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

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

So... when mistakes are found, you don't correct them? That approach doesn't make the canon accurate, it only makes it authoritatively inaccurate.

Because the argument "Tradition is Tradition, and nothing else is acceptable" appeals only to consistency, not accuracy or any sort of idea of "truth".

Those are two of the most insightful statements I've seen on this thread yet! My problem with the concept of "Tradition" as a means of defining doctrine is that the emphasis seems to be on how long it's been around, not on whether or not it's true.

[nutshell]

Yes - tradition as the be all end all standard seems ridiculous, IMO.

Slavery was traditional for a time. Obviously it was wrong.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by sojourner

By that criterion, then everything the LDS do is by will of the flesh.

Fortunately for you, "will of the flesh" is very much within God's working vocabulary. God has always used human agency. These people, called by God to a particular job, accomplished, through human agency, the will of God.

While God uses human agency, It was not, (at least to us) the will of the flesh that changed certain things in the church. It was only by direct revelation that official documents are prepared, signed and read. there is no comitte that sits around and makes up good ideas.

now if you want to, answer my question as to where and when the claims were made that direct revelation is said to have justified your church's "closed cannon"

[sojourner]

As do the Dead Sea Scrolls, at least in regard to any places where their text does not match the established canon.

And, where they are valuable to subsequent translatory updates, they have been used. That's partly why more modern translations differ from earlier ones. The question isn't with regard to supporting manuscripts, but to brand-new material.

So... when mistakes are found, you don't correct them? That approach doesn't make the canon accurate, it only makes it authoritatively inaccurate.

Mistakes, omissions, blurry translations, etc. are all "corrected" as they become apparent. We're not talking about the process of translation. We're talking about the inclusion of completely new material. That cannot happen, because the Canon is closed. The new material can be "added" as corrollary, but not as part of the "standard."

Because the argument "Tradition is Tradition, and nothing else is acceptable" appeals only to consistency, not accuracy or any sort of idea of "truth".

Because it is consistency in areas of origin, authorship, intended audience, literary style, etc. that verify the documents as authentic. It is that authenticity that is sought, not factual consistency of the text. Preserving the tradition is more important than trying to make facts line up. Even a cursory glance at the historical books of the OT will attest to that. That's because the impetus for studying the Bible is to gain insight into the lore -- the story -- of God's people, not to master factual content.

When truth is garnered from scripture, it is largely in the sense of "that's what God's people have believed." There is always a theological push to find relevancy for modern times in the ancient theological views preserved in scripture. In some sense, "truth is truth." In another sense, our perspective of what is true must be tweaked as new understanding and insights come to light.

Why wouldn't you evaluate the Book of Mormon on its own merits rather than saying "sorry, time's up! You should have submitted this sooner"?

It haas been. it adds nothing of significance to the existing books of the Canon.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by nutshell

Yes - tradition as the be all end all standard seems ridiculous, IMO.

Slavery was traditional for a time. Obviously it was wrong.

But, yet, it's not ridiculous to engage in a futile effort to "restore what was lost?" In other words -- "make an effort to remain true to what is the 'real' NT tradition"???

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

While God uses human agency, It was not, (at least to us) the will of the flesh that changed certain things in the church. It was only by direct revelation that official documents are prepared, signed and read. there is no comitte that sits around and makes up good ideas.

now if you want to, answer my question as to where and when the claims were made that direct revelation is said to have justified your church's "closed cannon"

so...you all have direct revelation, but no one else can claim that? That's ridiculous.

[madhatter85]

no, i'm sure anyoen can recieve direct revelation when called of God, but i have yet to find where the Catholic Church claims to have recieved any kind of revelation from God. As far as i know they don;t believe there will be or can be any revelation after Christ.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Because it is consistency in areas of origin, authorship, intended audience, literary style, etc. that verify the documents as authentic. It is that authenticity that is sought, not factual consistency of the text. Preserving the tradition is more important than trying to make facts line up. Even a cursory glance at the historical books of the OT will attest to that. That's because the impetus for studying the Bible is to gain insight into the lore -- the story -- of God's people, not to master factual content.

When truth is garnered from scripture, it is largely in the sense of "that's what God's people have believed." There is always a theological push to find relevancy for modern times in the ancient theological views preserved in scripture. In some sense, "truth is truth." In another sense, our perspective of what is true must be tweaked as new understanding and insights come to light.

Ah... I see. IOW, you take the Canon as the authoritative document of the original beliefs of Christianity. This is rather different from the other approach of taking the Canon as the authoritative and infallible Word of God.

In fact, I'd say that this approach makes a literal interpretation of the Bible as God's Truth completely inappropriate.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

no, i'm sure anyoen can recieve direct revelation when called of God, but i have yet to find where the Catholic Church claims to have recieved any kind of revelation from God. As far as i know they don;t believe there will be or can be any revelation after Christ.

I think this is largely an argument of semantics, but it serves to explain why you're Mormon and not Roman Catholic...