Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[TOmNossor]

so, are you going to support the excavation of Palmyra?

Financially, not directly. For BOM artifacts? Not really. For learnings about the past, even where Joseph once lived? Sure.
What prompts you to ask in light of my above statements?
Charity, TOm

Answer this for me please:

Also, TK, Are you a geocentrist? Do you acknowledge that the Catholic Chruch teaches that interpretation of scripture by the ECF is normative for the Catholic faith? Do you acknowledge that the ECF have taught that the proper interpretation of the scriptures is geocentrism and this is important because Christ was born on the Earth? How do you align you beliefs with either science of Catholicism?

 

[TOmNossor]

Zaffiroborant, PorknPie, Stephan168, PaulDupre1
On following the Prophet and Papal Infallibility:
I think your argument is as follows.
I have claimed that I do not believe LDS prophets are infallible concerning “faith and morals” and I believe less so that they are infallible concerning “geography, genetics, population dynamics, and other tools used to condemn LDS belief.” It is good that I reject the teaching of LDS Prophets and thus I should not be a LDS. I should either start my own religion (to be consistent) or return to Catholicism (to be right). Do I understand?

There is a joke that I repeat. I doubt you who post here are among the Catholics that are part of this joke and most LDS who post here and other places are not among the LDS part of this joke, but I think it is instructive.
“Catholic’s teach that the Pope is infallible, but nobody believes it; LDS teach that the prophet is not infallible, but nobody believes it!”
I would suggest a thoughtful Catholic faith includes the some concept of Papal Infallibility (but truth be told I find many thoughtful Catholics who do not understand the issues well). I would suggest a thoughtful LDS faith includes a knowledge that LDS prophets are not protected by a Charism of infallibility (and truth be told, I think there are many different ways of manifesting this too).
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I would also suggest that the average LDS is more likely to “follow the prophet” and alter their lives as a product of what the prophet teaches than the average Catholic is to pay attention to the Pope or alter their lives as a product of what the Pope teaches. This is one aspect of Papal Infallibility that is practically worth little and “follow the Prophet” this practically worth a great deal.

Next let me talk a little about “follow the Prophet.” This is primarily an injunction to give heed to the teachings at General Conference 2x per year especially when they come from the President of the Church. I would say secondarily there are efforts like Prop 8 where LDS are encouraged to follow the guidance of the church that comes through the prophet. I will not suggest that there is no intention contained in “follow the Prophet” associated with reading the words of the current prophet and even past prophets. However repeatedly the thoughtful LDS has been cautioned against believing that that they can blindly follow the prophet. And the thoughtful LDS is also instructed to give increased heed to the words of the current church leaders who have stewardship over and the ability to receive revelation for church members today. So all thoughtful LDS who consider themselves faithful believing members who I know (and all committed members who do not find the need to research things we discuss here - the vast majority of LDS), place huge importance upon the teachings and emphasis of the current church leadership such that it changes their lives in tangible ways. These same groups of people also value the writings of past leaders, but focus mostly on the more modern day books. The thoughtful group above is very unconcerned with LDS leaders opinions on pre-Adamaic life, folks on the moon, or statements on geography.

There is a not insignificant body of Catholic clergy who do not follow the Pope with near the faith thoughtful LDS follow the Prophet. In the pews it is worse for the Catholic side and about the same for the LDS side. And if you compared LDS in leadership positions Bishops and up, their would be an even greater gulf between the LDS leader and the Catholic priest/bishop (this of course is my personal observation, but do you really doubt this).
Of course were I Catholic I would not be one of these folks so their existence does not describe the faith I would choose nor I expect the faith of those here (I will say however that if you read more from critics of Mormonism, including Catholic critics, than you do from faithful Catholics you should really think about what this means for you - hopefully this describes nobody here).

