Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid?

[Jordan St. Francis]

I reject it because of the canon of scripture closed with the Bible

And you know this how?

It was the general Christian Church that closed the canon. Even though the details of the canon are still disputed today in regards to the Old Testament, they are of relative little importance considering the doctrinal questions that these texts pose (all of which we are certain were written before the New Testament anyways). Secondly, we are certain that the Apocraphya was used both by the Jews and the ancient Church itself.

The entire Christian world was and is unanimous on the written content of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, or the New Testament.

One of the problems where the LDS is concerned, is that the testimony of the Book of Mormon has been missing in history for over 1,800 years, only to suddenly emerge in the 19th century A.D.

Add to that the fact that LDS doctrines contradict the constant teaching and doctrines of the Church and significantly re-interpret important aspects of the Christian faith.

Why would God leave so significant a portion of his written Gospel in America, when Christ himself "was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel"? (Mat. 10:5-6)

It is the mission of the Church to go forth and baptize all nations in the single name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is the mission of the Church to go forth and proclaim the Gospel that was once and for all recieved.

Even though private revelations continue today, some of which are given recognition as being valid, they can never contradict the revelation already recieved nor add to the Deposit of Faith. The Christian Church will never recognize another revelation meaningful to salvation other than what the ancient Church herself has already confirmed to be of Apostolic origin.

 

[madhatter85]

One of the problems where the LDS is concerned, is that the testimony of the Book of Mormon has been missing in history for over 1,800 years, only to suddenly emerge in the 19th century A.D.

So when Christ comes years from now, are you going to say "Well why didn't you come sooner?" Time -frame has no bearing on eternal truths. just because it was 1800 years later does not mean a thing. Look at the time span of the bible's history from the time of Adam until Christ, how many years was that? how many years did it take to compile the first edition of the Bible even after Christ's death?

Add to that the fact that LDS doctrines contradict the constant teaching and doctrines of the Church and significantly re-interpret important aspects of the Christian faith.

They contradict certain person's interpretations of the Bible, just because you do not agree does not make it false. honestly. If the Bible were so clear-cut and dry on every aspect of gospel principles, how come there are so many different religions that teach differently from the exact same scriptural passages?

Why would God leave so significant a portion of his written Gospel in America, when Christ himself "was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel"? (Mat. 10:5-6)

Let me quote Christ from John 10:

14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

 

[Katzpur]

Hello, Jordan.

It was the general Christian Church that closed the canon.

The Church closed the canon? Why? Who told them to? Did God reveal to His Church that He was through talking to us?

Even though the details of the canon are still disputed today in regards to the Old Testament, they are of relative little importance considering the doctrinal questions that these texts pose (all of which we are certain were written before the New Testament anyways). Secondly, we are certain that the Apocraphya was used both by the Jews and the ancient Church itself.

Good point. I actually say much the same thing when the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is raised by a member of a Protestant Church. I can't help but wonder why they only consider some of the books of the Bible to be "scripture," when the apocrypha was obviously around long before the Protestant Reformation.

The entire Christian world was and is unanimous on the written content of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, or the New Testament.

As are we.

One of the problems where the LDS is concerned, is that the testimony of the Book of Mormon has been missing in history for over 1,800 years, only to suddenly emerge in the 19th century A.D.

I'm afraid I don't see "the problem." The text of the book is ancient. Lots of ancient writings have been discovered far more recently than the 19th century.

Add to that the fact that LDS doctrines contradict the constant teaching and doctrines of the Church and significantly re-interpret important aspects of the Christian faith.

Every Christian denomination contradicts every other Christian denomination on a variety of doctrines. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have over 30,000 Christian denominations in the world today. Besides, a reinterpretation of doctrine would be essential if the predicted apostasy actually took place. The real question is, did it or didn't it?

Why would God leave so significant a portion of his written Gospel in America, when Christ himself "was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel"? (Mat. 10:5-6)

The people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon were of the house of Israel. They were the sheep "not of this fold" that Christ said would hear His voice.

