Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[JamesCollins]

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”.

When science tells you the Native Americans came from Siberia and the Book of Mormon claims they came from Israel, what are we to believe? In some respects you almost have to leave your brain at the door in order to believe in the Book of Mormon with the knowledge we have in 2014. The reality is that I’m not sure how Mormonism adds anything important to Christianity that wouldn’t be there without the LDS Church.

 

[JamesCollins]

Google “Solomon Spaulding”

I think there is a lot of merit to the Spaulding-Rigdon theory about how we received the Book of Mormon. There is more evidence for the Spaulding-Rigdon theory than there is for the Book of Mormon itself.

 

[Stephen168]

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”.

I agree.

I’ve been saying that when you compare science, the Book of Mormon and the claim of Joseph Smith, it is clear that Smith is not a prophet. What I thought was interesting was that you don’t have to bring science into the equation; The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith contradict each other, so Joseph Smith is not a prophet.

 

[JHow]

…The reality is that I’m not sure how Mormonism adds anything important to Christianity that wouldn’t be there without the LDS Church.

Apart from the Tabernacle Choir, you mean. Surely that adds something, even if it is a rear-guard action, a blow against the praise bands and “bluegrass mass” I saw recently.

To your comment on DNA and origins, I think this is yet another major obstacle to accepting BOM as history. I could envision a future where the text is revered as an artistic work, expressing spiritual truth, a holy story, but not intended to be taken so literally.

 

[JHow]

I agree.

I’ve been saying that when you compare science, the Book of Mormon and the claim of Joseph Smith, it is clear that Smith is not a prophet. What I thought was interesting was that you don’t have to bring science into the equation; The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith contradict each other, so Joseph Smith is not a prophet.

I get your drift. Contradiction is not what people expect from a prophet, or prophetic work.

 

[twopekinguys]

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

Since you realize all of the good that you’re missing out on, what’s stopping you from coming home? (no pressure)

 

[Tarquin]

The reality is that we don’t know exactly where a lot of the places mentioned in the Old Testament were located.

The other reality is that we do know where a lot of Old Testament Old World places are, but we do not know where any - not a single one - of Mormon Testament New World places are.

 

[kimg901]

The other reality is that we do know where a lot of Old Testament Old World places are, but we do not know where any - not a single one - of Mormon Testament New World places are.

Well we do know where Cumorah is. But do the lds know where its at? I think they do believe its in N.Y when it suites them.

 

[TexanKnight]

Well we do know where Cumorah is. But do the lds know where its at? I think they do believe its in N.Y when it suites them.

well…several lds prophets have DECLARED where it is…but now that it is clear they will find no evidence, mormons have started saying they have no clue where it is.

pretty funny

 

[Tarquin]

Well we do know where Cumorah is. But do the lds know where its at? I think they do believe its in N.Y when it suites them.

Ah, yes, the “Two Cumorah Theory,” to say nothing of the “Camora” (Comoros), of Captain William Kidd fame, theory. The scholars at the Fairmormon site reject the last theory on the grounds that they could not find the name of the “capitol” /sic/ city of Comoros, namely Moroni, on any of the “early” maps they looked at. As with many other things in Mormonism, meaning no disrespect, two explanations are offered for Cumorah.

 

[TexanKnight]

Ah, yes, the “Two Cumorah Theory,” to say nothing of the “Camora” (Comoros), of Captain William Kidd fame, theory. The scholars at the Fairmormon site reject the last theory on the grounds that they could not find the name of the “capitol” /sic/ city of Comoros, namely Moroni, on any of the “early” maps they looked at. As with many other things in Mormonism, meaning no disrespect, two explanations are offered for Cumorah.

JS was clear about Cumorah. It is good to see Mormons finally agreeing with me that js was not a true prophet

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;11818656:

…

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 and against books like (I could offer other contrasts for other topics); but I would guess there is some openness to this within Catholic Answers circles.
…
Since you realize all of the good that you’re missing out on, what’s stopping you from coming home? (no pressure)

Well, the strength of the CoJCoLDS is what keeps me from embracing the strength of the Catholic Church. The books I offered above by Eno and Sullivan (both Catholics one a priest) present a way to align Catholic priesthood and the Papacy with historical data that LDS use to show an apostasy. I do not think there view is impossible and thus it is a strong pro-Catholic read of data. I think restoration claims and apostasy claims are stronger.

