To clarify the question a bit more, I understand that if you are not mormon and follow the bible you will think the bible is more valid. However, I am asking even religious people to think of any reasons why the book of Mormon is objectively less valid than the bible. And by valid I mean is it any less worthy to place one's belief in this book compared to that of the bible?

I ask this question because many people seem to dismiss the book of Mormon not because of its content, but because of the way it came about.

So what did you answer and why?

The obvious answer would be it was written so much later than the Gospels...

The next logical answer would be the trust, or lack thereof, put in the founder of the Mormon religion, since at the time he existed, there was much more written history and accounts of his life and what not...

The final logical answer would be that it is much more of a human created add-on teaching rather than an account of the life of Christ, thus is automatically insignificant in the eyes of the average Christian.

i would have to read both, and find bits i agree/disagree with, then compare.

but why the fuck would i want to do that? :blink:

option 3: don't give a shit.


its like asking, whats more valid, harry potters 'philosophers stone', or the famous five's '5 go fishing' or whatever.

just ridiculous, although i do kinda know why you ask.

What difference does that make? The gospels were written so much later than the Torah.



What do you mean by that? Why is there a lack of trust?



An add-on to what? I couldn't have been written at the time of the gosples because the events in the book of Mormon take place after the events of the NT. Second, all the writings of the NT are human created. Humans wrote them, and then humans went through and decided which ones would be "holy." Third, the book of Mormon *is* an account of the life of Christ.

JLord, dont be stupid... the Torah was written prior to Jesus... The gospels were written post-Jesus... I am hoping you can see the significance there... The book of Mormon was written in, what... 1730 or so? later than that actually... right? Like 1830? I dont remember, but I know it was written in America, so that at least means post 1492, roughly 1300 years after the gospels... Im thinking that he probably did not discover new information which led to the creation of the book of mormon in the new world, so you can obviously see why I would have reservations, right?



First, the founder of the Mormon religion was a nutcase. He was a heretic, a murderer, someone who fled west because people wanted him dead... He also *hated* native americans/indians(my knowledge of the mormon religion, while greater than the average person, is still not that great, Ill admit) and he believed that God painted them red because of all the European blood they had spilled or some such crap...(that might be an urban myth, admittedly...)



Exactly. It is an addition to the original story, or what not, thus must be given additional scrutiny.



OK, I didnt phrase that correctly... umm... it is inspired by the life of Christ, but is inaccurate and somewhat contradictory to that of the other gospels and thus gives rise to the belief that the founder of the mormon religion made it up...



Yes. Point is...



It is an account of the visit of Christ in the new world... written on gold plates or some such crap... Why would gold write on gold plates? That is contradictory to any other story, where he would choose something more practical...

This post has been edited by Dakyron: Jan 9 2006, 09:00 PM

Right, but being later than the Gospels doesn't mean anything. If Jesus returned to earth again today would any writings about it be invalid because they came after the gospels? I could see your point if the book of Mormon was talking about the same events as the gospels. In that case, why would we believe writings from 2000 years after the fact, when we already have writing from 60-100 years after the fact.

The point is that Joseph Smith obviously didn't have any say in the time that God chose to send an angel to visit him. So you can't knock the fact that it came later. Look at the Gospel of John for example. It was also written long after the time of Christ based on divine revelation.



No, he did discover new information, thanks to God and Jesus.



Look at the followers and disciples of Jesus in the NT. Were they all outstandingly good people before Jesus came along?



Well I don't know if he personally hated natives. But the book of Mormon, which he translated, does tell the story of how God darkened the one tribe's skin as a punishment for their sins. This tribe killed off the other tribe, of which Moroni was the last survivor (I think), so God punished them like he has to millions of people before. Just look at the Bible for more examples of this.



What do you think the Gospels were?



By that logic, you should believe that much of the Bible is made up. Even looking at the gospels there are contradictions and oddities. But this does not mean they are made up.



I think it was stone tablets that had to be translated by looking through a magic jewel. But anyways, why is this contradictory? It's like saying "why would god talk through a burning bush?" That is equally as wierd. Clearly God is not concerned with doing what is practical.

Yes, it does. Why wouldnt it?



No, mainly because I am alive today and could see Jesus if I choose in order to validate my opinion on the matter?



Exactly.



200 years is a long time... 1700+ years is ridiculous...



It was 1700+, if there are gold tablets, where are they?



Maybe not, but Christianity teaches forgiveness, and the appearance of Jesus can certainly change ones life. There is also quite a difference from being someone of ambiguous character, and a nutcase... You can see where a criminal could be rehabilitated, where as a nutcase is always a nutcase...



Yes, in the other examples, is it not all pre-Jesus punishment? Id have to read the Book of Mormon to give a better accounting, but, in my mind, there are simply too many discrepancies and contradictions... too many instances where it seems God is just... out of character... for me to take it seriously.



Writings of the life and teachings of Jesus as seen through the eyes of his disciples...



I do not see contradictions(I swear, JLord, one, just ONE mention of a contradiction from the OT to the NT and I will personally hunt you down and torture until you sign a written confession stating that you now understand the difference between the OT and the NT and why there might be such contradictions/oddities) that rival those of the Book of Mormon...



