Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[Tarquin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Now, I will agree with what I hope is not overbearing confidence that “a place is a place,” and with what I hope is pardonable boldness when I venture even farther to say that the Book of Mormon character Lehi allegedly named “a place” Nahom. However, I will not agree until it has been demonstrated - which is more than speculating with some abandon - that there really is some as yet undetected “clear” relation between the Arabian tribe and the alleged Jewish-Egyptian Nahom-place.

The “Arabian tribe” is clearly related to a place that is associated with the altar inscription NHM that was present in 600BC when Lehi walked through this exact region.

There is no archaeological evidence that the Book of Mormon Lehi ever existed. There is no evidence that he walked through one region rather than another. There is no evidence that Lehi saw the altar – it is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence Lehi had any contact with that tribe – the Book of Mormon does not say he did, and there has been no corroboration by that tribe that their ancestors had met him.

Yes, the Arab tribe is related to a place. No one is contesting that! The issue is not the relation of the tribe to the place. That tribe is related to a place where there is an altar inscription that mentions nothing of Lehi or Ishmael, but of a moon god. The Arab tribe is not at all “clearly” related to Lehi, Ishmael, Jehovah, or “Nahom.” No one in the tribe is named Lehi; no one in the Book of Mormon is named Bi’athar or Naw’um (names on the altar).

Nahom is not a “Jewish-Egyption” place. You introduced to this thread the idea that Nahom was related to “mourning” in some ancient language and then criticized it as if it weakened the arguments I was making.

Your argument in post #41 of this thread was that Nahom is powerful Old World evidence.

I think Nahom is powerful Old World evidence.

The issue about “Nahom” meaning “mourning” is an example of the premature speculation Mormon apologists engage in. Premature speculation also occurs in this thread. Speculation is not evidence. Saying a story “could have happened this way” is not evidence.

The argument about “Nahom” being a word related to “mourning” originated with Mormons, Tom, not with me. It was part of the attempt to make “Nahom” into “powerful evidence.” The reason the entire argument (regarding “Nahom,” not just “mourning”) is weak, is based on several points, which I invite you to discover. But, Tom, then if “Nahom” was neither Jewish nor Egyptian, what language was it? If the place has been “exactly” located, surely the language is known? South Arabic? I’m willing to discuss the word in whatever language you think it is.

I just told you your criticism proved too much because an ancient Jew in Arabia MIGHT make the connection and find it noteworthy regardless what a 400AD Mesoamerican thought about it when he wrote in reformed Egyptian (or what a 1830’s farm boy thought about it when he translated into English). This criticism is created by you introducing evidence you claim is pro-LDS and then criticizing it (I know LDS authors first offered this “evidence,” but it in no way detracts from the multi-point connections I have offered).

Methinks thou doest protest too much. For one thing, you are complaining that I have brought up “pro-LDS” arguments! If this were a formal debate, I would have to suggest that, either I am twisted for presenting the arguments of my opponent, or my opponent is twisted for objecting to arguments in his favor.

An ancient Jew “might make the connection”, and also a 19th century American might fabricate the story! Archaeological evidence is based on more than speculation about what “might” have been. From the very beginning, Nephi was writing in Egyptian, according to the second verse in the Book of Mormon – “Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.” Lehi’s language was “Jewish learning” plus “Egyptian language”. Lehi’s language was Egyptian. I did not create the criticism.

TomNossor: “This criticism is created by you introducing evidence you claim is pro-LDS and then criticizing it (I know LDS authors first offered this “evidence,” but it in no way detracts from the multi-point connections I have offered).”
So you got mad at me for introducing the idea, even though you “know LDS authors first offered this ‘evidence.’” Cool down, then, cool down. Listen to yourself. In the same sentence you say I “created” the criticism and also that LDS authors “first offered” this as evidence. You have gotten so worked up about “Nahom” that you are posting before . . . let’s just say “digesting and analyzing”. Anyway, if you no longer believe “Nahom” relates to mourning, that’s progress!

