h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>Also the Church gets it roots from the Pre-existence<

Please explain? From THE Pre-existence?

>That's when we all decided to follow God's plan, instead of Satan's<
oooh What are you assuming here? That other Christian are not following God's plan.

>That's where our religion gets it roots<
Where? again?

>Next, the Book of Mormon is the word of God<
Please prove?

>Next, the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and why it is considered more correct than the Bible, is because the Bible has been through who knows how many translations, where corrupt priests and honest mistakes have made it nothing like what it used to be, whereas the Book of Mormon has been through one and only one.<

oh please prove? Who? What? When and Why? Prove it Historically too okay

>Why would you not want to read this second witness that is so much plainer than the Bible?<
All orthodox Christians believe that public revelation ended with the death of John, the last Apostle (about 100AD) This means that there can be no new doctrines,no new Scriptures, and no new prophecies after the close of the apostolic age. I can show you this information in scripture using your King James Version

>But if you think that being Christian means believing that Christ has a multiple personality problem, because he is Heavenly Father, Christ, and the Holy Ghost all wrapped up in one person, then we are not Christian by your definition<

Does it not upset you that you cannot say I am a Christian.

>Our church is founded upon the idea of modern revelation.<
Huh!!!I thought it was pre existence.
Look the Church founded by Christ must go back in history to the time of Christ; its doctrines must be the same as those of the Apostolic Church; and its leaders must be able to trace their authority back to the Apostles. Thus, history, Apostolic doctrines, and Apostolic authority are the sure guidelines for determining which Church Jesus founded. Only the Catholic Church meets these requirements. Any objective history book will show that only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ.LOOK HERE---The word "Catholic" first appears in a letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch (110AD) to distinguish Christ's Church from heretical groups (Jurgens, p.25,#65). The word "Christian also originated in Antioch (Acts 11:26). St. Ignatius' letter indicates that by 110AD the original Christian Church was already well known as the "Catholic Church"
The early Church Fathers are our indispensable link to Apostolic Christianity. Their writings tell us what the first Christians believed. A careful study of the early Church Fathers shows they all taught distinctively Catholic doctrines.
THE BIBLE and SACRED TRADITION are very clear that Christ left a Church that would be governed by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters, and deacons with the successor of St. Peter as the head. Only the Catholic Church has such a governing hierarchy that can trace its authority in an unbroken succession back to the Apostolic authority established by Christ Himself.

>You either believe that the Prophet can talk to God and receive modern revelation for our Church, or you don't.<

No Way would I ever believe-They are FALSE PROPHETS!!!Joseph Smith clearly prophesied he would be alive at the Second Coming (DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS,112)In 1832 Smith predicted that before the generation that was then alive passed away, a Mormon temple (the city "New Jerusalem") would be built in western Missouri (DOCTRINES AND COVENANTS,84). Hey there is still no Temple!!

In 1863, Smith's successor Brigham Young foretold that the Civil War would NOT result in freeing the black slaves (JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, VOL 10,p3500
SO MUCH FOR YOUR INSPIRED PROPHETS!!!!!!
Oh yeah In 1843, Smith also predicted that if the United States would not redress the wrongs suffered by the Mormons in the state of Missouri, then "in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted" (HISTORY OF THE CHURCH,Vol.5,p.394)

>But once you believe in the Book of Mormon, then you believe in modern revelation and then you know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church.<
>Additionally the Book of Mormon and the Bible together stand as two witnesses of Christ.<

You are a confusing individual. Which is it? The book of Mormon? or the book of Mormon and the bible?

