Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[sojourner]

Sojourner, I'm going to have to get back to you on your post #1809 that was directed to me. I just have a couple of minutes now and wanted to comment on this particular post. The other one is going to require more time.

When President Hinckley explained how we can come to know that the Book of Mormon contains the word of God, he wasn't saying that we shouldn't also read it critically. He was simply saying that we can't depend upon the kinds of evidence the world requires as proof to determine what only the Holy Ghost can tell us. I noticed you said to Watchmen that Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ because Jesus was standing right there in front of him. Well, that’s true, but the other Apostles appeared to be less certain of who He was, and yet He was standing right there in front of them, too. They explained who He might have been, suggesting John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremias or another of the Old Testament prophets. From the conversation, we can surmise that the subject of Jesus identify had come up before and that they’d tried to arrive at an answer. Peter, on the other hand, did not hesitate, and when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus responded by pointing out that this knowledge was not something that had been revealed to him by flesh and blood (i.e. human knowledge derived from “critical thinking”) but directly through His Father in Heaven. He then goes on to say that “on this rock, I will build my Church.” But what was “the rock”? Here’s where the various denominations don’t seem to be able to agree. Was it Peter himself, as the Catholics seem to think? Was it a literal rock? What was it? We Latter-day Saints interpret “the rock” as being “the rock of revelation,” and we believe that Christ intended to build His Church on continued direction from Heaven to the one person holding the keys here on Earth (which, in the early days of the Church, we believe to have been Peter).

We do not believe there is any other way for a person to come to have knowledge of spiritual truths. Spiritual knowledge does not come through “critical reading” or from scholarly research. That is not to say that critical reading is not worthwhile. Certainly it can add a great deal of depth to our knowledge and we are, in fact, encouraged to learn as much as we can about all aspects of both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. But it’s not what gives us our initial testimony of the truth, as much as some of us (including me) would like it to be able to do.

John W. Welch, Professor of Law at Brigham Young University, explained how critical reading and a witness from the Spirit go hand in hand. He said, “I [have] learned… that the Holy Ghost is not found at the end of a syllogism, that deductive logic is restricted by its assumptions, and that inductive sciences are limited…. Those who try by logic to prove the Book of Mormon either true or false invert the actual process…. It seems clear enough that the Lord does not intend the Book of Mormon to be an open-and-shut case intellectually, either pro or con. If God had intended this, He would have left more concrete evidences one way or the other.

Instead, it seems that the Lord has maintained a careful balance between allowing questions that lead one to wonder about the reputed sources of the book and providing counterweights that lead one to affirm the stated origins of the record. This equilibrium invites the world to approach the Book of Mormon ultimately as a matter of faith and as a modern-day miracle, but at the same time gives people ample grounds to take the book seriously.

The study part of this balance is an important ingredient in my testimony of the Book of Mormon. Although scholarship does not create faith, for me it creates an environment in which faith may thrive. I have found over the hears that many intriguing and forceful cases can be made in favor of the Book of Mormon on grounds that combine the resources and faculties of both study and faith. Trying to rely on either faith alone or study alone is like trying to play a violin with only one arm….

Evidence in support of this book’s truth invites people to take it seriously, engenders respect, strengthens the impressions it has on us, brings people to contemplate and entertain its claims, and gives the Holy Spirit a better opportunity to testify that the book is true.”

I hope this help clarify some of what has already been said.

Thank you. It's a balance, because we are in balance. We have an intellect and a spirit. But there's a difference between reading theologically and reading exegetically. I don't believe the veracity of something can be ascertained by reading pryerfully. It can only be ascertained by reading critically. When archaeologists find new bits of writing that appear to be scriptural, exegetical scholars study them carefully before a determination is made as to their veracity. If they're found authentic, they are incorporated into the body of stuff with which subsequent translations are generated. If a completely new document is found, it is not cobbled into the canon, but it is read, studied, made available. That's because the canon is not the ending point, it's the starting point.

But it seems that the plates of Moroni weren't studied, either archaeologically or exegetically. They were "spiritually discerned" by one person, translated by one person (not by a group, as is usual). And they were cobbled into the canon. That runs contradictory to the way scriptural analysis has always been conducted in the modern age.