 

[Tarquin]

In post #603 you detail a lot of research you did. That is a lot of work to go through when you started this saying that there really is not much evidence associated with my 10 point connection (this book offers 81 things).

Clean your ears out. The meager research I did was not research into the EXISTENCE of the Book of Mormon Nahom, but research into certain arguments for the LOCATION of the alleged Nahom.

Do you understand the difference?

No tonly is there “not much evidence - there is in fact no archaeological evidence supporting the existence of the Book of Mormon “Nahom.”

Another point: it is very, very often the case, that the correction of an error takes longer to present than did the error to which it is responding. I understand why you don’t want people to look further than your claims, but that’s what some people do – they dig below the superficial arguments to arrive at more solid truth. You spent about one thousand words in two posts just now to defend the existence and one of the proposed locations for “Nahom”. Prior to that, you have devoted a number of posts to the alleged existence of “Nahom.” Perhaps, that, too, is a lot of work to go through for something whose existence and “exact” location has already, allegedly, been settled by archaeologists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin
So which of these places is Nahom? Jawf? 25 miles north of Sana’a? 120 miles east of Sana’a?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Am I understanding the articles incorrectly? Am I reading the maps incorrectly?
And where exactly is this place called Nahom?

My initial answer is the one that associates with the GPS coordinates RebeccaJ pulled from Wikipedia. That being said, we have a starting point in Jerusalem, a direction, PLACE, a turn, and a finishing point at Bountiful. Since Lehi didn’t record the directions as “due east, heading 091” the locations associated with the handful of inscriptions on altars seem to work fine. I will acknowledge that the presence in 2014 (or 1780 or 1830) of Nahom locations more than 120 miles apart makes it easier to hit the general direction markers of direction from Jerusalem, NHM, direction to bountiful. But using that to discredit this multi-point connection, would make William Dever sigh at you with derision. This is just what one must deal with when trying to reconstruct something that happened 2600 years ago. It is simply untrue that Nahom’s are everywhere and we were bound to find one because it is so ubiquitous.

1. Jerusalem is a place confirmed by innumerable evidence. Nahom is not.
2. The “direction” is vague. If we even posit that a person could only go in 360 different cardinal directions (one for each degree on the compass) (we could pick 36 or 360 or 3600, but 360 is the convention), we do not know which of the 90 southeast directions Joseph Smith would have meant when he wrote – not “southeast,” but (1 Nephi 16:13) “nearly a south-southeast direction” (which is the direction Smith would have chosen had he been acquainted with a map of the Old World, and was making up a story about Jews heading to in some southern direction). Tom, what direction was that, “exactly”?

They went in that direction (more or less?) for “several days” – how many days “exactly” is “several days”?

1. In verse 20, Lehi “murmurs against the Lord” – perhaps that is when he began entertaining thoughts of switching to worshipping the moon god. At any rate, since the “director” functioned according to faith, perhaps Lehi’s murmuring caused it to lead them in some direction other than “south-southeast”, so that there is no telling what territory they were passing through! The “director” might have said “this way” and been leading them northwest.
2. The “turn” will probably seem vague to non-technical minds. But I’m sure it’s a very precise directional term for seasoned Mormon apologists. What the Book of Mormon actually says is “And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness.” 1 Nephi 17:1. So they are now somewhere. We have no real evidence of where they are, and now they head east, or rather “nearly” east. Maybe northeast. Maybe southeast. Not west. But east. Whether one degree either side of “exactly” east, or ten degrees or 15 degrees north or south of east, we are not told. They could have been headed any of a great number of places from Pakistan or even Iran, to Sri Lanka or Indonesia or even Australia. But most likely, Malaysia.
3. To believe “locations associated with the handful of inscriptions on altars seem to work fine” is naïve. The locations you think are “associated” with inscriptions, are not named in the inscriptions; the altars are nowhere in the Book of Mormon or anywhere else said to be located in “Nahom;” and there is no source outside of modern Mormon speculation that “associates” any part of the inscription to the alleged location “Nahom.”

