Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[madhatter85]

That's pretty scary theology in that post. And it has nothig to do with the topic at hand. I will say that, if the BOM propagates the kind of theology as found in your linked post, it's no wonder that most of us don't view it as "valid."

you still have yet to support your claims that the terinitarian view is even supported biblically when i have provided evidence to the contrary, biblically.

It is impossible for Jesus Christ and God to be the same personage.

Jesus Christ prays to the Father as in Mark 14, why would he pray to himself?

36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

This actually supports my claim that Jesus Christ and God's will may vary at times even when they are united in purpose.

Why in Matthew 3 does it say:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

just for a couple refrences.

 

[athanasius]

The Biggest reason why Catholics and most Christians do not believe in the book of Mormon is because it claimed to be another testament or public revelation from God. We Catholics hold to private revelations(for personal sanctification only) but no new doctrines can be taught. All Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, John according to Apostolic Tradition which we believe is the oral word of God. So we believe the book of Mormon contradicts Gods word to put it bluntly. We also do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet because he gave new public doctrinal revelation. That is the simplest way to put it. Interestingly enough last month I attended a Mormon worship service. I attend the sacrament service and the second service which was a doctrinal study. Very nice men and women. They love god with all their heart and even give two years of their life up to him for missionary work. We Christians can learn something from their zeal and love of Jesus and family. They are good people.

 

[Katzpur]

The Biggest reason why Catholics and most Christians do not believe in the book of Mormon is because it claimed to be another testament or public revelation from God.

Actually, a "testament" is nothing more than a record in which someone testifies or witnesses to the truthfulness of something he knows to be true. We have four of them in the Bible alone: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each of them is an account of the life of Christ. Each of them is from a different perspective and not all of them touch on the same events as the others. I don't see many Christians tearing Luke's account of the Annunciation to Mary or of Mary's visit to Elizabeth, just because Matthew, Mark and James don't mention them. Given the fact that the vast majority of the events in the Book of Mormon supposedly happened on the other side of the world and were unknown prior to 1829, it's hard to conclude, as you have, that they cannot be considered scriptural.

We Catholics hold to private revelations(for personal sanctification only) but no new doctrines can be taught.

First off, you're looking at the Book of Mormon as if it were a nineteenth-century revelation, which it isn't. Suppose another of Paul's epistles were to be discovered in the Holy Land and that Christian scholars (Catholic, Protestant, LDS, etc.) all agreed that it was not a fraud, but Paul's actual letter to the Laodiceans (as mentioned in Colossians 4:16). Would you consider it to be "new doctrine" just because it was discovered in the twenty-first century?

All Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, John according to Apostolic Tradition which we believe is the oral word of God.

And how long did it take Apostolic tradition to determine that God was through talking?

So we believe the book of Mormon contradicts Gods word to put it bluntly.

That's pretty blunt, all right. Would you give an example of something in the Book of Mormon that contradicts God's word? Or are you saying that it contradicts God's word merely by its existance?

We also do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet because he gave new public doctrinal revelation. That is the simplest way to put it.

Again, when did God say that He would never again have anything to say to the Church as a whole? And why did Jesus prophesy that the prophets He would send would be rejected, if He never intended to send them in the first place?

Interestingly enough last month I attended a Mormon worship service. I attend the sacrament service and the second service which was a doctrinal study. Very nice men and women. They love god with all their heart and even give two years of their life up to him for missionary work. We Christians can learn something from their zeal and love of Jesus and family. They are good people.

Yeah, we're a pretty decent lot, aside from the fact that we try to deceive people into thinking we're Christians. Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed your experience at the LDS worship service. I'm actually going to an Advent Mass the day after tomorrow with my son's Catholic girlfriend (whom I want desperately for him to marry). She's coming to the Tabernacle Choir's Christmas Concert with us in the morning, and then we're going to mass with her in the evening. I think we're all looking forward to the exchange.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That's pretty blunt, all right. Would you give an example of something in the Book of Mormon that contradicts God's word?

Well, there IS that bit about alcohol being sinful! We are discussing that in a different thread.

 

[Bishka]

Well, there IS that bit about alcohol being sinful! We are discussing that in a different thread.

The Doctrine and Covenants is not part of the Book of Mormon.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The Doctrine and Covenants is not part of the Book of Mormon.

Ah... and so my ignorance is showing yet once more! My bad! I was actually poking a bit of fun at you, rather than trying to make a serious challange!

The real issue to me, as I think I have stated earlier, is not that we DISAGREE, but that we agree MORE than we disagree. We argue over some of this doctrine as if it REALLY mattered!

