Mormons Maccabees Book of Mormon?

[atassina]

So a Mormon, a Bible Christian and a Catholic apologist are drinking espresso in a coffee house called the Grand Piano on Haight St. in San Francisco. You happen to be at the next table quaffing a Tim Horton’s; St. Benedict’s bird brought it to you.

The Mormon says the Book of Mormon is part of the Bible. The Bible Christian disagrees. The Mormon then says the book of Maccabees is also part of the Bible. They see you reading The Catholic Answer Bible. They ask you your opinion. You say, “Who has the authority to decide this?”

How will the Bible Christian decide which book belongs in the Bible?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So a Mormon, a Bible Christian and a Catholic apologist are drinking espresso in a coffee house called the Grand Piano on Haight St. in San Francisco. You happen to be at the next table quaffing a Tim Horton’s; St. Benedict’s bird brought it to you.

The Mormon says the Book of Mormon is part of the Bible. The Bible Christian disagrees. The Mormon then says the book of Maccabees is also part of the Bible. They see you reading The Catholic Answer Bible. They ask you your opinion. You say, “Who has the authority to decide this?”

How will the Bible Christian decide which book belongs in the Bible?

They cannot. Both the Catholic and Mormon appeal to Divine Authority (Mormon is mistaken though).

The Bible Christian takes for granted that their Bible is the Word of God. Borrowing it from the Catholic Church, altering it arbitrarily, and subsequent generations not ever questioning it.

 

[Jerusha]

That is a more complicated question than it first seems. Joseph Smith said that Maccabees, etc., were worthy of study, but badly translated, so never mind them. Actually, Mormons who would read Maccabees might get a bit concerned about the resemblances between Maccabees and the BoM. In a sense, Maccabees are in the BoM. Since they were written way after the BoM peoples left Israel, there would be a big question about that. The Tanners also discovered that Judith is in I Nephi. Never mind about the gender change of the hero of the story. Now that you have taken care of the Mormon, you need to address the problems with the Bible Christian.

The Deuterocanon is important because:
It establishes the fact that we do have a spiritual connection with those who have died.
Maccabees (and the rest of the DC) help us understand the cultural context of Jesus’ time.
The DC as a whole provides a stronger feminist context for the OT.
It took a long time for Protestants as a group to shed the DC, as evidenced by the fact that JS had access to them in his family Bible.
The King James bible originally included the DC.
The DC were in the Jewish Bible until after Jesus’ time.
Given these facts, the Bible Christian could be encouraged to read them, and eventually accept them.

 

[andrewstx]

So a Mormon, a Bible Christian and a Catholic apologist are drinking espresso in a coffee house called the Grand Piano on Haight St. in San Francisco. You happen to be at the next table quaffing a Tim Horton’s; St. Benedict’s bird brought it to you.

The Mormon says the Book of Mormon is part of the Bible. The Bible Christian disagrees. The Mormon then says the book of Maccabees is also part of the Bible. They see you reading The Catholic Answer Bible. They ask you your opinion. You say, “Who has the authority to decide this?”

How will the Bible Christian decide which book belongs in the Bible?

A Mormon would never drink espresso to begin with! It is a ‘hot drink’ forbidden in the Word of Wisdom. And one would never say the BOM is part of the bible. The BOM stands alone as a separate “scripture”.

 

[atassina]

. . .The Deuterocanon is important because:
It establishes the fact that we do have a spiritual connection with those who have died.
Maccabees (and the rest of the DC) help us understand the cultural context of Jesus’ time.
The DC as a whole provides a stronger feminist context for the OT.
It took a long time for Protestants as a group to shed the DC, as evidenced by the fact that JS had access to them in his family Bible.
The King James bible originally included the DC.
The DC were in the Jewish Bible until after Jesus’ time.
Given these facts, the Bible Christian could be encouraged to read them, and eventually accept them.

Thanks. I am always looking for reasons to explain why other Christians need to include these books.

 

[Theo520]

I would be shocked to hear a mormon claim their other scriptures are part of the bible.
Was this just a make believe scenario to set up the post question?

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I would be shocked to hear a mormon claim their other scriptures are part of the bible.
Was this just a make believe scenario to set up the post question?

I think it was, and given these factual inaccuracies it makes whatever point the OP was trying to make a bit tenuous. The Grand Piano hasn’t existed as a coffee shop in the Haight for decades, a practricing Mormon wouldn’t be drinking espresso, and she wouldn’t say that Maccabees is part of the Biblical canon.

