Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[sojourner]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that the LDS understanding of the Plan of Salvation "would not stand up under biblical scrutiny." Why don't you give us one example of what you mean and let's discuss it. Keep in mind, though, that our doctrines are based upon four volumes of sacred scripture. It's not as if Joseph Smith or anyone else just sat down with a Bible and tried to infer a desired meaning from certain verses.

Let me see if I can encapsulate this, without going into too much detail.

As I see it, the gospel that Jesus proclaimed (as presented in the canon gospels) is simply this: "Turn your lives around, because God's imperial rule has come near." The gospelers present Jesus as one who turned cultural expectations, human authority, religious standards, and the way in which we relate to God completely upside down. The gospels don't have Jesus going into such minute detail with regard to the life to come. He seems more concerned with the here-and-now.

Your "Plan of Salvation" doesn't jive with the canon gospels' thrust. It talks about God being a flesh-and-bone being (never presented, either explicitly or implicitly, that way in the canon gospels). The heavenly battle, the "fact" that we are all "spirit-children," existing before time with God, is also contraindicated in the canon scripture.

Much of the "Plan" simply seems to "reorder" what is stated about our relationship with God, as it is presented by canon scripture.

You see, we base doctrine from the canon scripture. You use other sources -- sources which are wholly other than the Bible. Therefore, your doctrine would be considered to be more "extra-Biblical." While it appears, on the surface, to be based on canon scripture, it has greatly expanded the religion that canon scripture presents us with.

It's like Mormonism has (forgive the expression -- no disrespect intended!) cobbled together different religious paradigms into a new religion. That being said, I'm also quite sure the Jews think the same thing about orthodox Christians! But you notice that Jews do not accept the NT as "valid." You also notice that they don't include us as "members" of their religion. Because we are wholly different from them in religious paradigm, even though they form our foundation. Perhaps it's the same for Christians and Mormons...

Doesn't mean you're "wrong," it just means that you're not "us." Nor are we "you." But maybe, just maybe, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, etc. Are all "God's."

 

[Watchmen]

There is nothing in the Plan contraindicated by the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

There is nothing in the Plan contraindicated by the Bible.

'K. Just as an example, where in the gospels does it ever talk about God as a being of flesh and bone (other than Jesus, I mean)? They present God as a voice. They present God as Spirit. But never as flesh-and-bone.

(You have to understand: This "plan of salvation" is, according to you, the "gospel." Since the gospels, themselves, proclaim the gospel message, and not the OT, or epistles, or Revelation, nothing can be included in the "gospel message" that is not found in the gospels, themselves.) Show me where the gospels present the concept of spirit children and God-as-flesh-and-bone (other than Jesus) and I'll be willing to debate this point with you.

 

[Katzpur]

Let me see if I can encapsulate this, without going into too much detail.

I hope you're not implying that I went into too much detail in my thread on the Plan of Salvation! (I know I probably did. I just wanted to make sure I covered all of the important points.)

As I see it, the gospel that Jesus proclaimed (as presented in the canon gospels) is simply this: "Turn your lives around, because God's imperial rule has come near." The gospelers present Jesus as one who turned cultural expectations, human authority, religious standards, and the way in which we relate to God completely upside down. The gospels don't have Jesus going into such minute detail with regard to the life to come. He seems more concerned with the here-and-now.

You're right. The gospel account in the Bible is considerably less detailed than what we believe, but we do believe everything contained in the scriptures.

Your "Plan of Salvation" doesn't jive with the canon gospels' thrust. It talks about God being a flesh-and-bone being (never presented, either explicitly or implicitly, that way in the canon gospels). The heavenly battle, the "fact" that we are all "spirit-children," existing before time with God, is also contraindicated in the canon scripture.

I disagree on both counts, particularly on the second, but definitely don't want to get into the reasons on this thread. If I were to start a new thread, would you be interested in discussing either of these doctrines further?

