Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid? (Jesus, Earth)

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by Vassal

I can't believe I didn't see this thread until now...

I don't accept the Book of Mormon as true, primarily because it doesn't even get historical, archaeological, linguistic, biological, and textual things correct. If the Book of Mormon can't even get the physically observable things correct, then what are the chances that it is correct about the unobservable spiritual things?

Book of Mormon historically incorrect:
National Geographic Letter on the Book of Mormon - Document
Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon - Document
Living Hope Ministries - Video
Living Hope Ministries - Video

I've offered to debate you and your "sources" before. Why haven't you taken me up on it? You said once that if I wasn't going to believe science, what was the point, but that's presuming the argument: I believe the current DNA evidence of Asian extractions supports the Book of Mormon, as I stated on my Mulekites thread. These statements reflect the scientists' knowledge of the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Mormon's knowledge of science. I agree with much of their data, I just know more about what the Book of Mormon actually says not to get caught up refuting the Readers' Digest version of it.

As for linguistic evidence, you've got to be kidding me! How did Joseph Smith know about chiasm (including megachiasm), Arabic couplets, Bedoin oaths and nomenclature, and colophons, just to name a few. What linguistic evidence do you have against the Book of Mormon?

[*Paul*]

What reasons would you offer that a Christian should accept it as the word of God.

[Melissa G]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

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.

You don't believe there is any way that Christ would have appeared to his "Sheep of another fold" (mentioned in the bible) in the americas after his ressurection. Or that Both God and Christ would appear to a modern day prophet.

Yet, they believe that God, or even the "Mother Mary" would speak to 6 old women in Bosnia?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why you think the way you do.

I really don't want to get involved in this, but from everything I've read, Smith was a charlatan, and simply invented his whole story. So, it's hardly suprising that a great many people reject the LDS book as a phoney work.

Melissa G

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

I really don't want to get involved in this, but from everything I've read, Smith was a charlatan, and simply invented his whole story. So, it's hardly suprising that a great many people reject the LDS book as a phoney work.

That may be a rather direct way of putting it, but that's probably a fair assessment of the feelings of most people who reject the Book of Mormon.

For me and for others, it fundamentally comes down to an opinion that the whole thing is rather unbelievable.


Also, a complete lack of evidence for most of the events in the Book of Mormon doesn't help. You can visit Jerusalem yourself and archaeological evidence proves many of the peripheral Biblical events (i.e. you may not be able to find archaeological evidence of Jesus, but you do have evidence of the Romans and the Pharisees, as well as the fact that they worked together); you can't do this for the Book of Mormon. Care to tell us where Zarahemla is or where we can find an example of Nephite metallurgy, or explain of why the native North and South Americans had no metal tools or knowledge of metalworking when the Europeans arrived?

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

I've offered to debate you and your "sources" before. Why haven't you taken me up on it? You said once that if I wasn't going to believe science, what was the point, but that's presuming the argument: I believe the current DNA evidence of Asian extractions supports the Book of Mormon, as I stated on my Mulekites thread. These statements reflect the scientists' knowledge of the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Mormon's knowledge of science. I agree with much of their data, I just know more about what the Book of Mormon actually says not to get caught up refuting the Readers' Digest version of it.

As for linguistic evidence, you've got to be kidding me! How did Joseph Smith know about chiasm (including megachiasm), Arabic couplets, Bedoin oaths and nomenclature, and colophons, just to name a few. What linguistic evidence do you have against the Book of Mormon?

For the record, I would love to see this debate happen...

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

I really don't want to get involved in this, but from everything I've read, Smith was a charlatan, and simply invented his whole story. So, it's hardly suprising that a great many people reject the LDS book as a phoney work.

Melissa G

have you read the Book of Mormon?

If not, don't you think that might be a good place to start when deciding about Joseph Smith and the validity of the book?

[Melissa G]

I friend, who is an LDS lent me a copy. Personally I think it is utter nonsense.

Melissa G

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

I friend, who is an LDS lent me a copy. Personally I think it is utter nonsense.

Melissa G

Does that mean you actually read the book or just opened it?