P
Porknpie
Guest
Tex,
What type of boat do Mormons believe their ancient people used to travel to the Americas?
Something like this? I’ve never heard the subject discussed.
- Status
What type of boat do Mormons believe their ancient people used to travel to the Americas?
Something like this? I’ve never heard the subject discussed.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I do not recall about Nephi, though lds artwork always showed Nephi standing on a ship’s deck.
The jaredites came across on cocoon-like ships that always were described as balls or spheres that had pugs to keep water out. This was always the least believable for me, but I never seriously questioned as a Mormon
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
And if there were horses, chariots, etc. in this Christian Nephite society, then we should find artifact evidence of a horse culture and we should find Christian symbols - at least a cross since the BoM mentions the cross of Christ about a zillion times.
400 CE was just this morning, archeologically speaking. There should be clear and abundant evidence of any highly technological culture as the Nephites are portrayed in the BoM.
But alas, nada.
Paul
J
JamesCollins
Guest
I’m sure the ancient Nephites discouraged the use of the cross just like modern day Mormons do …
M
MysticMansion
Guest
I do not believe in ghosts. I do believe that demons have the straight dope about everyone who ever lived on this planet and can tell us about many things that have happened that was forgotten in time. They can fake being people through mediums and fake being angels to white witches etc. People are so gullible.
There is one God. Jesus is God and became man. Jesus started one Church the Catholic Church. Enough said.
There is one God. Jesus is God and became man. Jesus started one Church the Catholic Church. Enough said.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
You should read Banishing the Cross by Michael Reed.
H
HelenRose
Guest
Google “Solomon Spaulding”
T
Tarquin
Guest
On what do you base that assurance? Anything archaeological, historical, or pre-Columbian?
T
TOmNossor
Guest
And yet there was this liberality that meant I was not losing anything much when I left a Catholic Church in Idaho (because the priest said we should not throw just $1 in the collection, and I was too selfish to be unoffended by this) to visit Protestant churches and even get to know returned Mormon Missionaries (who drove like idiots just like me, but didn’t drink and treat woman like **** - again like me actually).
zaffiroborant:
And yet there was this liberality that meant I was not losing anything much when I left a Catholic Church in Idaho (because the priest said we should not throw just $1 in the collection, and I was too selfish to be unoffended by this) to visit Protestant churches and even get to know returned Mormon Missionaries (who drove like idiots just like me, but didn’t drink and treat woman like **** - again like me actually).
Well that’s ironic.
I have often thought it ironic as well. When I am not defending the CoJCoLDS against what I do not think is a consistent or fair way of evaluating the CoJCoLDS, I am quite open to “inclusivism.” From that perspective, I would suggest that God was not so interested in me ceasing to be Catholic, but rather He was interested in me ceasing in my “love of money.” He is still working on me in this area, but I am better than I once was.
Charity, TOm
That’s the reason you wanted to leave Catholicism?
Hopefully the above post re-focuses upon the real reason I left. Limbo was neither a proximate nor an ultimate cause of my departure. The ultimate cause in my mind has long been the liberality of the Catholicism I learned where I was unaware of the difference between being a Catholic and being a Protestant. The proximate cause was a priest asking for money in his homily and my selfishness.
My only point about limbo is that I thought it was part of Catholicism. I know better now, but …
Charity, TOm
L
lax16
Guest
Tom - You are not alone in your exposure to liberal Catholicism or a priest who may have misspoke. However, this does not change the fact that Jesus started a Church and promised it would last until the end of time. We are to trust in Him!!!
Read the stories of the saints and how they weathered the storm that is sure to be brewing for all of us. St. Francis of Assisi comes to mind…
I have a saying in my house “I am not Catholic because of a priest and I am not going to be not Catholic because of a priest.”
T
Tarquin
Guest
You mean one Mormon, right? And him, not an official spokesman. Not a prophet, nor an apostle. Nor appointed to speak for the church. If there were something of importance to say about the Book of Mormon and archaeology, what’s holding back the collective tongue of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Apostles? Don’t they understand these issues? Don’t they have anything pertinent to say? Yes, I know they believe in Jesus and they believe the Church is true. Beyond that, there must be something they can add to clear up problematic archaeological issues. But that may be what the original poster wishes to avoid, official pronouncements, preferring to look at the evidence itself. In that case, Maybe Ash’s presentation of [non-]evidence is more in keeping.
T
Tarquin
Guest
(1)
“there is no reason to assume that Maya languages and Nephite languages were related”
There is every reason to assume they are related -
- in the minds of Mormons, and in the account found in the Book of Mormon.
