T
- Status
T
Tarquin
Guest
Joseph Smith had no successor. Read what Brigham Young said after Smith’s death, that there would be no successor. Then read how the votes were tallied a couple of years later to establish Young at the head of the Church. There was no quorum. The proposal failed, but like many politicians, it was declared “unanimous” anyway.
T
Tarquin
Guest
An apostasy did happen. It was predicted and warned about. People fell away. Neither the church that Christ established fell away, nor did all the people who believed Jesus apostatize. There was no universal apostasy. There is evidence of individual and local apostasy, but not of universal apostasy. If we trust the archaeological records.
The absence of horses in the Americas during the time of which the Book of Mormon purports to be a history probably would not be sufficient for me to reject the Book of Mormon. A combination of factors convince me the book is a 19th century fabrication. Nahom hardly enters into my personal calculations, since there has been no clear evidence of a connection of the Old World altar with “NHM” on it, and the Book of Mormon character Lehi who allegedly named the place “Nahom.” I would find the horse theory more convincing based on the presence of ancient horse skeletons in America. Granted they are too old to have been a part of Book of Mormon culture; the fact that the exist at all would give me pause to think their presence might have somehow extended into the Book of Mormon timeline. Horses are insufficient, but even so are more noteworthy than NHM. Nahom less than supports the Book of Mormon because NHM has no recognizable connection with the book, and no location named Nahom has been found. If it were found, I’m afraid it would be slightly corroborative, but ultimately insufficient. What is needed are concrete items mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and independent records from the time period or from a later period quoting records from that period (as we have records of ancient Sumer by virtue of their having been copied by Akkadians).
*“Every way of a man seemeth right to himself…” (Proverbs 21:2) *
Then you should stick with it until weightier evidence to the contrary becomes available to you. There is no evil attached, in my mind, to following the faith a person sincerely believes. Such a person should be as loyal and follow that belief system’s noble standards (but not ignoble ones) as closely as possible, because
“… God weighs the heart” (Proverbs 21:2).
In the end, He will make things right. He is the “balance” that will restore “grace for grace” (Helaman 12:24), if we trust and call on Him.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding” - Proverbs 3:5
T
Tarquin
Guest
You are angry that I learn, and change my beliefs based on new learning?
Tom, this is becoming very tedious. Try to understand what I really said. Joseph Smith may indeed have been describing this volcano, the Tambora eruption! In other words, I was saying he may have borrowed descriptions relating to the Tambora event in order to dramatize the alleged destruction in America (or Malaysia). I was not saying that Joseph described any volcanic activity in America – there was no such activity as was described in the Book of Mormon during Book of Mormon times. I “changed my assessment” in this way: Perhaps I was wrong to say Joseph was not thinking of a volcano when he wrote about the Book of Mormon disasters; perhaps he was thinking of Tambora.
Either Joseph was not thinking of volcanoes, or he was thinking of Tambora. What he was not doing was translating reformed Egyptian into English.
By the way, I do not claim that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon. I do not know who the author/authors was/were. Any such statements I make regarding Smith’s authorship are based on the first edition of the Book of Mormon which clearly identifies him as the author. Blame him, not me.
You said that earlier with the exact same amount of evidence: none. (See below, 80,000 years ago)
No. The description of the BOM cataclysm reasonably is linked to Joseph Smith’s familiarity with a large scale eruption on the other side of the world – or it is not about a volcano. It is in no way reasonably linked to actual volcanic activity in the Western Hemisphere, even if unjustifiably limited (in terms of Joseph Smith’s knowledge and teaching) to Mesoamerica alone.
Yeah, ya gotta admit. That was darn funny stuff right there. Seriously, though, maybe an Arab tribe named their cemetery after something a family of Jewish refugees passing through the area said – and that’s not funny?
Sorensen’s work does not seem very convincing. Which Mormon city is under Lake Atitlan? The Lake Atitlan caldera is said to have formed 84,000 years ago. (I don’t know. That’s what I read.) There are three volcanoes involved, the most recent eruption having occurred 40,000 years ago. The Book of Mormon events occurred 2,000 years ago. And Lake Atitlan is “consistent with Sorensen’s” unsubstantiated speculations? What, did all the Nephites hop a ride on a time machine to get to the cataclysm and then come back and describe it “just like it was yesterday”? Unless my information is bad (I’m no Vulcan vulcanologist), Sorensen is doing a poor job of supporting the Book of Mormon on this point.
