LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[evanfaust]

Evanfaust - I went to the link. What’s the connection?
You said there is much proof. Where?
Can I go to Palmyra NY and see evidence of a great battle?
How about South America (the Mayan ruins area?) and see evidence of swords, coins, and shields?
I love archaelogy and anthropology and would be the first to board a plane to view these archaelogical wonders. According to the book of Mormon, which so greatly details battle, thousands of dead soldiers, etc etc etc. there should be much for a person to see.
You see, the problem with your argument is that we CAN hop a plane to Israel and SEE ancient artifacts, such as coins, pottery, even early churches complete with altar and reference to Jesus Christ.
I await your answer. (Logical only

JMJ4,

I think it is great to find historical and scientific evidences up to a point, but the nature of religion is that it requires faith. It defeats the purpose if we can find proof or evidence of everyting. I am sure that more and more evidence of the Book of Mormon will show up. But for the time being, I would like to quote the eloquent words of an apologist “Jeff Lindsay”. This is his article.

“I can believe the Bible is true because there are many historical confirmations of the text. Why isn’t the same level of confirmation available for the incidents and cities of the Book of Mormon?”

A. You have mentioned the many historical confirmations of the Bible. I’d like to remind you that many, many people reject it because of the apparent lack of historicity in Genesis and elsewhere. Many sincere people ask the following questions and conclude that the Bible is not the Word of God:

"If the Bible is the Word of God - should it not be free from obvious absurdities and gross blunders? Should not scientific respect for the Book increase with time, as truth after truth is confirmed? Why then is the historicity of the creation account and many other stories almost universally rejected by the scientific and academic communities? "

I believe Genesis to be true, but there are puzzling questions: How does the story of Adam and Eve agree with the extensive evidence of fossil man existing long before? How can the creation story fit with what is “known” about the evolution of life over millions of years? Can you show me one objective scientist (not one who is already a believer, “to ensure objectivity”) who can confirm the Genesis account of the Creation? Where was the Garden of Eden? Can you show me any cherubim or a tree of life? Can you show me any historical or anthropological evidence that people used to live hundreds of years? Is there any geological evidence for a global flood? (Can you even show me a single reputable Ph.D. geologist - Christian or otherwise - who can provide evidence for Noah’s flood as described in Genesis?) How could all the millions of animal species possible fit in the ark? Is there any evidence that diverse languages began suddenly at the tower of Babel? (Can you show me any credible linguist who says the tower of Babel account is even close to reasonable?) Is there any evidence that a Hebrew named Joseph ascended to such a high rank in Pharaoh’s court? Has anybody found the place called Goshen where the Hebrews settled in Egypt?

 

[evanfaust]

cont…
And the questions continue past Genesis as well. Is there any historical evidence - outside the Bible - of the ten plagues or the miraculous defeat of Pharaoh’s armies by Moses? How could the earth stop rotating to provide extra daylight for a battle, as described in Joshua? If such a thing happened, shouldn’t there be records of the miracle among other ancient astronomy-conscious peoples?

Most of the Ph.D.-level scholars of the Bible - and many ordinary people - see it as a pretty story, written with a backdrop of real places and even some real events, but largely fiction or myth as far as the miracles and spiritual things are concerned. Sure, there was such and such a battle and many of the places and kings names are real, but they see the Old Testament as an after-the-fact rewriting of events to give spiritual meaning to the political struggles of the Jews. Likewise, many of theses types see the Gospels as rewritings of history to beef up a new religion, a religion that put many words into the mouth of a purely mortal teacher (so runs their argument) who never claimed to be a Messiah. You may be able to prove that someone named Jesus existed, but it is very hard to prove (to Ph.D. scholars) that he said what is written in the Bible or that he did any of the miracles described there. Yet I believe the New Testament account - not because of physical or tangible evidences, but because the power of the Holy Ghost has witnessed to me of the divinity of Christ and the truthfulness of that sacred record.
With the Biblical text, we EXPECT most of the mundane content to be verifiable because no one doubts that it was written by ancient people in the middle east. How could the mundane things not be on target? Ditto for the Koran, the Dao De Jing, I Ching, Bhagavad Gita, the Tibetan scriptures, and Popuhl Voh (my spelling may be off on these). Knowing that the Bible evolved from writings of people in the Mid East does precious little to confirm the far-from-mundane “myths” that are doubted. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon origin poses a different set of rules. The world EXPECTS it to be pure fable, written by an uneducated farm boy in the 1820s. The “mundane” things ought to be wildly wrong - except for perhaps one or two lucky guesses against a steady losing streak of blunders. When we find verifiable mundane items such as numerous

