What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

[ViaCrucis]

What's so bad about the Book of Mormon? No idea. I don't usually assume the holy books of other people are intrinsically "bad".

That said, the Book of Mormon is simply not Scripture as far as the historic Christian faith is concerned. The history of biblical canonization is long and well documented, and at no point were any of the texts which make up the Book of Mormon ever up for consideration for inclusion into the Biblical Canon; as such the Book of Mormon is no more scriptural within the Church catholic than the Qu'ran, the various Gnostic gospels, or the writings of Mark Twain.

In the greater discussion on Scripture and the Canon within the Christian Church the Book of Mormon isn't "bad" it's just not relevant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ironhold]

I am not sure what any of this has to do with my comment (which I assume it is in response to, since you quoted me and then posted this.) If you want to respond to my question, then respond to it with a response that actually responds to it. If you don't like to be treated like someone who can't define his own religion, then neither do I. If you respond to us here, and none of us have claimed it, then it is nothing more than a red herring that you have thrown out at us because you have nothing of worth to say.

I'm saying "The whole tendency to use 'OSAS' and other such 'I'm saved, so God's on my side' pieces of logic to justify all sorts of wickedness has all but destroyed the Christian counter-cult because the sins of the involved individuals have finally began to catch up to them."

It's to the point now that the same types of people who would have had television specials back in the 1980s are now seen as nothing more than punchlines.

 

[drstevej]

Now the TV special is Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander.

 

[Ironhold]

Now the TV special is Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander.

This goes back to my bit about "folks who didn't have anything substantive against us and so they made stuff up to justify claiming that we were a blight on society".

 

[Albion]

Thing is, just about any definition of "cult" can easily be pivoted around to either:

1. Hammer mainline Christianity.

2. Hammer something perfectly innocent.

As it is, the constant re-definition of "cult" has moved the word so far away from its sociological roots as to make it essentially a buzzword.

I know that you have a personal interest in defusing this whole topic, but many people have become aware of the nature of cults--any cult--in the theological sense of that word, quite apart from the purple kool-ade stuff.

I'm saying "The whole tendency to use 'OSAS' and other such 'I'm saved, so God's on my side' pieces of logic to justify all sorts of wickedness has all but destroyed the Christian counter-cult...

I guess that's open for debate, but what exactly would OSAS--even if it were correctly described instead of the stereotype you gave us--have to do with the counter-cult movement?

 

[Ironhold]

I guess that's open for debate, but what exactly would OSAS--even if it were correctly described instead of the stereotype you gave us--have to do with the counter-cult movement?

This goes back to what I was saying a few pages ago:

"Some people believe that OSAS gives them a license to sin because they're already 'saved' and so can't do anything wrong. An offshoot of this mentality - one held by all too many members of the Christian counter-cult - is that anything done in God's name, even sin, is justified."

 

[drstevej]

This goes back to my bit about "folks who didn't have anything substantive against us and so they made stuff up to justify claiming that we were a blight on society".

I have posted plenty showing Mormon errors. Have you forgotten? I can repeat the threads.

 

[seekingsolace]

I'm saying "The whole tendency to use 'OSAS' and other such 'I'm saved, so God's on my side' pieces of logic to justify all sorts of wickedness has all but destroyed the Christian counter-cult because the sins of the involved individuals have finally began to catch up to them."

This seems to come up consistently now at least every other day because of unfounded non-biblical views. Now a number of people who 'profess' to believe in this are the very ones sowing the seeds of dissent.

To counter an argument that Mormonism is unbiblical, with a fallacy of the wickedness of certain individuals is pretty shallow.

 

[drstevej]

"Some people believe that OSAS gives them a license to sin because they're already 'saved' and so can't do anything wrong.

Some Mormons think they are free to marry teens and take the wives of others all because they are "prophets." Or perhaps pull a "convenient" revelation out of their hip pocket telling the wife to accept these other women or be destroyed. AND the LDS sing Praise to this Man.

