Book of Mormon and honey bees

[zerinus]

I’m a recent convert from Mormonism to Catholicism. I simply don’t think the honey bee argument is a good one to use. I would rather use DNA and some of the arguments based on linguistics.

The DNA issue has also been answered in my Blog article here.

What were your “linguistics” argument?

zerinus

 

[majick275]

The issue that Jeff Lindsay is addressing is not whether the pre-Columbian bees in America were of one type or another, but whether they existed at all. He is addressing specifically the claims in the catholic.com article which asserts that there were NO bees in America before the Europeans brought them in. This is the quote:

Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.

That is implying that there were NO honeybees in America before the Europeans came—not of what species they were. Well, it is wrong. There WERE honeybees in America before the Europeans came, regardless of what species they were, and that is the case that Jeff Lindsay is making.

The article also raises the issue of Jesus being born in Jerusalem, which I have already answered in my Blog articles here.

zerinus

this is incorrect. as you can see from the quote above it never states there were NO bees. it specifies the INTRODUCTION of honeybees. The BoM account says they brought the bees with them from the middle east. science proves to us that they did not. The BoM account is wrong by an examination of the facts. no old world honeybees were ever INTRODUCED into the new world until the Spanish brought them in the 1500’s.

If anyone thinks zerinus blog is anything other than his own opinions that he is unwilling to post her then I think you are wasting time on his “answers” there. let’s stay here where we can discuss openly.

jeff lindsays honeybee apologetics simply don’t even address the account given in Ether in the BoM. it’s a red herring at best.

DNA is still unrefuted as evidence against the BoM accounts too. despite personal blogs to the contrary the only attempts to answer this are in direct contradiction of the public statements of LDS “prophets”. Although that subject and linguistics as well are best handled in their own threads since this one is focused on jeff lindsays comments on pre-columbian beekeeping.

 

[BartBurk]

The problem with every pro-Book of Mormon argument is they can’t find any reputable non-LDS scientists who give them any backing. A scientist could say there is evidence of Middle Eastern lineage in the Americas without believing in the Book of Mormon if the evidence were there. A scientist could say there is evidence of Middle Eastern languages in the Americas and still not believe in the Book of Mormon. Non-LDS scientists don’t even consider the Book of Mormon when they are doing their studies so they could come up with evidence supporting the Book of Mormon without knowing it, but they never do. I haven’t seen any evidence from non-LDS scientists that even comes close to supporting the Book of Mormon story. That to me is very telling. You’d think these scientists would come up with some hint of Hebrew influence in the Americas if it were really there, but they just never do.

I think the bee example is a good one. If Ancient Mayans gathered honey from bees it only proves that Ancient Mayans gathered honey from bees. It doesn’t prove a thing about the Book of Mormon. To me it would only mean we can’t use the lack of bees as a proof against the Book of Mormon since there were bees in Ancient America. We can’t use lack of people as a proof against the Book of Mormon either since there were people in Ancient America, but having people there doesn’t do anything to support the Book of Mormon. It’s very difficult to connect either the bees or the people to the text of the Book of Mormon.

 

[zerinus]

The problem with every pro-Book of Mormon argument is they can’t find any reputable non-LDS scientists who give them any backing. A scientist could say there is evidence of Middle Eastern lineage in the Americas without believing in the Book of Mormon if the evidence were there. A scientist could say there is evidence of Middle Eastern languages in the Americas and still not believe in the Book of Mormon. Non-LDS scientists don’t even consider the Book of Mormon when they are doing their studies so they could come up with evidence supporting the Book of Mormon without knowing it, but they never do. I haven’t seen any evidence from non-LDS scientists that even comes close to supporting the Book of Mormon story. That to me is very telling. You’d think these scientists would come up with some hint of Hebrew influence in the Americas if it were really there, but they just never do.

I think the bee example is a good one. If Ancient Mayans gathered honey from bees it only proves that Ancient Mayans gathered honey from bees. It doesn’t prove a thing about the Book of Mormon. To me it would only mean we can’t use the lack of bees as a proof against the Book of Mormon since there were bees in Ancient America. We can’t use lack of people as a proof against the Book of Mormon either since there were people in Ancient America, but having people there doesn’t do anything to support the Book of Mormon. It’s very difficult to connect either the bees or the people to the text of the Book of Mormon.