Much of the "Plan" simply seems to "reorder" what is stated about our relationship with God, as it is presented by canon scripture.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how. Again, I just see the Plan of Salvation providing us with a great deal more information than the biblical account of the gospel does. This would also be an interesting topic to discuss in a new thread. What do you think?

You see, we base doctrine from the canon scripture. You use other sources -- sources which are wholly other than the Bible. Therefore, your doctrine would be considered to be more "extra-Biblical." While it appears, on the surface, to be based on canon scripture, it has greatly expanded the religion that canon scripture presents us with.

Yes, our doctrine is extra-biblical and our canon far more comprehensive than the Bible. The question is, is the canon you use complete? That's where our opinions differ. Whenever people start talking about "the canon," as if our present-day Bibles were hand written, translated, ordered, bound and delivered by God, Mormons are going to have a problem with it. Since we don't believe "the canon" is or ever will be closed, that seems to be one of the major points of contention between us. And this is why I said previously that the main problem non-Mormons have with the Book of Mormon is that it exists in the first place. It's not part of your canon and that's a problem for you. That's understandable if you believe the canon is closed.

It's like Mormonism has (forgive the expression -- no disrespect intended!) cobbled together different religious paradigms into a new religion. That being said, I'm also quite sure the Jews think the same thing about orthodox Christians! But you notice that Jews do not accept the NT as "valid." You also notice that they don't include us as "members" of their religion. Because we are wholly different from them in religious paradigm, even though they form our foundation. Perhaps it's the same for Christians and Mormons...

Well, I don't see it being the same for "Christians and Mormons" because I am both a Christian and a Mormon. But I will admit that the differences between us are significant in some regards. Somehow, a belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer doesn't seem to be enough to bridge the gap.

Doesn't mean you're "wrong," it just means that you're not "us." Nor are we "you." But maybe, just maybe, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, etc. Are all "God's."

Maybe we are. I think you already know that I believe we are.

 

[sojourner]

I hope you're not implying that I went into too much detail in my thread on the Plan of Salvation!

Not at all! great stuff, Katz. I was implying that I might, though!

I disagree on both counts, particularly on the second, but definitely don't want to get into the reasons on this thread. If I were to start a new thread, would you be interested in discussing either of these doctrines further?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how. Again, I just see the Plan of Salvation providing us with a great deal more information than the biblical account of the gospel does. This would also be an interesting topic to discuss in a new thread. What do you think?

I's be interested in debating the differences in the gospel message, as we perceive them. But I can only argue from the Biblical perspective, pointing out where I think you "color outside the lines," so to speak.

Yes, our doctrine is extra-biblical and our canon far more comprehensive than the Bible. The question is, is the canon you use complete? That's where our opinions differ. Whenever people start talking about "the canon," as if our present-day Bibles were hand written, translated, ordered, bound and delivered by God, Mormons are going to have a problem with it. Since we don't believe "the canon" is or ever will be closed, that seems to be one of the major points of contention between us. And this is why I said previously that the main problem non-Mormons have with the Book of Mormon is that it exists in the first place. It's not part of your canon and that's a problem for you. That's understandable if you believe the canon is closed.

I don't question whether the canon is "complete." The canon was not meant to be "complete." It was meant to be a standard.

I think you know me well enough by my posts to know that I don't think the canon scripture fell out of the sky. However, I trust the "sense of the community" -- that is, the Church settled the canon, and I trust that.

The problem I have with the validity of the BOM comes not from its mere existence, but its impetus. The Koran exists. I don't have a problem with it, and have reflected on some of it. The writings of Kahlil Gibran and Thomas Merton exist, too, and I have used them in church. Thomas exists, too, and I have used Thomas. BUT, none of these are canon scripture. Neither is the BOM.

The BOM seeks to supercede the Bible. That's the problem I have. Thomas doesn't seek to do that. The Koran doesn't seek to do that. Merton doesn't seek to do that. That's why your view of the gospel is so different from mine. It goes way beyond the Bible, being, as you stated, "far more comprehensive."

