Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

[Prodigal_Son1]

And Mormons recognize those problems. For us, something doesn’t have to be “perfect” to be useful. I’m always glad to find out that God feels that way about me.

So you are saying that in Acts 9, the meaning is that they didn’t see anyone, but they heard the voice, and in Acts 22 the same word is used, but now the meaning is that they saw a light but didn’t “understand” the voice?

On the one hand, it is obvious that the word “hear” is sometimes used to connote understanding–it’s a common English idiom, too. But on the other hand, when “hear” is used to connote understanding, usually it also implies actual hearing of the words. Both of these passages are obviously meant to describe the physical reaction of the people with Paul, so it would seem very odd if they were using “hear” in a metaphorical sense (to understand) juxtaposed with “see” when describing what they physically saw.

Of course, “see” can also mean “understand,” so maybe Paul was saying they didn’t understand the light and didn’t understand the voice?

Check out some good Catholic biblical commentaries. Scholars like Fr. Raymond Brown and others are not this extreme.

Acts 9, they saw no man. Acts 22, they saw light.

So you don’t think Hindus teach ANY truth?

Christianity teaches Christ is truth.

That’s fine. But since Paul often referred to the Church as the Temple of God, I think I have more warrant for my interpretation than you.

I feel the Catholic interpretation is correct.

The difference, of course, is that Mormons actually claim to restore apostate Christianity.

Catholics believe true Christianity never apostasized, therefore did not need a restoration. Those who schismed needed a restoration.

Jews or pagans wouldn’t have anything to do with such an argument, so why would anyone pay attention to such charges coming from them?

Let me break it down for you.

1. You seem to be demanding some kind of ancient document where someone announces, “All Christianity has now gone apostate in the third year of the reign of Emperor _____.”

I feel requesting the correct time is reasonable.

1. What if there were such a document? Wouldn’t it’s very existence prove the claim false, since the writer would presumably NOT be apostate?

We’re not asking for speculations, like “what ifs.” So because the Church didn’t write there was no apostasy proves there was an apostasy?

1. If such a document had been produced, the Catholic response would have been, “We disagree.” So if outsiders like Jews and pagans started waving said document around, trying to use it to disprove Catholicism, the Catholics would have simply blown them off, and probably would have claimed the document was a forgery.

There’s that word again, “if”. There’s no documentation for the Church to consider disagreeing with. Look! Another “if”.

1. How would such a document have survived? Why would Catholic monks bother copying such a thing?

The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated to have been as old as 200BC.

We have writings from the early Church fathers written after the death and resurrection of Christ.

The writings of Flavius Josephus, 37AD - 100AD, are available today.

The monks copied books that tell of all the major schisms, Arianism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. They could not copy what did not occur.

So, my conclusion is that your demands are absolutely silly, and show that you have no experience, whatsoever, dealing with historical evidence. Really. You seem to have no clue what kind of thing to expect.

I could say, your explanations are “absolutely silly” and I’m sure most “impartial” readers would agree.

Last trip around the circle for me on this subject, unless some documentation is produced.

I’ve already explained that we don’t interpret those passages the same way you do, so please don’t try to change the subject. There have been plenty of threads on the Mormon view of God and Jesus, if you want to look them up.

I understand and to be quite honest, I would have to read back to see how we got off track as we did. I was not deliberately trying to change the subject as much as I was taking the opportunity to discuss Mormon beliefs, with someone who appeared willing to share. If you don’t wish to discuss the Mormon belief in reference to Christ’s divinity, maybe another time.

Really, Prodigal, this conversation has just become silly. The topic was about how Mormons interpret the “gates of hell” promise. I explained that we interpret it differently than you, because we believe “the gates of hades” means “the gates of hades,” while you claim it is a metaphor for something else.

And yet, you keep asking questions and making charges like this one that imply that Mormons are claiming that Jesus didn’t keep his promises.

The title of the thread is "Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the “Gates of Hell.” I didn’t realize the discussion was limited to "how Mormons interpret the “gates of hell”.

As we have differences, I was only being honest in letting you know how we perceive the assertions Mormons make concerning Catholicism.

I am not “losing my cool,” but it is a bit frustrating to talk to someone who doesn’t seem to take into consideration anything I have to say.

