Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[Scuba Pete]

Why insult him at all?

This is why you are one of my favorite people!

 

[tomspug]

Good call. I mean, that's kind of what I was getting at. I thought the reason there WAS a Book of Mormon in the first place was because the Bible wasn't ENOUGH.

And I won't disagree with you about C.S.Lewis. After all, Christianity and Mormonism are pretty similar.

 

[Katzpur]

I have a lot of respect for LDS in general and you in particular Katz...

Thank you, Luna!

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?

Well, let me put it this way. I can't think of a single solitary verse in the Book of Mormon that contradicts a single solitary verse in the Bible. The Book of Mormon does clarify or shed new light on doctrines that are alluded to but not elaborated upon in the Bible. Some people assume that these teachings are an attempt to change the teachings of the Bible when, in fact, they're not at all. I suppose you might compare the Bible to a high school biology textbook and the Book of Mormon to a college biology textbook. Of course that would imply that the Book of Mormon is more difficult to read and understand, which I don't believe to be the case. You'll agree, though, that a college biology textbook covers the same material in greater depth and, while it does not contradict the high school textbook, it contains additional material which is useful to know.

As to why one needs the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon itself states that its purpose is "...to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations..." We have in the Bible four gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry. Each of them contains some repetetive material and some material that is entirely unique. The Book of Mormon is much like a fifth gospel account, except that it testifies of Jesus' ministry to another group of the house of Israel who were living on the other side of the world. It's simply another witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ and His role as Savior of the World. Its purpose is to provide another record to support the one provided by the Bible.

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?

Most of the "new" teachings of Mormonism are actually found not in the Book of Mormon but in the Doctrine and Covenants. This is not a translated record of an ancient text, but God's revelations to Joseph Smith (primarily). It restores doctrines that we believe to have been lost from Christianity during the early centuries of its existance. Among them would be the concept of a pre-mortal existance of all human beings and a Heaven that is divided into three major "degrees of glory." We believe these teachings to be briefly mentioned in the Bible, but further developed through latter-day revelation to living prophets.

 

[lunamoth]

Thank you, Luna!

Well, let me put it this way. I can't think of a single solitary verse in the Book of Mormon that contradicts a single solitary verse in the Bible. The Book of Mormon does clarify or shed new light on doctrines that are alluded to but not elaborated upon in the Bible. Some people assume that these teachings are an attempt to change the teachings of the Bible when, in fact, they're not at all. I suppose you might compare the Bible to a high school biology textbook and the Book of Mormon to a college biology textbook. Of course that would imply that the Book of Mormon is more difficult to read and understand, which I don't believe to be the case. You'll agree, though, that a college biology textbook covers the same material in greater depth and, while it does not contradict the high school textbook, it contains additional material which is useful to know.

As to why one needs the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon itself states that its purpose is "...to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations..." We have in the Bible four gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry. Each of them contains some repetetive material and some material that is entirely unique. The Book of Mormon is much like a fifth gospel account, except that it testifies of Jesus' ministry to another group of the house of Israel who were living on the other side of the world. It's simply another witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ and His role as Savior of the World. Its purpose is to provide another record to support the one provided by the Bible.

Most of the "new" teachings of Mormonism are actually found not in the Book of Mormon but in the Doctrine and Covenants. This is not a translated record of an ancient text, but God's revelations to Joseph Smith (primarily). It restores doctrines that we believe to have been lost from Christianity during the early centuries of its existance. Among them would be the concept of a pre-mortal existance of all human beings and a Heaven that is divided into three major "degrees of glory." We believe these teachings to be briefly mentioned in the Bible, but further developed through latter-day revelation to living prophets.

Thank you Katz, that all makes sense and it does explain why the BoM might be interesting to Christians, but I don't think it really makes a case that Christians need the BoM. After all, we're already convinced that " ...Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations..." I've not read it and I probably should, and am more interested in doing so the way you've presented your case here.

However, it seems from what you've said that it is the revelation to Joseph Smith that really adds new beliefs to the LDS religion. To answer the question you asked tomspug (if that's OK), I think that LDS interprets the Bible differently than traditional Christianity. Christianity itself adds new nuances and meanings to the OT writings (which IMO does not at all invalidate Jewish interpretations of the same scriptures), and the Baha'i Faith also says that it is consistent with the Bible, and it is if one interprets things vastly differently than either traditional Christianity or LDS. Same with the JWs, although I think they also actaully change some of the text of the Bible in the NWT.

 

[madhatter85]

(Cheers for Kaztpur)

 

[nutshell]

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.

Well, I'm not frustrated like Madhatter. Everyone makes their own decisions as to why they may or may not accept the Book of Mormon.

But, from my perspective, the Book of Mormon isn't a change - it's an affirmation.

 

[FFH]

Well, I'm not frustrated like Madhatter. Everyone makes their own decisions as to why they may or may not accept the Book of Mormon.

