Refutation of Mormons objection the the Trinity

[RebeccaJ]

My dad was a Lutheran, if he made it to heaven (I like to think he did), I have no problem with him praying for me. Just in case; I still pray for the repose of his soul. Likewise, if I know someone is a Mormon or not, I still pray for the repose of someone’s soul when they die.

Same here as almost all my departed are Mormons.

 

[Stephen168]

Is that because the dead are believed to be able to receive the sacraments and (maybe?) to hear the gospel posthumously?

Yes.
1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

We don’t know exactly what Paul meant when he wrote those words to the Corinthians, but we do know that receiving a water baptism on behalf of a dead person has never been a Christian practice.

We do have one example of a Christian using that verse. As I have said before, St. Francis de Sales used 1 Corinthians 15:29, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, Luke 12:50, and Mark 10:38 as a defense of the Christian belief in Purgatory.

St. Francis de Sales lived after the start of the protestant revolt. He wrote Catholic Controversies as a defense of Catholic doctrine. In chapter 5 about purgatory, he refers to 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, where Judas Maccabee gives two thousand drachmas of silver as an offering for the sins of the dead. Judas concludes with, Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. While Protestants reject the apocryphal books, Francis says, “But if, in the very last resort, we would take it as the testimony of a simple but great historian- which cannot be refused us- we must at least confess that the ancient synagogue believed in Purgatory, since all that army was so prompt to pray for the departed.”

Francis says, “And truly we have marks of this devotion in other Scriptures which ought to make easier to us the reception of the passage which we have just adduced. In Tobias, chap. iv.[Tobias 4:18]: Lay out thy bread and thy wine on the burial of a just man; and do not eat or drink thereof with the wicked.”

Francis says, “And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly in the 1st of Corinthians chap xv.[1 Corinthians 15:29], appealing to it as praiseworthy and right. What shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why then are they baptized for them? This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed.”
Francis continues, “in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in S. Luke, chap xii.[Luke 12:50], where Our Lord speaking of his Passion says: I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized and how am I straitened until it be accomplished!-and in S. Mark. chap x.[Mark 10:38], he says : Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of; or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? -in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism. This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of S. Paul resembles that of Machabees quoted above: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. They may twist and transform this text with as many interpretations as they like, and there will be none to properly fit into the Holy Letter except this.
But [secondly] it must not be said that the baptism of which S. Paul speaks is only a baptism of grief and tears, and not of fasts, prayers, and other works. For thus understood his conclusion would be very false. The conclusion he means to draw is that if the dead rise not again, and if the soul is mortal, in vain do we afflict ourselves for the dead. But, I pray you, should we not have more occasion to afflict ourselves by sadness for the death of friends if they rise no more - losing all hope of ever seeing them again - than if they do rise? He refers then to the voluntary afflictions which they undertook to impetrate the repose of the departed, which, questionless, would be undergone in vain if souls were mortal and the dead rose not again. Wherein we must keep in mind what was said above, that the article of the resurrection of the dead and that of the immortality of the soul were so joined together in the belief of the Jews that he who acknowledged the one acknowledged the other, and he who denied the one denied the other. It appears then by these words of S. Paul that prayer, fasting, and other holy afflictions were practiced for the departed. Now it was not for those in Paradise, who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did S. Ephrem expound it twelve hundred years ago, and so did the Fathers who disputed against the Petrobusians.”

So instead of restoring the ancient belief in purgatory and prayers that are given for the souls there, Joseph Smith invented proxy water baptism on behalf of the dead. A practice never used by Christians.

 

[gazelam]

We don’t know exactly what Paul meant by when he wrote, “Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29)

St. Francis de Sales lived after the start of the protestant revolt. He wrote Catholic Controversies as a defense of Catholic doctrine. In chapter 5 about purgatory, he refers to 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, where Judas Maccabee gives two thousand drachmas of silver as an offering for the sins of the dead. Judas concludes with, Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. While Protestants reject the apocryphal books, Francis says, “But if, in the very last resort, we would take it as the testimony of a simple but great historian- which cannot be refused us- we must at least confess that the ancient synagogue believed in Purgatory, since all that army was so prompt to pray for the departed.”