The reason to assume they are related is that all Lamanites were declared to be descendants of the “Nephites”. I am aware that with the knowledge gained from DNA studies, the Mormon Church is back-stepping and saying that not all American Indians are descendants of Lehi’s entourage, and that the Nephites and Lamanites probably inhabited a small area, even a single “valley” somewhere. This does not simply “clarify” or “explain” Mormons beliefs; it absolutely contradicts the teachings and testimonies of all Mormons up to the DNA information that proved so problematic for Mormonism.
Michael R. Ash should tread very carefully, because opposing the teachings of the prophets is the first step in apostasy. It is not enough for him that the Book of Mormon, in “plain” language, identifies the Americas as the land given to Lehi and at the same time kept from the knowledge of other nations. It is not enough for him that the inhabitants of this land spoke a form of Hebrew and wrote a form of Egyptian as recently as a century before making contact with Indo-European speaking adventurers. A British text from 1200s bears a very strong resemblance to both written and spoken English of the 1900s and the 2000s, to wit,
That’s actually halfway between Old and Middle English, yet much is recognizable, and the remainder easily decipherable once phonetic rules and distinctive vocabulary are identified. Chaucer’s language is more like today’s English:
Perhaps if Mormons could present us with an ancient American text (as old or older than these English texts) resembling a form of Egyptian writing of 700-400 B.C., a time when hieroglyphic writing was evolving into demotic. While demotic underwent some change over the course of centuries, and went out of use by or after 400 A.D. , it is always identifiable as demotic. That time-span gives the Book of Mormon spoken and written languages 200 years on both sides, an additional 400 years of change. 1200 years versus 800+ years. In that still short period (as far as glottochronology is concerned), the beginning and ending forms of the spoken and written languages will be seen as historical differences of a single language or language family. American Indian languages: None are descended from Hebrew. None are descended from Egyptian. None were ever written in Egyptian in any form. No grammar of any American Indian language resembles Hebrew or Egyptian grammar. The vocabularies are not just “different”, they are alien from one another.
T
Tarquin
Guest
(2)
“there is no reason to assume that Maya languages and Nephite languages were related”
“Tikal and Uaxactun (for which the ancient pronunciation remain uncertain)” – Whatever pronounciation is closest to Hebrew, would make sense if the Book of Mormon and the Teachings of Joseph Smith are all true. There would be a set of phonological rules that we could consistently apply, to track them back to “Teancum” and “Kishkumen,” or other city names in the Book of Mormon, or to “Tirat” and “Ashkelon,” or other city names in Israel. But there is a much larger problem here. The further back in time you go, the hieroglyphic characters do not come to more closely resemble “reformed Egyptian.”
I looked over Ash’s bibliography. Respectfully, it is certainly heavy on Mormon apologetics. I wonder if he has any contact with he Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). I would think he could have found something in their resources, and even in the International Journal of American Linguistics that might support his contentions, or give him second thoughts about posting them without further development.
If the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Church are true, and if Joseph Smith was a true prophet, seer, and revelator, then yes, we must assume that Mayan and Nephite were related. Because the Mayan are descendants of the Nephites. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Mormon prophets have referred to all groups of ancient or modern American Indians, North, South, or Middle, or Pacific Islanders, as descendants of “Lamanites.” Never as the descendants of Vikings, Egyptians, Africans, or anything else, that I am aware of. If I err, please correct me. Has any prophet, seer, and revelator prophesied, seen, or revealed, or has it been voted on in Conference, or has it been canonized, that “some Lamanites are not descendants of Book of Mormon people”? Is that a doctrine, or an opinion?
Joseph Fielding Smith, Prophet of God, President of the Mormon Church, revealed,
“there is no reason to assume that Maya languages and Nephite languages were related”
“Tikal and Uaxactun (for which the ancient pronunciation remain uncertain)” – Whatever pronounciation is closest to Hebrew, would make sense if the Book of Mormon and the Teachings of Joseph Smith are all true. There would be a set of phonological rules that we could consistently apply, to track them back to “Teancum” and “Kishkumen,” or other city names in the Book of Mormon, or to “Tirat” and “Ashkelon,” or other city names in Israel. But there is a much larger problem here. The further back in time you go, the hieroglyphic characters do not come to more closely resemble “reformed Egyptian.”
I looked over Ash’s bibliography. Respectfully, it is certainly heavy on Mormon apologetics. I wonder if he has any contact with he Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). I would think he could have found something in their resources, and even in the International Journal of American Linguistics that might support his contentions, or give him second thoughts about posting them without further development.