This thread is about archeological evidence for the BOM. I have offered VOLUMES of archeological evidence for the BOM, but the loudest response I have received is “Smith lied.”
I have explained that I do not think the Prophet Jonah passes the test offered by TexanKnight and yet if the Prophet Jonah is not a prophet it would seem we must scrap the Bible. But setting that aside here are my options.

Joseph Smith brought forth the BOM. I think the BOM describes a journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful with detail only explained if someone who made such a journey wrote it. I think the BOM describes Mesoamerican cement in a place, multi-point geography, and time that requires knowledge of Teotihuacan around 250-600 AD. I think BOM descriptions of volcanic activity are present at the right place and time and are very descriptive of real phenomena such that they come from someone with experience Joseph Smith and nobody around him had. I think there are dozens of similar BOM evidences. I can then add to this the things TexanKnight SELECTIVELY quotes about Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets describing geography and ancestry that are inconsistent with the theory of the BOM in Mesoamerica. I could decide that God brought forth the BOM through Joseph Smith, but because Joseph Smith made claims about geography that are untrue he and his successors are fallen prophets or no prophets at all. How does this make Catholicism true? If Catholicism is true, how can we explain the BOM? I do not think the Hill Cumorah described in the BOM is in upstate NY, but how does Santa Rosa = Zarahemla fit into Catholicism.

There are holes that I cannot perfectly fill in my concept of Mormonism. I just think Mormonism with all TexanKnight invites me to integrate into my view of it, makes a stronger truth claim than does Catholicism.

Catholicism IMO makes a stronger truth claim that Protestantism. I lean towards Catholicism’s truth claims and away from EO truth claims too.

But there are volumes of weaknesses in the Catholic truth claims that I weigh against the volumes of weaknesses in the LDS truth claims. In the end, when I compare Best to Best (meaning the Best positives and the best explanations for the negatives) using all the intellectual rigor I can muster, I think the CoJCoLDS comes out on top. The fact that TexanKnight rejects the worst of Mormonism for some version of Catholicism that I am criticized for exploring only serves to embolden my conviction that I am closer to making a fair comparison than the folks who criticize my views.

Charity, TOm

 

[Memaw]

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

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

Ever think about coming back Home ? You would be more than welcome. Prayers. God Bless, Memaw

 

[iepuras]

Well, the strength of the CoJCoLDS is what keeps me from embracing the strength of the Catholic Church. The books I offered above by Eno and Sullivan (both Catholics one a priest) present a way to align Catholic priesthood and the Papacy with historical data that LDS use to show an apostasy. I do not think there view is impossible and thus it is a strong pro-Catholic read of data. I think restoration claims and apostasy claims are stronger.

This thread is about archeological evidence for the BOM. I have offered VOLUMES of archeological evidence for the BOM, but the loudest response I have received is “Smith lied.”
I have explained that I do not think the Prophet Jonah passes the test offered by TexanKnight and yet if the Prophet Jonah is not a prophet it would seem we must scrap the Bible. But setting that aside here are my options.

Joseph Smith brought forth the BOM. I think the BOM describes a journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful with detail only explained if someone who made such a journey wrote it. I think the BOM describes Mesoamerican cement in a place, multi-point geography, and time that requires knowledge of Teotihuacan around 250-600 AD. I think BOM descriptions of volcanic activity are present at the right place and time and are very descriptive of real phenomena such that they come from someone with experience Joseph Smith and nobody around him had. I think there are dozens of similar BOM evidences. I can then add to this the things TexanKnight SELECTIVELY quotes about Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets describing geography and ancestry that are inconsistent with the theory of the BOM in Mesoamerica. I could decide that God brought forth the BOM through Joseph Smith, but because Joseph Smith made claims about geography that are untrue he and his successors are fallen prophets or no prophets at all. How does this make Catholicism true? If Catholicism is true, how can we explain the BOM? I do not think the Hill Cumorah described in the BOM is in upstate NY, but how does Santa Rosa = Zarahemla fit into Catholicism.

There are holes that I cannot perfectly fill in my concept of Mormonism. I just think Mormonism with all TexanKnight invites me to integrate into my view of it, makes a stronger truth claim than does Catholicism.

Catholicism IMO makes a stronger truth claim that Protestantism. I lean towards Catholicism’s truth claims and away from EO truth claims too.

But there are volumes of weaknesses in the Catholic truth claims that I weigh against the volumes of weaknesses in the LDS truth claims. In the end, when I compare Best to Best (meaning the Best positives and the best explanations for the negatives) using all the intellectual rigor I can muster, I think the CoJCoLDS comes out on top. The fact that TexanKnight rejects the worst of Mormonism for some version of Catholicism that I am criticized for exploring only serves to embolden my conviction that I am closer to making a fair comparison than the folks who criticize my views.

