LDS and the bible vs BOM

[kimg901]

And how is the ancestry of Native Americans related to Christ’s sacrifice?

Because they have no written or oral history pointing towards Christ being here in the Americas. If so, there would have been some record of the Natives and Christ spreading the Word to them. There is nothing in the B.o.M to give evidence that its factual regarding what is taught about the Native Americans. But he did die for us ALL!!!

 

[Horton]

And how is the ancestry of Native Americans related to Christ’s sacrifice?

It’s not (except Christ died for all) but JS linked the two when he claimed Jesus Christ came to America as well as the lost tribe from Israel. JS claimed the Native Americans were descendants of this lost tribe hence the question of the OP.

 

[Telstar]

And how is the ancestry of Native Americans related to Christ’s sacrifice?

They’re not directly related to each other at all. The only connection would be that Jesus died for all sinners, Native Americans included. Other than that, there is no connection.

 

[jane_doe]

They’re not directly related to each other at all. The only connection would be that Jesus died for all sinners, Native Americans included. Other than that, there is no connection.

And that would be the reason why the ancestry of Native Americans doesn’t really factor into my faith in God.

 

[Stephen168]

And that would be the reason why the ancestry of Native Americans doesn’t really factor into my faith in God.

That is why when the Mormon Church starts teaching that the Book of Mormon can be understood as an allegory, there will still be Mormons.

 

[Horton]

And that would be the reason why the ancestry of Native Americans doesn’t really factor into my faith in God.

So does it factor into your belief in your church? Since your church was founded on the basis of Native Americans being descendant from a tribe of Israeli people who came to America and at some point Jesus came to America. These people built large warrior civilations and had great battles.

The way I see it is to believe in God, to know the Word, to know Jesus, to know the Holy Spirit works within me is great. I’ve called myself a Christian all my life, baptized at 3 weeks old. But, and this is the critical part, I did not join the Body of Christ until a few years ago when I converted to the one true Catholic Church. Then my faith became complete. I was doing the right thing, for the right reasons, in the right place.

So again - how does the history of the Native Americans factor into your belief that your church is true?

 

[Stephen168]

But this would require them to bring their beliefs into line with the best of the BoM, and reform their practices. That would be much more painful than continuing to believe that it is literally true. They don’t have any viable alternatives. I believe it is a sinking ship.

Could you expand on this. I’m not following your meaning.

 

[TOmNossor]

Agree. The geography and history of the BOM is a matter of science and science has consistently proved the geography and history of the BOM to be false. No reputable geologist, scientist, or historian finds any truth whatsoever in the BoM.

On the other hand, the historical credibility of the New Testament and early Christian history is well-documented. We can have reasonable confidence that Pontius Pilate was real, that Caesar was real, the there was a man called Jesus crucified in the approximate time frame attested to in the NT (the historian Josephus comes to mind), that Israel was an actual place, that the temple was real, that Aramaic was a real language, that there were early Christians martyred under an actual man named Nero, that St. Augustine was an actual man with writings we can read, that the Nicene Council actually occurred, etc. Furthermore, historical discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls can give credence to the scripture translations and so on.

Even most secular historians can agree that early Christianity was an actual phenomenon in the early centuries, but no secular historian will agree that any of the events described in the BoM actually happened. Additionally, no reputable linguist gives any credence whatsoever to the JS translation of the Book of Abraham, that “reformed Egyptian” is a thing, and of course we have no basis of validation for the BoM since the golden plates don’t exist in the material universe to anyone’s knowledge. The JS translation of the bible hasn’t borne any resemblance to historical discoveries. Your version of North/South American history is an absolute joke among anyone but a TBM. I’m not trying to be mean–it’s just reality. I know history, science, and linguistics are not interesting to some, but they actually do matter to some degree.

Maybe it seems I’m going off on a tangent, but in some ways this brings us back to the original post–the bible vs. the BoM. One has historical credibility… and the other, frankly, doesn’t. Yet the one with historical credibility is believed in “insofar as it is correctly translated” and the historically uncredible one is the most correct book on earth. Funny how that works…

I have responded to this in this thread. I am unsure if folks really understand how fundamentally different the Archeological picture of the New World and the Old World really is.

But yet, none of the locations, or people mentioned in the BoM can be found.

