Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[Lunarscribe]

The Catholic Religion make things as they stroll along, non of which is Bibically true.

"27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." -Luke 1, to be full of God's grace one must be free from the blimish of any sin for God's fullness of grace will not reside within a sinful vessal. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception- Biblicly Proven.

"1And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:
2And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered." - Revelation 12 The dogma of the Assumption and Corrination of Mary Queen of Heaven- Biblicly Proven.

" 3And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.

4And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. 5His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye." -John 2
Mary most gracious Intercessor. Biblicly Proven.
Well that was a fun stroll down the biblical pathways we should do it again sometime.

 

[sojourner]

I think that, in order to be accepted as valid, the writings would have to be written within the Tradition of the Church. As far as non-Mormon Christians are concerned, the BOM falls outside the realm of the Tradition of the Church. It's really that simple. The only reason Mormonism works is because it has sold itself as, not a continuation of, but an alternative to, Tradition. Therefore, non-Mormon Christians can accept the BOM as valid. (BTW, that's the whole argument concerning the validity of apocryphal and deuterocanonical scriptures). Since the BOM was written after the canon was officially closed, it's really a moot point.

 

[madhatter85]

it's not an alternative to traditions, we have all the same traditions that existed in the new testament.

 

[Quiddity]

Because it doesn't conform with my bias.

 

[madhatter85]

I think that, in order to be accepted as valid, the writings would have to be written within the Tradition of the Church. As far as non-Mormon Christians are concerned, the BOM falls outside the realm of the Tradition of the Church. It's really that simple. The only reason Mormonism works is because it has sold itself as, not a continuation of, but an alternative to, Tradition. Therefore, non-Mormon Christians can accept the BOM as valid. (BTW, that's the whole argument concerning the validity of apocryphal and deuterocanonical scriptures). Since the BOM was written after the canon was officially closed, it's really a moot point.

see, i don;t understand that, Did god say that the "cannon" was closed? did someone recieve divine revelation saying that no more revelations were to be given?

 

[sojourner]

it's not an alternative to traditions, we have all the same traditions that existed in the new testament.

I'm not talking about traditions. I'm talking about Tradition. Tradition would include, not only praxis, but theological developoment, the sense of ekklesia, the development of the offices of ministry, writings, oral information, culture, etc. Tradition speaks more of a sense that is handed down and developed along a certain theological track. Mormonism may claim to have the same traditions that existed in the NT, but history would be on the side of Orthodoxy in the matter of the preserved Tradition of the Church.

 

[sojourner]

see, i don;t understand that, Did god say that the "cannon" was closed? did someone recieve divine revelation saying that no more revelations were to be given?

Yes. We believe God did. Yes. We believe they did.

 

[madhatter85]

Yes. We believe God did. Yes. We believe they did.

who is they? and if no more revelation could be given beyond Christ, how, in fact could they recieve revelation to close the "cannon?"

 

[madhatter85]

I'm not talking about traditions. I'm talking about Tradition. Tradition would include, not only praxis, but theological developoment, the sense of ekklesia, the development of the offices of ministry, writings, oral information, culture, etc. Tradition speaks more of a sense that is handed down and developed along a certain theological track. Mormonism may claim to have the same traditions that existed in the NT, but history would be on the side of Orthodoxy in the matter of the preserved Tradition of the Church.

you said that the Church's traditions are evolving and developing in the beginning, but then you say that they "preserved" the traditions in the end, this is conradictory as you can not evolve something and preserve it. Evolving traditions is man-made, unless you claim they recieved direct revelation to change the traditions. and if so then how could you say there is a closed cannon if you claim there are still revelations to be given?

 

[sojourner]

who is they? and if no more revelation could be given beyond Christ, how, in fact could they recieve revelation to close the "cannon?"

"They" are the members of the Church charged with setting the Canon.

No one said that there is no revelation beyond Christ. Obviously, there was. The entire NT was written following Christ's death. No one's saying that there's no more revelation. Things are revealed all the time. But none of it affects the yardstick of scripture. Because we need some sort of standard. The Canon is that standard.

 

[sojourner]

you said that the Church's traditions are evolving and developing in the beginning, but then you say that they "preserved" the traditions in the end, this is conradictory as you can not evolve something and preserve it. Evolving traditions is man-made, unless you claim they recieved direct revelation to change the traditions. and if so then how could you say there is a closed cannon if you claim there are still revelations to be given?

