Book of Mormon and honey bees

[zerinus]

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

And by the way, this is a good illustration of why it is not wise for any church to have a “Catechism;” and why the LDS Church does not want to have one. Those who put that erroneous clause in the Catechism probably did so innocently enough. They genuinely believed that they were teaching correct doctrine. Little did they know that they were going to add fuel to the fire of Protestantism; and that the doctrine that they taught was actually incorrect. That is the problem with having a Catechism. What happens if you made a mistake in it? How are you going to correct it? How many times are you going to correct it? How much confidence are you going to generate in your “official statement of church doctrine” if you are going to keep amending it? And when are you going to amend it? After the horse has bolted?

zerinus

 

[Leopard]

Just what does all of this have to do with bees?

 

[zerinus]

Just what does all of this have to do with bees?

Why do you ask me? I am merely responding to what others have posted. Go and ask them.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

while the mormon church cannot have a catechism for the reasons zerinus listed, the Catholic church doesn’t have that problem. Mormon doctrine changes all the time so they would have to be constantly correcting it. (like their other teaching manuals that seem to change in an orwellian manner) The Catholic deposit of faith is constant and thus actual dogma needs no revision.

I think it necessary to have documentation that clearly defines church teaching. otherwise the church is guessing at what it teaches and the members are left to wander in darkness…kind of like mormonism.

 

[PaulDupre]

And by the way, this is a good illustration of why it is not wise for any church to have a “Catechism;” and why the LDS Church does not want to have one. Those who put that erroneous clause in the Catechism probably did so innocently enough. They genuinely believed that they were teaching correct doctrine.
zerinus

The Common Priesthood of the Baptized is a doctrine from the very beginnings of Catholic teaching. You can’t study the ECFs without running into it

The ordained priesthood is charged with ministering on behalf of the entire Church and administering the sacraments, while the common priesthood functions within one’s own sphere of personal responsibilty and influence - our homes, families, workplaces, etc.

It is by our priesthood that we are empowered to participate in the holy sacrifice of the mass, bless our children and homes, and be intercessors in prayer.

I am frankly surprised that you, Z, who claim to know so much about Catholicism, were ignorant of this fundamental Catholic doctrine.

Paul

 

[Lux_et_Veritas_1]

Don’t usually post just read. The line about the “Royal Priesthood”, the quote from 1Peter is actually Peter’s reference to an old testament passage. Exodus 19:5-6:

“5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you [a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

Now this testifies easily to the truth of Catholic doctrine of both universal and exclusive preisthood, because God says this and yet goes ahead and establishes the Levitical priesthood which is obviuosly not for all.

 

[PaulDupre]

Well said, sir.

 

[zerinus]

Don’t usually post just read. The line about the “Royal Priesthood”, the quote from 1Peter is actually Peter’s reference to an old testament passage. Exodus 19:5-6:

“5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you [a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

Now this testifies easily to the truth of Catholic doctrine of both universal and exclusive preisthood, because God says this and yet goes ahead and establishes the Levitical priesthood which is obviuosly not for all.

That is an interesting comment. That quote you gave (Exodus 19:5–6) was spoken by God to Moses and the house of Israel before their transgression, when they worshipped the golden calf, and broke the covenant that Moses had made between them and God. Initially, God did indeed intend to confer upon the Israelite people the fullness of the priesthood, which could be bestowed on all worthy males, and not just on the tribe of Levi. But after their transgression the law was changed, and they were left with a law of “carnal commandments” instead. This is made known to us in LDS scripture:

D&C 84:

23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;

24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.

25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;

26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

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.

Majick, I’m going to have to call you on this one, specifically your claim that it’s “science” that proves to us that they did not. Scientific facts can be demonstrated through the use of the scientific method. This is not a scientific fact! Maybe “to the best of our knowledge” or “nothing has been found to support this” but not a scientific fact.

Also, while we are the topic of archelogical proofs (not that I think much of them), could we point out the much more glaring difficulties that are already in the Bible which most Christians are ready to forgive much more readily than minor details in the BoM? Noah’s arc is especially problematic. Did it really contain 30,000 pairs of mammals and over 300,000 species of beetles? No, really, don’t answer that. Just consider the two different standards that are being applied.

 

[majick275]

okay, the specifically mentioned LDS apologetics article that started this thread does not even attempt to show introduction of honeybees from the middle east to the new world. we have no evidence of any such event ever occurring and to date can trace all known evidence of old world honeybees in the new world to spanish imports.

as to noah’s ark. I don’t see the similarity and I’m not so quick to dismiss that he could very well have done exactly as the bible says and (with the help of the Lord) brought two of everything on board.

