LDS and the bible vs BOM

[Horton]

I hope to not post too much more on this, but …
TOm the Lesser:
First, what is the REASON you want me to stick around. You have already acknowledged that I either dazzle with brilliance but merely confuse with B*****. What are you gaining from my presence? What has dazzled you, or has it all be B*****?

TOm the little, but maybe not as little:
I consider the historicity of the BOM to be an important issue, but not a central issue to the gospel.
I consider the NY Cumorah theory to be inconsistent with some things Joseph Smith said and inconsistent with some things said during your 165 year period. That being said, it is the NATURAL assumption and thus it carried the day.
I remember being in a small NM town with my Bishop and the young men. I had been a member for less time than the young men (a point I continually referenced during my time working with them). The Branch president said something that indicated that he held a hemispheric geography model for the BOM. I took my bishop aside and said we simply must correct him. The Bishop was very nice, but he said such was not an important part of the gospel. He never discouraged my learning about this or that and as best I could tell he rejected hemispheric geography theories too, but I learned something that day that I think is not well understood by folks who demand that the BOM live or die based on this or that concept about it.

The hemispheric geography model is inconsistent with the text of the BOM and though a NATURAL enough assumption, it does not fit the text at all.

Many faithful LDS do not die of shock when their preconceptions die. That some do is unfortunate. If you have not read Stages of Faith you should. I read it long before I knew of Dialogue and … To come to grips with aspects of your faith that were not properly understood is natural and sometimes painful. It happens in most or all religions. IMO it happens in all religions worth embracing.
I am quite convinced that virtually all General Authorities in the CoJCoLDS navigated such death of preconceptions without significant risk to their faith. I suspect my navigation was worse than some of theirs, but better than many of my fellow LDS. It is sometimes hard for me to see the shattering of faith experienced by folks when such things were either never believed by me or far more easily navigated.
But, while I doubt the CoJCoLDS is going officially claim there is no use looking in the NY hill, I think most LDS who have considered this have been looking in Mesoamerica for decades. I think what has been found is hard to explain via “Joseph Smith made it up.” (though I have not tried to separate the Old World BOM evidence from the New World evidence so it might be better to say that the sum of evidence IMO is incredibly hard to explain via “Joseph Smith made it up.”).
So for my part, I still emphasize the historicity of the BOM. I just find Sorenson’s geography of the new world to be compelling. And I find Old World geography in the BOM to be beyond explanation via natural means. I would not be a fan of erasing the past understanding of the BOM by LDS leaders flawed though it is. Such would be a mistake IMO. Instead it should be used to prevent the “shock” of which you speak.
Back to TOm the lesser:
I do not know what LDS you regularly talk with. I suspect they would be put off to know that they either dazzle with brilliance or confuse with B*****.
In addition to my question above, let me ask you this. Clearly to be a LDS is to be worthy of ridicule. Do you not also think that most non-Catholics ridicule the Catholic faith like the CoJCoLDS is ridiculed here? If not, why not?
Charity, TOm

We Catholics know we are ridiculed on a regular basis. However, the difference between how a Catholic and how LDS deal with ridicule is different. We, Catholics, know our faith is true and are not to terribly concerned about what “everyone” thinks of us. The LDS want to pull the victim card and go on the attack when ridiculed for their beliefs. I’ve seen it time & time again, on here and IRL. You think Catholics are wrong - OK. I think the LDS is false - attack and try to force your beliefs on me. Either way I will still pray for all who are unable or unwilling to pray for themselves.
Christ’s Peace

 

[Stephen168]

We Catholics know we are ridiculed on a regular basis. However, the difference between how a Catholic and how LDS deal with ridicule is different. We, Catholics, know our faith is true and are not to terribly concerned about what “everyone” thinks of us. The LDS want to pull the victim card and go on the attack when ridiculed for their beliefs. I’ve seen it time & time again, on here and IRL. You think Catholics are wrong - OK. I think the LDS is false - attack and try to force your beliefs on me. Either way I will still pray for all who are unable or unwilling to pray for themselves.
Christ’s Peace

The main difference I see is that the Catholic Church is supported by reason and history, AND it doesn’t require another religion to be false so it can be true.

