseron 23) A.D. 170 - a little over 20 years after the bible was canonized.

Whose words am I gonna believe? You or the ones that were there from the beginning?

Look in Titian's writing..he uses "Cephas" which means "rock". Just as "petra" means rock.

[BadWolf]

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).

ROFL! Heck, no. Not hardly.

Although there have been some dark days (Think Galileo, Inquisition, etc.)... In general the Catholic Church is very open about not being very open , as well as continuing searches for truth (Jesuit order in particular, though there are other orders that strive for the acquisition of both secular and religious knowledge as well). The Pope regularly changes church doctrine and practice, as do various convocations... The first of which (ahhhh...I believe first, I may not be remembering correctly and it was simply an early one), after a LOT of arguing declared the Holy Trinity in the first place. (Prior FSHG was worshiped both as a trinity, and as a 3 part godhead, and as a 2 part, and 1 part. Ditto arguments and votes on whether J was the son of g-d in body or in spirit, etc.).

Their Holinesses (The Popes) also have a habit of coloring outside the lines on a regular basis. Teaching things that are not gospel in order to provoke a response. Something many Mormons, I've found are unfamiliar with is the concept of Mary Magdalen being a prostitute. A Pope was trying to shame people to be more Christlike (and stop an epidemic of prostitute beatings and killings), and so gave MM the job as well. It was never meant to be taken up as doctrine, but it was by many... For a very, very, long time. I was 15 before I knew that it was a parable, and not gospel.

The LAST thing the Catholic Church has ever taught is the NT is 'it'. The Pope? That comes closer. But not the NT.

________

I should mention (as a bias warning), I love and respect the Catholic Church, and have a particular soft spot for Jesuits & Benedictines. I was baptized Catholic at birth (though raised in a multi-religious household), and have priests/nuns in my family (They're going to whack me upside the head for forgetting which convocation the holy trinity was decided at).

[ThreeInOne]

ThreeInOne,

I was thinking about this thread, and I wonder if your real issue here is simply that you and we differ on our approaches to faith. Now, I'm sure most of this forum likes BoM evidence as much as the next person, but it's not really a faith basis. Are you just trying to pick our brains to find out WHY we believe?

Yes. With love and good charity :)

[Vort]

Yes. With love and good charity :)

If I proclaim you the winner, will you go away?

[skippy740]

I don't think comparing Mormonism to the Jews would build a good case for you. Though they don't believe in Jesus, they don't think God was born on another planet.

2 Nephi 29:3-12

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant

people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

[Backroads]

Yes. With love and good charity :)

All right. However, you do seem bothered that we are much more faith-based than you. Is that a correct assesment and if so, what exactly about it bothers you?

[ThreeInOne]

ROFL! Heck, no. Not hardly.

Although there have been some dark days (Think Galileo, Inquisition, etc.)... In general the Catholic Church is very open about not being very open , as well as continuing searches for truth (Jesuit order in particular, though there are other orders that strive for the acquisition of both secular and religious knowledge as well). The Pope regularly changes church doctrine and practice, as do various convocations... The first of which (ahhhh...I believe first, I may not be remembering correctly and it was simply an early one), after a LOT of arguing declared the Holy Trinity in the first place. (Prior FSHG was worshiped both as a trinity, and as a 3 part godhead, and as a 2 part, and 1 part. Ditto arguments and votes on whether J was the son of g-d in body or in spirit, etc.).

Their Holinesses (The Popes) also have a habit of coloring outside the lines on a regular basis. Teaching things that are not gospel in order to provoke a response. Something many Mormons, I've found are unfamiliar with is the concept of Mary Magdalen being a prostitute. A Pope was trying to shame people to be more Christlike (and stop an epidemic of prostitute beatings and killings), and so gave MM the job as well. It was never meant to be taken up as doctrine, but it was by many... For a very, very, long time. I was 15 before I knew that it was a parable, and not gospel.

The LAST thing the Catholic Church has ever taught is the NT is 'it'. The Pope? That comes closer. But not the NT.

________

I should mention (as a bias warning), I love and respect the Catholic Church, and have a particular soft spot for Jesuits & Benedictines. I was baptized Catholic at birth (though raised in a multi-religious household), and have priests/nuns in my family (They're going to whack me upside the head for forgetting which convocation the holy trinity was decided at).

That would be the Council of Nicea 325 that instituted the doctrine of the Trinity.

[MorningStar]

I know the Red Sea was parted because the Red Sea exists. I also know a donkey talked because donkeys are real.

[ThreeInOne]

2 Nephi 29:3-12

Ask a rabbi if their savior will be from a woman who had sex with God..

Jewish tradition will not build your case whatsoever.

[skippy740]

Ask a rabbi if their savior will be from a woman who had sex with God..

Jewish tradition will not build your case whatsoever.

You are on our forum, on the premise that you are seeking information about the LDS faith.

We are providing the information.

You are rejecting the information based on what you think you know.

A mind is like a parachute. It'll only work if it's open.

Your mind is not open.

[ThreeInOne]

I know the Red Sea was parted because the Red Sea exists. I also know a donkey talked because donkeys are real.

I love the story of Balaam.

Donkey's don't talk so we would have to prove it. I don't know anyone who can prove that a donkey can talk, do you?

Some miracles God performs in the bible will always be a mystery to us.