 

[Albion]

This goes back to what I was saying a few pages ago:

"Some people believe that OSAS gives them a license to sin because they're already 'saved' and so can't do anything wrong. An offshoot of this mentality - one held by all too many members of the Christian counter-cult - is that anything done in God's name, even sin, is justified."

We're always on thin ice when we try to make an argument out of "some people believe." OSAS does not say any such thing like there's a license to sin, and so this has nothing really to do with the so-called Christian counter-cult movement's fortunes.

But let's turn to the last point--anything done in God's name, etc. To what extent was any countercultist done in because of having advocated the idea that "anything done in God's name, even sin, is justified?"

 

[smaneck]

Some Mormons think they are free to marry teens and take the wives of others all because they are "prophets." Or perhaps pull a "convenient" revelation out of their hip pocket telling the wife to accept these other women or be destroyed. AND the LDS sing Praise to this Man.

Why bring up the FLDS? Is anyone here from that sect? Or should I bring up all the child abuse cases associated with the church in Louisiana just because you happen to live there?
New Bethany Home for Girls endured 30 years of controversy, leaving former residents wondering why | NOLA.com

 

[Ironhold]

We're always on thin ice when we try to make an argument out of "some people believe." OSAS does not say any such thing like there's a license to sin, and so this has nothing really to do with the so-called Christian counter-cult movement's fortunes.

But let's turn to the last point--anything done in God's name, etc. To what extent was any countercultist done in because of having advocated the idea that "anything done in God's name, even sin, is justified?"

Ask anyone who's LDS.

They'll give you a laundry list of sins advocated or even committed by members of the Christian counter-cult in the name of bashing us.

 

[drstevej]

Why bring up the FLDS? Is anyone here from that sect? Or should I bring up all the child abuse cases associated with the church in Louisiana just because you happen to live there?
New Bethany Home for Girls endured 30 years of controversy, leaving former residents wondering why | NOLA.com

My post is not about FLDS, it is about Smith.

D&C 132
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. 53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.


====

Accept or die.

 

[smaneck]

My post is not about FLDS, it is about Smith.

What you said is the following:

"Some Mormons think they are free to marry teens and take the wives of others all because they are "prophets." Or perhaps pull a "convenient" revelation out of their hip pocket telling the wife to accept these other women or be destroyed."

Joseph Smith, is not 'some Mormon.' And you wrote in the present tense, not the past. Those words only apply to the FLDS.

You clearly brought this up solely to degrade Mormons, something not allowed in this sub-forum.

 

[drstevej]

What you said is the following:

"Some Mormons think they are free to marry teens and take the wives of others all because they are "prophets." Or perhaps pull a "convenient" revelation out of their hip pocket telling the wife to accept these other women or be destroyed."

Joseph Smith, is not 'some Mormon.' And you wrote in the present tense, not the past. Those words only apply to the FLDS.

You clearly brought this up solely to degrade Mormons, something not allowed in this sub-forum.

AND the LDS sing Praise to this Man.

This makes it clear the reference is to Joseph Smith.

 

[smaneck]

This makes it clear the reference is to Joseph Smith.

You tagged a blast at Joseph Smith at the end. The rest of it was about present day Mormons. Shall I bring up all the verses in the Bible that allow the taking of sex slaves and genocide? Is what Joseph Smith did, any worse than what Moses orders here?

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

 

[mmksparbud]

You tagged a blast at Joseph Smith at the end. The rest of it was about present day Mormons. Shall I bring up all the verses in the Bible that allow the taking of sex slaves and genocide? Is what Joseph Smith did, any worse than what Moses orders here?