And Hinckley supports this? Scholarship, as you say, is never a hindrance. Why, then, does Hinckley seem to pooh-pooh the idea?

 

[sojourner]

He specifically said that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I think this is taken way out of context, and is a wonderful example of eisegesis -- reading into scripture something that is not there, rather than reading out of scripture what is there. Since those writers would have had no inkling that America existed, they could not have been writing about that particular "fold."

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps that's because the Bible has existed since the first Christians existed.

No, it hasn't.

The Book of Mormon was lost to the world for many centuries. It stands to reason that it would contain such an invitation. I'm really curious as to why this is such a source of concern to you. God is simply saying, "After you've read this, pray about it and ask me if it's true. I will reveal my answer to you by the power of the Holy Ghost." Why on earth does this raise a red flag for you? Don't you believe that God would answer your prayers?

The gospel of Thomas was lost to us longer than the BOM was. And that's not how we determined its authenticity. Thomas is widely read and widely used in Biblical study. But it's not part of the canon, because, in order for the canon to be the canon, it has to be standard. Adding and subtracting would ruin the standard. So, Thomas remains extra-canonical. Many do, however, consider it to be "scripture" in some way.

Oh. And we have extant copies of it to study.

Why should the BOM receive this special treatment, when no other lately-discovered writing has been treated in this way? The big problem is the means of discovery and translation. The BOM was never treated scholastically or critically, until after the originals disappeared. We have nothing but one man's nineteenth century English translation, which was carried out in secret. Not exactly a bell-ringer for critical authentication.

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. - Peter

 

[sojourner]

Let me add something here, if I may.
These issues are real problems for me. That's why I bring them up in answer to the OP. For me, it's just not as easy as getting a certain feeling.

I know that you all love these writings and revere them. I don't want to tear any of that down for you. I hope you realize that I'm not calling you "wrong" or "stupid" or "gullible." You believe what you believe, you're passionate about it, and that's great.
But there are aspects of discovery and authentication here that I just can't get my head around.

I hope you're enjoying the debate.

Respectfully,
S-

 

[Katzpur]

Let me add something here, if I may.
These issues are real problems for me. That's why I bring them up in answer to the OP. For me, it's just not as easy as getting a certain feeling.

I know that you all love these writings and revere them. I don't want to tear any of that down for you. I hope you realize that I'm not calling you "wrong" or "stupid" or "gullible." You believe what you believe, you're passionate about it, and that's great.
But there are aspects of discovery and authentication here that I just can't get my head around.

I hope you're enjoying the debate.

Respectfully,
S-

I'm enjoying the debate between you and me, Sojourner, and I will try to respond to your comments a bit later today.

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

The Lord is Risen Indeed!


But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;
or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;
and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
Who among all these does not know
that the hand of the Lord has done this?
In his hand is the life of every living thing
and the breath of all mankind. - Job 12

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you. It's a balance, because we are in balance. We have an intellect and a spirit. But there's a difference between reading theologically and reading exegetically. I don't believe the veracity of something can be ascertained by reading pryerfully. It can only be ascertained by reading critically. When archaeologists find new bits of writing that appear to be scriptural, exegetical scholars study them carefully before a determination is made as to their veracity. If they're found authentic, they are incorporated into the body of stuff with which subsequent translations are generated. If a completely new document is found, it is not cobbled into the canon, but it is read, studied, made available. That's because the canon is not the ending point, it's the starting point.

But it seems that the plates of Moroni weren't studied, either archaeologically or exegetically. They were "spiritually discerned" by one person, translated by one person (not by a group, as is usual). And they were cobbled into the canon. That runs contradictory to the way scriptural analysis has always been conducted in the modern age.

And Hinckley supports this? Scholarship, as you say, is never a hindrance. Why, then, does Hinckley seem to pooh-pooh the idea?

Sojourner, I really do believe you have misunderstood President Hinckley's point of view. For starters, you can't simply take one or two sentences and come to any sort of legitimate conclusion about how a person feels -- particularly when there was nothing said to imply that he "pooh-poohs" scholarship. Gordon B. Hinckley was raised in a family where both parents were educators. His parents had a library of more than 1000 books which, in his day especially (he was born in 1910) would have been very unusual. He was college educated; relatively speaking, not all that many in his generation were. He was an avid reader who put real emphasis on lifelong learning. It's really an inaccurate assessment that he would be down on scholarship in any way.