In the first century, there was a RAGING debate on circumcision in the church. Both sides were quite passionate about WHO was right. In the end, I think that this little bit of legalism was defeated only to be replaced by MORE legalisms through out the Kingdom of God. What is truly important?

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. NIV

Amen brother Paul! Amen!

I have no problem in calling Mormons my brothers and sisters. This is especially true when I see them LOVING others in sacrificial ways. Why don't Christians accept the BOM??? There are many who do, and they are often also called "LDS" or "Mormons". You are my brothers and sisters in the faith, even if you don't drink!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Jesus Christ prays to the Father as in Mark 14, why would he pray to himself?

It's not a sign of mental illness to talk to yourself. You only have to worry if you answer back!

Philippians 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross! NIV

But then how does the trinity (I personally don't use that term since it's not in scriptures) violate the scriptures or the BOM? I don't get it. The word here, phusis, means to "have the form of" or "have the attributes of". By my very nature I am a human.

 

[Katzpur]

Ah... and so my ignorance is showing yet once more! My bad! I was actually poking a bit of fun at you, rather than trying to make a serious challange!

I know that! I was actually expecting somebody else saying pretty much the same thing, but as a serious challenge. You're the last person I would expect to launch into a debate over something like that.

The real issue to me, as I think I have stated earlier, is not that we DISAGREE, but that we agree MORE than we disagree. We argue over some of this doctrine as if it REALLY mattered!

LOL! What can I say, except that I AGREE!

I have no problem in calling Mormons my brothers and sisters. This is especially true when I see them LOVING others in sacrificial ways. Why don't Christians accept the BOM??? There are many who do, and they are often also called "LDS" or "Mormons". You are my brothers and sisters in the faith, even if you don't drink! [/quote]Likewise! (Even if you do. How could we expect a scuba diver not to drink?)

 

[Scuba Pete]

Likewise! (Even if you do. How could we expect a scuba diver not to drink?)

Slightly OT, but I almost NEVER drink the water (even bottled) when in the Caribbean or Mexico... Or pretty much ANY non-US destination. I don't want Montezuma's revenge! Only alcohol disinfects entirely. I will drink desalinated water and lots of it, but that is hard to find sometimes. To be sure, I rarely drink in the States.

 

[athanasius]

Actually, a "testament" is nothing more than a record in which someone testifies or witnesses to the truthfulness of something he knows to be true. We have four of them in the Bible alone: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each of them is an account of the life of Christ. Each of them is from a different perspective and not all of them touch on the same events as the others. I don't see many Christians tearing Luke's account of the Annunciation to Mary or of Mary's visit to Elizabeth, just because Matthew, Mark and James don't mention them. Given the fact that the vast majority of the events in the Book of Mormon supposedly happened on the other side of the world and were unknown prior to 1829, it's hard to conclude, as you have, that they cannot be considered scriptural.

First off, you're looking at the Book of Mormon as if it were a nineteenth-century revelation, which it isn't. Suppose another of Paul's epistles were to be discovered in the Holy Land and that Christian scholars (Catholic, Protestant, LDS, etc.) all agreed that it was not a fraud, but Paul's actual letter to the Laodiceans (as mentioned in Colossians 4:16). Would you consider it to be "new doctrine" just because it was discovered in the twenty-first century?

And how long did it take Apostolic tradition to determine that God was through talking?

That's pretty blunt, all right. Would you give an example of something in the Book of Mormon that contradicts God's word? Or are you saying that it contradicts God's word merely by its existance?

Again, when did God say that He would never again have anything to say to the Church as a whole? And why did Jesus prophesy that the prophets He would send would be rejected, if He never intended to send them in the first place?

Yeah, we're a pretty decent lot, aside from the fact that we try to deceive people into thinking we're Christians. Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed your experience at the LDS worship service. I'm actually going to an Advent Mass the day after tomorrow with my son's Catholic girlfriend (whom I want desperately for him to marry). She's coming to the Tabernacle Choir's Christmas Concert with us in the morning, and then we're going to mass with her in the evening. I think we're all looking forward to the exchange.