 

[evanfaust]

cont…

Semitic language structures, poetical patterns, “new” Semitic names, geographical and climate information for Mesoamerica, details of the Arabian peninsula, “odd” practices such as the use of metal plates, properly described volcanic activity, properly described ancient battle scenes, etc., these ought to give us thought because they are entirely unexpected and entirely unexplainable if the book is fraudulent.

[There followed some comments on Book of Mormon evidences, such as the geographical information about Nahom and the place called Bountiful on the Arabian peninsula.]
Well, these are some very important pieces of evidence that many will still dismiss. If I asked you to write about a journey across Tasmania or through Bhutan or some other place about which you knew little, could you possibly describe a journey and its course in a way that would gain credibility with time? Is there any chance that you could even describe the general direction in a logical way? Could you pick a route that would later comply with routes used by others in the area? Could you name a site and over a century later have others find a map with a similar name at that place? Could you describe an unusual place that seems entirely out of line with what little you know about the area, only to have others later discover an excellent candidate for that location in a place entirely consistent with the course you describe? To me, this is one of literally hundreds of “mundane” confirmations of the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient document. The only logical explanation for the account of Lehi’s journey is that it was written by people who traveled through the Arabian peninsula, and that means Joseph Smith did not write it. We are talking about a real ancient document that speaks to us from the dust (Isaiah 29) and confirms that Jesus is the Christ.
(Jeff Lindsay)

 

[sablouwho]

Sablouwho,
You’re certainly right that I should have “checked with you first” before trying to interpret what you had written on an earlier post about “liturgy” by putting it into my frame of reference. Thank you sincerely for clarifying that I was incorrect in making that assumption. (It just seemed logical based on the post itself and your earlier personal experience comment. Otherwise, I don’t know what to make of the expression “spiritually nauseous”, but I take it that you weren’t comfortable in a religiously spiritual way at those times. But I still don’t know why, then.)

Thank you Parker, I really appreciate your kind words and understanding. I am sorry if I overreacted.

I realize that “spiritually nauseous” may not be the most descriptive or helpful term to explain how I was feeling. Obviously I still have good relationships with LDS and I don’t feel like anyone tried to “dupe” me into anything. That said, I do feel strongly that I am not “meant” to be LDS.

I think with your honesty and sincerity and forthrightness and charitable heart, that you will be a good “role model” and that it will serve you and others well. All the best to you!

And also to you!

(Hee hee, it sounds like something we say at mass!)

Thank you for your kind words. And for putting up with my “girlie meltdown” upthread.

 

[evanfaust]

Stephen168 quotes Eusebius
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth

Evanfaust responds again…
Paul does not qualify to be an apostle according to Eusebius!

 

[Answersplease]

That’s quite an observation. I never heard anyone make that story up before! I wonder why in this spiritually quickened state that JS wasn’t able to endure the evil one and was in so much despair that he was ready to give himself over to the enemy’s power.

History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1
“I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being”

Why the answer is obvious!

The quickened state comes and goes!

Just joking.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168 quotes Eusebius
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth

Evanfaust responds again…
Paul does not qualify to be an apostle according to Eusebius!

No, Paul was not one of The Twelve according to Peter. The requirements are biblical from Peter, I was not quoting Eusebius. I quoted Eusebius to say “the splendor of the Catholic and one true Church, always remaining the same and unchanged, grew steadily in greatness and strength,” And When Eusebius (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324) refers to an Apostle being replaced, it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as Apostles. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops.