Hello Wormrow

It has been some time since I dropped in so forgive me for the delay in replying to your comments and question. Forgive me also if I cover ground already discussed since the posting to which I am currently replying. I am working my way through this burgeoning correspondence on Mormonims and commenting as I go. The specific quote from Gordon Hinckley is taken from the Church News of 20 June '98. It reads as follows:

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'"

Church News (6/20/98, p.7)

I do find it telling that you see criticism as hostility and feel it something to be stood up to. In a healthy debate people should surely see criticism as an opportunity to learn, a chance for a meeting of minds? I note that you make a distinction between "anti-Mormons", presumably those who engage in the mudslinging to which you refer, and non-Mormons who you say "respect" your religion, presumably you mean by that those who don't criticise because, surely, as soon as a non-Mormon criticises he becomes an anti-Mormon. Having given you chapter and verse where my assertion re. Mormons following a different Jesus comes from may I presume that I do not fall into the category of mudslinger and mere contributor to rumours? The mud slinging label is, of course, well applied in some cases, but it equally applies to Mormons who so often respond to criticism as they would to hostility, calling critics "anti-Mormons" and "mudslingers", because most Mormons cannot tell the difference between a critic and a mudslinger. Into which category, I wonder, would you place me?

Mike Tea

Much has been said about hostility and I suppose it is inevitable when discussing such an emotive subject that feelings will run high. But there are two points here that need to be made 1) Whlst everyone seems to agree that we each have the right to our own faith, for some strange reason folk object when we feel passionately and express those feelings. That is the nature of faith, true faith, and if you don't feel passionate enought o represent it with conviction in a discussion like this then I suggest it can't mean much to you. 2) Discussions like this inevitably involve people correcting each other's misconceptions and filling the gaps in each other's knowledge. This can come across sometimes as hostility but I hope that I am big enough to be corrected when I am wrong without crying "persecution".

A case in point is the assertion made that a) the Bible was put together many years after the Catholic Church was founded and, b) the assertion that the King James Bible was put together to "standardise" what scripture was being used. Both assertions reinforce popular Mormon myths re. the Bible and the early Christian Church. The Catholic Church as we would recognise it, with the ascendancy of the pope etc. did not come into being until around the 11th Century. That is almost a thousand years after the Bible was "put together". (BTW the simple assertion that the Bible was put together "after the Catholic Church was founded" is itself a hostile statement, implying as it does that cathoicism has played a major role in producing a corrupt Bible). So far as the King James Bible is concerned it was not put together in order to standardise anything. The implication seems to be that there was some confusion between competing Bibles (another popular Mormon myth) and King James produced the definitive one. A cursory reading of the dedication of the KJV reveals the intention that there should be a "more exact translation into the English Tounge". An intention, therefore to render what already existed into the common language of the English people. Something for which Mormons show at best a grudging gratitude as they consistently distrust what has been faithfully passed down to us.

Mike Tea

TAB

I am a Protestant, if we must put a label on in. Perhaps a better label would be Reformer since the Christian Church has always been a reforming church, both Catholic and Protestant. I canot agree with all that you say but I do understand, and very much appreciate, your reasoning about the process of salvation which I understand as "I am saved; I am being saved; I will be saved". Where we would part company is that I would say it depends on God's promises not my performance. "Not by works so that no man can boast" (Ephesians 2:9 c.f. Romans 3:21-27). The just shall, indeed, live by faith in the knowledge that when we believe we are included in Christ and the Holy Spirit is a seal "guaranteeing what is to come (Ephesians 1:13-14). We know that God's promises are sure and what he started in you he will see through to completion (Philip.1:3-5). I believe that the process to which you allude, with its hope and endurance is a description of God's dealings with us from our viewpoint, the Christian experience of pilgrimage, and not a pre-condition of our salvation. I hope and I endure, by God's grace, but I am saved by that same grace, not by hoping and enduring. I believe in the obedience of the saved, not the salvation of the obedient.

Mike Tea

Don't you feel better now that you've got that off your chest? I am so glad I was here to help you feel that good. And you got a Bravo! too. Thank you for sharing.