As I have mentioned here that the locations of the BOM that have permanence in archeology and thus provide fixed points of reference are well agreed upon. Jerusalem, the Red Sea, Nahom, (and Valley of Lemuel, Bountiful, …) are well documented.
New world locations like Teotihuacan are reasonably postulate IMO, but there are virtually no toponyms from BOM times that are known and the small number that are known cannot be pronounced with any certainty.
…
Cement on the other hand is a positive as science has moved from where it was when this was a criticism to now agreeing that cement was worked in BOM times (Teotihuacan is the place BTW).
Critics of the BOM have searched for reasons that Joseph Smith might have described an Old World journey from Jerusalem, to Nahom, to Bountiful, and then off into the ocean. Maps at colleges are postulated, but none provide near the detail necessary when 81 points of connection are documented by real people walking the Frankincense trail. Where we have permanence in toponyms we have remarkable correspondence. We find what or more than one could reasonably expect to find. Such connection is similar for many Biblical stories, but better than some (like the Exodus narrative where we find much less than we expect to find).
Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Could you expand on this. I’m not following your meaning.

There is plenty of material taken or adapted from the bible, yes? There are some stories in there that are pretty good morality tales. I especially like the story of the Zoramites, who are so much like modern-day LDS. Prosperity theology, open pulpit, and all. I have some more examples, but that should be enough.

 

[Stephen168]

It’s not (except Christ died for all) but JS linked the two when he claimed Jesus Christ came to America as well as the lost tribe from Israel. JS claimed the Native Americans were descendants of this lost tribe hence the question of the OP.

I see jane doe had to ignore the answers to her question that present the problem for Mormonism. But history, science, and reason are ignored in Mormonism all the time.

When JS had a revelation about the success of a bank which was later not a success, many turned against him, even some “apostles.” The “apostles” were excommunicated l-]ike Jesus did to his apostles/-] but many stayed Mormon.

When JS had a revelation about husbands having multiple wives and wives having multiple husbands many turned on him because this practice was contrary to the teaching of Christ. But many stayed Mormon because…maybe the bible was not translated correctly.

So now that it is clear his revelation on the Book of Mormon is not true, many stay Mormon.

I am sure when the Mormon Church reveals that the Book of Mormon is not history there will still be Mormons.

 

[Stephen168]

There is plenty of material taken or adapted from the bible, yes? There are some stories in there that are pretty good morality tales. I especially like the story of the Zoramites, who are so much like modern-day LDS. Prosperity theology, open pulpit, and all. I have some more examples, but that should be enough.

So you mean that Mormons are currently not followers of the teachings contain in the BoM so if it becomes an allegory they would have to follow it so it would still have meaning for them?

 

[Jerusha]

So you mean that Mormons are currently not followers of the teachings contain in the BoM so if it becomes an allegory they would have to follow it so it would still have meaning for them?

Exactly. Looking at it through binoculars prevents them from seeing it with their bare eyes. You have to understand the cultural context of the story in order to understand the meaning. Like Maccabees helps us understand Jesus better. Especially Judas, a powerful military figure in Maccabees.

 

[Stephen168]

Exactly. Looking at it through binoculars prevents them from seeing it with their bare eyes. You have to understand the cultural context of the story in order to understand the meaning. Like Maccabees helps us understand Jesus better. Especially Judas, a powerful military figure in Maccabees.

i’ve been told they don’t follow the teachings contained in the BoM but never thought of the pickle that calling it an allegory might put them in.

I know they made major changes to it when Joseph Smith rejected the trinity, but I think changing it again might be more difficult today.

 

[TOmNossor]

RebeccaJ and Stephen168,
I have been thinking about a couple things I have seen each of you say in this thread and I think my response has not been as clear as it should so I hope to tie that all together.
First, Stephen168, you have focused on that which is infallible and irreformable and echoed RebeccaJ’s comment about the fact that BOTH literal and allegorical interpretation have ALWAYS (since the “Bible was established by the Catholic Church”) been available to the Church. This quote hopefully well summarizes both points.

The Catholic Church has never had a position about the earth being the center of the universe. Tom would just have to quote a Council of the Church that says that, but he can’t.

The Council of Trent says the Bible is infallible in regard to faith and morals. Science is not faith and morals. Trent occurred before Galileo published.
The Catholic Church has never claimed that a literal interpretation of the bible is the only one. It was taught since the Bible was established by the Catholic Church and was understood by Galileo as well as most Catholics today. What a Catholic thought in the 17th century would only be guessing. The teaching of the Catholic Church did not change.

This is then contrasted with the what ex-LDS claim LDS must believe and Jane and I claim we do not. Here is Stephen explaining this (and BTW correcting a Catholic on this thread because Stephen may have known full well I would find a Cardinal that was quite clear about geocentrism …. And may or may not have known that this would have been quite clearly linked to faith and morals by this Cardinal and the Pope (but that is for a separate point).