 

[rmcmullan]

as to noah’s ark. I don’t see the similarity and I’m not so quick to dismiss that he could very well have done exactly as the bible says and (with the help of the Lord) brought two of everything on board.

I haven’t set down to calculate it but I wonder if it would even be possible on an aircraft carrier. But I believe it too because there’s so much unknown and unsaid and how much divine help Noah got is undocumented. But that’s sorta my point.

 

[truthsilence]

I haven’t set down to calculate it but I wonder if it would even be possible on an aircraft carrier. But I believe it too because there’s so much unknown and unsaid and how much divine help Noah got is undocumented. But that’s sorta my point.

I’m not opposed to the idea that some stories of the Bible are allegory, some are poetic, and some are historical fact. I know there are many faithful LDS who hold the belief that the BOM is not historical, but Sacred Allegory and as such, they are able to find spiritual enrichment in it. However I find it difficult to apply this logic to the BOM. In trying to understand the lack of any archealogical evidence, (and in fact the oppisite ) how can one fall back on the possibility of the book being Sacred Allegory if the character “Moroni” appeared to Joseph Smith?

 

[truthsilence]

rmcmullan,

I was in a rush when I posted this morning and I realized afterward that I shouldn’t have quoted you in my post. I was commenting in general on something that I have personally thought about. It really didn’t apply that well to what you were saying…

Sorry! God bless,
ts

 

[majick275]

I haven’t set down to calculate it but I wonder if it would even be possible on an aircraft carrier. But I believe it too because there’s so much unknown and unsaid and how much divine help Noah got is undocumented. But that’s sorta my point.

I still don’t see it then. if we found evidence of pre-columbian bees of old world origin here and you wanted to tell me that they got here by way of jaredite boats then you would at least be speaking the same language. but we simply have no evidence of that ever occurring. now by itself I don’t think it that significant. However, when you add to it all of the other apparent evidence against BoM accuracy and then look at it’s origin (especially the “faith promoting” changes to history of it’s origin) I conclude it to be fake and thus the whole LDS religion is in my mind based on a con.

 

[rmcmullan]

Now by itself I don’t think it that significant. However, when you add to it all of the other apparent evidence against BoM accuracy and then look at it’s origin …

Okay, well argued. I don’t argee naturally but at least it’s a reasonable point of view.

 

[Paul_G]

I’m not opposed to the idea that some stories of the Bible are allegory, some are poetic, and some are historical fact. I know there are many faithful LDS who hold the belief that the BOM is not historical, but Sacred Allegory and as such, they are able to find spiritual enrichment in it. However I find it difficult to apply this logic to the BOM. In trying to understand the lack of any archealogical evidence, (and in fact the oppisite ) how can one fall back on the possibility of the book being Sacred Allegory if the character “Moroni” appeared to Joseph Smith?

We have no evidence of Moses or the exodus; however we still believe it to be true. Moses also appeared to Jesus, Peter, James and John well after the fact as well. Similarly, It is true that there is no concrete language evidence form our knowledge base that we can associate with the Book of Mormon people, however there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that could relate to the Book of Mormon, things that were often shown as reasons why the Book of Mormon was not true.

Things like cement, barley, horses, and possibility elephants. There are also native stories, and white skinned tribes, pre-Columbian crosses. It has been said that there were no wheels, however, pre-Columbian artefacts with wheels have been found. There are rocks that have been found with early Hebrew writing on them which were known to the natives of the area before the time of the white men.

When the Book of Mormon was translated, there was no knowledge of the lost cultures of Central America. It is amazing, if as many say here on this board that Joseph Smith made it all up, that the Book of Mormon was very accurate in its description of the architecture and culture of the area, which was not documented by scientists until the late 1800s. So it is true we cannot relate any written language yet to the Book of Mormon people but there are lots of little things that we can relate to them.

Paul

 

[majick275]

We have no evidence of Moses or the exodus; however we still believe it to be true. actually there is a lot more circumstantial evidence of these than there is for the BoM. we know all about the pharoahs and their armies. we can see the israelite nation and it’s history.
Paul G;2636185:

Moses also appeared to Jesus, Peter, James and John well after the fact as well.

and that is relevant because?

Similarly, It is true that there is no concrete language evidence form our knowledge base that we can associate with the Book of Mormon people, however there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that could relate to the Book of Mormon, things that were often shown as reasons why the Book of Mormon was not true.

such as? actually the evidence offered by the LDS seems to “shrink”. I remember when the Jack West slideshows were all the rage and LDS missionaries were really into the ancient americas. now LDs leaders tell us ther is no scientific proof and the only way to “prove” the BoM is through the Mormon testimony.