No need to bemoan your confusion. It has been obvious at many points in this thread. It’s a concommittent of believing the Book of Mormon is true history and real geography. However, I did indeed change my mind halfway through. Since I said that, very clearly, your confusion is inexcusable. You should also note that I have argued for two separate theories at once, as Mormons do.
Either: Joseph was not thinking about volcanoes when he wrote about the disasters in the Book of Mormon;
or: he had Tambora on his mind.
One or the other.
What he did not have, was a record of volcanic activity in America.
T
Tarquin
Guest
There are no such legitimate parallels. You are reading what you want to read into the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon mentions no volcanoes, no volcanic eruptions, no lava flow, no heavy ash, no suffocation by ash. A “fire” is neither lava nor ash. It’s just fire. I’m glad to hear you say the alleged BOM volcano is worth more than Kish. It would be neat if all the evidence could be rated comparatively. (I’m not asking for that; just saying it would be helpful.) So now Kish is set aside as less supportive. And when volcanoes are set aside as irrelevant, we will move on to something else. There will always be something else. Eventually, the Liahona will stand alone. Or gold plates. Or whatever. We could deal with this most easily if there were one thing about the Book of Mormon that was absolutely certain. We could demonstrate that is true, and the Book of Mormon is true. I don’t mean something trivial or universal, like “People lived here, and some of them were good and some of them fought, and stuff happened.” I mean something concrete, substantive. My personal favorite would be something pertinent written in reformed Egyptian. But it will never be.
Then Joseph Smith was a liar, because he claimed to read for hours at a time!
Success!
T
Tarquin
Guest
You are referring to my quotes from the Book of Mormon. The more pertinent part of post 515 was my rejoinder to those quotations. The central point throughout that list was that at no time was a volcano mentioned or described. Yes, many – but not all! – of those events do, at times, accompany certain types of eruptions. But eruptions are not their only cause. Furthermore, some of the phenomena, when associated with volcanic eruption, occur with other phenomena that cannot be ignored, such as stones flying at your head, or hard pellets and suffocating ash, and . . . lava . . . liquid red earth, or lake of fire and brimstone, or however it is to be described . . . it was not described.
You have not shown that the activity was the result of a volcanic eruption. What if the Book of Mormon says a volcano erupted in Mesoamerica? Is that greater evidence than Kish/Ukixkan?
That is called “begging the question.” There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon nor in anything Joseph Smith taught, nor in any revelation, that a volcano was involved. That is speculation. Maybe arguing about volcanoes is a useful diversion from the obvious lack of genuine archaeological evidence supporting anything like the alleged history claimed in the Book of Mormon.
Furthermore, a volcanic eruption is hardly what people are expecting when they ask for “archaeological evidence” supporting the Book of Mormon. There are no cultural artifacts. I have no word to describe the nature of a belief whose supporters are reduced to offering Mother Nature as “archaeological evidence” for a vast civilization stretching from the Northern wastes to southern Tierra del Fuego, and the Islands of the Pacific (Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Prophet Joseph Smith, etc.).
Exactly so! Which is where Explanation “A” comes in – Smith never intended that story to be taken as the result of volcanic activity.
This is called “begging the question.” There is no evidence that “Mormon” was a real person, and none that Jesus came to America 350 years ago. However, yes, if it was due to volcanic activity, obviously “Mormon” was clueless. He obviously thought it was just storms and earthquakes, since that is how he let the record stand.
E
Erich
Guest
No idea he was the Vicar of Christ and had authority over all eastern and western bishops? Really?
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (*Letter to the Corinthians *1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
If he truly had “no idea he was the Vicar of Christ and had authority over all eastern and western bishops” then why would he, as Bishop of Rome, ever “turn his attention” to the matters in dispute among the Corinthians, and expect them to “accept his counsel” (or, indeed, that they would “involve themselves in transgression” if they didn’t)?
In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”
Note that, not only did Clement command the church in Corinth to reinstate its leadership (in an early acknowledgement of Apostolic apointment / Apostolic succession), but the church in Corinth did not challenge Clement’s authority. In other words, Clement knew he had authority, and so did the Corinthians.
We now return to our our regularly-scheduled thread in search of archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.*
T
TOmNossor
Guest
[/quote]
“Far more detailed”? Who do you think you are kidding? There is not even mention of a volcano!
…
(Having read this, I am more persuaded that Joseph Smith may indeed have been describing this volcano, or an even larger one. Although there are elements in his story that echo wonders from the book of Revelations.)
