Book of Mormon and honey bees

[Paul_G]

Friar Diego de Landa did not contribute to the content of the Bible, nor remove anything from it. He lived more than a thousand years after the Bible was put together. He had nothing to do with the Bible, other than his belief in it. So what is the point here, exactly?

That is quite true, in my discussion with Rbt Southwell I mentioned that books of the native people of the Americas where destroyed because I assume they did not square with the Spanish belief system. In response to the statement below I submitted the quote you are questioning - Hope that helps.

"I wasn’t aware that the Incans and Aztecs and Mayans had ‘books’ which were destroyed by “priests traveling with the Spanish.”

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

Quote:
 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by **Rbt Southwell** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2697968#post2697968) 				
			*I have yet to come across 'official' or 'unofficial' mormon documents which add anything new or change anything from the Bible and Tradition in the Early Church.*

That’s good to hear; that’s the point.

JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION [of the KJV Bible]
MATTHEW 9: 18-21

Jesus rejected the baptism of the Pharisees; he gave the law of Moses. (This is text restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith, inserted between Matthew 9: 15 and Matthew 9: 16.)

18 Then said the Pharisees unto him, Why will ye not receive us with our baptism, seeing we keep the whole law?

19 But Jesus said unto them, Ye keep not the law. If ye had kept the law, ye would have received me, for I am he who gave the law.

20 I receive not you with your baptism, because it profiteth you nothing.

21 *For when that which is new is come, the old is ready to be put away."

*CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

Rbt, the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible contains many changes, additions and removals which change not only the Bible itself, but also the Traditions of the Early Church. A list of changes made by Smith is found here:

scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents

 

[RebeccaJ]

That is quite true, in my discussion with Rbt Southwell I mentioned that books of the native people of the Americas where destroyed because I assume they did not square with the Spanish belief system. In response to the statement below I submitted the quote you are questioning - Hope that helps.

"I wasn’t aware that the Incans and Aztecs and Mayans had ‘books’ which were destroyed by “priests traveling with the Spanish.”

Paul

I read your conversation. You said this:

This mind set is clearly shown by the way the priests traveling with the Spanish destroyed every book they came across in the New World.

Rbt response was to this. Which, my question is still the same. What does the actions of the Spanish in the New World have to do with the “mind set” of those who put the Bible together?

 

[Paul_G]

I read your conversation. You said this:

This mind set is clearly shown by the way the priests traveling with the Spanish destroyed every book they came across in the New World.

Rbt response was to this. Which, my question is still the same. What does the actions of the Spanish in the New World have to do with the “mind set” of those who put the Bible together?

Ok, I see what you’re getting at. Well in a direct relation nothing that I can imagine. The relation that I was trying, unsuccessfully it appears, to communicate is that in both eras there were written manuscripts that were destroyed because they did square with the thoughts and or beliefs of those that did the destroying.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION [of the KJV Bible]
MATTHEW 9: 18-21

Jesus rejected the baptism of the Pharisees; he gave the law of Moses. (This is text restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith, inserted between Matthew 9: 15 and Matthew 9: 16.)

18 Then said the Pharisees unto him, Why will ye not receive us with our baptism, seeing we keep the whole law?

19 But Jesus said unto them, Ye keep not the law. If ye had kept the law, ye would have received me, for I am he who gave the law.

20 I receive not you with your baptism, because it profiteth you nothing.

21 *For when that which is new is come, the old is ready to be put away."

*CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

Sorry I don’t see the connection being made here.

Rbt, the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible contains many changes, additions and removals which change not only the Bible itself, but also the Traditions of the Early Church. A list of changes made by Smith is found here:

scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents

I don’t take the time to look through links to get what one is saying. Perhaps you could show us a 1st century gospel idea or principle that is different to, or has been changed by LDS writings. Thanks in advance.

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok, I see what you’re getting at. Well in a direct relation nothing that I can imagine. The relation that I was trying, unsuccessfully it appears, to communicate is that in both eras there were written manuscripts that were destroyed because they did square with the thoughts and or beliefs of those that did the destroying.