Even though private revelations continue today, some of which are given recognition as being valid, they can never contradict the revelation already recieved nor add to the Deposit of Faith. The Christian Church will never recognize another revelation meaningful to salvation other than what the ancient Church herself has already confirmed to be of Apostolic origin.

I believe your definition of "the ancient Church" is a bit different from mine, but a debate of the Apostasy is probably not pertinent to this thread.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

This is in reference to the Gentiles, who are not of the "fold" of Israel, whom Christ would comission his Church to bring into the fold of the one Shepherd.

 

[Katzpur]

This is in reference to the Gentiles, who are not of the "fold" of Israel, whom Christ would comission his Church to bring into the fold of the one Shepherd.

I believe you just contadicted yourself. You just got through saying that "Christ himself was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." When He said He had other sheep "not of this fold" who would hear His voice (not just his message as taught by His Apostles, but His voice), He would have had to have been talking about those who were of the House of Israel, but were not among those He was teaching in the Holy Land. He commissioned His Apostles to spread His gospel to every nation, but as you pointed out, His own person mission was only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

When Christ came to America did he take up his Cross and become crucified again? The entire history of the People of Israel is the preparation for the Passover of Christ- his passion, death and Resurrection. It is in this action which he founded the New Israel, by selecting Apostles and disciples, by breaking his body and shedding his blood and giving them as gifts to build up the living Body of Salvation- the Body of Christ.

It is this post-Resurrection Community, being built up out of his flesh and blood and enlived by His Spirit, which is entrusted with living out the mission of the Resurrected Christ by proclaiming the Gospel. Its cornerstone is Christ, but its foundation is the Apostles- the witnesses who knew Christ in his life, scattered at his death and proclaimed his Resurrection which revealed to them the full nature of his mission, his earthly ministry and his heavenly one.

To teach that the Resurrected Jesus proclaimed and taught his own Gospel to another nation on another continent is to deny that he "has ascended to the right hand of the Father"- in another phrase, it is in a sense to deny the mission of the Church.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I believe you just contadicted yourself. You just got through saying that "Christ himself was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." When He said He had other sheep "not of this fold" who would hear His voice (not just his message as taught by His Apostles, but His voice), He would have had to have been talking about those who were of the House of Israel, but were not among those He was teaching in the Holy Land. He commissioned His Apostles to spread His gospel to every nation, but as you pointed out, His own person mission was only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

This is to stretch the meaning of "voice" in this case. There is no reason to think this implies the Resurrected Christ must appear in the risen flesh to these people of another fold. Jesus' historic ministry was to Israel alone- it was within Israel that he called forth the 12 who would constitute the basis for a New Israel which would burst the bonds of the old one and incorporate the "sheep of other folds"- the Gentiles.

To hear the Apostles is to hear Christ- for "whoever listens to you listens to me" Luke 10:16 and "whoever recieves one whom I send recieves me; and whoever recieves me recieves the one who sent me" John 13:20

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Now, even if it is true that the "House of Israel" was in America, it remains highly problematic to say that Christ himself taught the Gospel to those people. During the time of Christ the House of Israel was already dispersed outside the territorial limits of Israel in diasporic communities throughout the world. Yet Christ did not come to any of the major diasporic communities, which were increasingly dis-associated from the Temple cult and nourished by prayer, Scripture and the Synagogue. There is need to take "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" in a strong sense- that Jesus was sent only to the Jewish people and, at that, in their own homeland. Here, where the figures that anticipated his coming have the richest meaning (as among the still active Temple cult), his teachings and the dramatic events of his passion, death and resurrection would reveal the fuller face of God to those whom he had chosen.

The idea of this Resurrected Christ in America lacks the context in which the Apostles found themselves- the context in which the Church was founded. This original group of witnesses was comissioned to go forth and to teach the Gospel to Jews both inside and outside of territorial Israel, and the Gentile nations.

 

[Renji]

Hello, Lawrence. Thanks for your comments. The problem is that we believe that the apostasy prophesied by Paul actually did take place, and that he was warning the Christians of his time that they should reject the words of those who were preaching a different gospel from the one Christ and His Apostles taught. Of course, the words are still applicable today, but it is our belief that the Book of Mormon is in no way "contrary" to the teachings of the Bible. If you've never read it, maybe you should. I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't find anything in it which contradicts anything you already believe.