So, you started you post saying the BOM did not well describe a volcano. After pasting in some historical references to volcanos, you decided that perhaps the author of the BOM had some familiarity with volcanos AND the cataclysm in the BOM parallels in ways that allow you to make this connection.
There are multi-point details that caused you to change your assessment, many of which are not even contained in your description, but still you became “more persuaded” that author of the BOM (who you claim to be Joseph Smith) was describing volcanos.
You are angry that I learn, and change my beliefs based on new learning?
Immediately after this I said:
I am glad we agree (at least for a few second as I am confused by your later comments) that the BOM cataclysm reasonably is linked to large scale volcanic activity.
I am not sure how from my “I am glad” comment you got TOm is “angry that I learn, and change my beliefs based on new learning?”
Please explain what makes you think I am “angry.” I do not know if I can be more sensitive to your feelings, but unless you suggesting “I am angry” is merely a rhetorical trick, I do not know what to make of it.
cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am however glad that you acknowledge CLEARLY that you have changed (well actually you take an either/or position now that you have at least owned) your mind and that your original criticism MISSED the mark.
The confusion resulted from the CERTAINTY evidenced that the BOM did not describe volcanos, followed by the change of mind that the BOM did describe volcanos as a product of Joseph knowledge of Tambora or an even larger volcano, followed by your return to CERTAINTY that the BOM did not describe volcanos. Please re-read your post #514 and #515
In 514 you start with “no volcano.” You past some descriptions of volcanos sourced ultimately from eye witnesses and then say “perhaps this is what Joseph had in mind.” Then in 515 you return to “no volcano.”
I am again happy that you sometimes see volcanos in the BOM. Having tried to look at the cataclysms that accompany volcanos, I see them as very related to the upheaval described in 3 Nephi. That they are in the right place and right time is significant IMO.
You say at the end of your post:
One or the other.
What he did not have, was a record of volcanic activity in America.
It is my opinion that a committed Catholic can feel no need to investigate the CoJCoLDS and they needn’t do so (I have said this multiple times). It is my opinion that the above illustrates some faith commitment that the BOM could not possible by what it claims to be, but you are looking for why. I am sure you will explain why I should not read it that way. I am often confused when the dogmatism of others is paraded as cold rationality; I think that might be why I misunderstand you.
Here is another little thing that you might not recognize you changed your mind on (a little thing).
From #515:
Tarquin:
Either Joseph was not thinking of volcanoes, or he was thinking of Tambora. What he was not doing was translating reformed Egyptian into English.
…
or: he had Tambora on his mind.
The first one that acknowledges “an even larger one” is what I think is reality. Perhaps you recognize (recognized) that some great stretches could be postulated to put the account of Tambora into the hands of Joseph Smith, but the action in the BOM is “an even larger one.” Then later you realize that even though the account in the BOM goes far beyond Tambora (but is consistent with the aggregate of data modern volcanologists now say could/does occur in the largest of volcanic activity) you can only plausibly (strechingly) put Tambora accounts in the hands of Joseph. So it must be only Tambora.
I was TRULY confused when I first read your “no volcanos,” “having read this … perhaps Tambora account or larger volcano account,” followed by “no volcanos.” It was not a rhetorical trick to say I was confused because I was. I am honestly not confused now (not angry either). But, I do think you betray a lack of objectivity when you wander (changing your mind is fine, good even, but going back and forth is what I am commenting on) all around with your theories. And, I thought it worthwhile to point it out. I hope you can take a minute before you respond, because I am uneasy about what you might say. I have no ill feelings toward you, I just want to show the type of thinking that I think goes into dismissing the evidences I offer in this thread (and I think NHM is quite a bit better evidence than Volcanos BTW). I do not wish to cause you discomfort.
Charity, TOm
The confusion resulted from the CERTAINTY evidenced that the BOM did not describe volcanos, followed by the change of mind that the BOM did describe volcanos as a product of Joseph knowledge of Tambora or an even larger volcano, followed by your return to CERTAINTY that the BOM did not describe volcanos. Please re-read your post #514 and #515
In 514 you start with “no volcano.” You past some descriptions of volcanos sourced ultimately from eye witnesses and then say “perhaps this is what Joseph had in mind.” Then in 515 you return to “no volcano.”