But stop for a minute and think about the early days of the LDS Church. When Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon in 1829, Mesoamerican archeology was in its infancy. When compared with archeology elsewhere in the world, in many respects, it still is today. There was no linguistic research on chiasms. There were no wordprint studies. Knowledge about the Arabian penninsula where the book begins was virtually non-existant. In other words, the earliest converts to the Church would have had a real disadvantage had they had to rely on anything other than what the Holy Ghost revealed to them after they had read and prayerfully asked God about it. The same is true of many people in the world today, who are living in underdeveloped countries or who have little education. Personally, I love learning about the evidences to support the Book of Mormon's claims to be an authentic ancient record of people descended from the house of Israel. But those evidences are fascinating as frosting on the cake for me. They strengthen my belief but they are not the foundation for it.

If you don't believe that prayer is a reliable means of ascertaining spiritual truths, what do you say to James' claims that if any man lack wisdom, he should ask of God? He says that God will not be critical of the inquiry but will respond to it. If God responds through the Holy Ghost, how can that knowledge be denied? The Holy Ghost is, after all, a revelator. That's one of His primary roles. And he's not going to lie. In the Bible, Thomas was unwilling to believe without physical proof, and Jesus, showing him the wounds in His hands and feet, said, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. It's not just a matter of getting a "warm fuzzy feeling." Personally, that's a sensation I've yet to have while reading the Book of Mormon. It's a matter of recognizing truth when I am shown it. It's a matter of faith, study, and prayer -- no one of these things to the exclusion of the others.

 

[Watchmen]

He also started the Perpetual Education Fund.
Perpetual Education Fund Home

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, I really do believe you have misunderstood President Hinckley's point of view. For starters, you can't simply take one or two sentences and come to any sort of legitimate conclusion about how a person feels -- particularly when there was nothing said to imply that he "pooh-poohs" scholarship. Gordon B. Hinckley was raised in a family where both parents were educators. His parents had a library of more than 1000 books which, in his day especially (he was born in 1910) would have been very unusual. He was college educated; relatively speaking, not all that many in his generation were. He was an avid reader who put real emphasis on lifelong learning. It's really an inaccurate assessment that he would be down on scholarship in any way.

But stop for a minute and think about the early days of the LDS Church. When Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon in 1829, Mesoamerican archeology was in its infancy. When compared with archeology elsewhere in the world, in many respects, it still is today. There was no linguistic research on chiasms. There were no wordprint studies. Knowledge about the Arabian penninsula where the book begins was virtually non-existant. In other words, the earliest converts to the Church would have had a real disadvantage had they had to rely on anything other than what the Holy Ghost revealed to them after they had read and prayerfully asked God about it. The same is true of many people in the world today, who are living in underdeveloped countries or who have little education. Personally, I love learning about the evidences to support the Book of Mormon's claims to be an authentic ancient record of people descended from the house of Israel. But those evidences are fascinating as frosting on the cake for me. They strengthen my belief but they are not the foundation for it.

If you don't believe that prayer is a reliable means of ascertaining spiritual truths, what do you say to James' claims that if any man lack wisdom, he should ask of God? He says that God will not be critical of the inquiry but will respond to it. If God responds through the Holy Ghost, how can that knowledge be denied? The Holy Ghost is, after all, a revelator. That's one of His primary roles. And he's not going to lie. In the Bible, Thomas was unwilling to believe without physical proof, and Jesus, showing him the wounds in His hands and feet, said, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. It's not just a matter of getting a "warm fuzzy feeling." Personally, that's a sensation I've yet to have while reading the Book of Mormon. It's a matter of recognizing truth when I am shown it. It's a matter of faith, study, and prayer -- no one of these things to the exclusion of the others.

Think about the early 400's c.e. when the Bible was canonized. Do you think archaeology and anthropology came into the picture? The difference isn't the archaeological or anthropological evidence. The difference is that the canon NT scriptures are part of and have continuity with the Tradition of the followers of the Hebrew God.

