Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[neillien]

But without the proper spirit or attitude, you won't get much from it.

Unfortunately, people tend to use that idea as an excuse. But you have to first discover the truth, and then you will receive spiritual guidance. If you start with a false feeling that you decide will be true, your foundation will be corrupt.
What seems right . . . in the end will be destruction.

 

[Starfish]

But without the proper spirit or attitude, you won't get much from it.

Unfortunately, people tend to use that idea as an excuse. But you have to first discover the truth, and then you will receive spiritual guidance. If you start with a false feeling that you decide will be true, your foundation will be corrupt.
What seems right . . . in the end will be destruction.

No need for false feelings. Just be open minded. While reading it, ask God to help you recognize truth. Trust him.
But some people have said they began reading the Book of Mormon to prove it wrong. Looking for errors. They ended up being converted.

 

[trinity2359]

I was one of those who studied the church for the fun of it. I read the book "The God Makers" and was like, "no way a religion believes this!" Guess what? After studying the faith, I'm right - they don't believe what was in that book. So I was intrigued into the theology and eventually 'converted'. But it was a wanna-be conversion - I wanted it to be true, therefore it must be true. Well, I have since recognized that wishes don't make reality and am in the process of being recieved into the Catholic Church

 

[Bathsheba]

I was one of those who studied the church for the fun of it. I read the book "The God Makers" and was like, "no way a religion believes this!" Guess what? After studying the faith, I'm right - they don't believe what was in that book. So I was intrigued into the theology and eventually 'converted'. But it was a wanna-be conversion - I wanted it to be true, therefore it must be true. Well, I have since recognized that wishes don't make reality and am in the process of being recieved into the Catholic Church

I'm curious, what was in "The God Makers" that mormons don't believe? (I haven't read the book so I don't know).

 

[Katzpur]

I'm curious, what was in "The God Makers" that mormons don't believe? (I haven't read the book so I don't know).

Well, I haven't read the book, but I do have a transcript of the movie version. If you want to discuss it, you could start a new thread and I'd be happy to touch on each point that it covers. At least in terms of the movie, it's the way in which the doctrines were presented that is so offensive. They take a basic doctrine and either embellish it or even parody it to the point where it's hardly recognizable to members of the Church. Let's say someone wanted to produce an anti-Catholic movie. Consider the doctrine of transsubstantiation or "real presence" which is that the bread/wafer and wine, when presented to Catholics as the eucharist, is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ. If this doctrine were being portrayed in a movie by the producers of the Godmakers, we'd see a bunch of people sitting around a table eating the corpse of Jesus Christ. The actually doctrine would be portrayed as cannibalism. See what I mean?

 

[uss_bigd]

Christians of the bible does not consider the book of mormons valid because God said to John:

Revelation 22:18
"Here is my warning for everyone who hears the prophecies in this book: If you add anything to them, God will make you suffer all the terrible troubles written in this book'.

That is what is written.

 

[Katzpur]

Christians of the bible does not consider the book of mormons valid because God said to John:

Revelation 22:18
"Here is my warning for everyone who hears the prophecies in this book: If you add anything to them, God will make you suffer all the terrible troubles written in this book'.

That is what is written.

Thanks, bigd. You realize, of course, that "the Bible" didn't even exist when John received Revelation, don't you, and that it wouldn't exist in the form in which we have it today for quite a few more centuries? John was referring to the book known as Revelation. He was warning people not to add to it. He wrote his own gospel account after he received Revelation, and most Christians I know value it quite highly. I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible where God says He's through talking to us. As a matter of fact, the idea that He might actually contradicts what the Bible says.

 

[uss_bigd]

Thanks, bigd. You realize, of course, that "the Bible" didn't even exist when John received Revelation, don't you, and that it wouldn't exist in the form in which we have it today for quite a few more centuries? John was referring to the book known as Revelation. He was warning people not to add to it. He wrote his own gospel account after he received Revelation, and most Christians I know value it quite highly. I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible where God says He's through talking to us. As a matter of fact, the idea that He might actually contradicts what the Bible says.

Hi Katzpur!

i hope all's well with us ... I am looking for another verse, it is in the Gospel or the letters of Paul .. he said something like "stay to that of which that is written" it will then encompass the whole bible.

and by the way, where is it mentioned that the book in the verse i quoted only refers to the book of revelation? thanks for the info...

 

[DeepShadow]

Hi Katzpur!

i hope all's well with us ... I am looking for another verse, it is in the Gospel or the letters of Paul .. he said something like "stay to that of which that is written" it will then encompass the whole bible.

If you interpret it that way, fine...but then Paul should have stopped writing.

and by the way, where is it mentioned that the book in the verse i quoted only refers to the book of revelation? thanks for the info...

Well, the problem is that the Bible was not assembled when the Book of Revelations was written, so the only 'book' John had at the time was the individual one he was writing. What makes you think he was looking a hundred someodd years in the future to write the ending of a book that didn't exist yet?

Bear in mind, you've answered the question satisfactorily, and so you don't owe us anything. Question asked, question answered, feel free to move on, if you wish. We're only pointing out that there are multiple interpretations of the scriptures you reference. You are welcome to your interpretations, and God Bless You in His service.