But, from my perspective, the Book of Mormon isn't a change - it's an affirmation.

Wow, great, exactly...

 

[tomspug]

You could make the same argument for any non-Biblical text. In order for that sort of claim to be valid, you have to explain WHY the Book of Mormon is an improvement or elaboration of the Bible. It's not enough to just say that it is.

I think it would be more helpful to be more specific in your explanations in this way. You are making the argument that the Bible is 'something' but not saying what parts. You are saying that the Book of Mormon is 'something' but not saying what makes it that.

It would improve your arguments from being simple contradictions.

 

[madhatter85]

Well, I'm not frustrated like Madhatter. Everyone makes their own decisions as to why they may or may not accept the Book of Mormon.

But, from my perspective, the Book of Mormon isn't a change - it's an affirmation.

Yeah, that's a good way to put it. Except the bit about me being frustrated. how am i frustrated again?

 

[tomspug]

Ah, I was referring to the fact that you started this topic. Perhaps frustration was too harsh a word, maybe... confused? Baffled? Bamboozled?

 

[nutshell]

You could make the same argument for any non-Biblical text. In order for that sort of claim to be valid, you have to explain WHY the Book of Mormon is an improvement or elaboration of the Bible. It's not enough to just say that it is.

That's right. Anyone could make the same argument - "x" affirms the Bible. However, you next assert than an explanation is required to validate why "x" is an improvement or elaboration of the Bible. I don't believe I claimed either. I stated that the Book of Mormon is an affirmation of the Bible. Wiki defines "affirmation" as a "declaration that something is true." That means I'm not claiming the Book of Mormon changed the Bible or improved the Bible or elaborated the Bible. Rather, I'm stating that the Book of Mormon declares the Bible to be true. I believe the Bible exists to testify of Christ and bring people to Him. The Book of Mormon affirms this by offering the same: Christ is the Son of God and those who believe will be saved.

I think it would be more helpful to be more specific in your explanations in this way. You are making the argument that the Bible is 'something' but not saying what parts. You are saying that the Book of Mormon is 'something' but not saying what makes it that.

It would improve your arguments from being simple contradictions.

I hope my comments above satisfy you. And I hope you too will offer more than a simple contradiction. Thanks.

 

[madhatter85]

Ah, I was referring to the fact that you started this topic. Perhaps frustration was too harsh a word, maybe... confused? Baffled? Bamboozled?

a little confused as to why people reject a book that affirms the Bible. That was given through the hands of his prophet in this, the final dispensation of the fullness of times.

 

[nutshell]

a little confused as to why people reject a book that affirms the Bible. That was given through the hands of his prophet in this, the final dispensation of the fullness of times.

The Qu'ran affirms the Bible and was given through the hands of his prophet in this, the final dispensation of the fullness of times.


See the problem?

 

[tomspug]

Yeah, because the Qu'ran doesn't affirm the Bible in that the Islamic religion accepts Jesus only as a prophet. Now you're starting to sound like a universalist.

You keep saying that the Book of Mormon doesn't actually ADD anything to the Bible, well then what's the bloody point? I still don't understand why NOBODY is answering that question. IS there an answer to that question?

I'll bring it up then, does the LDS Church believe in these BIBLICAL principles: the Trinity, the existence of only ONE God for all time, and the power of the resurrection to remove all sin?

 

[madhatter85]

You keep saying that the Book of Mormon doesn't actually ADD anything to the Bible, well then what's the bloody point? I still don't understand why NOBODY is answering that question. IS there an answer to that question?

the point is many important truths were lost during the Apostasy, a reformation would not have worked, a Restoration is the only way for it to have happened.

The Book of mormon does two things, It provides mroe evidence to the Divinity of Christ and his teachings, expounds upon things like the Atonement and Foreordination, the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to be another testament of Jesus Christ. It was preserved for these last days to let the world know that the Bible is True, and that the truth has been restored.

I'll bring it up then, does the LDS Church believe in these BIBLICAL principles: the Trinity, the existence of only ONE God for all time, and the power of the resurrection to remove all sin?

Tthe trinity is not a biblical princpial. I would liek you to point out biblically where it states there is such a thing as a Trinity when i have more than enough proof (Biblically) to the contrary.

Our Father in Heaven, God, is our only God, he is the creator of our spirits and we worship him and him only. We believe he has a body of flesh and Bone that is perfected and glorified. Along with Jesus Christ, who was also resurrected and has a perfected Physical body of Flesh and Bone.

The Ressurection does not remove sin, Repentance and the power of the Holy Ghost through the Grace of our Savior Jesus Christ Removes sin. Ressurection is the free gift to every one of us who has ever been born on this earth.

 

[nutshell]

Yeah, because the Qu'ran doesn't affirm the Bible in that the Islamic religion accepts Jesus only as a prophet. Now you're starting to sound like a universalist.

My comment to Madhatter was for demonstrative purposes only. I know the Qu'ran doesn't affirm the Bible.