Francis says, “And truly we have marks of this devotion in other Scriptures which ought to make easier to us the reception of the passage which we have just adduced. In Tobias, chap. iv.[Tobias 4:18]: Lay out thy bread and thy wine on the burial of a just man; and do not eat or drink thereof with the wicked.”

Francis says, “And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly in the 1st of Corinthians chap xv.[1 Corinthians 15:29], appealing to it as praiseworthy and right. What shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why then are they baptized for them? This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed.”
Francis continues, “in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in S. Luke, chap xii.[Luke 12:50], where Our Lord speaking of his Passion says: I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized and how am I straitened until it be accomplished!-and in S. Mark. chap x.[Mark 10:38], he says : Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of; or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? -in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism. This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of S. Paul resembles that of Machabees quoted above: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. They may twist and transform this text with as many interpretations as they like, and there will be none to properly fit into the Holy Letter except this.
But [secondly] it must not be said that the baptism of which S. Paul speaks is only a baptism of grief and tears, and not of fasts, prayers, and other works. For thus understood his conclusion would be very false. The conclusion he means to draw is that if the dead rise not again, and if the soul is mortal, in vain do we afflict ourselves for the dead. But, I pray you, should we not have more occasion to afflict ourselves by sadness for the death of friends if they rise no more - losing all hope of ever seeing them again - than if they do rise? He refers then to the voluntary afflictions which they undertook to impetrate the repose of the departed, which, questionless, would be undergone in vain if souls were mortal and the dead rose not again. Wherein we must keep in mind what was said above, that the article of the resurrection of the dead and that of the immortality of the soul were so joined together in the belief of the Jews that he who acknowledged the one acknowledged the other, and he who denied the one denied the other. It appears then by these words of S. Paul that prayer, fasting, and other holy afflictions were practiced for the departed. Now it was not for those in Paradise, who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did S. Ephrem expound it twelve hundred years ago, and so did the Fathers who disputed against the Petrobusians.”

So instead of restoring the ancient belief in purgatory and prayers that are given for the souls there, Joseph Smith invented proxy water baptism on behalf of the dead. A practice never used by Christians. Mormonism is an invention not a restoration.

I see we have a fellow copier and paster… I like it!!

 

[Hatikvah]

So instead of restoring the ancient belief in purgatory and prayers that are given for the souls there, Joseph Smith invented proxy water baptism on behalf of the dead. A practice never used by Christians.

A better critique is that Joseph Smith never restored the ancient belief (still held by most Christians, actually) in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Not only is that from the Apostolic era, but Christ Himself established the institution! (Luke 22:17-20, Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

 

[Stephen168]

A better critique is that Joseph Smith never restored the ancient belief (still held by most Christians, actually) in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Not only is that from the Apostolic era, but Christ Himself established the institution! (Luke 22:17-20, Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

Yes, I have made another critique about how Mormonism invented the Melchizedek Priesthood instead of restoring the belief in the real presence.

Genesis 14:18-20 A King-Priest Melchizedek appears and gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram. A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children.

Psalm 110:4 King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest. A King-Priest bringing bread and wine. A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 God will make a new covenant. It will be different from the old one: It will last forever, it will be written on the hearts of men not just stone tablets, and all people will know him.

Hebrews 7:1-3 Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. There is no actual Melchizedek priesthood. Melchizedek is a High Priest and King who is the example of the Messiah. What Melchizedek is in portrayal, Christ is in fact: the unique priest of all mankind.

Hebrews 7:4-10 Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The priests of Aaron were also sons of Abraham, so Melchizedek was a superior priesthood than the Levitical priesthood.

Hebrews 7:11-14 If the Levitical priesthood was good enough, there would be no need for another priest as prophesied by King David. A new priest means a change in the law.

Hebrews 7:15-19 Christ is the new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He abolishes the Levitical priesthood and the law. They were abolished because the law did not bring man into close communication with God.

Hebrews 7:20-25 Through Christ there is a better covenant because he is the eternal high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:26-28 There is no need to offer sacrifices daily like the Levitical priesthood. Christ offered himself one time for all people sins forever.