 

[Alma147]

I believe the Greek used in the Septuagint was not exactly the same as the Greek that was used at the time the Gospels were written. Someone that knows Greek can correct me if I’m wrong about that, but I think I remember reading about it, at some point. Also, the Jews didn’t always write everything down, and neither did the Apostles. Much of their teaching was done by word of mouth, because most people at that time (at least among the poor) were completely uneducated, and could not read. This was all part of Jewish Tradition that the Apostles also used (because they were all Jewish), as the best way of teaching the uneducated masses. The Apostles didn’t have any of the “Gospels”, as we know them, to teach from when they were sent out by Jesus, because they didn’t exist until much later. They were finally written down when it became clear to all of them, that they had to make sure everyone taught the same things, so the people would be less likely to be taught things that were incorrect. They certainly didn’t have a complete “Bible” to read for many years beyond that point.

The narrative was in a more common Greek than that of the Septuagint–except when they quoted the Old Testament–then, about half the time they quoted it verbatim.

Lets look at them:
“Psalm 2:[9] Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and shalt break them in pieces like a potter’ s vessel.”
and:
Apocalypse 2:[27] And he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and as the vessel of a potter they shall be broken
I’m sorry, but your point escapes me. They are very nearly identical. The only difference is that one says “Thou” and the other says “he”. One (the Psalm) seems to be referring to Jesus, Himself, and the other (the Apocalypse) refers to one who follows Him. At least, that’s how I see it, by reading it in context with the rest of both passages. What difference do you see in the two, or are you just nitpicking them based on their not being exactly, word for word?

The problem is you’re comparing the two versions using an OT citation based on the Septuagint. The Hebrew has the verb רעע “raw-a” meaning “to break.” The translator of the Septuagint mis-read the word for רדה “raw-daw” meaning to rule. The actual word was “break” rather than “rule.”

If you’ll compare the two verses using a Psalm taken from the Hebrew, you’ll see there are two different verbs and the NT is based on a mistranslation.

AA

 

[Horton]

The main difference I see is that the Catholic Church is supported by reason and history, AND it doesn’t require another religion to be false so it can be true.

There is this too^^^^^^^

 

[TOmNossor]

The main difference I see is that the Catholic Church is supported by reason and history, AND it doesn’t require another religion to be false so it can be true.

Well, not really, Judaism cannot be true and Catholicism be true. The Jews were quite clear that the Messiah would not be a “suffering servant” (not because they could not read Isaiah, but because Isaiah doesn’t seem to be referring to some future Messiah in the minds of all non-Christian and many/most Christian Old Testament scholars) That the Jews do not as a rule engage in religious discussions might make you THINK this, but some do so engage.
Why the Jews Rejected Jesus
So, as I am wont to do, let me say your main difference is not really difference, but a product of your myopia.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

I hope to not post too much more on this, but …
TOm the Lesser:
First, what is the REASON you want me to stick around. You have already acknowledged that I either dazzle with brilliance but merely confuse with B*****. What are you gaining from my presence? What has dazzled you, or has it all be B*****?

Hi TOm - This was not directed at you but at the Mormon missionaries that came to our house and caused us so much trouble in our neighborhood we had to move. We hosted them several times over the course of a couple of weeks, even inviting them to dinner, and would discuss early Church history.

I refused to allow them to bait me into conversations about my “real feelings towards Joseph Smith” and “don’t you want your family to all be together in heaven one day”. We kept it friendly and focused mainly on the Great Apostasy.

One of the missionaries was a real jerk, anger management issues, and was very snarky in his responses to us. The other one was a nice kid who confessed to being homesick and anxious to go home.

At the end of our meetings, I wished the kids farewell and let them know if they ever needed anything we were there.

The next day, our neighbors no longer waved to us. Our kids no longer had playmates in the neighborhood. Our sons had rocks thrown at them and were called f*gs.

We were later told that the missionaries must have reported that we were not friends of the church and had an “X” put on our house.

Within a week, a for sale sign was up in our yard and we moved out within a couple of months. We moved into another neighborhood where we were told by our realtor we would be left alone.

Within the first month of living in this home, our LDS neighbors invited us over for a bbq and pool party. The husband told me that even though we were Catholic it was okay as long as I remembered “That we rule the roost around here.”

That, my friend TOm, is just two of the many stories I have regarding Mormons lying about me and my family, the rude missionary who was so exasperated by the fact that we weren’t bowing down to his knowledge and kept “interrupting his talk,” and that we will get along just fine in our neighborhood if we know who rules the roost.

Sorry if you thought I meant it towards you.

