Mormons; when and why did Jesus come to America?

[lax16]

Yes, all of those questions are answered in the Book of Mormon, and more!

zerinus - several questions from the Introduction to the Book of Mormon.

1. Was Mormon a man or supernatural/divine?
2. Did he have a wife?
3. Was his son, Moroni, a man or supernatural/divine?
4. Moroni was given the plates to hide on the hill Cumorah. He (the same Moroni) later appeared to Joseph Smith, and Moroni was then a resurrected and glorified being. Did he die after being given the plates and before appearing to Joseph Smith? Are there other accounts of beings being resurrected and glorified other than Moroni and of course Jesus Christ? What is the difference between the glory and resurrection of Jesus Christ and Moroni?
5. Are all tribes of all of the Americas descendants of the “principal ancestors” the Lamanites? Such as the Cherokee, Mayan, Navajo, Aztec, etc.
6. Archaelogists state that Mesoamerican history emerged in 2000 b.c. How could the Lamanites be the “principal ancestors” if they arrived 1400 years after the emergence of the people of Mesoamerica?
7. The Book of Mormon states “The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 b.c., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babylon. This group is known as the Jaredites. After THOUSANDS OF YEARS, (emphasis mine) all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”
   Please explain the timeline:
   600 b.c. + thousands of years = has not happened yet

 

[fkjuliano]

I cannot deny the cleverness of Joseph Smith. By claiming that Jesus and the ancient Hebrews came to America, he appeals to the pride Americans feel for their country: “Well, that makes sense. Why would Jesus spend all his time in some little country in the Middle East? America has a special place in God’s plan, so of course he would have come here.” Smith was surely aware that many would find the idea ridiculous, especially in the total and complete absence of any archeological, linguistic or racial presence of ancient Hebrews on the American continent, whereas the Hebrews of Israel, at least as ancient as their imaginary counterparts in the New World, have left mountains of evidence of their existence. But all that was no matter: Smith knew he could convince more than enough ignorant and gullible people, and he is still doing it. Some are participating in this very thread!

Broad indeed is the road to destruction, and it runs right through Salt Lake City!

 

[zerinus]

zerinus - several questions from the Introduction to the Book of Mormon.

Fire on! Glad to be of assistance.

1. Was Mormon a man or supernatural/divine?

Mormon was a man, and a prophet of the Book of Mormon people in their time.

1. Did he have a wife?

Yes he did.

1. Was his son, Moroni, a man or supernatural/divine?

He was also a man, and a prophet in his time like his father had been.

1. Moroni was given the plates to hide on the hill Cumorah. He (the same Moroni) later appeared to Joseph Smith, and Moroni was then a resurrected and glorified being. Did he die after being given the plates and before appearing to Joseph Smith?

Moroni had been a prophet of the Book of Mormon people who had lived around 400 AD. He was responsible for completing the abridgment of the Book of Mormon commenced by his father Mormon, and burying in the hill Cumorah as commanded by the Lord, before his death. He appeared to Joseph Smith as a resurrected being and an angel to instruct him about his mission to translate the book by the gift and power of God, and show him where to find it.

Are there other accounts of beings being resurrected and glorified other than Moroni and of course Jesus Christ?

Yes; the scriptures tell us that after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, other ancient saints were resurrected. Here is a quote:

Matthew 27:

50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

What is the difference between the glory and resurrection of Jesus Christ and Moroni?

The nature of the resurrection is the same. All are resurrected with the same bodies that they died with, as Jesus was. We also know that some will inherit a greater glory than others. But what the difference is between his resurrected “glory” and that of Jesus, I have no idea.

1. Are all tribes of all of the Americas descendants of the “principal ancestors” the Lamanites? Such as the Cherokee, Mayan, Navajo, Aztec, etc.

It is assumed that that is the case, although nothing is known for certain.

1. Archaelogists state that Mesoamerican history emerged in 2000 b.c. How could the Lamanites be the “principal ancestors” if they arrived 1400 years after the emergence of the people of Mesoamerica?

From my point of view religion is a matter of faith, and scientific or archaeological evidence does not come into it. If you intend to go down that rout, I am not terribly interested in the discussion.

1. The Book of Mormon states “The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 b.c., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babylon. This group is known as the Jaredites. After THOUSANDS OF YEARS, (emphasis mine) all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”
   Please explain the timeline:
   600 b.c. + thousands of years = has not happened yet

You put the timeline where you like. The Jaredite people emigrated to the American continent at the time the Lord “confounded the language of the people,” as recorded in the book of Genesis (11:7-9). They were destroyed shortly before Lehi and his family emigrated around 600 BC. So I don’t care where you put the timeline as long as this order of events is observed.