Even if there was a sermon by a priest bishop or Cardinal, it would not make it Church teaching until a Council said it was.

The Mormon Church took its scriptures literally and are having to back away from that idea due to science making a literal interpretation impossible. So the classic Mormon approach is to try to show the Catholic Church did it too. The problem is the Catholic Church never required a literal reading of scripture. Which requires the next classic response: Galileo.

So, it would seem that the ex-LDS on this thread demand that the CoJCoLDS is not true if we come to understand our scriptures differently because “the Mormon Church took its scriptures literally and are having to back away from that idea due to science” but the Catholic Church has always taken its scriptures literally or allegorically and thus can “back away from that idea (a literal interpretation used to ban books and do many things) due to science.”
It is my position that, “The Catholic Chuch always took its scriptures literally or allegorically” is less true of the Catholic Church than the CoJCoLDS. And that the CoJCoLDS took its scripture literally is not anywhere near as universally true as Stephen168 and RebeccaJ would have us believe.

A breif discussion of what scripture we are talking about:
Who established the Bible. Well, the Canon of the New Testament aside, the Old Testament existed in two main forms before the Catholic Church defined the New Testament canon agreed upon by all Christians today. Which form is best is something I have concerned myself with little but literal vs. allegorical has discussion raged about the portion in both main forms so such is all with which we must concern ourselves.
I have shown clearly that in the 17th century literal interpretation of Old Testament passages was urged upon all Catholics by Popes and a Doctor of the Church. Stephen168 is generally correct IMO that this was not a irreformable/infallible urging. His view is undermined by the Council of Trent that says you cannot interpret the scriptures differently than the Fathers did, and the fact that all the ECF who ever commented on these scriptures took them literally and SOME built positions concerning faith and morals off this literal interpretation. But I consider this to be a weaker example of difficulties with that which is irreformable/infallible, so I will move on.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Before the Catholic Church defined what was irreformable/infallible (I am beginning to think on this, but it was after the 4th century), debate on how to interpret scripture was quite the thing. The Alexandrian school represented most prominently by Origin allegoricalize lots of scripture. Their claim was that all books of scripture could not be simultaneously true without such interpretive tools. The Antiochian school was opposed to this view and taught that scripture should be viewed as literally true (I presume they didn’t believe God was a chicken, but literally true was the preferred method in virtually all disputable cases). The FIRST person to teach the allegorical method in the Alexandrian school to my knowledge was Clement of Alexandria (Origin’s teacher). He lived from 150-215. His teachings would have postdated Christ by a century and a half. Before Clement, you will not find folks advocating non-literal interpretation and for many years after Clement you will find folks advocating that Clement and Origin are wrong in their ideas.
So, the BOM was produced in 1830, folks claiming that BOM LITERALLY (BTW) does not teach a hemispheric geography were numerous by 1980 one and a half centuries after the BOM was published. Folks in the CoJCoLDS advocating that the BOM does not LITERALLY teach that every person discussed in the BOM was a literal descendant of Lehi of Jews in 1980 were also present (and more numerous it would seem than the members of the elite Alexandrian school). It should be noted that the folks teaching this in 1980 were not responding to DNA evidence at all their reasons were ENTIRELY based upon the text of the BOM. My former Stake Sunday School president Brant Gardner was one of these folks and he had been saying this long before I met him in the 90’s. Things like Ostler’s expansion theory came in 1987 (Ostler and Brant stand in about the same place relative to Mormon origins as Clement stands relative to Christian origins) – we should note that Ostler has found that SOME of the things he thought were midrashic expansion in the BOM actually fit well into the advancing scholarly view of Lehi’s time so Ostler points to less in the BOM that is “expansion.”
But, what about the 1840’s just a decade after the BOM. We heard on this thread that Augustine 3-4 centuries removed from Christ, didn’t believe in a literal 7 day creation. Joseph Smith was receiving scripture from God that opened up the idea that Genisis shouldn’t be viewed as 7 literal days. So the history of taking some scripture allegorically was part of the CoJCoLDS much earlier than the 1980’s. I think Clement and Origin went too far. When the Bible speaks of God loving us and us loving like God, it does not mean that God loves in a fundamentally different way than we do. But, recognizing that the Exodus account was likely not 600,000 individuals and some BOM accounts contain exaggeration and … seems well warranted IMO.
So, at some time the Catholic Church decided that the only irreformable/infallibility source of teaching was the General Council. This was more than 3 centuries removed from Christ. Harold B. Lee 1.5 centuries removed from Joseph Smith said:
Harold B. Lee:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