To summarize: The biblical or history evidence shows the position of Apostle to be men send by Christ and The Twelve; which means it was never intended to be an ongoing position; therefore what Joseph Smith made up is not historical or biblical.

 

[Stephen168]

Evanfaust responds again…

But you did not respond showing us the biblical proof of a Melchizedek Priesthood.

We showed you how Christ and the Apostles taught and/or set an example for a celibate clergy, but you have not shown how Christ or the Apostles taught or set an example for a polygamous clergy.

note: clergy=church leaders.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Just a wild guess here but, Mormons think polyandry is ok because when Jesus was talking with the woman at the well (with 5 husbands) he didn’t rebuke her?

hmmm Jesus said something about coming to save not to condemn.

btw she was also living with a man at the time, and not married…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I realize that “spiritually nauseous” may not be the most descriptive or helpful term to explain how I was feeling.

I know that feeling.

 

[rinnie]

Just a wild guess here but, Mormons think polyandry is ok because when Jesus was talking with the woman at the well (with 5 husbands) he didn’t rebuke her?

Ah, I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. Did Jesus not say to her Go, your sins are forgiven. But did he not then say SIN NO MORE?

 

[rinnie]

hmmm Jesus said something about coming to save not to condemn.

btw she was also living with a man at the time, and not married…

Exactly Rebecca, He gave her forgiveness for her sins. And look after that confession and absolution given to her by our Lord what a wonderful follower of Christ she became.

Our Lord never condemned her but he did condemn what she did, do you not agree? Because he forgave her sins, and let her know he knew how many husbands she had, and let her know he did not agree with it. Thats why he forgave her for that sin, but told her she could not go on that way of living. SIn no more. So she repented, confessed, and was forgiven.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Exactly Rebecca, He gave her forgiveness for her sins. And look after that confession and absolution given to her by our Lord what a wonderful follower of Christ she became.

I love that story.

But, mormons have an intentional way of looking scriptures, one that notices the sin and decides that since it is in the Bible, it must be OK…atheists also do this.

 

[rinnie]

But you did not respond showing us the biblical proof of a Melchizedek Priesthood.

We showed you how Christ and the Apostles taught and/or set an example for a celibate clergy, but you have not shown how Christ or the Apostles taught or set an example for a polygamous clergy.

note: clergy=church leaders.

I can I can!!!:extrahappy: He called it Adultery:sad_yes:

 

[rinnie]

See here is the thing. This is one reason that I can say there is no doubt in my Mind that JS was not sent here to lead us away from the CC.

Besides the obvious that It makes Jesus a liar, Here is another thing.

Many of Priests fell from Grace. I will not nor could not deny this. Starting at the time of Jesus. Judas, he fell from Grace. Now was Judas bad from the get go. I don’ t think so, but I cannot judge Judas’s heart. But God could and knew he would be weak and fall from Grace.

But here is the big difference between even Judas and JS. Judas never tried to teach anything that went against the teachings of God. Same as a Priest that fell from Grace, he never led the RCC astray with wrong teachings. Another proof that the CHurch which is indeed Christ will not and cannot fail.

BUt back to Judas even as the Devil entered into Judas and Judas gave into evil and betrayed Jesus, Judas admitted his sin. He went back and said here take the money back, I made a big mistake. He did repent and admit his sin. Now was it too late, sincere, etc. Thats no for me to Judge. Only God. But he still may have betrayed God but he never led the people of God astray with the teachings of the Gospel.

Even Judas never went against ONE teaching Of GOD. And said hey listen follow me, follow my path. He fell from grace, gave into the devil and destroyed himself. But he never tried to bring anyone down with him.

JS not only fell from Grace, he took the word of God and twisted it to fit his teaching. Not The teachings of Christ. While he may have some truth to his teachings, there was too many untruths that like Judas let him destroy himself. Look how his life ended?

 

[sablouwho]

The linchpin of conversion to (and retention in) Mormonism is the Book of Mormon. Mormonism stands or falls on the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Yeah, I am well acquainted with the idea that the BoM is the crux of Mormonism. (Do you imagine that as an LDS investigator for several months that I was ignorant of this belief, with the missionaries constantly encouraging me to read it, LOL!?)