The way catholic believe is that the Canon of scripture is closed. If a letter of St Paul is found and proven to be real it still would not mean that it would be scripture and it would not be part of the canon. We believe that God through is councils decided what was the true authentic written revelation thousands of years ago. That is why we cannot accept the book of Mormon. We see the book of Mormon as false revelation because we believe the canon to be settled already by the grace of God. As I said earlier we also do not hold to any new public doctrinal revelation because to us it contradicts Gods Oral word in apostolic tradition and the magisteriums(we believes Gods church on earth) teachings. In other words just the fact that the book of Mormon exist and claims to be another testament or canon for the Church is reason alone of the Catholic faith to consider it false because of what we believe about revelation. So this honestly why many catholics do not believe in the book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. If they did it would be a denial of what the word of God already teaches us through his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Katzpur]

The way catholic believe is that the Canon of scripture is closed. If a letter of St Paul is found and proven to be real it still would not mean that it would be scripture and it would not be part of the canon.

But the canon of scripture changed many, many times even before the Protestant Reformation -- based on the councils you speak of. I guess that's because there was no more "Public Revelation" from God and as the centuries went by, different people were in charge of making the decisions. That doesn't sound much like the way God would work to me, but each to his own.

We believe that God through is councils decided what was the true authentic written revelation thousands of years ago. That is why we cannot accept the book of Mormon. We see the book of Mormon as false revelation because we believe the canon to be settled already by the grace of God. As I said earlier we also do not hold to any new public doctrinal revelation because to us it contradicts Gods Oral word in apostolic tradition and the magisteriums(we believes Gods church on earth) teachings. In other words just the fact that the book of Mormon exist and claims to be another testament or canon for the Church is reason alone of the Catholic faith to consider it false because of what we believe about revelation. So this honestly why many catholics do not believe in the book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. If they did it would be a denial of what the word of God already teaches us through his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. I hope that makes sense.

Actually, it doesn't. I mean you've explained what you believe pretty well, but I fail to see the logic behind it. You also neglected to explain how the canon came to be closed. If there was no more "public revelation" after the deaths of the Apostles, then how could God have revealed that He was done talking? Or maybe at a certain point, a council was called and everybody agreed that God hadn't been in touch lately and maybe it was time to say that He wasn't going to be any more.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Perhaps the church of Rome was very satisfied with all the other texts that was removed from the bible or were not allowed to be included. I find it funny that the dead sea scrolls contain the entire bible, but the bible is not as complete.

Any reference to a women having power was suppressed and the book of James just barely made it into the bible and would have been discarded as well if some folks back then had their way.

Yes folks, the church of Rome was satisfied with the interpretations and editing and wanted the door slammed shut for all eternity.

What if Jesus wanted to walk the earth this upcoming week? I guess he would not be the Son of God because the closed cannon does not speak of the possibility of such a thing happening. He is God almighty and saying he can not or has not or will not do anything is putting your salvation in the hands of man and not God almighty.

 

[sojourner]

you still have yet to support your claims that the terinitarian view is even supported biblically when i have provided evidence to the contrary, biblically.

It is impossible for Jesus Christ and God to be the same personage.

Jesus Christ prays to the Father as in Mark 14, why would he pray to himself?



This actually supports my claim that Jesus Christ and God's will may vary at times even when they are united in purpose.

Why in Matthew 3 does it say:




just for a couple refrences.

Only a complete misunderstanding of the Trinitarian doctrine could see in the passages you cite proof that the doctrine is false.

 

[athanasius]

But the canon of scripture changed many, many times even before the Protestant Reformation -- based on the councils you speak of. I guess that's because there was no more "Public Revelation" from God and as the centuries went by, different people were in charge of making the decisions. That doesn't sound much like the way God would work to me, but each to his own.

Actually, it doesn't. I mean you've explained what you believe pretty well, but I fail to see the logic behind it. You also neglected to explain how the canon came to be closed. If there was no more "public revelation" after the deaths of the Apostles, then how could God have revealed that He was done talking? Or maybe at a certain point, a council was called and everybody agreed that God hadn't been in touch lately and maybe it was time to say that He wasn't going to be any more.