Paul

As opposed to creating an entire new “translation” in order to get the Holy Bible to square with the thoughts and beliefs of mormonism, Joseph Smith in particular? Or a printing press in Nauvoo being destroyed at the orders of Smith because its reports didn’t square with the thoughts and beliefs Smith?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sorry I don’t see the connection being made here.

I don’t take the time to look through links to get what one is saying. Perhaps you could show us a 1st century gospel idea or principle that is different to, or has been changed by LDS writings. Thanks in advance.

Paul

The traditions of the Early Church continue today. They are found in the Bible, and also in the Catechsim of the Catholic church, which is based on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles…teachings which are found in the Bible. Joseph Smith changed the Bible. Pick one link, any link, and you will find a change, addition or removal.

Christ does not deny Baptism for anyone, He commanded that all should be baptized. That particular addition is not a Catholic belief, today, yesterday, or at any time.

 

[Paul_G]

As opposed to creating an entire new “translation” in order to get the Holy Bible to square with the thoughts and beliefs of mormonism, Joseph Smith in particular?

Not an entire new translation, but certainly where he thought the ideas could be made clearer

Or a printing press in Nauvoo being destroyed at the orders of Smith because its reports didn’t square with the thoughts and beliefs Smith?

I don’t believe this had anything to do with removing religious documents from history.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

The traditions of the Early Church continue today. They are found in the Bible, and also in the Catechsim of the Catholic church, which is based on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles…teachings which are found in the Bible. Joseph Smith changed the Bible. Pick one link, any link, and you will find a change, addition or removal.

Christ does not deny Baptism for anyone, He commanded that all should be baptized. That particular addition is not a Catholic belief, today, yesterday, or at any time.

The difference here is to be found between following the Law of Moses, or the Gospel of Christ, Those speaking to Jesus said isn’t our baptism sufficient (of the Law), but Jesus is saying that they don’t even observe the Law. I think you would agree that the Law of Moses was fulfilled, and that only the baptism of Christ is efficacious

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

The difference here is to be found between following the Law of Moses, or the Gospel of Christ, Those speaking to Jesus said isn’t our baptism sufficient (of the Law), but Jesus is saying that they don’t even observe the Law. I think you would agree that the Law of Moses was fulfilled, and that only the baptism of Christ is efficacious

Paul

Jesus is not saying this, Joseph Smith is.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not an entire new translation, but certainly where he thought the ideas could be made clearer

And? The point is, mormons do not believe the Bible, and you were letting him believe that mormons have made no changes to it.

I don’t believe this had anything to do with removing religious documents from history.

You are asserting that Catholics, from the Early Church to the Spanish missionaries in the New World, were all of one mind set. In essence, you assert that Catholics are of the mind set to destroy Truth for the benefit of thought and belief. This example I provided is exactly that same assertion, only made toward the direction of your thoughts and beliefs. That is the only difference.

Paul

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I guess that is why we are studying the New Testament this year in Gospel Doctrine Class. Corrupt and untrustworthy are your words. Yes there have been things removed or interpreted against the plain meaning in the text. This mind set is clearly shown by the way the priests traveling with the Spanish destroyed every book they came across in the New World.

Paul

Paul,

Here is your original quotation: notice how you say that “the priests traveling with the Spanish destroyed every book they came across in the New World.”

Now,

How many instances of this did you follow up with?

One.

Bishop De Landa and the Mayan cave discovery.

Of course, the Mayan practice of human sacrifice (which precipitated the destroying of the idols and the burning of the bark codices) is disgusting and evil.

You do agree, I hope?

But every priest and every book they came across?

Wow, even for a mormon apologist that is quite a stretch!

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I guess that is why we are studying the New Testament this year in Gospel Doctrine Class. Corrupt and untrustworthy are your words. Yes there have been things removed or interpreted against the plain meaning in the text.

Paul

Paul.

Again. These are YOUR words being highlighted. They are not mine nor Rebecca’s.

You throw them out and have nothing to back them up. What “things” have been “removed”?

If you’re writing about the BoM, then there are thousands of changes in words AND meanings.

Of course, to the mormon way of looking at reality, it is mere ‘clarification’ of something. Like black skin being evil, for example.

Mormon doctrine is like the weather, it changes everyday.