Therefore, the BOM sets forth a completely different religious paradigm from traditional Xy, just as Hinduism, or Buddhism does.

I appreciate that you leave the canon open. We don't. That represents a fundamental difference that shapes our praxis.

Well, I don't see it being the same for "Christians and Mormons" because I am both a Christian and a Mormon. But I will admit that the differences between us are significant in some regards. Somehow, a belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer doesn't seem to be enough to bridge the gap.

Sorry! Forgot to type the word "traditional" there.

But my point is valid. Xy represents a fundamental paradigm shift in the traditional Hebraic religion. Mormonism represents a fundamental paradigm shift in the traditional Xian religion. You can't do that, and then call "foul" because we have trouble accepting you. As friendly as most Jewish groups are with most Christian groups, most Christians don't attempt to call themselves Jewish, or force their "new" viewpoints on Judaism.

 

[RemnanteK]

Ok I'm back, I have more questions that i can't seem to find and I hope you LDS can help me.

There are 3 levels of 'heaven' according to the BoM.

What level was the garden of Eden at?

Did Adam and Eve live on all 3 levels?

When Adam and Eve are resurrected will they be on the lower level of heaven because they didn't have the info in the BoM or Bible?
(From what I can tell they didn't have any books to go by.)

And last but not least, Where in the BoM or Bible can I find this info?

This just came to me after I was reading about creation again, one of my fav. parts of the bible.
I always imagined myself one of God's galaxy creators in heaven LoL.

Thanks Again for your understanding, I do appreciate your time.

 

[Katzpur]

Ok I'm back, I have more questions that i can't seem to find and I hope you LDS can help me.

There are 3 levels of 'heaven' according to the BoM.

The Book of Mormon does not mention the three degrees of glory. This doctrine is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a collection of revelations given to latter-day prophets, primary Joseph Smith.

What level was the garden of Eden at?

The Garden of Eden was not a part of Heaven. It was right here on Earth.

When Adam and Eve are resurrected will they be on the lower level of heaven because they didn't have the info in the BoM or Bible?

Presumably the highest, but they didn't need the Book of Mormon or the Bible. Adam spoke directly to God, and God revealed to him His Plan of Salvation, or the message found in Jesus Christ's gospel.

And last but not least, Where in the BoM or Bible can I find this info?

There is a brief mention of the three degrees of glory in 1 Corinthians Chapter 15. I'd suggest you read the entire chapter to put the verses in context.

This just came to me after I was reading about creation again, one of my fav. parts of the bible.
I always imagined myself one of God's galaxy creators in heaven LoL.

If you enjoy reading about the Creation and the Fall of Adam, you might find this interesting: The Book of Moses. I couldn't even wager a guess as to what your role was in the Premortal Life, but I'm glad you recognize you were there and had a worthwhile contribution.

 

[RemnanteK]

The Book of Mormon does not mention the three degrees of glory. This doctrine is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a collection of revelations given to latter-day prophets, primary Joseph Smith.

Ok thanks.

Presumably the highest, but they didn't need the Book of Mormon or the Bible. Adam spoke directly to God, and God revealed to him His Plan of Salvation, or the message found in Jesus Christ's gospel.

Guess that would be true, God always had a plan to save us even before we first sinned.

There is a brief mention of the three degrees of glory in 1 Corinthians Chapter 15. I'd suggest you read the entire chapter to put the verses in context.

Nice, thanks for the help.

If you enjoy reading about the Creation and the Fall of Adam, you might find this interesting: The Book of Moses. I couldn't even wager a guess as to what your role was in the Promortal Life, but I'm glad you recognize you were there and had a worthwhile contribution.

I was thinking more of after I get to heaven, I see myself helping in maybe creating something beautiful in the name of God.

 

[Katzpur]

I was thinking more of after I get to heaven, I see myself helping in maybe creating something beautiful in the name of God.