If the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Church are true, and if Joseph Smith was a true prophet, seer, and revelator, then yes, we must assume that Mayan and Nephite were related. Because the Mayan are descendants of the Nephites. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Mormon prophets have referred to all groups of ancient or modern American Indians, North, South, or Middle, or Pacific Islanders, as descendants of “Lamanites.” Never as the descendants of Vikings, Egyptians, Africans, or anything else, that I am aware of. If I err, please correct me. Has any prophet, seer, and revelator prophesied, seen, or revealed, or has it been voted on in Conference, or has it been canonized, that “some Lamanites are not descendants of Book of Mormon people”? Is that a doctrine, or an opinion?
Joseph Fielding Smith, Prophet of God, President of the Mormon Church, revealed,
The Mormon Prophet and Church President Spencer W. Kimball revealed, confirmed, and declared,
Therefore, Mayan and Nephite are intimately related, as far as Book of Mormon archaeology and linguistics are concerned. It just remains for linguists and archaeologists to show us some evidence for it.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Based upon this statement, I think you are confusing people who claim to be Catholic with the Catholic Church and it’s teaching.
The Church is made up of sinners, and most Catholics here will freely admit that there are many that do not follow the teachings of the Church, but still identify as Catholic, and continue to attend Mass. However, that doesn’t mean that the Church condones or endorses what they are doing. The Church maintains its position on doctrine.
Take birth control for example. People love to point out that there is XX % of Catholics who use an artificial form of birth control. They still claim to be Catholic, and still attend Mass. The Church however still maintains that artificial birth control is wrong.
I’m sure you will also admit that there are many who claim to be mormon, yet don’t follow the teachings. There is one big difference with this though, and that is mormon doctrine tends to change.
That is why it is important to focus on the teachings, and the doctrine, and not the person in the pew.
K
kimg901
Guest
So the Mayans were lamanites? Is this correct? I thought Mayans worshipped multiple gods, not just one. Kind of strange for a people of God to worship other gods.
J
JamesCollins
Guest
My comment was meant to be sarcasm …
J
JamesCollins
Guest
I’d say non-evidence is the best the Mormons can provide us. My discussions with them seem to indicate they believe God doesn’t want evidence to come forth because it would mean we would no longer need faith to believe it. I guess if we found an inscription we could translate which clearly said, “Nephi’s Temple” we’d all begin to believe in the Book of Mormon. I think the mtDNA evidence that Native Americans came from Siberia is enough to let us know the Book of Mormon is wrong.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
The Church is made up of sinners, and most Catholics here will freely admit that there are many that do not follow the teachings of the Church, but still identify as Catholic, and continue to attend Mass. However, that doesn’t mean that the Church condones or endorses what they are doing. The Church maintains its position on doctrine.
Take birth control for example. People love to point out that there is XX % of Catholics who use an artificial form of birth control. They still claim to be Catholic, and still attend Mass. The Church however still maintains that artificial birth control is wrong.
I’m sure you will also admit that there are many who claim to be mormon, yet don’t follow the teachings. There is one big difference with this though, and that is mormon doctrine tends to change.
That is why it is important to focus on the teachings, and the doctrine, and not the person in the pew.
Lax and Twopekinguys,
I agree with what Twopekinguys just wrote. As I came to know the Catholic Church as a non-Catholic it was clear to me that the flippancy with which I left the Catholic Church was produced by a lack of understanding of the truth claims of the Catholic Church. Pondering this I have concluded that I might have not given other churches much of a “hearing” had I known my Catholicism and recognized what the Catholic Church claims to be.
I believe the BEST Catholicism has to offer is a very traditional/conservative faith, but one that accepts Vatican II as a valid council and the Pope as the Pope. My ultra-trad friends make arguments about Vatican II, but I think the strongest position is to interpret Vatican II in a VERY conservative way rather than declare Vatican II cannot be viewed this way and reject it.
I think my views here line up very well with the views espoused by most Catholic Answers folks (meaning on the radio and phone).
My view of history would align with Robert Eno and Francis Sullivan against books like Butler, Dalgreen & Hess(I could offer other contrasts for other topics); but I would guess there is some openness to this within Catholic Answers circles.
Anyway, from the outside of the Catholic Church I learned a lot about what it was to be a Catholic that I didn’t know when I was a Catholic.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
My summary of an interesting idea from an ex-Mormon.
J
JHow
Guest
We often skip past this part in these discussions, but I can’t accept reading a book, praying about it and then feeling moved about as any evidence for the truth claims it supposedly contains. That may be an interesting spiritual exercise, but, to me that really stretches the meaning of the word “witness”.
- Status