Thanks for your reply. Let me ask you this, if the Book of Mormon does not contradict the doctrine of the Bible, what does the Book of Mormon or your religion preach about Jesus Christ?

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for your reply. Let me ask you this, if the Book of Mormon does not contradict the doctrine of the Bible, what does the Book of Mormon or your religion preach about Jesus Christ?

Here is one link that should answer your question: The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles.

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of the Living God. We believe that He created our universe under the direction of His Father, that He was born to a virgin, lived a perfect life, taught a gospel of love and mercy, organized His Church, performed many miracles, and then willingly suffered on behalf of all who would accept His atoning sacrifice on their behalf. We believe He was literally resurrected on the third day following His crucifixion and remained on earth for about forty more days, at which time He ascended to Heaven where He now sits at the right hand of His Father. We pray to our Father in Heaven in His Name. He is our mediator and advocate with the Father.

The Book of Mormon is a record of His ministry -- following His ascension into Heaven -- to some of the people living anciently on the American continent. He taught them the same truths He'd taught during His mortal lives. Thus, the book has the subtitle, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." Like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it testifies to His divinity and to the fact that He is the only means by which we may be reconciled to our Father in Heaven.

I hope this answers your question. If it doesn't, please ask and I will try to clarify anything that is still confusing.

 

[Katzpur]

When Christ came to America did he take up his Cross and become crucified again? The entire history of the People of Israel is the preparation for the Passover of Christ- his passion, death and Resurrection. It is in this action which he founded the New Israel, by selecting Apostles and disciples, by breaking his body and shedding his blood and giving them as gifts to build up the living Body of Salvation- the Body of Christ.

It is this post-Resurrection Community, being built up out of his flesh and blood and enlived by His Spirit, which is entrusted with living out the mission of the Resurrected Christ by proclaiming the Gospel. Its cornerstone is Christ, but its foundation is the Apostles- the witnesses who knew Christ in his life, scattered at his death and proclaimed his Resurrection which revealed to them the full nature of his mission, his earthly ministry and his heavenly one.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said up to this point.

To teach that the Resurrected Jesus proclaimed and taught his own Gospel to another nation on another continent is to deny that he "has ascended to the right hand of the Father"- in another phrase, it is in a sense to deny the mission of the Church.

I'm baffled as to how you could have come to this conclusion. I seldom quote from The Book of Mormon on this forum since, in most situations, it seems rather pointless. In addressing this accusation, however, I'm going to make an exception. Here, from 2 Nephi 29:7-9 is the best response I can think to give you:

"Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever."

I can't think of a single logical reason why Jesus would not have shared His gospel with people in the western hemisphere. Certainly there were people living here in His day, whether you believe them to be the people whose story is told in The Book of Mormon or not. It would be many centuries before European explorers would arrive on this continent. Why would Jesus withhold His gospel from those who didn't live in the Holy Land? I don't believe the mission of His Church was ever to exclude anyone.

 

[Katzpur]

This is to stretch the meaning of "voice" in this case.

I'm willing to concede that that's possible.

There is no reason to think this implies the Resurrected Christ must appear in the risen flesh to these people of another fold.

Nor is there any reason to think He didn't. At least you haven't provided one.

Jesus' historic ministry was to Israel alone- it was within Israel that he called forth the 12 who would constitute the basis for a New Israel which would burst the bonds of the old one and incorporate the "sheep of other folds"- the Gentiles.

It was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. You make it sound as if Israel, in this context, is defined by geographic boundaries.

To hear the Apostles is to hear Christ- for "whoever listens to you listens to me" Luke 10:16 and "whoever recieves one whom I send recieves me; and whoever recieves me recieves the one who sent me" John 13:20

Great quote! One of my favorite scriptures.

