Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

This thread is in the Same Faith Debates forum. Please do not post here if you do not identify yourself as a Christian. Some posts have been removed.

Thanks,
A_E

 

[DeepShadow]

True, as soon as you back them into a corner and thier "book" cant explain the obvious fallices, they cry "foul"!!!:sad4:

Likewise, people claim the BoM is an obvious fraud, and I present poetry, names, dates, and other data that were not known in the time of Joseph Smith. I use peer-reviewed sources, and people cry "foul."

Point me to the thread, if you really want to address these.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Likewise, people claim the BoM is an obvious fraud, and I present poetry, names, dates, and other data that were not known in the time of Joseph Smith. I use peer-reviewed sources, and people cry "foul."

Point me to the thread, if you really want to address these.

Try here - Does anyone really think the book of mormon is compatible with the bible?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So are you still a Christian, Rolling_Stone? I forget.

I guess you might say I'm Christian in the same way early Christianity was regarded as a kind of Judaism. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of Christ's divinity although I lean to The URANTIA Book's version, but I do have serious problems with the concept of atonement.

I especially appreciate Trinitarianism, as contemplating on it has given me a new appreciation of not only my commitment to the Father, but my relationship with Him.

 

[Starfish]

My profound apologies for popping in here and risking repetition.
Has any non-LDS Christian ever stated that the actual teachings of the BoM are objectionable? I mean, take Joseph Smith, the vision, the LDS Church and all that, out of the mix-- is the content of the book a problem, and why? (I think that was the original question of the OP . . . did it get an answer?)

 

[trinity2359]

The problem is that there is actually very little doctrine in the Book of Mormon. Many of the particular beliefs of the Mormon faith are not found in the book: Word of Wisdom, Eternal Marriage, Temple Endowments, exaltation, etc. are from the Doctrine & Convenants or Pearl of Great Price (pre-mortal life). The Book of Mormon has wonderful passages on faith (Alma) and on Jesus Christ as the promised Savior, but mostly its a "history" book with some regulations tacked on for good measure (reject infant baptism, elder ordination, sacrament prayers and the like found in Moroni, I think?)

 

[Katzpur]

The problem is that there is actually very little doctrine in the Book of Mormon. Many of the particular beliefs of the Mormon faith are not found in the book: Word of Wisdom, Eternal Marriage, Temple Endowments, exaltation, etc. are from the Doctrine & Convenants. The Book of Mormon has wonderful passages on faith (Alma) and on Jesus Christ as the promised Savior, but mostly its a "history" book with some regulations tacked on for good measure (reject infant baptism, elder ordination, sacrament prayers and the like found in Moroni, I think?)

I think you're right about that. As "another testament of Jesus Christ," it's a great book. As a source of doctrinal information, the D&C is considerably more comprehensive.

 

[Katzpur]

Secondly, haven't one or more of the witnesses that saw the Golden Plates recanted their stories.

Not a single one. Several parted ways with Joseph Smith and, in fact, became his bitter enemies, but none of them ever denied having seen the plates.

 

[Starfish]

The problem is that there is actually very little doctrine in the Book of Mormon. Many of the particular beliefs of the Mormon faith are not found in the book: Word of Wisdom, Eternal Marriage, Temple Endowments, exaltation, etc. are from the Doctrine & Convenants or Pearl of Great Price (pre-mortal life). The Book of Mormon has wonderful passages on faith (Alma) and on Jesus Christ as the promised Savior, but mostly its a "history" book with some regulations tacked on for good measure (reject infant baptism, elder ordination, sacrament prayers and the like found in Moroni, I think?)

So why do other religions object to it? Is it just our explanation of how we acquired it?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Not a single one. Several parted ways with Joseph Smith and, in fact, became his bitter enemies, but none of them ever denied having seen the plates.

Who where the departed people that witnessed the golden plates? I've been curious about this for some time now and have only come up w/Martin Harris.

 

[thorman]

I have read the BoM many times since I received my first copy five years ago and one of the main reasons that I can't accept it as true is that it contradicts the Bible in at least two places that I found. In Alma 7 it is stated that Christ would be born in Jerusalem while both Micha 5:2 says Bethlehem and Matthew 2:1 records it as true. The one other place that I found was in Moroni 8:8 which says "little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me" Psalm 51:5 says "I was brought forth in iniquity..." and Romans 3:10"none is righteous".