Mike Tea

This is long I hope it posts. Sometimes Catholics and Protestants are saying the same thing. Read on...and I included Early Church Fathers teachings

Paul tells us: "For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality" (Rom. 2:6-11; cf. Gal. 6:6-10).
In the second century, the technical term "merit" was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for "reward." Thus the doctrine of merit and the doctrine of reward are the same thing, simply presented under two different terms.

Protestants often have much confusion about the Catholic understanding of merit, thinking Catholics teach that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: "[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace" (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

Catholic theology distinguishes three types of merit: (1) congruent merit, in which it is fitting for an act to be rewarded, but there is no obligation to do so (as when I hold one door open for you, making it fitting that you hold the next one open for me, though you have no obligation), (2) condign merit, in which one has promised to reward the act, so there is an obligation (as when I promise to give you something if you will loan me a particular book, meaning that once I have the book I have an obligation to give you what I promised), and (3) strict merit, in which there not only is an obligation to reward but value of the act is equal to the value of the reward (as when I promise to give you a given sum of money in exchange for a good or service worth the same amount).

The Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense. The most merit humans can have is condign--when, under the impetus of God's grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6-11, Gal. 6:6-10). Thus God's grace and his promise is the foundation for all human merit (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007-8).

Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that under the impetus of God's grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position, though contrary to Paul's command (2 Tim. 2:14) they may still quibble with it terminologically.

Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord admits: "We are not putting forward an empty quibble about the term 'reward.' . . . We grant that eternal life is a reward because it is something that is owed--not because of our merits [in the strict sense] but because of the promise [of God]. We have shown above that justification is strictly a gift of God; it is a thing promised. To this gift the promise of eternal life has been added" (p. 162).



Ignatius of Antioch
"Be pleasing to him whose soldiers you are, and whose pay you receive. May none of you be found to be a deserter. Let your baptism be your armament, your faith your helmet, your love your spear, your endurance your full suit of armor. Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you" (Letter to Polycarp 6:2 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr
"We have learned from the prophets and we hold it as true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are distributed according to the merit of each man's actions. Were this not the case, and were all things to happen according to the decree of fate, there would be nothing at all in our power. If fate decrees that this man is to be good and that one wicked, then neither is the former to be praised nor the latter to be blamed" (First Apology 43 [A.D. 151]).


Tatian the Syrian
"[T]he wicked man is justly punished, having become depraved of himself; and the just man is worthy of praise for his honest deeds, since it was in his free choice that he did not transgress the will of God" (Address to the Greeks 7 [A.D. 170]).


Athenagoras
"And we shall make no mistake in saying, that the [goal] of an intelligent life and rational judgment, is to be occupied uninterruptedly with those objects to which the natural reason is chiefly and primarily adapted, and to delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him who is, and of His decrees, notwithstanding that the majority of men, because they are affected too passionately and too violently by things below, pass through life without attaining this object. For . . . the examination relates to individuals, and the reward or punishment of lives ill or well spent is proportioned to the merit of each" (The Resurrection of the Dead 25 [A.D. 178]).


Theophilus of Antioch
"He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works [Rom. 2:7], he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither eye has seen nor ear has heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man [1 Cor. 2:9]. For the unbelievers and the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity . . . there will be wrath and indignation [Rom. 2:8]" (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).


Irenaeus of Lyons
"[Paul], an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle and which does not grow upon us spontaneously. . . . Those things which come to us spontaneously are not loved as much as those which are obtained by anxious care" (Against Heresies 4:37:7 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian
"Again, we [Christians] affirm that a judgment has been ordained by God according to the merits of every man" (To the Nations 19 [A.D. 195]).


Tertullian
"In former times the Jews enjoyed much of God's favor, when the fathers of their race were noted for their righteousness and faith. So it was that as a people they flourished greatly, and their kingdom attained to a lofty eminence; and so highly blessed were they, that for their instruction God spoke to them in special revelations, pointing out to them beforehand how they should merit His favor and avoid His displeasure" (Apology 21 [A.D. 197]).