Charity, TOm

Why do you have the need to compare Mormonism and Catholicism? Joseph Smith and his claims of truth, including his claims regarding the BOM, either stand or fall on their own. There isn’t a need to compare them to see which one is “better”. Just because Joseph Smith was a false prophet doesn’t automatically mean that Catholicism is true. I believe Catholicism is true, but that has nothing to do Mormonism being false.

When I learned that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, I went back to the beginning. Is there a God? Yes. Is there one or many? One. Which monotheistic religion is true? Christianity. Which church was started by Jesus Christ? The Catholic Church.

You may not think that Joseph Smith’s incorrect statements regarding BOM geography are relevant, but they are. The LDS church uses the BOM as evidence that Joseph Smith is a prophet. As such, Joseph Smith’s claims about all aspects of the BOM are entirely relevant.

I also haven’t seen the volumes of archaeological evidence in this thread. Where is the evidence of a pre-Columbian horse culture? Where are the swords or other evidence of steel making?

You state that Catholicism has a greater truth claim than Protestantism, but then you believe Joseph Smith has even greater truth claims. Joseph Smith took one of the underlying assumptions of the Protestant Reformation - that the Catholic Church somewhere along the way went wrong and ceased to be the church Jesus Christ founded - and ran with it. If you don’t believe Protestantism’s truth claims are stronger than Catholicism’s, how can Joseph Smith’s be even stronger?

 

[Tarquin]

Well, the strength of the CoJCoLDS is what keeps me from embracing the strength of the Catholic Church. The books I offered above by Eno and Sullivan (both Catholics one a priest) present a way to align Catholic priesthood and the Papacy with historical data that LDS use to show an apostasy. I do not think there view is impossible and thus it is a strong pro-Catholic read of data. I think restoration claims and apostasy claims are stronger.

I have read both, from a perspective that was neither Mormon nor Catholic, and I do assure you with all my heart, a thorough comparison of sources from both sides, has the Catholic position twice as strong as the Mormon.

This thread is about archeological evidence for the BOM. I have offered VOLUMES of archeological evidence for the BOM, but the loudest response I have received is “Smith lied.”

I flatter myself that after devoting considerable effort to the teachings and history of a few religions, Mormonism being one of them, that I have a reasonable understanding of some of them. And I am willing to learn more about them, within reason. So I for one am 100% willing to reconsider specific archaeological evidence, preferably a piece at time. Should there be a separate thread for each piece??

This would entail actual artifacts of some sort, not commonalities among multiple cultures. Commonality among cultures would be enough to accept Ignatius L. Donnelly’s conclusions that Atlantis was the source for pyramids, divine triads and dodecads, all the flood stories around the world, and most everything else of consequence in the ancient world. Also acceptable are accounts or testimonies from multiple sources, the way that Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus, each outside the New Testament, vouch for the roles of Felix and Festus in the New Testament.

I sincerely apologize if I have overlooked or misinterpreted what you presented. I absolutely would be interested in specific archaeological, historical, or textual evidence directly supporting the Book of Mormon. I would be happy to see actual photographs of the gold plates, the Urim and Thummim, pre-Columbian documents or stelae in reformed Egyptian, or whatever artifacts actually are presentable relating directly to Mormonism. The Book of Mormon took place in America. We cannot say the very existence of America is evidence of the Book of Mormon, any more than we can say that the existence of Rome or Israel is evidence of the New Testament, or the existence of Arabia is evidence that the Koran is true. Those are relevant, but in themselves they are not evidence. Evidence is more specific, isn’t it?

I promise not to call your sources anti-Catholic if you won’t call mine anti-Mormon, agreed? I mean, they might be anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon, but we should not be distracted by that, focusing instead on the arguments themselves – the evidence and the accounts. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[twopekinguys]

Well, the strength of the CoJCoLDS is what keeps me from embracing the strength of the Catholic Church. The books I offered above by Eno and Sullivan (both Catholics one a priest) present a way to align Catholic priesthood and the Papacy with historical data that LDS use to show an apostasy. I do not think there view is impossible and thus it is a strong pro-Catholic read of data. I think restoration claims and apostasy claims are stronger.

