Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[Stephen168]

From President Harold B. Lee in 1973:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

Pearl of Great Price:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Source means where something starts, originates, comes from. Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon tells the story of the origin of the people of America. It is not a story about some of them, but the origin, the source.

Yes, by the 1970’s The Mormon Church was started to turn on Joseph Smith’s prophetic claim about what the BoM is about. But it does not change the claim made by Joseph Smith, the prophet and founder of Mormonism, **as I quoted him from Mormon scripture **and a letter he wrote.

I continue to hope against hope that some Catholic will read the quotes I offer that explain that LDS leaders promulgate binding doctrine via canonization and acceptance by common consent.

Joseph Smith is scripture and he was wrong about the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is not what he claimed it to be. He is not a prophet.

 

[dcf729]

umm… the LDS who wrote about it must be dreaming… wake up LDS wake up!

 

[JHow]

I apologize if you are actually acknowledging that comments I have offered from LDS leaders and a recent statement on the churches website show that there is warrant to dismiss past leaders statements (especially about subjects unrelated to “faith and morals.”
But if I read your comment correctly (and I know I read comments from other correctly) then here are a couple of thoughts:
Like Joshua from the Old Testament, he is dead can we dismiss his thoughts on planetary motion?
And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things and there are many fallacious ways to dismiss Catholicism because of this. Have you not experienced this happening to your faith?
Charity, TOm

My observation is that Mormonism does seem to allow later prophets to refute, overrule, or simply ignore the statements of previous prophets. ETB appears to say that in point 3. So, I tend to agree with Tom that modern Mormons are free to discount earlier pronouncements about the location of Cumorah.

I also think that this casts doubt on all the truth claims of the Morman church. Changing the story over time certainly casts doubt on both the new and the old ideas.

 

[PaulDupre1]

My observation is that Mormonism does seem to allow later prophets to refute, overrule, or simply ignore the statements of previous prophets. ETB appears to say that in point 3. So, I tend to agree with Tom that modern Mormons are free to discount earlier pronouncements about the location of Cumorah.

I also think that this casts doubt on all the truth claims of the Morman church. Changing the story over time certainly casts doubt on both the new and the old ideas.

Exactly. LDS need to ask themselves “How many of the doctrines that I am being taught now will be declared false in the next 50 years?”.

 

[TexanKnight]

My observation is that Mormonism does seem to allow later prophets to refute, overrule, or simply ignore the statements of previous prophets. ETB appears to say that in point 3. So, I tend to agree with Tom that modern Mormons are free to discount earlier pronouncements about the location of Cumorah.

I also think that this casts doubt on all the truth claims of the Morman church. Changing the story over time certainly casts doubt on both the new and the old ideas.

any “god” whose truth and doctrine changes based on what we figure out we can prove or what can be be disproven is a false god.

Definitive statements and doctrines and teachings by past “prophets” are discounted as discoveries show lds history and b of mormon to be false.

This has gone on since BY gave us the doctrine that Adam is our God

 

[whytenina390]

*I have seen documentaries about this, and they found no evidence arch… of the book of mormon. *

 

[TOmNossor]

Which “many false things” did those numerous popes teach? You need to name the pope and quote the teaching (like we consistently do when we quote your prophets). Otherwise we must assume you are full of hot air and spouting typical Mormon lies.

To all who asked for a list of errors of past popes.
I have debated a lot about how to respond to you. I see from Paul’s response that he seems to indicate I cannot offer “many false things” taught by Popes. Pismopal thought there would be 0 false things taught by Popes concerning faith and morals.
I know for few LDS who engage in critics of my faith that are unaware of the evidences offered. One of my theories is that the majority of Catholic contributors are better defined by their knowledge of the critical arguments against Mormonism than by the positive or negative arguments associated with Catholicism.
I am a LDS because of the pro-LDS arguments and responses to anti-Mormon arguments. My interest in Catholicism is a product of the strength of its claims relative to other religious structures, not because I am a former Catholic (at least I hope that is true).

How should I respond?
Should I pick the biggest issues I know and defend them as having an impact upon Catholic truth claims (leaving unstated how big or small I think that impact is).
Should I flood this thread with volumes of examples (including teaching concerning faith and morals, teaching not concerning faith and morals, AND even “teaching” concerning morals by poor example)?
Should I link to anti-Catholics using Papal errors FALLACIOUSLY?

