How do the Mormons do it?

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

I suppose this would be a problem if you read the story of Noah as literal. I don’t. It is a story of God’s Saving grace, a prefiguration of Jesus Christ, and Baptism.

As for arks, it matches to the technology of the day. People were building ships then, and continued to do so. The story itself builds on the technology people were already using, it is not an introduction of a new technology.

So my question is still, why weren’t people in the new world using this marine technology, or something like it? Come on ParkerD, where are the pre-Columbian submarines? With this technology, it is they who should have “discovered” Europe.

RJ,

It wasn’t known technology, as the account states very specifically. It was unknown technology, and the source was a higher source of knowledge about how to go about using resources to build those vessels. They were “one of a kind”, and had a “one of a kind” mission that was fulfilled when they landed in the New World.

The technology was known by one person, who received instructions of what to do in building the vessels.

Just because other few people saw that they worked, doesn’t mean they all now had the technology in their minds of how the vessels were built, nor that they now had designs within their memories that they would share with their children and teach them, nor that when the general apostasy and breakdown of society happened in the New World for their descendants, that somehow that technology ought to just be waiting to be found archeologically. The vessels were made from organic materials, which means they aren’t going to be discovered archeologically in tact.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD, they would have had a model from which to work. Humans have a tendency to adopt new and improved technology, to repeat it and copy it.

Beyond that, I’d say the simpler explanation is that Joseph Smith modeled his Jaredite barges on the barges being used on the newly built Eerie canal, where he lived and worked.

 

[broallenjoseph]

Freedom is not the choice to do what we want, rather it is the choice to do what we ought. We were given free will by God so that we might choose to love him and keep his commands, not so that we may choose evil. However, the fact that we have freedom always affords the possiblity that we may make the wrong choices. I would never, however, take away one’s freedom to worship in the manner they choose. God does not take that choice away from us and frankly, seeing as America has its roots in Protestantism, without the freedom to worship as we choose the Catholic Church would never have been allowed in this country. It was persecuted terribly in this country as it was.

My point was that we should be of one family, one Christian family of God. The choice should be to be a Christian or not. The fact that the Christian family is so divided, is what is sad to me. I often wonder if our Blessed Lord is not sad over this fact. I am sure when He was being flogged for our sins, the sin of division of the Christian family must have been extremely painful.

 

[TheHolyTrinity]

Personally I believe that Mormonism is a pseudo-Christian – looking at surface level it has all the paraphernalia of Christianity while at the same time; it denies some of the very basic code of belief of Christianity:

• the virgin birth of Christ,
• The Trinity,
• The doctrine of grace - salvation is through faith and not works,
• Christ’s atonement on the cross,

Mormon theology, states that Jesus is the literal son of god and his goddess wife. He was born through physical sexual relations with Mary. That Jesus was not born with any involvement of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:20
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

So according to the Bible, Jesus is not the literal son of god and his goddess wife. He was not born through sexual relations. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. There is no such thing as a goddess wife. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

What most people see in advertisements the TV, on print and through frequent home visits from their missionaries that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons/LDS) presents themselves as Christian - wholesome, pro-family – what they don’t say is that:

• Adam was God
• sacred underwear - the Garment of the Holy Priesthood
• Jesus born of a “physical” relationship between Mary and God
• Jesus was married and had kids
• blood atonement

•   secret signs, handshakes, passwords necessary to reach the highest level of heaven

• teaches that man can become God, and that God was once a man.

For those who want to dispute Mormonism is part of the Christian faith then I ask the following:

Why doesn’t Mormonism use the cross as a symbol, when it’s clearly biblical?
What do you say the symbols on the temple in Nauvoo and SLC mean?

 

[mwok]

MWOK,

I haven’t seen the videos. The vessels were built to sustain their horizontal position whether on top or under the water. There would have been two to three hundred square feet of “floor space” per person or animal (excluding fowls), and perhaps fifteen feet of vertical space per person or animal, so that is ample room to envision them having enough space for food such as grains, plus they would of course have been able to catch fish along the way when not submerged, for part of their food supply.

I have to disagree about the sustaining their horizontal position, because in the BOM it is stated that the port holes were on both sides of the vessel. And being familiar with transporting cargo on aircraft, I can only imagine the dilemma of having a vessel flip upside down, even with enough nets and straps to secure the food and supplies. It still leaves people and animals going from bottom to top at great force creating a great opportunity for injury and/or death. I don’t even want to think about the bees, that in and of itself is a catastrophe.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Anyone who thinks of the Jaredite vessels as a viable “submarine” technology is not thinking things through.