My definition of Papal Infallibility:
The Pope is Infallible when speaking concerning faith and morals from the chair of Peter. This is a negative protection in that the Pope cannot say something contrary to the truth when exercising Papal Infallibility, not that the Pope knows all truth claims nor that he absolutely could determine any particular truth claim. A wonderful example: If the Pope was infallible in math, what grade would he get on a math test? We do not know, but any question he answered because he knew the answer would be correct. He might hand in a blank test and get a 0, but he would get nothing wrong.

What does “From the Chair of Peter” mean? The most obvious answer is that the writings of Francis or Benedict before (or after) they were Pope are not “from the chair of Peter.” But this is insufficient. Ultimately “from the chair of Peter” means the current Pope is exercising Papal Infallibility when he is exercising Papal Infallibility and not when he is not. For an example read these words from John Paul II written while he was the Pope:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Is this an exercise of Papal Infallibility?I a LDS say no. Do you believe me?Read this on the EWTN website:ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
Where is the truth? I say it is not an exercise of Papal Infallibility. Do you believe me or this Catholic fellow writing for EWTN?
What use is Papal Infallibility when fallible folks must determine if a statement was an exercise of Papal Infallibility or not?

In answer to my own question: Were I Catholic I would acknowledge the above problem, but I would say that there is still some value in having a potential infallibility available to the church. I expect I would still acknowledge that LDS change their lives in Christian directions because of the teaching of the prophet more than Catholics change their lives in Christian directions because of the teaching of the Pope.

Anyway, I have no problems rejecting scientific teachings of past LDS leaders. I also find the absence of a Chrism of Infallibility even concerning “faith and morals” to not be troubling. And without Infallibility, the prophet still influences my life in directions we all should agree are Christian and positive.
Charity, TOm

 

[truthsilence]

I would also suggest that the average LDS is more likely to “follow the prophet” and alter their lives as a product of what the prophet teaches than the average Catholic is to pay attention to the Pope or alter their lives as a product of what the Pope teaches. This is one aspect of Papal Infallibility that is practically worth little and “follow the Prophet” this practically worth a great deal.

If you really want to know, I can honestly say the Catholics I associate with live very Christ-centered lives. They also regularly communicate their relationship with God, i.e., how God is working in their lives, and what it means to them to know, love, and serve God. Granted, I have a fairly small circle of close Catholic friends, but they are all quite faithful to the magisterium of the church.

Beyond what they’re being required to do in their callings, (and usually it’s of little spiritual substance, IMO), I can’t really say the same for most Mormons I know. I know quite a few Mormons who are simply overwhelmed by what they are being asked to do. It seems to me they are just towing-the-line. That being said, most Mormons I know are also decent people, or if they’re bluffing, they at least try to keep up appearances. I think a lot has to do with accountability. Catholics don’t generally have anyone keeping track of their progress like Mormons do.

Freedom can be a difficult thing to navigate, but in my opinion it is the only way to know when God is speaking to you. I don’t see most Mormon’s living in that freedom.

 

[RebeccaJ]

PorknPie, Stephan168, RebeccaJ, lax16, TexanKnight, PaulDupre1
DNA and the BOM (not problematic IMO, but Catholic geocentrism…):
If I understand the position put forth by all 6 of you (hope I didn’t miss any). DNA proves that the genetic ancestors for modern Indians are not primarily (and may not be partially) folks like Lehi, Ismael, and Zoram. There are numerous LDS leaders who have said this is what the BOM claims and is true. In close connection with this is the hemispheric geography model (a strong part of the DNA argument because the DNA argument includes samples from many Indian tribes primarily in the US however) also taught by numerous LDS leaders. So in light of all the quotes offered from LDS leaders I should choose among two options, 1. DNA science be damned I follow the BOM and LDS leaders (at least the ones quoted here. 2. I reject Mormonism because of DNA. Tangentially related to this is the “boundary maintenance” goal that may be what is really happening here. All Catholics (and Protestants) ignorant of this and other issues can safely reject Mormonism because the former Mormons have explained the relevant facts.