Your second paragraph seems to me to refute your first paragraph. You appear to me to be confused in your mind, and arguing against yourself.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

Your second paragraph seems to me to refute your first paragraph. You appear to me to be confused in your mind, and arguing against yourself.

zerinus

My second paragraph demonstrates the kind of evidence Mormons use to justify their belief in the Book of Mormon. There were bees in the Americas and people in the Americas – proof for Mormons that the Book of Mormon must be true because the Book of Mormon says there were bees in the Americas and people in the Americas. And there were large buildings in Central America – more proof for Mormons that the Book of Mormon must be true.

 

[zerinus]

My second paragraph demonstrates the kind of evidence Mormons use to justify their belief in the Book of Mormon. There were bees in the Americas and people in the Americas – proof for Mormons that the Book of Mormon must be true because the Book of Mormon says there were bees in the Americas and people in the Americas. And there were large buildings in Central America – more proof for Mormons that the Book of Mormon must be true.

Then you have completely misunderstood what Mormons believe and what they say. You haven’t a clue!

Mormons do NOT use such “evidences” to PROVE that Book of Mormon is true. It is Mormon critics like you who produce such kinds of “evidences” to PROVE that Mormonism is NOT TRUE. All Mormons try to do is to show that such kinds of evidence does NOT PROVE that the Book of Mormon is NOT TRUE.

The Mormon position is that the truth of the Book of Mormon can only be ascertained by personal revelation from the Lord—the testimony of the Holy Ghost—not by scientific or archaeological evidence.

It is you people who constantly resort to such kinds of “evidences” (as you suppose) to “prove” that Mormonism is not true.

zerinus

 

[VWcrazy]

Personal revelation from the Lord and testimony from the Holy Spirit have shown me the Book of Mormon is a lie.

 

[zerinus]

Personal revelation from the Lord and testimony from the Holy Spirit have shown me the Book of Mormon is a lie.

There are millions of LDS who have a contrary experience. On average, 300,000 people join the LDS Church a year; and the basis on which they join is the testimony of the Holy Ghost. They have a different experience.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

The Mormon position is that the truth of the Book of Mormon can only be ascertained by personal revelation from the Lord—the testimony of the Holy Ghost—not by scientific or archaeological evidence.

It is you people who constantly resort to such kinds of “evidences” (as you suppose) to “prove” that Mormonism is not true.

zerinus

And obviously you can’t prove a negative.

The Holy Ghost has led me to believe the Catholic Church is the one true church of Jesus Christ. That has not come through some feeling, but through a sincere weighing of the facts available which God has shown me.

How did the Holy Ghost tell you the Book of Mormon was true? I’ve talked to several Mormons and they all have different Holy Ghost experiences. How can anyone of them be dependable when they are all so different? Very few of them have actually had this “bosom burning” testimony the Doctrine and Covenants seems to favor. By the way the “bosom burning” testimony the D&C favors seems to simply be a copy of John Wesley’s warming of the heart which birthed the Methodist movement Joseph Smith seemed so fond of early in his career.

 

[majick275]

There are millions of LDS who have a contrary experience. On average, 300,000 people join the LDS Church a year; and the basis on which they join is the testimony of the Holy Ghost. They have a different experience.

zerinus

How many of those 300,000 are children? How many have a clue what they are getting into?
and how many people leave each year when their eyes are truly opened?

 

[BartBurk]

How many of those 300,000 are children? How many have a clue what they are getting into?
and how many people leave each year when their eyes are truly opened?

And how many of them are single mothers or teenage girls who are smitten with the missionaries? Most of the converts I saw in Latin America were gone within a month. The activity rate for most countries in Latin America is 15-20% and that is where most of the converts are coming from.

 

[zerinus]

And obviously you can’t prove a negative.

And what is that supposed to mean, and what relevance does it have to what we are talking about? I haven’t a clue.

