Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[silvermoon383]

Well, 2 points:

1. The plates were never called gold, they were described as golden. The may not have been pure gold, but some alloy that looks like gold. Then of course, this is a minor quibble.

2. With the weight of gold, the only way the plates could have been too heavy for a person to carry is if they were a solid brick. They weren't. Thin metal plates connected by rings would have a lot of empty space, therefore reducing the overall weight. I've heard around that the plates were about 60 lbs, but I don't have any source handy for that. Hopefully someone can help me out there.

 

[sojourner]

That goes without saying, but who told them to?

No one "told them to." The Church, by consensus, agreed to close it.

First of all, sojourner, considering that you are a universalist, it would follow that the Bible and what's taught in it aren't necessary at all.

I'm universalist in terms of salvation. That stance is based upon compelling Biblical evidence. The Bible quite plainly teaches it.

If every human being who has ever lived is going to be saved regardless of what they say, do or believe, the Bible offers some good advice for those who are interested, but that's about all.

That's precisely what the Bible does. It offers help for those who are interested. It is a tool of the Church, by the Church, for the Church.

Second, your statement about "a certain group [who] wandered along and decided to open [the canon] again," is a pretty weak argument. If one group of Christians closed the canon without God's approval, another has ever right to re-open it without God's approval.

God's approval is implied in the very nature of the action. The council that closed it operated (as an approved unit of the Church) under the auspices of God, with God's guidance. Since the Church-at large has always considered it a "done deal," if a certain group decides to open it again, that's their business (and they may very well be operating under God's guidance, but that's not my particular call to make). But I don't have to agree with that group and, in fact, I do not.

On the other hand, If God did not approve the first action, He can start talking again any time He's so inclined.

But we believe and trust that God did.

That's the only thing you said that really made any sense.

Sure am sorry you feel that way.

 

[Katzpur]

No one "told them to." The Church, by consensus, agreed to close it.

I see that as a huge problem. To me, it sounds like the Church just decided that since God apparently not been in touch lately, it was time to say that He was done talking.

I'm universalist in terms of salvation. That stance is based upon compelling Biblical evidence. The Bible quite plainly teaches it.

I know that, just as you probably know I'm a 99.999% universalist. But that's beside the point here.

That's precisely what the Bible does. It offers help for those who are interested. It is a tool of the Church, by the Church, for the Church.

But since a person does not need to own, read, understand or belief the Bible, why is it really of any importance what the canon contains? That's my point.

God's approval is implied in the very nature of the action. The council that closed it operated (as an approved unit of the Church) under the auspices of God, with God's guidance. Since the Church-at large has always considered it a "done deal," if a certain group decides to open it again, that's their business (and they may very well be operating under God's guidance, but that's not my particular call to make). But I don't have to agree with that group and, in fact, I do not.

I realize that, in your mind, there is probably no contradiction between your first statement ("No one "told them to." The Church, by consensus, agreed to close it.") and your second ("The council that closed it operated under the auspices of God, with God's guidance."), but from where I sit, those two statements seem to be at odds with each other.

 

[sojourner]

To me, it sounds like the Church just decided that since God apparently not been in touch lately, it was time to say that He was done talking.

To me, it sounds like the Church needed a standard -- a starting place -- in order to deal with revelation. That's the Canon.

But that's beside the point here.

How is it beside the point? The Bible directly informed my stance. Therefore, the Bible is not superfluous -- it is central.

But since a person does not need to own, read, understand or belief the Bible, why is it really of any importance what the canon contains? That's my point.

Who says we don't need to do those things? The Bible is the standard and the ground for our theological development.

I realize that, in your mind, there is probably no contradiction between your first statement ("No one "told them to." The Church, by consensus, agreed to close it.") and your second ("The council that closed it operated under the auspices of God, with God's guidance."), but from where I sit, those two statements seem to be at odds with each other.

I don't think a voice from heaven spoke up and said, "Gentlemen, I have a little job for you. Here's what I want you to do, and here's how I want you to do it." I think the people of the Church have a much greater agency in the discernment and carrying out of what goes on. No contradiction.