I apologize as it does look that way but believe me, it was Elder **** that I was thinking about. btw - we had just built our home that we moved out of.

 

[Jerusha]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

Further,

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
843 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."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

 

[Stephen168]

Well, not really, Judaism cannot be true and Catholicism be true. The Jews were quite clear that the Messiah would not be a “suffering servant” (not because they could not read Isaiah, but because Isaiah doesn’t seem to be referring to some future Messiah in the minds of all non-Christian and many/most Christian Old Testament scholars) That the Jews do not as a rule engage in religious discussions might make you THINK this, but some do so engage.
Why the Jews Rejected Jesus
So, as I am wont to do, let me say your main difference is not really difference, but a product of your myopia.

The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that Judaism failed and Christ restored the failed Church.
The Catholic Church was started by God, the incarnation as a matter of historical fact.
Mormons demand a failed Christianity, a failed Christian Church. It was invented by a guy 1800 years after Christ and he made many claims (revelations) which have been proven false.
That is why we see Mormons unable to defend their religion but must make up stuff to assault Christianity. Catholics don’t have to do that, we just have to defend the Church from the assault.

At times Mormons are so bent on assaulting Christianity, they “shoot themselves in the foot” by assaulting Jesus Christ himself, like you just did, or even the Bible to try and save the Book of Mormon. This from people who claim to be Christian and restoring a Church founded by Christ. We don’t have to resort to such nonsense because we have history and reason on our side.

 

[lax16]

TOm the little, but maybe not as little:
I consider the historicity of the BOM to be an important issue, but not a central issue to the gospel.

The issue is that the prophets and apostles of your church claimed it to be true. Now they don’t.

I consider the NY Cumorah theory to be inconsistent with some things Joseph Smith said and inconsistent with some things said during your 165 year period. That being said, it is the NATURAL assumption and thus it carried the day.

Please give examples of these inconsistencies.

I remember being in a small NM town with my Bishop and the young men. I had been a member for less time than the young men (a point I continually referenced during my time working with them). The Branch president said something that indicated that he held a hemispheric geography model for the BOM. I took my bishop aside and said we simply must correct him. The Bishop was very nice, but he said such was not an important part of the gospel. He never discouraged my learning about this or that and as best I could tell he rejected hemispheric geography theories too, but I learned something that day that I think is not well understood by folks who demand that the BOM live or die based on this or that concept about it.

I do not focus on what church members say, but on what the church teaches. Catholic or Mormon.

The hemispheric geography model is inconsistent with the text of the BOM and though a NATURAL enough assumption, it does not fit the text at all.

So Joseph Smith didn’t know where the BoM took place after all?

Many faithful LDS do not die of shock when their preconceptions die. That some do is unfortunate. If you have not read Stages of Faith you should. I read it long before I knew of Dialogue and … To come to grips with aspects of your faith that were not properly understood is natural and sometimes painful. It happens in most or all religions. IMO it happens in all religions worth embracing.

As a Catholic, I don’t find that necessary.

I am quite convinced that virtually all General Authorities in the CoJCoLDS navigated such death of preconceptions without significant risk to their faith. I suspect my navigation was worse than some of theirs, but better than many of my fellow LDS. It is sometimes hard for me to see the shattering of faith experienced by folks when such things were either never believed by me or far more easily navigated.

They have navigated the death of many things essential to Mormonism. That tells me they are in it for the social aspects and not the theological aspects of Mormonism.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Well, not really, Judaism cannot be true and Catholicism be true.

Judaism before Jesus was the true faith. Jesus came and fulfilled and completed Judaism. Surely you know that.

Those Jews (many thousands of them) who recognized Jesus as the promised messiah, continued to what was the logical conclusion of their cherished faith. They also brought many gentiles into the Church.

This Church, established by Jesus and grown by the apostles (those 12 special Jewish witnesses to the resurrection) and their successors the bishops, subsists today in the Catholic Church.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[RebeccaJ]

The narrative was in a more common Greek than that of the Septuagint–except when they quoted the Old Testament–then, about half the time they quoted it verbatim.

The problem is you’re comparing the two versions using an OT citation based on the Septuagint. The Hebrew has the verb רעע “raw-a” meaning “to break.” The translator of the Septuagint mis-read the word for רדה “raw-daw” meaning to rule. The actual word was “break” rather than “rule.”

If you’ll compare the two verses using a Psalm taken from the Hebrew, you’ll see there are two different verbs and the NT is based on a mistranslation.