Tertullian
"A good deed has God for its debtor [cf. Prov. 19:17], just as also an evil one; for a judge is the rewarder in every case [cf. Rom. 13:3-4]" (Repentance 2:11 [A.D. 203]).


Hippolytus
"Standing before [Christ's] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: `Just is your judgment,' and the justice of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment" (Against the Greeks 3 [A.D. 212]).


Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord denounces [Christian evildoers], and says, 'Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and in Your name have cast out devils, and in Your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity' [Matt. 7:21-23]. There is need of righteousness, that one may deserve well of God the Judge; we must obey His precepts and warnings, that our merits may receive their reward" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 15, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).


Cyprian of Carthage
"[Y]ou who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the collyrium of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living" (Works and Almsgivings 14 [A.D. 253]).


Lactantius
"Let every one train himself to righteousness, mold himself to self-restraint, prepare himself for the contest, equip himself for virtue . . . [and] in his uprightness acknowledge the true and only God, may cast away pleasures, by the attractions of which the lofty soul is depressed to the earth, may hold fast innocence, may be of service to as many as possible, may gain for himself incorruptible treasures by good works, that he may be able, with God for his judge, to gain for the merits of his virtue either the crown of faith, or the reward of immortality" (Epitome of the Divine Institutes 73 [A.D. 317]).


Cyril of Jerusalem
"The root of every good work is the hope of the resurrection, for the expectation of a reward nerves the soul to good work. Every laborer is prepared to endure the toils if he looks forward to the reward of these toils" (Catechetical Lectures 18:1 [A.D. 350]).


Jerome
"It is our task, according to our different virtues, to prepare for ourselves different rewards. . . . If we were all going to be equal in heaven it would be useless for us to humble ourselves here in order to have a greater place there. . . . Why should virgins persevere? Why should widows toil? Why should married women be content? Let us all sin, and after we repent we shall be the same as the apostles are!" (Against Jovinian 2:32 [A.D. 393]).


Augustine
"We are commanded to live righteously, and the reward is set before us of our meriting to live happily in eternity. But who is able to live righteously and do good works unless he has been justified by faith?" (Various Questions to Simplician 1:2:21 [A.D. 396]).


Augustine
"He bestowed forgiveness; the crown he will pay out. Of forgiveness he is the donor; of the crown, he is the debtor. Why debtor? Did he receive something? . . . The Lord made himself a debtor not by receiving something but by promising something. One does not say to him, `Pay for what you received,' but `Pay what you promised'" (Explanations of the Psalms 83:16 [A.D. 405]).


Augustine
"What merits of his own has the saved to boast of when, if he were dealt with according to his merits, he would be nothing if not damned? Have the just then no merits at all? Of course they do, for they are the just. But they had no merits by which they were made just" (Letters 194:3:6 [A.D. 412]).


Augustine
"What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?" (ibid., 194:5:19).


Prosper of Aquitaine
"Indeed, a man who has been justified, that is, who from impious has been made pious, since he had no antecedent good merit, receives a gift, by which gift he may also acquire merit. Thus, what was begun in him by Christ's grace can also be augmented by the industry of his free choice, but never in the absence of God's help, without which no one is able either to progress or to continue in doing good" (Responses on Behalf of Augustine 6 [A.D. 431]).


Sechnall of Ireland
"Hear, all you who love God, the holy merits of Patrick the bishop, a man blessed in Christ; how, for his good deeds, he is likened unto the angels and, for his perfect life, he is comparable to the apostles" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 444]).


Council of Orange II
"[G]race is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed, but grace, which is not due, precedes [merits], that they may be done" (canons on grace 19 [A.D. 529]).

That was long wasn't it? But it did post I am glad to say. I will take time to chew it over if you don't mind. I do believe that Protestants and Catholics have something to say to each other, a state of affairs looked on with some envy by Mormons, and there is much to be learned from both positions if we would have the grace to listen. In reading church history I find the church to be a reforming church, even going back to Old Testament times, and find great advantage in recognising the reforming nature of both Protestant and Catholic traditions. It helps avoid the trenchant position of extreme authoritarianism taken by papists and reformists alike.

