Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[SoyLeche]

For a second there, I thought you were talking about a dramatization of the Book of Mormon. But you mean one of those Living Hope Ministries videos, right?

There is a "Book of Mormon: The movie". It isn't worth watching. The book is much better

 

[Smoke]

I'm not really sure what constitutes a "valid" reason for rejecting either the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

And I'm not sure what constitutes a "valid" reason for accepting the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or any other revelation. I guess because of acculturation, or because it resonates with one on an emotional (or I suppose adherents would prefer to say spiritual) level.

If one already accepts the Bible, and the BoM appears to conflict with the Bible, I guess that would seem like an insuperable obstacle. But virtually everything conflicts with the Bible, or can seem to. I can't really think of any compelling rational reason why Christians outside the historic churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic, Assyrian) would assume that their particular understanding of the Bible is more correct than the LDS understanding of it.

 

[namguy]

Which book book, according to the Momons, has the absoulte last word? The Book of Mormon or the Bible, KJV?

 

[jonny]

Which book book, according to the Momons, has the absoulte last word? The Book of Mormon or the Bible, KJV?

Neither. God has the last word.

We see the Book of Mormon, Bible, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as scripture. Each is important for a different reason.

 

[Katzpur]

Which book book, according to the Momons, has the absoulte last word? The Book of Mormon or the Bible, KJV?

I'm curious as to why one must have the last word over the other. Who according to your beliefs, has the absolute last word -- Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm curious as to why one must have the last word over the other. Who according to your beliefs, has the absolute last word -- Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

For a lot of people it tends to be Paul.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

For a lot of people it tends to be Paul.

You may well be right.
However I would always try to see what Jesus said on a subject.
Before accepting what Paul says I would look to see how it chimes with Jesus other teachings.
Paul can often Give a very old testament slant on things.

 

[madhatter85]

The person to have the last word will be the Lord.

 

[Vassal]

I can't believe I didn't see this thread until now...

I don't accept the Book of Mormon as true, primarily because it doesn't even get historical, archaeological, linguistic, biological, and textual things correct. If the Book of Mormon can't even get the physically observable things correct, then what are the chances that it is correct about the unobservable spiritual things?

Book of Mormon historically incorrect:
National Geographic Letter on the Book of Mormon - Document
Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon - Document
Living Hope Ministries - Video
Living Hope Ministries - Video

 

[Katzpur]

I can't believe I didn't see this thread until now...

I don't accept the Book of Mormon as true, primarily because it doesn't even get historical, archaeological, linguistic, biological, and textual things correct. If the Book of Mormon can't even get the physically observable things correct, then what are the chances that it is correct about the unobservable spiritual things?

Book of Mormon historically incorrect:
National Geographic Letter on the Book of Mormon - Document
Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon - Document
Living Hope Ministries - Video
Living Hope Ministries - Video

Oh, man. You are so uninformed, I wouldn't even know where to start.

 

[DeepShadow]

I can't believe I didn't see this thread until now...

I don't accept the Book of Mormon as true, primarily because it doesn't even get historical, archaeological, linguistic, biological, and textual things correct. If the Book of Mormon can't even get the physically observable things correct, then what are the chances that it is correct about the unobservable spiritual things?

Book of Mormon historically incorrect:
National Geographic Letter on the Book of Mormon - Document
Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon - Document
Living Hope Ministries - Video
Living Hope Ministries - Video

I've offered to debate you and your "sources" before. Why haven't you taken me up on it? You said once that if I wasn't going to believe science, what was the point, but that's presuming the argument: I believe the current DNA evidence of Asian extractions supports the Book of Mormon, as I stated on my Mulekites thread. These statements reflect the scientists' knowledge of the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Mormon's knowledge of science. I agree with much of their data, I just know more about what the Book of Mormon actually says not to get caught up refuting the Readers' Digest version of it.