But you again misconstrue my meaning. I was not saying that “Nahom’s are everywhere,” so please ask Mr. Dever to reign in his premature sigh. My point was not to say there were many Nahom’s, but to refute your claim that Nahom has been located “exactly.” The existence of many Nahoms competing for the honor is itself evidence that “Nahom” has not been located “exactly.” If it were located exactly, the existing disagreement over its location would not exist.

I am not able to tell whether you are misconstruing my statements because you really do not understand the points, or because you are looking for easy targets (straw men) you can defeat.

 

[Erich]

Stephen168;11829768:

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.

Mormons get to decide who is Mormon. Mormons do not get to decide who is Christian; for one thing, Christians already took care of that back in the fourth century AD, when they were busy hammering out the Nicene creed (and using it to denounce Nestorianism).

Even Wikipedia recognizes that most Mormons agree with the typical non-Mormon view that the Mormon conception of God is significantly different from the Trinitarian view of orthodox Nicene Christianity. For example, Smith, as a result of his “First Vision”, primarily rejected the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and instead taught that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct “personages”—Jesus Christ and the Father having glorified immortalized bodies and the Holy Ghost a spirit body. Never mind that in Alma 11:28-31 we find a *refutation *of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate personages—“Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’”

As non-Catholic historians admit, it can be demonstrated easily that early Church writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, had no conception of Mormon doctrine, and they knew nothing of a “great apostasy.” Nowhere in their writings can one find references to Christians embracing any of the peculiarly Mormon doctrines, such as polytheism, polygamy, celestial marriage, and temple ceremonies. If the Church of the apostolic age was the prototype of today’s Mormon church, it must have had all these beliefs and practices. But why is there no evidence of them in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began?

The Book of Mormon claims to contain “the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” According to Doctrines of Salvation, one finds this definition: “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom” (vol. 1, p. 160). That’s an official Mormon statement on the subject. But there’s a problem. If the Book of Mormon contains all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the gospel, why don’t Mormonism’s esoteric doctrines show up in it? The doctrine that God is nothing more than an “exalted man with a body of flesh and bones” appears nowhere in the Book of Mormon. Nor does the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the “spirit brother” of Lucifer. Nor do the doctrines that men can become gods and that God the Father has a god above him, who has a god above him, ad infinitum. It would be more accurate to say the Book of Mormon contains almost none of Mormonism’s “everlasting gospel” at all.

 

[Tarquin]

… Smith … taught that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct “personages”—Jesus Christ and the Father having glorified immortalized bodies and the Holy Ghost a spirit body. Never mind that in Alma 11:28-31 we find a *refutation *of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate personages—" ,
…
It would be more accurate to say the Book of Mormon contains almost none of Mormonism’s “everlasting gospel” at all.

You mean . . . . then,

Mormons are apostate Mormons!!

 

[Tarquin]

First, as I said above, Lehi made it a point to say this place was “called Nahom” in contrast to his naming of other places.
Next, NO, I do not think your point is significant at all. Lehi said they buried Ismael at this place that was called Nahom. He did not say anything about worshiping with the folks who named Nahom, Nahom. I really think you are stretching here.

I’m stretching a point, but not those who say an Arab tribe’s pagan altar is proof of a Jewish cemetery?

To expand on the “three letters” issue – PRS is no more evidence that PaRiSians marched through PeRSia at the beginning of that empire’s history, than that people in MiSSouRi named MiSR (“Egypt”), or that eGyPTeRs visited GiuPiTeR. “Nahom” and Nhhm are unrelated.

Tom, why fret over two letters – two vowels in “Nahom.” There is a more direct connection that requires only one letter be changed. “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” (Gen. 29:5) The two names are neighbors in the Bible, and neighbors in the story about Lehi wandering for years in the desert like a new Moses but without as many followers. Could this be the source for Smith’s use of those two names? Yes.