I have to disagree about the sustaining their horizontal position, because in the BOM it is stated that the port holes were on both sides of the vessel. And being familiar with transporting cargo on aircraft, I can only imagine the dilemma of having a vessel flip upside down, even with enough nets and straps to secure the food and supplies. It still leaves people and animals going from bottom to top at great force creating a great opportunity for injury and/or death. I don’t even want to think about the bees, that in and of itself is a catastrophe.

Hahaha! I’d never even thought about the bees before, thank you for that amazing image.

But yes, the vents on the bottom and top of the vessels suggest that the vessels were capable flipping over with all the kids, stuff, and animals inside. They were truly at the mercy of the wind and waves, reliant on on God to preserve their lives, and to deliver them to the right destination.

I imagine that the bees and animal cages were fixed to the inside of the vessels. Hopefully, that would also weigh the bottom of the vessel down, decreasing the possibility of vessel flip. The bottom vents were probably just in case.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

We do have freedoms here in America that I am grateful for, but just think what this world would be like if all Christians were one. If we could all stick together in the one body that Christ prayed for.

If we were all together in the one body that Christ prayed for, then yes, that would be great. If we were all together in some other body, that would not be so great. If all God wanted from us was unity, then our languages would not have divided at Babel.

Rebecca:

Humans have a tendency to adopt new and improved technology, to repeat it and copy it.

Only insofar as economic conditions make that technology viable profitable, Rebecca. Recent archeology shows, for example, that ancient Egyptians had a pin tumbler lock as far back as 2000 BC. Nearly four millennial before it was reinvented by Mr. Yale of Yale lock fame.

Study of the weapons and armor at Troy shows that the Greeks of the Bronze Age had technologies which their Iron Age descendants had forgotten just a few generations later – their shields were far superior, for example. Between the events depicted in the Illiad, and the actual writing of the Illiad, the people appear to have forgotten nearly as many advanced technologies as they’d learned. Unfortunately, the Bronze Age Greeks didn’t know how to write, so much of what they knew has been lost to us, and comes to us only through later generations to whom much of the knowledge had been already lost.

 

[ParkerD]

I have to disagree about the sustaining their horizontal position, because in the BOM it is stated that the port holes were on both sides of the vessel. And being familiar with transporting cargo on aircraft, I can only imagine the dilemma of having a vessel flip upside down, even with enough nets and straps to secure the food and supplies. It still leaves people and animals going from bottom to top at great force creating a great opportunity for injury and/or death. I don’t even want to think about the bees, that in and of itself is a catastrophe.

Hi, MWOK,

The Book of Mormon doesn’t say that they were prepared to “flip upside down”, and describes vessels that were curved rather than flat-bottomed. So the “bottom” wasn’t necessarily the “very bottom”–it was the underside of the vessel.

Isn’t it interesting how people jump to the conclusion when the words say “if it so be that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood” that they were going to be opening the hole to see if it was the hole that was above water or the hole that was below water at that moment–yet how simple to envision a hole on the underside of the vessel, but near the top of the curved surface and thus in the outside air during calm parts of their voyage, and that hole could be opened but if there was a storm then they would close that opening back up. Two holes would make much more sense for getting air into an otherwise airtight vessel.

A wish of peace to all readers, and to you.

 

[1voice]

. . . how do Mormons keep together all these disparate, anti-factual aspects of their faith? I mean the notions about American geography, etc., long disproved by archaeology? And the big Race War in History concept?

I’m not knocking Mormons. I just see the potential for a great deal of internal cognitive dissonance, and wonder how it’s all reconciled.

Youtube has several feature length documentaries put together by archeologists that left the LDS Church based on the fact that absolutely nothing in the Mormon writings lines up with archaeologic fact. The hill Cumorah … which is rich with history in the LDS tradition … has no artifacts to support the tradition. The ancient civilizations left no shred of evidence of their existence… In comparison … The Bible has been supported in almost every case, where it has been challenged, by a rich archaeologic treasure trove.

The explanation given by Mormons is… the fact that nothing has been found … does not mean that nothing exists.
… another unanswered question is that the papyrus translated by Joseph Smith …as a foundation of of Mormonism … is in fact a prayer in hieroglyphics for the burial of a long dead egyptian.

 

[KathleenGee]

OneVoice…exactly.

To study who is the true Church, you have to include the use of reason and its equivalencies in anthropology, objective history, linguistics, sociology, philosophy, and geneaological science.

