Book Of Mormon Evidences In Ancient America

[Dchsknight]

I have never encountered any LDS doctrine that supports your statements. The heavens were open and inspired many good men with inspiration and revelation between the apostasy and the restoration. Gutenburg, Calvin, Luther, Colombus and America’s founding fathers are a few examples. We certainly believe personal revelation was and is very alive and well. Quit telling people what we believe and share more about what you believe.

By the way, Julies comment is relatively accurate. The only time revelation ceases is when individuals do not seek god out. “how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” -Matt 23:37

Our position is simply that the authority to receive revelation for and direct the entire church was lost. Not that revelation entirely ceased. “For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil…” -Moroni 7:16

Calvin and Luther were Adu.lterous Men, who divorced the first Love, the Catholic Church and turned to another Woman, called Protestant, They were not Good men. They were SO ashamed of their own sin that they had to Do away with the things that Condemned them making their own Religion and Forsaking their first love.

 

[Jerusha]

Columbus was responsible for many deaths of Natives. Fr. Bartolome de las Casas exposed this. Columbus and his men were practicing forced conversion-- conversion by the sword-- they were reverts to Islam.

 

[orange_man]

Calvin and Luther were Adu.lterous Men, who divorced the first Love, the Catholic Church and turned to another Woman, called Protestant, They were not Good men. They were SO ashamed of their own sin that they had to Do away with the things that Condemned them making their own Religion and Forsaking their first love.

If I thought you had a clue of what the heck you were talking about I might be upset … but obviously you’re

 

[Dchsknight]

If I thought you had a clue of what the heck you were talking about I might be upset … but obviously you’re

No i am not Confused.

Here is why: If you are a married man, If your wife had a problem in her thinking would you jsut leave her for another who had it right? or would you stay and be a solution to the problem.

That is what Calvin and Luther did. Their wife (the Church) had a problem. (OMG i knwo a catholic who said the Church had a problem.) Instead of a part of the Solution they Divorced their Wife and left her for another woman. The protestant in in constant Disobedience the word of God because of this and their lack of Being Like-Minded. Which Paul said to do. Which now we are off topic so lets get back to the Mormon Lie about evidence in America.

 

[JLFuller]

Yet another Mormon Big Lie. I have never met a practicing Christian who does not expect God to answer his/her prayers in discernable (and even dramatic) ways. In fact, all the Catholic and Protestant Christians I know take for granted that God answers every prayer, and that even if they don’t recognize the answer right away, they will eventually.

You have been deceived. Remember I used to be LDS, and I heard the way they talk about non-members. They think we are all a bunch of drunk-in-the-gutter good-for-nothings who have never felt the Spirit. And we drink coffee!!! :bigyikes:

You seem to be awful anxious to brand differences of opinion as lies. That makes it hard to engage you in a serious discussion. Is that what you want - to be ignored?

 

[JLFuller]

JLFuller, it is apparent you are using the term “personal revelation” as though it is the same as “public revelation”.

I believe in personal revelation. God guides me to Him. He gives me graces through His Sacraments.

I believe the Pope, and all of our Bishops, are given the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as needed for their position in the Church.

These are the sort of things we call “personal revelation”.

Public Revelation, is that which God reveals about Himself. Jesus is the Final, Perfect Revelation given to us all, forever. What do you believe the Pope, or any man, could add to this Perfection? Do you believe God left something out when He revealed Himself Incarnate? Do you believe God left something out when He Sacrificed Himself for our good? If so, what are these things that He left out?

To the LDS belief of continuing scripture. The Apostles instructed us on how to know a false prophet. Smith, by all reasoning, is one that I call false. A false prophet cannot produce anything of God.

We probably are not too far off on what we beleive. I think we are somewhere in the same neighborhood anyway. We amy call it by different names. But Catholcism isn’t the only denomination I was talking to here.

 

[ricko]

Rebecca
Then you do believe in personal revelation? Can you tell of any new doctine revelaed to the Pope which has been made a part of the bible?

