Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[LittleNipper]

Were you not referring to the Book of Mormon when you said, "I do not see any of the freedom in Christ, but contrived works and fingers that point to HUMAN REWARDS and to which side of GOD one will sit in the "celestial" kingdom..."?

I'm very happy for you.

I believe that no matter what the book of mormon says, Mormons use it to promote their theology/doctrines.

Thank you ----- they are very nice people though confusing when it comes to what they believe, think they believe, and might believe...

 

[The-G-man]

[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]

Im sorry are you addressing the right person here?
i have no idea what you are talking about.
Did i say at any point that it is not true?
did i say at any point, that Jospeh Smith is a liar and all of what he said was a lie.
Read my post again, and then apologise.

 

[LittleNipper]

LittleNipper, once again you do not understand LDS doctrine as well as you believe you do. Anyone can feel the witness of the Spirit. If a person reads the Book of Mormon and prays to God, asking for confirmation that what he has read is true, it is through the Holy Ghost that God will answer his prayers. Obviously that individual would not have had the Holy Ghost bestowed upon him through the laying on of hands. The "Gift of the Holy Ghost" is something different and it is received only after baptism and by the laying on of hands -- exactly as we are told in the scriptures.

The HOLY SPIRIT showed me Biblically that the book of Mormon was a Satanic distortion of the truth. So yes, I do believe GOD will present the truth, if that is what one wishes to witness. Man will have all sort of feelings, whenever it suits Satan to make individuals subservient to such and men are open to being so led. The gift of the HOLY SPIRIT came down as tongues of fire where there was no laying on of hands. So Mormons are mistaken in the presumption that only human hands can bring the HOLY SPIRIT to someone (among other things).

 

[Apex]

Im sorry are you addressing the right person here?
i have no idea what you are talking about.
Did i say at any point that it is not true?
did i say at any point, that Jospeh Smith is a liar and all of what he said was a lie.
Read my post again, and then apologise.

You assumed that the Southpark episode was something we had never seen. You then assumed that if we watched it we would arrive at the same conclusions you arrived at yourself. Your post perfectly fits the Assumption of Peculiarity. Also, your post had absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

 

[sojourner]

Well, to be perfectly honest, when I think about the process of the canon being established, I am amazed that it took so many years for the world's Christians to realize that God was done talking and that it was time to formalize the canon and declare the canon to be closed. To me, that alone is very problematic. God spoke to the ancient Apostles and inspired them to write the words we read in the Bible today, but He didn't tell any of them that He intended to discontinue revealing His word in the future. Then suddenly, silence. And the Christians wait and wait and wait. God says nothing more but they're a patient lot. Finally, they acknowledge that He is not communicating to the Church any more (even though the Spirit has continued to communicate with the pure in heart), and call a council to proclaim that all of the scripture that is ever to be written already has been written. In effect, they decided to silence God.

It sounds as if you, and indeed, Mormon bible scholars (as well as a lot of other Christians) look at the canon as the end of a process. It has never been that! It was always meant to be a place to start. The canon is just that: a standard by which all religious literature is measured. That misconception alone is reason enough for me, personally, to say that the BOM is not valid, in terms of canon. The canon was closed a long time ago. Closed is closed. Whether or not it has spiritual validity is not for me to say, and I don't make any judgments as to whether it is truly revelatory or not. You say that it works for you, and that's good enough for me.

The canon being closed has nothing to do with the concept that God has nothing more to say to us. god has always had more to say than was ever written down. This brings us to a second reason: The reliance on holy writing as the only (or main) vehicle of God's revelation smacks of sola scriptura, which is a Reformation construct which (i believe) is not applicable to Resotarion principles. If the aim is to restore the Church to first century practice, then that would not include such a large reliance on written scripture.

BTW: what council do you refer to? I hope not the Council of Nicea. The canon was never discussed at Nicea.

Then, I said,

The difference is that the canon NT scriptures are part of and have continuity with the Tradition of the followers of the Hebrew God.

to which you answered:

Could you elaborate? How do you see this as having worked?

Paul was a Jew. Matthew was a Jew. Mark was a Jew. The Q author was a Jew. Jews believe in God. These writers obviously elaborate on the theology laid out in the Hebrew scriptures. They were written by communities that came out of Israel in the first century. They are direct outgrowths of that culture and that time. They have been preserved and expanded upon by the subsequent Church, with no lapse in the timeline. The people and culture that produced the NT have always been around. The BOM just doesn't fit that criteria.

 

[LittleNipper]

What one can consider is if GOD has said ENOUGH. When CHRIST said, "It is finished," was anything else needed for HIM to say? Christians have obviously existed without knowing anything about either America or Nephi. I really do not understand how either relates to GOD's Gospel message. Frankly, the only ones who seem to reach for such additional things are those already presumed to be "christian." A heathen isn't going to say, "We already got a Bible." Such would likely not even know what a Bible is... Atheists are not impressed with the Bible ---- do you really believe that the BoM is more persuasive?

 

[The-G-man]

You assumed that the Southpark episode was something we had never seen. You then assumed that if we watched it we would arrive at the same conclusions you arrived at yourself. Your post perfectly fits the Assumption of Peculiarity. Also, your post had absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

I'm sorry i had assumed you have not seen it, am i Psychic?
I also asked questions about a religion i would admit i do not know much about, and you come at me foaming at the mouth, calm it down.

all you had to say was "yes i have seen it" thats all that was needed, your actions are not of what i expect from a Christian, maybe your just not a very good one.

 

[Apex]

I'm sorry i had assumed you have not seen it, am i Psychic?
I also asked questions about a religion i would admit i do not know much about, and you come at me foaming at the mouth, calm it down.