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Why, why does what the ancients did, under the command of God, mean that is should be OK today when the New Testament is what directs most of our actions today? The Old testament directs us to Christ, the fulfillment of the old. Things changed with Him. The old explains what lead to the new. So what if Solomon had 300 wives---The new testament says ONE WIFE. So what if circumcision was done, the new says it no longer needs to be done. Sin was forgiven through priestly sacrifices, our High Priest now is Jesus and it is His blood that saves now. Anyone who comes along and says God has directed him to have plural wives is obviously not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That Spirit says one wife. So,, if someone comes along and says God has told him we need to have animal sacrifices and circumcision, you can safely say--NO--the bible says otherwise! What the disciples have stated as rules to live by supersedes what was done before Christ's death and resurrection.
(Luk 17:23) And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

But if someone prefers the ideas of man--that's their choice. We all will answer to God alone for our choices---He has given His Word--reject it in favor of man's word is anyone's free right.

 

[smaneck]

Why, why does what the ancients did, under the command of God, mean that is should be OK today

Except he claimed he was talking about someone who died more than 160 years ago when I told him Mormons don't do this today.

The new testament says ONE WIFE.

LOL. Only if you are a bishop or a priest.

So what if circumcision was done, the new says it no longer needs to be done.

Did I criticize circumcision? I had my son circumcised!

Sin was forgiven through priestly sacrifices, our High Priest now is Jesus and it is His blood that saves now.

Actually blood sacrifices were offered for all kinds of reasons, not just or even mostly sin offerings.

Anyone who comes along and says God has directed him to have plural wives is obviously not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That Spirit says one wife.

Sorry, I don't buy your understanding of what the 'spirit' says.

So,, if someone comes along and says God has told him we need to have animal sacrifices and circumcision, you can safely say--NO--the bible says otherwise! What the disciples have stated as rules to live by supersedes what was done before Christ's death and resurrection.

If it can change once, why couldn't it change again?

But if someone prefers the ideas of man--that's their choice. We all will answer to God alone for our choices---He has given His Word--reject it in favor of man's word is anyone's free right.

Except this really has nothing to do with God's Word it has to do with your personal interpretation of God's Word.

 

[mmksparbud]

Except he claimed he was talking about someone who died more than 160 years ago when I told him Mormons don't do this today.



LOL. Only if you are a bishop or a priest.



Did I criticize circumcision? I had my son circumcised!



Actually blood sacrifices were offered for all kinds of reasons, not just or even mostly sin offerings.



Sorry, I don't buy your understanding of what the 'spirit' says.



If it can change once, why couldn't it change again?



Except this really has nothing to do with God's Word it has to do with your personal interpretation of God's Word.

Then the person who was being talked about, who lived 160 years ago, has no standing in the eyes of God and showed not be followed in any way, for he did advocate that which the disciples said no to. He stands then as a false prophet and anything he says should be thrown out.

(Tit 1:5) For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

(Tit 1:6) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

And from where are the elders, bishops and deacons chosen from??


I didn't say you criticized circumcision, I used it as an example of things that used to be done under God's direction and no longer are. It is not pertinent to salvation.

Because Christ has risen and set His words down and has said

(Gal 1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


This is not my personal interpretation---it is the plainly stated word of God.

 

[smaneck]

Then the person who was being talked about, who lived 160 years ago, has no standing in the eyes of God and showed not be followed in any way, for he did advocate that which the disciples said no to.

But they didn't.

(Tit 1:5) For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

(Tit 1:6) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

And from where are the elders, bishops and deacons chosen from??

From monogamous Christians. Doesn't mean all Christians were monogamous. I presume most were as polygamy was contrary to Roman Law.
In any case, Titus was not written by a disciple. It is a second century work.

Titus

I didn't say you criticized circumcision, I used it as an example of things that used to be done under God's direction and no longer are. It is not pertinent to salvation.

Never was. The Hebrew people weren't obsessed with salvation like Christians are.

(Gal 1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul's understanding of the gospel revolved entirely around the question of justification by faith. Had nothing to do with monogamy vs. polygamy.

This is not my personal interpretation---it is the plainly stated word of God.

Sure it is.