By the way, you are asking too many questions already before you have even read the Book of Mormon! When you have read all of it, many of your questions will have been answered, and then you will be able to focus on more significant questions.

 

[lax16]

Fire on! Glad to be of assistance.

Okay, thank you.

Mormon was a man, and a prophet of the Book of Mormon people in their time.

What other proof is there that he existed?

Yes he did.

Who was she? Did she live among “the Book of Mormon people”?

He was also a man, and a prophet in his time like his father had been.

So “the Book of Mormon people” would have written about them, told stories about them, drawn pictures of them…? Native Americans are really big on oral tradition…

Moroni had been a prophet of the Book of Mormon people who had lived around 400 AD. He was responsible for completing the abridgment of the Book of Mormon commenced by his father Mormon, and burying in the hill Cumorah as commanded by the Lord, before his death. He appeared to Joseph Smith as a resurrected being and an angel to instruct him about his mission to translate the book by the gift and power of God, and show him where to find it.

So Mormon and Moroni lived among the Book of Mormon people?

Yes; the scriptures tell us that after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, other ancient saints were resurrected. Here is a quote:

Matthew 27:

50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

You believe this scripture is talking about Moroni? It doesn’t say that those who rose from their graves were resurrected with glorified bodies. Are you now saying that Moroni was an ancient saint?

The nature of the resurrection is the same. All are resurrected with the same bodies that they died with, as Jesus was. We also know that some will inherit a greater glory than others. But what the difference is between his resurrected “glory” and that of Jesus, I have no idea.

How do you know this?

It is assumed that that is the case, although nothing is known for certain.

Yes we do know. DNA has shown that Native Americans are not related to the Israelites. As I assume by saying this you will tell me that if I insist on believing DNA then you will not continue in this discussion, I have a question for you. If you don’t believe in DNA, tell me why. Also, in a court of law, if you were on a jury, would you admit to not believing in DNA if presented in a criminal case?

From my point of view religion is a matter of faith, and scientific or archaeological evidence does not come into it. If you intend to go down that rout, I am not terribly interested in the discussion.

Why wouldn’t I want to look at the archaeological evidence of a people that lived for thousands of years and had great battles? I can’t imagine reading anything about history without putting it into context. Besides, if it the “most correct book on earth” then it should be easy to discuss the timeline because it should be correct.

You put the timeline where you like. The Jaredite people emigrated to the American continent at the time the Lord “confounded the language of the people,” as recorded in the book of Genesis (11:7-9). They were destroyed shortly before Lehi and his family emigrated around 600 BC. So I don’t care where you put the timeline as long as this order of events is observed.

I didn’t write the Book of Mormon, as you know, so I am not the one putting the timeline where I would LIKE. It is in the introduction.

By the way, you are asking too many questions already before you have even read the Book of Mormon! When you have read all of it, many of your questions will have been answered, and then you will be able to focus on more significant questions.

As you must have noticed from my prior posts on various threads, I ask tons of questions! But the problem is, questions shouldn’t be a roadblock. I discussed the introduction with my family and the questions come from several people (all history buffs) not just me.

btw - My son referenced “The Fall of Empires: From Glory to Ruin, an Epic Account of History’s Ancient Civilization” by Cormac O’Brien when asking about the people of the Mesoamerica time period and how it fits into the BoM timeline.

 

[Dominic_Korozya]

Do you mean the Book of Mormon? That is not scripture any more than the Koran. Wake up! Joseph Smith was a confidence man who wanted power, money and multiple wives, so he wrote a self-serving tract to support his claims, including a lot of plagiarism from the Book of Isiah. The idea of an angel coming to him and revealing a holy book he probably stole right from the Muslims. Come to think of it, that is where he got polygamy too.

I was refering to the bible as their biblical back up, not the Book of Mormon.

 

[lax16]

zerinus -

Another question re: Moroni. You said he was a man and a prophet, but isn’t he also an angel? I know I have heard people refer to him as the angel Moroni and on the top of the LDS temples I believe he looks like an angel.

If he is an angel, could you please explain LDS teachings on men becoming angels?

Thanks!

 

[TOmNossor]

zerinus:
Great to see you around Tom. Long time no see!
I am sure you are right about the Book of Mormon. I am sure God had had that book in mind as part of His plan of Restoration from the beginning. However, the reason that the Lord gave for His visit to the Nephites (and to other tribes of Israel) was that it was in fulfillment of the covenant He made with their Fathers.
The Nephites were not the only group of Israelites that God had led out of their homeland to distant lands where they had developed their own indigenous communities. There were many others, and Jesus went to visit them all, because they were of the house of Israel, and in fulfillment of the covenant of their fathers, as recorded in the Book of Mormon: .
I like to be around; I just have little time. Thanks for the welcome back.
I was wondering why fkjuliano had not responded to me, but it seems the only record of my post is your reply.
I guess I do not know what rules I violated. I thought my recommendation to learn about Catholicism from anti-Catholics (even though I knew of few LDS who peddled the type of material fkjuliano recommended) was a good way of showing how unprofitable fkjuliano’s recommendation was. Perhaps not, but that was my point.
I really like your pointing to the scattering of Israel for Christ’s visit to the Americas. To me it lends context and helps LDS understand the BOM better. As evidenced by my response to fkjuliano, I often look at these questions as if they are coming from extreme skepticism (you know the type of skepticism that would easily dismantle Catholic, Christian, and … truth claims).
Sometimes it is not immediately clear how the illumination of the BOM by placing it in 600BC Jerusalem AND Mesoamerica is powerful evidence that the BOM is what it claims rather than being a 19th century creation. This as I understand it is one of the tools of ethnohistory used by Brant Gardner when he is trying to 1. Understand the BOM & 2. Make a case for the literal where and when of the BOM. And it is one of the tools of ethnohistory uses when trying to determine if any document might belong in any particular culture.
Anyway, I hope to look around for a while.
Charity, TOm

 

[zerinus]

zerinus -

Another question re: Moroni. You said he was a man and a prophet, but isn’t he also an angel? I know I have heard people refer to him as the angel Moroni and on the top of the LDS temples I believe he looks like an angel.

If he is an angel, could you please explain LDS teachings on men becoming angels?

Thanks!

We believe that “angels” are righteous men (prophets or saints) who have died, and are now in heaven (either as resurrected beings, or in the spirit world awaiting a resurrection), who are in a position to act as ministering servants for the Lord. Moroni was one of those. Mormons, unlike traditional Christians, do not believe in a special “angelic race” apart from humans. Angels and humans are of the same “race”.

 

[Jay53]

We believe that “angels” are righteous men (prophets or saints) who have died, and are now in heaven (either as resurrected beings, or in the spirit world awaiting a resurrection), who are in a position to act as ministering servants for the Lord. Moroni was one of those. Mormons, unlike traditional Christians, do not believe in a special “angelic race” apart from humans. Angels and humans are of the same “race”.

From what Parker explained in another discussion, the angels would be righteous men who were not married, did not believe in the resurrection or did not believe in eternal marriage. I believe he quoted Matthew 22:30 or Mark 12:25 in support of this. Is this consistent with what Mormons believe about Moroni? (i.e. he was not married/did not believe in the resurrection/did not believe in eternal marriage?)

 

[zerinus]

From what Parker explained in another discussion, the angels would be righteous men who were not married, did not believe in the resurrection or did not believe in eternal marriage. I believe he quoted Matthew 22:30 or Mark 12:25 in support of this. Is this consistent with what Mormons believe about Moroni? (i.e. he was not married/did not believe in the resurrection/did not believe in eternal marriage?)

I did not follow that exchange; but I can see how that misunderstanding could have arisen. In all languages, words often do not have precise meanings; there are different shades and nuances depending on the context in which a word occurs. Keeping it short and simple, the answer is yes. Moroni was married and did believe in the resurrection and in eternal marriage etc., and was an angel and acted as a ministering servant of the Lord to visit Joseph Smith and instruct him about the Restoration and the translation of the Book of Mormon.

 

[Jay53]

I did not follow that exchange; but I can see how that misunderstanding could have arisen. In all languages, words often do not have precise meanings; there are different shades and nuances depending on the context in which a word occurs. Keeping it short and simple, the answer is yes. Moroni was married and did believe in the resurrection and in eternal marriage etc., and was an angel and acted as a ministering servant of the Lord to visit Joseph Smith and instruct him about the Restoration and the translation of the Book of Mormon.

OK. I think the discussion was just about marriage/eternal marriage. Parker was explaining how Jesus’ words in the Gospel referred only to the Sadduccees who did not believe in the Resurrection and so would be as the angels in Heaven. I think that is where my confusion came from.

Just to clarify your point, then - those in the celestial kingdom who have been exalted and are in an eternal marriage are also angels? Or am I confusing two different issues?

 

[dianaiad]

If the Mormon god was a man on another planet, then he did not create the universe because it had already been created when he was born on that planet. Therefore, the Mormon god did not create the universe. But since Mormons still worship this god who did not create the universe, then they worship a false god because the One True God is the Creator.
It is simple logic.