AA

It isn’t so literal as that.

biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/psalms/2.htm

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

(9) Thou shalt break.—**The LXX. translated, “thou shalt pasture them,” **understanding by the rod (Heb., shevet), as in Leviticus 27:32, a shepherd’s crook. (Comp. Ezekiel 20:37; Micah 7:14.) Elsewhere the rod is a sceptre (Psalm 125:3); in Proverbs 22:15 it is a rod of correction. The use to be made of it—to dash the nations in pieces, as one breaks a potter’s vessel—points to the latter of these significations here.

“Then shalt thou bring full lo

With iron sceptre bruised, and them disperse

Like to a potter’s vessel shivered so.” (Milton’s trans.)

Rule or break, either one conveys, to correct.

 

[Telstar]

Well, not really, Judaism cannot be true and Catholicism be true.

I completely disagree with your charge that Judaism cannot be true at the same time that Catholicism is true. (at least, that’s what I think you’re saying). Where in the world would you ever get that kind of an idea? What do you base your assumption on? I hope it’s not based on the following sentence…

The Jews were quite clear that the Messiah would not be a “suffering servant” (not because they could not read Isaiah, but because Isaiah doesn’t seem to be referring to some future Messiah in the minds of all non-Christian and many/most Christian Old Testament scholars)

Either you need to put some important punctuation into your writing, or break it up into smaller sentences that make better sense. Or, I just need a Mormon to English translator. The only part that is clear, is up to the words “suffering servant”. Everything after that just make my head hurt.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, not really, Judaism cannot be true and Catholicism be true. The Jews were quite clear that the Messiah would not be a “suffering servant” (not because they could not read Isaiah, but because Isaiah doesn’t seem to be referring to some future Messiah in the minds of all non-Christian and many/most Christian Old Testament scholars) That the Jews do not as a rule engage in religious discussions might make you THINK this, but some do so engage.
Why the Jews Rejected Jesus
So, as I am wont to do, let me say your main difference is not really difference, but a product of your myopia.
Charity, TOm

Both Jews and Christians understand the suffering servant in Isaiah is Israel. Christians see an additional multifaceted meaning, in light of Jesus Christ, who is prefigured in Israel.

Judaism, remains true to the God of Abraham, and the Abrahamic Covenant is still in place. Jesus did not make the Chosen People of God, un-chosen. He broadened the People of God to include everyone, both Jew and Gentile. In and through Him. Judaism rejects Christ, but God has not rejected His People.

 

[Stephen168]

May not be his writing style but it is LDS to the core. When you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, confuse them with B*****. TOm and many others seem to think that the more words they use, the more we will suddenly change our beliefs. This is something I’ve ran into many times living in mormon country.

You have already acknowledged that I either dazzle with brilliance but merely confuse with B*****.

I do not know what LDS you regularly talk with. I suspect they would be put off to know that they either dazzle with brilliance or confuse with B*****.

Tom, you changed the meaning of the saying. The saying is used when someone is not able to dazzle with brilliance but only able to baffle with BS. For example when asked to explain the purpose of a fallible prophet you give us post #477; a few hundred words that don’t answer the question. On another thread a Mormon is asked how they know it is the Holy Ghost talking to them and after hundreds of words and many posts there is not answer; just words. Also when asked how do you know if the Mormon Prophet is giving revelation or just opinion, we got lots of words with no answer.

 

[Horton]

Tom, you changed the meaning of the saying. The saying is used when someone is not able to dazzle with brilliance but only able to baffle with BS. For example when asked to explain the purpose of a fallible prophet you give us post #477; a few hundred words that don’t answer the question. On another thread a Mormon is asked how they know it is the Holy Ghost talking to them and after hundreds of words and many posts there is not answer; just words. Also when asked how do you know if the Mormon Prophet is giving revelation or just opinion, we got lots of words with no answer.

Tom’s last several post are perfect examples. Twist everything up and use several hundred words to do.

Thanks Stephen, I couldn’t remember the word baffle so used the word confuse.

 

[XuDan]

Tom’s last several post are perfect examples. Twist everything up and use several hundred words to do.

Thanks Stephen, I couldn’t remember the word baffle so used the word confuse.

I also find the terms bombastic or turgid to be quite appropriate to describe many of the justifications and proposed explanations coming out of LDS apologists. It is so common. You can see at least one example every Sunday at the LDS at least one of the three speakers is going to prattle on to fill up the assigned Time that they were given for their talk. You end up, confused, missing the point, and with only 1 or 2 minutes (out of 15 or more) that has any meaning at all.