I have decided against any of these. I am still surprised you expect that there is something to be gained by me answering this question, but this may be a product of the belief that there are zero examples of “Popes teaching false things.” Here is what I do when I find something that I think might impact the truth claims of Catholicism.

Pope Honorius, believed and/or taught the monothelite heresy:
google.com/webhp?tab=ww#q=pope+honorius+%22anti-catholic%22

Pope Liberius, and the Arian Heresy:
google.com/#q=pope+liberius+%22anti-catholic%22

Pope Paul V, embraced/taught geocentrism and condemned heliocentricism:
google.com/#q=Paul+V+geocentrism+%22anti-catholic%22

Pope John XII, did not lead a holy life.
google.com/#q=%22john+Xii%22+%22anti-catholic%22

The reason searching for “anti-Catholic” works so well for finding faithful Catholic responses is because nobody calls themselves an “anti-Catholic.” This practice was far more effective 10 years ago searching for “anti-Catholic” or “anti-Mormon,” but Catholics and LDS interested in communicating to critics of their church have used the above terms less frequently because they have been deemed “offensive.”

Anyway, I think there are many more examples that can be offered, but there are responses to all those examples. The popes, “taught false things.” These examples are used fallaciously to dismiss Catholicism (and there are some less fallacious ways of using some of the above to question/criticize Catholicism least you believe I am claiming there is absolutely nothing to Honorius or …). I was asked for quotes, I doubt I could find a quote from JohnXII, but I think I could find something accepted or promulgated by the other 3 Popes (and at the very least I can find counsels or Popes condemning or approving of the teachings I claim come from the other three). I think that would be a waste of time.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I think that would be a waste of time.

Do you find it a waste of time to post anti-Catholic quotes that you don’t believe yourself? Or do you actually believe them, but want deniability?

 

[TOmNossor]

My observation is that Mormonism does seem to allow later prophets to refute, overrule, or simply ignore the statements of previous prophets. ETB appears to say that in point 3. So, I tend to agree with Tom that modern Mormons are free to discount earlier pronouncements about the location of Cumorah.

I also think that this casts doubt on all the truth claims of the Morman church. Changing the story over time certainly casts doubt on both the new and the old ideas.
Thank you.
It seems your “cast doubts” thought is shared.

Exactly. LDS need to ask themselves “How many of the doctrines that I am being taught now will be declared false in the next 50 years?”.

I have in fact thought about this. I think it extraordinarily unlikely that Christ’s atoning sacrifice for my sins will be rejected. I think it extraordinarily unlikely that the ability of the prophet to speak 2x per year via inspiration/revelation from God concerning the changes I need to make in my life to bring me closer to Christ will be rejected.
There are other changes that could happen that would create more difficulties for me, but since I am promised the ability to receive revelation, I hope God will guide me through them.

Changes on the possible location of the BOM are not concerning to me in the least as I have never looked to prophets for their thoughts on geography.

Cardinal Newman is was quite clear that there is DEVELOPMENT in doctrine. I do not believe Catholic doctrine from 600AD to 1950AD has radically altered the faith. I am sympathetic to some of my “Catholic” friends who see radical changes from 1950-now. I am also of the opinion that all of the available evidence we have from the first 200 years of the Christian Church suggests a great deal of diversity of thought and change. I am sympathetic to my Catholic friends who point to sources of orthodoxy as compared to sources of heresy during this time, but were I living in those days I think their 20th century fingers would not create anything like a clear demarcation that these folks think they see. In fact the reason I call the one set of friends “Catholic” and the other set of friends Catholic is that I think Vatican II was likely no more radical for its day than was Vatican I (Old Catholics - who unlike Ignaz von Döllinger who they tried to recruit, have become a very liberal sect unmoored from Rome. Old Catholic:Vatican I :: Ultra-Trads:Vatican II) or some of the early counsels (Arianism “ruled” the church for decades after Nicea).

So, I would suggest when the CoJCoLDS is 200 years old it will be as stable or more stable than the Catholic Church was in 233AD.