This thread is about archeological evidence for the BOM. I have offered VOLUMES of archeological evidence for the BOM, but the loudest response I have received is “Smith lied.”
I have explained that I do not think the Prophet Jonah passes the test offered by TexanKnight and yet if the Prophet Jonah is not a prophet it would seem we must scrap the Bible. But setting that aside here are my options.

Joseph Smith brought forth the BOM. I think the BOM describes a journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful with detail only explained if someone who made such a journey wrote it. I think the BOM describes Mesoamerican cement in a place, multi-point geography, and time that requires knowledge of Teotihuacan around 250-600 AD. I think BOM descriptions of volcanic activity are present at the right place and time and are very descriptive of real phenomena such that they come from someone with experience Joseph Smith and nobody around him had. I think there are dozens of similar BOM evidences. I can then add to this the things TexanKnight SELECTIVELY quotes about Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets describing geography and ancestry that are inconsistent with the theory of the BOM in Mesoamerica. I could decide that God brought forth the BOM through Joseph Smith, but because Joseph Smith made claims about geography that are untrue he and his successors are fallen prophets or no prophets at all. How does this make Catholicism true? If Catholicism is true, how can we explain the BOM? I do not think the Hill Cumorah described in the BOM is in upstate NY, but how does Santa Rosa = Zarahemla fit into Catholicism.

There are holes that I cannot perfectly fill in my concept of Mormonism. I just think Mormonism with all TexanKnight invites me to integrate into my view of it, makes a stronger truth claim than does Catholicism.

Catholicism IMO makes a stronger truth claim that Protestantism. I lean towards Catholicism’s truth claims and away from EO truth claims too.

But there are volumes of weaknesses in the Catholic truth claims that I weigh against the volumes of weaknesses in the LDS truth claims. In the end, when I compare Best to Best (meaning the Best positives and the best explanations for the negatives) using all the intellectual rigor I can muster, I think the CoJCoLDS comes out on top. The fact that TexanKnight rejects the worst of Mormonism for some version of Catholicism that I am criticized for exploring only serves to embolden my conviction that I am closer to making a fair comparison than the folks who criticize my views.

Charity, TOm

You say you have provided “volumes” of information supporting your position, and all you get back is “smith lied”!?!

I don’t think you’ve read the responses you were given. I think I mentioned this in an earlier thread when you made mention that nobody was paying attention to your supposed proofs.

It works both ways. You can’t expect that whatever you give won’t be disputed. You expect people to read all of your posts, read your references, and just absorb it. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. You need to read and absorb what is presented to you also.

 

[Tarquin]

I have explained that I do not think the Prophet Jonah passes the test offered by TexanKnight and yet if the Prophet Jonah is not a prophet it would seem we must scrap the Bible. But setting that aside here are my options.

The Bible, being a collection of books, need not be scrapped in whole upon the removal of one of its contents. If that were the case, Mormons would have no Bible at all, because the Bible you use is the result of the removal of several books!

Joseph Smith brought forth the BOM.

Agreed

I think the BOM describes a journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful with detail only explained if someone who made such a journey wrote it.

Since you brought this up here rather than a separate thread on “Nahom”, I will share my view here. I don’t think that fits the definition of archaeological evidence, but if it could, I would have to point out that you are misrepresenting the facts. I also do not believe the journey involves much detail at all. Please feel free to provide the detail in this or a separate thread on Lehi’s journey.

Of course, we all know where Jerusalem is, and there are many artifacts from centuries of human habitation in and around Jerusalem. There are Canaanite, Egyptian, Jewish (Israelitish), Roman, and other artifacts and chronicles - evidence.

But no one knows where any Nahom or Bountiful is. (The ones named in the Book of Mormon.) There is not the least clue for these two places. In the case of Nahom, there is absolutely no detail at all. The only thing connected with Nahom in the Book of Mormon, if I understand correctly, is the burial of some virtually unknown person. There are no details that help in locating the alleged site. Rome has been described in terms of its Seven Hills, the temples, the Forum, and so on. Nahom, nothing above ground.

What “details” do we know about Bountiful? Virtually none. It lies “south of Desolation” wherever that is. It extends or is between the “east unto the west sea”, wherever and whatever those are. It’s north of Jershon, wherever that is. It was “fortified,” wherever and however, and a “narrow pass” somewhere was “secured” somehow, and there’s some kind of “temple” there, only one, and possibly a number of churches and synagogues sufficient for “a great multitude,” which I must believe is more than a hundred, more than tens of thousands (Helaman 3:8, 26). I am not trying to be facetious or disrespectful. The sad fact is, there is not a single recognizable location in all of this. Those who are interested in geographical support for the Book of Mormon are not looking for “could be” sites, but definite “is” and “are” locations. So far, since 1492, nothing has been found that correlates directly with anything distinctly related to the Book of Mormon.