Mormons like to call themselves “American Catholics.” Boyd Jensen, your LDS financial guru [sorry, I’ve lost his card] once told me this at the Pepperdine Univ School of Law in Malibu. We were classmates. He tried to convert me with ‘burning in the bosoms’ and ‘I-have-it-on-the-testimony-of-the-HS’ and ‘it’s-logical that…’ arguments, but NEVER, I mean NEVER could answer direct questions about BoM provenance, the ‘prophets,’ the contradictory stances throughout mormon history, AND the lack of ANY evidence OUTSIDE of mormon sources [duh!] about your version of early American history (pre-European conquest).

And it is no different here with Zerinus and you.

You throw out blanket statements and then have one name and one incident to prop it up.

Trouble is, Bishop De Landa did what ANY European Christian would have done. What did God say about human sacrifice in the OT?

Robert

 

[Paul_G]

Not an entire new translation, but certainly where he thought the ideas could be made clearer

And? The point is, mormons do not believe the Bible,

Again, Since we don’t believe in it, I guess that’s why we are studying it this entire year in Gospel Doctrine Class.

and you were letting him believe that mormons have made no changes to it.

Sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying here.

I don’t believe this had anything to do with removing religious documents from history.

You are asserting that Catholics, from the Early Church to the Spanish missionaries in the New World, were all of one mind set. In essence, you assert that Catholics are of the mind set to destroy Truth for the benefit of thought and belief.

Do I believe these people were being malicious in these actions? No I don’t. I believe they were people of just conscience doing what they believed was in the best interest of their brand of faith. In retrospect do I think it was a good idea, No I don’t

This example I provided is exactly that same assertion, only made toward the direction of your thoughts and beliefs. That is the only difference.

I agree it was a similar act, but for different reasons.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

Paul.

Again. These are YOUR words being highlighted. They are not mine nor Rebecca’s.

Actually, they are your words from post 129 in which you force your erroneous implication of LDS thought on the Bible in reference to the Book of Mormon.

From post 129. “Again we can see from this small sample of quotes how the conviction that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy starts with The Book of Mormon (“the most correct book on earth” and “the keystone of our religion”) and continues to pervade Mormon thinking and writing throughout their history.”

You throw them out and have nothing to back them up. What “things” have been “removed”?

In fact I did offer a response which you only half address so I will do it again.

Where are the two epistles of Paul two the Corinthians
Why does Peter say this?

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16).

If you’re writing about the BoM, then there are thousands of changes in words AND meanings.

One example of many, Clement of Rome (one of the first Christian authors after the Apostles) wrote as referring to scripture, found in the 23 chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians

“…Far from us be that which is written, “Wretched are they who are of a double mind, and of a doubting heart; who say, These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us…”

Scholars really don’t have any idea where this quoted scripture came from. Was this added or substracted.

Of course, to the mormon way of looking at reality, it is mere ‘clarification’ of something. Like black skin being evil, for example.

Not really part of this discussion.

Mormon doctrine is like the weather, it changes everyday.

Didn’t you just accuse me of hyperbole a post or so ago
continued…

Paul.

 

[Paul_G]

….Continued

Mormons like to call themselves “American Catholics.” Boyd Jensen, your LDS financial guru [sorry, I’ve lost his card] once told me this at the Pepperdine Univ School of Law in Malibu. We were classmates. He tried to convert me with ‘burning in the bosoms’ and ‘I-have-it-on-the-testimony-of-the-HS’ and ‘it’s-logical that…’ arguments, but NEVER, I mean NEVER could answer direct questions about BoM provenance, the ‘prophets,’ the contradictory stances throughout mormon history…"

Sorry, I have no idea who this is, or what relevance it has with our conversation.

AND the lack of ANY evidence OUTSIDE of mormon sources [duh!] about your version of early American history (pre-European conquest).

The lack of physical proof when verifying events in religious documents does not negate their message or the history necessarily. It is true that we do know the location of cities and villages in the Bible, because there has been a continuation of language and culture from ancient times to now.

However, I think we are hard pressed to come up with much physical evidence to verify any of the stories contained with in it. Does this lack of physical evidence hinder our belief in their validity, For myself I will say no it does not.