Another thing of note. While there is greater fluidity in the doctrines (meaning what a LDS living in year x should incorporate into their lives and beliefs) than there is in the doctrines (meaning what a Catholics living in year x should incorporate into their lives and beliefs) as “x” moves from 1950-2000; it is my LIMITED observation that the fluidity of what a LDS and Catholic DO incorporate into their lives concerning faith and morals is tilted the other direction as “x” moves from 1950-2000.

One of the things about being a LDS and being me is that I have a greater dose of pragmatism with which I weigh these issues than a Catholic theologian does. There are advantages and disadvantages to this.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168,
I absolutely believe all of the below statements are true. I could be wrong, but I believe them.
I added a qualifier to Liberius as I didn’t make a statement and I still believe this debate is open (I think there are things you have assumed about my church that far less defensible than to suggest Liberius “fell” though).

Pope Honorius, believed and/or taught the monothelite heresy:

Pope Liberius, and the Arian Heresy:
(this one I think is truly debatable, neither the Catholic nor non-Catholic win the day here. St. Hilary and St Jerome are Catholics who believe Liberius fell - under duress and perhaps with other qualifiers- , others seem to disagree; the prevailing view for MANY years was St. Hilary’s and St. Jerome’s).

Pope Paul V, embraced/taught geocentrism and condemned heliocentricism:

Pope John XII, did not lead a holy life.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things…

My point was that there are numerous FALLACIOUS ways to dismiss Catholicism using papal errors.
This means that when people use these methods to “dismiss Catholicism” they are using them wrong (fallaciously).
For me to prove my claim true all I would need to do was to show a dopey website that highlights papal errors. I was about to do that, but I didn’t want to associated with the poor thinking present in the most obvious candidates.
Was this a misunderstanding (from all of you) or do you stand by your request for me to show that people “FALLACIOUSLY use papal errors to dismiss Catholicism?

I absolutely believe all of the below statements are true.

 

[Miriam1947]

Stephen168,
I absolutely believe all of the below statements are true. I could be wrong, but I believe them.
I added a qualifier to Liberius as I didn’t make a statement and I still believe this debate is open (I think there are things you have assumed about my church that far less defensible than to suggest Liberius “fell” though).

Pope Honorius, believed and/or taught the monothelite heresy:

Pope Liberius, and the Arian Heresy:
(this one I think is truly debatable, neither the Catholic nor non-Catholic win the day here. St. Hilary and St Jerome are Catholics who believe Liberius fell - under duress and perhaps with other qualifiers- , others seem to disagree; the prevailing view for MANY years was St. Hilary’s and St. Jerome’s).

Pope Paul V, embraced/taught geocentrism and condemned heliocentricism:

Pope John XII, did not lead a holy life.

Charity, TOm

Is it just me or is this the usual red herring to distract from the actual question on this thread:

Re: Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

 

[Stephen168]

And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things

I absolutely believe all of the below statements are true. I could be wrong, but I believe them.
I added a qualifier to Liberius as I didn’t make a statement and I still believe this debate is open (I think there are things you have assumed about my church that far less defensible than to suggest Liberius “fell” though).

Pope Honorius, believed and/or taught the monothelite heresy:

Don’t know what he believed but never taught

Pope Liberius, and the Arian Heresythis one I think is truly debatable, neither the Catholic nor non-Catholic win the day here. St. Hilary and St Jerome are Catholics who believe Liberius fell - under duress and perhaps with other qualifiers- , others seem to disagree; the prevailing view for MANY years was St. Hilary’s and St. Jerome’s).

Never taught

Pope Paul V, embraced/taught geocentrism and condemned heliocentricism

True. He embraced it, as did everyone else in his day. Beliefs are true until proven otherwise, nothing was proven otherwise.

Pope John XII, did not lead a holy life.

never taught. Joseph Smith lived a very unholy life, but he would claim his sin was a ‘revelation’ and teach his sin as good. We don’t see that in the Papacy.

So you are left with one who embraced something false and it had nothing to do with faith or morals.

Popes are the Vicar of Christ and not the same as Mormon “Prophets,” especially a “prophet” whose words are Mormon Scripture. “Prophets” who claim to speak on ALL things, not just faith and morals. Mormon “prophets who claim NOBODY can refute Mormon scripture. A “prophet” who claimed the Book of Mormon is a historical fact and recorded it into Mormon Scripture. (see post #260) He claimed it to be history which NOBODY else on the planet embraced at the time he claimed it. A claim which is been proven false. A prophet wrong about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, the Great Apostasy is no prophet. You ignore A LOT of facts and seem to live in your own personal Mormonism.