 

[Jack89]

I personally do not accept the book of Mormon because i believe that the bible is a completed work. So no need for God to send more revelation

 

[Francine]

I personally do not accept the book of Mormon because i believe that the bible is a completed work. So no need for God to send more revelation

Rev 22:[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

 

[Scott C.]

Rev 22:[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

See my thread on "The meaning of Rev. 22:18".

 

[Francine]

Please note that every anti-Mormon person/site/book/pamphet/what-have-you states that they love Mormons.

So if someone says, "I love Mormons" RUN!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Katzpur]

So if someone says, "I love Mormons" RUN!!!!!!!!!!

Well, if they have to point it out, it's clearly not evident in their behavior. That's why I love St. Francis. Of course you're familiar with this statement attributed to him, but for those who aren't: “Preach the Gospel always and if necessary use words.”

 

[Sola'lor]

Well, if they have to point it out, it's clearly not evident in their behavior. That's why I love St. Francis. Of course you're familiar with this statement attributed to him, but for those who aren't: “Preach the Gospel always and if necessary use words.”

Oooh. That is a good quote!

 

[apologistndenton]

Why don't Christians accept the Book of Mormon to be true? It testifys of Christ our Savior, as the Messiah, the Great Mediator. And it's a solid Book, it has substance.

Solid book or not, that scarcely qualifies it as the Word of God, my friend.

You don't believe there is any way that Christ would have appeared to his "Sheep of another fold" (mentioned in the bible) in the americas after his ressurection. Or that Both God and Christ would appear to a modern day prophet.

I believe if He had planned on it, He would have told us of it in His Word/Bible, beforehand, as He did regarding His second coming, so that we would "Remember these things" and accept them when He did..which He did not.

 

[Starfish]

Solid book or not, that scarcely qualifies it as the Word of God, my friend.

I believe if He had planned on it, He would have told us of it in His Word/Bible, beforehand, as He did regarding His second coming, so that we would "Remember these things" and accept them when He did..which He did not.

Maybe he did. Do you think we have every word that Christ spoke, in the Bible?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

The problem with the Mormon church and it's book stems with the history of the Mormon church and Joseph Smith.

 

[rasor]

Why don't Christians accept the Book of Mormon to be true? It testifys of Christ our Savior, as the Messiah, the Great Mediator. And it's a solid Book, it has substance.

You don't believe there is any way that Christ would have appeared to his "Sheep of another fold" (mentioned in the bible) in the americas after his ressurection. Or that Both God and Christ would appear to a modern day prophet.

Yet, they believe that God, or even the "Mother Mary" would speak to 6 old women in Bosnia?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why you think the way you do.

Imagine that I tell you the following story:

• I was in my room one night.
• Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.
• Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.
• He tells me an amazing story.
• He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.
• On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.
• These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.
• Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.
• Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.
• Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.
• I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.
• And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!
• I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.

Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds nutty, doesn't it?

 

[DeepShadow]

Imagine that I tell you the following story:

• I was in my room one night.
• Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.
• Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.
• He tells me an amazing story.
• He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.
• On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.
• These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.
• Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.
• Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.
• Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.
• I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.
• And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!
• I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.

Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds nutty, doesn't it?

Yeah, almost as nutty as a virgin giving birth, a worldwide flood, a sea parting to form dry ground, or people spontaneously learning new languages. Go fig.

 

[rasor]

Yeah, almost as nutty as a virgin giving birth, a worldwide flood, a sea parting to form dry ground, or people spontaneously learning new languages. Go fig.

Yes,I quite agree with you.:yes:

 

[trinity2359]

Wow - do i feel like I'm late to the ball. I don't really have time to ready 84(!!!) pages, but thought the topic was interesting so I'll throw in my 2 cents.
I have read the BoM several times and actually thought I had a testimony once (hence the reason I actually became a Mormon), but I read an interesting book called "Modern Revelation" which was a third party translation of the Book of Mormon by a non-mormon who might have an agenda. I had a few missionaries check it out and found that it was a fair modern day language rendering of the Old Engligh. Well, I read that and my testimony went 'poof'. I seemed that the BoM needs to candence and high language to be able to pass itself off as scripture. Additionally, when you read such modern ideals as democracy, etc, you can see the 1800 time period having an infuence. So google the book if your interested. I'm happy to discuss more. *back to regular thread*

 

[Troublemane]

Jesrusalem was destroyed because of the wickedness of the people. Musilims and jews are not chrisitans. why would god continue to promise a land to someone when they reject Christ completely and insist on destroyign themselves?

