LDS and the bible vs BOM

  • Thread starter Thread starter hs_hopeful
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would suggest that your concern about Chris’ spiritual welfare masks your own issues. It is very unusual for you to get personal here. Do you see the fact that you are arguing on fine points of Catholic history, rather than the broad sweep of faith&morals, in order to shore up Mormonism’s persistent literalist approach?

I suspect that you are the one who is having a crisis of faith.
Jerusha and all,
I do not find it likely I will lose my faith, but I want to so lean upon Christ that my life is remade and one day I am told, "Well done, good and faithful servant … Come and share your master’s happiness.
I know well 4 folks from that conversation. All of us continue to read, study, post. Three of us continue to pray. I stand in roughly the same place I did then. I believe the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of the ancient church. I believe the BOM is a historical document. I believe Catholicism lacks truths contained in the CoJCoLDS and that the Vatican II understanding of “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is wrong most importantly because the Pope does not stand in the same place as Peter and President Monson stood/stand. I still believe that Catholicism makes a strong case than Protestantism. I am probably more leery of liberal Christianity than I was when I saw some consistency in Chris’ thoughts, but I was leery then too.
I have told you of Chris’s transition. The other two folks I know most well have moved away from where you consider truth to be.
What you see in me Jerusha, I think, is that I am willing to say that Chris Smith pokes at the single biggest problem present for LDS truth claims. Other folks on this board seem unwilling to admit there are any problems for Catholic truth claims. I am not sure how they can be informed and truthful in their assessments, but I will not say such things about the CoJCoLDS (because contrary to what Stephen168 says, I have no intention of lying on this board). Some days, “Ten thousand problems do not a doubt make” perhaps overstates my confidence in the CoJCoLDS, but other days it is about right (and never is it too far from the right sentiment).
I am also apparently unaware that I embarrass myself with most of my posts. I am blissfully foolish I suppose. It IMO is good that so many folks suggest those who embrace Mormonism embrace gross superstition, pull in things from the occult, have our minds trapped, contradict reason, are weak in the mind, ignorant, support our beliefs by tricky seemingly clever arguments devoid of substance, just a simple look makes it clear we are confused and detailed examination is unwarranted. I welcome your derision!
Charity, TOm
 
Jerusha and all,
I do not find it likely I will lose my faith, but I want to so lean upon Christ that my life is remade and one day I am told, "Well done, good and faithful servant … Come and share your master’s happiness.
I know well 4 folks from that conversation. All of us continue to read, study, post. Three of us continue to pray. I stand in roughly the same place I did then. I believe the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of the ancient church. I believe the BOM is a historical document. I believe Catholicism lacks truths contained in the CoJCoLDS and that the Vatican II understanding of “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is wrong most importantly because the Pope does not stand in the same place as Peter and President Monson stood/stand. I still believe that Catholicism makes a strong case than Protestantism. I am probably more leery of liberal Christianity than I was when I saw some consistency in Chris’ thoughts, but I was leery then too.
I have told you of Chris’s transition. The other two folks I know most well have moved away from where you consider truth to be.
What you see in me Jerusha, I think, is that I am willing to say that Chris Smith pokes at the single biggest problem present for LDS truth claims. Other folks on this board seem unwilling to admit there are any problems for Catholic truth claims. I am not sure how they can be informed and truthful in their assessments, but I will not say such things about the CoJCoLDS (because contrary to what Stephen168 says, I have no intention of lying on this board). Some days, “Ten thousand problems do not a doubt make” perhaps overstates my confidence in the CoJCoLDS, but other days it is about right (and never is it too far from the right sentiment).
I am also apparently unaware that I embarrass myself with most of my posts. I am blissfully foolish I suppose. It IMO is good that so many folks suggest those who embrace Mormonism embrace gross superstition, pull in things from the occult, have our minds trapped, contradict reason, are weak in the mind, ignorant, support our beliefs by tricky seemingly clever arguments devoid of substance, just a simple look makes it clear we are confused and detailed examination is unwarranted.
Over the last six months, your claims have been shown to be objectively false, and your wish to have them be true does not make them true. Charity required me to try to find your posts in the best light, which lead me to believe you were easily confused by what you have read or were told. Over the last six months, I can’t help believing that you are intentional in your twisting of authors intended meanings, half truths, and invention of ‘facts’ which are not true.