(granted this is not an interpretive framework for scripture, but neither is the principle of infallibility/irreformability. In fact the Council of Trent’s interpretive framework is something that makes one of examples problematic for the Catholic Church.
In conclusion, I am a fan of allegorical understanding of 7 day creation and geocentrism. I do not believe the BOM is “inspired fiction” (because it is historical and inspired). I however do not believe LDS can or should be held to things like literal 7 day creationism or …. Give us a 1600 years and we will not be fighting against our Galileos like the Catholic Church was!
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Before the Catholic Church defined what was irreformable/infallible (I am beginning to think on this, but it was after the 4th century), debate on how to interpret scripture was quite the thing. The Alexandrian school represented most prominently by Origin allegoricalize lots of scripture. Their claim was that all books of scripture could not be simultaneously true without such interpretive tools. The Antiochian school was opposed to this view and taught that scripture should be viewed as literally true (I presume they didn’t believe God was a chicken, but literally true was the preferred method in virtually all disputable cases). The FIRST person to teach the allegorical method in the Alexandrian school to my knowledge was Clement of Alexandria (Origin’s teacher). He lived from 150-215. His teachings would have postdated Christ by a century and a half. Before Clement, you will not find folks advocating non-literal interpretation and for many years after Clement you will find folks advocating that Clement and Origin are wrong in their ideas.
So, the BOM was produced in 1830, folks claiming that BOM LITERALLY (BTW) does not teach a hemispheric geography were numerous by 1980 one and a half centuries after the BOM was published. Folks in the CoJCoLDS advocating that the BOM does not LITERALLY teach that every person discussed in the BOM was a literal descendant of Lehi of Jews in 1980 were also present (and more numerous it would seem than the members of the elite Alexandrian school). It should be noted that the folks teaching this in 1980 were not responding to DNA evidence at all their reasons were ENTIRELY based upon the text of the BOM. My former Stake Sunday School president Brant Gardner was one of these folks and he had been saying this long before I met him in the 90’s. Things like Ostler’s expansion theory came in 1987 (Ostler and Brant stand in about the same place relative to Mormon origins as Clement stands relative to Christian origins) – we should note that Ostler has found that SOME of the things he thought were midrashic expansion in the BOM actually fit well into the advancing scholarly view of Lehi’s time so Ostler points to less in the BOM that is “expansion.”
But, what about the 1840’s just a decade after the BOM. We heard on this thread that Augustine 3-4 centuries removed from Christ, didn’t believe in a literal 7 day creation. Joseph Smith was receiving scripture from God that opened up the idea that Genisis shouldn’t be viewed as 7 literal days. So the history of taking some scripture allegorically was part of the CoJCoLDS much earlier than the 1980’s. I think Clement and Origin went too far. When the Bible speaks of God loving us and us loving like God, it does not mean that God loves in a fundamentally different way than we do. But, recognizing that the Exodus account was likely not 600,000 individuals and some BOM accounts contain exaggeration and … seems well warranted IMO.
So, at some time the Catholic Church decided that the only irreformable/infallibility source of teaching was the General Council. This was more than 3 centuries removed from Christ. Harold B. Lee 1.5 centuries removed from Joseph Smith said:

(granted this is not an interpretive framework for scripture, but neither is the principle of infallibility/irreformability. In fact the Council of Trent’s interpretive framework is something that makes one of examples problematic for the Catholic Church.
In conclusion, I am a fan of allegorical understanding of 7 day creation and geocentrism. I do not believe the BOM is “inspired fiction” (because it is historical and inspired). I however do not believe LDS can or should be held to things like literal 7 day creationism or …. Give us a 1600 years and we will not be fighting against our Galileos like the Catholic Church was!
Charity, TOm

It seems to me that, in the last two posts,Tom is mentally preparing himself for the day when the Mormon Church reveals the BoM can be read as an allegory.

 

[Horton]

I see jane doe had to ignore the answers to her question that present the problem for Mormonism. But history, science, and reason are ignored in Mormonism all the time.

When JS had a revelation about the success of a bank which was later not a success, many turned against him, even some “apostles.” The “apostles” were excommunicated l-]ike Jesus did to his apostles/-] but many stayed Mormon.

When JS had a revelation about husbands having multiple wives and wives having multiple husbands many turned on him because this practice was contrary to the teaching of Christ. But many stayed Mormon because…maybe the bible was not translated correctly.

So now that it is clear his revelation on the Book of Mormon is not true, many stay Mormon.

I am sure when the Mormon Church reveals that the Book of Mormon is not history there will still be Mormons.