I am again happy that you sometimes see volcanos in the BOM. Having tried to look at the cataclysms that accompany volcanos, I see them as very related to the upheaval described in 3 Nephi. That they are in the right place and right time is significant IMO.
You say at the end of your post:
or: he had Tambora on his mind.
One or the other.
What he did not have, was a record of volcanic activity in America.
It is my opinion that a committed Catholic can feel no need to investigate the CoJCoLDS and they needn’t do so (I have said this multiple times). It is my opinion that the above illustrates some faith commitment that the BOM could not possible by what it claims to be, but you are looking for why. I am sure you will explain why I should not read it that way. I am often confused when the dogmatism of others is paraded as cold rationality; I think that might be why I misunderstand you.
Here is another little thing that you might not recognize you changed your mind on (a little thing).
From #515:
And just now you say:
Either Joseph was not thinking of volcanoes, or he was thinking of Tambora. What he was not doing was translating reformed Egyptian into English.
…
or: he had Tambora on his mind.
The first one that acknowledges “an even larger one” is what I think is reality. Perhaps you recognize (recognized) that some great stretches could be postulated to put the account of Tambora into the hands of Joseph Smith, but the action in the BOM is “an even larger one.” Then later you realize that even though the account in the BOM goes far beyond Tambora (but is consistent with the aggregate of data modern volcanologists now say could/does occur in the largest of volcanic activity) you can only plausibly (strechingly) put Tambora accounts in the hands of Joseph. So it must be only Tambora.
I was TRULY confused when I first read your “no volcanos,” “having read this … perhaps Tambora account or larger volcano account,” followed by “no volcanos.” It was not a rhetorical trick to say I was confused because I was. I am honestly not confused now (not angry either). But, I do think you betray a lack of objectivity when you wander (changing your mind is fine, good even, but going back and forth is what I am commenting on) all around with your theories. And, I thought it worthwhile to point it out. I hope you can take a minute before you respond, because I am uneasy about what you might say. I have no ill feelings toward you, I just want to show the type of thinking that I think goes into dismissing the evidences I offer in this thread (and I think NHM is quite a bit better evidence than Volcanos BTW). I do not wish to cause you discomfort.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
Rejecting the Mormon Church does not mean it was never “investigated”
The BOM is not what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church (for 150 years) claimed it to be. This is a matter of science; not faith. The American Indians are not Jews.
If you are claiming that believing the BOM is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be is rational dogma, it is not.
Stephen168
New member
Therefore: 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 were taught and practiced by Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Stephen168 and Iepuras,
I had not in the past recognized the connection between Tobit 14 and the Jonah/Nineveh. I missed it in Stephen’s initial post because I thought his quote was quoting me (not Tobit) and I skimmed past it. I wanted to thank you for this, and I am sorry I didn’t notice it.
Now to my next post …
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
You can be a theist and a Christian
But you can’t be a LDS and a Christian, they are mutually exclusive.
I very much disagree, and I thought I might comment on this.
I came to know Christ as a LDS in ways that I failed to connect in Catholicism.
I have felt His love. I have felt His call out of sin. And I have felt Him leading me when I could not make it on my own.
I am not interested in sharing your faith commitments that lead to the above statement.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
This is what I think I have claimed in this thread.
Brant Gartner created a list I called the Gartner list. Some of the things on the list by themselves are not impressive, but in aggregate they contribute to establishing that BOM was more than Joseph Smith (or some other 19th century fellow could produce).
Three things I noted here:
Lehi’s journey has 10 points of contact with a real journey from Jerusalem to NHM (Nahom, Nehem, …) to Bountiful. 81 points brought out in the book I mentioned.
Cement used at Teotihuacan fits the time, place, deforestation, and presence of lots of water. This stands out.
The description of destruction in the BOM has many points of contact with volcanic activity. This activity occurred in the right place and right time for the BOM narrative.
Also:
I mentioned the placing of the BOM in 600BC Jerusalem by non-Mormon scholar Margaret Barker and I, agreeing with this non-Mormon scholar, think there are multipoint connections placing the BOM in this historical context.
Also:
I recently read the introduction summary of Sorensen’s book. I think there are a few things that could be included here (and would rank below NHM, but somewhere in the mix) by themselves. But, I think again it is the aggregate of all of them that is most powerful. I think he does use William Dever’s methodology well and his conclusion that you should not write the Nephites out of Mesoamerican history is solid. I do hope Coe accepts Sorensen’s invitation to review the full book.
Since I am on a Catholic board, let me finish this post with my weaknesses and my weaknesses.