To say the Catholic Church taught something wrong, which the whole world also believed to be true, as something unique to Catholicism is anti-Catholic plain and simple. But it is all you got when the Mormon Church teaches or taught something wrong that is wrong and only believed by a very small hand full of people or only Mormons. Over and over you can’t defend Mormonism with truth.

I believe when Dr. Beckwith was in your position, he returned to the Catholic Church. Of course he is an honest seeker of truth.
 
Lax,

I can (and have in many places) acknowledge there is a position held by officials. I assumed by “official position” you meant something that you feel (or I feel) LDS should assent to as part of our truth claims.
Hi TOm -

Here are other quotes that prove the LDS have always held the BoM happened in New York:

“The great and last battle, in which several hundred thousand Nephites perished was on the hill Cumorah, the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith, the boy about whom I spoke to you the other evening.” (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, **Feb. 11, 1872 **Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, pg. 331)

“Thirty-six years prior to this time his nation was destroyed in in what we term the State of New York, around about a hill, called by that people the Hill of Cumorah, when many hundreds of thousands of the Nephites-men, women and children, fell, during the greatest battle that they had had with the Lamanites.” (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt,** Aug. 25**, 1878 Journal of Discourses Vol. 20, pg. 62)

"It will be, next Thursday night, 54 years since the Prophet Joseph Smith, then but a lad, was permitted by the angel of the Lord to take the gold plates of the Book of Mormon from the hill Cumorah, as it was called in ancient times, located in the State of New York. " (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Sept. 18, 1881 Journal of Discourses Vol. 22, pg. 224)

“Finally, they became so utterly wicked, so fully ripened for destruction, that one branch of the nation, called the Nephites, gathered their entire people around the hill Cumorah, in the State of New York , in Ontario County; and the Lamanites, the opposite army, gathered by millions in the same region. The two nations were four years in gathering their forces, during which no fighting took place; but at the end of that time, having marshalled all their hosts, the fighting commenced, the Lamanites coming upon the Nephites, and destroying all of them, except a very few, who had previously deserted over to the Lamanites.” (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, April 6, 1874 Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, pg. 24)

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his’ son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report,** April 1928**-Morning Session)

“Cumorah, the artificial hill of north America, is well calculated to stand in this generation, as a monument of marvelous works and wonders. Around that mount died millions of the Jaredites; yea, there ended one of the greatest nations of this earth. In that day, her inhabitants spread from sea to sea, and enjoyed national greatness and glory, nearly fifteen hundred years. – That people forsook the Lord and died in wickedness. There, too, fell the Nephites, after they had forgotten the Lord that bought them. There slept the records of age after age, for hundreds of years, even until the time of the Lord.” (The Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Vol.2, No.2, p.221)
“The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient peoples as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York .” (Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith , chapter 14)

"It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Rama. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, “by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all.” Mormon adds: “And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites.”

"It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

“Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history…” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.)
 
"In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation .

“This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites , flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’” (Talk given by President Marion G. Romney in General Conference, October 4, 1975, Ensign Nov. 1975 pg. 35)

Apostle LeGrand Richards, in A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, chapter 7, also stated that Cumorah is in New York.
"Both the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is located between Palmyra and Manchester in the western part of the State of New York.

“Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us a pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah.”(Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 174-175, Bookcraft 1966)

"This time it will have to do with so important a matter as a war of extinction of two peoples, the Nephites and the Jaredites, on the self same battle site, with the same ‘hill’ marking the axis of military movements. By the Nephites this ‘hill’ was called the ‘Hill Cumorah,’ by the Jaredites the ‘Hill Ramah’; it was that same ‘hill,’ in which the Nephite records were deposited by Mormon and Moroni, and from which Joseph Smith obtained the Book of Mormon, therefore the ‘Mormon Hill,’ of today—since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon—near Palmyra, New York. (B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, p.277)
 
Have you read my comments about Bellarmine and Pope Paul V? Would you consider their position the “official” Catholic position in the early 17th century? If not, why not? Would you consider their position something a Catholic should assent to? If not, why not?
No, I have not read your comments regarding Bellarmine and Pope Paul V.

