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

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by tomspug

OK, if my knowledge is wrong, then explain it to me. Otherwise it comes off like your insulting me for not being familiar with a religion I am not a part of.

we are not going to insult you for ignorance, but just for making ignorant statements.

I would suggest you go and do some research at some places liek

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , Mormon.org , Main Page - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki

if you would like to know more you can also locate your local missionaries and have them come over and teach you a little bit about it.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by tomspug

OK, if my knowledge is wrong, then explain it to me. Otherwise it comes off like your insulting me for not being familiar with a religion I am not a part of.

I apologize. I'm wasn't trying to be insulting.

Madhatter's post was discussing the Bible (see his first paragraph or the Mestemia's post (the one madhatter was replying to)). Joseph Smith was in the process of doing an "inspired" translation of the Bible. When he died, his relatives took his manuscripts and split from the church, starting what eventually became known as The Community of Christ (previously, they were known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Brigham Young, without Joseph's manuscripts, stated that the King James Version would be good enough for the Church.

[tomspug]

It's not an ignorant statement if it was based on information I received from people posting on this topic. If I've brought something up, I've always posed it as a question, not as an ignorant statement.

I have another point that is more relevant to madhatter's original post. I think your frustration with Christianity not accepting the Book of Mormon comes from the nature of Mormonism itself. The church refers to itself as 'Latter-Day Saints', implying that there is a need for 'Latter-Day Saints'. What is the need? Well, the general impression that the Christian Church gets is that they are mistaken on a number of important Biblical issues (in other words, that their religion is not complete) and that the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, etc. helps to rectify that.

I think if you look at it from their perspective it is pretty easy to see why other Christian churches would have a problem with that whole idea. Imagine if someone came along saying they were a latter-day prophet for the LDS church and claimed that there were a huge number of errors in Joseph Smith's translation, pointing to an entirely different text as the solution.

Brigham Young, without Joseph's manuscripts, stated that the King James Version would be good enough for the Church.

Thank you for clarifying. My question would then be, if Joseph Smith felt it necessary to alter the Bible, why did Brigham Young abandon this and settle for a 'broken' bible? That was what I meant when I asked if Brigham Young was ignoring that part of 1 Nephi.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Thank you for clarifying. My question would then be, if Joseph Smith felt it necessary to alter the Bible, why did Brigham Young abandon this and settle for a 'broken' bible? That was what I meant when I asked if Brigham Young was ignoring that part of 1 Nephi.

Well there's two answers:

The legal answer is that Brigham Young did not have any rights in what Joseph Smith was working on, Smith's family did. So, they weren't for Young to use.

The other answer is that neither Smith nor Young described the Bible as "broken." Smith used the King James Version, but was attempting to create a more correct version. If a person becomes better does that mean they were bad to begin with? Of course not. Good people make improvement to their lives all the time. The Bible was/is always good, Joseph was just trying to make it better.

[tomspug]

That's why the Christian church won't accept that (on topic for the second post in a row!). They beileve the Bible in its current form is infallible. See, people tried to 'improve' the Bible back in the early days of the church, which is how we got some weird ones like the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas.

The true church as a whole eventually organized the New Testament, focusing only on books that were written very near to the life of Christ (and did not claim a divine revelation of history) by people who were alive when Jesus was alive.

If I am coming from your perspective, I would be as frustrated as Madhatter because the general church STILL has not accepted the Book of Mormon as doctrine even though it's been around 150 years already. From your perspective, it's the perfect companion to the Bible. From our perspective, it's an attempt to change what has been accepted for almost the entirety of Christianity's existence.

I mean, how does the LDS Church feel about other 'latter day' religious texts like Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures. The Church of Christian Science also feels that they are improving on an imperfect book.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Also, anyone who quotes C.S.Lewis as supporting any LDS doctrine that differs from Christianity CLEARLY hasn't read very much C.S.Lewis.

Actually, entire books have been written on how many of C.S. Lewis' beliefs are similar to LDS beliefs. The particular quote I shared describes LDS doctrine perfectly. If you don't agree with it, that's fine with me, but I'll likely continue to quote Lewis since he's such a favorite of mine.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by tomspug

From your perspective, it's the perfect companion to the Bible. From our perspective, it's an attempt to change what has been accepted for almost the entirety of Christianity's existence.

That's true, tomspug. We're just looking at the book from a different point of view. But could you tell me, from your perspective, what biblical teachings you believe the Book of Mormon has changed?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

we are not going to insult you for ignorance, but just for making ignorant statements.

Why insult him at all? Do you need to make someone else look bad in order to make yourself look good? I mean give the guy a chance, MH.