The Holy Ghost has led me to believe the Catholic Church is the one true church of Jesus Christ. That has not come through some feeling, but through a sincere weighing of the facts available which God has shown me.

Then good luck to you! I hope you are right. But my experience is something different.

How did the Holy Ghost tell you the Book of Mormon was true? I’ve talked to several Mormons and they all have different Holy Ghost experiences. How can anyone of them be dependable when they are all so different? Very few of them have actually had this “bosom burning” testimony the Doctrine and Covenants seems to favor. By the way the “bosom burning” testimony the D&C favors seems to simply be a copy of John Wesley’s warming of the heart which birthed the Methodist movement Joseph Smith seemed so fond of early in his career.

The testimony of the Holy Ghost is a personal experience which cannot be transmitted or conveyed to someone else. That is why it is called the “testimony of the Holy Ghost”. It can only come from the Holy Ghost, not from someone else who has had the testimony of the Holy Ghost—and yes, it is a different experience for different people. And who says anything about the “burning in the bosom”? The D&C does not “favour” anything. It is the Book of Mormon that says that if you read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, the Holy Ghost will witness to you that it is true (Moroni 10:4–5). It does not try to explain what the testimony of the Holy Ghost will look like. My guess is that you never had that witness of the Spirit that the Church is true, probably because you never sought it. You were looking for “scientific evidence,” and that is not how religion works.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

And how many of them are single mothers or teenage girls who are smitten with the missionaries? Most of the converts I saw in Latin America were gone within a month. The activity rate for most countries in Latin America is 15-20% and that is where most of the converts are coming from.

And what is the “activity rate” for the Catholic Church? How many of them are there who never see the inside of a church from year to year? How many are there who are Catholics in name only, and probably don’t even believe in God any more? How many of them are there who are leaving the Church in droves, and joining the various Protestant, Evangelical, and Charismatic (and Mormon) churches? In Latin America in particular, the haemorrhage is so great that the Pope has become seriously worried, and has been telling the church men out there to try to stem the tide.

In European countries the situation is different. Out there people are not leaving the Catholic Church to join Charismatic churches in droves, as is happening in South America. There people are simply becoming godless. They don’t believe in anything; they just remain Catholics in name, because they can’t be bothered to do anything else.

In the LDS Church the situation is somewhat different. Because it demands a very high level of activity by its members (the whole church is run by its members), then when you are in it, you are really in it. It is easy to tell who is in it and who is not. It is not a “spectator church” like the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, going to church is like going to the movies. You go there to watch a bad movie and come home (the same bad movie over and over!). So people get bored and stop going. Going to church is not a sign of genuine faith; and not going is not necessarily a sign of lack of it either. But in the LDS Church, because of the way it operates, the picture is a lot clearer.

zerinus

 

[dosdog]

And what is the “activity rate” for the Catholic Church? How many of them are there who never see the inside of a church from year to year? How many are there who are Catholics in name only, and probably don’t even believe in God any more? How many of them are there who are leaving the Church in droves, and joining the various Protestant, Evangelical, and Charismatic (and Mormon) churches? In Latin America in particular, the haemorrhage is so great that the Pope has become seriously worried, and has been telling the church men out there to try to stem the tide.

In European countries the situation is different. Out there people are not leaving the Catholic Church to join Charismatic churches in droves, as is happening in South America. There people are simply becoming godless. They don’t believe in anything; they just remain Catholics in name, because they can’t be bothered to do anything else.

In the LDS Church the situation is somewhat different. Because it demands a very high level of activity by its members (the whole church is run by its members), then when you are in it, you are really in it. It is easy to tell who is in it and who is not. It is not a “spectator church” like the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, going to church is like going to the movies. You go there to watch a bad movie and come home (the same bad movie over and over!). So people get bored and stop going. Going to church is not a sign of genuine faith; and not going is not necessarily a sign of lack of it either. But in the LDS Church, because of the way it operates, the picture is a lot clearer.