Mike Tea

I, on the other hand, am not amazed that denominationalism is being used to help lend some credence to their organization. The increased respect received as a denomination would certainly help to offset the disrespect heaped on them by those who regard Mormonism as a cult. I am intrigued, however, by your bizarre assertion that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 10th or 11th century. As a practicing member of the Catholic (translated: universal) church, I would be happy to demonstrate to you otherwise. This would be off-topic in a Mormon discussion thread, however, but maybe a Catholic section of the guide or via email would be more suitable.

Of course I understand the great benefit that accrues to the Mormon Church in aligning themselves with Evagelical Churches by claiming to be a "Christian denomination". However, it never fails to amaze me that they can reverse such a strongly held view with such impunity. So far as starting another string on Catholicism is concerned I think this is a good idea. Would you like to get something going? I would be glad to contribute what I can and, no doubt, will learn as much as anyone along the way.

Hi Mike

>Where we would part company is<

Actually I can't get these words out of my mind. So I come back with a few more things for you to ponder. As a protestant (reformer) there are many things we part company with. For starters we part with the idea of the Bible Alone theory, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,the Primacy of Peter and the succession of Popes,Purgatory,Mary.

The Faith Alone or Faith Plus Works. Please let me point out this Scripture for you.James 2 Vs 14-26
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day 16 and one of you says to them "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well." but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? 17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18Indeed someone might say, You have faith and I have works. "Demonstrate you faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. 20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. 23 Thus the scipture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and NOT by faith ALONE.25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? 26For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Just a comment on my part...Sometimes I think scripture can be such a hoot to read...I get a chuckle out of "ignoramus". I've got another one that might have you rolling on the floor laughing.It is in Exodus.

Anyway...We do part company in many ways.Let me know what you think?

Bookreader-

What we normally find is that fundamentalism is the older of two established religions. It is mainly the one that decided not to change in order to better suit the times. In this case, you would be more apt to consider Eastern Orthodox as the fundamentalist version of Catholocism. By the same token those people in the deep south of the US who call themselves or are called Christian Fundamentalists are simply an ignorant group of people who have decided to condemn others rather than forgive and to pass judgement rather than judging not. May God have mercy on their souls.

copied from Dictionary.com

-fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.


Often Fundamentalism. An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in 1920 in opposition to Liberalism and secularism.
Adherence to the theology of this movement.
A movement or point of view characterized by rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles.

>What we normally find is that fundamentalism is the older of two established religions<

comment: What 2 established religions are you talking about.

>It is mainly the one that decided not to change in order to better suit the times<

comment: I don't understand. Better suit the times? The one that decided not to change?

>. In this case, you would be more apt to consider Eastern Orthodox as the fundamentalist version of Catholocism<

comment: why? The Eastern Orthodox Churches fell into schism in 1053.
I might add with our current Pope (John Paul II) anything is possible for the Orthodox to be reunited back. I believe there is great talk and could possibly happen.

>By the same token those people in the deep south of the US who call themselves or are called Christian Fundamentalists are simply an ignorant group of people who have decided to condemn others rather than forgive and to pass judgement rather than judging not<

comment: Wow who is judging who here? Are you suggesting the Protestant Christian Fundamentalists are ignorant because they don't have a good understanding of scripture? Or are you using ignorant as in a bad kind of way to say "stupid"? I don't understand who is condemning whom? Or who is passing judgement? Judgement on what?

Then I am not sure if you are calling Catholic's "fundamentalists"?
There is a Protestant religious group that call themselves fundamentalists? It is one of 30,000 different Protestant religious.
In Catholicism there are many different rites to name a few: Roman Rite,Byzatine Rite,Maronite Rite. All of which all loyal to the Pope. They have different rites with the main focus being the Eucharist.

