Mormons; when and why did Jesus come to America?

[zerinus]

What other proof is there that he existed?

If you mean proof outside of the Book of Mormon, there aren’t any.

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

The Book of Mormon does not mention his wife or children as far as I can recall; but I am assuming that he would have had a wife because there was nothing to bar him from having had one in the culture in which he lived.

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…

Answering that question requires a lengthier explanation which you can obtain for yourself by reading the Book of Mormon if you are interested. If you are not, then I don’t think you would really be interested in my answer either.

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

Yes, obviously.

You believe this scripture is talking about Moroni?

No. I quoted you that scripture in answer to the question you had asked, which had been: “Are there other accounts of beings being resurrected and glorified other than Moroni and of course Jesus Christ?”

It doesn’t say that those who rose from their graves were resurrected with glorified bodies.

That is what it implies. It means that those who “came out of their graves” had been dead, and had now been resurrected. The saints who are resurrected rise with glorified bodies.

Are you now saying that Moroni was an ancient saint?

I thought that was understood from what I had earlier said. I said that he had been a prophet, which makes him a saint as well.

How do you know this?

Because that is what the Bible as well as LDS scripture teaches.

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.

DNA may be useful tool in a criminal investigation, but not a religious inquiry. I wrote an article in Blog about that which you can read here if you are interested.

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?

See above.

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.

I wrote another Blog article on the archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon which you can read here. That should answer your 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.

Asking questions is okay, provided they are not asked just for the sake of asking questions; otherwise they become tedious and boring both to the person asking, as well the person answering the questions.

 

[KathleenGee]

On the sidelines here, it was really the Muslims who discovered America.

Things can’t stay forever the same.

 

[TOmNossor]

You seem to assume the meaning between Catholic and Mormons are the same. After reading the King Follet discourse, I assume they are not.

Actually, no I do not assume they are the same.
I believe the LDS view of deification I embrace is Biblical.

I believe Cardinal Schönborn was very vague in the CCC and his book From Death to Live was not a ton clearer (though it has been a very long time).
I believe Daniel Keating’s book Deification and Grace is very clear and bold. However, it ultimately through quite stilted logic IMO, backs off of the clear Biblical and ECF teaching of deification.
There are others BTW, but Keating is by far the most complete I have found.

So, I do not believe that the prevalent (though not authoritative) presentation of deification in the Catholic Church is the same as the LDS view of deification that I embrace and have regularly espoused here and elsewhere.

All that being said, I used the vague phraseology of the CCC and you called it illogical. If that phraseology results in an illogical construction, then Catholicism doesn’t work. I personally believe that phraseology can be rescued without introducing any more illogical constructs into Catholicism than already are present. I do not believe that is what Daniel Keating does in that he introduces a further bit of “stilted logic,” but such likely seems necessary to conform to the rigid ontological divide between man and God.

I doubt you and I think the KFD says the same thing BTW.

(1) Where you saying that the phraseology I used was inherently illogical? That certainly seems like that was what you were saying. (2) Do you now believe the phraseology I used was inherently illogical?
(3) What within the phraseology or whatever did you decry as inherently illogical?
(4) Assuming you accept the CCC and its phraseology, do you believe it is illogical, but must be accepted on faith OR is there something else you believe about it? (4a)Can you rescue the phraseology of the CCC from whatever illogic you see within the concept of men becoming gods?

I truly believe there is a BIG problem for Catholics when it comes to deification. I believe Catholics have so forgotten the Bible and the teachings of the ECF that they can scarcely tolerate the use of deification language. I hope you do not believe my prodding of this with you is disrespectful. As a LDS I think Catholicism FAILS mightily here and it is my intention to show that it does. I hope I do not offend you in doing so.
I would consider it sufficient if in the end you acknowledged that Catholicism in its treatment of deification introduces a paradox that cannot be reasonable solved. And then you boldly embraced the paradox upon faith. Together with this would IMO be the abandonment of the condemnation I see from you and others concerning the illogic you perceive (but which I think is not necessarily present) within my theology. Alternatively, perhaps you have a way out that Keating didn’t see or use or ??? that I can learn.

Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Yes, Kathleen, that is possible. However, it does not answer the OP’s question.

In a Catholic context, one might answer it by saying that Jesus first came to the Americas in the presence of the Eucharist, some time after 1052. This would be associated with the Norse settlements on Greenland. And the BoM can be reconstructed to contain exactly such a timeline.

Further out on a limb and further back in time, it could also have been associated with St. Brendan the Navigator.

However, 32 AD just did not happen. Ninety five percent of the BoM is fiction.

 

[TheosisM]

I’m actually using a Catholic word that isn’t really known to most LDS members.

I know, I’m just wondering what you meant by “similar substance” being applied to LDS belief .

I think they whole original debate of “similar” or “same” substance was really whether the Father and Son were one God or two Gods. If they were made of “similar” substance, they were like each other, but two distince personages. If they were of the “same” substance, they were the same being. I realize trinitarians believe in three distinct beings, but at the same time believe they are literally one God. I think when the Nicene Creed evolved into the Athanasian Creed, it was decided they were both one AND three. This way everyone was happy. The Greek Philosophers and pagans had a great influence on the ideas of God during those days. Plato and Aristotle taught that God was this great essense throughout the universe. Their ideas became wrapped together with Christian doctrine.

What does it mean that they are the “same being”? I’m just trying to see if you understand what Trinitarians mean when they use words like “being” and “person”. Also, LDS, from what I have read, also believe that God is one and three. There are three distinct “personages” who are one in purpose. The Book of Mormon and other scriptures refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as “one God”. The question then is, how are they “one God”. Trinitarians fully believe that they are distinct Persons (and that Jesus wasn’t praying to Himself).

The whole debate over “similar” vs. “same” substance was over whether the Son was a created entity or has eternally existed. The Arians said that the Son was created by the Father. By saying that He is the “same substance” as the Father, the Nicaean bishops were claiming that the Son has eternally existed along with the Father (and the Holy Spirit), and is therefore uncreated.

Perhaps a better thread for to continue would be this one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=440917

LDS believe The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in purpose and are three distinct Gods.

From what I understand, trinitarians believe they are one personage AND three personages at the same time.

No, this is incorrect. Trinitarians believe that they are one God/Being and three distinct Persons. This is not the same thing as saying they are one Person and three Persons at the same time. Again, check out this thread and feel free to add your comments there:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=440917