My thoughts:
I was already paying attention when Simon Southerton published his book on DNA. I also had been studying thoughts on the BOM and recognized that thoughtful believers pre-DNA had already abandoned the hemispheric geography model AND acknowledge that the BOM spoke of “others.”
On Signature Books website Southerton said:
“In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.”
He like you then went on to demand that all thoughtful LDS must follow the majority, but not totality, of statements by LDS leaders on the hemispheric geography and origins of modern Indians. But DNA was a done issue for me.
So, for me DNA has very little to say about the validity of the BOM and yet Nahom and Teotihuacan do (and a handful of other geographic and archeological HITS). The thoughts I had on the BOM were already such that DNA didn’t matter and Simon’s own words (as a learned by not expert source on DNA) confirm my position (as a less learned and certainly not expert on DNA).

So LDS leaders have not consistently demanded a hemispheric model, but LDS critics choose to dictate to LDS that LDS must believe in the hemispheric model. I feel as compelled to follow the critics as I think you should feel compelled to worship (Latria / Dulia be damned) Mary and be polytheists.

I feel less compelled to follow the critics than I think you SHOULD feel to follow Robert Sungenis and Gerry Matatics into the belief of geocentrism. Sungenis was one of my favorite Catholic apologists when I was really trying to come to grips with the strength of the pro-Catholic position contra the stupid anti-Catholic writings that were easier to find (like Mary worship).

I would suggest that the mental gymnastics to reject the not univocal teachings of LDS leaders on the hemispheric geography models are small leaps and simple thoughts. And the mental gymnastics necessary to reject the uniform teachings of the ECF on the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures concerning geocentricism are far more complicated and may in point of fact be an unwarranted departure from Tradition (with a capital faith requiring “T”).

I am not a geocentrist. I have at least one “Catholic” friend who is. I think the case that Catholic must be a geocentrist is at least an order of magnitude (greater than 10 times for you non-science folks) stronger than the case that a LDS must believe in the hemispheric geography model and the genetic ancestors of the Indians being folks from the BOM.

Charity, TOm

I think you are making it wayyyy more complicated than it is.

You said, Mesoamerica is your preferred location for the hill cumorah. You also pointed particularly to Mayan archaeology as where the yet-to-found archaeological evidence might be found. The Maya should then have DNA admixture from the Mid East. They don’t. Unless of course, you are taking a position that a culture can be mix (one culture added to another) without the people being mixed together? How do you think a culture changed, pre globalization, without people physically there to change it?

DNA evidence doesn’t back up what you’d like to believe.

 

[Stephen168]

I have claimed that I do not believe LDS prophets are infallible concerning “faith and morals” and I believe less so that they are infallible concerning “geography, genetics, population dynamics, and other tools used to condemn LDS belief.”

Your beliefs are not Mormon beliefs.

I would also suggest that the average LDS is more likely to “follow the prophet” and alter their lives as a product of what the prophet teaches than the average Catholic is to pay attention to the Pope or alter their lives as a product of what the Pope teaches. This is one aspect of Papal Infallibility that is practically worth little and “follow the Prophet” this practically worth a great deal.

Ezra Taft Benson:

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
   2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
   3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
2. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
   5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
3. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
4. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
   8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
   9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
5. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
6. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are theproud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
7. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
8. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
9. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I’ll just ignore the cultic nature of ”following the prophet” to say that ignoring the claims of Joseph Smith is something a Mormon is required to do to believe the BofM is true. The Pope and the Catholic Church seek truth wherever it leads them.The truth is that Joseph Smith lied about the Book of Mormon; it is not what he claimed it to be.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Financially, not directly. For BOM artifacts? Not really. For learnings about the past, even where Joseph once lived? Sure.
What prompts you to ask in light of my above statements?
Charity, TOm

Answer this for me please:

Also, TK, Are you a geocentrist? Do you acknowledge that the Catholic Chruch teaches that interpretation of scripture by the ECF is normative for the Catholic faith? Do you acknowledge that the ECF have taught that the proper interpretation of the scriptures is geocentrism and this is important because Christ was born on the Earth? How do you align you beliefs with either science of Catholicism?