Oh, I see. Well, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you were to do that.

 

[Truid]

Even our most sacred ceremonies are recorded in the Library of Congress.

All church history is available for anyone to research. The LDS church has nothing to hide, nor ever has or ever will.

This is simply NOT true. The LDS Temple Endowment Ceremony is NOT recorded in the Library of Congress. While it is true that a person can find the ceremonies online, it's because former Mormons (or those who have stayed in the church but no longer believe) have provided that information, not because the LDS Church has openly given it.

 

[Truid]

The Book of Mormon is not adding to God's word. The Book of Mormon is God's word.

Well, I think it might be closer to say the Book of Mormon contains God's word. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it is God's word.

 

[Truid]

The doctrine of the 3 degrees of glory is located in 1st corinthians, so unless you are a chrisitan who disregards Paul's letters, i wouldn't mock the idea of it.

Sigh. The Mormon doctrine of the 3 degrees of glory is NOT located in Paul's 1st epistle to the Corinthians. As a matter of fact, he doesn't even use the word Telestial (as it didn't even exist until the 19th century). In Paul's epistle when he used the Greek word ἐπουράνιος (epouranios) it simply means "heavenly". And when he used the Greek word ἐπίγειος (epigeios) it simply means "earthly". How on earth (epigeios) could anyone twist 1 Cor. 15:40 to teach the Mormon concept of 3 degrees of glory is beyond me!

 

[Truid]

The question of this thread is: "Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?"

I suppose for the same reason Mormons don't accept The Sealed Portion as being valid.

 

[Truid]

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.

Why don't Mormons accept other "latter-day scriptures" to be true? Do you accept "The Sealed Portion, The Final Testament of Jesus Christ"? Do accept "Christopher" as a latter-day "prophet"?
Christopher - The Truth about the Man

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Why don't Mormons accept other "latter-day scriptures" to be true? Do you accept "The Sealed Portion, The Final Testament of Jesus Christ"? Do accept "Christopher" as a latter-day "prophet"?
Christopher - The Truth about the Man

I had never even heard of that before today. Gave some of it a brief skim, but it seems that Mormon apologists have (quite convincingly) flagged it as a forgery.

 

[Truid]

I had never even heard of that before today. Gave some of it a brief skim, but it seems that Mormon apologists have (quite convincingly) flagged it as a forgery.

So, when a Christian gives the book of Mormon "a brief skim" and then went immediately to Christian apologists who (quite convincingly) flagged it as a forgery" would you be so accepting of such a response?

Or, would you ask the Christian to read the Book of Mormon, ponder and pray (ask Heavenly Father if it is true) per the verse in Moroni? Have you prayed about the Sealed Portion the way you would about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?

Or, has the Mormon apologists poisoned your mind against it?

BTW, what's your source for saying the LDS apologists have flagged it as forgery?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Christopher Marc Nemelka - FAIRMormon

Part of the book (book of Lehi) claims to be a restoration of the text lost from the Book of Mormon, but it seems what has been restored is far too short.

Among other things

 

[Truid]

Christopher Marc Nemelka - FAIRMormon

Part of the book (book of Lehi) claims to be a restoration of the text lost from the Book of Mormon, but it seems what has been restored is far too short.

Among other things

I appreciate the link to the pro-LDS apologist website. However, I hope you can see how the so-called "anti-Mormons" feel about the Book of Mormon (the same way FAIR and other Mormons feel about "The Sealed Portion"). Simply "praying" about a book does NOT determine it's validity.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I appreciate the link to the pro-LDS apologist website. However, I hope you can see how the so-called "anti-Mormons" feel about the Book of Mormon (the same way FAIR and other Mormons feel about "The Sealed Portion"). Simply "praying" about a book does NOT determine it's validity.

I can see the point you are making, yes.

 

[Watchmen]

Well, I think it might be closer to say the Book of Mormon contains God's word. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it is God's word.

You wouldn't go so far, but I would.