Abrahamic - Mormons

[Katzpur]

You wanted to know why Christians feel that the orthodox gospel and the Mormon gospel are different. That's why. It's not meant to put down your holy Book. But, the only way we can arrive at the truth is to subject our writings and our beliefs to the acid test of criticism (in the analytical sense, not the disparaging sense).

I'm not one to tell you that you're wrong. but I am saying that there is definitely a difference between Mormon belief and doctrine, and orthodox belief and doctrine, especially where the gospel message is concerned. That was the original question, was it not? I'm not attempting to put a value on any one over the other here -- merely to point out that there's a difference.

I agree, many LDS doctrines are significantly different to those of mainstream Christianity. But since it is my belief that what is taught today by "orthodox" Christianity is not what was taught by Jesus and His Apostles, and if what they taught has since been restored, it would stand to reason that the "restored" doctrines would be different.

 

[sojourner]

I agree, many LDS doctrines are significantly different to those of mainstream Christianity. But since it is my belief that what is taught today by "orthodox" Christianity is not what was taught by Jesus and His Apostles, and if what they taught has since been restored, it would stand to reason that the "restored" doctrines would be different.

And therein lies the real rub of the whole orthodox/Mormon debate. Mormons hold the apostacy theory. Orthodox Christians do not. Neither position can be proven, thereby becoming useless as a basis for argument. That difference creates a fundamental difference in the gospel that is proclaimed by each of the two groups.

 

[SoyLeche]

And therein lies the real rub of the whole orthodox/Mormon debate. Mormons hold the apostacy theory. Orthodox Christians do not. Neither position can be proven, thereby becoming useless as a basis for argument. That difference creates a fundamental difference in the gospel that is proclaimed by each of the two groups.

Although, the purpose of the thread is to show if the Book of Mormon and the Bible are fundamentally different. We can all accept that the LDS church and your basic Protestant church have different doctrinal beliefs. I think Aqua was just sick of hearing that the Book of Mormon is very different from the Bible, when so far nobody has been able to point out any fundamental differences.

 

[jonny]

You wanted to know why Christians feel that the orthodox gospel and the Mormon gospel are different. That's why. It's not meant to put down your holy Book. But, the only way we can arrive at the truth is to subject our writings and our beliefs to the acid test of criticism (in the analytical sense, not the disparaging sense).

I'm not one to tell you that you're wrong. but I am saying that there is definitely a difference between Mormon belief and doctrine, and orthodox belief and doctrine, especially where the gospel message is concerned. That was the original question, was it not? I'm not attempting to put a value on any one over the other here -- merely to point out that there's a difference.

I am not saying that your critisizm isn't valid. All I was pointing out was that if you are going to use that argument against the LDS church, you need to be intellectually honest and realize that the exact same argument is used against your holy book. That's all. I didn't see it as putting down the Book of Mormon. I accept the Book of Mormon on faith, not evidence.

I agree that there are differences. I think that Aqualung's point in this thread was that the Bible and the Book of Mormon do not contradict each other.

 

[sojourner]

Although, the purpose of the thread is to show if the Book of Mormon and the Bible are fundamentally different. We can all accept that the LDS church and your basic Protestant church have different doctrinal beliefs. I think Aqua was just sick of hearing that the Book of Mormon is very different from the Bible, when so far nobody has been able to point out any fundamental differences.

Read my first post here. Bible=consistent within the context of the time of it's having been written. There's a level of authenticity, bolstered by the presence of extant ancient text, continuity of writing style, historical veracity, triangulation of similar texts with a common text-of-origin, etc. BoM=inconsistent. Where are the ancient texts? Where is the hill where the plates were found? Why is this the only literature of it's time period? Where's the archaeological evidence of the people involved in the stories? Where's the literary proof of similarity in style and message, evidenced by common origin of text? These are not fundamental differences?

 

[SoyLeche]

Read my first post here. Bible=consistent within the context of the time of it's having been written. There's a level of authenticity, bolstered by the presence of extant ancient text, continuity of writing style, historical veracity, triangulation of similar texts with a common text-of-origin, etc. BoM=inconsistent. Where are the ancient texts? Where is the hill where the plates were found? Why is this the only literature of it's time period? Where's the archaeological evidence of the people involved in the stories? Where's the literary proof of similarity in style and message, evidenced by common origin of text? These are not fundamental differences?

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbmsmain.php

Have fun. I'm not really into looking for evidences, but some people are. Also, you should check out pretty much any post by Deep Shadow here. He's good at this sort of thing.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi. I'm an orthodox (not Orthodox) Christian. I'm not here to "Mormon-bash," but someone had laid down the gauntlet for a non-Mormon to enter the debate, so here I am.

Thank you. I'll take you at your word.

I think the problem most non-Mormon scholars have with the Book of Mormon, is that it isn't historically or anthropologically defendable.[/quote]To me, that is so unimportant -- particularly when compared to the message of the Book. There is no evidence of this nature that Jesus Christ's resurrection ever took place either. Look how many people the world over don't even believe He ever existed. I don't base my belief in Him on historical or anthropological evidence, though, and I suspect you don't base your on those things either.

There are no extant ancient texts. Many sites mentioned (including the hill where the plates were found -- there is no hill where Joseph Smith said there was) cannot be geographically placed.

We no longer have the plates. I can't argue with you there. But eleven individuals other than Joseph Smith saw and handled them. And as for the hill where Joseph Smith found them, it exists. I climbed it last summer. Thousands visit it every year.

Also, a critical reading of the BoM yields no compelling evidence of any literary style corresponding to the time the Book was written.

Huh? I'll definitely argue with you on that issue! To me, the literary evidence of the Book of Mormon is compelling. As a matter of fact, I'll go one-on-one in debate with you on this topic if you're interested.

Then there's the apostacy issue: Reasonable scholarship of the Bible shows that the canonical gospels were not written by people who actually knew or were disciples of Jesus. The earliest gospel was not written until after the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. The Biblical canon (the Bible as we now have it) was not set until the third century. If, as Joseph Smith maintained, authority was "taken away" from the Church by God following the death of the last original apostle, then the whole of today's Bible was compiled and edited by apostate Christians and, therefore, not authoritative. By definition, that point alone either 1) makes the basis of the Mormon gospel (as presented in the Bible, which Mormons view as authoritative,) as apostate and as unauthoritative as the rest of Christendom, or 2) The "restored" gospel of the Mormon Church must be different from the gospel of the Bible.

Well, since I'm at work now, and just finishing up my lunch hour, I don't have time to comment further on this topic. For now, I'll just say that we do use the Bible extensively as a source of doctrine. If we don't accept it as inerrent or complete, we're in pretty good company.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

And therein lies the real rub of the whole orthodox/Mormon debate. Mormons hold the apostacy theory. Orthodox Christians do not. Neither position can be proven, thereby becoming useless as a basis for argument. That difference creates a fundamental difference in the gospel that is proclaimed by each of the two groups.

If you'd like to start a one-on-one debate about the differences in "the gospel," as understood by Mormons and mainstream Christians, I'll be happy to accept your challenge. I'll stick entirely to the Bible in supporting LDS doctrine, too, even though that will put me at a significant disadvantage.