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

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by neillien

I was just saying that a traditional Christian, who understands the biblical principle of becoming righteous through belief,
most likely would not even want to inquire into a religion that does not believe this.

I just have one more thing to say. Your reasoning still doesn't make sense to me.

I would understand if you were to say "why would they inquire into a religion that taught exactly what they already believe". What would be gained from it? It would be pretty much a waste of time.

The reason to inquire is because it is different from what you currently believe.

After all, what is better than a God who sees you as righteous just because you believe.

Oh, and I thought of one more thing that would be better: How about a God who sees you as righteous just because you believe and causes Snicker's bars to grow on the trees in my back yard. That would be AWESOME!!!

Of course, a God who expects more from you than just belief and causes the whole snickers thing would be even better.

Still, a God that exists trumps them all.

[neillien]

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

. . . How about a God who sees you as righteous just because you believe and causes Snicker's bars to grow on the trees in my back yard . . .

LOL because it was funny and sounds like what would have been said by Calvin (of Hobbes fame, not predestination fame).
Frubal because it was very poignant.

What Mr. Milk is saying is that we shouldn’t choose our religion because it sounds best. Instead, our religion should be sound.
And I would add don’t choose because it feels best.

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

. . . I would understand if you were to say "why would they inquire into a religion that taught exactly what they already believe" . . . The reason to inquire is because it is different from what you currently believe . . .

Understand it this way. If a new religion might be different but it also proposed that Joseph Smith did not pen the Book of Mormon, you would only inquire into that new religion for interest sake, not conversion. Because you would know better.

And here’s how I know better:
The 1st covenant helps me to understand the new covenant; the law, sacrifice, righteousness, our sins, our savior.
I’ve never read a better breakdown than in the Bible of how it all is fulfilled. It assuredly tells me that humans can’t do it, it has to be God. And, when it says we’re righteous through belief, it makes sense.

So, if someone wants me to check out a religion that says I can make myself righteous, then this new “updated” religion is just like the 1st covenant; self reliability.

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

. . . Of course, a God who expects more from you than just belief and causes the whole snickers thing would be even better. . .

Like I just said, Judaism . . . but with candy bars instead of manna.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

. . . Was not Abraham our father justified by works . . .

This justification is a separate occurrence in time. Before this event, God came to Abram and spoke. Abram believed and was said to be righteous. His later obedience with Isaac did not make him righteous. But it did justify his righteousness.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

. . .faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" . . .

The Christian goal is to be perfected through works, not to be made righteous by works.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

First off, I was of the understanding that you fully understood LDS doctrine. I guess I was wrong. . . .

The more I learn, the more I need to know.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

But to answer your question, we believe, as the scriptures state, that faith without works is dead. A dead faith is useless. . .

I believe that, too. But if Abraham hadn’t believed and been righteous to begin with, I don't think he would have obeyed.
The scriptures also talk about people whose works will amount to nothing on judgement day. They will be saved but it will be "as if going through fire." This is the value of believing; even if you have no works to bring to God, He promises to save you.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

. . . How could reading a book which testifies of Jesus Christ and then asking God for wisdom in knowing of its truth be against Christian teachings. . .

I do not know of Christian teachings that would disagree with you here.
You’re making me alter my thinking.
I guess, even if a church has beliefs that contradict my faith, it doesn’t mean that they weren’t inspired originally. I could indeed read their writings and meditate about it, although I would not join their church.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by neillien

LOL because it was funny and sounds like what would have been said by Calvin (of Hobbes fame, not predestination fame).
Frubal because it was very poignant.

What Mr. Milk is saying is that we shouldn’t choose our religion because it sounds best. Instead, our religion should be sound.
And I would add don’t choose because it feels best.

Not quite, but you got part of it. Mostly what I'm trying to get at is "be open to the chance that what you currently believe is wrong".

Understand it this way. If a new religion might be different but it also proposed that Joseph Smith did not pen the Book of Mormon, you would only inquire into that new religion for interest sake, not conversion. Because you would know better.

I'm not asking you to convert. I'd be plenty happy if you looked into it just for curiosity.

This justification is a separate occurrence in time. Before this event, God came to Abram and spoke. Abram believed and was said to be righteous. His later obedience with Isaac did not make him righteous. But it did justify his righteousness.

The Christian goal is to be perfected through works, not to be made righteous by works.

The more I learn, the more I need to know.

I believe that, too. But if Abraham hadn’t believed and been righteous to begin with, I don't think he would have obeyed.
The scriptures also talk about people whose works will amount to nothing on judgement day. They will be saved but it will be "as if going through fire." This is the value of believing; even if you have no works to bring to God, He promises to save you.

From this, it seems like our beliefs may not be as different as you and I may think they are. Mostly it seems like the differences are in how we define different terms and a bit of difference in degree.

For example, I believe that righteousness requires a desire to become perfected in Christ. James says it rather well in chapter 2. A profession of belief in and of itself is pretty useless.

I believe that God wants me to be a better person than I am, and that in order to get there I am going to have to make decisions that get me there. I will require God's help at every step along that journey - I can't do it alone. God making those decisions for me wouldn't accomplish the same goal, though.

Also, just as a suggestion - when you say that "the Bible says...", it is usually customary to point out where the Bible says these things. Again, though, this is getting off topic and should probably be moved to another thread.

[uss_bigd]

The book of mormons is not considered valid because there is a doctrine written there that violates

1 Tim 3:2.

"two contradicting things can never be both true" but i maintain the stance that nobody is condemned.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

The book of mormons is not considered valid because there is a doctrine written there that violates

1 Tim 3:2.

"two contradicting things can never ebe both true" but i maintain the stance that nobody is condemned.

Hello, Marc.

Would you mind citing an example or two of where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible? That would be a good place for us to start our discussion.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Hello, Marc.

Would you mind citing an example or two of where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible? That would be a good place for us to start our discussion.

I did not say everything contradicted the bible if i may clarify. i said their is a particular doctrine that contradicts 1 Tim 3:2.

I don't know where to find the mormon doctrine, because i just saw an excerpt. but you can check 1 tim 3:2 then youd be able to match it with the mormon doctrine.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

I did not say everything contradicted the bible if i may clarify. i said their is a particular doctrine that contradicts 1 Tim 3:2.

I don't know where to find the mormon doctrine, because i just saw an excerpt. but you can check 1 tim 3:2 then youd be able to match it with the mormon doctrine.

I've just finished reading 1 Timothy 3:2, and am unaware of any verse in the Book of Mormon which contradicts it.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I've just finished reading 1 Timothy 3:2, and am unaware of any verse in the Book of Mormon which contradicts it.

I will agree that there could be similarities between the book of Mormons and the Bible.

But isn't true that the fundamentalist CLDS was once one and the same with the Mormon church, and Joseph Smith the founder had several wives and the CLDS original doctrine condoned to polygamy?

That Violated 1 tim 3:2.

But i know the Mormon church have long changed that. that is why they seperated from the Fundamentalist CLDS. but that is another story.