 

[Katzpur]

Now, even if it is true that the "House of Israel" was in America, it remains highly problematic to say that Christ himself taught the Gospel to those people. During the time of Christ the House of Israel was already dispersed outside the territorial limits of Israel in diasporic communities throughout the world. Yet Christ did not come to any of the major diasporic communities, which were increasingly dis-associated from the Temple cult and nourished by prayer, Scripture and the Synagogue. There is need to take "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" in a strong sense- that Jesus was sent only to the Jewish people and, at that, in their own homeland. Here, where the figures that anticipated his coming have the richest meaning (as among the still active Temple cult), his teachings and the dramatic events of his passion, death and resurrection would reveal the fuller face of God to those whom he had chosen.

The Bible itself states that if everything Christ said or did had been recorded, all of the books in the world could not contain these things. We have no written record of other post-mortal appearances of Christ, but I wouldn't say that this impossible or even improbable.

The idea of this Resurrected Christ in America lacks the context in which the Apostles found themselves- the context in which the Church was founded. This original group of witnesses was comissioned to go forth and to teach the Gospel to Jews both inside and outside of territorial Israel, and the Gentile nations.

And how long did it take them to reach the western hemisphere? Nearly a millennium and a half. Is there any reason to believe Christ would have withheld the hope of salvation to people beyond the reach of His Apostles?

 

[Doodlebug02]

I don't accept the Book of Mormon because I feel it is a false book. I feel that the Book of Mormon is a fraud that Joseph Smith made up on his own. But that's just me.

 

[ayani]

well, as a Christian, i consider the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, and the rest of the NT (as well as the OT) to be sufficient for my Christian faith scripturally.

simply, when i turned away from Islam and towards Christ, the Spirit did not teach me any of the specifcs of Mormon doctrine, history, theology, or practice. what His Spirit has been helping my heart to understand is that He wants me to follow His Son, and live life as His disciple and ambassador- to love Him with all my heart and soul and might, and love my neighbors as myself. new in Christ, in His image, obeying Him and His commandments, and living as a reflection of Him, for Him.

nothing of the unique, specific teachings and ideas central to the CoJCoLDS has come upon my heart as i follow Jesus. as my conversion experience has not brought with it any inclination to the specifics of Mormon faith and practice, i would not consider the Book of Morman to be central or neccesary to my Christian life.

 

[Renji]

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of the Living God. We believe that He created our universe under the direction of His Father, that He was born to a virgin, lived a perfect life, taught a gospel of love and mercy, organized His Church, performed many miracles, and then willingly suffered on behalf of all who would accept His atoning sacrifice on their behalf. We believe He was literally resurrected on the third day following His crucifixion and remained on earth for about forty more days, at which time He ascended to Heaven where He now sits at the right hand of His Father. We pray to our Father in Heaven in His Name. He is our mediator and advocate with the Father.

I would have to agree to that for now.However, there is a lot of LDS here on our country and they're saying that the book of Mormons saves many souls more than the Bible did. Isn't that a contradiction of the BIble? Also,I humbly ask, what is the LDS' teaching about Christ's divinity?

 

[Apex]

I would have to agree to that for now.However, there is a lot of LDS here on our country and they're saying that the book of Mormons saves many souls more than the Bible did. Isn't that a contradiction of the BIble? Also,I humbly ask, what is the LDS' teaching about Christ's divinity?

Books don't "save" people. Also, we do not use the word "saved" in the same sense that many other Christians do.

 

[Renji]

Books don't "save" people. Also, we do not use the word "saved" in the same sense that many other Christians do.

Books don't save, indeed. But the Word does. How do you use the word "save" then?

 

[Mister Emu]

He taught them the same truths He'd taught during His mortal lives.

Is this a typo, or do you believe that Jesus had more than one mortal life?

 

[Apex]

Books don't save, indeed. But the Word does. How do you use the word "save" then?

Kat posted a good post describing the difference between how we use the word "saved" and how many other Christians use it. Ill let her repost it here since I do not remember exactly where it was. Essentially, if you were to ask a Mormon if he/she were "saved" they would simply stare at you with a blank face as we do not believe being "saved" happens at single point in time or can even happen in this life. We look at more like a process that takes an entire lifetime and possibly more.