I don’t agree that this is always true, however. Neither does a close LDS friend who happens to be a brilliant psychologist–he’s seen people join that Church for other reasons besides the BoM. He and I have had long conversations about it, but that’s way too much info for me to relay here.

I found it problematic that more than one faith group uses the BoM (even if they don’t all agree whether it is historical). So theoretically, a person could have a testimony of the BoM, yet not choose LDS. They could choose Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) instead. (And yes, I looked into them as well.)

If your testimony of Mormonism is not based on the Book of Mormon, it is unlikely to be very strong, and may not endure very long. That is how one gets converted to Mormonism, not by getting a “good feeling” in Church.

This is probably true in a general sense. But the statement above bears little relevance to my experience investigating the LDS church.

You see, after reading a ton of apologetics, both mainstream Christian that was anti-BoM, as well as LDS apologetics that was pro-BoM, I was willing to read the BoM and at least give it a chance. I read the entire book, took Moroni’s challenge quite seriously, and came away with a sense that it had God’s fingerprints on it. (Though I would not use the words “The BoM is true” because that is just not my style of speaking. Plus I am agnostic on whether it might be true history or something more akin to the “true myths” in the OT.) So, I guess one could say that I “had a testimony of the BoM” (again, that’s not how I talk).

However, this was not enough for me because as I noted above, to me the BoM doesn’t point exclusively to ONE organization. (As an aside, even if the BoM were simply a product of JS’s mind and not inspired in any way–a position that I do not hold–I could see that JS himself could not have predicted that after his death there would be competing faith groups using the BoM.) Second, no matter what I did, no matter how much I “wanted” it, prayed about it, etc, I never had a good feeling about joining the LDS.

So, you see, in my case, the BoM was simply not the linchpin. Because if the highlighted statement were true, I would already be a temple-going Mormon right now, instead of a soon-to-be-Catholic.

And I’m sure I’ve made no friends sharing this here. The Catholics aren’t gonna like my “testimony” of the BoM, but I suspect they will like the fact that I didn’t join the LDS. Whereas, the LDS will like that I saw God’s fingerprints on the BoM, but won’t like nor understand why I got “stuck” at that point and never got wet.

 

[JMJ4]

ParkerD - Thank you for your detailed response! You have explanations that I have never heard of regarding archaelogical objects that are “missing.”
Because this is an area of great interest to me, could you please list your sources? I would love to explore this further.

I appreciate your help!

 

[mfbukowski]

I’m glad you note that 1 Timothy 3 also states that deacons “must” be the husband of one wife. Again, you can’t validly say that Catholic bishops are in violation of scripture because they are unmarried if there are also unmarried Mormon deacons (since generally they are 12 year old males), making them also in violation of the scripture if you’re using the same standard.

Interestingly, some translations say “husband of only one wife” for both translations which gives it a whole new meaning.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD - Thank you for your detailed response! You have explanations that I have never heard of regarding archaelogical objects that are “missing.”
Because this is an area of great interest to me, could you please list your sources? I would love to explore this further.

I appreciate your help!

Hi, JMJ4,
My primary source about the taking of archeological objects by the Europeans during the 1800’s is a biography about the life of John Wesley Powell, who had a great interest in the Ancient American inhabitants and their language, but who it seems didn’t have much interest in the archeological pieces that were being “purloined”. I will need to stop by the library and get the book and look up the pages where that was discussed. It was a very thorough book about his life, but I read it at the library a few weeks ago and didn’t make a note of the name of the book. Powell wanted to assimilate the “Indian” tribal groups into American culture, and was interested in trying to tie all their languages together but never was successful at doing that or having others figure that out. He was a complex character, with a theory about culturalization and the “progress” of humankind which theory he tried to advance during his life.

I’ll get back to you on this.

 

[Xavierlives]

hmmm Jesus said something about coming to save not to condemn.

btw she was also living with a man at the time, and not married…

The sheer fact that Christ mentioned her five husbands was the indictment. The fact that she wasn’t married to any of them only hammers home the point that a woman with two husbands is committing adultery (as well as the men).