Likewise, Christ did not pass out books or promote secret knowledge. Christ came to die for all sinners. There are no favorites before God. Gnosticism is the main heresy in the early Christian times as well as small groups who did not have faith in the Eucharist.

You should read Tom Nash’s book, ‘Biblical Roots of the Mass’…and then you will see how the last piece to understand Sacred Scriptures and tie everything together is the Mass…which is described in Revelations 22.

 

[Miriam1947]

One of the books I recently read was:

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist

Awesome book. I have given away several copies including to priests.

This book could be a great adult class in the parish or in a Catholic high school.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Miriam…as well…will check it out…

 

[Balian]

To me there has always been one fatal error with the Book of Mormon beyond all the anthropological and historical problems pointed out by experts. The book is held out to be a tome translated from an ancient language yet it was translated into 17th century English? Why? If I remember correctly, the book was first released in 1830 (the 19th century). The King James version of the Bible was published in 1611 so naturally it was published in the English commonly spoken at the time, 17th century English. That was not the English commonly spoken in 1830. All one need do is compare secular writings of the day to understand that point. The only contact people living in 1830 would have had with 17th century English would have been the King James Bible.

It seems far more likely that the Book of Mormon was written in King James Bible English to lend it credibility as scripture than that God moved someone to “translate” the book using an antiquated form of the English language not spoken in 1830. After all God did not drop the King James version of the Bible from Heaven for the use of Christians.

If the Book of Mormon is not scripture then I think the whole argument falls apart.

 

[TedDC]

Please show me the conflicts between Catholic theological and/or doctrinal beliefs and reason. One or two examples would be sufficient.

The “Real Presence”.

 

[ParkerD]

To me there has always been one fatal error with the Book of Mormon beyond all the anthropological and historical problems pointed out by experts. The book is held out to be a tome translated from an ancient language yet it was translated into 17th century English? Why? If I remember correctly, the book was first released in 1830 (the 19th century). The King James version of the Bible was published in 1611 so naturally it was published in the English commonly spoken at the time, 17th century English. That was not the English commonly spoken in 1830. All one need do is compare secular writings of the day to understand that point. The only contact people living in 1830 would have had with 17th century English would have been the King James Bible.

It seems far more likely that the Book of Mormon was written in King James Bible English to lend it credibility as scripture than that God moved someone to “translate” the book using an antiquated form of the English language not spoken in 1830. After all God did not drop the King James version of the Bible from Heaven for the use of Christians.

If the Book of Mormon is not scripture then I think the whole argument falls apart.

Balian,

If you have ever happened to use the Noah Webster 1828 English dictionary, you would have noticed that it uses as a common reference point, the King James Bible.

The King James Bible provides a standard for English language usage that seems to me to be unsurpassed by any other work of “literature” for laying a foundation of preserving a language–so that we who are familiar with it, although we may not speak that way on a day to day basis, are able to tie back to it when, say, someone wants to learn “better English” than just everyday, come see come saw grammar.

So the inspiration for the translation of the Book of Mormon into that same standard, for people who would study both books and love them both, seems to me to be “right inspiration”, given also that one of the points brought out in the book is that a group of people (“the Mulekites”) who didn’t have the written law and the prophets with them lost the language of their ancestors as their spoken language transitioned to a totally different language over five centuries of time.

 

[broallenjoseph]

One of the books I recently read was:

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist

Awesome book. I have given away several copies including to priests.

This book could be a great adult class in the parish or in a Catholic high school.

I am grateful to know about this book. I am into apologetics and had not heard of it. I just ordered it from Amazon. Thanks

 

[Telstar]

Balian,

If you have ever happened to use the Noah Webster 1828 English dictionary, you would have noticed that it uses as a common reference point, the King James Bible.

The King James Bible provides a standard for English language usage that seems to me to be unsurpassed by any other work of “literature” for laying a foundation of preserving a language–so that we who are familiar with it, although we may not speak that way on a day to day basis, are able to tie back to it when, say, someone wants to learn “better English” than just everyday, come see come saw grammar.

So the inspiration for the translation of the Book of Mormon into that same standard, for people who would study both books and love them both, seems to me to be “right inspiration”, given also that one of the points brought out in the book is that a group of people (“the Mulekites”) who didn’t have the written law and the prophets with them lost the language of their ancestors as their spoken language transitioned to a totally different language over five centuries of time.

Speaking of bad translations, I think you might need a Frenchman to translate that little tidbit, correctly!