The folks who called Nahom, Nahom had a religion that Lehi should have not embraced if the BOM is true. The BOM says nothing about Lehi embracing their religion and does not evidence he did.

Nor does the Book of Mormon say that Lehi did not embrace their religion! So he may have. The Book of Mormon does say Lehi murmured against the Lord. So maybe he was looking for another god easier to follow. Maybe the Moon God of Nahom was that god. To paraphrase what you said, “an ancient Jew in Arabia MIGHT make the connection and find it noteworthy” to worship a moon god.

However, nobody “called Nahom, Nahom”.* (“The folks who called Nahom, Nahom had a religion”)* You are begging the question. The Book of Mormon “Nahom” has no real-world correspondence. I do not know what the people who set up the altars in question, on which the tribal name Nhhm appears, called the place, nor whether they, or some tribe before or after them, were the ones who gave the place a name. There is no evidence that the name “Nahom” in the Book of Mormon comes from a moon-god worshipping South Arabian tribe.

Nor does the Book of Mormon say that Lehi sailed west to the Americas. So he may have sailed east to Malaysia. That would explain the items mentioned in the Book of Mormon which have no archaeological remains in the Americas, but for which there is archeological evidence in the Malay region. Have you studied Olsen’s points as well as you have Sorenson’s?

I have a vague recollection that some LDS once found evidence that a band of Jews influenced the religion or legends of some group somewhere around here. Perhaps that piece of LDS thought is what you are critiquing (again introducing something neither I nor the BOM said so you can criticize it).

You mistake my parody. I hope others have a lighter sense of humor. (Jews influenced Muhammad, but that was known before the LDS went searching for “Nahom.”)

The real, and significant, point is not whether Lehi worshipped a moon god. The point is, if the name of a tribe on a pagan altar is evidence of a “Lehi” being there, then other items on that same altar could be evidence of other aspects of that same Lehi. Perhaps Lehi was in fact a member of that tribe? Or perhaps that tribe became Christian as a result of Lehi’s preaching (though why the altar was not removed, I could not say). Or perhaps Lehi himself helped erect the altar, and for a short time, as Muhammad has been accused by some of his detractors, worshipped a moon god.

Sorry, Tom, I won’t limit my argument to only points you approve of. I won’t omit evidence or arguments simply because you don’t like them. I may address your personal beliefs when appropriate. The thread is “archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon,” which is broader than your personal beliefs and judgments.

Let me say for the record: “I think some LDS apologetic arguments have almost zero evidentiary value.” (this specific one may be in that group).

I certainly have no problem with that opinion. In fact, it is my opinion that your arguments for “Nahom” are void of genuine evidence.

That being said, I have focused on multi-point connections because I think it should be clear to those trained and untrained in statistical analysis that as a connection integrates with other connections the evidentiary power increases quickly. Nahom with 10 or 81 points is just such a connection.

Malaysia with twice that many is an even stronger connection. Have you studied Olsen’s work yet?

It is my non-profession opinion that its strength as positive evidence for the BOM is incredibly significant. I do not think it reasonable to believe the BOM included the types of details we found for Lehi’s journey unless it was produced through contact with someone who did Lehi’s journey.

I think your use of the word “details” is very uncommon, or I might say, prejudicial.

 

[Tarquin]

Tom, I’m having difficulty finding the 81 points you have repeatedly referred to as archaeological evidence for the truthfulness of either “Nahom” or the Book of Mormon. Are these those points? I suspect the original was expressed with more specificity, so if you want to correct any or all of them, I will consider them as you express them rather than as they are here. Thanks.