Geocentricism has nothing to do with faith or morals. But nice try.

But you highlight something interesting…that your faith is in geography and cosmology?

 

[CarolNoel]

I think you are making it wayyyy more complicated than it is.

You said, Mesoamerica is your preferred location for the hill cumorah. You also pointed particularly to Mayan archaeology as where the yet-to-found archaeological evidence might be found. The Maya should then have DNA admixture from the Mid East. They don’t. Unless of course, you are taking a position that a culture can be mix (one culture added to another) without the people being mixed together? How do you think a culture changed, pre globalization, without people physically there to change it?

DNA evidence doesn’t back up what you’d like to believe.

Great comment Rebecca. I have a question for you that is off topic, but not sure how to post so you see it. As a former LDS lady, were you given any instructions on your duties as a spirit wife having spirit children? Was there much discussion about this between the ladies as to how they felt about this? Thanks.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Great comment Rebecca. I have a question for you that is off topic, but not sure how to post so you see it. As a former LDS lady, were you given any instructions on your duties as a spirit wife having spirit children? Was there much discussion about this between the ladies as to how they felt about this? Thanks.

I remember feeling very caged, and not being on board at all with what I was being taught about women, but I don’t recall any conversations about life as it would be, being married to a GOD. I just remember thinking it was irrational to believe all the Mormon males around me were gods in the making, and the LDS idea to marry a future god is what this life and the next is all about, I just never believed. More like, I wanted to get away from it as far and fast as I could.

Seriously, I clearly remember watching a group of boys play basketball in the church gym and thinking how stupid it was to believe they were gods in the making, and further even more ridiculous to think I had to have some idea of worthiness to marry one of them. BIG NO, there.

I was raised LDS but had stopped believing what I was being taught by the time I was 16/17 years old, and was atheist by the time I was in my early 20’s. There are former LDS women here who believed, at one time, what the LDS church taught. Maybe they can answer your question better than I.

 

[CarolNoel]

Thanks Rebecca for your information. Not many LDS here to ask, and was wondering what the ladies thought. Blessings to you.

 

[iepuras]

Great comment Rebecca. I have a question for you that is off topic, but not sure how to post so you see it. As a former LDS lady, were you given any instructions on your duties as a spirit wife having spirit children? Was there much discussion about this between the ladies as to how they felt about this? Thanks.

We never really got much in the way of instruction on what it’s like to be an eternal wife and have spirit children. There is Heavenly Mother who is the supreme example of motherhood, but we were never taught much about her or her role, and we were never really allowed to even talk about her. If we talked about anything, we talked about if we really would have to share our husbands. That is a huge fear among LDS womenfolk which is rarely discussed. Most of them, especially those who married young, tell themselves that Heavenly Father would never command THEIR husbands to have plural wives. It would always be someone else who would have to share her husband. I was a single woman in the LDS church for a long time (married at 30) so the fear of polygamy was forefront in my mind. I did not want to be some man’s bonus wife who just bears spirit children and not have any kind of real relationship. I cannot tell you of all the pain and heartache I felt in my 20’s because I thought that this would be my eternal lot.

Eternal polygamy is the unspoken fear of many LDS women who actually think about LDS doctrine. I struggled with it as long as I could remember until I figured out that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Huge burden lifted when I finally realized that.

In all honesty, I never really felt that marriage and family life was my vocation. I felt like I had to get married because that is what was expected and required of me. Don’t get me wrong, I love my husband and children but my identity does not revolve around them. I would be just as happy without marriage and children. I am also a working mom, so I was also a bad Mormon mother, even though my children always stayed with grandparents and have never been in daycare.

I actually always admired Catholic nuns. Many years ago, I was visiting Trinity University in Dublin with my parents and saw the Book of Kells exhibit. I made the comment that if I were alive back in the Middle Ages, I would have wanted to be a nun. My good Mormon mother was shocked that I wouldn’t want to get married and have children. It was my eternal destiny!