 

[Stephen168]

Tom’s last several post are perfect examples. Twist everything up and use several hundred words to do.

Thanks Stephen, I couldn’t remember the word baffle so used the word confuse.

I see baffling as incoherent words strung together that mean nothing. When a Mormon says their “prophet is reliable yet unreliable,” it is baffling; meaningless. As we would say in the military to mock a baffler, “left right rudder, all ahead aft.”

Maybe it is because of my familiarity with the Galileo Affair, what I’ve seen on this thread is deception. Mostly by trying to turn it into an anachronism. If you can get people to accept the anachronism, you can then make statements and ask questions that seem honest but are not. I think it was mostly intentional, but there are so many anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, maybe a Mormon would not be aware of what they were doing.

 

[XuDan]

Maybe it is because of my familiarity with the Galileo Affair, what I’ve seen on this thread is deception. Mostly by trying to turn it into an anachronism. If you can get people to accept the anachronism, you can then make statements and ask questions that seem honest but are not. I think it was mostly intentional, but there are so many anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, maybe a Mormon would not be aware of what they were doing.

I’m fairly certain that most are completely unaware.

 

[TOmNossor]

So Joseph Smith didn’t know where the BoM took place after all?

He absolutely did not know. I have said a number of times that the BOM is an INTERNALLY consistent book with many travels between cities and geographic features. The author of the BOM had a limited geography in mind when he wrote it. Joseph Smith had no consistent geography in mind when he spoke about BOM geography. My conclusion is that he was not the author.

As a Catholic, I don’t find that necessary.

Were you a “cradle Catholic?” I probably should know, but I cannot remember. I as a cradle Catholic would have had to leave behind assumptions that I had when I was younger. I do not know how I would have dealt with these assumptions had I been more knowledgeable about what I had when I was Catholic (the assumptions being assumptions common to my properly catechized peers and I, not things I possessed because I was in a very liberal parish). My departure IMO was largely due to the fact that the wonderful nice Catholic Priest in my parish wanted to have a “Catholic Community.” He did not emphasize the important strengths of the Catholic Church so I LIGHTLY left them behind and began looking around for a place to worship God.

They have navigated the death of many things essential to Mormonism. That tells me they are in it for the social aspects and not the theological aspects of Mormonism.

I am only the world authority on TOm. The relatively minor navigation I have gone through has everything to do with truth and little or nothing to do with “social aspects.” As I told you elsewhere, being a LDS in NM is different than being a LDS in Utah. Also, I of course think they have navigated the death of NOTHING essential to Mormonism.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

He absolutely did not know. I have said a number of times that the BOM is an INTERNALLY consistent book with many travels between cities and geographic features. The author of the BOM had a limited geography in mind when he wrote it. Joseph Smith had no consistent geography in mind when he spoke about BOM geography. My conclusion is that he was not the author.

Who is the author of the Book of Mormon?

Were you a “cradle Catholic?” I probably should know, but I cannot remember. I as a cradle Catholic would have had to leave behind assumptions that I had when I was younger. I do not know how I would have dealt with these assumptions had I been more knowledgeable about what I had when I was Catholic (the assumptions being assumptions common to my properly catechized peers and I, not things I possessed because I was in a very liberal parish). My departure IMO was largely due to the fact that the wonderful nice Catholic Priest in my parish wanted to have a “Catholic Community.” He did not emphasize the important strengths of the Catholic Church so I LIGHTLY left them behind and began looking around for a place to worship God.

TOm, you used to be a Catholic? But only belonged to one parish?

I am only the world authority on TOm. The relatively minor navigation I have gone through has everything to do with truth and little or nothing to do with “social aspects.” As I told you elsewhere, being a LDS in NM is different than being a LDS in Utah. Also, I of course think they have navigated the death of NOTHING essential to Mormonism.
Charity, TOm

Very true, you are your own authority. I have known many Mormons who have admitted they are in it for family, not for theology, but you may know differently.
Admitting JS was a polygamist was a huge death to the idea that he was a devoted husband to Emma alone. Admitting he doesn’t know where the BoM took place, along with numerous other apostles and presidents, is a huge death of the idea that they are seers and revelators.
I could go on, but the bottom line that is how many see the Mormon church.