Only if you make unsound and illogical assumptions, which you have. First, you MUST accept the fact that WE say we believe that God created the universe. All of it. Every speck. Everything we see, or astronomers see, or has ever existed back to the Big Bang or that singularity that erupted in the Big Bang. We believe that. I doesn’t matter what YOU want to claim we believe, that’s what we believe…and He’s the One Who created it, and there aren’t any others besides Him…that is, God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost; the godhead. That’s it.

That is the principle assumption from which you MUST extrapolate any other belief you attribute to us, and into which you must reconcile any belief you want to think we have.

…and we get to tell you what they are. You don’t get to tell us.

Diana, official Mormon Curmudgeon.

 

[dianaiad]

zerinus -

Another question re: Moroni. You said he was a man and a prophet, but isn’t he also an angel? I know I have heard people refer to him as the angel Moroni and on the top of the LDS temples I believe he looks like an angel.

If he is an angel, could you please explain LDS teachings on men becoming angels?

Thanks!

Unlike many other Christian belief systems, we believe that “Angel” is a job description, not a species classification. If God sends a resurrected being (like Moroni) to tell someone something, he is an angel–because he is relaying that message. Angels can be the spirits of men before their physical birth (remember, we do believe in a ‘pre-existance’) or a resurrected being. Whatever, angels are—just people, being messengers of God.

…well, except for those of us who are in that period between mortal birth and death. We are the audience and recievers of such messengers, not the messengers.

 

[zerinus]

OK. I think the discussion was just about marriage/eternal marriage. Parker was explaining how Jesus’ words in the Gospel referred only to the Sadduccees who did not believe in the Resurrection and so would be as the angels in Heaven. I think that is where my confusion came from.

Just to clarify your point, then - those in the celestial kingdom who have been exalted and are in an eternal marriage are also angels? Or am I confusing two different issues?

I think that is derailing the thread. I would rather stick to the OP. If you have other subjects to discuss, best to start a new thread.

 

[dianaiad]

OK. I think the discussion was just about marriage/eternal marriage. Parker was explaining how Jesus’ words in the Gospel referred only to the Sadduccees who did not believe in the Resurrection and so would be as the angels in Heaven. I think that is where my confusion came from.

Just to clarify your point, then - those in the celestial kingdom who have been exalted and are in an eternal marriage are also angels? Or am I confusing two different issues?

I think that the confusion lies in the difference in definition of the word ‘angel.’ As a ‘job description,’ which is pretty much what we think the word means, one’s marital status wouldn’t come into play. However, one could assume that someone righteous enough to be asked to DO this job would be rather above the common run of mankind; special servants. NOT, by any means, Gods or exalted to being ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ with Christ, but certainly very trusted servants.

However, since it is a job description rather than a species classification, one can assume that promotions are possible.

I know, I know…but please don’t take the analogy further than it can be taken.

 

[fkjuliano]

Only if you make unsound and illogical assumptions, which you have. First, you MUST accept the fact that WE say we believe that God created the universe. All of it. Every speck. Everything we see, or astronomers see, or has ever existed back to the Big Bang or that singularity that erupted in the Big Bang. We believe that. I doesn’t matter what YOU want to claim we believe, that’s what we believe…and He’s the One Who created it, and there aren’t any others besides Him…that is, God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost; the godhead. That’s it.

That is the principle assumption from which you MUST extrapolate any other belief you attribute to us, and into which you must reconcile any belief you want to think we have.

…and we get to tell you what they are. You don’t get to tell us.

Diana, official Mormon Curmudgeon.

I most certainly do not accept Mormon claims on their own warrant, for that would require me to have faith in the Mormon religion, which I disavow publicly in the strongest and clearest terms. I also do not make any assumptions at all, let alone illogical ones. On the contrary, I use logic to point out that Mormon beliefs are self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be true. The Mormon god cannot have been born as an ordinary man on another planet if he had created the universe, for in that case he was no ordinary man. On the other hand, if he was god and creator from the outset, then that was simply the immutable reality of his existence and there was no “theosis” (the belief that humans can rise to godhood). Patently, without this precedent the very concept of “theosis” is invalidated, even within the context of Mormon theology.

I will the first one to admit that, any question of character aside, Joseph Smith was wonderfully imaginative and certainly possessed a masterful understanding of human nature, but a logician he was not.

 

[fkjuliano]

Empty post. Please delete.