 

[Stephen168]

Is it just me or is this the usual red herring to distract from the actual question on this thread:

Re: Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

Nope, its not just you. But what can you do when you got nothin’

 

[JHow]

Thank you.
It seems your “cast doubts” thought is shared.

I have in fact thought about this. I think it extraordinarily unlikely that Christ’s atoning sacrifice for my sins will be rejected. I think it extraordinarily unlikely that the ability of the prophet to speak 2x per year via inspiration/revelation from God concerning the changes I need to make in my life to bring me closer to Christ will be rejected.
There are other changes that could happen that would create more difficulties for me, but since I am promised the ability to receive revelation, I hope God will guide me through them.

Changes on the possible location of the BOM are not concerning to me in the least as I have never looked to prophets for their thoughts on geography.

Cardinal Newman is was quite clear that there is DEVELOPMENT in doctrine. I do not believe Catholic doctrine from 600AD to 1950AD has radically altered the faith. I am sympathetic to some of my “Catholic” friends who see radical changes from 1950-now. I am also of the opinion that all of the available evidence we have from the first 200 years of the Christian Church suggests a great deal of diversity of thought and change. I am sympathetic to my Catholic friends who point to sources of orthodoxy as compared to sources of heresy during this time, but were I living in those days I think their 20th century fingers would not create anything like a clear demarcation that these folks think they see. In fact the reason I call the one set of friends “Catholic” and the other set of friends Catholic is that I think Vatican II was likely no more radical for its day than was Vatican I (Old Catholics - who unlike Ignaz von Döllinger who they tried to recruit, have become a very liberal sect unmoored from Rome. Old Catholic:Vatican I :: Ultra-Trads:Vatican II) or some of the early counsels (Arianism “ruled” the church for decades after Nicea).

So, I would suggest when the CoJCoLDS is 200 years old it will be as stable or more stable than the Catholic Church was in 233AD.

Another thing of note. While there is greater fluidity in the doctrines (meaning what a LDS living in year x should incorporate into their lives and beliefs) than there is in the doctrines (meaning what a Catholics living in year x should incorporate into their lives and beliefs) as “x” moves from 1950-2000; it is my LIMITED observation that the fluidity of what a LDS and Catholic DO incorporate into their lives concerning faith and morals is tilted the other direction as “x” moves from 1950-2000.

One of the things about being a LDS and being me is that I have a greater dose of pragmatism with which I weigh these issues than a Catholic theologian does. There are advantages and disadvantages to this.

Charity, TOm

The questions here, though are more concrete than whether we use Latin or English, ir which way the priest is facing during mass. The questions here are whether the civilizations described in the BOM existed at all. It’s not like we are debating the location of Rome or Bethlehem. Or the existence of Latin as a language, or if we doubt the existence of a people called the ancient Hebrews.

 

[TOmNossor]

You have admitted your prophets have lied. You try to compare people who do not claim to be prophets with people who falsely claim to be… All the while dodging the fact you have still been unable to tel me the location of zerehemla

Let me call this out briefly. And let me ask again why no Catholic asks TK to stop engaging me this way.

Please show me where I “admitted your prophets have lied.”
I am not sure if you believe this to be true and thus you are mistaken in saying it OR if you know it is false and are thus not being truthful so you might score rhetorical points.
I will wait to see what you say.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;11774496:

Stephen168,

Pope Honorius, believed and/or taught the monothelite heresy:

Never taught
…

The case of Liberius and Honorius are far more complex than you allude to. Catholic Bishops and historians found much more difficulty with these issues at Vatican I than your simplistic dismissal portrays. Dollinger who was probably the most accomplished Catholic historian involved in Vatican I died a denier of Infallibility outside the Catholic Church.

Honorius’ letters clearly TAUGHT eastern bishops that monothelitism was part of the faith. That being said, were I Catholic I would say that Honorius did not attempt to bind the church to monothelitism. He was not attempting to bind the church to this view and as such he was not exercising anything like Papal Infallibility as it was defined at Vatican I.