In the Book of Mormon lands, there was a break in culture and linguistic information being passed from generation to generation. There is no reason to assume that we would be able to associate the place names contained within the Book of Mormon to the names we know and use for places in this area today.

As you are aware, the cities written about in the Book of Mormon were involved in cataclysmic events, and may never be identified. To LDS the lack of physical evidence bothers us no more than the lack of physical evidence for Biblical events. Does this verify anything no, but I offer it as at least one reason we don’t have physical linguistic or cultural evidences.

By way of example, could you tell me the modern name of the animal from which the Biblical colour “tekhelet” was produced? This animal was well known in Jesus time the colour tekhelet was and is a very important part of Jewish worship.

And it is no different here with Zerinus and you.

Your opinion.

You throw out blanket statements and then have one name and one incident to prop it up.

Why would I feel the need to write more than one example I believe it was sufficient. The quote explained what they did, and the effect it had on the natives. I am sure you could find more about it if you felt inclined to look

Trouble is, Bishop De Landa did what ANY European Christian would have done. What did God say about human sacrifice in the OT?

You said it, not me

What did God say about human sacrifice in the OT?

Be that as it may, we will never know what else may have been contained with in these writings, perhaps even stories of times long past.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

Paul,

Here is your original quotation: notice how you say that “the priests traveling with the Spanish destroyed every book they came across in the New World.”

Now,

How many instances of this did you follow up with?

One.

Bishop De Landa and the Mayan cave discovery.

Of course, the Mayan practice of human sacrifice (which precipitated the destroying of the idols and the burning of the bark codices) is disgusting and evil.

You do agree, I hope?

But every priest and every book they came across?

Wow, even for a mormon apologist that is quite a stretch!

Robert

I see your point, I guess that is a bit of hyperbole, certainly there is know way of knowing about every priest, and I as I look not every book was destroyed either, they did leave at least 4 intact. Only because, I believe, they were sent out of the area, and back to Spain by Cortez.

Paul

 

[why_me]

So now we can all put the honey bee argument to rest and consider Jeff Lindsey to be correct. Bees were around at the time of the book of mormon.

Chalk up another one for the scholarship of a country boy like Smith. My gosh, he was intelligent, wasn’t he? And to think that his neighbors thought him ignorant…and unschooled.

But then again, maybe he told the truth about the book of mormon…

 

[majick275]

So now we can all put the honey bee argument to rest and consider Jeff Lindsey to be correct. Bees were around at the time of the book of mormon.

no we can’t. this would be ignoring what was originally stated. Jeff Lindsay gives us a red herring at best. The BoM asserts that Jaredites brought bees with them from the old world. science tells us that there is no evidence of old world bees in the new world. Lindsay merely states that the new world has it’s own indigenous bees. that does nothing to prop up the BoM

Chalk up another one for the scholarship of a country boy like Smith. My gosh, he was intelligent, wasn’t he? And to think that his neighbors thought him ignorant…and unschooled.

yes he was intelligent and not nearly so ignorant as many Mormon apologist would have you believe. he was still wrong though.

But then again, maybe he told the truth about the book of mormon…

the BoM asserts many things that are either unproven or actually disproven. more importantly though it does NOT contain any accounts of what we now know was in existence then. I have thought all along that you were a TBM trying to use a Catholic background to lead the unwary here to your missionaries. I don’t think it will happen and I still hold out hope that you will put away the false prophets of the Mormons and accept the exclusive truth of the ONE, Holy, Catholic church. God bless you,

 

[why_me]

I have thought all along that you were a TBM trying to use a Catholic background to lead the unwary here to your missionaries. I don’t think it will happen and I still hold out hope that you will put away the false prophets of the Mormons and accept the exclusive truth of the ONE, Holy, Catholic church. God bless you,

I am far from being TBM. I am inactive in the lds church. However, I do attend Mass and have a good relationship with sisters and priests.

But I can not allow attacks against the lds church. I will defend the lds church. I have daughters who are lds and they are doing fine in the faith. I can respect the mormons a lot.

My journey to catholicism again has been a pleasant and great experience. And I have appreciated all the help and support that I have received from the catholic community. But I will not tolerate any attacks against the mormons.

I will defend the lds church. :knight2: