Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[Scott C.]

Let's start with this one.
Could you show me the references in your books of God being in physical form ?
And then could you show me where it is taught in the bible.
This is a major doctrine that needs attention, if none other !!!!!

Should we start a new thread on the "Physical nature of God".? I would enjoy quoting LDS scripture, including the Bible, to make a case for God's physical nature. Do you want me to start the thread with my view on the subject?

 

[Watchmen]

Start a new thread people.

 

[roli]

Should we start a new thread on the "Physical nature of God".? I would enjoy quoting LDS scripture, including the Bible, to make a case for God's physical nature. Do you want me to start the thread with my view on the subject?

Aboslutely, I would appreciate that,as long as you quote your other books that you study from.

 

[roli]

You're the one making the accusations, roli. So make them. IN A DIFFERENT THREAD, PLEASE!!!!!

That would be a great idea ,maybe you can join us and help us keep on track, I would appreciate your perspective.
I think Scott is going to start the thread.

 

[Scott C.]

That would be a great idea ,maybe you can join us and help us keep on track, I would appreciate your perspective.
I think Scott is going to start the thread.

I'll start the thread, but need a little time first to pull my thoughts together. I'll quote from LDS scripture and some other sources which, while not canonized, I personnaly consider to be authoritative.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll start the thread, but need a little time first to pull my thoughts together. I'll quote from LDS scripture and some other sources which, while not canonized, I personnaly consider to be authoritative.

Scott, if you intend to quote from non-canonical sources, I hope you realize that you're giving roli the same right. I think that's a huge part of the problem. We Latter-day Saints have no trouble distinguishing which non-canonical sources accurately reflect our doctrines, and which ones don't. Non-Mormons, however, have no way of making a distinction and it's not going to take us very long to get right back to where we are right now.

 

[Watchmen]

Aboslutely, I would appreciate that,as long as you quote your other books that you study from.

What is your understanding of the books that we study from?

 

[roli]

Scott, if you intend to quote from non-canonical sources, I hope you realize that you're giving roli the same right. I think that's a huge part of the problem. We Latter-day Saints have no trouble distinguishing which non-canonical sources accurately reflect our doctrines, and which ones don't. Non-Mormons, however, have no way of making a distinction and it's not going to take us very long to get right back to where we are right now.

Katz, in regards to the point you bring up of sources being canonical or not, what would that criteria be for these books to be canonical or not.

Does the residing president have the right to trump , so called canonical sources, including the bible?

Do you use an Mormon issued KJV of the bible which has Joeseph Smiths writings included in it, I think mormons refer to as the JST edition?

 

[roli]

What is your understanding of the books that we study from?

Let's just say I have an idea of what those here are claiming they use, that being BoM, Bible (either KJV or JST (Joseph Smith Translation)), the PoGP, D&C.

..but based on KATZ's last statment to Scott:

Originally Posted by Katzpur
Scott, if you intend to quote from non-canonical sources, I hope you realize that you're giving roli the same right. I think that's a huge part of the problem. We Latter-day Saints have no trouble distinguishing which non-canonical sources accurately reflect our doctrines, and which ones don't. Non-Mormons, however, have no way of making a distinction and it's not going to take us very long to get right back to where we are right now.

......I'm not real clear on why some LDS writings are accepted and quoted by some members and yet, taboo amongst others.
Is'nt there a clear standard in which all LDS such follow to at least appear on the same page. I mean if there is no clarity but only apparent confusion among set members of LDS as to which writings should be used in defence of their faith, is there any wonder as to why many christians question them.

One only need to do a search of the history of the LDS church right from it's conception and find how the prophets and other leaders have made quotes,developed teachings and produced writings that invariably differ or often oppose.
I guess it's justifiable why mormons are to see and consider the most recent statements from prophets and general authorities, as modern day scripture.

It's kind of like me alerting another born again ,spirit filled christian on this site to quote from the canon of scripture in their defence of Christianity and not to use the gnostic gospels or Apocrypha.
As a christian I would have to question their conversion based on scripture.
books of the catholic church

 

[Katzpur]

Katz, in regards to the point you bring up of sources being canonical or not, what would that criteria be for these books to be canonical or not.

Does the residing president have the right to trump , so called canonical sources, including the bible?

Do you use an Mormon issued KJV of the bible which has Joeseph Smiths writings included in it, I think mormons refer to as the JST edition?

There are four books in the LDS canon. They are: (1) The Holy Bible (KJV), (2) The Book of Mormon, (3) The Doctrine & Covenants, and (4) The Pearl of Great Price. Those are not the only books we use to study our beliefs, but they are the only ones that are doctrinally binding. For instance, any of our General Authorities (i.e. Prophet, Apostles, Seventies, etc.) can write a book and get it published. Almost without exception, these books are a good source of reference in explaining LDS doctrine. But for the sake of debate, you've really got to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Scott C.]

Scott, if you intend to quote from non-canonical sources, I hope you realize that you're giving roli the same right. I think that's a huge part of the problem. We Latter-day Saints have no trouble distinguishing which non-canonical sources accurately reflect our doctrines, and which ones don't. Non-Mormons, however, have no way of making a distinction and it's not going to take us very long to get right back to where we are right now.

Katz, I understand your concern. Personally, I'm completely comfortable to quote freely from materials which are published by the Church for the instruction of members and non-members alike.

 

[Katzpur]

......I'm not real clear on why some LDS writings are accepted and quoted by some members and yet, taboo amongst others.

I can understand why this would be confusing to you. Here's a good rule of thumb: If a non-canonical work teaches that which can be found in our scriptures, you will likely find Latter-day Saints quoting from that book to explain what we believe. The language of scripture can be confusing, and commentaries can be very helpful. It is when the author writes something that is not taught in our scriptures that we are likely to say, "That's not doctrine!" People speculate and when they do, they run the risk of speculating incorrectly. LDS leaders are not immune to this risk, and several of them have publicly stated that this is the case.

Is'nt there a clear standard in which all LDS such follow to at least appear on the same page. I mean if there is no clarity but only apparent confusion among set members of LDS as to which writings should be used in defence of their faith, is there any wonder as to why many christians question them.

Yes. There is a clear standard: The Standard Works -- the four books I previously named. The next most authoritative writings would be statements or proclamations that are issued by the entire First Presidency (i.e. the President of the Church and his two counselors) and the Twelve Apostles as a whole, and not by any one of them individually. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" would be a good example. Talks given by any of our General Authorities in our semi-annual conferences and official publications such as lesson manuals would be next. I wouldn't really rely too awfully heavily on any other sources, even though they could very well be reliable. I'm just trying to be conservative in my approach.

One only need to do a search of the history of the LDS church right from it's conception and find how the prophets and other leaders have made quotes,developed teachings and produced writings that invariably differ or often oppose.
I guess it's justifiable why mormons are to see and consider the most recent statements from prophets and general authorities, as modern day scripture.

That's right. For one thing, it's a whole lot easier to ask someone who is still living what he meant by such and such statement than it is to ask someone who died a hundred and fifty years ago. Methods of recording sermons weren't as reliable back then either. People took notes as they listened to a sermon and recorded it as accurately as they could.

 

[Katzpur]

Katz, I understand your concern. Personally, I'm completely comfortable to quote freely from materials which are published by the Church for the instruction of members and non-members alike.

That sounds reasonable. How about you start the new thread. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Scott C.]

That sounds reasonable. How about you start the new thread. I'm looking forward to it.

Yes, I'll create the thread tomorrow (Sunday). It's too late now and I want a fresh mind in the morning.

 

[roli]

There are four books in the LDS canon. They are: (1) The Holy Bible (KJV), (2) The Book of Mormon, (3) The Doctrine & Covenants, and (4) The Pearl of Great Price. Those are not the only books we use to study our beliefs, but they are the only ones that are doctrinally binding. For instance, any of our General Authorities (i.e. Prophet, Apostles, Seventies, etc.) can write a book and get it published. Almost without exception, these books are a good source of reference in explaining LDS doctrine. But for the sake of debate, you've really got to draw the line somewhere.

So what is the criteria used to determine what is considered canon?
Can a Prophet, general authority or other trump an already existing LDS doctrine?
why or why not?

 

[Watchmen]

So what is the criteria used to determine what is considered canon?
Can a Prophet, general authority or other trump an already existing LDS doctrine?
why or why not?

Dude, she just told you. The criteria is that the doctrine is found in the four standard works: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

This is the canon. If a Prophet or General Authority says or writes something that is determined to be canon then it will be added as another section in the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

[Katzpur]

So what is the criteria used to determine what is considered canon?

If something is in one of the four books I mentioned, it's part of the official canon. If it's not, then it isn't. Three of the four books are unchanging. The only thing that might change in them would be footnotes, etc. The Doctrine & Covenants is, at least in principle, an unfinished volume of scripture. Currently it contains 138 "sections" and two "declarations." Section 138 was dated 1918. The first of the two declarations was dated 1890, and is commonly known as "the Manifesto." It formally discontinued the practice of plural marriage. The second of the two declations was dated 1978. It definitively stated that the LDS priesthood would from that point forward be available to all worthy men, regardless of race. So you can see that the Doctrine & Covenants is also fairly static. Since we believe in modern revelation, we can't say that there will never be anything new added to it, but it does not change often.

Can a Prophet, general authority or other trump an already existing LDS doctrine? why or why not?

Here's how LDS doctrine is established. If God were to want to speak to the Church as a whole and reveal a new doctrine that was to apply to its membership, He would do so through the President of the Church. The President of the Church is the only person who holds all of the priesthood keys the Apostle Peter once held. After the President of the Church (aka "the Prophet") had received the revelation, he would meet with the other General Authorities (i.e. the Twelve Apostles and the Seventies). This meeting would almost certainly be held in the temple. Collectively, they would pray for confirmation that this was the word of God. They might also fast and pray individually. Once the Holy Ghost had confirmed the truth of the revelation to each of them, they would vote to sustain the Prophet in establishing the new doctrine. Lastly, it would be presented to the overall membership of the Church for their sustaining vote. Once this took place, the new revelation would become doctrine. So, I wouldn't say that any one person can "trump already existing doctrine." There is a very, very clearcut process by which this happens and it definitely doesn't happen often.

 

[roli]

I can understand why this would be confusing to you. Here's a good rule of thumb: If a non-canonical work teaches that which can be found in our scriptures, you will likely find Latter-day Saints quoting from that book to explain what we believe. The language of scripture can be confusing, and commentaries can be very helpful. It is when the author writes something that is not taught in our scriptures that we are likely to say, "That's not doctrine!" People speculate and when they do, they run the risk of speculating incorrectly. LDS leaders are not immune to this risk, and several of them have publicly stated that this is the case.

What would be an example of an author writing something that is not taught in scripture, I mean there are various christian denominations who claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a one time event at conversion, but scripture is so clear on the fact that it is subsequent to conversion. There has to be one answer ,one truth, we can't all have various notions of when and where it happens.

Yes. There is a clear standard: The Standard Works -- the four books I previously named. The next most authoritative writings would be statements or proclamations that are issued by the entire First Presidency (i.e. the President of the Church and his two counselors) and the Twelve Apostles as a whole, and not by any one of them individually. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" would be a good example. Talks given by any of our General Authorities in our semi-annual conferences and official publications such as lesson manuals would be next. I wouldn't really rely too awfully heavily on any other sources, even though they could very well be reliable. I'm just trying to be conservative in my approach.

So the president and twelve apostles have first right.
What is their criteria?
Is it the same criteria as the canon of scripture?

 

[roli]

I appreciate your response Katz, but I must retire for the night and continue another time.

 

[Katzpur]

What would be an example of an author writing something that is not taught in scripture?

On several occasions, Brigham Young taught something about Adam being God. It is not clear to us what he meant by this, and no other LDS leader has ever taught it. It's definitely not taught in the scriptures, and I have never known a Latter-day Saint who believes it. Brigham Young, unfortunately, is not around for us to ask him to clarify what he actually meant, and why he taught this.

I mean there are various christian denominations who claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a one time event at conversion, but scripture is so clear on the fact that it is subsequent to conversion. There has to be one answer ,one truth, we can't all have various notions of when and where it happens.

That's a good point. We can't all be right. But if the Bible really was so clear on the fact, there wouldn't be so many Christians who interpret what it says differently. Most of them are sincere in what they believe and can point to various verses which would appear to support their opinions.

So the president and twelve apostles have first right.

Yes. The President and then the Twelve Apostles, collectively.

What is their criteria?

The Holy Ghost.

Is it the same criteria as the canon of scripture?

I think you lost me, roli.