Believe me, I understand perfectly well what you’re saying.

I thought the purpose of the discussion was to share our differences in hopes of increasing an understanding, both ways. I’m sorry if I led you to have any expectations of me changing my beliefs.

Peace

 

[NewSeeker]

Hi NS,

I am quite certain that Bickmore did not claim what you accuse him of. Here is a relevant quotation from his preface.

He was quite careful not to claim to much.

As for their being “no evidence” for Lamanites, and such, that’s ridiculous. Maybe there isn’t ENOUGH evidence to satisfy you, but let’s not fall into this business of telling each other that there is NO evidence for opposing beliefs.

I can admit that there is evidence for the legitimacy of the Papacy. I don’t consider it enough, or of high enough quality, to satisfy me, but I don’t go around wishing it into non-existence.

Yes, Bickmore did make an attempt to be careful. But the implicit thrust of his argument is clear - he was seeking to use the early christian writings to legitimate Joseph’s claims.

Regarding the BoM, there is no objective evidence external to the BoM or someone’s testimony for the existence of Lamanites. And yes, you’re right; that’s the only evidence that will satisfy me. So, where is it? Are there coins stamped with the name of King Lamoni? Where’s a stele carved with the name of Nephi? Where are the ruins of Zarahemla, clearly identified as such either because it’s still called Zarahemla or because a rock with the word Zarahemla carved on it was found underneath the remains of the central plaza? Where, for that matter, are any writings identified and authenticated by archeologists and linguists as ‘reformed Egyptian’? That is evidence; one’s personal testimony and the word of Joseph Smith is not evidence. At least not useful evidence for the unconvinced. Joseph’s testimony is precisely the problem. There is no evidence (hard, objective evidence) beyond his word and what Mormons happen to feel about it to support his claim that Lamanites ever existed. We don’t even have the plates, thanks to Moroni. All we have is the word of Joseph. And as I’ve said elsewhere, the bogus nature of the Book of Abraham casts serious doubt on that word, at least for me.

NS

 

[mfbukowski]

So, my conclusion is that your demands are absolutely silly, and show that you have no experience, whatsoever, dealing with historical evidence. Really. You seem to have no clue what kind of thing to expect. …

Really, Prodigal, this conversation has just become silly. The topic was about how Mormons interpret the “gates of hell” promise. I explained that we interpret it differently than you, because we believe “the gates of hades” means “the gates of hades,” while you claim it is a metaphor for something else.

I am not “losing my cool,” but it is a bit frustrating to talk to someone who doesn’t seem to take into consideration anything I have to say.

I “second that emotion”.

In fact, I did about 6 months ago on about post 800 of a thread exactly like this one with the same arguments.

BDawg, I always knew your were smarter than me.

Didn’t take you a quarter of the time to come to the same conclusion.

 

[mfbukowski]

Doctrinal development does not equate to new doctrine.

I will concede this point when you concede that our God does not change. After all, he just develops.

He was a man who developed into a God, gradually over “time”

So now that we all agree on the nature of God, are you ready to be re-baptized?

 

[mfbukowski]

But this view is questionable since, really, those writings are only evidence that Joseph Smith developed doctrines similar to some strains of early Christian thought. Such parallelisms are intriguing, but hardly definitive. We cannot know which of those strains represent the true apostolic teaching by a review of those texts alone.

(Emphasis in above quote mine)

Yes, it was all those years of advanced research and his Phd in early christian studies which brought him to this conclusion.

Quite a scholar, that Joseph Smith.

 

[paul_c]

Not to cast aspersions on anyone’s faith, but what is it about Joseph Smith that makes his story more credible than the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church?

In the case of the Catholic Church, we have once continual set of doctrines that can be traced back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ himself. This has been studied rigorously for 2000 years and has withstood the harshest of criticism. They can be traced through the writings of the Chruch fathers through the entire life of the church. Furthermore, numerous Catholic Saints have been shown to be incorruptible after death. WE have the documented creation of the Stream and the healings at Lourdes. We have the 70,000 witnesses of the dancing of the Sun at Fatima. We have the blessed example of Mother Teresa in Calucutta and stigmata of Padre Pio.