Nah... it was gold tablets, Im pretty sure... regardless... gold tablets, magic jewell... both are out of character for the God of the NT...



Let me ask you this, before you spout out some more old testament... if Jesus came down to the natives in America and taught them about God and what not, why did *none* of them remember this or have stories about this prior to the arrival of the Europeans?

Because most of the writings in the NT come after the gospels. What significance does this have? are they all invalid?



Say he came back and dies again without you seeing it personally.



But the book of Mormon is about different events that came after the gospels. So how could anyone have written about them at the time of the gospels?



Any remaining artifacts are kept by the Mormons somewhere I presume.




What? You mean criminals can be rehabilitated? I'll have to remember that...

Anyways, why is a nutcase always a nutcase? Do you mean to say that Jesus can't cure a person from mental illness?




Ok... I guess that is just personal taste then. If God seems out of character to you that's fine.



Ok, well what about the actions of Jesus that occured centuries later? Is it not the same thing?



What about ones from the NT only? There are plenty. Just look at the faith vs. works debate in the NT. Even back then, people were not 100% unanimous on many aspects of Christian theology. Or the account of Jesus' trial (Jn 18 vs. Mt 27).



It's all explained in the book of Mormon. The people who are today known as native americans are the descendants of the "evil" tribe from the book of Mormon. The rejected God and killed off everyone from the "good" tribe that did follow God. So it makes sense that nobody remembers.

Yes, they are all invalid... you caught me in my logical contradiction... *sigh*



The next time Jesus comes back, theoretically, is judgement day, is it not? Lets say its not, Jesus comes back, I dont personally see him, and you want to know if I will take the accounts of his teachings and what not to be more sound than those of the gospels, less sound, or of equal value. This depends greatly on what the new teachings are, what I perceive of the "new disciples", etc... unfortunately its just not something I can give a definitive answer too...



The point is JLord, the events occurred around 0-300 AD and were never even heard of until 1700-1900 AD... That is just too long a time frame...



Where? Utah? Ive never seen them or heard of where they are kept...



Jesus could cure a person of mental illness, sure... but if he insane, then produces the mysterious Mormon writings, but still acts insane... Im going to question that he ever found them... wouldnt you?



You asked the question, Im answering...



(What are you talking about?)



You know as well as I do that two people who see the exact same events can come away with two distinct impressions of the events... That explains the NT "discrepancies", but it cannot explain the Book of Mormon... its like this... imagine reading a really good book, then 2/3 of the way into the writing style changes and suddenly the characters in the book seem to have undergone personality changes not consisten with the story. You would notice.



^ is really rather ridiculous, isnt it... considering the tribe splintered into what... 1000 other tribes each with unique cultures and languages in 2000 years? There is enough evidence to me to prevent myself from converting to Mormonism... If you want to, go ahead...

So you would convert religions if you found another one that had strong evidence supporting it?



It's more than that. The faith vs. works is obviously a theological debate for which the NT gives no clearl answer. The trial of Jesus is different. How could two people watch the same event and come up with such drastically different stories. They can't both be right as far as I can see. And it would be pretty hard to say that they are just different points of view.



I guess so, but what makes you think he is insane?




How could they be heard of? There were no europeans in america until centuries after the events of the book of mormon. The only possible way for us to find out about these stories is through divine revelation. Same as the stories in genesis. God told the prophet Joseph Smith about them when he chose to. You can't fault God for doing what he did. It may be mysterious, but remember, God probably has a reason.

Yes, though I dont see that happening...



You lack imagination. It is very easy to see how two different stories could be created... it was 100 years and probaly 3 generations after all...



"The people who are today known as native americans are the descendants of the "evil" tribe from the book of Mormon. The rejected God and killed off everyone from the "good" tribe that did follow God. So it makes sense that nobody remembers."

Oh, and because he claims an angle told where to find gold plates that had a 800 page book written on them... the gold alone would have made him ridiculously wealthy... Lets say it wasnt gold though, thats alot of stone/wood/whatever... where did he find these? He was also accused of murder and on the run too, remember...



Or storytelling, etc... Its not like this tribe was nothing but brutes who didnt talk, draw, etc... They didnt just club everyone, laugh, and go eat raw meat...



OK, well... to be 100% honest... I think Joseph Smith was a wacko. I might, *might* be able to rationalize all of the discrepancies and what not, but why would I?

Don't you have any faith in your religion? How could you just decide to change based on new evidence? I didn't expect that answer from you and it seems very strange.



I can see how the contradictions can be created. But you must agree that there are contradictions.



If someone said "anyone who works on the sabbath should be put to death" or "the world was created in seven days" an objective person might think they were insane as well. I bet lots of prophets had to deal with people thinking they were insane.



For a civilization that doesn't have any way of permanently recording their history, I don't think it's unreasonable that stories would change or disappear after several centuries.




Well I'm not saying you have to. But I'm sure you could, as is possible with Christianity or any other religion. The point is that you should realize that the Mormons are not all that different from most Christian sects and you shouldn't say "it's all bullshit" because you could say the same thing about the rest of Christianity for most of the same reasons.