Ok, I, like Nimatek sort of stumbled into this whole thing and had to do the registration detour too. I would just like to point out that the Bible is not clear and precise in EXACTLY what the truth is. If it were there'd be no demoniations in the Christian faith or at least by the time someone had a Doctorate in Theology and had the whole Bible memorized they'd come to an agreement on what was the "truth". Further, neither is the Book of Mormon always clear and precise, as there are many branches of Mormonism that have been excommunicated by the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, not to mention the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is older than the arrival of the mormons in Utah. NO religion, execpt maybe cults in their "my way or the die way" method, have an exact expalination on truth. When you get to know many different faiths, you get to see the beauty in such as system. I, like Nimatek, happen to believe there is some order in the diversity that correlates to the culture and understanding of those people. (Just as an intriguing side note to some, I am an active LDS member in good standing).

Thanks so much for explaining in perfect clarity the correct reasons for denouncing Mormonism! Since I know my own limitations in the area of eloquence, I will simply say, "WELL SAID!" And thank you.

Dear Why:

Ah...............the "bury your head in the sand" approach to the bible. Interesting. You claim that the bible is not exact on what "the truth" is! UNBELIEVABLE! You obviously haven't spent much time reading it lately, or you would know exactly what that truth is. Let me give you an excellent example. Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me."
John 14:6

I haven't been back at this site for a while
Anyway--
As far as Christian denominations go. The Catholic religion is the only Christian denomination that can trace it's root all the way back to the Apostle.
The Catholic Church comprise the canon of the Bible (Councils of Hippo 393 AD and Carthage 397AD)By using the KJV of the bible you are using the bible that the Catholic's have defined as the official books of the bible.
We also have the Early Church Fathers. These are men who were disiciples of the Apostle. The Apostle and Early Church Fathers have handed down much information for us.

1) There can be no new doctrines, no new Scriptures, and no new prophecies after the close of the apostolic age. This means that Joseph Smith and all Presidents of the LDS Church are false prophets.

Let's look at scripture verses that clearly show no new prophecies.

Jude 3 "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly conted for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" KJV
Comment: In this passage, St. Jude indicates that the full Apostolic teaching has already been delivered to the saints.

Gal 4:4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son.." KJV
Comment:God sent His Son at the "fulness of time," indicating that Jesus will communicate the fulness of God's Revelation

2Tim 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" KJV
comment: This verse clearly suggests a completed deposit of faith which Timothy is to safeguard and transmit to successors.

Mt 28:18-20 "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world' amen" KJV
Comment: Our Lord is telling the Apostles that the revelation He gave them during His earthly ministry, and which the Holy Spirit would clarify and complete (see Jn14:26;Jn16:12-13), was the fullness of God's Revelation that they were to teach all ment until the end of time.

Heb1:1-2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.." KJV
Comment: This passage tells us that the inspired prophets of the OT, who communicated God's revelation in an incomplete form, have now given way to the Son of God who has given us the full and perfect Revelation of God. "The Son is His Father's definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him." Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecy. How can a Mormon claim that 1800 years after Christ a prophet comes along to add to the deposit of faith?

"I can have all the faith I want that the sea is not salty, but guess what, it is still salty."

"faith is a hope for things which are not seen WHICH ARE TRUE"

I am assuming you are responding to the false prophecies, Correct?

Are you saying you will have faith or you have faith that these prophecy will come true?

What about all the failed prophecy. For example:
I wrote these before on another post.

Joseph Smith Clearly prophesied he would be alive at the Second Coming (DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 112). In 1832, Smith predicted that before the generation that was then alive passed away, a Mormon temple (the city "New Jerusalem") would be built in western Missouri (DOCTRINES AND COVENANTS, 84). Over 160 years later, with everyone in that generation long dead, there is still NO Mormon temple there.

