Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by dance-above

I just want to say, you dont need my approval.

That's right, we don't, and you don't need ours. But together, we need God's.

Paul said there could be no other foaundation laid except that of Christ and that one should beware how he built thereon.

Yes, he did say that. I think he was pretty concerned about what he could see happening in the Church, even so soon after Christ's death. Too bad people didn't listen.

[dance-above]

Joseph Smith adds nothing to My salvation.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by dance-above

Joseph Smith adds nothing to My salvation.

Nor to mine. My salvation is through Jesus Christ and Him alone.

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by dance-above

I feel the need to correct you,
They do believe they are the other Flock, just like JWs.

Before you "correct" a member of the LDS Church, please step back a moment. You were trying to assume you understand and know the doctrines of the LDS Church, you are telling an LDS member what they believe, doesn't that strike you at all a little ridiculous?

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by dance-above

I feel the need to correct you,
They do believe they are the other Flock, just like JWs.

Actually, they don't. And I realize my profile doesn't say so, but I am LDS.

[astarath]

I dont accept it because I took the time to acquire a copy and read some of it and evaluate it by measuring it against the canon. Personally I feel as though there is little truth there rich in the deception of the opposition. This is solely a personal opinion however and feel each Christian need evaluate all potential scripture against God's word to decide for themselves the validity of the Mormon scriptures.

[athanasius]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

So nearly 400 years after Christ, Rome finally got its act together. Well, I’m really impressed. And just where did that leave the Church prior to 382 A.D.?

Consider the fact that in 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.




So when certain writings are authenticated and determined to have been inspired, and others determined, for whatever reason, not to qualify as scripture, this is not new revelation? It sure sounds like new revelation to me, unless you’re saying that the decision as to what to include in the canon was not inspired at all. If the canon was to include only the writings of the Apostles, and not even all of their works, why in Heaven’s name did it take 400 years for it to be finalized? Either the decision as to what would be included in the canon was divinely inspired or it wasn’t. If it was, it was by revelation that the decision was made. If it wasn’t – and I’m convinced that it wasn’t – then it’s easy to understand why the canon of 200 A.D. was so different from the canon of 400 A.D.

And it took Him nearly 400 years to do so. Oh, brother.

You have no idea how funny that sounds to a non-Catholic. The Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church has said so.


I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, somebody along the line managed to corrupt the truth.

Christ founded His Church all right, and it wasn’t the Catholic Church.

Perhaps I am not being a very good at explaining. They say there are no bad students just bad teachers. I am sorry if I was not clear or perhaps did not express the Catholic understanding in a easier to understand way. I am also sorry If I have offended you by the way I speak. I have had friends who were Mormon and have been to Mormon worship and I think they are great people who love God. I do not judge their souls Jesus told me I couldn't do that. But I am very Bold about my faith as I believe we should all be. I do judge Mormon Doctrine through which I view as fatally flawed. So please understand I am not making a personal attack here. I am being objective and not subjective.

Let me see If I can address this in a way which is more understandable. Often time Catholics and Non-Catholic have problems dialoging because they use different terminology or because what one word means to them does not have the same meaning to the others. Maybe this is the problem.

Catholics Do not view the declaration of the Canon(382) as a revelation from God. The Pope is not a prophet who speaks a new revelation. The Pope and Magisteium simple is viewed as having a Protection by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when they come Authoritatively declare something in a ecumencal council or when when he speaks on his own Authority and declare to do so(Which is seldom). We do believe that Jesus and the Holy spirit guide the Church and speaks through the church to proclaim truths but the truths are not new revelations. We believe that the Holy spirit just gives us a deeper insight into already given revelation(scripture or tradition) as the years go by. We call this the development of Doctrine. All Christians believe in it. The simplest way of Putting is this. The Canon itself was revelation given by the apostles. The Catholic church in her infancy utilzed most of the same books but at that time some congregations(not all) did not recognize some books. The mutorian fragment in 180 A.D. is what you were talking about. It didn't list some books and others that we do not accept it did list. Various individual congregations from various places did or did not use some of the books. At this time the official canon of scripture for the whole Church had not been recognized yet. You said "what took them 382 years". Well as a student one really has to study early church history to really understand why it took so long.