If you want to hear about alternative interpretations, we'll be glad to oblige.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi Katzpur!

i hope all's well with us ... I am looking for another verse, it is in the Gospel or the letters of Paul .. he said something like "stay to that of which that is written" it will then encompass the whole bible.

Let me know when you find it. Meanwhile, you might want to consider the very last verse in John's gospel account. It says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Clearly Jesus said and did many things that weren't ever recorded. I can't imagine that most of these things were not worthy of being mentioned. He had only three short years to teach His followers everything He wanted them to know. Surely He wouldn't have wasted His time on anything insignificant. How do you know that everything He would have wanted to have recorded actually was? Surely you don't think there was ever a time when He was about to teach His followers something that He asked that His words not be recorded. How do you know that some of what He said might now have been lost? I have noticed that you put a great deal of trust in the epistles and in what Paul taught. Aren't you the slightest bit curious as to what he said in his epistle to the Laodiceans? This epistle is mentioned in Colossians 4:16. What about the other epistle of Jude -- the one mentioned in Jude 1:3? I could give you a dozen and a half examples of scripture that is mentioned in modern Bibles that can't be found within the pages of those same Bibles. If the writers of the books we still have thought they were important enough to mention, and if we don't still have them, it is clear that while the Bible is truly God's word, it is not a complete record of God's dealings with mankind or a complete account of what He told His prophets and apostles.

and by the way, where is it mentioned that the book in the verse i quoted only refers to the book of revelation? thanks for the info...

It isn't. But since the Bible itself did not even exist at that point and if John wrote his own gospel account after he wrote the warning in Revelation, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together. Where is it mentioned in the verse you quoted that "this book" refers not to the book John was writing but to a collection of books that would be compiled at a later date?

 

[Scott C.]

Christians of the bible does not consider the book of mormons valid because God said to John:

Revelation 22:18
"Here is my warning for everyone who hears the prophecies in this book: If you add anything to them, God will make you suffer all the terrible troubles written in this book'.

That is what is written.

Please see this thread for a detailed response to your comment on Rev. 22:18:

The meaning of Revelation 22: 18,19

 

[DeepShadow]

Do I keep stealing your thunder, Katz? You do a great job, maybe I should back off certain threads...

 

[Katzpur]

Do I keep stealing your thunder, Katz? You do a great job, maybe I should back off certain threads...

LOL! Please don't ever do that. Even if we pretty much give the same answers, you know how much I learn from your style of debate. I hang on every word and you know that. So keep talking!

 

[Starfish]

Is there some sort of party when a thread reaches Page 100? Let me know, I'll bring the ice cream.:balloons:

(Sorry, back to discussion.)

 

[Scott C.]

Is there some sort of party when a thread reaches Page 100? Let me know, I'll bring the ice cream.:balloons:

(Sorry, back to discussion.)

We should celebrate the popularity of LDS threads on RF. Neopolitan (sp?) please.

 

[Sola'lor]

Only four more posts until 1,000!

 

[Bathsheba]

Well, I haven't read the book, but I do have a transcript of the movie version. If you want to discuss it, you could start a new thread and I'd be happy to touch on each point that it covers. At least in terms of the movie, it's the way in which the doctrines were presented that is so offensive. They take a basic doctrine and either embellish it or even parody it to the point where it's hardly recognizable to members of the Church. Let's say someone wanted to produce an anti-Catholic movie. Consider the doctrine of transsubstantiation or "real presence" which is that the bread/wafer and wine, when presented to Catholics as the eucharist, is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ. If this doctrine were being portrayed in a movie by the producers of the Godmakers, we'd see a bunch of people sitting around a table eating the corpse of Jesus Christ. The actually doctrine would be portrayed as cannibalism. See what I mean?

I googled "The God Makers" and watched most of it. WOW! What a piece of work, it really is over the top. I loved (snark!) the music they used while filming the re-enactment of a Mormon temple ceremony, nice. There was no shortage of the words "cult" and "cultic" practice. Man, you guys really have the traditional christians freaked out, huh.

I looked for parallels between your catholic distortion and an equivalent Mormon distortion. I suppose the best example (imho) was the bit about how Mormons have endless sex in heaven. You guys don't come right out and say that you will be having endless sex in heaven; I think you are probably much more discrete about that by referencing the creation of worlds without end. Either that, or you really don't have much information on how these things work and sex (to make spirit babies) is beside the point because you are just trying to get to the Celestial Kingdom at this point. Hell if I know, it's all speculation (becoming a God yourself and creating a world per your belief of how God created this world), right? G. Hinckley said y'all didn't really teach that anymore.

Yeah, the producers of that sensational masterpiece took a few (understatement) liberties; love the fear mongering.

 

[rasor]

How do you lds's know that Jo Smith wasn't just another con man like Ron L Hubbard ?

 

[Sola'lor]

I've never seen God Makers.

 

[Sola'lor]

How do you lds's know that Jo Smith wasn't just another con man like Ron L Hubbard ?

because I read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it and recieved a witness from the Holy ghost that it's true.


Oh btw,

1000!