First off, Jerusalem was destroyed not for wickedness (lest ye are a roman), it was destroyed by the Romans due to a Jewish revolt soon after the death of Christ. It has since been rebuilt, and you may not realize this but there are Christians living in Jerusalem today, and many holy places there relevant to Christians.

40 years before the Civil War, Joseph Smith prophesied of it in the Doctrine and Covenants. Aside from the wars we have brought on with ourselves (civil war ect...) there have been no battles that ensued on american soil. That was promsed in the Book of Mormon.

A promise not kept, remember 9-11?

Of course because they think that god will never reveal anything to them beyond christ. If thta is the case, why is there a pope? why are there religious leaders? if they cannot recieve any new revelation what is thier purpose?

The pope is there to preserve the faith the way it was originally intended, not to provide new scripture. Its why the Bible has not had any new books added in the last two millennia.

The Book of Mormon is not "Restoring Christianity" it is restoring the true nature and credentials for salvation, not only of people who are alive now, but also for those who have passed on.
alot of people believe the "Judgement" comes immediately after death. does it not say they in the bible that all mankind will be resurrected? How will mankind be resurrected if they are to burn in hell immediately after death?
It's actually the exact same as the "fallen angel" We believe Lucifer and Jesus both presented thier plans to Heavenly Father, and when Jesus' plan was selected Lucifer got butthurt and 1/3 of the hosts of heaven left with him when he was cast out. Lucifer and his followers can never attain a physical body and will be miserable forever because we chose to follow god and recieved something he can no loger attain. So, he wants to bring as many of us as he can with him to be cast into "Outer Darkness" after the Judgement.

An interesting take on the christian myth, but also still just myth. Mormonism if viewed like this, is just a commentary on the Bible. Take away all the scriptural commentary and its just Christianity but with "sacred underwear" as a free bonus.

The Jews are Christ's chosen people. Unfortunately they rejected him, so there was a need for another people to build his kingdom. We believe when he appears again, he will appear to the Jews first. And then sit at the throne of his Kingdom on Earth (The Kingdom the Latter-day Saints are building) to reign during the Millenium.

And the big problem here is if the USA is Gods new Holy Land, and the Mormons are Gods new chosen people, how come y'all cant even get Mitt Romney nominated to run for president? Doesnt sound like Gods being too supportive there.

 

[nutshell]

Wow - do i feel like I'm late to the ball. I don't really have time to ready 84(!!!) pages, but thought the topic was interesting so I'll throw in my 2 cents.
I have read the BoM several times and actually thought I had a testimony once (hence the reason I actually became a Mormon), but I read an interesting book called "Modern Revelation" which was a third party translation of the Book of Mormon by a non-mormon who might have an agenda. I had a few missionaries check it out and found that it was a fair modern day language rendering of the Old Engligh. Well, I read that and my testimony went 'poof'. I seemed that the BoM needs to candence and high language to be able to pass itself off as scripture. Additionally, when you read such modern ideals as democracy, etc, you can see the 1800 time period having an infuence. So google the book if your interested. I'm happy to discuss more. *back to regular thread*

How does a modern English adaptation by someone with an agenda make your testimony go "poof"? Wouldn't the result be the same if you read a modern English Bible? How and why is it different?

For those interested, here's a link to First Book of Nephi: http://www.mormonmyth.com/Images/PDFs/INephi.pdf

 

[DeepShadow]

And the big problem here is if the USA is Gods new Holy Land, and the Mormons are Gods new chosen people, how come y'all cant even get Mitt Romney nominated to run for president? Doesnt sound like Gods being too supportive there.

Does not follow. Many, many Mormons didn't support Mitt Romney's presidential bid. Myself included.