Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[DeepShadow]

I already suggested "Mormon Doctrine" was Mormon doctrine, they say it ain't. And the Book of Abraham ain't on their list neither.

Yeah, I keep trying to tell Catholics that the Malleus Malifecarum is Catholic doctrine, but they don't believe me. What's with that?

Edit: The Book of Abraham is part of the Pearl of Great Price, and therefore fair game as part of the Standard Works. Please direct me to your discussion of it.

 

[Katzpur]

You asked me to show you where these things are taught in Mormon doctrine. Here are my references: I understand that you don't consider all that I reference as "offical" doctrine, however it is taught within the ranks of Mormonism.

Mormon Doctrine teaches that there are many Gods:
The Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

Mormon doctrine also teaches that Jesus became a God:
The Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

Mormon doctrine also teaches that God was not always God:
The Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).

You're quite the expert, aren't you? May I ask you something, reformed christian? How many times have you heard any of these things taught in an LDS worship service? Come to think of it, how many times have you attended an LDS worship service? That many, huh? Since I my baptism and confirmation as a member of the Church some 50+ years ago, I have attended close to 3000 LDS worship services. Now, what was it you were telling me about "Mormon" doctrine?

 

[DeepShadow]

Bruce R. McConkie's book "Mormon Doctrine" was indeed unfortunately titled. Darn the United States for letting an author name his own work! I think the solution is for me to publish a series of "doctrine" books: "Baptist Doctrine," "Catholic Doctrine," "Atheist Doctrine," etc. Then everyone else will have the same problem we do, and they can sound just as silly when they have to explain it.

 

[reformed christian]

Why are you getting so defensive? This is an open forum, isn't it? I am only responding to the question that was asked "Why don't Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as valid. I am explaining to you why I don't accept the Book of Mormon. I am in no way threatened by what the LDS Church teaches, however I do share with Mormons what I believe and why I believe it. My question to you is, why are you getting so defensive when someone responds to the posed question. Do you really want to know why? Please address the contridictions if you really want others to believe the BOM. Your baptism over 50 years ago does not impress me, nor does your many LDS messages that you have been exposed to. I test doctrine against what the Bible says and I find that the BOM doesn't measure up. I can give you many reasons why the BOM is not reliable. Do you want more?

 

[Bishka]

My question to you is, why are you getting so defensive when someone responds to the posed question.

You are telling us what we believe and teach. If someone told you that you believed that Jesus was a cannabilitistic homosexual, wouldn't you have a problem with that? You know what you believe and what's your doctrine and we know ours. You would think that the people who have grown up in the LDS Church and have deeply studies the doctrine know more about it then someone who thinks we are a cult.

Do not speak for us and we will not speak for you. Simple enough.

If you need examples:

I will show you where these things are taught in Mormon doctrine, but first let me ask you...

however it is taught within the ranks of Mormonism.

Mormon Doctrine teaches that there are many Gods

Mormon doctrine also teaches that God was not always God


These are only a few examples of where the Book of Mormon is not even consitent with Mormon doctrine.

Why else would we have an issue with your ridiculous posts? (Other then the plagiarism going on)

 

[reformed christian]

Deep Shaddow, Do you believe in the law of eternal progression?

 

[reformed christian]

Bishka, You say, "Don't speak for us and we will not speak for you." That is interesting, wasn't it Joesph Smith himself who said,

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.)

Those creeds that he called an abomination as the very beliefs that I hold to today. Now, who is attacking who?

 

[Katzpur]

Why are you getting so defensive?

I'm defensive when someone misrepresents my beliefs. Imagine that.

This is an open forum, isn't it? I am only responding to the question that was asked "Why don't Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as valid. I am explaining to you why I don't accept the Book of Mormon.

No, you're not. You're trying to interpret LDS doctrine by referring to non-canonical sources, and you're doing a lousy job of it.

I am in no way threatened by what the LDS Church teaches, however I do share with Mormons what I believe and why I believe it.

So far, I haven't heard much about what you believe -- unless you count telling us what you believe we believe. You've done a lot of that so far.