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Since the 1980s, I’ve known a number of LDS folks who believe that the original Mulekite leaders at Zarahemla simply lied about the Jerusalem ancestry. It makes sense, when you see that a smaller but technologically advanced group, the Nephites, move in and within years are kings of the larger community. Central American kings historically claimed rediculous pedigrees to back up their ancestry. When the Nephites said, we came across the sea from Jerusalem and Israel, the Zarahemla rulers said oh yea, well we did too and our ancestors were the kings of Israel. They lost the play for leadership, but the story stuck. Interesting theory. Can’t say whether it’s true but it’s certainly viable. Explains why the language could have changed so quickly, which doesn’t make sense, even with literacy. It’s a reminder that scripture is generally mortal testimony of their dealings with God. Honest, but not infallible when it comes to the facts. That’s as true of the Bible as of the Book of Mormon. You have to ask, who is writing, and how did they know this? When the gospels say that all of the Sanhedrin were present to condemn Christ, is that necessarily true? I don’t think so. The writer could not have been present, most have gotten the story second hand. That particular fact isn’t critical to the gospel message.

 

[1voice]

Since the 1980s, I’ve known a number of LDS folks who believe that the original Mulekite leaders at Zarahemla simply lied about the Jerusalem ancestry. It makes sense, when you see that a smaller but technologically advanced group, the Nephites, move in and within years are kings of the larger community. Central American kings historically claimed rediculous pedigrees to back up their ancestry. When the Nephites said, we came across the sea from Jerusalem and Israel, the Zarahemla rulers said oh yea, well we did too and our ancestors were the kings of Israel. They lost the play for leadership, but the story stuck. Interesting theory. Can’t say whether it’s true but it’s certainly viable. Explains why the language could have changed so quickly, which doesn’t make sense, even with literacy. It’s a reminder that scripture is generally mortal testimony of their dealings with God. Honest, but not infallible when it comes to the facts. That’s as true of the Bible as of the Book of Mormon. You have to ask, who is writing, and how did they know this? When the gospels say that all of the Sanhedrin were present to condemn Christ, is that necessarily true? I don’t think so. The writer could not have been present, most have gotten the story second hand. That particular fact isn’t critical to the gospel message.

Pete,
There are facts that are readily available though. Solid facts, grounded in scientific research done by members of the LDS Church.
Those archeologists state simply and clearly that they have never found a shred of evidence to support the claim that any of the civilizations described in LDS writings ever existed. The archeologists are no longer Mormons … they left when they finished their research … But they started out determined to provide the same kind of evidence for LDS writings that supports so much of the Bible.
Another solid fact … The ancient document that Joseph Smith translated… which he said was an important LDS document … turned out to be a funeral prayer for an Egyptian written in hieroglyphics.

 

[ParkerD]

Youtube has several feature length documentaries put together by archeologists that left the LDS Church based on the fact that absolutely nothing in the Mormon writings lines up with archaeologic fact. The hill Cumorah … which is rich with history in the LDS tradition … has no artifacts to support the tradition. The ancient civilizations left no shred of evidence of their existence… In comparison … The Bible has been supported in almost every case, where it has been challenged, by a rich archaeologic treasure trove.

The explanation given by Mormons is… the fact that nothing has been found … does not mean that nothing exists.
… another unanswered question is that the papyrus translated by Joseph Smith …as a foundation of of Mormonism … is in fact a prayer in hieroglyphics for the burial of a long dead egyptian.

1Voice,

It is always interesting to me that “archaeologists” assume they could find undisputed evidence of some kind of archaeology for the Nephites or Lamanites, when the Book of Mormon itself says that the Lamanites destroyed all records and anything that could remind their people that the Nephites even existed–and did so with a passion and a vengeance. Also, that the Lamanites were in continual war among themselves and with outside groups, and would nearly be destroyed by the outside groups.

Also, and more importantly, the whole reason for there to be a book given to the world by God to provide another witness that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, is so that people could receive that witness only according to their “faith, heed, and diligence”–meaning that God who has absolute omnipotence could certainly use men who were seeking vengeance to destroy the evidence of the records and of the simple homes and buildings of the Nephite people. Cataclysmic factors such as earthquakes and hurricanes would also play a part to change the face of the land, and hide evidences within the earth. For anyone to think that they are going to “outsmart” God and find the evidence through some physical means, yet according to His promises will only be found by a personal test of faith, desire, diligence, and heed, seems to be saying they think God is not really omnipotent after all.