 

[Starfish]

I have read the BoM many times since I received my first copy five years ago and one of the main reasons that I can't accept it as true is that it contradicts the Bible in at least two places that I found. In Alma 7 it is stated that Christ would be born in Jerusalem while both Micha 5:2 says Bethlehem and Matthew 2:1 records it as true. The one other place that I found was in Moroni 8:8 which says "little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me" Psalm 51:5 says "I was brought forth in iniquity..." and Romans 3:10"none is righteous".

Thanks thorman,
It's interesting to me that the Jerusalem/Bethlehem issue IS an issue. Everybody knows Christ was born in Bethlehem. Joseph Smith must have know it too. So why would he make such a silly mistake--one so easy to fix, if he was the author? It seems like another evidence that he didn't make it up.
The Bible calls Jerusalem and Bethlehem both the "City of David". (2Kings 14:20,& Luke 2:4) They were only 7 miles apart. This just doesn't seem like a big deal. But I respect your point of view.

As far as the children thing. I could get into a doctrinal debate, but to be totally honest, if you could choose between little children being innocent in Christ or being born unrighteous--which FEELS right?

Sorry, I didn't mean to debate. Couldn't resist. Thanks so much for your reply above.

 

[Katzpur]

Hello, thorman.

I have read the BoM many times since I received my first copy five years ago and one of the main reasons that I can't accept it as true is that it contradicts the Bible in at least two places that I found. In Alma 7 it is stated that Christ would be born in Jerusalem while both Micha 5:2 says Bethlehem and Matthew 2:1 records it as true.

Here is something you might find interesting:

Like Christians everywhere, we believe that Jesus Christ was born in the small middle-eastern village of Bethlehem. However, the Book of Mormon states:

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." (Alma 7:10)

At first glance, it appears that we have a pretty significant contradiction on our hands. A closer look, however, reveals that this is not the case at all. In his prophecy concerning the coming of a Savior, the ancient American prophet Alma refers to Jerusalem as "the land of our forefathers," and said that Jesus Christ would be born in this land. Considering the fact that Bethlehem is, in fact, a suburb of the city of Jerusalem (roughly 5 miles away from the city itself), his choice of words makes perfect sense. If an individual today lived in a small suburb of Los Angeles, and were asked where he was from, he might very well answer, "I'm from L.A." No one would accuse him of lying or even of stretching the truth a bit.

In recent years, archeological findings have proven especially interesting as they relate to Joseph's translation of the plates. For instance, two non-LDS scholars (I point this out only because it seems this makes a great deal of difference to some people), Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, discuss an example of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" in the Dead Sea Scrolls in their book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. They write that the use of this phrase "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs" In other words, not only was the city of Jerusalem referred to in this way, but the entire surrounding area. Thus, what was known as "the land of Judah" was also known as "the land of Jerusalem."

Use of that phrase was utterly illogical for Joseph Smith, who published the Book of Mormon over a century before the Dead Sea Scrolls were even discovered. As a matter of fact, I imagine that he might very well questioned the translation when it came to him. After all, even a school child in 1830 would have known better than to say that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Obviously, Joseph would have been very much aware of the supposed "blunder" he was making in translating the text according to what he knew it actually said.

Once again, what for years was considered yet another "proof" that the Book of Mormon was a fraud now can be added to the ever-growing list of evidences that it is exactly what it purports to be.

The one other place that I found was in Moroni 8:8 which says "little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me" Psalm 51:5 says "I was brought forth in iniquity..." and Romans 3:10"none is righteous".

I think that this "contradition" is more a matter of a difference in interpretation than anything else. I know a great many Christians who do not accept the doctrine of Original Sin. Consider this verse from the Book of Mormon, as I believe it's important to our understanding:

Mosiah 3:19 "For thenatural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off thenatural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

We believe that, as Adam's descendants, we inherited his "human nature" and that this human nature is to be "an enemy to God." We also believe that "all have sinned" as we are told in Romans, but we interpret this as meaning that once a person has reached a level of maturity, knowledge and understanding that it is possible for him to be able to distinguish between right and wrong, he will inevitably make choices that are counter to God's commandments. In other words, he wil sin. There are no exceptions to this statement. There is no man or woman who has ever lived (aside from Jesus Christ, of course) who has not sinned. There is not one of us who is in a position to be able to save ourselves. Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sins just as He atoned for the sins of each and every one who will accept Him as their Savior. That's why we don't believe that God would punish a tiny baby for something that Adam did. We believe that we become sinners by sinning -- not by merely being born.

Thank you, by the way, for your kind comments on the "Mormon Bashing" forum. I am looking forward to a continued good relationship with you, and welcome you to RF.

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry, I didn't mean to debate. Couldn't resist.