Foaming at the mouth is hardly any way to describe pointing out a logical fallacy. There was no hostility in my post. I fail to see how you could have interpreted any hostility, have I insulted you anywhere? As for your question you asked, it is unrelated to the OP. If you are new to internet forums then you may not know that if you wish to ask a question it is not considered good form to post it in an unrelated thread. You are more than welcome to ask your question in the LDS forum and we will happily answer it.

all you had to say was "yes i have seen it" thats all that was needed, your actions are not of what i expect from a Christian, maybe your just not a very good one.

There is no need for insults.

 

[The-G-man]

Foaming at the mouth is hardly any way to describe pointing out a logical fallacy. There was no hostility in my post. I fail to see how you could have interpreted any hostility, have I insulted you anywhere? As for your question you asked, it is unrelated to the OP. If you are new to internet forums then you may not know that if you wish to ask a question it is not considered good form to post it in an unrelated thread. You are more than welcome to ask your question in the LDS forum and we will happily answer it.
There is no need for insults.

maybe if you gave a Christian response in the first place you would not have got that reaction.

 

[Halcyon]

maybe if you gave a Christian response in the first place you would not have got that reaction.

If you look back through the older posts of this forum you will see that the LDS get more than their fair share of abuse, ridicule and attacks on their faith. Some people have been here for years and have endured these types of attacks pretty much constantly, and this is only an internet forum where they can sign off when they've had enough.

When you're fending off constant attacks, is it really any surprise that people might have a little less patience when dealing with them?

 

[The-G-man]

If you look back through the older posts of this forum you will see that the LDS get more than their fair share of abuse, ridicule and attacks on their faith. Some people have been here for years and have endured these types of attacks pretty much constantly, and this is only an internet forum where they can sign off when they've had enough.

When you're fending off constant attacks, is it really any surprise that people might have a little less patience when dealing with them?

Yes but they should be rude to those who have mocked them not to those who haven't.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Yes but they should be rude to those who have mocked them not to those who haven't.

I'm sorry if it sometimes seems like people are being rude, but it's often the case than when a person starts down a path of inquiry, more seasoned members are often inclined to deal with it in one fell swoop rather than let it play out given that most issues have been raised in these forums on previous occasions. The discussions tend to get ugly or tedious (or both), so they are nipped in the bud.

It's nothing personal. If anything, it's one of the most impersonal methods of dealing with these discussions.

 

[Katzpur]

The HOLY SPIRIT showed me Biblically that the book of Mormon was a Satanic distortion of the truth. So yes, I do believe GOD will present the truth, if that is what one wishes to witness. Man will have all sort of feelings, whenever it suits Satan to make individuals subservient to such and men are open to being so led. The gift of the HOLY SPIRIT came down as tongues of fire where there was no laying on of hands. So Mormons are mistaken in the presumption that only human hands can bring the HOLY SPIRIT to someone (among other things).

Okay, well we're obviously going to have to simply agree to disagree. We don't, however, have to be disagreeable. Since you seem to be incapable of responding with even a miminal degree of civility, I'm going to let other LDS posters respond to you. There are enough courteous people on the forum that I don't need to bother even trying to have a conversation with someone who refers to a book that testifies of Christ as "Satanic." Have a nice day, LittleNipper, and don't bother addressing my posts in the future... unless you simply want to see your words in print. I won't be responding to them.

 

[Evangelicalism]

at least people could answer the question

nobody wants to even do that....

most people haven't even read it and they call it "rubbish" and other names i have seen/heard

The Bible, in Galatians, says there shall be no testaments after this.

That means that God through Jesus Christ intended to establish the church and then let it run its course to revelation.

God did not intend to have another testament.

That is EXACTLY what the Mormons claim, that there is a 3rd testament.

 

[Katzpur]

The Bible, in Galatians, says there shall be no testaments after this.

That means that God through Jesus Christ intended to establish the church and then let it run its course to revelation.

God did not intend to have another testament.

That is EXACTLY what the Mormons claim, that there is a 3rd testament.

Would you please provide us with some specific verses? Why would God not want as many witnesses to His Only Begotten as possible?

 

[Christian Pilgrim]

The Ascension

6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” - Acts 1

 

[LittleNipper]

Please quote chapter and verse.

In the book of mormon? Any decendents of Nephi would have had to have been born in the New World (according to bom). And didn't the Nephites & Lamanites all get wiped out? At least I've not run into anyone who would admit to being either... American Indians are so fascinating ---------- don't you think?

 

[LittleNipper]

Okay, well we're obviously going to have to simply agree to disagree. We don't, however, have to be disagreeable. Since you seem to be incapable of responding with even a miminal degree of civility, I'm going to let other LDS posters respond to you. There are enough courteous people on the forum that I don't need to bother even trying to have a conversation with someone who refers to a book that testifies of Christ as "Satanic." Have a nice day, LittleNipper, and don't bother addressing my posts in the future... unless you simply want to see your words in print. I won't be responding to them.

Just because one calls a spade a spade, doesn't make him disagreeable. I'm open to discuss the Bible with you and or the bom. I simply cannot agree with your prophet's interpretations/indoctrinations. They are not supportable, but made up.

 

[Watchmen]

In the book of mormon? Any decendents of Nephi would have had to have been born in the New World (according to bom). And didn't the Nephites & Lamanites all get wiped out? At least I've not run into anyone who would admit to being either... American Indians are so fascinating ---------- don't you think?

You continue to show your ignorance of Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.

 

[Watchmen]

Just because one calls a spade a spade, doesn't make him disagreeable. I'm open to discuss the Bible with you and or the bom. I simply cannot agree with your prophet's interpretations/indoctrinations. They are not supportable, but made up.

That's not how you said it before. You didn't call it a spade - you called it Satanic.