As for linguistic evidence, you've got to be kidding me! How did Joseph Smith know about chiasm (including megachiasm), Arabic couplets, Bedoin oaths and nomenclature, and colophons, just to name a few. What linguistic evidence do you have against the Book of Mormon?

 

[*Paul*]

What reasons would you offer that a Christian should accept it as the word of God.

 

[Melissa G]

Why don't Christians accept the Book of Mormon to be true? It testifys of Christ our Savior, as the Messiah, the Great Mediator. And it's a solid Book, it has substance.

You don't believe there is any way that Christ would have appeared to his "Sheep of another fold" (mentioned in the bible) in the americas after his ressurection. Or that Both God and Christ would appear to a modern day prophet.

Yet, they believe that God, or even the "Mother Mary" would speak to 6 old women in Bosnia?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why you think the way you do.

I really don't want to get involved in this, but from everything I've read, Smith was a charlatan, and simply invented his whole story. So, it's hardly suprising that a great many people reject the LDS book as a phoney work.

Melissa G

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really don't want to get involved in this, but from everything I've read, Smith was a charlatan, and simply invented his whole story. So, it's hardly suprising that a great many people reject the LDS book as a phoney work.

That may be a rather direct way of putting it, but that's probably a fair assessment of the feelings of most people who reject the Book of Mormon.

For me and for others, it fundamentally comes down to an opinion that the whole thing is rather unbelievable.


Also, a complete lack of evidence for most of the events in the Book of Mormon doesn't help. You can visit Jerusalem yourself and archaeological evidence proves many of the peripheral Biblical events (i.e. you may not be able to find archaeological evidence of Jesus, but you do have evidence of the Romans and the Pharisees, as well as the fact that they worked together); you can't do this for the Book of Mormon. Care to tell us where Zarahemla is or where we can find an example of Nephite metallurgy, or explain of why the native North and South Americans had no metal tools or knowledge of metalworking when the Europeans arrived?

 

[Comprehend]

I've offered to debate you and your "sources" before. Why haven't you taken me up on it? You said once that if I wasn't going to believe science, what was the point, but that's presuming the argument: I believe the current DNA evidence of Asian extractions supports the Book of Mormon, as I stated on my Mulekites thread. These statements reflect the scientists' knowledge of the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Mormon's knowledge of science. I agree with much of their data, I just know more about what the Book of Mormon actually says not to get caught up refuting the Readers' Digest version of it.

As for linguistic evidence, you've got to be kidding me! How did Joseph Smith know about chiasm (including megachiasm), Arabic couplets, Bedoin oaths and nomenclature, and colophons, just to name a few. What linguistic evidence do you have against the Book of Mormon?

For the record, I would love to see this debate happen...

 

[Comprehend]

I really don't want to get involved in this, but from everything I've read, Smith was a charlatan, and simply invented his whole story. So, it's hardly suprising that a great many people reject the LDS book as a phoney work.

Melissa G

have you read the Book of Mormon?

If not, don't you think that might be a good place to start when deciding about Joseph Smith and the validity of the book?

 

[Melissa G]

I friend, who is an LDS lent me a copy. Personally I think it is utter nonsense.

Melissa G

 

[Comprehend]

I friend, who is an LDS lent me a copy. Personally I think it is utter nonsense.

Melissa G

Does that mean you actually read the book or just opened it?

 

[Melissa G]

I skimmed it, I hadn't the will to actually read it all. I thought it's basic premis is all wrong. For starters, there was no way people of those times had ships capable of undertaking ocean voyages, that is archaeological fact. From that basic fact, it all falls down.

Melissa G

 

[Bishka]

I skimmed it, I hadn't the will to actually read it all. I thought it's basic premis is all wrong. For starters, there was no way people of those times had ships capable of undertaking ocean voyages, that is archaeological fact. From that basic fact, it all falls down.

Melissa G

Interesting article.

"Ancient Voyages Across the Ocean to America: From "Impossible" to "Certain"

Thought you might want to take a look at this since you stated that it couldn't happen.