Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[madhatter85]

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.

It makes a big difference, If God did not tell his church to do something that would close or change their doctrine and they did it anyways, it would make the church untrue to the gospel principals.

I would like to see when, where, and why. Thanks.

 

[madhatter85]

So, I;m still wating for an answer Sojurner

 

[sojourner]

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

No. They have their Canon of scripture -- we have ours. They disagree in some ways.
The Canon was set out of the corpus of scripture that was already believed to be authoritative. Authority isn't the issue. It's determing what is to be a standard that's the issue. What the Canon says is, "this is the corpus of scripture that sets the standard for what is scriptural and authoritative." Everything else is measured by the Canon (which literally means "reed" [used for measuring -- a "yardstick"]).

 

[sojourner]

It makes a big difference, If God did not tell his church to do something that would close or change their doctrine and they did it anyways, it would make the church untrue to the gospel principals.

I would like to see when, where, and why. Thanks.

The Church is the Body of Christ on earth and, as such, carries the authority to act in God's Name. The Church always acts with the gift of discernment, through the agency of the Holy Spirit. The Church, in its discernment, called a Council of those who had been called to act on behalf of the Church. Part of its business was to set a standard for what was to be considered scriptural, and what was not. There are records of the actions of the Council that set the Canon. You seem to be capable. Do your own research.

Doctrine was not closed. A standard for scripture was set. It's a human tool that God knows we need. We trust that those who have been called of God through the Church do God's work.

 

[madhatter85]

Matthew 18:

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

do you think God can not speak forth his words according to his own please? do you not think he would remember one nation like unto another?

2nd Nephi 29:
Emphasis added

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
...
6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?
7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

 

[Bishka]

2nd Nephi 29:
Emphasis added

You do realize by presenting Book of Mormon scripture to someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon isn't going to prove any points.

 

[madhatter85]

You do realize by presenting Book of Mormon scripture to someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon isn't going to prove any points.

um, so?

 

[Bishka]

um, so?

They are just going to dismiss that entire post.

It seems as if you are trying to prove something to them, and I was trying to help you out by pointing out how they would logically see your post.

Guess you don't see it, do you? :no:

 

[madhatter85]

Or, i woudl like to see how it is that they dismiss the scripture, because to me at least, the scripture makes perfect sense in regards to the nature of Diety.

simply saying i don;t believe in the Book of Mormon, is not good enough when debating certain scriptural refrences, I would liek to see why they think God cannot speak forth his words according to his own pleasure and why he would only remember one nation and not another.

but i guess you don;t think about those things, it's okay i forgive you.

 

[Bishka]

Or, i woudl like to see how it is that they dismiss the scripture, because to me at least, the scripture makes perfect sense in regards to the nature of Diety.

I was referring to the scripture you quoted from 2 Nephi 29:3. For people who do not believe that Book of Mormon is an actual word from God, they will see this scripture as Joseph Smith's justification for a new Church. The whole batch of the scripture that you stated from the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the nature of Deity, but with the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If you would have paid attention to what I was quoted in my reply, you would understand which scripture I was referring to, but you don't think about that sort of thing, do you?

simply saying i don;t believe in the Book of Mormon, is not good enough when debating certain scriptural refrences,.

Actually, it is. If someone presented you with a similar passage from the Qur'an or any Hindu texts, you would probably say, "I don't believe in that religion/text so that passage does not apply to me." Any scripture from any other faith does not have salvational hold on you, does it?

I would liek to see why they think God cannot speak forth his words according to his own pleasure

Because of their interpretation of the Bible. Or did you think ours was the only interpretation out there? :sarcastic

but i guess you don;t think about those things, it's okay i forgive you.

 

[England my lionheart]

Well i think anything that is written by men should be taken with a pinch of salt but if it makes you happy so what.As stated by others ,the tablets of gold guatemala and stuff it is hard to take in but mormons seem ok to me but the faith not for me.

 

[Bishka]

,the tablets of gold guatemala and stuff it is hard to take in but mormons seem ok to me but the faith not for me.

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? It's obvious that you have very little, if any knowledge of the LDS Church and our theology/beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? It's obvious that you have very little, if any knowledge of the LDS Church and our theology/beliefs.

Either that or his knowledge of the LDS Church is belied by his lack of knowledge of punctuation. That quote makes a bit more sense if you insert a comma before "guatemala".

 

[sojourner]

do you think God can not speak forth his words according to his own please? do you not think he would remember one nation like unto another?

I think God can speak through the BOM. I think God does, in fact, speak through the BOM to a great number of people. I choose to not use that route to lead me to God. It's a choice. I choose to weigh the BOM as less revelatory and authoritative for me than the Canonical scriptures. You are free to do as you wish for yourself, and I respect that.

The question was asked, "why don't I accept the BOM as valid?" My answer is that it is extra-canonical. That may not be much of an answer, as far as you're concerned, but that's my answer.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well i think anything that is written by men should be taken with a pinch of salt

Or perhaps the entire shaker!

 

[madhatter85]

I think God can speak through the BOM. I think God does, in fact, speak through the BOM to a great number of people. I choose to not use that route to lead me to God. It's a choice. I choose to weigh the BOM as less revelatory and authoritative for me than the Canonical scriptures. You are free to do as you wish for yourself, and I respect that.

The question was asked, "why don't I accept the BOM as valid?" My answer is that it is extra-canonical. That may not be much of an answer, as far as you're concerned, but that's my answer.

If you really believed that God speaks through the bible, why woudl you choose not to listen to it?

 

[sojourner]

If you really believed that God speaks through the bible, why woudl you choose not to listen to it?

I was speaking of the BOM, not the Bible. However, to answer your question, I believe God can and does speak through all kinds of things -- including people. But "all kinds of things" aren't all the canonical scriptures. I choose not to listen to some of it, because I don't think some of it particularly has anything to say to me.

 

[madhatter85]

I was speaking of the BOM, not the Bible. However, to answer your question, I believe God can and does speak through all kinds of things -- including people. But "all kinds of things" aren't all the canonical scriptures. I choose not to listen to some of it, because I don't think some of it particularly has anything to say to me.

so you think God is a respector of persons and that only certain rules apply to only certain flavors of faiths?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question was asked, "why don't I accept the BOM as valid?" My answer is that it is extra-canonical. That may not be much of an answer, as far as you're concerned, but that's my answer.

But I don't see how that makes sense given the definition and explanation for "canon" that you gave before.

If canon is just that which was most reflective of the beliefs of the people who set it, at the time they set it - and nothing else - then why would the canonical status matter when deciding whether something is valid?

 

[sojourner]

so you think God is a respector of persons and that only certain rules apply to only certain flavors of faiths?

I don't think God is legalistic. I think people are legalistic, and the rules set by the religion are tools for people, not tools for God. Some find God one way, some another.