-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?
- Thread starter madhatter85
- Start date
- Status
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
There is some archaelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon. I would not consider it to be conclusive by any means, but interesting enough to warrant further research. The linguistic evidence for the book is what I personally find fascinating.
What is the linguistic evidence?
DeepShadow
White Crow
Megachiasmus, quellenlieder, all 20 points of a Hebrew farewell speech, 30+ proper names; all of these were unknown at the time of Joseph Smith, and that's just a few.
Also, wordprint/stylometry studies claim that the Book of Mormon had over twenty different authors.
trinity2359
Active Member
trinity2359
Active Member
The Book of Mormon is the gateway to the LDS Faith. If one acquires a testimony of it, then the rest of Mormonism naturally follows. Since converts have just a glimmer of the rest of the doctrine introduced during the first glow of testimony, they join without a mature understanding of the faith. And by then the person has a social, emotional and spiritual investment enough to resist the temptation to investigate the truthfulness of the faith. However, I think, more than 50% of converts leave the faith (myself included 
)
Because of the introductory nature of the Book of Mormon to the religion, being the 'cornerstone of the faith', this is where people will focus their energy to disprove the validity of it's claims.
) Because of the introductory nature of the Book of Mormon to the religion, being the 'cornerstone of the faith', this is where people will focus their energy to disprove the validity of it's claims.
trinity2359
Active Member
Nephi 1:1, "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents...."
Jacob 1:1, "... Nephi gave me, Jacob, a commandment...."
Omni 1:1, "Behold, it came to pass that I, Omni, being commanded...."
Words of Mormon 1:1, "And now I, Mormon being about...."
Ether 1:1, "And now I, Moroni, proceed to give ...."
Book of Mormon 1:1, "And now I, Mormon, make a record...."
These books supposedly have different authors (except Mormon) written over a 800 year time frame seem to have similar ways of introducing themselves.
DeepShadow
White Crow
Yes, those methods of introduction are consistent with scribal traditions. Thus Nephi's "I make it with mine own hand" is similar to the Egyptian scribe's "written with my own fingers."
Stylometry is a statistical science that looks at much more than a handful of data.
Stylometry is a statistical science that looks at much more than a handful of data.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
On the subject of the three witness, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris. Did they actually see the golden plates? Or was this visionary in nature?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
They saw them. Eight others saw them and physically handled them.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
On the same track, I can ask why people don't accept The URANTIA Book as valid.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Has anybody tried to stop you?
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Not in any way you haven't seen in regards to the BoM (the usual attacks on its credibility and all).
BTW, Katz, I love your signature.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Yeah, but with considerable less frequency. How often is it that people even bother with the Urantia Book?Not in any way you haven't seen in regards to the BoM (the usual attacks on its credibility and all).
Thank you!
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
The testimony of the eleven witnesses is in the Intro of every BoM.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
It's ridiculed only when I bring it up a a source of information (as if the source has something to do with the merit of the information). You are right, though; people seldom otherwise bother precisely because they're not worried about it--it's too obscure to pose a threat.
FYI, the thing that initially drew my attention to it was its emphasis on the spiritual growth of the individual. Sound familiar?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
No kidding. Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it does.FYI, the thing that initially drew my attention to it was its emphasis on the spiritual growth of the individual. Sound familiar?
nutshell
Well-Known Member
In my opinion the question was flawed from the beginning.
Why don't other Christians accept the BoM as valid? Because they're not Mormons.
Why don't Mormons accept the JW translation of the Bible as valid? Because they're not JWs.
Why don't Mormons accept Christian Biblical commentar as valid? Because they're not that brand of Christian.
Why don't other Christians accept the BoM as valid? Because they're not Mormons.
Why don't Mormons accept the JW translation of the Bible as valid? Because they're not JWs.
Why don't Mormons accept Christian Biblical commentar as valid? Because they're not that brand of Christian.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Of course it was, but look whose thread it was.
- Status