Yes, I have read the BOM. Couldn’t wait to get my hands on it to see what all the fuss was about. Now I know that if I tell you that I didn’t believe it the first thing you will say is that I didn’t have the Holy Spirit, that burning in the bosom. Well, I did not have the burning in the bosom and I did read it from cover to cover. I however read it with the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given me which are, an open mind, a reasoning mind and lots of common sense. I was not inspired by it. Sorry. In fact, just by reading it I discovered many things (on my own) that were outrageous and contradicted some things in the bible. Listen, just going by that burning in the bosom is dangerous. There is nothing wrong with seeking evidence of something. It does not mean you do not have faith. It only means you’re not stupid (sorry, best fitting word). God does not ask that you believe everything just on faith alone, he expects you to use the other gifts he has given you and Mormons refuse to do that.

Now the problem I see with your revelation. Number one, God does not change, truth is truth, it does not change. These revelations your prophets have are dangerous just as using faith only. Anytime the Mormon church has a problem, well heck, we’ll just have our prophet come up with a new revelation, like it’s ok now to have blacks. Can’t you see that? Society was getting mad at the LDS for excluding blacks so when the heat got really hot, here came the new revelation. Your church does not have a firm foundation if you’re going to be changing your teachings.

 

[JLFuller]

Yes, I have read the BOM. Couldn’t wait to get my hands on it to see what all the fuss was about. Now I know that if I tell you that I didn’t believe it the first thing you will say is that I didn’t have the Holy Spirit, that burning in the bosom. Well, I did not have the burning in the bosom and I did read it from cover to cover. I however read it with the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given me which are, an open mind, a reasoning mind and lots of common sense. I was not inspired by it. Sorry. In fact, just by reading it I discovered many things (on my own) that were outrageous and contradicted some things in the bible. Listen, just going by that burning in the bosom is dangerous. There is nothing wrong with seeking evidence of something. It does not mean you do not have faith. It only means you’re not stupid (sorry, best fitting word). God does not ask that you believe everything just on faith alone, he expects you to use the other gifts he has given you and Mormons refuse to do that.

Now the problem I see with your revelation. Number one, God does not change, truth is truth, it does not change. These revelations your prophets have are dangerous just as using faith only. Anytime the Mormon church has a problem, well heck, we’ll just have our prophet come up with a new revelation, like it’s ok now to have blacks. Can’t you see that? Society was getting mad at the LDS for excluding blacks so when the heat got really hot, here came the new revelation. Your church does not have a firm foundation if you’re going to be changing your teachings.

Sometime you ought to read the story about how the priesthood change came about.

I can understand how one might think the church changes doctrine based on whim but that is because you make snap judgements without getting the whole story. However that just isn’t the case. Being cynical doesn’t help you understand Rick.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

For some people, they must have sure proof in order to believe or at least they say that. I have to think otherwise however. They ignore what Christ said about those who demand proof and ignore faith. So for those people, I suggest you would refuse to accept whatever was presented to you even if you saw the plates of Lehi and handled them yourself. For you people, there is nothing that anyone could provide that you would not find fault with. This is why I think so.

For the others who believe in and have faith that God will confirm the truth to you upon prayerful supplication, you don’t need physical things to handle and touch. The Holy Ghost will bear all the confirmation you need. However, that does not mean there are not some intersting things that may help to put the Book of Mormon into context. There are some You Tube videos by BYU scholars who have done some excellent work in south central Mexico and Guatamala you might find intersting. Here is a link to a talk by BYU Professor Dan Peterson about evidences of the B of M. Here is another talk he gave on dna and the B of M. There are more but these should be enough to counter some of the anti-Mormon propagandists.

I respect your faith in the Mormon religion, but I must disagree… for logical and obvious reasons. Claims that the ancient Jewish-- or whatever they are referred to-- migrated to Ancient America and were, in reality, the Native Americans is a false claim. It’s already been proven to be untrue through DNA evidence. Even The Pearl of Great Price was proven to be a work purely from Joseph Smith… meaning: It’s not an authentic work from Abraham and never was.

I admire your passion, but, for me personally, the Mormon faith is far too obvious to be taken seriously… it’s a bridge between parody religions and the faiths these parodies mock. The worse part is: Everyone outside of the Mormon church, and outside of its influence, knows it.

However, I know this won’t mean anything to you, since you are in a happy state of mind.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[PaulDupre]

You seem to be awful anxious to brand differences of opinion as lies. That makes it hard to engage you in a serious discussion. Is that what you want - to be ignored?

