Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[Bishka]

See, I've got a major problem with that belief, and so does Jesus:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Mark 3:22-30[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons." 23 So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." 30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."


[/FONT] This is known as the only 'unforgivable' sin, to believe that any work of the Holy Spirit is an act of the Devil. If the Catholic Church is 'founded by the Devil', then you're going to have to explain why the 'Devil' has made one of the single, largest contributions of evangelism to the world. Even if you believe the church is corrupt now, it was founded by the original Roman church, which was persecuted and murdered for standing up for their faith. Not to mention if there wasn't a Catholic Church, we might not HAVE a Bible right now.

Like I said and you seem to miss. We're the Mormons, let us explain our own doctrine. You stick to yours.

 

[tomspug]

Like I said and you seem to miss. We're the Mormons, let us explain our own doctrine. You stick to yours.

Um, I'm responding to the topic. If you don't like it, don't post.

 

[namguy]

some Christians do believe in the Book of Mormon....
They are called Mormons.

Very much fewer Christians believe in the Koran.

Not all Christians believe in the Bible in the same way as each other.

None of this proves anything useful....if anything at all.

What we believe defines which religion or denomination we adhere to.

I am quite prepared to accept that people truly believe in their Holy Books.
and because of this I respect both them and the Books.

There's ONLY ONE HOLY BOOK, it's called the BIBLE......PERIOD.

 

[madhatter85]

There's ONLY ONE HOLY BOOK, it's called the BIBLE......PERIOD.

do you have any evidence to support your claims?

 

[Bishka]

Um, I'm responding to the topic. If you don't like it, don't post.

No you aren't.

You are trying to explain our doctrine when it's not yours.

 

[Bishka]

There's ONLY ONE HOLY BOOK, it's called the BIBLE......PERIOD.

Opinionally. Correct.

Factually. Wrong.

 

[nutshell]

What does 'joint heirs with Christ' mean? I've been in the church my whole life and have never heard of anything like that. Last time I knew, Christ sits alone on the right hand of God, and he never spoke once about 'inheritance'. I think I see the confusion, because the doctrine of the Trinity is that God and Jesus are the same person, not separate souls. Obviously our religions aren't exactly the same. If you say 'in the Bible', you'd should have a quote from the Bible as a source. That's apologetics 101.

You're right, I failed to quote the source. ROMANS 8:16-17, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

So you're saying that you don't believe any Christian denominations to fall into this category?

That's right. I don't believe specific Christian denominations are the great and abominable church referred to in the Book of Mormon. Rather, that evil church is made up of individuals who fight against Christ.

 

[nutshell]

See, I've got a major problem with that belief, and so does Jesus:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Mark 3:22-30[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] 22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons." 23 So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." 30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."[/FONT]


This is known as the only 'unforgivable' sin, to believe that any work of the Holy Spirit is an act of the Devil. If the Catholic Church is 'founded by the Devil', then you're going to have to explain why the 'Devil' has made one of the single, largest contributions of evangelism to the world. Even if you believe the church is corrupt now, it was founded by the original Roman church, which was persecuted and murdered for standing up for their faith. Not to mention if there wasn't a Catholic Church, we might not HAVE a Bible right now.

I'm sorry, but did you read the link??? The article argues why the LDS position is that the Catholic Church is NOT the great and abominable church referred to in the Book of Mormon. Either you didn't read it or you didn't read it carefully.

 

[tomspug]

No you aren't.

You are trying to explain our doctrine when it's not yours.

Oh, so you can quote the Bible, but I'm not allowed to quote the Book of Mormon? Well excuse me. I happen to disagree with your interpretation of Biblical scriptures. So I'll use your logic and say that you have no right to your own opinion.

I'll help you. This topic is about whether or not Christians should accept the Book of Mormon as an infallible text. I think I'm allowed to respond to that topic, thank you very much.

Seriously, I'm perfectly interested in having a discussion, but I'm not interested in being told not to talk, that only shows a lack of willingness on your part to admit that there is a discussion. Contrary to what you think, I'm not trying to define for you what you believe. I'm telling you what I have gotten from the Book of Mormon after reading it MYSELF. I'm sorry if it's different from what you believe, but that's the truth.

