Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[tomspug]

I agree that it's about living in the Spirit NOW, but what is the result he tells us: that we are joint-heirs with Christ and will receive a glory that won't be taken away. I think it's speaking of what we do now and the result that is to come.

Obviously, we disagree. I think that you are jumping to a conclusion because you were told that it was so, not because it's apparent in the text. I'm just looking at the text and the way it reads.

As for the 1 Nephi 8 passage...

19 And I beheld a arod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.


20 And I also beheld a astrait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a bworld.


21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were apressing forward, that they might obtain the bpath which led unto the tree by which I stood.

22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.

23 And it came to pass that there arose a amist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were blost.

24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, aclinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the bfruit of the tree.


25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were aashamed.

26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the aother side of the river of water, a great and bspacious building; and it stood as it were in the cair, high above the earth.

27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the aattitude of bmocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

28 And after they had atasted of the fruit they were bashamed, because of those that were cscoffing at them; and they dfell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

29 And now I, Nephi, do not speak aall the words of my father.


Also this...
1 Nephi 13:26 And after they go forth by the ahand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews bunto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that cgreat and abominable dchurch, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have etaken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are fplain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

Seems to imply that the current Bible is somehow incomplete, corrupted. Do you believe that the modern Bible is incomplete?

 

[tomspug]

How do you know it means the end of the Bible? Revelation in particular? Perhaps God decided that any addition to Revelation with through Christianity into further confusion and that what was said, was enough.

I agree. I think that it was put at the end of Revelation to imply that nothing should be added to that particular book.

 

[McBell]

Do you believe that the modern Bible is incomplete?

i believe the Bible is an incomplete collection of Scripture.
Seems to me that Mormons do as well.
at least in theory

 

[nutshell]

Obviously, we disagree. I think that you are jumping to a conclusion because you were told that it was so, not because it's apparent in the text. I'm just looking at the text and the way it reads.

That's a bold assumption on your part. I was never told that it was so - I discovered it myself while reading and pondering the scriptures. To me, my interpretation is apparent in the text. As you said, we obviously disagree and I'm not sure we'll get much more constructive conversation on this point.

As for the 1 Nephi passage, I'll need to come back to that later as I have some work to do now. Thanks.

 

[madhatter85]

i believe the Bible is an incomplete collection of Scripture.
Seems to me that Mormons do as well.
at least in theory

yes, we do. Brigham Young taught that it was full of errors and mis-translations, missing portions among other things. But when Joseph Smith III got butthurt that he wasn't going to be the next prophet after Joseph Smith was martyred, he took all of the notes Joseph Smith was working on to restore the bible to it's correct, inspired form. He then created the "Community of Christ," an off-shoot of the LDS church.

Brigham Young was worried that people would see us as teaching from a Book we saw as flawed. He then made an official announcement after convening with the 12 apostles and much prayer that The King James Version of the Bible would "suit [his] purpose" and is good enough for now.

If we had retained all of Joseph Smith's notes and was able to compile the Jospeh smith Inspried Version, we would more than likely be using that today.

 

[tomspug]

So... Brigham Young rejected that part of the Book of Mormon?

 

[nutshell]

So... Brigham Young rejected that part of the Book of Mormon?

This post (again) shows your lack of understanding of things LDS. Madhatters post has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

 

[silvermoon383]

You might want to re-read your history Madhatter. Joseph Smith III did not start the Community of Christ (then known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), or any other church. And he didn't take his father's notes on the Inspired Version. Emma retained them because they were her husband's.

 

[madhatter85]

You might want to re-read your history Madhatter. Joseph Smith III did not start the Community of Christ (then known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), or any other church. And he didn't take his father's notes on the Inspired Version. Emma retained them because they were her husband's.

yeah you are right, i got my history all mixed up. Ha.....

Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tomspug]

OK, if my knowledge is wrong, then explain it to me. Otherwise it comes off like your insulting me for not being familiar with a religion I am not a part of.

 

[madhatter85]

OK, if my knowledge is wrong, then explain it to me. Otherwise it comes off like your insulting me for not being familiar with a religion I am not a part of.

we are not going to insult you for ignorance, but just for making ignorant statements.

I would suggest you go and do some research at some places liek

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , Mormon.org , Main Page - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki

if you would like to know more you can also locate your local missionaries and have them come over and teach you a little bit about it.

 

[nutshell]

OK, if my knowledge is wrong, then explain it to me. Otherwise it comes off like your insulting me for not being familiar with a religion I am not a part of.

I apologize. I'm wasn't trying to be insulting.