1 There was a logical route to flee from Jerusalem that could be described as traveling in “the wilderness” (1 Ne. 2:2, 4).
2 There are physical “borders” (mountains) one can travel “in” and “by” in the wilderness (1 Ne. 2:5).
3 There are two sets of “borders”—one “near” and one “nearer” the Red Sea (1 Ne. 2:5).
4 The wilderness trail leads to the trail in the borders (mountains) (1 Ne. 2:5).
5 The trail in the borders leads to the fountain of the Red Sea, i.e., the Gulf of Aqaba.
6 The trail in the borders passes close to the shore of the Red Sea (1 Ne. 2:5).
7 The Valley of Lemuel is in the mountains “nearer” the shore (1 Ne. 2:5-8).
8 The valley is in the “borders” and therefore the Valley of Lemuel appears to be a canyon (1 Ne. 2:8).
9 The canyon must be very impressive (1 Ne. 2:10).
10 The valley is in the wilderness (1 Ne. 4:33; 5:2).
11 The valley is a three-day journey into the wilderness (1 Ne. 2.6).
12 The valley contains a river of running water (1 Ne. 2:6).
13 The river flows continually (1 Ne. 2:9).
14 In the valley seeds and fruits of many kinds were found (1 Ne. 8:1).
15 The river is in the wilderness, not in a city or town (1 Ne. 2:6).
16 It is a river, without an established name, already known to Lehi (1 Ne. 2:9). It must be presumably a very small stream and have no major importance, since it appears to have no name known to Lehi.
17 The river empties into the fountain of the Red Sea (1 Ne. 2:8-9), or the Gulf of Aqaba.
18 The river flows through a canyon that could be described as a firm, steadfast and immovable valley (1 Ne. 2:6).
19 The valley must be capable of sustaining life for a group of people for a long period in 600 B.C.
20 The campsite next to the river must be close to the Gulf of Aqaba for Lehi to verify that the waters empty directly into it (1 Ne. 2:7-8).
21 The valley, river, and gulf provide Lehi with the dream imagery for the “tree of life.” (1 Ne. 8).
22 A stone altar was built in the Valley of Lemuel (1 Ne. 2:7).
23 There exists a place named Shazer (1 Ne. 16:13-14).
24 Shazer was the first halt after Lehi joined the Frankincense Trail at al Bada’a (1 Ne. 16:13).
25 Shazer is a four days’ journey from the valley (1 Ne. 16:13).
26 Shazer is in the wilderness (1 Ne. 16:14).
27 Shazer is in a nearly south-southeast course direction from the valley (1 Ne. 16:9-12).
28 Lehi pitched his tents at Shazer, so it needed to be an authorized site for stopping and resting, as were the frankincense halts.
29 Lehi pitched his tent at Shazer, thus there must have been a source of water for a desert camp. Thus, Shazer must have a source of water (1 Ne. 16:13).
30 Shazer meant the “place of the trees” (Nibley) or “valley with trees” (Groom). Shazer should be associated with trees.
31 Family stopped to hunt. Shazer must have had “wild animals” and good hunting terrain (1 Ne. 16:14).
32 Their men left the women and children in the camp while they went into the wilderness to hunt. Shazer must have been a place with protection (1 Ne. 16:14).
33 Leaving Shazer they traveled “in the borders near the Red Sea.” Mountains should exist nearly south-southeast of Shazer (INe. 16:14).
34 There are “most fertile” areas in the barren wasteland of the northern Hijaz (1 Ne. 16:14).
35 These “most fertile” areas are along a trail that runs south-southeast from Shazer.
36 The “most fertile parts” are in “parts,” i.e., not one large area (1 Ne. 16:14).
37 The “most fertile parts” are in the mountains (1 Ne. 16:14).
38 This part of the trail is called “the most fertile parts.” The original text of Book of Mormon uses the singular form, indicating it was a place-name.
39 Leaving the “most fertile parts,” they travel for many days with no mention of borders, therefore they have left the mountains (1 Ne. 16:14).
40 They travel through an area they call the “more fertile parts” (1 Ne. 16: 16). There are continuing areas of fertility after the mountains, albeit lesser in quality or quantity.