 

[Stephen168]

If I understand the position put forth by all 6 of you (hope I didn’t miss any). DNA proves that the genetic ancestors for modern Indians are not primarily (and may not be partially) folks like Lehi, Ismael, and Zoram.

I don’t know about the others, but The Book of Mormon is the story of Semitic people coming to America which Joseph Smith claimed is the source of the American Indian. DNA supports earlier anthropologic evidence which prove the American Indians are from fareast Asia and not Semitic people; therefore Joseph Smith lied.

My thoughts:
I was already paying attention when Simon Southerton published his book on DNA. I also had been studying thoughts on the BOM and recognized that thoughtful believers pre-DNA had already abandoned the hemispheric geography model AND acknowledge that the BOM spoke of “others.”
On Signature Books website Southerton said:
“In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.”
He like you then went on to demand that all thoughtful LDS must follow the majority, but not totality, of statements by LDS leaders on the hemispheric geography and origins of modern Indians. But DNA was a done issue for me.

Actually Simon Southerton went on to say “However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.” The only Mormon leader that matters is what Joseph Smith claimed, because it is his word and only his word that is the foundation of the Latter-Day-Saint movement and their talisman the Book of Mormon.

I would suggest that the mental gymnastics to reject the not univocal teachings of LDS leaders on the hemispheric geography models are small leaps and simple thoughts. And the mental gymnastics necessary to reject the uniform teachings of the ECF on the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures concerning geocentricism are far more complicated and may in point of fact be an unwarranted departure from Tradition (with a capital faith requiring “T”).

The foundation of Mormonism is Joseph’s word and the Book of Mormon; neither are what they are claimed to be; they are false. The founder of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ, and his cosmology is true.

Do you acknowledge that the Catholic Chruch teaches that interpretation of scripture by the ECF is normative for the Catholic faith?

On faith and morals only.

Do you acknowledge that the ECF have taught that the proper interpretation of the scriptures is geocentrism and this is important because Christ was born on the Earth?

No

How do you align you beliefs with either science of Catholicism?

There is no science of Catholicism. There is science which we agree with because it is God’s creation. Catholics and the Catholic Church have been on the leading edge of science for just that reason; we seek the creator.
Doctrine and Covenants 77:6:

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will,mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning** this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.**

 

[RebeccaJ]

We never really got much in the way of instruction on what it’s like to be an eternal wife and have spirit children. There is Heavenly Mother who is the supreme example of motherhood, but we were never taught much about her or her role, and we were never really allowed to even talk about her. If we talked about anything, we talked about if we really would have to share our husbands. That is a huge fear among LDS womenfolk which is rarely discussed. Most of them, especially those who married young, tell themselves that Heavenly Father would never command THEIR husbands to have plural wives. It would always be someone else who would have to share her husband. I was a single woman in the LDS church for a long time (married at 30) so the fear of polygamy was forefront in my mind. I did not want to be some man’s bonus wife who just bears spirit children and not have any kind of real relationship. I cannot tell you of all the pain and heartache I felt in my 20’s because I thought that this would be my eternal lot.

Eternal polygamy is the unspoken fear of many LDS women who actually think about LDS doctrine. I struggled with it as long as I could remember until I figured out that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Huge burden lifted when I finally realized that.

In all honesty, I never really felt that marriage and family life was my vocation. I felt like I had to get married because that is what was expected and required of me. Don’t get me wrong, I love my husband and children but my identity does not revolve around them. I would be just as happy without marriage and children. I am also a working mom, so I was also a bad Mormon mother, even though my children always stayed with grandparents and have never been in daycare.

I actually always admired Catholic nuns. Many years ago, I was visiting Trinity University in Dublin with my parents and saw the Book of Kells exhibit. I made the comment that if I were alive back in the Middle Ages, I would have wanted to be a nun. My good Mormon mother was shocked that I wouldn’t want to get married and have children. It was my eternal destiny!