zerinus

“As LDS author and retired CES Director Grant Palmer pointed out in his podcast interview with church member and MormonStories.org founder, John Dehlin , the church is ‘hemorrhaging’ members. Why? As Palmer said, Latter-Day Saints are going on the Internet and discovering, much to their shock, that what the church taught them about Joseph Smith, early church history, and other aspects of Mormonism is far from the truth. According to Palmer’s source in Church HQ, about 100,000 members are resigning each year, and Greg Dodge, the man responsible for processing resignations and excommunications has had to double his staff from five people to ten! Two of the 100,000 (approx.) for 2006 include Jerrell Chesney and his wife, president and matron of the Oklahoma City Temple. The Chesneys joined the church in 1970 and served in various church callings over the years. Reportedly, they feel that the church betrayed their faith and abused their trust; many good people with years of experience in the church have felt the same way.”
mormonwiki.org/Population_and_growth_rate

 

[RebeccaJ]

And what is the “activity rate” for the Catholic Church? How many of them are there who never see the inside of a church from year to year? How many are there who are Catholics in name only, and probably don’t even believe in God any more? How many of them are there who are leaving the Church in droves, and joining the various Protestant, Evangelical, and Charismatic (and Mormon) churches? In Latin America in particular, the haemorrhage is so great that the Pope has become seriously worried, and has been telling the church men out there to try to stem the tide.

**People join and leave mormonism, it is a revolving door. **

In European countries the situation is different. Out there people are not leaving the Catholic Church to join Charismatic churches in droves, as is happening in South America. There people are simply becoming godless. They don’t believe in anything; they just remain Catholics in name, because they can’t be bothered to do anything else.

Europe becomes more secular by the day. Luthern, Catholic, Anglican, Mormon…pick a religion, they are all being left behind.

In the LDS Church the situation is somewhat different. Because it demands a very high level of activity by its members (the whole church is run by its members), then when you are in it, you are really in it. It is easy to tell who is in it and who is not.

**Perhaps you don’t realize that there are many people who are out of Mormonism but continue to go through the actions; acting the part, but on the inside they are gone. The reasons for keeping up the facade vary by person, but the underlying factor is fear. Fear of losing marriages, family, friends, a place to live and even employment. A few stay for the social aspects.

**It is not a “spectator church” like the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, going to church is like going to the movies. You go there to watch a bad movie and come home (the same bad movie over and over!). So people get bored and stop going.

**The mormon temple ceremony does include a bad movie, maybe that is what you are thinking of.

Catholic Mass fills my soul and brings me closer to God much more than a mind numbing mormon sacrament meeting ever did.

And maybe you should check out how many people have actually checked out of sacrament meeting. They show up because if they don’t, some nosy neighbor will call them on the phone to tell them that God is going to abandon them because they don’t go to church. Again, it is fear, in this case fear of receiving an embarrassing phone call.
**
Going to church is not a sign of genuine faith; and not going is not necessarily a sign of lack of it either. But in the LDS Church, because of the way it operates, the picture is a lot clearer.**

Yes, because of the way it operates people show up even when they don’t want to. So, a Catholic who does not show up for church is being honest. A mormon who shows up for church when they would rather not, and in some cases do not even believe, they are living a lie.
**
zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

I

In the LDS Church the situation is somewhat different. Because it demands a very high level of activity by its members (the whole church is run by its members), then when you are in it, you are really in it. It is easy to tell who is in it and who is not. It is not a “spectator church” like the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, going to church is like going to the movies. You go there to watch a bad movie and come home (the same bad movie over and over!). So people get bored and stop going. Going to church is not a sign of genuine faith; and not going is not necessarily a sign of lack of it either. But in the LDS Church, because of the way it operates, the picture is a lot clearer.

zerinus

The Catholic Church is not a spectator church. The laity have had to take on a lot of work in the parishes especially since the number of priests has leveled off while the church continues to grow every year. It is the laity doing the teaching in most of the classes for youth, etc. The laity runs the nurseries. There are many opportunities in the Catholic Church for service from Scout Troops, to coaches of sports teams, to choirs, etc., etc., etc. The only difference is that people actually volunteer because they want to do it instead of feeling compelled to do it like many LDS do. The LDS Scout troups are often a joke because the guys running the troop don’t stay around long enough to get the training to be good scout leaders. In the Catholic Church (and other churches as well) Scout leaders will stay on for years of years and they really understand the program.