 

[Tarquin]

41 As they travel from the “most fertile” to the “more fertile” parts, they hunt along the way. This implies a need for and existence of wild game (1 Ne. 16:15).
42 After leaving the “more fertile” parts, Lehi’s trail is through a land of decreasing fertility (1 Ne. 16:14-19).
43 At the camp where the bow breaks, Nephi does not record that they are traveling in borders but must be close to go up into the tops of the mountains to hunt (1 Ne. 16:30).
44 Bow-wood grows in Arabia.
45 Bow-wood grows in the mountains near the trail.
46 Liahona bearing would point in the direction that would cause great fear (1 Ne. 16:27).
47 There exists in southern Arabia the place-name Nahom (1 Ne. 16:34).
48 To reach Nahom one could travel through wilderness country (1 Ne. 16:35), where death from hunger is an ever-present danger (1 Ne. 16:35).
49 Nahom is a place with water.
50 The journey causes great suffering prior to reaching Nahom (1 Ne. 16:35).
51 There is a trail that runs nearly eastward from Nahom (1 Ne. 17:1).
52 The trail east runs through the wilderness (1 Ne. 17:1).
53 The trail east is capable of sustaining life all the way to Bountiful (1 Ne. 17:4).
54 There was a reason for limited fires during the journey east (1 Ne. 17:12-13).
55 The eastward trail from Nahom leads from the hinterland to the ocean of “many waters” (1 Ne. 17:6).
56 The eastward trail from Nahom leads to a land that can be called Bountiful for its abundant and wide variety of fruits (1 Ne< 17:5; 18:6).
57 There is a straight transition between the wilderness and the Land Bountiful (1 Ne. 17:4-5).
58 One can see the ocean upon entering the land Bountiful (1 Ne. 17:5).
59 Bountiful is not a wilderness but an inhabited area (1 Ne. 17:3-4).
60 Besides a land Bountiful, there exists a specific locale also called “Bountiful” which also has much fruit (1 Ne 17:6).
61 Lehi camps at the shore at the place Bountiful. The fruit trees must be near the shore (1 Ne 17:6).
62 The place Bountiful had a place to moor a ship. The place Bountiful must have a harbor nearby (1 Ne. 18:6).
63 Near the place Bountiful it is possible to build a ship (1 Ne. 18:8).
64 Near the place Bountiful there is deep sea that someone can be thrown directly into (1 Ne. 17:48).
65 The place Bountiful was inhabited by ship builders (1 Ne. 17:2).
66 The place Bountiful has large trees to form timbers for the boat (1 Ne. 18:1).
67 Nephi’s was a sailing ship; Bountiful was a place were he could acquire canvas or sails (1 Ne. 18:9).
68 There is a mountain near the place Bountiful (1 Ne. 17:7).
69 Bountiful has a prominent mountain, “the mountain,” one where the Lord could personally appear, like unto a sacred place or temple (1 Ne. 17:7).
70 There is honey in Bountiful (1 Ne. 17:5).
71 The honey in the land Bountiful is from wild bees; the people do not practice beekeeping (1 Ne. 17:5).
72 Place Bountiful had to have a source of fresh water, for Lehi pitched his tents there for a long period (1 Ne. 17).
73 Bountiful has wild game (1 Ne. 18:6).
74 Bountiful has a place to mine or purchase ore (1 Ne. 17:9).
75 Bountiful had flint, for Nephi made a fire using stones (1 Ne. 17:11).
76 Bountiful had beasts (1 Ne. 17:11).
77 Bountiful sits by an ocean called Irreantum, meaning many waters (1 Ne. 17:5).
78 Bountiful has prevailing winds blowing in a uniform direction (1 Ne. 18:8).
79 Bountiful was a place where Nephi could learn seamanship (1 Ne. 18).
80 Bountiful has a harbor that provided protection from cross winds and high seas of the ocean.
81 The weather pattern of prevailing winds, a storm blowing in the opposite direction, Doldrums, and then the return of the original prevailing winds can be found at sea near Bountiful (1 Ne. 18:13-21).