It's a debate forum, Starfish. What do you think it's for? Debate needn't be a synonym for fighting.

 

[Starfish]

It's a debate forum, Starfish. What do you think it's for? Debate needn't be a synonym for fighting.

(Yea, I figured since this thread is a gazillion posts long, most of these subjects have already been covered. Didn't want to be a boring repeat and I'm too lazy to read the whole thing.)

 

[thorman]

I appreciate the feedback. The other problem that I have with LDS scriptures is that they contradict each other. In The Pearl of Great Price Moses 2:1 God says "I am the Beginning and the End, The Almighty God; by mine only begotten I created these things; yea in the beinning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest." while in Abraham 4:1 "And then the Lord said: let us go down. And they went down at the beginning and they, that is the Gods organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Also Joseph Smith in DOC 132:34,32 upholds polygamy while the BoM Jacob 2:26-28 condemns it. Lastly in Moroni 8:11 "Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remmissions of sins" while in DoC 20:37 the remmission of sins comes before the baptism.

 

[Starfish]

I appreciate the feedback. The other problem that I have with LDS scriptures is that they contradict each other. In The Pearl of Great Price Moses 2:1 God says "I am the Beginning and the End, The Almighty God; by mine only begotten I created these things; yea in the beinning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest." while in Abraham 4:1 "And then the Lord said: let us go down. And they went down at the beginning and they, that is the Gods organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Also Joseph Smith in DOC 132:34,32 upholds polygamy while the BoM Jacob 2:26-28 condemns it. Lastly in Moroni 8:11 "Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remmissions of sins" while in DoC 20:37 the remmission of sins comes before the baptism.

But staying with the point, wasn't the question of this thread about just the BoM? Not about all of Mormon doctrine and our other books of scripture? When you look at just the one book--as a Christian, what's wrong with it?

 

[Katzpur]

I appreciate the feedback. The other problem that I have with LDS scriptures is that they contradict each other.

No more so than the various writers of the Bible contradict each other. You don't have to look very far to find far more blatant examples than the ones you've given. Rather than post any examples, let me just provide you with a link so that you can read them for yourself: A List of Biblical Contradictions. (I actually think the contradictions on that site are pretty ludicrous myself, but reading through some of them may help you understand why I see your examples as pretty uncompelling.)

In The Pearl of Great Price Moses 2:1 God says "I am the Beginning and the End, The Almighty God; by mine only begotten I created these things; yea in the beinning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest." while in Abraham 4:1 "And then the Lord said: let us go down. And they went down at the beginning and they, that is the Gods organized and formed the heavens and the earth."

I'm not even sure I understand why you see this as a contradiction. In Moses 2:1, we're told that God created the heaven and the earth and that He did so by His Son, Jesus Christ. In Abraham 4:1, we're told that the Father and the Son formed the heavens and the earth. Whether they both created the universe or whether the Son was directed by the Father but created it himself, it hardly seems worth quibbling about.

Also Joseph Smith in DOC 132:34,32 upholds polygamy while the BoM Jacob 2:26-28 condemns it.

You didn't read far enough in Jacob. Just two verses after the ones you quoted, we read, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise upseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." In other words, monogamy is intended by the Lord to be the norm, but if He commands his people otherwise, they shall obey Him. The important thing is that it has to be a commandment for the purpose designated by the Lord. Otherwise, it is a sin.

Lastly in Moroni 8:11 "Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remmissions of sins" while in DoC 20:37 the remmission of sins comes before the baptism.

I believe you've just misunderstood the relationship between baptism and repentence. We believe that we must repent prior to being baptized, but we also believe that we must continue to repent whenever we sin -- even if it's after we are baptized. Baptism doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to obey God's commandments. When we fall short, we need to repent and resolve to do better in the future.

 

[thorman]

I apologize for the confusion and I understand how frustating it can be when a verse is taken out of context. When I discussed baptism with the missionaries they said it was necessary for salvation and a person could not be in a state of grace without it. Also these verses are from research I did months ago and I will try to be more careful. As to starfish's question the volume that I have contains all three so I have read all three through equally and used all three equally in my studies.

 

[Katzpur]

I apologize for the confusion and I understand how frustating it can be when a verse is taken out of context. When I discussed baptism with the missionaries they said it was necessary for salvation and a person could not be in a state of grace without it. Also these verses are from research I did months ago and I will try to be more careful. As to starfish's question the volume that I have contains all three so I have read all three through equally and used all three equally in my studies.

There is no need whatsoever for you to apologize. Any religion of any substance needs to be looked at in some depth in order for it to be fully understood.