Now, back on topic. I apologize for not seeing the link. I just read what was in the quote box. So, I'm willing to accept your argument. However, I would like some clarification. If indeed the stance of the LDS church is that no Christian denominations fall into the church of Babylon, explain why the LDS church does not accept the teachings of those churches: for example, belief in the Trinity and the belief in the reincarnation of man ON EARTH rather than in 'heaven'?

 

[silvermoon383]

This topic is about whether or not Christians should accept the Book of Mormon as an infallible text.

We don't ask anyone to take the BoM as an infallible text. We don't even do that. In fact, the Book doesn't claim infallibility itself:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment–seat of Christ. -Title Page, last line

 

[tomspug]

We don't ask anyone to take the BoM as an infallible text. We don't even do that. In fact, the Book doesn't claim infallibility itself:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment–seat of Christ. -Title Page, last line

In other words, if complications arise in doctrine (like former beliefs that the Catholic Church was of Satan) they can be altered. Whereas the Bible has been proven to be almost completely unaltered in the course of its (much longer) lifespan.

How many times has the Book of Mormon been 'updated' in its 150 year lifespan?

 

[Katzpur]

Katz, I understand more clearly now were you are coming from. Again I am just trying to be bold and explain the Churches position. I am sorry if it seems hurtful to you.

Some people can be both bold and tactful. Others lack the ability. What more can I say?

I understand that you guys teach that our All other Christians especially the Catholic Church belong to apostate Churches(Hence you may think we are slapping Jesus in the face after all we are the great abomination teaches false things according to your tradition) and I do not get offended.

We don't single any denomination out as being "more apostate" than another, and it was specifically the creeds that were said to be "an abomination." Finally, we don't believe that any Church or any individual that teaches of Christ as our Savior is "slapping Him in the face." I cannot conceive of saying that about one of your Popes.

I am just trying to show you why Most devout Catholics who know their faith and live it well would have a real hard time accepting Joseph smith and the Book of Mormon. Because to us it is slapping Jesus in the face. I mean that s just what Jesus said himself basically. In LK 10:16 he tells his Church "He who hears you hears me but he who rejects you rejects me." Now If someone rejects the Churches teaching or declarations they Reject not just the Church but they reject Jesus himself, a serious sin. I equate this with slapping Jesus in the face. I am not saying that you do this. I do not think you do. I am saying that Joseph Smith sure did when he rejected the Christian Church, her councils and her teachings and began to claim extra or new revelation like the book of Mormon and water for communion.

Well, if that's what you mean, then we would see the situation as being reversed. We believe that the post-Apostolic Church did reject many of Jesus' teachings in favor of the philosophies of men.

The Catholic Church's doctrines do develop as the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church over the centuries and cause the Church to mature in her understanding of already existing revelation. Like a Acorn that develops into a oak tree all Catholic dogma is found either in Scripture or Apostolic Tradition in its full or root forms. No new revelation is given. We cannot ever change the Words or actions Jesus instructed us to do when he himself gave us the sacraments.. actions like Using Wine for the Eucharist. What we can change is practices. We can never change dogmas which are revelation from God. God's truth doesn't change.

I think you're starting to repeat yourself. We've already gone over this more than a few times.

I understand that you believe that LDs are Christians. But please understand that most of Christianity as a whole(Myself included and my church) does not consider them to be Christians.

What the hell difference does it make what you think. If God considers us to be Christians, your opinion hardly matters.

We do not consider the declarations given by the Pope to be prophesy or revelation. The Canon was given by God through the apostles. It was already apostolic revelation. We used already existing revelation in tradition and scripture figure this out. it was nothing new. some communities used these books other did not. we just needed a universal decree so one would finally know. And that is what happened. This is not revelation though in our eyes. The pope cannot come out and say things like "Lets use water and Pizza for the Eucharist" when our Lord already revealed that wine and bread is to be used. I hope that makes sense.

Yeah, it makes sense. If God were to speak to the Pope and tell him something, I suppose the Pope's reaction would be to say, "Who told you you could talk?"