The LDS idea of womanhood seemed utilitarian to me, one size fits all, all women have exactly the same function, like a stapler. I wanted (and have) a career.

 

[Porknpie]

PorknPie, Stephan168, RebeccaJ, lax16, TexanKnight, PaulDupre1
DNA and the BOM (not problematic IMO, but Catholic geocentrism…):
If I understand the position put forth by all 6 of you (hope I didn’t miss any). DNA proves that the genetic ancestors for modern Indians are not primarily (and may not be partially) folks like Lehi, Ismael, and Zoram. There are numerous LDS leaders who have said this is what the BOM claims and is true. In close connection with this is the hemispheric geography model (a strong part of the DNA argument because the DNA argument includes samples from many Indian tribes primarily in the US however) also taught by numerous LDS leaders. So in light of all the quotes offered from LDS leaders I should choose among two options, 1. DNA science be damned I follow the BOM and LDS leaders (at least the ones quoted here. 2. I reject Mormonism because of DNA. Tangentially related to this is the “boundary maintenance” goal that may be what is really happening here. All Catholics (and Protestants) ignorant of this and other issues can safely reject Mormonism because the former Mormons have explained the relevant facts.

My thoughts:
I was already paying attention when Simon Southerton published his book on DNA. I also had been studying thoughts on the BOM and recognized that thoughtful believers pre-DNA had already abandoned the hemispheric geography model AND acknowledge that the BOM spoke of “others.”
On Signature Books website Southerton said:
“In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.”
He like you then went on to demand that all thoughtful LDS must follow the majority, but not totality, of statements by LDS leaders on the hemispheric geography and origins of modern Indians. But DNA was a done issue for me.
So, for me DNA has very little to say about the validity of the BOM and yet Nahom and Teotihuacan do (and a handful of other geographic and archeological HITS). The thoughts I had on the BOM were already such that DNA didn’t matter and Simon’s own words (as a learned by not expert source on DNA) confirm my position (as a less learned and certainly not expert on DNA).

So LDS leaders have not consistently demanded a hemispheric model, but LDS critics choose to dictate to LDS that LDS must believe in the hemispheric model. I feel as compelled to follow the critics as I think you should feel compelled to worship (Latria / Dulia be damned) Mary and be polytheists.

I feel less compelled to follow the critics than I think you SHOULD feel to follow Robert Sungenis and Gerry Matatics into the belief of geocentrism. Sungenis was one of my favorite Catholic apologists when I was really trying to come to grips with the strength of the pro-Catholic position contra the stupid anti-Catholic writings that were easier to find (like Mary worship).

I would suggest that the mental gymnastics to reject the not univocal teachings of LDS leaders on the hemispheric geography models are small leaps and simple thoughts. And the mental gymnastics necessary to reject the uniform teachings of the ECF on the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures concerning geocentricism are far more complicated and may in point of fact be an unwarranted departure from Tradition (with a capital faith requiring “T”).

I am not a geocentrist. I have at least one “Catholic” friend who is. I think the case that Catholic must be a geocentrist is at least an order of magnitude (greater than 10 times for you non-science folks) stronger than the case that a LDS must believe in the hemispheric geography model and the genetic ancestors of the Indians being folks from the BOM.

Charity, TOm

Tom,

I attended the December 6th conference at the University of Notre Dame titled “Catholics & Mormons: A New Dialogue”, sponsored by among others BYU. There were speeches from at least five LDS “scholars” (they do not use the word theologian). The final thoughts from the LDS faith were from Richard Bushman of Columbia University. In his remarks, he said that one thing bothering him (my paraphrase) was the lack of archeological evidence supporting the BOM. I thought this to be a very honest admission from someone who was quite well thought of by the other LDS attendees.

I say this to make a point that if Richard Bushman of Columbia University is having problems with this archeological question then it’s understandable that any other member of the LDS Church would have problems as well.