Are you saying that they are on the same level as Joseph Smith and the LDS prophets?
 
Lax,
You declared that the LDS has “had an official position.”
Here is the link where I found the follow up from the letter:
en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Twentieth_century/First_Presidency_Letter
Is this the same man who wrote the letter? He seems to be a very qualified individual.

Elder F. Michael Watson

Elder F. Michael Watson was sustained a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 5, 2008, at age 65. At the time of his call, he was Secretary to the First Presidency. He has served in the Area Presidency of the Africa Southeast Area and is currently serving in the Pacific Area Presidency.

During the years 1966-1969, Elder Watson served his country in the military, one year of which was in the Republic of South Vietnam. He received a bachelor of science degree in business/office administration from Utah State University in 1970. After graduation, he served as the Assistant Secretary to the Quorum of the Twelve and subsequently as Secretary to the Quorum of the Twelve. In 1972, he was called to serve as the Assistant Secretary to the First Presidency. He became the Secretary to the First Presidency in April 1986.

Elder Watson has served in a number of Church callings, including as a full-time missionary in England, branch president, elders quorum president, stake mission president, bishop, stake president, and sealer in the Bountiful Utah Temple.

Frank Michael Watson was born in Spring City, Utah, on March 9, 1943. He married Jolene Mann on September 3, 1965, in the Salt Lake Temple. They are the parents of twelve children.

download
 
Over the last six months, your claims have been shown to be objectively false, and your wish to have them be true does not make them true. Charity required me to try to find your posts in the best light, which lead me to believe you were easily confused by what you have read or were told. Over the last six months, I can’t help believing that you are intentional in your twisting of authors intended meanings, half truths, and invention of ‘facts’ which are not true.
Stephen,
The clarity you see when you say, “your claims have been shown to be objectively false” escapes me.
From about 6months ago
  1. I truly believe that every father who attended the Council of Florence and the Council of Carthage believed and defined that unbaptized infant are in hell. That the idea of hope of the unbaptized infants can be driven through the text of the council decisions does not change the original understanding of every father at the councils. This “hope for unbaptized infants” is theological novum in a church without revelation to CHANGE (only Pelagius taught such a thing and it was explicitly condemned by the Council of Orange- a non-EC).
  2. I truly believe that the TEXT of the Council of Nicea was CHANGED from anathema to part of the faith by later teachings. Unlike Carthage/Florence the original understanding of Nicea was preserved, but the phrase declared anathema is taught today and has been since a little after Nicea.
  3. I do not think there is a good way to embrace #1 and #2 and the infallibility of councils.
  4. I do not think the responses to these mitigate even slightly this problem so I still believe it is huge. (unless the Catholic is willing to reject “the hope for the unbaptized infant,” this problem is bigger than the BOA problem within the CoJCoLDS).
From less than 6 months ago:
  1. I truly believe the person who sits in the “Chair of Peter” like the person who sits in the “Chair of Moses” should be able to “receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church/world.”
  2. I truly believe that Catholics presented Catholicism as if “revelation to be delivered to the entire church/world continued.” After 8 pages or so and the definition of the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia was offered, there was a small change in how this was explained by Catholics.
  3. I believe the explanation of this mitigates somewhat this problem, but the first 8 pages leave me more convinced that Catholics here are defending the faith with arguments that shouldn’t be used and give me more confidence that the earlier 1-4 is just as huge a problem as I think it is.
In this thread:
  1. I truly believe that Bellarmine is correct when he claimed that every ECF believed the Bible taught geocentrism.
  2. I truly believe that Trent taught that the ECF interpretation of scripture is the proper way to interpret scripture.
  3. I truly believe that many Fathers (without any exceptions actually) believed geocentrism concerned faith and morals due to the centrality of Christ’s incarnation.
  4. I believe the “concerning faith and morals” concept mitigates this criticism reasonably well, but only in its impact upon Catholic truth claims.
  5. This means that while Catholicism is not false due to it historical embrace of geocentrism, it is inappropriate for Catholics to suggest LDS should be held to geographic ideas taught by early LDS.
  6. Independent of the Catholic examples that I think are quite parallel, I truly believe that LDS should have no problem believing that early church leaders made geographical and anthropological errors in their understanding of the BOM.
So, I am not sure what exactly in the last 6 months I have said that leads you to believe I am a liar and not a seeker of truth like Dr. Beckwith, but my guess is that you have greater confidence in your responses to things I think are problems than I think is warrented.
Charity, TOm
 
No, I have not read your comments regarding Bellarmine and Pope Paul V.