John 6:31-69 Jesus tells his disciples, he is the bread of life. The Jews doubt him and he repeats his claim. They doubt him again and he tells them that he is the bread of life and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Many of his disciples leave him. The Jews gave Jesus three chances to tell them he was talking in a figurative manor but he did not.

Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinth 11:23-25 Jesus tells his Apostles to eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance and for the forgiveness of sin. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant that he will shed for us.

Hebrews 8:1-5 We have Jesus our high priest sitting in heaven. If he was on earth he would not be a priest of the order of Melchizedek; just Aaron. In heaven, he is still offering gifts and sacrifices according to the order of Melchizedek. The gifts of Levi are just a shadow of the heavenly gifts offered by Christ.

Hebrews 9:11-15 Christ is in heaven by the perfect sacrifice of his blood. And he is the mediator of the new covenant.

John 1:26 Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. His sacrifice will take away the sin of the world.

Revelations 7:17 Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He had no beginning and no end. Just as Melchizedek brought bread and wine, Christ is feeding his flock through his flesh and blood in the new covenant. This food we call Eucharist.

From this it is clear that:

-Christianity is a new covenant, not a continuation of an old covenant.

-Melchizedek is not a priesthood but points to the priesthood of Jesus Christ which only he alone has.

-Receiving the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, is key to the new covenant.

 

[thephilosopher6]

We don’t know exactly what Paul meant when he wrote those words to the Corinthians, but we do know that receiving a water baptism on behalf of a dead person has never been a Christian practice.

There were actually pagans practicing baptism for the dead, it is possible that some of the Corinthians adopted the practice.

Notice in the verse how he says “they” not “we”

There is no indication that the early Church practiced baptism of the dead. It is a uniquely Mormon practice.

 

[thephilosopher6]

A better critique is that Joseph Smith never restored the ancient belief (still held by most Christians, actually) in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Not only is that from the Apostolic era, but Christ Himself established the institution! (Luke 22:17-20, Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

Indeed, here are some quotes from the early Church.

*“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’” - Didache (70 A.D]

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” - Clement of Rome (Letter to the Corinthians [80 A.D])

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” - Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans [105 A.D])

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” - Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans [105 A.D])

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” - Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Epistle to the Philadelphians [108 A.D])

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” - Justin Martyr (First Apology [155 A.D])

“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.” - Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho[155 A.D])

“[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies [189A.D])

“For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.” - Irenaeus (Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis [180 A.D])

“When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life – flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord…receiving the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ.” Irenaeus [Against Heresies [189 A.D])*

 

[thephilosopher6]

*“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!” - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor of Children [200 A.D])

“And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’… refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper” - Tertullian (Commentary on Proverbs [215 A.D])

“The flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God.” - Tertullian (Resurrection of the Dead [215 A.D])

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way… now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’” -Origen (Homilies on Numbers [248 A.D])

“You see how the altar are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated by the precious blood of Christ.” - Origen (Homilies on Joshua [250 A.D])

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. All these warnings being scorned and contemned before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” Cyprian of Carthage (The Lapsed [250 A.D])*

These are just a small handful of quotes, there are many many many more.

 

[gazelam]

Nobody prays that a soul becomes Catholic, converts posthumously, and denounces their deeply held Mormon faith in the afterlife. So what is your point? Are you offended that non-Mornons would pray for a Mormon?

I am grateful when a non-Mormon prays for a Mormon and vice versa. To your point (paraphrasing) that “nobody prays that a soul becomes Catholic in the afterlife”, don’t Catholics pray for the deceased? And don’t Catholics believe that the righteous either go to the Church Suffering (souls in Purgatory) or the Church Triumphant (souls in Heaven with God)? Wouldn’t prayers for the deceased petition God that those souls not go to Hell? And doesn’t the RCC consider itself to be part of the Church Suffering and Church Triumphant… all part of the Mystical Body of Christ?

 

[gazelam]

1 - The Book of Mormon is a historical record of all Native Americans (Lamanites). Now, it is not.

All the above changes, are greatly influenced by the advent of the Internet.