 

[Tarquin]

I think the BOM describes Mesoamerican cement in a place

I don’t understand your point here. Please explain. In the meantime, I offer my perspective.

First, the BOM does not describe cement at all! Where do you find any description of cement in the BOM! Second, it is not Mesoamerican cement! It is not even used the same as Mesoamerican cement was used. There is no connection between Mesoamerican cement and the cement of the BOM except that the word is the same, unfortunately adding to the confusion.

, multi-point geography,

Please help me. I do not understand what “multi-point geography” is. The only place I’ve seen that term so far is in your post. I do not see how any geography short of one-to-one correlation can provide support for claims that the Book of Mormon is true, useful history.

and time that requires knowledge of Teotihuacan around 250-600 AD

What do you mean “time that requires knowledge of Teotihuacan”? If you mean Teotihuacan was mentioned or described or alluded to in the BOM, please provide specific references. I have a Book of Mormon Concordance. Teotihuacan is not listed. Has the Church officially identified Teotihuacan as a Mormon city, and if so, which one?

I think BOM descriptions of volcanic activity are present at the right place and time and are very descriptive of real phenomena such that they come from someone with experience Joseph Smith and nobody around him had.

I can’t believe you just said that. What are “the right place and time,” what are the “descriptions of volcanic activity”? Why do you claim that nobody around Joseph Smith had experience with volcanoes? Didn’t one of the reasons that the Smith family moved westwards to Palmyra have something to do with “the year without a summer” that resulted in large part from one of the greatest volcanic eruptions recorded, that of Mt. Tambora? I think it did, and you say no one around Joseph Smith had experience with the results of volcanic eruptions? They had to have!

On 10 April 1815, Tambora produced the largest eruption known on the planet during the past 10,000 years. The volcano erupted more than 50 cubic kilometers of magma. Caldera collapse at the end of the eruption destroyed 30 km3 of the mountain and formed a 6 km wide and 1250 m deep caldera. Floating islands of pumice 3 miles long were observed in April 1815, and even 4 years later, these islands still hindered navigation. The eruption produced global climatic effects and killed more than 100,000 people, directly and indirectly. Pyroclastic flows reached the sea on all sides of the peninsula, and heavy tephra fall devastated croplands, causing an estimated 60,000 fatalities. Entire villages were buried under thick pumice deposits. Some of the settlements have recently been brought back to light by archaeological excavations, making the site a “Pompeii of Indonesia”. Large tsunamis with wave heights of 10 or more meters might have occurred.
While the death toll of people living on Sumbawa and surrounding coastal areas was high enough, even more fatalities can be attributed to the indirect effect of global climate deterioration after the eruption. These changes turned 1816 into the “year without a summer” for much of Europe, causing widespread famine. It is estimated that it caused the death of over 100,000 people.
The reason for the climatic changes was increased absorption of sunlight due to a veil of aerosols (consisting mostly of tiny droplets of H2SO3 acid, formed by SO2 release) that were dispersed around both hemispheres by stratospheric currents from the tall eruption column. Global temperatures dropped by as much as 3 deg C in 1816 and recovered during the following years.
It is also believed that the eruption produced tsunamis with waves possibly as high as 10 meters. .

Pretty dag-nab newsworthy. Who that had access to a newspaper would not have read descriptions of this world level disaster?

I think there are dozens of similar BOM evidences.

Please do not confuse similarities with evidence. Evidence makes a connection plain and clear. Evidence makes it clear that something existed and acted at such and such a time, in such and such a way. For example, evidence that the Nephites wrote in reformed Egyptian would be the presence of documents written in reformed Egyptian. “But behold, there are many books and many arecords of every kind - administrative, judicial, horticultural, animal husbandry, sports, war, mathematics, medicine, marine ecology, weather and climate, harvests, travel, astronomy, wheel production, poetry contests, mercantile, shipping, construction, ecclesiastical]” Helaman 3:15

 

[RebeccaJ]

When I learned that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, I went back to the beginning. Is there a God? Yes. Is there one or many? One. Which monotheistic religion is true? Christianity. Which church was started by Jesus Christ? The Catholic Church.

Similar experience for me, though I came from atheism and became curious about what Christians actually believed. I wanted the earliest sources possible, in a continuity to today. I had no intention, whatsoever, of becoming Catholic. God had different ideas about that!