Difference of opinion? Either answer to prayer is an integral tenet of Christianity or it is not. Is is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You have revealed that you and other Mormons believe that Christians “do not expect to have their prayers answered in any discernable way”. That is simply not true. Opinions do not enter into it. It goes to show how Christianity is continually misrepresented and demonized within Mormonism. Not much has changed since the time of Brigham Young.

 

[PaulDupre]

Sometime you ought to read the story about how the priesthood change came about.

I can understand how one might think the church changes doctrine based on whim but that is because you make snap judgements without getting the whole story. However that just isn’t the case. Being cynical doesn’t help you understand Rick.

It would be more accurate to say that lifting the priesthood ban was a change in practice, not in doctrine. The LDS church never denounced or changed the doctrinal beliefs that gave rise to the ban. In fact, those teachings are still in your scriptures. If there was a change in doctrine, those passages about the seed of Cain being black and being cursed as to the priesthood would be expunged from your open canon of scripture.

 

[JLFuller]

It would be more accurate to say that lifting the priesthood ban was a change in practice, not in doctrine. The LDS church never denounced or changed the doctrinal beliefs that gave rise to the ban. In fact, those teachings are still in your scriptures. If there was a change in doctrine, those passages about the seed of Cain being black and being cursed as to the priesthood would be expunged from your open canon of scripture.

Which volume of scripture are you referring to?

 

[JLFuller]

I respect your faith in the Mormon religion, but I must disagree… for logical and obvious reasons. Claims that the ancient Jewish-- or whatever they are referred to-- migrated to Ancient America and were, in reality, the Native Americans is a false claim. It’s already been proven to be untrue through DNA evidence. Even The Pearl of Great Price was proven to be a work purely from Joseph Smith… meaning: It’s not an authentic work from Abraham and never was.

I admire your passion, but, for me personally, the Mormon faith is far too obvious to be taken seriously… it’s a bridge between parody religions and the faiths these parodies mock. The worse part is: Everyone outside of the Mormon church, and outside of its influence, knows it.

However, I know this won’t mean anything to you, since you are in a happy state of mind.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Blade
The Church has taken no position on the dna controvesy that I know of. Most people I read who do study such things suggest that no one knows what Lehi’s dna looks like. He was a member of the tribe of Joseph and to my knowledge no one has ever done dna testing on a confirmed member of the tribe of Joseph of 2600 years ago. Most I think believe the Nephites were a small minority of the total Indian popuation and maybe made up just a few percent. Maybe as little as 1% to 2%. With numbers that small they would have been lost in the dna crowd.

The controversy started, if I remember correctly, when someone said all Indians should have Jewish blood. When nothing correlated somebody started making all kinds of wide eyed pronouncements. The Church never made such statments that all Indians had Jewish blood. Some assumed that the personal opinions found in the earlier Book of Mormon front matter were doctrine. They statement was inserted by an apostle. They were not doctrine then and are not now. They were the personal opinions of one man and were just assumed to be true. No one ever gave it much thought. They just assumed he knew what he was talking about. He didn’t. He made assumptions.

 

[RebeccaJ]

They statement was inserted by an apostle. They were not doctrine then and are not now. They were the personal opinions of one man and were just assumed to be true. No one ever gave it much thought. They just assumed he knew what he was talking about. He didn’t. He made assumptions.

How easily mormons lose confidence in what their prophets have to say. While all the while, defending them as something they are not.

 

[ricko]

The controversy started, if I remember correctly, when someone said all Indians should have Jewish blood. When nothing correlated somebody started making all kinds of wide eyed pronouncements. The Church never made such statments that all Indians had Jewish blood. Some assumed that the personal opinions found in the earlier Book of Mormon front matter were doctrine. They statement was inserted by an apostle. They were not doctrine then and are not now. They were the personal opinions of one man and were just assumed to be true. No one ever gave it much thought. They just assumed he knew what he was talking about. He didn’t. He made assumptions.