Not necessarily true…

Hugh Nibley said “it is significant that the Prophet [Joseph Smith] was not reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those mentioned in the Book of Mormon.”
Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 250

In 1852, the Deseret News cited with interest an account of a purported Welsh migration to America “three hundred yeeres before Columbus.”
Discovery of America, above three hundred yeeres before Columbus, by Madoc ap Owen Gwyneth,” Deseret News, 3 April 1852, 44.

In an article published in 1875, George M. Ottinger, a faculty member at the University of Deseret (later the University of Utah), explored the idea advanced by some scholars of the day suggesting that the Phoenicians may have helped to colonize the Americas in pre-Columbian times. After surveying this literature, he concluded “that the Phoenicians at one time held intercourse with Jared’s people.
George M. Ottinger, “Old America: The Phoenicians,” Juvenile Instructor 10 (6 February 1875): 33.

B.H. Roberts stated in 1909 “It cannot possibly be in conflict with the Book of Mormon to concede that the northeastern coast of America may have been visited by Norsemen in the tenth century; or that Celtic adventurers even at an earlier date, but subsequent to the close of the Nephite period, may have found their way to America. It might even be possible that migrations came by way of the Pacific Islands to the western shores of America.”
B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1909), 2:356

In 1921, in an article published in the Improvement Era, Janne Sjodahl observed:

The Book of Mormon has nothing to say about the occupation of America by man before the arrival of the Jaredites. If scientists find, beyond controversy, that there were human beings here before the building of the tower; in fact, before the flood and way back in glacial ages, the authors of that volume offer no objection at all. They do not touch that question. They only assert that the Lord led the brother of Jared and his colony to this country shortly after the dispersion, and they give the briefest possible outline of the political and ecclesiastical history of their descendants until their final overthrow. This has never been, and cannot be, disputed on scientific grounds. If America was occupied by any race of people–pre-Jaredites, we may call them–information concerning them must be gathered, not from the Book of Mormon, but from geological strata, or from archaeological remains extant…

Are there in this country any Indians that are not descendants of these first Hebrew settlers? That is a question for the scientist to answer.

The Book of Mormon gives no direct information on that subject. It confines itself strictly to the history of the descendants of Lehi and Mulek. If science, after a careful investigation of the physical characteristics of the present-day Indians; their languages, their religious ideas, their myths and traditions, and their social institutions, should declare that there are evidences of other influences…that would not affect the authenticity of the Book of Mormon in the least.
Janne M. Sjodahl, “The Book of Mormon and Modern Research,” Improvement Era, December 1921, 154-55, 156.

In the April 1929 general conference of the church, Anthony W. Ivins, who had become a counselor in the First Presidency, admonished the Saints, “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent.** It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after.** And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.
Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1929, 15,

 

[Stephen168]

A better critique is that Joseph Smith never restored the ancient belief (still held by most Christians, actually) in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Not only is that from the Apostolic era, but Christ Himself established the institution! (Luke 22:17-20, Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

Indeed, here are some quotes from the early Church.

As I said:

And [the Mormon Church] does not have apostolic authority as a historical fact and shown by how Mormon “authority” cannot hold on to a deposit of faith of any kind; Christian or Mormon.

The Catholic Church has proven its authority by holding on this core Christian teaching of the Eucharist.

The point of my posts #181 and and #184 is to show that given the Catholic bible, the Mormon Church invents teachings and practices which have NEVER been part of Christian teaching. While the Catholic Church has held on to the Deposit of Faith given by Jesus Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

Not necessarily true…

Yes, it is very true according to Mormon scripture and the teaching of the Mormon Church until science proved Joseph Smith wrong.

Mormons are quick to point out that ONLY their scriptures are reliable when talking about Mormon teachings, but in this case Mormons are moving away from Joseph Smith and their scriptures.

 

[Tarquin]

Originally Posted by RebeccaJ: 1 - The Book of Mormon is a historical record of all Native Americans (Lamanites). Now, it is not.

All the above changes, are greatly influenced by the advent of the Internet.

Not necessarily true…

Hugh Nibley said “it is significant that the Prophet [Joseph Smith] was not reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those mentioned in the Book of Mormon.”
Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 250

…
The Book of Mormon has nothing to say about the occupation of America by man before the arrival of the Jaredites.