What did Joseph Smith do in comparison…

 

[NewSeeker]

(Emphasis in above quote mine)

Yes, it was all those years of advanced research and his Phd in early christian studies which brought him to this conclusion.

Quite a scholar, that Joseph Smith.

Or rather, quite a creative fellow, that Joseph Smith. He shows what possession of a Bible and a wildly creative imagination can do.

 

[mfbukowski]

We’re not asking for speculations, like “what ifs.” So because the Church didn’t write there was no apostasy proves there was an apostasy?

Asking for the church to admit an apostasy is absurd.

You know, following this logic, we could have saved the taxpayers a lot of money in the OJ trial.

Dang- we could have just asked him to write a confession and we wouldn’t have had to go through all that!

Why didn’t somebody ask him to do that?

 

[mfbukowski]

Last trip around the circle for me on this subject, unless some documentation is produced.

PLEASE let it be true

 

[NewSeeker]

(Emphasis in above quote mine)

Yes, it was all those years of advanced research and his Phd in early christian studies which brought him to this conclusion.

Quite a scholar, that Joseph Smith.

Ah, the ever popular canard: Joseph Smith was none too bright. What’s next, “You have more education than Joseph, why don’t you try to write a book like the Book of Mormon, see how far you get?” As I suggested a moment ago, a fertile imagination with a bit of source material goes a long way. Just add a scribe to take your dictations and voila! Instant scripture.

NS

 

[BDawg]

Christianity teaches Christ is truth.

If this is supposed to answer my question, then it appears you are saying that you believe that religions that do not teach Christ do not teach any truth. If that is what you are saying, then I believe you should take up your argument with the Vatican. Witness para. 843 of the Catechism:

“The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as ‘a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.’”

So Catholics are at least SUPPOSED to believe that other religions teach some truth.

I feel requesting the correct time is reasonable.

You feel that’s reasonable to ask us for this, but you can’t even produce any documentation for the transfer of authority from Peter to Linus before the third century. It is an obvious double standard.

We’re not asking for speculations, like “what ifs.” So because the Church didn’t write there was no apostasy proves there was an apostasy?

Another ridiculous comment. When did I say that it proved there was an apostasy?

I was talking about what kind of historical documentation one might expect–if one were at all familiar with historical documentation.

There’s that word again, “if”. There’s no documentation for the Church to consider disagreeing with. Look! Another “if”.

Again, you are not even trying to understand my point of view.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated to have been as old as 200BC.

We have writings from the early Church fathers written after the death and resurrection of Christ.

The writings of Flavius Josephus, 37AD - 100AD, are available today.

The monks copied books that tell of all the major schisms, Arianism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. They could not copy what did not occur.

And yet, we don’t have any contemporary documentation for the transfer of Peter’s authority to Linus.

Your point seems to be that we have some sources from the era in question, so we should have complete documentation for anything important that occurred. Again, this shows that you are not at all familiar with the nature of historical sources.

Many of the sources you mention–like the Church Fathers–DO document that they believed many things that are at odds with modern Catholic doctrine. That’s the kind of documentation you might expect if there were an apostasy, but it doesn’t “prove” there was an apostasy.

Last trip around the circle for me on this subject, unless some documentation is produced.

Agreed. And I would LOVE to see you try to produce some documentation of Peter passing his authority as chief apostle to Linus.

I understand and to be quite honest, I would have to read back to see how we got off track as we did. I was not deliberately trying to change the subject as much as I was taking the opportunity to discuss Mormon beliefs, with someone who appeared willing to share. If you don’t wish to discuss the Mormon belief in reference to Christ’s divinity, maybe another time.

Frankly, I appreciate that you try to be civil, but you give the impression that you aren’t even listening to anything we say. There’s a whole conversation going on in your head that has nothing to do with what anyone else on the thread is saying. E.g., some of the comments you made above. They are absolutely absurd.

The title of the thread is "Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the “Gates of Hell.” I didn’t realize the discussion was limited to "how Mormons interpret the “gates of hell”.

It isn’t. But I always hope to have conversations with people who try to understand what I’m saying. I honestly don’t get the feeling that you are.