The the Catholic church uses the Same canon it always has which has been set since the council of Rome in 382 A.D. under the decree of Pope Damasus I.If you do not believe me look up the decree of Pope Damasus. His decree on the canon was ratified again at the council of Hippo 393 and the council of carthage 397. The Canon was not any new revelation because it had already been delivered by the apostles Via ... apostolic tradition and was Infallibly decreed 1439 at the Council of Florence and ratified again at Council of Trent. The protestants changed their canon by throwing out 7 books from the old testament(The deutrocanonicals) that uncle Marty didn't like. But the Catholic canon was settled and has been the same since 382 A.D under the Pope of Rome. God through the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Blessed Trinity, does not give new public revelation that we need to hold to that is doctrinal. But God in our understanding does enlighten us and develop our understanding of already existing doctrines(delivered by Scripture and apostolic tradition) by the Power of the Holy Spirit and Virtue of his Authoritative Church through his councils. God is alive and active in his Church and he speaks infallibly through his Catholic church and her councils. So that is why we cannot ever accept the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith to be a real actual prophet of God. Rome has spoken the Case is Closed. Or should I say Jesus has spoken through Rome and her councils, the case is closed. Its really simple. any thing else or anyone else claiming another testamant or more public revelation is simply a false prophet and is slapping Jesus in the face because he denies the words his infallible church have already spoken(Lk 10:16). God does not change! Truth does not change! Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, Today, and always, and so is his truth he decrees. I hope that better helps you understand why we believe the way we do. Christ founded the Catholic Church to be the one true Church on earth and anything less is does not have the fullness of truth.

 

[Katzpur]

The Catholic church uses the Same canon it always has which has been set since the council of Rome in 382 A.D. under the decree of Pope Damasus I. If you do not believe me look up the decree of Pope Damasus. His decree on the canon was ratified again at the council of Hippo 393 and the council of Carthage 397.

So nearly 400 years after Christ, Rome finally got its act together. Well, I’m really impressed. And just where did that leave the Church prior to 382 A.D.?

Consider the fact that in 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Clearly the canon was in a state of flux for some fourteen or so generations after the deaths of the Apostles. What, may I ask, was the hold up?

The Canon was not any new revelation because it had already been delivered by the apostles Via ... apostolic tradition and was Infallibly decreed 1439 at the Council of Florence and ratified again at Council of Trent.

So when certain writings are authenticated and determined to have been inspired, and others determined, for whatever reason, not to qualify as scripture, this is not new revelation? It sure sounds like new revelation to me, unless you’re saying that the decision as to what to include in the canon was not inspired at all. If the canon was to include only the writings of the Apostles, and not even all of their works, why in Heaven’s name did it take 400 years for it to be finalized? Either the decision as to what would be included in the canon was divinely inspired or it wasn’t. If it was, it was by revelation that the decision was made. If it wasn’t – and I’m convinced that it wasn’t – then it’s easy to understand why the canon of 200 A.D. was so different from the canon of 400 A.D.

God is alive and active in his Church and he speaks infallibly through his Catholic church and her councils.

And it took Him nearly 400 years to do so. Oh, brother.

Rome has spoken the Case is Closed.

You have no idea how funny that sounds to a non-Catholic. The Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church has said so.

Or should I say Jesus has spoken through Rome and her councils, the case is closed.

No, actually, I think you should stick with your first statement. I don’t believe God the Father, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost to have been present at any of those councils. The case may be closed from your perspective, but not from mine.

Its really simple. any thing else or anyone else claiming another testamant or more public revelation is simply a false prophet and is slapping Jesus in the face because he denies the words his infallible church have already spoken(Lk 10:16).

Oh, so we’re going to start slinging the mud, huh? Now Joseph Smith is slapping Jesus in the face. Could you possibly have been less tactless?

God does not change! Truth does not change! Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, Today, and always, and so is his truth he decrees.

I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, somebody along the line managed to corrupt the truth to such an extent that God had to restore what had been lost.

I hope that better helps you understand why we believe the way we do. Christ founded the Catholic Church to be the one true Church on earth and anything less is does not have the fullness of truth.

Christ founded His Church all right, and it wasn’t the Catholic Church.

 

[dance-above]

I do believe there are some people in the world that knows the truth, I just dont believe its the LDS. I get a little suspecious, when, any one group tries to preach themselves. Christians are called christians because their faith is in Christ. Not because they believe they are the one true Church or the other flock.

 

[nutshell]

I do believe there are some people in the world that knows the truth, I just dont believe its the LDS. I get a little suspecious, when, any one group tries to preach themselves. Christians are called christians because their faith is in Christ. Not because they believe they are the one true Church or the other flock.

I feel the need to correct you.

LDS are Christians because their faith is in Christ - NOT because they believe they are the one true Church.

 

[dance-above]

I just want to say, you dont need my approval. Paul said there could be no other foandation laid except that of Christ and that one should beware how he built thereon.

 

[dance-above]

I just want to say, you dont need my approval. Paul said there could be no other foaundation laid except that of Christ and that one should beware how he built thereon.

 

[dance-above]

I feel the need to correct you.

LDS are Christians because their faith is in Christ - NOT because they believe they are the one true Church.

I feel the need to correct you,
They do believe they are the other Flock, just like JWs.