Horses in the BOM is a problem even when mitigated by the responses I have offered here. Metallurgy is a smaller, but real problem. There are other smaller and real problems for the BOM and other problems for the truth claims of Mormonism.
And, I am a sinful man with biases and imperfect faculties. I claim no certainty for my intellectual weighing of all the issues here discussed and the claim that my purely intellectual conclusion is warranted by the evidence pro and con.
Charity, TOm
Brant Gartner created a list I called the Gartner list. Some of the things on the list by themselves are not impressive, but in aggregate they contribute to establishing that BOM was more than Joseph Smith (or some other 19th century fellow could produce).
Three things I noted here:
Lehi’s journey has 10 points of contact with a real journey from Jerusalem to NHM (Nahom, Nehem, …) to Bountiful. 81 points brought out in the book I mentioned.
Cement used at Teotihuacan fits the time, place, deforestation, and presence of lots of water. This stands out.
The description of destruction in the BOM has many points of contact with volcanic activity. This activity occurred in the right place and right time for the BOM narrative.
Also:
I mentioned the placing of the BOM in 600BC Jerusalem by non-Mormon scholar Margaret Barker and I, agreeing with this non-Mormon scholar, think there are multipoint connections placing the BOM in this historical context.
Also:
I recently read the introduction summary of Sorensen’s book. I think there are a few things that could be included here (and would rank below NHM, but somewhere in the mix) by themselves. But, I think again it is the aggregate of all of them that is most powerful. I think he does use William Dever’s methodology well and his conclusion that you should not write the Nephites out of Mesoamerican history is solid. I do hope Coe accepts Sorensen’s invitation to review the full book.
Since I am on a Catholic board, let me finish this post with my weaknesses and my weaknesses.
Horses in the BOM is a problem even when mitigated by the responses I have offered here. Metallurgy is a smaller, but real problem. There are other smaller and real problems for the BOM and other problems for the truth claims of Mormonism.
And, I am a sinful man with biases and imperfect faculties. I claim no certainty for my intellectual weighing of all the issues here discussed and the claim that my purely intellectual conclusion is warranted by the evidence pro and con.
Charity, TOm
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I mentioned the placing of the BOM in 600BC Jerusalem by non-Mormon scholar Margaret Barker and I, agreeing with this non-Mormon scholar, think there are multipoint connections placing the BOM in this historical context.
Do you have a reference for Barker placing the BoM?
Thanks
T
Tarquin
Guest
Zaffiroborant, Barker is far from traditional or typical. She seems (imo) to have a sort of gnostic or esoteric approach to the Bible, from the very brief (and therefore not conclusive) passages I have read. She does not share either a literal nor the traditionally symbolic interpretation of the Bible. For example, apparently, “Her hypothesis is that Elohim refers to the Most High God and that Jehovah (Yahweh) was one of his sons. There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations and Jehovah was the God of Israel. After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon.”
From the introduction to her “King of the Jews”: “Those at Qumran who worshipped as/with the angels in heaven cannot have been very different from those who wrote and read John’s gospel and the Book of Revelation. The latter were the Hebrew-Christian community who saw themselves as the heavenly throng …Their Lamb on the throne opened a sealed book - secret teaching - and they were originally people chosen from all the twelve tribes of Israel to receive the Name of the Lord on their foreheads (Rev.7.3-4).”
Her books have been described as densely scholar and difficult for the layman. As for her attributions regarding Mormonism, I have no examples of her claims or her reasoning. My personal take is that while I would probably enjoy reading something of hers, I would tread with some caution. I welcome more detailed information on what she wrote and how she reasoned towards her conclusions, as related to this thread.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Thanks
Zaffiroborant,
If you missed this response, then here it is:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11844081&postcount=553
I hope that was what you were looking for.
I have read two of her books.
She is not “mainstream,” but she is well respected for her knowledge and extensive research. She has birthed an area of Biblical studies called Temple Theology that now has younger researchers continuing her work. She also was the president for the British “Society For Old Testament Study.” Scott Hahn and other Catholic writers are likely not “followers” but they have many points in common with Barker when they search for antecedents of the Catholic mass.
Charity, TOm
C
CarolNoel
Guest
Stephen168
New member
You are wrong.
I’m sure you do.
But you deny it to others.
Stephen168
New member
Therefore Joseph Smith being wrong about the Book of Mormon is just one reason he is not a prophet.
- Status