 

[fkjuliano]

TOmNossor:
I like to be around; I just have little time. Thanks for the welcome back.
I was wondering why fkjuliano had not responded to me, but it seems the only record of my post is your reply.
I guess I do not know what rules I violated. I thought my recommendation to learn about Catholicism from anti-Catholics (even though I knew of few LDS who peddled the type of material fkjuliano recommended) was a good way of showing how unprofitable fkjuliano’s recommendation was. Perhaps not, but that was my point.
I really like your pointing to the scattering of Israel for Christ’s visit to the Americas. To me it lends context and helps LDS understand the BOM better. As evidenced by my response to fkjuliano, I often look at these questions as if they are coming from extreme skepticism (you know the type of skepticism that would easily dismantle Catholic, Christian, and … truth claims).
Sometimes it is not immediately clear how the illumination of the BOM by placing it in 600BC Jerusalem AND Mesoamerica is powerful evidence that the BOM is what it claims rather than being a 19th century creation. This as I understand it is one of the tools of ethnohistory used by Brant Gardner when he is trying to 1. Understand the BOM & 2. Make a case for the literal where and when of the BOM. And it is one of the tools of ethnohistory uses when trying to determine if any document might belong in any particular culture.
Anyway, I hope to look around for a while.
Charity, TOm

I do not know to what I am supposed to respond. You never addressed any of my points directly, as far as I can tell.

 

[TOmNossor]

I do not know to what I am supposed to respond. You never addressed any of my points directly, as far as I can tell.

My initial response that quoted you and tangentially replied to you has vanished. I will try to convey what I initially tried to say in a way that is even less likely to disappear.

I suggested that a Google search for “the truth about Catholicism” was as helpful for learning about Catholicism as was your suggested Google search. As a Catholic it would take you little time to see how worthless such info about Catholicism was, perhaps this would lead to the recognition that the converse was also true.
I also suggested that while I think the prominent LDS apologetic sites are more respectful and accurate in their portrayal of Catholicism than the site you recommended is in its portrayal of Mormonism, that it is still a poor way to learn about Catholicism. I believe learning about another religion simply must include a large dose of learning from those who embrace it. Whatever makes intelligent, thoughtful, and spiritual folks leave Mormonism to become Catholic will not be discovered on a LDS site. Conversely whatever makes intelligent, thoughtful, and spiritual folks leave Catholicism to become a LDS will not be found on a Catholic site.
Charity, TOm

 

[dianaiad]

I most certainly do not accept Mormon claims on their own warrant, for that would require me to have faith in the Mormon religion, which I disavow publicly in the strongest and clearest terms.

No, it only means that you accept that we believe what we claim we do. it doesn’t follow that you also have to believe it. In fact, such an idea is really illogical; why is it necessary to substitute things that you really find upsetting for things that you simply disagree with?

If I were to follow your logic, I would have to say that in order to disagree with the Catholic idea of transubstantiation as y’all explain it, I would have to go the Jack Chick route and call it cannabalism and characterize the reverence you feel for Mary as idol worship.

How much sense does that make? I don’t believe in transubstantiation. I don’t have to claim that it is something it is not in order to do so, you know. Nor do you have to claim that we believe things that we do not believe in order to disagree with those things we actually do believe.

I also do not make any assumptions at all, let alone illogical ones. On the contrary, I use logic to point out that Mormon beliefs are self-contradictory,

You can only do that if you get the beliefs right in the first place, my friend. Otherwise your excercise is pointing out contradictions are simply playing in straw–and utterly useless.

and therefore cannot be true. The Mormon god cannot have been born as an ordinary man on another planet if he had created the universe, for in that case he was no ordinary man. On the other hand, if he was god and creator from the outset, then that was simply the immutable reality of his existence and there was no “theosis” (the belief that humans can rise to godhood). Patently, without this precedent the very concept of “theosis” is invalidated, even within the context of Mormon theology.

I will the first one to admit that, any question of character aside, Joseph Smith was wonderfully imaginative and certainly possessed a masterful understanding of human nature, but a logician he was not.

Now THAT is a fine tuned condemnation if I ever heard one.

However, your logic is missing a few assumptions. Or rather, you are making assumptions that you should not make; the very essence of the straw man fallacy. The first problem you have is that you are assuming that we believe God was JUST another man on another planet, when in reality those of us who consider this rather believe that He must have been like Christ–Who most definitely was with God at the Creation of the universe (in fact, is the One through Whom it was created) and also was born, lived and died as a man.

Your other assumption is that the universe is all there is to God. How can He be ‘outside’ the universe, or apart from it, or be before and after it…and nothing occur outside our frame of reference? It’s not that YOU must believe this, but you must take into account that WE do, when you are analyzing our doctrines.