My question to you is, why are you getting so defensive when someone responds to the posed question. Do you really want to know why?

Actually, it wasn't my thread. I personally don't care why you don't believe the Book of Mormon. I just don't like the idea of your trying to tell me what I believe.

Please address the contridictions if you really want others to believe the BOM.

You don't get it, do you? Our canon is comprised of four books which we consider to be scripture: The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Your sources are not part of the canon.

Your baptism over 50 years ago does not impress me, nor does your many LDS messages that you have been exposed to.

Of course it doesn't. You'd rather cut and paste from some anti-Mormon website than listen to what someone who really knows what the Church teaches has to say about it.

I test doctrine against what the Bible says and I find that the BOM doesn't measure up.

Have at it then. Stick to the Bible and to official LDS doctrine (as listed above) and you'll find me a willing debater.

I can give you many reasons why the BOM is not reliable. Do you want more?

Not if what we've seen so far is your best work.

 

[DeepShadow]

Why are you getting so defensive?

You said something was Mormon doctrine, and it wasn't. We corrected you on that. Sure, we joked a little about it, because we've heard it before, and we can either laugh or cry that people still insist on telling us what we believe.

This is an open forum, isn't it? I am only responding to the question that was asked "Why don't Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as valid. I am explaining to you why I don't accept the Book of Mormon.

...You don't believe in the Book of Mormon because it contradicts things that aren't doctrine? Because it agrees more with the Bible than many of our non-doctrinal statements?

Your statements would make a great argument for believing in the Book of Mormon without being a Mormon. But they don't explain why you disbelieve in a book that--by your own admission--teaches Biblical doctrine.

I am in no way threatened by what the LDS Church teaches,

That statement would actually carry weight if you were actually quoting what we teach. As it is, I can only conclude that you are not threatened by things we...don't...teach...

however I do share with Mormons what I believe and why I believe it.

And you should! I encourage you to keep doing so. Frubals to you!

Please address the contridictions if you really want others to believe the BOM.

We don't believe those things. Doesn't that address it?

I test doctrine against what the Bible says and I find that the BOM doesn't measure up.

No THAT would have been a great argument for why you don't believe in the Book of Mormon. Why don't you make that post?

I can give you many reasons why the BOM is not reliable. Do you want more?

Well, it is the subject of the thread, so go right ahead!

 

[DeepShadow]

Deep Shaddow, Do you believe in the law of eternal progression?

Can you find it in the Standard Works?

(Does a quick search of "Eternal Progression" in the Standard Works)

I'm not finding it. Little help?

 

[DeepShadow]

Bishka, You say, "Don't speak for us and we will not speak for you." That is interesting, wasn't it Joesph Smith himself who said,

Those creeds that he called an abomination as the very beliefs that I hold to today. Now, who is attacking who?

Apparently, Jesus is "attacking" creeds. Apparently Paul had a few words to say about this in the Bible, something about people saying they were of Paul, or of Apollos, and so forth. Paul didn't think that was a good idea, and I agree with him.

 

[Francine]

Bruce R. McConkie's book "Mormon Doctrine" was indeed unfortunately titled. Darn the United States for letting an author name his own work! I think the solution is for me to publish a series of "doctrine" books: "Baptist Doctrine," "Catholic Doctrine," "Atheist Doctrine," etc. Then everyone else will have the same problem we do, and they can sound just as silly when they have to explain it.

Because it is so rare that doctrines are defined as dogma, which Catholics are obligated to believe, Catholics simply look for the nihil obstat and imprimatur when they purchase books. That means the book is judged by a bishop and/or his representative to be free from moral and theological error.