Now that’s a problem we have heard many times before. Some guy was just giving his opinion. Put yourself in our position. We get LDS documents that really paint the LDS church in a bad light then someone comes alone and says something like, “he was not authorized” or “they were personal opinions”. How can I pin the tail on the donkey if he won’t stay still? (that’s a joke by the way)

Let’s try this. One problem I had with the BOM was the chapter that dealt with infant baptism. You should know which one I am referring to, where infant baptism was forbidden and the ones who taught it were condemned to Hell. Jesus never said anything about infant baptism. It’s not mentioned in the bible at all. Now we have two books, the bible and the BOM and the teachings on the same subject are different. The only logicial reason that can account for that is that one book is inspired and the other isn’t. Consider also that infant baptism was never a problem for 1500 years, but it was in Joseph Smiths time. Explain please.

 

[PaulDupre]

Which volume of scripture are you referring to?

Mainly these:

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam **save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. **

• Moses 7:22,* The Pearl of Great Price*

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

• Book of Abraham 1:21-27, The Pearl of Great Price

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Blade
The Church has taken no position on the dna controvesy that I know of. Most people I read who do study such things suggest that no one knows what Lehi’s dna looks like. He was a member of the tribe of Joseph and to my knowledge no one has ever done dna testing on a confirmed member of the tribe of Joseph of 2600 years ago. Most I think believe the Nephites were a small minority of the total Indian popuation and maybe made up just a few percent. Maybe as little as 1% to 2%. With numbers that small they would have been lost in the dna crowd.

The controversy started, if I remember correctly, when someone said all Indians should have Jewish blood. When nothing correlated somebody started making all kinds of wide eyed pronouncements. The Church never made such statments that all Indians had Jewish blood. Some assumed that the personal opinions found in the earlier Book of Mormon front matter were doctrine. They statement was inserted by an apostle. They were not doctrine then and are not now. They were the personal opinions of one man and were just assumed to be true. No one ever gave it much thought. They just assumed he knew what he was talking about. He didn’t. He made assumptions.

Very well. But, considering your response, you seem to be a… (dare I say it?) liberal. Rationalization–and speaking for an entire religious group–is (surprisingly, one of many) first steps to Agnosticism.

Not that that’s bad. I’m Agnostic.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[aquabatix]

I’m sorry, but I wanted to get the topic back on track. When dealing with the archaeological evidence (or lack there of), most people will have a hard time believing that the events found in the Book of Mormon actually happened. Unlike the Bible, which many, many archaeological sites have been found, excavated and many artifacts found, the BOM has nothing to show. If these mighty battles in which thousands used advanced metallurgy made swords with hilts, weapons and carriages happened, then there would be SOME evidence of anything, somewhere. But there isn’t. Also the BOM says that there were animals there and used that didn’t exist, plants that flora that didn’t exist and languages used that we have no evidence of written anywhere on anything. No shards of pottery, no carvings with these Hebrew of Egyptian writings, nothing.

The bottom line is, when you can’t find any of the barley, figs, grapes, wheat, ***/donkey, bull, calf, cattle, cow, goat, horse, ox, sheep, sow, elephants, bellows, brass, breast-plates, chains, copper, gold, iron, mining ore, plowshares, silver, metal swords, swords with hilts, engraving, steel, cuneiform, carriages, carts, chariots or glass mentioned, you start to seriously doubt. That is one of the many reasons why I left to Mormon faith.

 

[Jerusha]

How about reading-glasses, in Mosiah 28:

28:13 And now he translated them by the means of those two stones which was fastened into the rims of a bow.
28:14 Now these things was prepared from the beginning, and was handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages;
28:15 and they have been kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he should discover to every creature which should possess the land, the iniquities and abominations of his people:
28:16 and whosoever has these things, is called seer, after the manner of old times.

 

[why_me]

I respect your faith in the Mormon religion, but I must disagree… for logical and obvious reasons. Claims that the ancient Jewish-- or whatever they are referred to-- migrated to Ancient America and were, in reality, the Native Americans is a false claim. It’s already been proven to be untrue through DNA evidence. Even The Pearl of Great Price was proven to be a work purely from Joseph Smith… meaning: It’s not an authentic work from Abraham and never was.

.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

The Pearl of Great Price has not been proven to be a work purely from JS. In fact, if we discuss this book, we have the same problem as with the book of mormon: it has not been proven false. Now one can assume that it is false but that does not make it so.

Within the lds community, there has always been a discussion about book of mormon geography. Some claimed the hemispheric model and others claimed the Limited Geography Model. But the question has always been an open one. DNA was a hot issue a few years ago but now it has subsided as more information becomes available.