Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[Katzpur]

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

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

Those are two of the most insightful statements I've seen on this thread yet! My problem with the concept of "Tradition" as a means of defining doctrine is that the emphasis seems to be on how long it's been around, not on whether or not it's true.

 

[nutshell]

Yes - tradition as the be all end all standard seems ridiculous, IMO.

Slavery was traditional for a time. Obviously it was wrong.

 

[madhatter85]

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.

While God uses human agency, It was not, (at least to us) the will of the flesh that changed certain things in the church. It was only by direct revelation that official documents are prepared, signed and read. there is no comitte that sits around and makes up good ideas.

now if you want to, answer my question as to where and when the claims were made that direct revelation is said to have justified your church's "closed cannon"

 

[sojourner]

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

And, where they are valuable to subsequent translatory updates, they have been used. That's partly why more modern translations differ from earlier ones. The question isn't with regard to supporting manuscripts, but to brand-new material.

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

Mistakes, omissions, blurry translations, etc. are all "corrected" as they become apparent. We're not talking about the process of translation. We're talking about the inclusion of completely new material. That cannot happen, because the Canon is closed. The new material can be "added" as corrollary, but not as part of the "standard."

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

Because it is consistency in areas of origin, authorship, intended audience, literary style, etc. that verify the documents as authentic. It is that authenticity that is sought, not factual consistency of the text. Preserving the tradition is more important than trying to make facts line up. Even a cursory glance at the historical books of the OT will attest to that. That's because the impetus for studying the Bible is to gain insight into the lore -- the story -- of God's people, not to master factual content.

When truth is garnered from scripture, it is largely in the sense of "that's what God's people have believed." There is always a theological push to find relevancy for modern times in the ancient theological views preserved in scripture. In some sense, "truth is truth." In another sense, our perspective of what is true must be tweaked as new understanding and insights come to light.

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"?

It haas been. it adds nothing of significance to the existing books of the Canon.

 

[sojourner]

Yes - tradition as the be all end all standard seems ridiculous, IMO.

Slavery was traditional for a time. Obviously it was wrong.

But, yet, it's not ridiculous to engage in a futile effort to "restore what was lost?" In other words -- "make an effort to remain true to what is the 'real' NT tradition"???

 

[sojourner]

While God uses human agency, It was not, (at least to us) the will of the flesh that changed certain things in the church. It was only by direct revelation that official documents are prepared, signed and read. there is no comitte that sits around and makes up good ideas.

now if you want to, answer my question as to where and when the claims were made that direct revelation is said to have justified your church's "closed cannon"

so...you all have direct revelation, but no one else can claim that? That's ridiculous.

 

[madhatter85]

no, i'm sure anyoen can recieve direct revelation when called of God, but i have yet to find where the Catholic Church claims to have recieved any kind of revelation from God. As far as i know they don;t believe there will be or can be any revelation after Christ.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it is consistency in areas of origin, authorship, intended audience, literary style, etc. that verify the documents as authentic. It is that authenticity that is sought, not factual consistency of the text. Preserving the tradition is more important than trying to make facts line up. Even a cursory glance at the historical books of the OT will attest to that. That's because the impetus for studying the Bible is to gain insight into the lore -- the story -- of God's people, not to master factual content.

When truth is garnered from scripture, it is largely in the sense of "that's what God's people have believed." There is always a theological push to find relevancy for modern times in the ancient theological views preserved in scripture. In some sense, "truth is truth." In another sense, our perspective of what is true must be tweaked as new understanding and insights come to light.

Ah... I see. IOW, you take the Canon as the authoritative document of the original beliefs of Christianity. This is rather different from the other approach of taking the Canon as the authoritative and infallible Word of God.

In fact, I'd say that this approach makes a literal interpretation of the Bible as God's Truth completely inappropriate.

 

[sojourner]

no, i'm sure anyoen can recieve direct revelation when called of God, but i have yet to find where the Catholic Church claims to have recieved any kind of revelation from God. As far as i know they don;t believe there will be or can be any revelation after Christ.

I think this is largely an argument of semantics, but it serves to explain why you're Mormon and not Roman Catholic...

 

[sojourner]

Ah... I see. IOW, you take the Canon as the authoritative document of the original beliefs of Christianity. This is rather different from the other approach of taking the Canon as the authoritative and infallible Word of God.

In fact, I'd say that this approach makes a literal interpretation of the Bible as God's Truth completely inappropriate.

A literalistic approach is, IMO, as well as others, completely inappropriate.
I think that some ancient Biblical beliefs stand -- I think some don't. Theodicy has come a long way since before Christ, for example. We don't ascribe natural disasters as punishment from God, nowadays. Although, Biblically, that's certainly the case.

 

[madhatter85]

I think this is largely an argument of semantics, but it serves to explain why you're Mormon and not Roman Catholic...

semantics or not you have yet to answer my question.

 

[sojourner]

semantics or not you have yet to answer my question.

I think that those who are called to specific ministries always receive revelation necessary to the completion of the task demanded by God. Since the Council was charged with setting the Canon,I believe they received the necessary revelation (whether it be in the form of direct communication, insight, wisdom, inspiration) in order to set the Canon in the manner that was best for them, in God's eyes.