 

[The-G-man]

All you mormons out there please check out the Southpark episode on Mormons, it shows an accurate description of the life of Joseph Smith and is actually respectful to the religion too.
When seeing it in this way, you will notice how silly it is to believe all of what Smith said, i promise it is not offensive, and does not lie about the book of Mormon not even once.
But if you are not confident in what you believe, then i would say to stay clear, because some uncomfortable to truths will reveal themselves.

On another note i would just like to ask, what is all that stuff about homosexuals basically being preached straight? homosexuality is not a choice, it is what you are born as.
Homosexuality has been around since Ancient times, this is proved by there being a verse on it in almost every religious book ever made, does that not show that maybe homosexuality has always been around.

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

All you mormons out there please check out the Southpark episode on Mormons, it shows an accurate description of the life of Joseph Smith and is actually respectful to the religion too.
When seeing it in this way, you will notice how silly it is to believe all of what Smith said, i promise it is not offensive, and does not lie about the book of Mormon not even once.
But if you are not confident in what you believe, then i would say to stay clear, because some uncomfortable to truths will reveal themselves.

On another note i would just like to ask, what is all that stuff about homosexuals basically being preached straight? homosexuality is not a choice, it is what you are born as.
Homosexuality has been around since Ancient times, this is proved by there being a verse on it in almost every religious book ever made, does that not show that maybe homosexuality has always been around.

Actually, my kids had me watch the South Park episode on Joseph Smith. IMO, I thought the cartoon was quite accurate for a cartoon from a non-Mormon perspective.

 

[zomg]

All you mormons out there please check out the Southpark episode on Mormons, it shows an accurate description of the life of Joseph Smith and is actually respectful to the religion too.
When seeing it in this way, you will notice how silly it is to believe all of what Smith said, i promise it is not offensive, and does not lie about the book of Mormon not even once.
But if you are not confident in what you believe, then i would say to stay clear, because some uncomfortable to truths will reveal themselves.

On another note i would just like to ask, what is all that stuff about homosexuals basically being preached straight? homosexuality is not a choice, it is what you are born as.
Homosexuality has been around since Ancient times, this is proved by there being a verse on it in almost every religious book ever made, does that not show that maybe homosexuality has always been around.

I've watched some of the episode in question.
"When seeing it in this way, you will notice how silly it is to believe all of what Smith said,"...the same thing can be said for any religion. Christianity included. Silly does not equal false.

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

I've watched some of the episode in question.
"When seeing it in this way, you will notice how silly it is to believe all of what Smith said,"...the same thing can be said for any religion. Christianity included. Silly does not equal false.

It seems your statement is similar to the OP in regards to seperating Christianity from Mormonism. Since you are a Mormon, do make a distinction between Christianity and Mormonism as a Faith?

 

[Apex]

All you mormons out there please check out the Southpark episode on Mormons, it shows an accurate description of the life of Joseph Smith and is actually respectful to the religion too.
When seeing it in this way, you will notice how silly it is to believe all of what Smith said, i promise it is not offensive, and does not lie about the book of Mormon not even once.
But if you are not confident in what you believe, then i would say to stay clear, because some uncomfortable to truths will reveal themselves.

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]The Assumption of Peculiarity, and the Problems Thereof[/FONT][/FONT]

Let's say you've just:
-Heard a neat rumor
-Read a new book or pamphlet
-Watched a video or TV show that filled you with knowledge
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]
You are just dying to post this great new concept to debate and discussion forum and prove those with whom you disagree wrong. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Whoops. You have just fallen for the dreaded [SIZE=+1]Assumption of Peculiarity[/SIZE]. You firmly believe your insight to be unique and totally beyond refutation -- but is it? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Not very likely.[/FONT]
Someone else started that rumor, wrote that book or pamphlet, created the show or video. And someone else heard, read or watched the same thing and posted your exact "unique" knowledge a long, long time ago. If you choose to post an expose of everyone else's stupidity, you may:

-be ignored
-be flamed to zweiback
-wind up in a hundred kill flies overnight
-prove yourself to be a clueless newbie to thousands, or
-any combination of the above