The quote by the often unreliable Hugh Nibley seems a little distorted. The closest I can find in reference to his page 250 is a reference to the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 267. But that page says nothing to support Nibley’s uninspired opinion that Joseph Smith “was not reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those mentioned in the Book of Mormon.” If he was not reluctant to recognize the possibility, one should expect to find clear statements by him that positively support the possibility of other migrations than those described in the Book of Mormon.

When we read in the Book of Mormon that Jared and his brother came on to this continent from the confusion and scattering at the Tower, and lived here more than a thousand years, and covered the whole continent from sea to sea, with towns and cities; and that Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great Southern Ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, and improved the country according to the word of the Lord, as a branch of the house of Israel, and then read such a goodly traditionary account as the one below, we can not but think the Lord has a hand in bringing to pass his strange act, and proving the Book of Mormon true in the eyes of all the people. The extract below, comes as near the real fact, as the four Evangelists do to the crucifixion of Jesus.–Surely “facts are stubborn things.” It will be as it ever has been, the world will prove Joseph Smith a true prophet by circumstantial evidence, in experiments, as they did Moses and Elijah. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith and the church historian’s staff, p. 267)

(Addendum: the “traditionary account that follows” suggests connections between Native tribes such as the Toltecs, with Jews, not independent migrations of people other than Jews, such as Welsh or Egyptian, unless I have misread it.)

Ether 2:7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

I realize the teaching for which Ether 2:7 was used as a proof-text has changed. I’m not addressing that. I am saying that when Mormons were telling me about the journey from the Tower of Babel to the Americas, they said no one was here. It was a “choice” land, a “promised” land, and it had been “preserved” for chosen people that God would lead here. They absolutely did not say there were other tribes here. The only people the Lehites met were the left-overs of other Book of Mormon peoples who had come here. The missionaries and others were very clear - all the Americas, both North and South, as well as some unidentified “isles of the sea” were preserved specifically for the people following Lehi, after the failure of the Jaredites, who had been given a similar promise. But like I say, I know the teaching has been changed. This is obvious from a comparison of chnages in the Sunday School books over the years.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am grateful when a non-Mormon prays for a Mormon and vice versa. To your point (paraphrasing) that “nobody prays that a soul becomes Catholic in the afterlife”, don’t Catholics pray for the deceased? And don’t Catholics believe that the righteous either go to the Church Suffering (souls in Purgatory) or the Church Triumphant (souls in Heaven with God)? Wouldn’t prayers for the deceased petition God that those souls not go to Hell? And doesn’t the RCC consider itself to be part of the Church Suffering and Church Triumphant… all part of the Mystical Body of Christ?

Hey. No. All souls in purgatory are destined for heaven.

The Communion of Saints is what you are describing. The parts of the communion comprise the Body of Christ. Baptism is the sure mystical sign of our Communion in and through Jesus Christ,

There is no teaching that declares non-Christians will go to hell, by the fact alone of being non-Christian. Our God is merciful and just.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not necessarily true…

Hugh Nibley said “it is significant that the Prophet [Joseph Smith] was not reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those mentioned in the Book of Mormon.”
Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 250

In 1852, the Deseret News cited with interest an account of a purported Welsh migration to America “three hundred yeeres before Columbus.”
Discovery of America, above three hundred yeeres before Columbus, by Madoc ap Owen Gwyneth,” Deseret News, 3 April 1852, 44.

In an article published in 1875, George M. Ottinger, a faculty member at the University of Deseret (later the University of Utah), explored the idea advanced by some scholars of the day suggesting that the Phoenicians may have helped to colonize the Americas in pre-Columbian times. After surveying this literature, he concluded “that the Phoenicians at one time held intercourse with Jared’s people.
George M. Ottinger, “Old America: The Phoenicians,” Juvenile Instructor 10 (6 February 1875): 33.

