sr1030 wrote:Of course no LDS that has ever heard me say that truly believes I was sincere, but there is nothing I can do about that.
Hey SR, long time no see (though I've heard you might be Scratch or home-ever?). leeuniverse here. by the way, the links I post below were originally posted I think by me back during ZLMB days, so you should have read them but likely didn't.
I don't think that is true.... Being sincere doesn't make one ready to receive.
Atheists will say they are sincere, but they don't believe in the Bible.
Remember the Bible say's the tree must be "ready to harvest". You not believing the Book of Mormon would more than likely simply mean you were not ready to harvest.
Even though 2 of these missionaries have spent most of their lives in the LDS church, they could not answer basic questions about the Book of Mormon and restoration of the Gospel.
Depends on what you are asking. Missionary's being young are mostly there to share the Gospel to those ready to harvest, not have intellectual discussions and debate. Thus, they are not prepared for that.
I asked what the Book of Mormon restored (which was lost). They answered that the priesthood was restored and started quoting things from the D&C. I quickly corrected them in that the answers about restoration should be found in the Book of Mormon. They were to return after they talked to someone more knowledgeable than they were, or even bring them to my place. This looks like is what will happen soon.
The Book of Mormon is simply another Testament of Jesus Christ. It wasn't designed to restore all truth. It did restore some, which I will get into below, but certainly not all. Most LDS simply aren't "trained" in what was and wasn't restored etc., we simply learn what is, the Gospel. That's why it was hard for them to simply say this this and that was restored by the Book of Mormon.
Looking at the Book of Mormon as the restoration of the Gospel:
1) What did the Book of Mormon restore?
Here's some links on the subjects.....
- Plain and Precious Truths Restored https://www.LDS.org/ensign/2006/10/plai ... d?lang=eng
- Modern Scripture https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1975/09/the- ... t?lang=eng
- Book of Mormon https://www.LDS.org/liahona/1992/08/the ... n?lang=eng
- Book of Mormon Clarification https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1981/12/rest ... e?lang=eng
- The Bible https://www.LDS.org/liahona/1980/09/the ... n?lang=eng
- Lost Truths Restored I https://www.LDS.org/liahona/1989/08/los ... i?lang=eng
- Lost Truths Restored II https://www.LDS.org/liahona/1989/09/los ... i?lang=eng
- Lost Truths Restored III https://www.LDS.org/liahona/1989/10/los ... i?lang=eng
- Doctrine & Covenants https://www.LDS.org/liahona/2001/03/a-l ... h?lang=eng
- Book of Moses https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1997/02/the- ... s?lang=eng
- Book of Abraham http://www.LDS.org/ensign/1997/03/the-b ... k?lang=eng
- How the Bible came to be:
- Part 1 https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1982/01/how- ... d?lang=eng
- Part 2 https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1982/02/how- ... d?lang=eng
- Part 3 https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1982/03/how- ... d?lang=eng
- Part 4 https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1982/04/how- ... c?lang=eng
- Part 5 https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1982/06/how- ... s?lang=eng
- Part 6 https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1982/07/how- ... t?lang=eng
- Part 7 https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1982/08/how- ... t?lang=eng
- Part 8 https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1982/09/how- ... d?lang=eng
2) The Book of Mormon claim is that without a complete apostacy on the part of the church, there would be no need for a restoration. This makes logical sense to me. So what was lost? I personally see that the church was here during the first 19 centuries, therefore at most a reformation may have been required, but certainly not a restoration.
Reformations are pretty much Non-Biblical. Christ himself didn't "reform" the Church, he created an entirely new Church, remember the "can't put New Wine into an Old Jar" statement?
Further, reform/restore, same difference. There are many churches out there that claim they are "reformed" Churches, but they are still new and different churches than others.
The Priesthood, certain practices and doctrines are complete "restorations", not simply "reforms", thus yes, a restoration was necessary.
3) the claim is that the creeds of the then existing churches were an abomination. Can a church whose creeds are an abomination be considered a Christian church?
sr
Christian is someone who believes and strives to follow Christ. "Perfection" is not in the definition, either personally or theologically. Christ himself made that clear in Mark 9, Luke 9, and Matthew 18 in which the Apostles tried to deny and stop of Faith of people who didn't have their authority and truths, who were not with the Church, but Christ harshly warned them not to do that, that they were ALSO of HIM.
Christ didn't say "by their intellectual judgments ye shall know them, he said by their FRUITS ye shall know them".
The Good Samaritan story clearly shows that it's not what Church a person is in, not whether he's one of the elect, knowing the "truths", but one's heart and actions that make one "Of God" or not of God. Truth is important, but it's among the least important things, because other things are what most matter. Christ made this clear in all of these scriptures, and it's exactly why anti-mormonism especially by Christians is wrong. Proof of that is that the vast majority of those who leave Mormonism because of the efforts of anti-mormonism, primarily Christian anti-mormonism, leave God and Faith all together, not join one of their Faiths. God most certainly wouldn't like that.