The Tradition evolves, because the Church eveolves. The Church evolves, because the Church is organic, and must evolve, or die. Tradition is preserved in a certain timeline of evolution, whose parameters are theological and ecclesiological. The Tradition evolves according to emerging theological and ecclesiological understanding.

The Canon is one standard by which subsequent revelation is measured.

 

[madhatter85]

"They" are the members of the Church charged with setting the Canon.

No one said that there is no revelation beyond Christ. Obviously, there was. The entire NT was written following Christ's death. No one's saying that there's no more revelation. Things are revealed all the time. But none of it affects the yardstick of scripture. Because we need some sort of standard. The Canon is that standard.

but you just stated that it was closed by your church's leaders. meaning that it was because of the will of the flesh. why did they close it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since the BOM was written after the canon was officially closed, it's really a moot point.

But isn't it the contention of the LDS Church that the Book of Mormon was written in ancient times, but only discovered relatively recently?

What date do the Mormons put on the writing of the gold plates? Is it before or after the Council of Nicea?

 

[Katzpur]

But isn't it the contention of the LDS Church that the Book of Mormon was written in ancient times, but only discovered relatively recently?

Yes, we believe that the Book of Mormon comes from an ancient document. We do believe that revelation continues today, though. The Doctrine and Covenants contains modern-day (i.e. post 1830) revelation.

What date do the Mormons put on the writing of the gold plates? Is it before or after the Council of Nicea?

The time period spans from roughly 600 B.C. to 400 A.D.

 

[madhatter85]

But isn't it the contention of the LDS Church that the Book of Mormon was written in ancient times, but only discovered relatively recently?

What date do the Mormons put on the writing of the gold plates? Is it before or after the Council of Nicea?

certain portions of the Book of mormon date back to 2700 BC. so yes very much before the council of nicea, whcih we do not recognize the Nicene creed as cannon, but rather an agreement between people who knew very little about the nature and divinity of God.

 

[sojourner]

but you just stated that it was closed by your church's leaders. meaning that it was because of the will of the flesh. why did they close it?

By that criterion, then everything the LDS do is by will of the flesh.

Fortunately for you, "will of the flesh" is very much within God's working vocabulary. God has always used human agency. These people, called by God to a particular job, accomplished, through human agency, the will of God.

 

[sojourner]

But isn't it the contention of the LDS Church that the Book of Mormon was written in ancient times, but only discovered relatively recently?

What date do the Mormons put on the writing of the gold plates? Is it before or after the Council of Nicea?

But not discovered or translated until after the Canon was closed. What everyone seems to be missing here is my point that it's the continuous timeline that is cogent here. The BOM falls outside any corpus of writing within the Tradition (that is, that continuous and heterogenous work of the Church). Even those writings within the Tradition that have been discovered since the Canon was closed, have not been "grandfathered" in. The Canon as it stands, when closed is the standard. Why would we "grandfather" in something that stands outside the Tradition, when we don't other writings?

 

[sojourner]

we do not recognize the Nicene creed as cannon, but rather an agreement between people who knew very little about the nature and divinity of God.

Another of the 75 reasons why we just aren't playing in the same sandbox.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But not discovered or translated until after the Canon was closed. What everyone seems to be missing here is my point that it's the continuous timeline that is cogent here. The BOM falls outside any corpus of writing within the Tradition (that is, that continuous and heterogenous work of the Church).

As do the Dead Sea Scrolls, at least in regard to any places where their text does not match the established canon.

Even those writings within the Tradition that have been discovered since the Canon was closed, have not been "grandfathered" in.

So... when mistakes are found, you don't correct them? That approach doesn't make the canon accurate, it only makes it authoritatively inaccurate.

The Canon as it stands, when closed is the standard. Why would we "grandfather" in something that stands outside the Tradition, when we don't other writings?

Because the argument "Tradition is Tradition, and nothing else is acceptable" appeals only to consistency, not accuracy or any sort of idea of "truth".

Why wouldn't you evaluate the Book of Mormon on its own merits rather than saying "sorry, time's up! You should have submitted this sooner"?

 

[Bishka]

Another of the 75 reasons why we just aren't playing in the same sandbox.

Perhaps we are, but some of us are playing in more shallow or deep areas then others.