Mormonism begins and is founded on a denial of the continuity of Christ’s Church. Impossible to accept, without accepting that God is weak and reliant on the strengths of humans.

 

[Stephen168]

Well, the strength of the CoJCoLDS is what keeps me from embracing the strength of the Catholic Church. The books I offered above by Eno and Sullivan (both Catholics one a priest) present a way to align Catholic priesthood and the Papacy with historical data that LDS use to show an apostasy. I do not think there view is impossible and thus it is a strong pro-Catholic read of data. I think restoration claims and apostasy claims are stronger.

I see you failed to list these points. Leading the reader to assume one thing when it turns out the opposite is true seems to be a habit of the Mormon writing style. So with the details you provided, I don’t think so.

But there are volumes of weaknesses in the Catholic truth claims that I weigh against the volumes of weaknesses in the LDS truth claims. In the end, when I compare Best to Best (meaning the Best positives and the best explanations for the negatives) using all the intellectual rigor I can muster, I think the CoJCoLDS comes out on top. The fact that TexanKnight rejects the worst of Mormonism for some version of Catholicism that I am criticized for exploring only serves to embolden my conviction that I am closer to making a fair comparison than the folks who criticize my views.

I see you failed to list these weaknesses. Leading the reader to assume one thing when it turns out something different is true seems to be a habit of the Mormon writing style. So with the details you provided, I don’t think so. The unique teachings of Mormonism: barring blacks from the priesthood, exaltation, polygamy, Melchizedek Priesthood, excommunicating Apostles, prophets leading the church, blood atonement, and water baptism on behalf of the dead are a few examples of why Joseph Smith’s claim that Joseph Smith restored the Church started by Jesus Christ is false.

This thread is about archeological evidence for the BOM. I have offered VOLUMES of archeological evidence for the BOM, but the loudest response I have received is “Smith lied.”
I have explained that I do not think the Prophet Jonah passes the test offered by TexanKnight and yet if the Prophet Jonah is not a prophet it would seem we must scrap the Bible. But setting that aside here are my options.

The loudest response was that not ONE non-Mormon anthropologists believes the Book of Mormon is true as defined by Joseph Smith or that it predates the 19th century. This means the Mormon Church has to redefine what is ‘true’ about the Book of Mormon.** You are ‘begging the question’ about this new definition.** Joseph Smith, the person we have to believe restored the Church of Jesus Christ, was wrong about the Book of Mormon just like he was wrong about the Book of Abraham. “Smith lied” is a fact that unravels Mormonism.

Joseph Smith brought forth the BOM. I think the BOM describes a journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful with detail only explained if someone who made such a journey wrote it. I think the BOM describes Mesoamerican cement in a place, multi-point geography, and time that requires knowledge of Teotihuacan around 250-600 AD. I think BOM descriptions of volcanic activity are present at the right place and time and are very descriptive of real phenomena such that they come from someone with experience Joseph Smith and nobody around him had. I think there are dozens of similar BOM evidences. I can then add to this the things TexanKnight SELECTIVELY quotes about Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets describing geography and ancestry that are inconsistent with the theory of the BOM in Mesoamerica. I could decide that God brought forth the BOM through Joseph Smith, but because Joseph Smith made claims about geography that are untrue he and his successors are fallen prophets or no prophets at all. How does this make Catholicism true? If Catholicism is true, how can we explain the BOM? I do not think the Hill Cumorah described in the BOM is in upstate NY, but how does Santa Rosa = Zarahemla fit into Catholicism.

The Catholic Church was started by Christ as a historical fact, while other Churches can rightly make the same historical claim, the Mormon Church cannot. It is an invention of Joseph Smith and we know the Book of Mormon is not what he claimed it to be. To hold onto the Book of Mormon you have to ‘throw Joseph Smith under the bus.’ But when you do that you ‘throw the Mormon Church under the bus.’

There are holes that I cannot perfectly fill in my concept of Mormonism. I just think Mormonism with all TexanKnight invites me to integrate into my view of it, makes a stronger truth claim than does Catholicism.

But you have never been able to rational prove it. The ‘holes’ in Mormonism, due to its list of unique beliefs, is not Christianity at all.

Catholicism IMO makes a stronger truth claim that Protestantism. I lean towards Catholicism’s truth claims and away from EO truth claims too.

And Protestants have a stronger claim to Christianity than the religion invented by Joseph Smith.