 

[TexanKnight]

looks like you proved your point

 

[Tarquin]

looks like you proved your point

And the reason that is so sad is because at that point in the discussion I had no point to make!
I really thought that the list I found could not have been what was being referred to, because the points are so remarkably vacuous. I still can not believe these are the “evidence” being referred to, but I do not intend to buy the book to find out. I was hoping a forum Mormon would enlighten me. That’s all I seek, “further light and knowledge.” Or even just a little clarification.

 

[lax16]

Interesting point. When did Jesus visit the Aztecs, according to the Mormons?

 

[Tarquin]

Interesting point. When did Jesus visit the Aztecs, according to the Mormons?

Trick question! No doubt he meant the ancestors of the Aztecs, yes?

 

[JamesCollins]

Mormons get to decide who is Mormon. Mormons do not get to decide who is Christian; for one thing, Christians already took care of that back in the fourth century AD, when they were busy hammering out the Nicene creed (and using it to denounce Nestorianism).

Even Wikipedia recognizes that most Mormons agree with the typical non-Mormon view that the Mormon conception of God is significantly different from the Trinitarian view of orthodox Nicene Christianity. For example, Smith, as a result of his “First Vision”, primarily rejected the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and instead taught that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct “personages”—Jesus Christ and the Father having glorified immortalized bodies and the Holy Ghost a spirit body. Never mind that in Alma 11:28-31 we find a *refutation *of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate personages—“Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’”

As non-Catholic historians admit, it can be demonstrated easily that early Church writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, had no conception of Mormon doctrine, and they knew nothing of a “great apostasy.” Nowhere in their writings can one find references to Christians embracing any of the peculiarly Mormon doctrines, such as polytheism, polygamy, celestial marriage, and temple ceremonies. If the Church of the apostolic age was the prototype of today’s Mormon church, it must have had all these beliefs and practices. But why is there no evidence of them in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began?

The Book of Mormon claims to contain “the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” According to Doctrines of Salvation, one finds this definition: “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom” (vol. 1, p. 160). That’s an official Mormon statement on the subject. But there’s a problem. If the Book of Mormon contains all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the gospel, why don’t Mormonism’s esoteric doctrines show up in it? The doctrine that God is nothing more than an “exalted man with a body of flesh and bones” appears nowhere in the Book of Mormon. Nor does the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the “spirit brother” of Lucifer. Nor do the doctrines that men can become gods and that God the Father has a god above him, who has a god above him, ad infinitum. It would be more accurate to say the Book of Mormon contains almost none of Mormonism’s “everlasting gospel” at all.

Mormons get to decide if they believe they are Christian. We don’t have to agree with them, but then we don’t have the right to be offended when they disagree with us. I think it difficult to say that Mormons reject Jesus simply because they misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. Most people agree the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Marcus Grodi said that last night on the Journey Home show. Without the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church we wouldn’t know about the Trinity so I cut the Mormons a little slack on the issue since their uninspired leaders don’t know any better.

 

[TexanKnight]

Mormons get to decide if they believe they are Christian. We don’t have to agree with them, but then we don’t have the right to be offended when they disagree with us. I think it difficult to say that Mormons reject Jesus simply because they misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. Most people agree the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Marcus Grodi said that last night on the Journey Home show. Without the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church we wouldn’t know about the Trinity so I cut the Mormons a little slack on the issue since their uninspired leaders don’t know any better.

Cut them some slack?

If I choose to sit in my house and abuse alcohol in my house because I do not know any better…then cut me slack. But if I go out to teach others, including children that abusing alcohol is GOOD and that all other ways of enjoyment are bad, then I am responsible for those whose lives I destroy. What did Jesus say was worse? Destroying the body or destroying the soul?

We have a choice. If the LDS Church teaches good doctrine that assures salvation, then we need to welcome with open arms say no more.