Popes are the Vicar of Christ and not the same as Mormon “Prophets,” especially a “prophet” whose words are Mormon Scripture. “Prophets” who claim to speak on ALL things, not just faith and morals. Mormon “prophets who claim NOBODY can refute Mormon scripture. A “prophet” who claimed the Book of Mormon is a historical fact and recorded it into Mormon Scripture. (see post #260) He claimed it to be history which NOBODY else on the planet embraced at the time he claimed it. A claim which is been proven false. A prophet wrong about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, the Great Apostasy is no prophet. You ignore A LOT of facts and seem to live in your own personal Mormonism.

Concerning the Pope and the Prophet:
The prophet is not infallible even in the way Vatican I defined the Pope to be. Jonah an Old Testament prophet said that Nineveh would be destroyed. It is clear from Jonah’s response when God didn’t destroy Nineveh that Jonah had no idea that his prophesy of the destruction of Nineveh was somehow contingent on Nineveh not repenting. I expect that was God’s idea all along, but Jonah the prophet somehow got the wrong idea.
LDS Prophets like Old Testament prophets and like New Testament prophets receive revelation from God, but they are humans (just like OT and NT prophets). There is no Chrism of Infallibility in the OT or NT, that is a Catholic creation of debatable merit. LDS prophet claim to have the all same gifts from God Peter had. Catholic Popes do not claim all the same gifts from God Peter had. This IMO is a simplistic but effect point in the favor of the CoJCoLDS as the true successor of Peter.

I have already posted a little on how I find great value in LDS prophet’s teachings while still not believing they are infallible. Here. & Here. Catholics who find value in DEUS CARITAS EST (one of my favorite encyclicals) or JPII’s “Theology of the Body” (another good one), the gift of infallibility is not essential as neither of these is considered by most to be an exercise of infallibility.

But, back to archeology.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

The case of Liberius and Honorius are far more complex than you allude to. Catholic Bishops and historians found much more difficulty with these issues at Vatican I than your simplistic dismissal portrays. Dollinger who was probably the most accomplished Catholic historian involved in Vatican I died a denier of Infallibility outside the Catholic Church.

Honorius’ letters clearly TAUGHT eastern bishops that monothelitism was part of the faith. That being said, were I Catholic I would say that Honorius did not attempt to bind the church to monothelitism. He was not attempting to bind the church to this view and as such he was not exercising anything like Papal Infallibility as it was defined at Vatican I.

Concerning the Pope and the Prophet:
The prophet is not infallible even in the way Vatican I defined the Pope to be. Jonah an Old Testament prophet said that Nineveh would be destroyed. It is clear from Jonah’s response when God didn’t destroy Nineveh that Jonah had no idea that his prophesy of the destruction of Nineveh was somehow contingent on Nineveh not repenting. I expect that was God’s idea all along, but Jonah the prophet somehow got the wrong idea.
LDS Prophets like Old Testament prophets and like New Testament prophets receive revelation from God, but they are humans (just like OT and NT prophets). There is no Chrism of Infallibility in the OT or NT, that is a Catholic creation of debatable merit. LDS prophet claim to have the all same gifts from God Peter had. Catholic Popes do not claim all the same gifts from God Peter had. This IMO is a simplistic but effect point in the favor of the CoJCoLDS as the true successor of Peter.

I have already posted a little on how I find great value in LDS prophet’s teachings while still not believing they are infallible. Here. & Here. Catholics who find value in DEUS CARITAS EST (one of my favorite encyclicals) or JPII’s “Theology of the Body” (another good one), the gift of infallibility is not essential as neither of these is considered by most to be an exercise of infallibility.

But, back to archeology.

Charity, TOm

What evidence do you have that Pres. Thomas S. Monson is a prophet?

You feeling it is so isn’t evidence.