The mass is not a spectator church – people are actually involved in the worship instead of sleeping through an LDS sacrament talk. Have you ever looked around and noticed how many people aren’t paying attention at your normal ward meeting? In the Catholic church people actually are participating in the liturgy.

 

[zerinus]

The Catholic Church is not a spectator church. The laity have had to take on a lot of work in the parishes especially since the number of priests has leveled off while the church continues to grow every year. It is the laity doing the teaching in most of the classes for youth, etc. The laity runs the nurseries. There are many opportunities in the Catholic Church for service from Scout Troops, to coaches of sports teams, to choirs, etc., etc., etc. The only difference is that people actually volunteer because they want to do it instead of feeling compelled to do it like many LDS do. The LDS Scout troups are often a joke because the guys running the troop don’t stay around long enough to get the training to be good scout leaders. In the Catholic Church (and other churches as well) Scout leaders will stay on for years of years and they really understand the program.

The mass is not a spectator church – people are actually involved in the worship instead of sleeping through an LDS sacrament talk. Have you ever looked around and noticed how many people aren’t paying attention at your normal ward meeting? In the Catholic church people actually are participating in the liturgy.

The difference is that in the LDS Church, the laity are the clergy, as it used to be in the ancient Church:

1 Peter 2:

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

That is the hallmark of the church of God.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

The difference is that in the LDS Church, the laity are the clergy, as it used to be in the ancient Church:

1 Peter 2:

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

That is the hallmark of the church of God.

zerinus

From the catechism of the Catholic Church:

1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

Thus everyone in the Catholic Church is called to service, not just the ordained clergy. We are all part of the priesthood of Christ as a result of our baptism. That’s why you will find lay members serving throughout the church and beyond that in service outside of the church as a ministry to not just Catholics, but everyone else. Mother Teresa was not ordained to the priesthood, but celebrated the priesthood she received at her baptism through her service to the poor and dying.

 

[zerinus]

Thus everyone in the Catholic Church is called to service, not just the ordained clergy. We are all part of the priesthood of Christ as a result of our baptism. That’s why you will find lay members serving throughout the church and beyond that in service outside of the church as a ministry to not just Catholics, but everyone else. Mother Teresa was not ordained to the priesthood, but celebrated the priesthood she received at her baptism through her service to the poor and dying.

The catechism is wrong! There is no such thing as “sharing in the priesthood of Christ by baptism”. If that is true, why does the Catholic Church still have the sacrament of “ordination”? Why does it “ordain” priests? Why don’t they have the “priesthood of all the baptized,” as the Protestants do?

What is taught in that quote from the Catechism is essentially Protestant doctrine—except that the Protestants are a lot more consistent about it. They teach that ordination is not a sacrament, and one does not need to be ordained at all to become a priest. When someone is baptized, he automatically becomes a priest, and no ordination is required. The Catholic Church, however, teaches that ordination is a true sacrament, and one does not become a priest unless he is ordained such. So it looks like the Catholic Church needs to decide whether they want to be Catholic or Protestant. Does one become a priest by ordination or by baptism? The Catholic Church apparently can’t make up its mind!

The LDS position is clear and consistent. It teaches that Priesthood is only conferred by ordination (by proper priesthood authority) and in no other way. The Protestant position appears to be consistent too (though wrong). It teaches that ordination is not necessary at all, and you automatically become a priest when you are baptized. But the Catholic position is inconsistent. It can’t make up its mind which way it wants to go. The truth, however, rests with the LDS Church, as affirmed by the word of God:

Hebrews 5:

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

zerinus

 

[Kristine1957]

Oh for heavens sake Z.the activity rate for Catholics… the same thing can be said about Mormon’s or for that matter any other religion on this earth. We all know its a HUGE hassle to get your records removed from the Mormon church the members just stop going! But, the Mormon church still COUNTS them as thier members don’t they?