But, if it is not true doctrine, and if it risks salvation, then do we do anyone any good by accepting it and cutting slack? What did Jesus say? Was He tolerant of those who defiled truth? How did Jesus handle those who defiled the Temple? He said He was here to turn Father against son. He killed the fig tree that was not fruitful.

It is a decision. Do we believe the LDS is true?

Or is it false doctrine?

THEN decide how God wants us to treat false doctrine

 

[PaulDupre1]

Absolutely, TK. Well said.

Paul (Formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[taylorf]

Mormons get to decide if they believe they are Christian. We don’t have to agree with them, but then we don’t have the right to be offended when they disagree with us. I think it difficult to say that Mormons reject Jesus simply because they misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. Most people agree the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Marcus Grodi said that last night on the Journey Home show. Without the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church we wouldn’t know about the Trinity so I cut the Mormons a little slack on the issue since their uninspired leaders don’t know any better.

You could maybe cut the average member some slack, but definitely not the leaders. They do know better. Where does the Bible explicitly teach about endowment ceremonies, God is a glorified man with flesh and bone, Jesus is a created being, dark skin being a curse, etc.?

 

[Erethorn]

I do believe that Catholics ought to cut Mormons some slack regarding the archaeological evidence for BOM.

After all, "A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as “a fruitless pursuit” …

 

[TexanKnight]

I do believe that Catholics ought to cut Mormons some slack regarding the archaeological evidence for BOM.

After all, "A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as “a fruitless pursuit” …

I disagree. While there might not exist evidence for EVERY page of the Bible, there is for much of it…yet there is no credible evidence of ANY of the Book of Mormon, other than Lehi started out in Jerusalem

Further, while you may be correct as to the Exodus, the locations mentioned HAVE been found. Likewise, Mormons cannot even agree on where the Book of Mormon took place

 

[Erethorn]

I disagree. While there might not exist evidence for EVERY page of the Bible, there is for much of it…yet there is no credible evidence of ANY of the Book of Mormon, other than Lehi started out in Jerusalem

Yes, but answer this question : what remains of the Christian religion if we take out the book of Exodus ? Can the Bible, and the Gospel especially, stand without the Exodus ?

You see, both BOM and the Bible (Exodus included, or course) are claimed to be whole and perfect. So, if you use the lack of archaeological evidence as criteria for belittling the Mormons belief in the BOM, shouldn’t you use the same criteria to reflect upon your belief in the Bible and in the book of Exodus, which is an integral part thereof ?

Mind you, the events described in the Book of Exodus are of the same historical amplitude and significance as those in BOM.

Isn’t it a bit ironic that we belittle the mormons’ faith in the BOM based on the fact that he can’t produce hard evidence for the millions supposedly fighting at hill Cumorah while we can’t produce one shred of evidence for the millions who supposedly crossed/inhabited the Sinai desert for 40 years ?

I stress the point: there is no archaeological evidence for ANY of the WHOLE Book of Exodus.

Further, while you may be correct as to the Exodus, the locations mentioned HAVE been found. Likewise, Mormons cannot even agree on where the Book of Mormon took place

But they do. It took place in the Americas. They also agree, pretty much, on where the hill Cumorah is and also on where the Garden of Eden was, while us Catholics have no ideea where TGE was, except it probably wasn’t in Missouri…

 

[lax16]

Trick question! No doubt he meant the ancestors of the Aztecs, yes?

What is a trick question?

Why would he have to mean the ancestors of Aztecs?

 

[Erethorn]

Further, while you may be correct as to the Exodus, the locations mentioned HAVE been found. Likewise, Mormons cannot even agree on where the Book of Mormon took place

Oh, and one last point. The fact that we know the locations mentioned in the Exodus doesn’t work in our favor at all.

Because, you see, if** we know the locations but still cannot find any archaeological evidence**, we’re far worst off than the Mormons who can always say "well, we don’t know exactly where to dig, America being such a large continent and all".