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

[neillien]

But without the proper spirit or attitude, you won't get much from it.

Unfortunately, people tend to use that idea as an excuse. But you have to first discover the truth, and then you will receive spiritual guidance. If you start with a false feeling that you decide will be true, your foundation will be corrupt.
What seems right . . . in the end will be destruction.

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by neillien

But without the proper spirit or attitude, you won't get much from it.

Unfortunately, people tend to use that idea as an excuse. But you have to first discover the truth, and then you will receive spiritual guidance. If you start with a false feeling that you decide will be true, your foundation will be corrupt.
What seems right . . . in the end will be destruction.

No need for false feelings. Just be open minded. While reading it, ask God to help you recognize truth. Trust him.
But some people have said they began reading the Book of Mormon to prove it wrong. Looking for errors. They ended up being converted.

[trinity2359]

I was one of those who studied the church for the fun of it. I read the book "The God Makers" and was like, "no way a religion believes this!" Guess what? After studying the faith, I'm right - they don't believe what was in that book. So I was intrigued into the theology and eventually 'converted'. But it was a wanna-be conversion - I wanted it to be true, therefore it must be true. Well, I have since recognized that wishes don't make reality and am in the process of being recieved into the Catholic Church

[Bathsheba]

Originally Posted by trinity2359

I was one of those who studied the church for the fun of it. I read the book "The God Makers" and was like, "no way a religion believes this!" Guess what? After studying the faith, I'm right - they don't believe what was in that book. So I was intrigued into the theology and eventually 'converted'. But it was a wanna-be conversion - I wanted it to be true, therefore it must be true. Well, I have since recognized that wishes don't make reality and am in the process of being recieved into the Catholic Church

I'm curious, what was in "The God Makers" that mormons don't believe? (I haven't read the book so I don't know).

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Bathsheba

I'm curious, what was in "The God Makers" that mormons don't believe? (I haven't read the book so I don't know).

Well, I haven't read the book, but I do have a transcript of the movie version. If you want to discuss it, you could start a new thread and I'd be happy to touch on each point that it covers. At least in terms of the movie, it's the way in which the doctrines were presented that is so offensive. They take a basic doctrine and either embellish it or even parody it to the point where it's hardly recognizable to members of the Church. Let's say someone wanted to produce an anti-Catholic movie. Consider the doctrine of transsubstantiation or "real presence" which is that the bread/wafer and wine, when presented to Catholics as the eucharist, is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ. If this doctrine were being portrayed in a movie by the producers of the Godmakers, we'd see a bunch of people sitting around a table eating the corpse of Jesus Christ. The actually doctrine would be portrayed as cannibalism. See what I mean?

[uss_bigd]

Christians of the bible does not consider the book of mormons valid because God said to John:

Revelation 22:18
"Here is my warning for everyone who hears the prophecies in this book: If you add anything to them, God will make you suffer all the terrible troubles written in this book'.

That is what is written.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

Christians of the bible does not consider the book of mormons valid because God said to John:

Revelation 22:18
"Here is my warning for everyone who hears the prophecies in this book: If you add anything to them, God will make you suffer all the terrible troubles written in this book'.

That is what is written.

Thanks, bigd. You realize, of course, that "the Bible" didn't even exist when John received Revelation, don't you, and that it wouldn't exist in the form in which we have it today for quite a few more centuries? John was referring to the book known as Revelation. He was warning people not to add to it. He wrote his own gospel account after he received Revelation, and most Christians I know value it quite highly. I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible where God says He's through talking to us. As a matter of fact, the idea that He might actually contradicts what the Bible says.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Thanks, bigd. You realize, of course, that "the Bible" didn't even exist when John received Revelation, don't you, and that it wouldn't exist in the form in which we have it today for quite a few more centuries? John was referring to the book known as Revelation. He was warning people not to add to it. He wrote his own gospel account after he received Revelation, and most Christians I know value it quite highly. I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible where God says He's through talking to us. As a matter of fact, the idea that He might actually contradicts what the Bible says.

Hi Katzpur!

i hope all's well with us ... I am looking for another verse, it is in the Gospel or the letters of Paul .. he said something like "stay to that of which that is written" it will then encompass the whole bible.

and by the way, where is it mentioned that the book in the verse i quoted only refers to the book of revelation? thanks for the info...

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

Hi Katzpur!

i hope all's well with us ... I am looking for another verse, it is in the Gospel or the letters of Paul .. he said something like "stay to that of which that is written" it will then encompass the whole bible.

If you interpret it that way, fine...but then Paul should have stopped writing.

and by the way, where is it mentioned that the book in the verse i quoted only refers to the book of revelation? thanks for the info...

Well, the problem is that the Bible was not assembled when the Book of Revelations was written, so the only 'book' John had at the time was the individual one he was writing. What makes you think he was looking a hundred someodd years in the future to write the ending of a book that didn't exist yet?

Bear in mind, you've answered the question satisfactorily, and so you don't owe us anything. Question asked, question answered, feel free to move on, if you wish. We're only pointing out that there are multiple interpretations of the scriptures you reference. You are welcome to your interpretations, and God Bless You in His service.

If you want to hear about alternative interpretations, we'll be glad to oblige.