PnP

 

[taylorf]

What use is Papal Infallibility when fallible folks must determine if a statement was an exercise of Papal Infallibility or not?

What use is a Prophet and “direct revelation” when fallible LDS folks must determine if a statement was an exercise of direct revelation versus incorrect teaching, theory, opinion, or just bad doctrine?

(See Adam-God, curse of blacks, polygamy/polyandry, Hill Cumorah, Nephite ancestry, BOM geography…pick a topic)

 

[PaulDupre1]

What use is a Prophet and “direct revelation” when fallible LDS folks must determine if a statement was an exercise of direct revelation versus incorrect teaching, theory, opinion, or just bad doctrine?

(See Adam-God, curse of blacks, polygamy/polyandry, Hill Cumorah, Nephite ancestry, BOM geography…pick a topic)

Thank you, taylorf. I will giggle myself to sleep tonight.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant, PorknPie, Stephan168, PaulDupre1
On following the Prophet and Papal Infallibility:
I think your argument is as follows.
I have claimed that I do not believe LDS prophets are infallible concerning “faith and morals” and I believe less so that they are infallible concerning “geography, genetics, population dynamics, and other tools used to condemn LDS belief.” It is good that I reject the teaching of LDS Prophets and thus I should not be a LDS. I should either start my own religion (to be consistent) or return to Catholicism (to be right). Do I understand?

Aahh no, I didn’t say anything about you staying LDS or returning to Catholicism, not to say I don’t have an opinion on that. Just saying that I see no reason to bother with what your “prophets” have to say if they can not articulate the LDS faith accurately or articulate what is moral or immoral. If your prophets can’t explain their own faith then why should anyone follow it and if they can’t explain right from wrong what’s the point?

 

[RebeccaJ]

TOmNossor;

You haven’t quite gotten papal infallibility down. We aren’t like Mormons, where our church leaves us wondering what is doctrine and what is not. So no, it is not up to you or a writer at EWTN to decide what is the infallible teaching of Christ’s Church. The Pope acts in council with an infallible Magesterium. If you want the infallible answer to Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis read the associated documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

jimmyakin.com/library/womens-ordination-its-infallible#responsum

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith. Responsum: In the affirmative.

jimmyakin.com/library/womens-ordination-its-infallible#letter
thejimmyakinstore.com/library/inter-insigniores

And last, your are a baptized Catholic who is about as far from following Church teaching as you can get, so slagging on Catholics as you are doing is a case of living in a glass house and throwing stones.

But it’s ok, we already KNOW we are sinners and in need of forgiveness. We NEED our God, Jesus Christ. Bragging up ones own righteousness is not a very Catholic thing to do. Sin and Grace are the two sides of the same coin. Mormons have a propensity to eying Catholics and other Christians, acknowledging our sins, but stubbornly refusing to see the grace. It is an offense against the Holy Spirit.

 

[Miriam1947]

In fact, scans of the original document show that all of the “witnesses’” signatures were written by the same hand - the hand of Joseph Smith. So the testimony of the witnesses was written by Smith and the signatures were written by Smith. About as expected. Bogus.

 

[TexanKnight]

Financially, not directly. For BOM artifacts? Not really. For learnings about the past, even where Joseph once lived? Sure.
What prompts you to ask in light of my above statements?
Charity, TOm

Why would you not wish to excavate Cumorah? It would prove the b of m to be what js claims it is. What are you afraid of?

Answer this for me please:

Also, TK, Are you a geocentrist? Do you acknowledge that the Catholic Chruch teaches that interpretation of scripture by the ECF is normative for the Catholic faith? Do you acknowledge that the ECF have taught that the proper interpretation of the scriptures is geocentrism and this is important because Christ was born on the Earth? How do you align you beliefs with either science of Catholicism?

Seriously? Are you so transparent as to try to go off on red-herring arguments that have nothing to do with the topic? Look again at the title of this thread. Then please stop the red herrings and answer the questions.

Thank you