Are you saying that they are on the same level as Joseph Smith and the LDS prophets?
No. I think Bellarmine and Pope Paul V are different than Joseph Smith and LDS prophets.
I do not think 1830’s or 1880’s or 2015 Mormonism believes that LDS prophets are infallible or likely to receive revelation on all subjects, geography being a subject on which they are relatively less likely to receive revelation.
I do not think 1830’s or 1880’s or 2015 Catholicism believes that the Pope is infallible on the subject of geography/geocentrism. And Catholicism does not believe the Pope or any Catholic can receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church/world at all.

But, I do believe universal Catholic beliefs concerning geocentrism are quite parallel to almost universal LDS believes concerning geography of the BOM. As such, for a Catholic to declare that I am remaking Mormonism if I do not believe in early theories concerning BOM geography is unwarranted.
Charity, TOm

P.S. I think there is a chapter in Pope Fiction on Bellarmine and Paul V and Galileo. I look forward to reading it.
 
Stephen,
The clarity you see when you say, “your claims have been shown to be objectively false” escapes me.
From about 6months ago
  1. I truly believe that every father who attended the Council of Florence and the Council of Carthage believed and defined that unbaptized infant are in hell. That the idea of hope of the unbaptized infants can be driven through the text of the council decisions does not change the original understanding of every father at the councils. This “hope for unbaptized infants” is theological novum in a church without revelation to CHANGE (only Pelagius taught such a thing and it was explicitly condemned by the Council of Orange- a non-EC).
  2. I truly believe that the TEXT of the Council of Nicea was CHANGED from anathema to part of the faith by later teachings. Unlike Carthage/Florence the original understanding of Nicea was preserved, but the phrase declared anathema is taught today and has been since a little after Nicea.
  3. I do not think there is a good way to embrace #1 and #2 and the infallibility of councils.
  4. I do not think the responses to these mitigate even slightly this problem so I still believe it is huge. (unless the Catholic is willing to reject “the hope for the unbaptized infant,” this problem is bigger than the BOA problem within the CoJCoLDS).
From less than 6 months ago:
  1. I truly believe the person who sits in the “Chair of Peter” like the person who sits in the “Chair of Moses” should be able to “receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church/world.”
  2. I truly believe that Catholics presented Catholicism as if “revelation to be delivered to the entire church/world continued.” After 8 pages or so and the definition of the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia was offered, there was a small change in how this was explained by Catholics.
  3. I believe the explanation of this mitigates somewhat this problem, but the first 8 pages leave me more convinced that Catholics here are defending the faith with arguments that shouldn’t be used and give me more confidence that the earlier 1-4 is just as huge a problem as I think it is.
In this thread:
  1. I truly believe that Bellarmine is correct when he claimed that every ECF believed the Bible taught geocentrism.
  2. I truly believe that Trent taught that the ECF interpretation of scripture is the proper way to interpret scripture.
  3. I truly believe that many Fathers (without any exceptions actually) believed geocentrism concerned faith and morals due to the centrality of Christ’s incarnation.
  4. I believe the “concerning faith and morals” concept mitigates this criticism reasonably well, but only in its impact upon Catholic truth claims.
  5. This means that while Catholicism is not false due to it historical embrace of geocentrism, it is inappropriate for Catholics to suggest LDS should be held to geographic ideas taught by early LDS.
  6. Independent of the Catholic examples that I think are quite parallel, I truly believe that LDS should have no problem believing that early church leaders made geographical and anthropological errors in their understanding of the BOM.
So, I am not sure what exactly in the last 6 months I have said that leads you to believe I am a liar and not a seeker of truth like Dr. Beckwith, but my guess is that you have greater confidence in your responses to things I think are problems than I think is warrented
yes, they are all lies. They have all been demonstrated to be such in previous threads. Anti- Catholicism is the heart of Mormonism, so you could not stop yourself from repeating them again. This is why it is clear that you are not confused but dishonest.
 
No. I think Bellarmine and Pope Paul V are different than Joseph Smith and LDS prophets.
I do not think 1830’s or 1880’s or 2015 Mormonism believes that LDS prophets are infallible or likely to receive revelation on all subjects, geography being a subject on which they are relatively less likely to receive revelation.
I do not think 1830’s or 1880’s or 2015 Catholicism believes that the Pope is infallible on the subject of geography/geocentrism. And Catholicism does not believe the Pope or any Catholic can receive revelation to be delivered to the entire church/world at all.

But, I do believe universal Catholic beliefs concerning geocentrism are quite parallel to almost universal LDS believes concerning geography of the BOM. As such, for a Catholic to declare that I am remaking Mormonism if I do not believe in early theories concerning BOM geography is unwarranted.
Charity, TOm

P.S. I think there is a chapter in Pope Fiction on Bellarmine and Paul V and Galileo. I look forward to reading it.
For a second time I’ll ask: what is the purpose of a fallible prophet? Is a fallible prophet really a prophet?
 
Have you read my comments about Bellarmine and Pope Paul V? Would you consider their position the “official” Catholic position in the early 17th century? If not, why not? Would you consider their position something a Catholic should assent to? If not, why not?
  1. You know that a single quote from an individual Catholic, even a Pope, is not necessarily Church teaching.
  2. we know that you cherry pick quotes from Catholics and claim the quote is Church teaching
    Yet you continue to do the same thing over and over.
You know the Antioch school of the thought is not the thinking of the Catholic Church
You know the Antioch school of thought is a reaction to the Alexandrian school of thought which predates it. Yet you ignore that because it proves your claim to be false. Yet you repeat it again and again.

An honest person would not repeat the same dishonest approach over and over again
 
But, I do believe universal Catholic beliefs concerning geocentrism are quite parallel to almost universal LDS believes concerning geography of the BOM. As such, for a Catholic to declare that I am remaking Mormonism if I do not believe in early theories concerning BOM geography is unwarranted.
Apparentely, there are others insisting the Catholic Church taught geocentrism. You don’t want to be a part of something that isn’t true, right?

geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-debunked-2/
P.S. I think there is a chapter in Pope Fiction on Bellarmine and Paul V and Galileo. I look forward to reading it.
Honestly, this is the first I have ever even heard of this topic. I’ll have to check it out in the book as well. Happy reading!
 
TOm - I would like your thoughts on the many quotes I posted from LDS prophets and apostles spanning 163 years of Mormon history, stating that the BoM took place in New York.

Considering the Mormon church has only been around for 185 years, that’s an awfully long time. 😉
 
TOm - I would like your thoughts on the many quotes I posted from LDS prophets and apostles spanning 163 years of Mormon history, stating that the BoM took place in New York.

Considering the Mormon church has only been around for 185 years, that’s an awfully long time. 😉
I think you have made it clear that the Mormon Church clearly taught the final scenes of the Book of Mormon took place in New York. I was surprised how recent one of them took place because my Mormon friend in the 1970’s was excited by discovers in Central American that he felt gave the Book of Mormon validity. Of course anthropologist were already discrediting the claim of Joseph Smith.
 
I think you have made it clear that the Mormon Church clearly taught the final scenes of the Book of Mormon took place in New York. I was surprised how recent one of them took place because my Mormon friend in the 1970’s was excited by discovers in Central American that he felt gave the Book of Mormon validity. Of course anthropologist were already discrediting the claim of Joseph Smith.
Yes, and by President Romney.

This is my favorite:

“Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history…” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.)
 
Yes, and by President Romney.

This is my favorite:

“Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history…” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.)
The book Mormon Doctrine says it too.
It was also Mormon doctrine back when Mormon Doctrine was still Mormon doctrine.
 
I find it insulting as a Latino because I know my history and how it came to be and nowhere had smiths story came into it. My people come from the Spaniards & Aztecs (hence Mexican) and were taught Christianity from the Spaniards!
Not to doubt you, but there were (and still are) a lot more than Aztecs in Mexico. Aztecs were an empire, not a tribe. It would be like me saying I am iroquois and qin dynasty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top