Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid? (Jesus, Earth) - Page 52

England my lionheart · #**511** 12-03-2007, 11:46 AM

Well i think anything that is written by men should be taken with a pinch of salt but if it makes you happy so what.As stated by others ,the tablets of gold guatemala and stuff it is hard to take in but mormons seem ok to me but the faith not for me.

Bishka · #**512** 12-03-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by England my lionheart

,the tablets of gold guatemala and stuff it is hard to take in but mormons seem ok to me but the faith not for me.

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? It's obvious that you have very little, if any knowledge of the LDS Church and our theology/beliefs.

9-10ths_Penguin · #**513** 12-03-2007, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? It's obvious that you have very little, if any knowledge of the LDS Church and our theology/beliefs.

Either that or his knowledge of the LDS Church is belied by his lack of knowledge of punctuation. That quote makes a bit more sense if you insert a comma before "guatemala".

sojourner · #**514** 12-03-2007, 12:17 PM

Quote:

do you think God can not speak forth his words according to his own please? do you not think he would remember one nation like unto another?

I think God can speak through the BOM. I think God does, in fact, speak through the BOM to a great number of people. I choose to not use that route to lead me to God. It's a choice. I choose to weigh the BOM as less revelatory and authoritative for me than the Canonical scriptures. You are free to do as you wish for yourself, and I respect that.

The question was asked, "why don't I accept the BOM as valid?" My answer is that it is extra-canonical. That may not be much of an answer, as far as you're concerned, but that's my answer.

Scuba Pete · #**515** 12-04-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by England my lionheart

Well i think anything that is written by men should be taken with a pinch of salt

Or perhaps the entire shaker!

madhatter85 · #**516** 12-04-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sojourner

I think God can speak through the BOM. I think God does, in fact, speak through the BOM to a great number of people. I choose to not use that route to lead me to God. It's a choice. I choose to weigh the BOM as less revelatory and authoritative for me than the Canonical scriptures. You are free to do as you wish for yourself, and I respect that.

The question was asked, "why don't I accept the BOM as valid?" My answer is that it is extra-canonical. That may not be much of an answer, as far as you're concerned, but that's my answer.

If you really believed that God speaks through the bible, why woudl you choose not to listen to it?

sojourner · #**517** 12-04-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madhatter85

If you really believed that God speaks through the bible, why woudl you choose not to listen to it?

I was speaking of the BOM, not the Bible. However, to answer your question, I believe God can and does speak through all kinds of things -- including people. But "all kinds of things" aren't all the canonical scriptures. I choose not to listen to some of it, because I don't think some of it particularly has anything to say to me.

madhatter85 · #**518** 12-04-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sojourner

I was speaking of the BOM, not the Bible. However, to answer your question, I believe God can and does speak through all kinds of things -- including people. But "all kinds of things" aren't all the canonical scriptures. I choose not to listen to some of it, because I don't think some of it particularly has anything to say to me.

so you think God is a respector of persons and that only certain rules apply to only certain flavors of faiths?

9-10ths_Penguin · #**519** 12-04-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sojourner

The question was asked, "why don't I accept the BOM as valid?" My answer is that it is extra-canonical. That may not be much of an answer, as far as you're concerned, but that's my answer.

But I don't see how that makes sense given the definition and explanation for "canon" that you gave before.

If canon is just that which was most reflective of the beliefs of the people who set it, at the time they set it - and nothing else - then why would the canonical status matter when deciding whether something is valid?