Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LivingWaters7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TOmNossor said:
To all who asked for a list of errors of past popes.
I have debated a lot about how to respond to you. I see from Paul’s response that he seems to indicate I cannot offer “many false things” taught by Popes. Pismopal thought there would be 0 false things taught by Popes concerning faith and morals.
I know for few LDS who engage in critics of my faith that are unaware of the evidences offered. One of my theories is that the majority of Catholic contributors are better defined by their knowledge of the critical arguments against Mormonism than by the positive or negative arguments associated with Catholicism.
I am a LDS because of the pro-LDS arguments and responses to anti-Mormon arguments. My interest in Catholicism is a product of the strength of its claims relative to other religious structures, not because I am a former Catholic (at least I hope that is true).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the thread is about lack of archaeological proof of the lds church…and despite being told to stay on topic, you go to Pope errors anyway…knowing you have nothing of substance to offer to the OP.

Then, in an effort to prove js was NOT a prophet, you compare him to people who admit they were not prophets.

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

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

SERIOUSLY? You STILL cannot keep to the topic?

Then, you have the audacity to compare what was goung on in 200 AD in the Middle East and parts of Europe with what is going on from 1830 to 2014 in the United States? Really? Are you truly that desperate?

And no…the lds church will not be stable by 2030. It can’t be as long as each “prophet” keeps overruling previous ones and people like you can;t answer the tough questions without dodging and red herrings and outlandish comparisons…
 
Miriam1947 said:
Is it just me or is this the usual red herring to distract from the actual question on this thread:

Re: Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?
Click to expand...
What did you expect? When your church has been proven false and your prophets been proven false…all you have left are red herrings…
 
Tom: Let me call this out briefly. And let me ask again why no Catholic asks TK to stop engaging me this way.

Because they know I am right. And they prolly did not realize you cannot fight your own battles

Please show me where I “admitted your prophets have lied.”

Simple. You stated the Cumorah in NY is NOT the one in the B of M. So, you are left with only TWO possibilities. The many "prophets were definitively stated they ARE the same Cumorah were either lying or they were wrong. Since we know God would not let so many of prophets continue to be wrong, especially when THEY TALK TO GOD…(allegedly), then the only option left is that they lied.

Tom: I am not sure if you believe this to be true and thus you are mistaken in saying it OR if you know it is false and are thus not being truthful so you might score rhetorical points.
I will wait to see what you say.

No worries. I believe it is true. When one keeps disagreeing with your alleged prophets past preachings and doctrine, you are admitting they lied or they were just wrong. If you admit they were just wrong, then it is an admission they taught false doctrine and are therefore false prophets.

So, maybe I am wrong. You have left yourself with two options.

Tom, were they lying or were they false prophets? Those are the only two options you have given yourself. I will wait to see what you say
 
now…stop deflecting and get back to the topic…

give me the exact location of Zerehamla
 
andrewstx said:
I see, but Mormons claim that the first inhabitants of the Americas were Jewish Nephites and others Lamanites.
Click to expand...
So, what did the DNA analysis show? If traced back to the middle east, it would support Mormon claims. If not…:kissme:
 
TOmNossor said:
I am only saying that the proper place to find archeological evidence for the BOM is in the Old World and in Mesoamerica, and that this is where we do find it. Most responses to this have been that I cannot use this evidence because LDS prophets embraced other geographies.
Click to expand...
No, you have not found evidence for the BoM anywhere. I say that because that is what ALL non-Mormon anthropologists say.

In fact they say that it has already be proven that the BofM is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. It may be feel good fiction, but it is not the history of the American Indians: fact.
 
Hey Tex. Bountiful is in Utah. Just north of Salt Lake. I found it for you 😃
 
kimg901 said:
Hey Tex. Bountiful is in Utah. Just north of Salt Lake. I found it for you 😃
Click to expand...
nope…been there…NO evidence of b of m history there. 🤷

which makes it the same as every other place in the world.

Well, Tom? Still waiting for the exact location of Zerehemla. Just answer the question. No dodges, disappearances for a couple of days or red herring arguments.
 
Hello Tom,

Have any of your recent prophets denounced the teachings of past prophets for their teachings on the location of the BoM? Have they declared that the BoM did not take place in NY and that these past declarations of former prophets were wrong?
 
That’s a good question; along with the corollary: Has any prophet or apostle ever declared that the Cumorah in NY is NOT the Cumorah in the BoM?
 
PaulDupre1 said:
That’s a good question; along with the corollary: Has any prophet or apostle ever declared that the Cumorah in NY is NOT the Cumorah in the BoM?
Click to expand...
what real difference does it make what a prophet says if you do not have to accept it and if it is subject to change by the next prophet?
 
The associated doctrinal statement for what is doctrine would also be helpful.
 
TexanKnight said:
They are not ALWAYS wrong…they are correct when they say “you do not have listen to the past prophets”
Click to expand...
😛

The prophets of yesterday were wrong, the ones of today have no opinion…on something as important as the Book of Mormon. Absolutely astonishing.
 
RebeccaJ said:
The associated doctrinal statement for what is doctrine would also be helpful.
Click to expand...
Yes it would. Leaving it up to individuals and apologists to come up with the answers when their church has a prophet, seer and revelator really doesn’t make any sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top