Things like cement, barley, horses, and possibility elephants. There are also native stories, and white skinned tribes, pre-Columbian crosses. It has been said that there were no wheels, however, pre-Columbian artefacts with wheels have been found. There are rocks that have been found with early Hebrew writing on them which were known to the natives of the area before the time of the white men.

I have to challenge all of this. cement was known worldwide back into early history. barley as a domesticated crop wasn’t cultivated by mesoamericans. what elephants? native stories do not validate Joseph Smith. they do not align with the BoM. although there were theories and books during Joseph smith’s time were popular in America about his “theories”. white skinned tribes? please…the closest would be the chachapoyas and they certainly don’t validate the BoM. the cross shapes in the new world certainly appear basic geometry rather than Christian. there were no wheeled vehicles in the new world, contrary to the BoM. the wheel concept was understood by them it just wasn’t practical due to the terrain and the available resources. the “early hebrew” rocks all seem to have dubious claims to validity as pre-columbian artifacts. we have also found that white men were on the american continent from Scandinavia pretty early.

When the Book of Mormon was translated, there was no knowledge of the lost cultures of Central America.

I have to challenge that too. the Spanish had been studying and writing about the american indigenous cultures back in the 1500’s. they knew the Mayans, the Incas, the Aztecs. they preserved much knowledge about them.

It is amazing, if as many say here on this board that Joseph Smith made it all up, that the Book of Mormon was very accurate in its description of the architecture and culture of the area,

and yet we can see that is NOT accurate at all. it describes a very middle eastern lifestyle and makes no mention of the actual pre-columbian lifestyles. it is silent on the crops and animals that we now know were the primary food sources of these peoples. their customs are not mentioned in the BoM.

which was not documented by scientists until the late 1800s.

except the Spanish and Portuguese had documented it in the 1500’s and the English, dutch and French by the 1600’s.

So it is true we cannot relate any written language yet to the Book of Mormon people but there are lots of little things that we can relate to them.

Paul
only if we ignore facts and just believe that somehow the BoM MUST be true. I know it is NOT!. God has made it very clear to me that it is NOT his word and that the Mormon church is a fake.I pray that he will reveal this truth to all, but I know that he requires each and every one of us to find our own way to him.

 

[truthsilence]

We have no evidence of Moses or the exodus; however we still believe it to be true. Moses also appeared to Jesus, Peter, James and John well after the fact as well. Similarly, It is true that there is no concrete language evidence form our knowledge base that we can associate with the Book of Mormon people, however there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that could relate to the Book of Mormon, things that were often shown as reasons why the Book of Mormon was not true.

Things like cement, barley, horses, and possibility elephants. There are also native stories, and white skinned tribes, pre-Columbian crosses. It has been said that there were no wheels, however, pre-Columbian artefacts with wheels have been found. There are rocks that have been found with early Hebrew writing on them which were known to the natives of the area before the time of the white men.

When the Book of Mormon was translated, there was no knowledge of the lost cultures of Central America. It is amazing, if as many say here on this board that Joseph Smith made it all up, that the Book of Mormon was very accurate in its description of the architecture and culture of the area, which was not documented by scientists until the late 1800s. So it is true we cannot relate any written language yet to the Book of Mormon people but there are lots of little things that we can relate to them.

Paul

One can imagine the mighty Tapir (uhem, “horse”) trotting into battle with the Nephite armies.

search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=tapir&mkt=en-US

I do recall hearing about some evidence of Barley, somewhere around Phoenix, Arizona. Can we place that as the area of the BOM now?

So they’ve found some elephants?

The problem isn’t just that there is no realistic archeological evidence for the BOM. You are correct that much of the Bible can’t be confirmed that way either. But the theology of Mormonism, and most importantly the doctrines about the very nature of God flat out contradicts what the Bible and the ECF’s tell us. So in my opinion, you can believe in the Bible, or you can believe in Mormonism, but not both. And thats really why I left.

 

[rmcmullan]

I know it is NOT!. God has made it very clear to me that it is NOT his word and that the Mormon church is a fake.I pray that he will reveal this truth to all, but I know that he requires each and every one of us to find our own way to him.

That’s a pretty funny twist, very ironic. Bearing an anti-testimony! But I do agree with the other half of your paragraph. Maybe I’m getting way too ecumincal, maybe even straying from my LDS teachings on this point, but there’s something deep down inside of me that won’t let me believe that heaven is populated with only members of one particular church. I agree we need to find out what he requires of us and do what is right as we understand it.

 

[majick275]

I’m with you on that.