That is why we believe Joseph Smith to be a lier and a false prophet and all the other books of scripture the LDS Church uses to be fictional at best.

And I guess in your next post, you're going to say something like, "Oh dear! I'm afraid I hurt your feelings. That wasn't my intention."

it is funny that you guys believed my church to totally apostate though because If it wasn't for the Catholic Church and her Infallible decrees on the new testament canon Joesph smith would not have had a new testament to call scripture. So on one hand you guys by even believing in the new testament canon that you do are picking fruit from a tree you didn't plant. And in your eyes your borrowing from a Apostate Church(US) their sacred Book and accepting thier decrees on the canon just as Joseph Smith did. Why would you guys do that?

Obviously, you don't understand what we mean when we use the word "apostate." We don't believe the Catholic Church was working under the direction of the Holy Ghost when it decided upon the canon. More importantly, we don't believe the Catholic Church held the authority necessary to make the decisions it did. On the other hand, we believe that the writings of the Apostles were inspired, as were the four gospels, so any decision to include them would have been entirely logical. Please note that I said it was "logical"; I didn't say it was due to inspiration or God-given authority. We To the extent that the biblical canon is complete and accurate, we accept it. We just don't reject other inspired writings, and find no biblical rationale for doing so.

why would Jesus let the Church Completely apostatize for 1800 years?

When might have been a good time for Him to restore it? During the Inquisition? Or maybe during the Crusades? Had Jesus decided to try to restore His Gospel at any other time or in any other place than when and where He did, the Prophet through whom He chose to restore it would have been deemed a heretic and killed by the authority of the Catholic Church.

So there were no Christians and no Christian Church until Joseph smith came around?

I never said that. Of course there were Christians. There has never been a time since Christ's ministry when there have not been Christians. Likewise, there were Christian Churches -- yours, for instance.

and Yet you borrow from the (Non-Christian-Apostate chruches) Bible canon all the time. That is not logical!

The Apostles were Christians, and they were not apostate. They wrote the scriptures we use. They belong to us as much as they belong to you. They're not yours to loan and there is no need for us to borrow them.

do you see the problem that I do with Joseph smiths logic?

Obviously not.

This I believe is why most educated Christian ministers at the time came down on Smith when he claimed this stuff. It just seems silly on a logical level That Smith would claim that stuff in light of history and the reasons I mentioned.

Given the fact that Paul prophesied both of an apostasy and of a restoration, it's the most logical thing imaginable.

 

[Katzpur]

What does 'joint heirs with Christ' mean? I've been in the church my whole life and have never heard of anything like that. Last time I knew, Christ sits alone on the right hand of God, and he never spoke once about 'inheritance'. I think I see the confusion, because the doctrine of the Trinity is that God and Jesus are the same person, not separate souls. Obviously our religions aren't exactly the same. If you say 'in the Bible', you'd should have a quote from the Bible as a source. That's apologetics 101. So you're saying that you don't believe any Christian denominations to fall into this category?

Through the scriptures, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations.

Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Revelation 2:26-27 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


1 Peter 5:4-6 specifically states, "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time."

The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology states, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

How familiar are you with the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis? His comments on men becoming gods could not possibly describe our position better than they do:

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

By the way, becoming like God is not the same thing as becoming God. Nobody will ever become God.

 

[Katzpur]

There's ONLY ONE HOLY BOOK, it's called the BIBLE......PERIOD.

And of course, this isn't just your opinion. It says so right there in the Bible, right? Uh... Refresh my memory. Tell me where I can find this taught in the Bible.

 

[farfignewton]

And of course, this isn't just your opinion. It says so right there in the Bible, right? Uh... Refresh my memory. Tell me where I can find this taught in the Bible.

Where is the traceable history in the BoM that you can find along side of the bible? Where are the pre Joseph Smith translations of the text? Why is it the only part of all the books written for the benifit of mankind that was kept in Gods graces for so long a time? Why would god remove the "golden tablets" after he translated them? Why would he deny humanity the proof of history that comes with the other testiments of Prophets? Why was Joseph Smith deemed a profit when all he did was translate, not write any words of his own?