 

[madhatter85]

I think that those who are called to specific ministries always receive revelation necessary to the completion of the task demanded by God. Since the Council was charged with setting the Canon,I believe they received the necessary revelation (whether it be in the form of direct communication, insight, wisdom, inspiration) in order to set the Canon in the manner that was best for them, in God's eyes.

You believe, but you have yet to show me official declarations or a source stating exactly Who closed the cannon, when, and by what means either professing direct revelation from God, or was it a vote between the members of the council? or what exactly transpired.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that those who are called to specific ministries always receive revelation necessary to the completion of the task demanded by God. Since the Council was charged with setting the Canon,I believe they received the necessary revelation (whether it be in the form of direct communication, insight, wisdom, inspiration) in order to set the Canon in the manner that was best for them, in God's eyes.

However, the Christian canon can be seen as Apocrypha in the Jewish context. What gave the Christian church the right in the first place to set any sort of canon that was different from what was accepted in Judaism? And if the canon can be set once for ancient Judaism and then re-set for Christianity, why can't it be re-set again at some later date if "demanded by God" (however one determines this)?

The point I'm having trouble with is that the New Testament is as invalid (or at least different) in the context that came before it as the Book of Mormon is. The adoption of the New Testament represents one instance of accepting new material into the established canon. I don't see how you can then say that one can never accept new material into the established canon - in mainstream Christianity, it happened once anyhow.

 

[madhatter85]

Thanks Penguin, i liked that post.

 

[sojourner]

However, the Christian canon can be seen as Apocrypha in the Jewish context. What gave the Christian church the right in the first place to set any sort of canon that was different from what was accepted in Judaism? And if the canon can be set once for ancient Judaism and then re-set for Christianity, why can't it be re-set again at some later date if "demanded by God" (however one determines this)?

The point I'm having trouble with is that the New Testament is as invalid (or at least different) in the context that came before it as the Book of Mormon is. The adoption of the New Testament represents one instance of accepting new material into the established canon. I don't see how you can then say that one can never accept new material into the established canon - in mainstream Christianity, it happened once anyhow.

The problem is that the Jews were almost dead as a religion during the first little while of Christianity. Nothing was set in Judaism, when the Christian Canon was under debate. The Jewish Canon wasn't set until after the Christian Canon was set. You've got the tail wagging the dog here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is that the Jews were almost dead as a religion during the first little while of Christianity. Nothing was set in Judaism, when the Christian Canon was under debate. The Jewish Canon wasn't set until after the Christian Canon was set. You've got the tail wagging the dog here.

So the Christian Canon should be authoritative for Judaism as well?

 

[sojourner]

You believe, but you have yet to show me official declarations or a source stating exactly Who closed the cannon, when, and by what means either professing direct revelation from God, or was it a vote between the members of the council? or what exactly transpired.

What diffece does it make? It was an official action of the Body of Christ, of which I am a member. Belief has everything to do with it.

 

[namguy]

Why don't Christians accept the Book of Mormon to be true? It testifys of Christ our Savior, as the Messiah, the Great Mediator. And it's a solid Book, it has substance.

You don't believe there is any way that Christ would have appeared to his "Sheep of another fold" (mentioned in the bible) in the americas after his ressurection. Or that Both God and Christ would appear to a modern day prophet.

Yet, they believe that God, or even the "Mother Mary" would speak to 6 old women in Bosnia?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why you think the way you do.

I ask you, first, who has the last word, the Book of Mormon or the Bible? Of course, though you wouldn't dare too tell the truth, you believe the Book of Mormon...right? Secondly, all the prophecies have been fulfulled by Jesus Christ, The Son Of Man, The Saviour of the World. Before His assumption 'back to Heaven' He said "It is finished." No more of the Old Testment laws, no more prophets, no more speaking in toungs, never 'dancing in the spirit' as some groups believe in, no loosing Salvation once one has been saved by the remission of sins by The Blood of The Lamb, though they're some groups that believe Salvation can be lost, NO IT CAN'T!
I'm out of here, too much of mixed up thoughts that have strayed so far from the truth...shame.

 

[Katzpur]

I ask you, first, who has the last word, the Book of Mormon or the Bible? Of course, though you wouldn't dare too tell the truth, you believe the Book of Mormon...right?

Since they don't contradict each other, it has never been an issue. The Bible has been described as "foremost among the Standard Works," incidentally. We read and teach from it every Sunday.

Secondly, all the prophecies have been fulfulled by Jesus Christ, The Son Of Man, The Saviour of the World. Before His assumption 'back to Heaven' He said "It is finished."

Actually, He didn't say this before His assumption back to Heaven. He said it before He died on the cross. He was referring to His mission here on earth. Truly, it was finished.

No more of the Old Testment laws, no more prophets, no more speaking in toungs, never 'dancing in the spirit' as some groups believe in, no loosing Salvation once one has been saved by the remission of sins by The Blood of The Lamb, though they're some groups that believe Salvation can be lost, NO IT CAN'T!

Just one question for you... If there were to be no more prophets after Christ, why did He appoint prophets and prophesy that they would be rejected?

I'm out of here, too much of mixed up thoughts that have strayed so far from the truth...shame.

You'll be back.