 

[paul_c]

Doesn’t this question really come down to this:
the Mormons claim that the Catholic Church lost its moral footing (the keys to its kingdom) and that Joseph Smith found them. So Catholics, to refute that, would need to show a consistent set of doctrines back to the Apostles and to Jesus… We can easily do that. Its done by apologists on this board every day.

The path for the Mormons is far more difficult. Their doctrines are far from those handed down from the Apostles, starting with the corporal nature of God, which is direct conflict with the statement by Jesus that God is spirit. In fact, the Mormon religion, as best as I understand it, relies on constant new revelation to explain its positions. The problem with this is there is nothing to validate these new doctrines… Even Jesus, Son of God, provided proof to validate his claims. He said that his miraculous works testified on his behalf and of course, his death and resurrection were complete validation of his divine claims. Furthermore, we know that Christ’s disciples were also able to work miracles. What did Joseph Smith do to validate his claims? Particularly when his claims deviate from those made by Jesus, himself.

 

[mfbukowski]

Yes, Bickmore did make an attempt to be careful. But the implicit thrust of his argument is clear - he was seeking to use the early christian writings to legitimate Joseph’s claims.

Regarding the BoM, there is no objective evidence external to the BoM or someone’s testimony for the existence of Lamanites. And yes, you’re right; that’s the only evidence that will satisfy me. So, where is it? Are there coins stamped with the name of King Lamoni? Where’s a stele carved with the name of Nephi? Where are the ruins of Zarahemla, clearly identified as such either because it’s still called Zarahemla or because a rock with the word Zarahemla carved on it was found underneath the remains of the central plaza? Where, for that matter, are any writings identified and authenticated by archeologists and linguists as ‘reformed Egyptian’? That is evidence; one’s personal testimony and the word of Joseph Smith is not evidence. At least not useful evidence for the unconvinced. Joseph’s testimony is precisely the problem. There is no evidence (hard, objective evidence) beyond his word and what Mormons happen to feel about it to support his claim that Lamanites ever existed. We don’t even have the plates, thanks to Moroni. All we have is the word of Joseph. And as I’ve said elsewhere, the bogus nature of the Book of Abraham casts serious doubt on that word, at least for me.

NS

Now I myself am going off topic, but:

If reformed egyptian was a priestly language known only to a few who passed it down, there would be few if any inscriptions found.

It would be like pre-Vatican II use of Latin in the mass – assuming that Latin usage was now transfered to China by imigrant priests who used it only in mass. How many latin inscriptions could we expect to find in China two thousand years later?

There are plenty of ancient cities from the correct time periods, of course they are not called “Zarahemla” because they have, (suppose) Mayan names instead of the reformed egyptian names which were translated.

Coins were not used in Mesoamerica anywhere, and the BOM only mentions coins, incorrectly, in a heading not written by the authors of the BOM describing a system of weights and measures

What do you mean there is no evidence of “Lamanites”? They were a group of the population-- what evidence are you looking for?

In fact, past a certain point, it is not even clear they were an ethinic group – at one point in the book of Jacob, Jacob says that he is arbitrarily going to designate the “good guys” Nephites and the “bad guys” Lamanites because there was such a mixture. What archaeological evidence would show who the bad guys were?

As far as the book of Abraham is concerned, I won’t go into details, but clearly it is closely related to the temple ceremonies and the published facsimilies bear a direct relationship to those ceremonies. I am aware of the controversy. And in fact, my understanding of the purpose of hypocephali relate them directly to a process that Mormons would closely parallel with temple worship – the process of becoming exalted. I am only saying this because I suspect you will understand what I am talking about, since you were supposedly a member of our church for 42 years, and if you do not, it’s unfortuante, but I will not explain it further.

Now I will say something controversial myself.

If you have ever received revelation, which I think you have, you know that it comes as a sudden flood of intelligence which you know could not have come from you. It is as if the universe opens up and floods your mind with thoughts which are not manufactured by your brain.

Joseph used the word “translated” when describing what happened to him when he received the book of abraham, and the papyri were clearly related to what he wrote, (temple evidence) but my personal belief is that the papyri opened his spiritual eyes to a flood of revelation. They were the stimulus to the inspired work Joseph wrote. We would not question such a process if it were written by John the apparant writer of Revelation-- but we don’t know what stimulated John to write such a work.