I just finished a class on early Church history so it seems logical to me but I know there are many who may not have studied that yet. The Church in its infancy didn't hold a official universal ecumenical Church(which is intended for the whole Christian Church) council for the first 325 years because they could not for sevferal reasons. The early Christians could not hold a council because they were running from Pagans and being persecuted. When the emporer allowed the Christians more freedom(around early 300's) they then could meet publically and hold councils to deal with issues that were pressing the church(Just like they did in Acts 15).

So that is what took so long. God gave us the Canon but we couldn't set down and look at revelation as a whole church in council to decide what the canon was until we had our freedom to do it. We did so in 382 and ratified at other councils. And at that point we as a Church looked at the apostolic Tradition(oral tradition, the Oral word of God, already given revelation) which helped the church recognize the true Canon of written scripture. The Holy spirit guide the Church of coarse to look at tradition and make this call. The canon since it was already given by God was no new revelation. And since tradition (how we sought the canon) was no new revelation then the declaration of the canon was not new revelation it was just a authoritative decree for all Christians(Guided by the Holy spirit) that recognized already existing revelation(scripture) and declared them for all Christians of all congregations.

The canon at that point was closed. That was the time on earth(4th century) when the Holy spirit guided the Church to understand what was God written word. That was the time´on earth when the issue was settled for the church(although Later protestants would ripp out a few books). All Christians including yourself and Joseph Smith who used a bible and had a new testamant canon really owed their allegiance to the Catholic Church(A supposed apostate Church by your demands) and her infallible Autority for even believing in those books and using them in the first place. Al non-Catholics implicitly adhere to the Catholic Churches God given authority's by just having the new testament canon that they do. So they say yes we have a new testament canon because of the Catholic Church and her authority but we do not beleive the Catholic church has authority'. Is so ironic!

Given that we believe those things then this would explain why we do not believe in the book of Mormon or Joseph Smith to be a real prophet. It so simple. God already led the church to know what the Scriptures are and they were decided by the Power of god who does not change. No new public revelation can be believed because public revelation ended with the apostles. So when Mr Smith came on the seen and declare the book of Mormon to be scripture(over a thousands year after the canon was already decided and declared by a act of God) and when he proclaimed new things(revelations like Water for the Eucharist instead of wine) then Christians would look at him and his book and believe it to be false. I hope that helps. If not you may want to ask Victor. He may be able to explain it better than I. I have tried to explain it as best as I can.

I think you are confusing revelation and inspiration. The two do not always coincide. One can be inspired by God for many reasons but that does not entail that one is going to deliver new revelation. The Pope and church is not inspired the way the Apostles are. They just enjoy the negative protection of the Holy Spirit so as to not error when declaring things. And the quote you made fun of me that I said, "Rome has spoken the Case is closed" is a paraphrased quote from St Augustine, a ancient Christian Father. So if quoting the early Christians(Who gave you your Canon) is a bad thing then call call me guilty!

You said "Christ founded His Church all right, and it wasn’t the Catholic Church." Well, your argument is not with me then its with the entire early Church(read St Ignatius of Antioch a Bishop taught by apostles John himself). Nobody int he early Chruch ever talked about Moroni or the Mormon church being the True Church. Noone even heard of Mormon Church till some 1800 year later an that just 1800 years to late..

Thanks and God bless,
Athanasius

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by astarath

I dont accept it because I took the time to acquire a copy and read some of it and evaluate it by measuring it against the canon. Personally I feel as though there is little truth there rich in the deception of the opposition. This is solely a personal opinion however and feel each Christian need evaluate all potential scripture against God's word to decide for themselves the validity of the Mormon scriptures.

I find the Bible and BoM line up well. Perhaps you can tell me what doesn't measure up.

[FFH]

Originally Posted by nutshell

I find the Bible and BoM line up well. Perhaps you can tell me what doesn't measure up.

Well for one thing the King James has errors, which the Book of Mormon, interestingly enough, corrects some of them.

Technically only the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith inspired version of the Bible coincide completely, not the King James, which is full of errors and missing text.

So Astarath is correct in that sense.

[FFH]

Originally Posted by dance-above

Joseph Smith adds nothing to My salvation.

At least not yet.

Originally Posted by Katz

Nor to mine. My salvation is through Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Sorry, gotta get ya on a technicality.

Doctrine and Covenants 135: 3
Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times,has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not seperated!