 

[TOmNossor]

Is it just me or is this the usual red herring to distract from the actual question on this thread:
Re: Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

Hope this helps.
I am only saying that the proper place to find archeological evidence for the BOM is in the Old World and in Mesoamerica, and that this is where we do find it. Most responses to this have been that I cannot use this evidence because LDS prophets embraced other geographies.
However, the evidence I have provided is here.
In post 218-220 on this page:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=858856&page=15
I offered the Gartner list.
The only response I saw to this was a request for peer reviewed documentation of the things on this list. I commented that Michael Coe has a copy of Sorenson’s new book Mormon Codex and I hope he reviews it. Some of the points listed have been reviewed, but to my knowledge no professional non-LDS archeologist has commented on them. I might ask which non-Catholic historians see the protection of the teachings of the Catholic popes via the chrism of infallibility. The vast majority of non-Catholic commentators on papal infallibility find it problematic of not obviously false.
I do know of three LDS who were professional archeologists before they became LDS (two of whom were Mesoamerican archeologist). None of the three of them claimed that they became LDS because of the strength of the archeological evidence for the BOM, but none of them found the evidence against the BOM sufficient to prevent their joining the church.
So that is all I got for peer review.

I have asked:

How did these multi-dimensional points of contact occur:

Jerusalem, Nahom, Bountiful. They fit extraordinarily well with Lehi’s journey. They are located on the Frankincense trail. The presence of the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman on the voyage from Jerusalem to Bountiful. The presence of Nahom with alter inscription. Then the “turn east” and ultimate arrival at the fertile place, Bountiful. It should be noted that Jerusalem and Nahom are the only places Lehi doesn’t name on his own, but the valley, river, and lush green place are exactly where they should be relative to Jerusalem and Nahom. How did the author of the BOM know this if he didn’t have supernatural access to some ancient record?

The BOM also speaks rather directly of a city that used cement, in the presence of lots of water and in the absence of trees Helaman 3:9-11. This, once thought to be an anachronism (albeit an anachronism unlikely to have been produced by an 1830’s fellow from upstate NY), has a rather precise point of contact with Mesoamerica. Teotihuacan. How would some 1830’s fellow (or fellows) in NY know this?

Finally, the description of a specific type of volcanic activity that occurred in the right place and the right time. Nobody in NY would know much about volcanos or their presence in Mesoamerica. How did this get in the book?

I have received a link to a discussion of Nahom to which I responded by saying that Nahom is a multi-dimensional hit far more significant than an alter inscription NHM (the three letters being all that could possibly be expected to be found if Nahom was where Lehi said it was).
I have received a quick bit about a volcano that happened in 1815 meaning that Joseph would know about volcanos. I responded to this by pointing out that the description in the BOM was far more detailed, concerned a different sort of volcanic activity, and again fits in a precise time and location making it a multi-dimensional hit.
I have received the, it is not hard to find hits and/or the Lord of the Rings corresponds as well as the BOM. The Lord of the Rings does not have multi-dimensional hits in that they occur in the correct time and place (because the LoR is fiction). The geography correspondence of the LoR has been best placed in the mind of Tolkien a brilliant author. As far as “it is not much,” I simply disagree.

I think the above three are a lot. I think they each by themselves are multi-dimensional fits with real Old World and Mesoamerican events/geography/time. The human mind is ALWAYS finding patterns were none exist. I cannot demand there is nothing to this. I however find the above patterns far more substantial than the attempts to link BOM names to Joseph Smith’s environment.
I think the ancient Olemec king named “Kish” linked to the BOM Jaradite king named “Kish” works as well (probably better) as the attempts to link BOM names to locations around Joseph Smith, but I think “Kish” is only evidence of the BOM if you assume the BOM to be true. It has very little confirming power (even though Kish is in the right place, people, and timeframe).
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The case of Liberius and Honorius are far more complex than you allude to.

I don’t have to ramble on for 400 words before giving an answer. The length of my response has nothing to do with the complexity of the case. He never taught.

Concerning the Pope and the Prophet:
The prophet is not infallible even in the way Vatican I defined the Pope to be.

The Mormon ‘prophet’ is infallible in everyway according to the Mormon ‘prophets.’

I have already posted a little on how I find great value in LDS prophet’s teachings while still not believing they are infallible

Like I said you have your own personal Mormonism.
Joseph Smith a Mormon “prophet” who claimed the Book of Mormon is a historical fact and recorded it into Mormon Scripture. (see post #260) He claimed it to be history which NOBODY else on the planet embraced at the time he claimed it. A claim which is been proven false. A prophet wrong about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, the Great Apostasy is no prophet.