What exactly was John doing when he received that revelation?

We don’t know. Was he sitting by the seashore on Patmos, looking at the clouds, or was he pondering another manuscript?
We don’t know.

We DO know what Joseph was doing – examining the papyri.

I frankly don’t care if Joseph “translated” the wallpaper or the pattern on the carpet.

It is clear to me that what he wrote coheres amazingly with the endowment ceremonies, and I am absolutely positive that it was inspired writing of a scriptural quality.

The question of how Joseph was able to do it is only answerable with one word: revelation.

And the only way that others can know that any revelation is true is through revelation for themselves.

How do Catholics know the bible is true, or ultimately that there church is true? Through the holy spirit.

All the historic evidence in the world cannot prove a religion true, contrary to Catholic belief.

 

[BDawg]

Yes, Bickmore did make an attempt to be careful. But the implicit thrust of his argument is clear - he was seeking to use the early christian writings to legitimate Joseph’s claims.

So are you backing off your false claim that “Bickmore (and Mormons generally I think) take an unwarranted step and take this evidence as proof that Joseph Smith was right”?

Regarding the BoM, there is no objective evidence external to the BoM or someone’s testimony for the existence of Lamanites. And yes, you’re right; that’s the only evidence that will satisfy me. So, where is it? Are there coins stamped with the name of King Lamoni? Where’s a stele carved with the name of Nephi? Where are the ruins of Zarahemla, clearly identified as such either because it’s still called Zarahemla or because a rock with the word Zarahemla carved on it was found underneath the remains of the central plaza? Where, for that matter, are any writings identified and authenticated by archeologists and linguists as ‘reformed Egyptian’? That is evidence; one’s personal testimony and the word of Joseph Smith is not evidence. At least not useful evidence for the unconvinced. Joseph’s testimony is precisely the problem. There is no evidence (hard, objective evidence) beyond his word and what Mormons happen to feel about it to support his claim that Lamanites ever existed. We don’t even have the plates, thanks to Moroni. All we have is the word of Joseph. And as I’ve said elsewhere, the bogus nature of the Book of Abraham casts serious doubt on that word, at least for me.

Fascinating. Your strategy (like Prodigal’s) is to deny the existence of all the evidence that does exist, and then demand the sort of evidence that archaeologists and other scholars could probably never produce, or for things that are not even claimed.

For example, where does the Book of Mormon ever mention “coins stamped with the name of King Lamoni”? And if it doesn’t mention such a thing, what kind of (unkind label that the moderators might remove, anyway) would come to the conclusion that our inability to find such things is a point against the Book of Mormon?

You ask, “Where are the ruins of Zarahemla, clearly identified as such either because it’s still called Zarahemla or because a rock with the word Zarahemla carved on it was found underneath the remains of the central plaza?” Are you unaware that (unlike the Middle East) none of the local names in Mesoamerica are the same as they were during the Book of Mormon period? Do linguists understand Mayan scripts well enough to reconstruct what a glyph that says “Zarahemla” would even look like? Their script was not alphabetic–it was pictographic.

And yet, you imagine away the existence of a place called NHM, with an altar from 600 B.C that says “NHM” and a burial ground, right in the area the Book of Mormon says there was a place called “Nahom” where they buried Ishmael. Sounds like we have just the kind of evidence you want, but you’re holding out for one particular place in the Book of Mormon.

You ask, “Where, for that matter, are any writings identified and authenticated by archeologists and linguists as ‘reformed Egyptian’?” But what does that mean? It means that they took Egyptian script and modified it for their purposes. There are several modified Egyptian scripts known to have existed.

And yet, you ignore the fact that one of the most famous biblical archaeologist ever, W.F. Albright, acknowledged that there were some bona fide ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon. In a letter to one Grand Heward, a critic of the Book of Mormon, he said:

“There does appear to be evidence that Joseph Smith had studied some Egyptian. For one thing, he undoubtedly spent a great deal of money and effort in trying to master Egyptian, but, as you know, when the Book of Mormon was written, Egyptian had just begun to be deciphered and it is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language as being ‘Reformed Egyptian.’”