Madhatter's post was discussing the Bible (see his first paragraph or the Mestemia's post (the one madhatter was replying to)). Joseph Smith was in the process of doing an "inspired" translation of the Bible. When he died, his relatives took his manuscripts and split from the church, starting what eventually became known as The Community of Christ (previously, they were known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Brigham Young, without Joseph's manuscripts, stated that the King James Version would be good enough for the Church.

 

[tomspug]

It's not an ignorant statement if it was based on information I received from people posting on this topic. If I've brought something up, I've always posed it as a question, not as an ignorant statement.

I have another point that is more relevant to madhatter's original post. I think your frustration with Christianity not accepting the Book of Mormon comes from the nature of Mormonism itself. The church refers to itself as 'Latter-Day Saints', implying that there is a need for 'Latter-Day Saints'. What is the need? Well, the general impression that the Christian Church gets is that they are mistaken on a number of important Biblical issues (in other words, that their religion is not complete) and that the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, etc. helps to rectify that.

I think if you look at it from their perspective it is pretty easy to see why other Christian churches would have a problem with that whole idea. Imagine if someone came along saying they were a latter-day prophet for the LDS church and claimed that there were a huge number of errors in Joseph Smith's translation, pointing to an entirely different text as the solution.

Brigham Young, without Joseph's manuscripts, stated that the King James Version would be good enough for the Church.

Thank you for clarifying. My question would then be, if Joseph Smith felt it necessary to alter the Bible, why did Brigham Young abandon this and settle for a 'broken' bible? That was what I meant when I asked if Brigham Young was ignoring that part of 1 Nephi.

 

[nutshell]

Thank you for clarifying. My question would then be, if Joseph Smith felt it necessary to alter the Bible, why did Brigham Young abandon this and settle for a 'broken' bible? That was what I meant when I asked if Brigham Young was ignoring that part of 1 Nephi.

Well there's two answers:

The legal answer is that Brigham Young did not have any rights in what Joseph Smith was working on, Smith's family did. So, they weren't for Young to use.

The other answer is that neither Smith nor Young described the Bible as "broken." Smith used the King James Version, but was attempting to create a more correct version. If a person becomes better does that mean they were bad to begin with? Of course not. Good people make improvement to their lives all the time. The Bible was/is always good, Joseph was just trying to make it better.

 

[tomspug]

That's why the Christian church won't accept that (on topic for the second post in a row!). They beileve the Bible in its current form is infallible. See, people tried to 'improve' the Bible back in the early days of the church, which is how we got some weird ones like the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas.

The true church as a whole eventually organized the New Testament, focusing only on books that were written very near to the life of Christ (and did not claim a divine revelation of history) by people who were alive when Jesus was alive.

If I am coming from your perspective, I would be as frustrated as Madhatter because the general church STILL has not accepted the Book of Mormon as doctrine even though it's been around 150 years already. From your perspective, it's the perfect companion to the Bible. From our perspective, it's an attempt to change what has been accepted for almost the entirety of Christianity's existence.

I mean, how does the LDS Church feel about other 'latter day' religious texts like Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures. The Church of Christian Science also feels that they are improving on an imperfect book.

 

[Katzpur]

Also, anyone who quotes C.S.Lewis as supporting any LDS doctrine that differs from Christianity CLEARLY hasn't read very much C.S.Lewis.

Actually, entire books have been written on how many of C.S. Lewis' beliefs are similar to LDS beliefs. The particular quote I shared describes LDS doctrine perfectly. If you don't agree with it, that's fine with me, but I'll likely continue to quote Lewis since he's such a favorite of mine.

 

[Katzpur]

From your perspective, it's the perfect companion to the Bible. From our perspective, it's an attempt to change what has been accepted for almost the entirety of Christianity's existence.

That's true, tomspug. We're just looking at the book from a different point of view. But could you tell me, from your perspective, what biblical teachings you believe the Book of Mormon has changed?

 

[Katzpur]

we are not going to insult you for ignorance, but just for making ignorant statements.

Why insult him at all? Do you need to make someone else look bad in order to make yourself look good? I mean give the guy a chance, MH.

 

[lunamoth]

That's true, tomspug. We're just looking at the book from a different point of view. But could you tell me, from your perspective, what biblical teachings you believe the Book of Mormon has changed?

I have a lot of respect for LDS in general and you in particular Katz, but this is something that confuses me. On the one hand an LDS might say that the BoM has changed nothing from the teachings of the Bible, as you do above. But then that leads to the question, why does one even need the BoM if that's the case?

What new and necessary teachings do the BoM bring? And if they are new, are they not different from, or at least additional to, the teachings of the Bible?

 

[Scuba Pete]

What new and necessary teachings do the BoM bring? And if they are new, are they not different from, or at least additional to, the teachings of the Bible?

That kind of crystallizes the entire discussion for me. Good job!