I suppose you’re using that term in the same way it’s used against Mormons, right? If so, you got issues, man. That’s just wrong.

The big difference between the LDS way of reading the Scriptures and the BAC way is that the BACs dissect the Bible, word by word, then define the words to suit themselves. The LDS way is to read the passage and understand it in context as well as word for word, the same way a translator does when copying from one language to another.

This, BTW, is the reason for the changes in the Book of Mormon over the years. Language changes, words and grammar change, and Joseph wasn’t a scholar. He used the word or phrase which made the most sense to him, in the vernacular of a New York farmboy of the 1820s. Inspired men and prophets following him have clarified meanings of things in the light of their own greater education. My favorite example is the one the antis have grabbed hold of, changing “white” to “pure” in the current edition. In the 1820s, the two words were synonymous, and only in the last 50 years has the use of “white” to mean “pure” fallen into disfavor.

On the other hand, this is the Restored Gospel of Christ. I believe the apostles would recognize this, because we have the true apostolic authority. It is the above mentioned ambiguity that required such a Restoration. Certain trains of wore such deep tracks that it required actual revelation to get out of them. A millenium and a half down the wrong road can lead to a very different location. But you are right, at least they have developed their understanding. We really could use more of that.

I also wanted to make a point about taking little scriptures and attributing things to them. Ezekiel 37 was originated by leaders of the Church, and I am inclined to believe them. It is obvious to any scholar that Ezekiel is referring to the split in two kingdoms and their eventual reuniting. But is its meaning so limited? I could discourse on a number of possible thoughts, but I feel the one that would be of the most benefit is the fact that MANY scriptures have more than one meaning, even within the Bible. For instance, Matthew 1:22-23 makes the reference about a virgin conceiving and baring the Emmanuel and states that this is Christ. And so we all turn to the cross-reference (Isaiah 7:14) and say, “Isaiah was obviously speaking of Christ, and those Jews are off their rockers to not clearly recognize something so obvious a reference.” Yet, many non-Christian Bible scholars that it has a completely different meaning. Look at the liberal view here to see what I have read the interpretation should be from more than one scholarly writing on the subject. So was Isaiah referring to a child of sign or to the Christ? Is it possible that he referred to both? I believe that both interpretations can easily be correct. Read Don’t Know Much about the Bible in order to see the scholarly view a little more clearly than my link provides. At any rate, could the same be possible of Ezekiel 37? Again, I believe so.

The Nicene Creed came from the same Catholics that the Born Agains scorn.

Yes, if you accept Trinitarianism you can ignore a lot of things that are in the Bible.

All of the BACs use the Bible that the Catholics compiled, at least as a basis for whichever translation they consider to be right. It comes from the end of the 4th century, about 1000 years before Protestantism, and over 1500 years before the Born Again cults showed up.

Regarding baptism, it is only very recently that the Catholic church has recognized any Protestant baptism as valid, and they only recognize a few of the major Protestant churches that way. There are Protestant churches which don’t recognize other Protestant churches’ baptisms as being valid. It doesn’t worry me that the Catholics don’t recognize LDS bapstism as valid, because they have no authority on the matter anyhow.

…kind of like we do with the Restoration in the Bible as well. If you place the proof-texts we use into their proper context, the Restoration just isn’t there. Ezek. 37:15ff is one of the greater crimes I think the church as made.

Au contrare KW, they’re more apostolic than Mormons are. They’ve had the Bible in their hands for centuries, we’ve only had it in ours for barely two centuries. They’ve got all the learning and maturity that attends long-term ownership of a scripture like the Bible, and frankly, they know it (as a community) better than we do. We’re just really far behind; most of our interpretations of, for example, OT passages are immature, fundamentalist/dispensationalist, and guided by nothing more than a gut feeling — something I think the apostles of old would have shunned (I’m thinking of the “every whim of doctrine” verse and the “driven by the waves of the sea” verse in James).

First, they say that they believe only what is in the Bible, then they turn around and toss in the Nicene Creed, for instance

Catholics do this too, my friend. In fact, the Western Church wrote the creeds. And if you read the Nicene Creed carefully, and compare it to JS’s teachings (not the modern teachings of Correlation, mind you) you’ll find very few conflicts, if any.

They ignore all of the times that Jesus refers to his Father (including the times that he prays to him and even PLEADS with him), and seize on the few references which can be read to mean that Jesus claimed to be God.

They do this through trinitarianism. If one accepts the assumption of trinitarianism, then their claims function quite well. It’s how they appeal to OT monotheism in a Jewish way while at the same time appeasing the presence of God’s son, who is later claimed to be equal with God. Without trinitarianism, they’re just apostate polytheists (like they claim us to be).

They say that the Catholic church has no authority, but then they use the Bible that was compiled by that same Catholic church!

Maybe some do, but not the ones I know. One of the products of the Reformation of the 16th century was the doctrine of “priesthood of all believers.” They don’t need Catholic Petrine authority because Jesus grants it to them through their faith. Even yet, they still extended each other a hand of fellowship (albeit the left hand), recognizing that Protestant tradition was born of Catholic tradition. Besides, baptism is recognized between each group mutually. For example, if you’re Prot, and you want to convert to Cath, there’s no re-baptism because the Catholics recognize that the Prots baptized under the same authority as the Catholics did, and vice versa. For a Mormon to become Catholic, re-baptism is required.

And if you think about it harder, they don’t use the Catholic Bible at all (the Vulgate). They use modern translations which are probably more faithful to the underlying ancient languages (and even moreso than the KJV, in my opinion). And you’ll notice that the Catholic Bible was also one of the issues on Luther’s 95 theses — he wanted it translated into the vernacular instead of forcing everyone to hear it in Latin. So Protestants never really used the “Catholic Bible,” so to speak.

what else is necessary?

For them, adherence to the Creeds of the Christian faith, which is why Mormons don’t qualify as Christians (to them). Otherwise, the individual or group is “pseudo-Christian,” which I actually prefer over “non-Christian” because at least “pseudo” recognizes some form of Christianity, albeit (to them) a false one.

I suppose that they are Christian, to one degree or another. They believe in Christ as our Savior (though they are pretty shaky on the whole “Son of God” issue), and what else is necessary?

that their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Obviously, it is not the Church as a whole that will meet Him at the veil, but you, me and each of them – one by one. Could it be that we stoop to the use of sound-bites and labels to give ourselves the feeling of security – that we are not within the above description? Is my heart far from His – do I deny His power? Wearing the label Christian or Mormon certainly is no guarantee.