He assumed that Joseph Smith must have studied some Egyptian, but he didn’t know how that could have happened, since Egyptian had just begun to be deciphered.

But no. This kind of thing doesn’t exist.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I will concede this point when you concede that our God does not change. After all, he just develops.

He was a man who developed into a God, gradually over “time”

What in the world does one have to do with the other?

So now that we all agree on the nature of God, are you ready to be re-baptized?

I already have had a mormon baptism.

 

[NewSeeker]

If reformed egyptian was a priestly language known only to a few who passed it down, there would be few if any inscriptions found.

It would be like pre-Vatican II use of Latin in the mass – assuming that Latin usage was now transfered to China by imigrant priests who used it only in mass. How many latin inscriptions could we expect to find in China two thousand years later?

There are plenty of ancient cities from the correct time periods, of course they are not called “Zarahemla” because they have, (suppose) Mayan names instead of the reformed egyptian names which were translated.

Well, since there are Hebrew inscriptions date to before the time of Christ, I’d expect at least one inscription with Hebrew or Egyptian etymology to have been somewhere in the New World. I don’t know how old the oldest Hebrew inscription in Palestine is, but I’m sure it is centuries older than the time that Nephite civilization was supposedly destroyed in the 5th century.

Coins were not used in Mesoamerica anywhere, and the BOM only mentions coins, incorrectly, in a heading not written by the authors of the BOM describing a system of weights and measures

Ok, but that’s not my point. I was careless with my choice of words, but I’m very interested to know if there’s a single piece of evidence anywhere in the New World with a Book of Mormon place or person name. To my knowledge, there is none. To me, this is highly suspicious.

What do you mean there is no evidence of “Lamanites”? They were a group of the population-- what evidence are you looking for?

In fact, past a certain point, it is not even clear they were an ethinic group – at one point in the book of Jacob, Jacob says that he is arbitrarily going to designate the “good guys” Nephites and the “bad guys” Lamanites because there was such a mixture. What archaeological evidence would show who the bad guys were?

What evidence do you have for any of this outside of the Book of Mormon itself? That’s a nice argument that FARMS scholars have developed, but the fact is it’s based on nothing but evidence internal to the BoM. That’s not good enough. You need something else, something dug up from beneath the earth or found on a stele or Mayan mural to support the idea that there were Nephites or Lamanites (assuming Anderson is correct when he says the Land North was north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec).

As far as the book of Abraham is concerned, I won’t go into details, but clearly it is closely related to the temple ceremonies and the published facsimilies bear a direct relationship to those ceremonies.

Well of course there’s a close relationship. Both came from the mind of Joseph Smith. Given that source, it’s natural there would be a direct relationship.

I am aware of the controversy. And in fact, my understanding of the purpose of hypocephali relate them directly to a process that Mormons would closely parallel with temple worship – the process of becoming exalted. I am only saying this because I suspect you will understand what I am talking about, since you were supposedly a member of our church for 42 years, and if you do not, it’s unfortuante, but I will not explain it further.

Yes, I do know what you’re talking about and we’ll leave it there out of respect for LDS beliefs. I was endowed in the Jordan River temple, served a mission, and was married in the SL temple, so yes I understand your intent. I am interested in hearing more about what you have to say about the hypocephalus depicted as Facsimile 2 and the temple. Feel free and PM me if you wish.

 

[NewSeeker]

Now I will say something controversial myself.

If you have ever received revelation, which I think you have, you know that it comes as a sudden flood of intelligence which you know could not have come from you. It is as if the universe opens up and floods your mind with thoughts which are not manufactured by your brain.

Unfortunately, I have never had such an experience despite many years of faithful church attendance and sincere desire. It was that lack that actually started me on my journey to Catholicism since all I had was documentary and other historical evidence to go by.

Joseph used the word “translated” when describing what happened to him when he received the book of abraham, and the papyri were clearly related to what he wrote, (temple evidence) but my personal belief is that the papyri opened his spiritual eyes to a flood of revelation.

They were the stimulus to the inspired work Joseph wrote. We would not question such a process if it were written by John the apparant writer of Revelation-- but we don’t know what stimulated John to write such a work.

What exactly was John doing when he received that revelation?