 

[lax16]

As I have mentioned here that the locations of the BOM that have permanence in archeology and thus provide fixed points of reference are well agreed upon. Jerusalem, the Red Sea, Nahom, (and Valley of Lemuel, Bountiful, …) are well documented.
New world locations like Teotihuacan are reasonably postulate IMO, but there are virtually no toponyms from BOM times that are known and the small number that are known cannot be pronounced with any certainty.

The BOM theories that predated DNA evidence if correct led Simon Southerton to say that his DNA evidence does not refute them (but Simon’s position was the LDS CANNOT change these theories even pre-DNA evidence – Catholics changed their geocentric theories after not before science called them into question).

Well, horses are a minor negative and BOA translation IMO is a large negative. Neither demonstrate the falsity of the CoJCoLDS, but neither is on the positive side of the ledger. Cement on the other hand is a positive as science has moved from where it was when this was a criticism to now agreeing that cement was worked in BOM times (Teotihuacan is the place BTW).
Charity ,Tom

Hi TOm - are you stating official Mormon teaching when you say the Book of Mormon locations are NOT in upstate New York?

 

[TOmNossor]

It seems to me that, in the last two posts,Tom is mentally preparing himself for the day when the Mormon Church reveals the BoM can be read as an allegory.

Stephen168,
You suffer from the same problem one of your favorite authors does. When Fawn Brodie reported what mind reading powers indicated were Joseph Smith’s thoughts and motivations she was criticized by non-LDS authors for her methods.
When you report what your mind reading powers tell you I am thinking you are just as mistaken and for the same reason. You cannot read minds.
If the CoJCoLDS were to declare that the BOM was not historical, it would IMO move the church in a less likely to be true direction. As a result the Catholic Church would in my mind move in a more likely to be true direction.
I am the world authority on my thoughts in case you wondered. But you can state your case further if you like.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

So, it would seem that the ex-LDS on this thread demand that the CoJCoLDS is not true if we come to understand our scriptures differently because “the Mormon Church took its scriptures literally and are having to back away from that idea due to science” but the Catholic Church has always taken its scriptures literally or allegorically and thus can “back away from that idea (a literal interpretation used to ban books and do many things) due to science.”
It is my position that, “The Catholic Chuch always took its scriptures literally or allegorically” is less true of the Catholic Church than the CoJCoLDS. And that the CoJCoLDS took its scripture literally is not anywhere near as universally true as Stephen168 and RebeccaJ would have us believe.

This is of course, a subjective measurement that is going on in your own head. Since your conclusions don’t match reality, one conclusion could be, the reason for this subjective measurement weighing in favor of Mormonism is so that you are prepared. It is deducing, not mind reading.

But anyway, and whatever! I already know you have a known-only-to-Tom way of measuring things. Which is according to your own conscience, and I don’t seek to infringe on your conscience, forcing something. No.

If you are going to measure things, the Book of Mormon was published by Joseph Smith and claimed to be a historical account of the people of the Americas. Certainly, events related in that historical account can be viewed as allegorical or literal. But the BoM as a whole has always been presented as a historical account. Period.

You provide, what is in your own mind, scientific evidence for this claim. It is not in my estimation, evidence, but correlations. Like washing your car will make it rain. A nice correlation, but meaningless to anyone who isn’t seeking to provide evidence that cars cause rain. But who cares?

It all dodges the point, that the evidence against the BoM being a historical account, is going to force a change in Mormonism to where the book as a whole is not claimed to be a historical account.

You duck and dodge this, by pointing to specific stories that can be viewed as allegory or not. While all the while, providing what you see as evidence for a historical account, when the point is, the BoM itself is going to one day have to be put aside as history and the entire book presented as allegory.

Lehi and his family leaving Jerusalem, not literal, but allegorical. Lamanites and Nephites, not literally existing but allegories. etc.

This will be extremely difficult to reconcile with other Mormon scripture. The difficulty can already be seen, in the D&C, where Joseph sent people to teach the Lamanites. Of course he held the view that all indigenous people, anywhere and everywhere, were descended of Lamanites. But today, would you, a Mormon, agree that the people being taught were actually, literally, Lamanites?

If so, what is your evidence, if not, how do you reconcile the error of your scriptures?

The Catholic Church has always viewed our scripture as both allegory and not. Including the OT. Jesus names Himself, in the NT, both Jacob’s ladder and the temple. These are both figurative and literal, but more importantly is anagogical. If we viewed the OT as only literal, what Jesus said about Himself would be nonsense.

What a Cardinal or Council decrees is not scripture. What is in your D&C, attributed to Smith, is scripture. In my taking measure of the situation, you have an inestimable burden to overcome.