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]
On the other hand, if you've just returned from some dark, dank Mesoamerican jungle with a stone carving of a sign that says "Zarahemla, Next 2 Exits", then post away. If you have just returned from some dark, dusty attic and have a letter written by Joseph Smith to Geraldo proposing a show on "How to Make Big Bucks by Starting Your Own Religion", then we'd all love to read that, too. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Oh, but if you don't mind, provide some references; it really helps. (I've already bought two of those darn Zarahemla signs, and they both turned out to be fakes). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Please note I said "some" references, not "all." You may have an extensive library of rare books, a marvelous CD set, and a web search engine, but extracting pages and pages of quotes from any or all of the above has not been shown to persuade anybody to join your cause; more likely they junk your post. In general, if the number of words of reference material (including the Scriptures) exceeds the number of words you provide to advance your point of view, then you are likely to be ignored as a blowhard. Heck, most of the posters can do a word search as well as you, so save yourself the effort.[/FONT]

 

[zomg]

It seems your statement is similar to the OP in regards to seperating Christianity from Mormonism. Since you are a Mormon, do make a distinction between Christianity and Mormonism as a Faith?

Yes and no. I know others view Christianity as different from LDS beliefs. I know I believe things different than typical Christians. I see myself as a Christian. In this instance, I was using the term Christianity to include my fellow Christians to remind them about the silly beliefs we both share.

I hope what I typed made sense. I am on some pain medication at the moment.

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

Yes and no. I know others view Christianity as different from LDS beliefs. I know I believe things different than typical Christians. I see myself as a Christian. In this instance, I was using the term Christianity to include my fellow Christians to remind them about the silly beliefs we both share.

I hope what I typed made sense. I am on some pain medication at the moment.

When you try to reconcile Christianity with Mormonism, we all get confused including with the LDS author of the post. He is asking why Christians do not accept the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the assumption is Mormons are not Christians by the question that was asked in the OP. Would it be fair to assume that Mormons are Mormons first and Christians second?

 

[zomg]

I don't know. It depends on the situation. Sometimes not identifying oneself as a Christian revceives negative reactions.

I usually tell people I am LDS and hopefully they know that means I am a Christian.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes and no. I know others view Christianity as different from LDS beliefs. I know I believe things different than typical Christians. I see myself as a Christian. In this instance, I was using the term Christianity to include my fellow Christians to remind them about the silly beliefs we both share.

I hope what I typed made sense. I am on some pain medication at the moment.

I'm sure the Gnostics thought of themselves as Christians. That doesn't mean that they were. I do hope you feel better, by the way...

 

[LittleNipper]

Okay, LittleNipper, I can't resist the temptation to respond to these comments, even though I previously said it would be a waste of my time.

Unrelated? I don't follow your reasoning. Could you explain, please?

And that is precisely what the Book of Mormon is doing. It is spreading the good news of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer.

Perhaps that's because the Bible (at least as a collection of sacred writings and not as a "book" per se) has existed since the first Christians existed. Its authors were known and studied by the people of that time. The Book of Mormon was lost to the world for many centuries. It stands to reason that it would contain such an invitation. I'm really curious as to why this is such a source of concern to you. God is simply saying, "After you've read this, pray about it and ask me if it's true. I will reveal my answer to you by the power of the Holy Ghost." Why on earth does this raise a red flag for you? Don't you believe that God would answer your prayers?

And there are none in the Book of Mormon like that either. As a matter of fact, in the Book of Mormon, we're told that we must ask with faith in Christ. You can't have faith in Christ if you don't believe Him to be God's Son, and you can't believe Him to be God's Son if you don't believe in God. The Bible does tell us that if we lack wisdom, we should ask God for it and He will respond by giving us the wisdom we ask for. That's exactly what the Book of Mormon is doing.

Holy Cow! Neither do we!

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide some examples of this?

Wow! Well, in your two readings of the book, you obviously weren't paying much attention to the words. On the other hand, you did manage to find some things that aren't even there -- such as a reference to the Celestial Kingdom. Very impressive!

Nephi as put forth in the bom is not an ancestor of JESUS. He might as well never have existed ----- oddly enough...