We don’t know. Was he sitting by the seashore on Patmos, looking at the clouds, or was he pondering another manuscript?
We don’t know.

We DO know what Joseph was doing – examining the papyri.

I frankly don’t care if Joseph “translated” the wallpaper or the pattern on the carpet.

But Joseph said that Abraham authored the papyri he translated, writing them “by his own hand upon papyrus.” Joseph never described his method of translation in the way you have. Why don’t you take Joseph at his word? This makes no sense to me if he was a prophet.

I

t is clear to me that what he wrote coheres amazingly with the endowment ceremonies, and I am absolutely positive that it was inspired writing of a scriptural quality.

The question of how Joseph was able to do it is only answerable with one word: revelation.

Again, it’s hardly surprising that what Joseph wrote and the endowment coheres. Both came from the same source: his fertile imagination. I’m sorry if that sounds offensive, I don’t mean it to be. But that’s my belief based on my review of the evidence.

And the only way that others can know that any revelation is true is through revelation for themselves.

How do Catholics know the bible is true, or ultimately that there church is true? Through the holy spirit.

All the historic evidence in the world cannot prove a religion true, contrary to Catholic belief.

Well, I agree with your last statement completely. For me, the only way to get at truth is to go with the weight of the evidence. I can’t speak for other Catholics, but my belief is based on a review of the evidence. I don’t know the Bible is true; I have faith that is is and that Jesus is the Son of God. That faith is based on on careful reading of the eyewitness testimony contained in the NT and some help from Christian philosophers to help me see the rationality of that faith. It’s also based on a review of the arguments for atheism, the other monotheistic religions, and the religions of the East. I don’t know anything. But based on many years of struggle and study I do have faith that Jesus is Lord and that the Catholic Church is his church.

NS

 

[mfbukowski]

What evidence do you have for any of this outside of the Book of Mormon itself? That’s a nice argument that FARMS scholars have developed, but the fact is it’s based on nothing but evidence internal to the BoM. That’s not good enough. You need something else, something dug up from beneath the earth or found on a stele or Mayan mural to support the idea that there were Nephites or Lamanites (assuming Anderson is correct when he says the Land North was north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec).

Yes, I do know what you’re talking about and we’ll leave it there out of respect for LDS beliefs. I was endowed in the Jordan River temple, served a mission, and was married in the SL temple, so yes I understand your intent. I am interested in hearing more about what you have to say about the hypocephalus depicted as Facsimile 2 and the temple. Feel free and PM me if you wish.

I would not PM you with anything I would not post. Look carefully at the round facsimile (is that 2? I think so) and turn it upside down etc. You will see diagrams of things which occurr in the temple.

But it would not convince you anyway, due to Joseph Smith’s “imagination”.

For the place names etc, look above this post to BDawg’s posts.

As far as the FARMS scholars – dang I thought I came up with that one on my own. It’s clear in the BOM that lamanites were at first an ethnic group but later, a general class of the population.

You are just unwilling to see the evidence AS evidence, so nothing can be done

“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”

Revelation is Joseph’s imagination? That is my point precisely. You will not see it any other way, and you have rationalized it all away very efficiently.

I hope you enjoy your church.

 

[NewSeeker]

You are just unwilling to see the evidence AS evidence, so nothing can be done

No. I agree it is evidence, but only evidence internal to the BoM. That’s not sufficient. If the Bible says Jerusalem existed but absolutely nothing exists external to the Bible to support the assertion, then it would be very difficult for me to believe Jerusalem ever existed. My point all along is that there is zero evidence external to the BoM to corroborate the idea that there ever were Nephites or Lamanites.

“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”

Revelation is Joseph’s imagination? That is my point precisely. You will not see it any other way, and you have rationalized it all away very efficiently.

No, not rationalized away. I’m just unconvinced that you’re right. You keep offering proofs offered only on the word of Joseph Smith and only found in the BoM. Sure that’s evidence, but it’s not good evidence, especially since the validity of the BoM is what’s in doubt. You can’t use the BoM to prove itself. That’s what evangelical Christians do all the time with the Bible when it comes to their defense of sola scriptura.

I hope you enjoy your church.

Thank you. I do, very much.