 

[reformed christian]

The one thing that we have in common is the Bible. We both consider the Bible to be Scripture so perhaps it is best for us to stick with it. Yes, it is true that I have not really shared with you what I believe, but I was distracted by answering what I understood your original question to be. So let me ask you this. I like to get quickly to what I consider to be an essential difference between what I understand Mormons to believe in and what I believe in. I have gathered my understanding by having over 40 LDS missionaries over to my house in the past several years. The main difference seems to be seen when you compare Eph 2:8-9

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

with 2 Nephi 25:23

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

They both sound very similiar, however the BOM includes a condition that I find to be unbiblical "after all we can do". When you include this condition, then it is no longer grace. Nothing that we do can save us. We are not saved by a single work of our own. God saves his people unconditionally. Does this make sense? Do you understand where I am coming from on this?

 

[DeepShadow]

I do, and I thank you for the desire to find common ground and work from there.

I can see why this BoM scripture is upsetting to you. Scripture, however, must be interpreted by people, and this scripture has multiple interpretations based upon the meaning of "after." It could mean what you take it to mean, or it could also mean, "in spite of." I believe the latter is more consistent with the Bible (and other Standard Works) and this interpretation is shared by many LDS church leaders and scholars.

Does this make sense to you, RC?

 

[Katzpur]

The one thing that we have in common is the Bible. We both consider the Bible to be Scripture so perhaps it is best for us to stick with it. Yes, it is true that I have not really shared with you what I believe, but I was distracted by answering what I understood your original question to be. So let me ask you this. I like to get quickly to what I consider to be an essential difference between what I understand Mormons to believe in and what I believe in. I have gathered my understanding by having over 40 LDS missionaries over to my house in the past several years. The main difference seems to be seen when you compare Eph 2:8-9 with 2 Nephi 25:23.

They both sound very similiar, however the BOM includes a condition that I find to be unbiblical "after all we can do". When you include this condition, then it is no longer grace. Nothing that we do can save us. We are not saved by a single work of our own. God saves his people unconditionally. Does this make sense? Do you understand where I am coming from on this?

Now we're getting somewhere. More tomorrow. It's getting late.

 

[DeepShadow]

Because it is so rare that doctrines are defined as dogma, which Catholics are obligated to believe, Catholics simply look for the nihil obstat and imprimatur when they purchase books. That means the book is judged by a bishop and/or his representative to be free from moral and theological error.

Mormons have a system, too, but people apparently don't believe us. Hence the frustration.

How do you think Catholics might respond if people insisted that some book without the nihil obstat and imprimatur was actually doctrine? I suggested the Malleus Malifecarum, but there are plenty of other examples.

 

[kadzbiz]

Why are you getting so defensive? This is an open forum, isn't it? I am only responding to the question that was asked "Why don't Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as valid. I am explaining to you why I don't accept the Book of Mormon. I am in no way threatened by what the LDS Church teaches, however I do share with Mormons what I believe and why I believe it. My question to you is, why are you getting so defensive when someone responds to the posed question. Do you really want to know why? Please address the contridictions if you really want others to believe the BOM. Your baptism over 50 years ago does not impress me, nor does your many LDS messages that you have been exposed to. I test doctrine against what the Bible says and I find that the BOM doesn't measure up. I can give you many reasons why the BOM is not reliable. Do you want more?

RC, note Katpur's post below. I get the impression you're not LDS either, or I am wrong?

Hey, kadzbiz and DreGod07...I just noticed that the two of you are posting in the Same-Faith-Debates forum. It really doesn't matter to me, but you may not have noticed that this is what you're doing. Since it's possible that someone will complain, you might want to reconsider before you post again.

 

[DeepShadow]

RC, note Katpur's post below. I get the impression you're not LDS either, or I am wrong?

No, but RC is Christian, and thus within the purview of the original post.

Hey, I don't make the rules, I just point them out. I liked your posts, if if makes any difference.

 

[nutshell]

Wow. I missed some excitement tonight. I think CARM has been sending in the troops recently.


So, dude, do you realize all that "Mormon doctrine" you posted is NOT in the LDS canon?

 

[Francine]

How do you think Catholics might respond if people insisted that some book without the nihil obstat and imprimatur was actually doctrine? I suggested the Malleus Malifecarum, but there are plenty of other examples.

Catholics are human, and there would be a variety of responses. This Catholic, however, would never resort to a personal attack, God willing.