 

[atassina]

thanks other posters. i was helped by your comments.
of course there were anachronisms.
do all Mormons refrain from coffee?
perhaps a bigger clue should have been Tim Horton’s Coffee and St. Benedict’s bird.

i simply generated this scenario to flush out some information about authority and the rejection of Maccabees by bible Christians.

i should have written that the Mormon said that the BoM is equal to the Bible. Who’s to decide. If you can take books out of the Bible, you can put others in.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, the mormon would be drinking hot chocolate or soda, and would use termininology like “the BoM is another testimony of Jesus Christ, standing alongside the Bible”.

If the mormon was feeling argumentative, he’d start comparing the arbitrary way the Bible Christian got his bible with the way the Catholics got theirs. He’d point out the apostles who walked with Jesus thought the Bible consisted of the septuagint, which worked for Christianity until Marcion started willy-nilly adding epistles in 140 AD. He’d point out that the Church was still arguing about what constituted scripture and what didn’t 30 or 40 decades after Christ. He’d point out that the Eastern church’s bible isn’t the same as the Western church’s bible.

Then he’d advance an argument opposing the notion of biblical infallibility, and voice support for modern revelation, claiming the heavens are not closed, and God continues to speak to His children and His church leaders.

He wouldn’t win, though. People usually don’t budge from their original positions in such discussions. God moves hearts more than arguing over coffee.

 

[atassina]

Good post NeuroTypical. I found it useful. Perhaps I should have selected Tea. But, coffee is the most drunk beverage in the world, the second largest commodity behind oil. And you are right, minds are usually not changed over one cup of coffee unless the clarity and self-evident truth of the argument are compellingly clear and convincing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yeah, the mormon would be drinking hot chocolate or soda, and would use termininology like “the BoM is another testimony of Jesus Christ, standing alongside the Bible”.

If the mormon was feeling argumentative, he’d start comparing the arbitrary way the Bible Christian got his bible with the way the Catholics got theirs. He’d point out the apostles who walked with Jesus thought the Bible consisted of the septuagint, which worked for Christianity until Marcion started willy-nilly adding epistles in 140 AD. He’d point out that the Church was still arguing about what constituted scripture and what didn’t 30 or 40 decades after Christ. He’d point out that the Eastern church’s bible isn’t the same as the Western church’s bible.

Then he’d advance an argument opposing the notion of biblical infallibility, and voice support for modern revelation, claiming the heavens are not closed, and God continues to speak to His children and His church leaders.

He wouldn’t win, though. People usually don’t budge from their original positions in such discussions. God moves hearts more than arguing over coffee.

You’d find those arguments, with a Catholic, less meaningful than you imagine. More like a straw man. But hey, Mormons, are the most obstinate people, as it relates to budging from an original position, that I have ever met.

 

[atassina]

RebeccaJ,
I do not understand the part about Mormons being obstinate. My Mormon friends are just like everybody else, not necessarily obstinate. Explain please while I take another sip of Mexican roast Cafe Llave here at the Grand Piano and order another piece of hot bread for Tim.

 

[Barbara_Ann_Bau]

My father left the LDS church. His friends and family either left with him or left him. His lDS bosses gave unfair reviews. When he finally had a Methodist boss he advanced quickly. He had no LDS friends. Growing up I don’t remember any LDS friends. Most of my friends were Protestants or Basque Catholic (the most obstinate Catholics on earth)
My father was a most obstinate Catholoic.
I find that people who are obstinate in their beliefs are admirable. I also find that those people can be very accepting of others EXCEPT when a family member leaves those beliefs.
I have had LDS friends untill they they found out who I was.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
I do not understand the part about Mormons being obstinate. My Mormon friends are just like everybody else, not necessarily obstinate. Explain please while I take another sip of Mexican roast Cafe Llave here at the Grand Piano and order another piece of hot bread for Tim.

See post #9, which is repeated on this forum, and refuted, and repeated, and refuted, and repeated, and refuted. Often posted by the same person, maybe reworded. Yet, the same post (essentially) appears over and over, from Mormons.

But yes, all of my family are Mormon, and I hear the same things from them, with a distinct inability to actually take a look at what is being claimed and determine if it aligns to reality. Same regurgitation of the same straw men, from every Mormon I know.