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

So are you backing off your false claim that “Bickmore (and Mormons generally I think) take an unwarranted step and take this evidence as proof that Joseph Smith was right”?

But it is taken as proof. You’re just splitting hairs. Bickmore is an apologist, and so is the host of the website on which the book is posted.

Fascinating. Your strategy (like Prodigal’s) is to deny the existence of all the evidence that does exist, and then demand the sort of evidence that archaeologists and other scholars could probably never produce, or for things that are not even claimed.

No, not to deny the existence of your evidence. I only say that it’s insufficient to support the validity of your claims about the BoM. Except for NHM (see below), there’s nothing even remotely connected to any person or place name in the BoM in the archeological record. As I said to mfbukowski, y’all keep using the BoM to prove the BoM. That’s not good enough since I don’t accept the BoM as evidence that Nephites existed. You need to give me something external to the BoM (and not someone’s personal testimony) to convince me.

For example, where does the Book of Mormon ever mention “coins stamped with the name of King Lamoni”? And if it doesn’t mention such a thing, what kind of (unkind label that the moderators might remove, anyway) would come to the conclusion that our inability to find such things is a point against the Book of Mormon?

Because you assert that Zarahemla existed, but offer no evidence that it did save your word and the word of Joseph Smith. That’s not denying the existence of your evidence. I’m only saying that it’s not good evidence.

You ask, “Where are the ruins of Zarahemla, clearly identified as such either because it’s still called Zarahemla or because a rock with the word Zarahemla carved on it was found underneath the remains of the central plaza?” Are you unaware that (unlike the Middle East) none of the local names in Mesoamerica are the same as they were during the Book of Mormon period? Do linguists understand Mayan scripts well enough to reconstruct what a glyph that says “Zarahemla” would even look like? Their script was not alphabetic–it was pictographic.

Well I can’t prove that Mayan pictograms didn’t descend from the Nephite/Lamanite script. But then the burden of proof isn’t on me. No one can prove a negative. I’m looking for positive evidence that reformed Egyptian did exist and was used, like some script or hieroglyphic uncovered in the New World with Hebrew or Egyptian connection. Where is it?

And yet, you imagine away the existence of a place called NHM, with an altar from 600 B.C that says “NHM” and a burial ground, right in the area the Book of Mormon says there was a place called “Nahom” where they buried Ishmael. Sounds like we have just the kind of evidence you want, but you’re holding out for one particular place in the Book of Mormon.

Now, this is interesting. I know about the altar with NHM inscribed. But since there are no vowels, who knows what it stood for? Sure it could have been Nahom. But it could have been something else. Maybe Lehi inscribed it; maybe it’s pure coincidence. There’s no way to tell since there isn’t enough info to know how the word was pronounced. Perhaps you’re right. But given the ambiguity, it’s not enough given the weight of the other evidences against Joseph’s claims. I need more than that.

You ask, “Where, for that matter, are any writings identified and authenticated by archeologists and linguists as ‘reformed Egyptian’?” But what does that mean? It means that they took Egyptian script and modified it for their purposes. There are several modified Egyptian scripts known to have existed.

Ok, but were these modified Egyptian scripts found in the New World and carbon dated to BoM times? If so, then we have something to talk about.

And yet, you ignore the fact that one of the most famous biblical archaeologist ever, W.F. Albright, acknowledged that there were some bona fide ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon. In a letter to one Grand Heward, a critic of the Book of Mormon, he said:

“There does appear to be evidence that Joseph Smith had studied some Egyptian. For one thing, he undoubtedly spent a great deal of money and effort in trying to master Egyptian, but, as you know, when the Book of Mormon was written, Egyptian had just begun to be deciphered and it is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language as being ‘Reformed Egyptian.’”

He assumed that Joseph Smith must have studied some Egyptian, but he didn’t know how that could have happened, since Egyptian had just begun to be deciphered.

I’ll look into Albright, check his credentials, and see what his academic peers in his discipline have to say about him. I admit that this is quite interesting. But it’s still very suspicious that there’s not a shred of identifiable evidence in the New World linked to Nephites or Lamanites, when there is evidence external to the Bible in the Old World that clearly corroborates certain person and place names found in the text.

NS