You keep saying that the Book of Mormon doesn't actually ADD anything to the Bible, well then what's the bloody point? I still don't understand why NOBODY is answering that question. IS there an answer to that question?

I did answer that question in my previous post to you. The point is it affirms the Bible by testifying of Christ. The real question is: Will you continue to ignore my answers???

I'll bring it up then, does the LDS Church believe in these BIBLICAL principles: the Trinity, the existence of only ONE God for all time, and the power of the resurrection to remove all sin?

LDS believe in the Godhead - a different interpretation of the Bible than the Trinity. But make no mistake, the LDS belief is Bible-based.

ONE God for all time? Yes.

As for the resurrection, we believe that to be the reunion of our spiritual and physical bodies in perfect form. (again - from the Bible)

 

[tomspug]

the point is many important truths were lost during the Apostasy

What I'm trying to ask you (and why I keep getting frustrated) is that you are not saying what those things are. You say 'many' important truths. What are they?

Also, Trinity? Not in the Bible? I am interested in this debate.

Matthew 28:16 - 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,

Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel, which means 'God with us'.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 10:30 - "I and the Father are One."

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Acts 5:3,4 -[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]5:4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." [/FONT]

Not to mention that Jesus claimed that he WAS God. His disciples called him GOD. And He sits on the RIGHTHAND OF THE FATHER. Why would John say that the Word became flesh if Jesus wasn't God? In fact, if Jesus wasn't God, how would the sacrifice of his death be any different from any other blood offering in the Old Testament?

The Bible is also littered with nearly a hundred specific statements that there is only ONE GOD, that no one is above him, that there has never been anyone like him. It's pretty clear that there is only one God in the Bible. And if Jesus was claiming to be God, he was not claiming to be 'another God', but the same God. If he meant otherwise, he would have clarified himself more.

 

[tomspug]

The Ressurection does not remove sin, Repentance and the power of the Holy Ghost through the Grace of our Savior Jesus Christ Removes sin. Ressurection is the free gift to every one of us who has ever been born on this earth.

Woah, woah, woah. Speak to Paul about that claim.

20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

What Paul is explaining to the Romans is that the resurrection frees us from sin. It is the atonement of Christ's blood which frees us. All we have to do is accept this and we are free from death forever.

Repentance is a one-time thing, guys. That's what the Bible explains. Therefore, the resurrection DOES remove sin in the same way that a burnt offering in the Old Testament removed sin, but because Christ ROSE FROM THE DEAD, death itself was defeated.

 

[madhatter85]

Also, Trinity? Not in the Bible? I am interested in this debate.

Not to mention that Jesus claimed that he WAS God. His disciples called him GOD. And He sits on the RIGHTHAND OF THE FATHER. Why would John say that the Word became flesh if Jesus wasn't God? In fact, if Jesus wasn't God, how would the sacrifice of his death be any different from any other blood offering in the Old Testament?

The Bible is also littered with nearly a hundred specific statements that there is only ONE GOD, that no one is above him, that there has never been anyone like him. It's pretty clear that there is only one God in the Bible. And if Jesus was claiming to be God, he was not claiming to be 'another God', but the same God. If he meant otherwise, he would have clarified himself more.

please refer to this thread for that debate.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...chrisitans-trinity-vs-godhead-justice-vs.html

What I'm trying to ask you (and why I keep getting frustrated) is that you are not saying what those things are. You say 'many' important truths. What are they?

the purpose of the Atonement. (mentioned almost 40 times in the Book of Mormon, when in the Bible the word Atonement appears once).

The fall of Adam being nessicary, the proper structure of Christ's church. The fact that none of Christ's leaders were paid to be clergy, they were called, they had thier own jobs, Even Jesus Christ had his own job, he was a carpenter. he worked for a living, he didn't ask anyone for money so he could quit his job and be a minister.

The Nature of God, and the purpose of the Holy Ghost.

The nature and purpose of Baptism and infant baptisms being an "evil abomination" - (i hope the catholics don't get offended, it happens to be in the Book of Mormon in Moroni Chapter 8)

The degrees of glory in heaven,

The reality of Satan and his power and works.

want me to keep going?

 

[madhatter85]

Woah, woah, woah. Speak to Paul about that claim.

What Paul is explaining to the Romans is that the resurrection frees us from sin. It is the atonement of Christ's blood which frees us. All we have to do is accept this and we are free from death forever.

Repentance is a one-time thing, guys. That's what the Bible explains. Therefore, the resurrection DOES remove sin in the same way that a burnt offering in the Old Testament removed sin, but because Christ ROSE FROM THE DEAD, death itself was defeated.

you have it backwards Christ's Blood frees us from sin. Christ's Ressurection freed us from the bonds of death. he took up his own body so that we way live again.


also....according to you.... if you repent of a sin, then you can go do it again but you don't have to worry because you already said Sorry?