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

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Starfish

These scriptures, from among the others I quoted, are talking about things that were prophecized about Christ. They foresaw this happening and none of this could Christ set up to mimic the prophecies.
Ps. 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the awicked have inclosed me: they bpierced my hands and my feet.
Ps. 69: 21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me avinegar to drink.
Hosea 11: 1 When Israel was a child, then I aloved him, and called my bson out of cEgypt.
Micah 5: 2 But thou, aBeth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of bJudah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be cruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from deverlasting.
Zech. 11: 13 And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the apotter: a goodly price that I was bprised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.

Yes, you're right, crucifying is a Roman punishment. The Jews would have stoned him. But it was the Jews who demanded his death. It was the Jews who could have set him free. The Roman rulers were willing to let him go.

You're right: Christ would not have "set things up" just to fulfill prophecy to make it "look like" he was the Messiah. That wasn't his style. BUT...it certainly is the style of the gospel writers and redactors to write history so that Jesus "fits the bill."

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by nutshell

I can agree with that.

Just noticed your avatar. Kewl!

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by Starfish

These scriptures, from among the others I quoted, are talking about things that were prophecized about Christ. They foresaw this happening and none of this could Christ set up to mimic the prophecies.
Ps. 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the awicked have inclosed me: they bpierced my hands and my feet.
Ps. 69: 21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me avinegar to drink.
Hosea 11: 1 When Israel was a child, then I aloved him, and called my bson out of cEgypt.
Micah 5: 2 But thou, aBeth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of bJudah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be cruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from deverlasting.
Zech. 11: 13 And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the apotter: a goodly price that I was bprised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.

So you say, but all these are taken out of context. I myself have no problem believing Jesus was the messiah, not because of fulfilling a ton of prophecies but because he fulfilled the need for one in order to reform the literalistic mosaic preiesthood into a non-literal, open-your heart and let God in type of religion. This is what made it such a universal creed, and for me what it makes it true. It has nothing to do with what people said someone else said, etc. ad nauseum. Which is the problem I have with the BoM...Its much the same as with Paul, and all the commentators. I dont need them to understand the basic message of Jesus. He said everything he needed to say already.

I dont need the BoM to tell me the mormons are good people, I admire y'all greatly. But I just dont see the requirement for adding anything extra is all.

Just so ya know its not against mormonism or mormons personally, here. Just the need for something outside of Jesus own words to prove its relevance and truth. They are enough for me.

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by sojourner

You're right: Christ would not have "set things up" just to fulfill prophecy to make it "look like" he was the Messiah. That wasn't his style. BUT...it certainly is the style of the gospel writers and redactors to write history so that Jesus "fits the bill."

If I understand you correctly--are you saying that men rewrote parts of the OT to better fit it to Christ's life? I may be wrong in what you're saying, but if I'm not, you might as well toss the entire Bible out. How do you trust any of it, if parts have been tampered with?

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

So you say, but all these are taken out of context. I myself have no problem believing Jesus was the messiah, not because of fulfilling a ton of prophecies but because he fulfilled the need for one in order to reform the literalistic mosaic preiesthood into a non-literal, open-your heart and let God in type of religion. This is what made it such a universal creed, and for me what it makes it true. It has nothing to do with what people said someone else said, etc. ad nauseum. Which is the problem I have with the BoM...Its much the same as with Paul, and all the commentators. I dont need them to understand the basic message of Jesus. He said everything he needed to say already.

I dont need the BoM to tell me the mormons are good people, I admire y'all greatly. But I just dont see the requirement for adding anything extra is all.

Just so ya know its not against mormonism or mormons personally, here. Just the need for something outside of Jesus own words to prove its relevance and truth. They are enough for me.

Thanks for your kind words. Your views are so very common in the Christian world, and I'm sure they've been thoroughly addressed in this very long thread. We LDS will continue to look at your beliefs with respectful bewilderment, just as you do ours.
This brings to mind a question I had, many posts ago. What would the world think of the BoM if it was discovered in an archeological dig, and had no connection with Joseph Smith, angels, and a new church? Assuming it was examined and authenticated by experts as an ancient text.
Thanks again.

[Troublemane]

As to what if it was found today in an archaeological dig, I suppose it would have to be in ancient Hebrew or something to be significantly different. If it was written in some angellic language as the original gold plates were (from what I hear), and they had to be translated by faith I dont imagine actually having the plates would change anything. We'd still have the situation we have now, with some people believeing on faith thats what the plates said, and some arguing thats not what they say, etc.

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

As to what if it was found today in an archaeological dig, I suppose it would have to be in ancient Hebrew or something to be significantly different. If it was written in some angellic language as the original gold plates were (from what I hear), and they had to be translated by faith I dont imagine actually having the plates would change anything. We'd still have the situation we have now, with some people believeing on faith thats what the plates said, and some arguing thats not what they say, etc.

The plates were written in a form of Eqyptian. Scholars could have deciphered them eventually. A copy of the text was verified by a non-LDS expert, at the time. The men that wrote in the plates were regular men, not angels. So back to my question--how would the world have received it?

[Troublemane]

Above is a drawing of letters transcribed from the plates by Joeseph Smith. These letters do not resemble Egyptian in any way that I am aware of, and from what I understand it could not be decoded except by J. Smith wearing magic spectacles, or staring into a shew-stone (which is exactly like how John Dee's assistant translated the language of Enoch).

I wonder if Mormons ever heard of John Dee? I have spent years studying the life of John Dee.It would be interesting to hear your take on it, because the similarity is amazing.
John Dee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enochian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Melissa G]

Yes, I've had this mish-mash of unintelligle gibberish thrown at me in the past, theres some latin letters, some greek, and numerals. And clearly made up signs. It is not related to anything but Smith's imagination. A complete fabrication.

melissa g

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

Well this started out bad. The very first word to describe to us what we are seeing is totally mispelled. He puts it as "Caractors". Even in our day and time I couldn't find that word in a dictionary. I found the word "cHaractor" but it is in reference to actors but it is derived from the proper word "Character".

I studied this piece of text the other night and there are three, maybe four, symbols that repeat. The rest are similar to greek, english or unidentifiable symbols but none of it based off of its supposed mother language (egyptian).