In 1843, Smith also predicted that if the United States would not redress the wwrongs suffered by the Mormons in the state of Missouri, then "in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted" (HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, VOL.5,P.394) This is obviously another false prophecy.

In 1863, Smith's successor Brigham Young foretold that the Civil War would NOT result in freeing the black slaves (JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, Vol.10, p350).

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 tells us how to distinguish a true prophet from a false one:"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him" KJV

Even a single failed prophecy proves that the prophet is false. Since official Mormon prophets have made many false prophecies, they are not true prophets.

Many major Mormon doctrines like polygamy and the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood have been abandoned by the LDS Church. HOW COULD A CHURCH THAT IS LED CONTINUOUSLY BY INSPIRED PROPHETS TEACH DOCTRINES THAT ARE LATER DISCARDED?????????????????

Maybe you can answer these without salty water!!!

Well written, Nimatek. Your reply goes to show that there are those out there who can live with varied demoninations and religions. Few Christians now condemn other religions, believing that we all have the same God. I am Roman Catholic, ex Baptist, ex Swedish Covenant Church, ex Quaker, ex Anglican, but all these exes added up to tolerance (I used to be anti-Catholic). I have Mormon friends, and while I cannot consider them Christians in the true sense, their love of God makes them Godly - not my type of Godliness, but there only sin is to force themselves on others, and I have no evidence of that locally. Love for God and our neighbours (everyone, good or bad in our eyes) is paramount.

TAB,first let me say, I am not Mormon, I am a true Christian. You said, <<" Look the Church founded by Christ must go back in history to the time of Christ; its doctrines must be the same as those of the Apostolic Church; and its leaders must be able to trace their authority back to the Apostles.">>

Ok, let me make a reply to that. Quoting Jesuit John McKenzie, "Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority." --The Roman Catholic Church, 1969, pg.4.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "...the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate..."---1967, Vol.I, p. 696.

Just these 2 quotes would ruin your next comment: <<<"Thus, history, Apostolic doctrines, and Apostolic authority are the sure guidelines for determining which Church Jesus founded. Only the Catholic Church meets these requirements. The early Church Fathers are our indispensable link to Apostolic Christianity.">>>

Have your claimed successors adhered to the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ and his apostles?

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that "the Trinity in the term employed to signify the CENTRAL doctrine of the Christian religion." BUT---The word "Trinity" is not found ANYwhere in the Bible, is it? Wouldn't you think that if it was the central doctrine, Jesus would have clearly used that word, over and over?

Celibacy of the Clergy??? Pope Paul VI (Sacerotalis Caelibatus,1967) endorsed celibacy as a requirement for the clergy. But then he admitted that "Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apotstles for those who presided over the first Christian communities."--The Papal Encyclicals, pg. 204.

So, the TRUE Christian religion adhering to the beliefs of the First Century Christians, would NOT have anything to do with the Catholic celibacy laws. For 1 Timothy 4: 1-3 states: "The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times there will be some who will desert the faith and choose to listen to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from the devils;...they will say marriage is forbidden." Hmmmmmmm Pretty clear to me!

Another reasoning point is based on John 15:19 which says that Jesus commanded to be SEPARATE FROM THE WORLD. But history shows, without having to even quote in this little research project, that the Catholic Church has CLEARLY NOT remained separate from this world, as Jesus REQUIRES! Think of the Catholics in wars, killing their foreign brothers, just because he was on the other side. I can't get out of my mind the famous picture of the Pope shaking hands with Adolf Hitler. Would Jesus have anything to do with any political parties? Any wars? Any conformation to this world?

"<<>>" (Quoted from TAB)

Catholic doctrines include worshipping Mary, Hellfire, Trinity, Immortality of the human soul, just to name a FEW. Sorry, but Jesus didn't teach any of those. In fact, the Scriptures denounce such things as worshipping anyone or thing besides God.

So, clearly, the Catholic church, just in its BASIC teachings alone, proves to actually go AGAINST the teachings of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is not the true religion.