 

[Katzpur]

If indeed the stance of the LDS church is that no Christian denominations fall into the church of Babylon, explain why the LDS church does not accept the teachings of those churches: for example, belief in the Trinity and the belief in the reincarnation of man ON EARTH rather than in 'heaven'?

Tom, we do not believe in the Trinity because we do not believe this doctrine was taught by either Jesus Christ or by His Apostles. The doctrine of the Trinity was established in 325 A.D. There is no indication whatsoever that any of Jesus' contemporaries believed that He, His Father, and the Holy Ghost were all a part of a single indivisible substance. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the reincarnation of man." We don't believe in "reincarnation" at all. We do believe in a literal resurrection of all who have ever lived. We believe that when Christ returns to begin His millennial reign, the Earth will be renewed and will receive its paradisiacal glory.

 

[nutshell]

tomspug, are you going to respond to my posts?

 

[Katzpur]

In other words, if complications arise in doctrine (like former beliefs that the Catholic Church was of Satan) they can be altered.

The Book of Mormon has never stated that the Catholic Church was of Satan. Go back to the 1830 edition if you don't believe me.

Whereas the Bible has been proven to be almost completely unaltered in the course of its (much longer) lifespan.

We don't have a single solitary one of the original documents from which any of the books in the Bible originated. The oldest documents we have now are copies of copies of copies of copies. You clearly have no idea how many times the biblical canon has changed over the years or how many hundreds of different English translations there are. (When I say "the biblical canon" I am referring to which books were included and which were excluded. The canon has been revised multiple time. I can give you more detail if you'd like.)

How many times has the Book of Mormon been 'updated' in its 150 year lifespan?

There have been several different editions, but the vast majority of the changes were to make it more readable, etc. For instance the first edition didn't even have chapters and verses. These were added later on. With the exception of changes to punctuation and spelling, there have been hardly any changes at all.

 

[farfignewton]

Tom, we do not believe in the Trinity because we do not believe this doctrine was taught by either Jesus Christ or by His Apostles. The doctrine of the Trinity was established in 325 A.D. There is no indication whatsoever that any of Jesus' contemporaries believed that He, His Father, and the Holy Ghost were all a part of a single indivisible substance. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the reincarnation of man." We don't believe in "reincarnation" at all. We do believe in a literal resurrection of all who have ever lived. We believe that when Christ returns to begin His millennial reign, the Earth will be renewed and will receive its paradisiacal glory.

you must have a diffrent bible that I have.

Mathew 28
18. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

[Katzpur]

Where is the traceable history in the BoM that you can find along side of the bible?

I'm sorry Fig (I like your name, by the way) but I don't understand your question.

Where are the pre Joseph Smith translations of the text?

There aren't any. Joseph Smith's was the first translation.

Why is it the only part of all the books written for the benifit of mankind that was kept in Gods graces for so long a time?

When do you suggest would have been a good time and place for God to have made them available. What do you think would have happened if God had brought forth this work in medieval Europe? For starters, the vast, vast majority of people were illiterate. There was no freedom of religion. 1830 was the right time, and American was the right place. It simply couldn't have happened at any other time or place.

Why would god remove the "golden tablets" after he translated them?

That's hard to say for sure. Given the fact that Joseph Smith's enemies would have been willing to kill him to get them, it's understandable that God would want to keep them safe.

Why would he deny humanity the proof of history that comes with the other testiments of Prophets?

Well, since we only have copies of the Apostles words today and none of their original writings, one might ask the same thing about the books of the Bible. There is really no "proof" that the words that are in our Bible are the words penned by the ancient prophets and apostles. Why weren't the tablets upon which the Ten Commandments inscribed safeguarded? Surely they would be of interest to milliions today. Maybe it's because, like Jesus said to Thomas, "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Why was Joseph Smith deemed a profit when all he did was translate, not write any words of his own?

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. We have another entirely separate volume of scripture called the "Doctrine and Covenants." It is almost entirely comprised of Joseph Smith's revelations.