B.H. Roberts stated in 1909 “It cannot possibly be in conflict with the Book of Mormon to concede that the northeastern coast of America may have been visited by Norsemen in the tenth century; or that Celtic adventurers even at an earlier date, but subsequent to the close of the Nephite period, may have found their way to America. It might even be possible that migrations came by way of the Pacific Islands to the western shores of America.”
B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1909), 2:356

In 1921, in an article published in the Improvement Era, Janne Sjodahl observed:

The Book of Mormon has nothing to say about the occupation of America by man before the arrival of the Jaredites. If scientists find, beyond controversy, that there were human beings here before the building of the tower; in fact, before the flood and way back in glacial ages, the authors of that volume offer no objection at all. They do not touch that question. They only assert that the Lord led the brother of Jared and his colony to this country shortly after the dispersion, and they give the briefest possible outline of the political and ecclesiastical history of their descendants until their final overthrow. This has never been, and cannot be, disputed on scientific grounds. If America was occupied by any race of people–pre-Jaredites, we may call them–information concerning them must be gathered, not from the Book of Mormon, but from geological strata, or from archaeological remains extant…

Are there in this country any Indians that are not descendants of these first Hebrew settlers? That is a question for the scientist to answer.

The Book of Mormon gives no direct information on that subject. It confines itself strictly to the history of the descendants of Lehi and Mulek. If science, after a careful investigation of the physical characteristics of the present-day Indians; their languages, their religious ideas, their myths and traditions, and their social institutions, should declare that there are evidences of other influences…that would not affect the authenticity of the Book of Mormon in the least.
Janne M. Sjodahl, “The Book of Mormon and Modern Research,” Improvement Era, December 1921, 154-55, 156.

In the April 1929 general conference of the church, Anthony W. Ivins, who had become a counselor in the First Presidency, admonished the Saints, “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent.** It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after.** And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.
Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1929, 15,

Gosh you post the most obscure things that have nothing to do with what the Mormon church taught as divine revelation, until it changed what it taught as divine revelation. Your D&C is unchanged and still contains descriptions of Joseph Smith sending men to what was then Indian Territory, to teach the Lamanites. Obviously, they weren’t Lamanites.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Gosh you post the most obscure things that have nothing to do with what the Mormon church taught as divine revelation, until it changed what it taught as divine revelation. Your D&C is unchanged and still contains descriptions of Joseph Smith sending men to what was then Indian Territory, to teach the Lamanites. Obviously, they weren’t Lamanites.

Disclaimer: I have Jewish and American Indian ancestry. That just reminded me of that. I think it’s more “genetics” than it is “cursed by God to make skin dark”

 

[gazelam]

Gosh you post the most obscure things that have nothing to do with what the Mormon church taught as divine revelation, until it changed what it taught as divine revelation. Your D&C is unchanged and still contains descriptions of Joseph Smith sending men to what was then Indian Territory, to teach the Lamanites. Obviously, they weren’t Lamanites.

This whole thread is filled with obscure things. The Book of Mormon specifically says:

Jacob 1:14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

There is room in this verse for the descendants of Laman and Lemuel to intermingle with other peoples on the American continent and have the whole big group be referred to Lamanites. The D&C and Book of Mormon do not contradict each other here.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This whole thread is filled with obscure things. The Book of Mormon specifically says:

Jacob 1:14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

There is room in this verse for the descendants of Laman and Lemuel to intermingle with other peoples on the American continent and have the whole big group be referred to Lamanites. The D&C and Book of Mormon do not contradict each other here.

Don’t care. Has nothing to do with what the LDS Church taught, which was, all Native Americans and Pacific Islanders are Lamanites.

 

[Hatikvah]

Don’t care. Has nothing to do with what the LDS Church taught, which was, all Native Americans and Pacific Islanders are Lamanites.

Oh, I get it (or so I think). You were saying that the modern Natives that Joseph Smith sent men to teach – Lamanites – were not really Lamanites. However, the quote from Gazelam…

Jacob 1:14: But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was Nephi and his descendants that worshiped God loyally (and were eventually wiped out) and the Lamanites who eventually fell into polytheism and other practices: they are said to be the modern Native Americans (who Joseph Smith had sent people to teach). So it is a relevant post from this view.

 

[Stephen168]

Oh, I get it (or so I think). You were saying that the modern Natives that Joseph Smith sent men to teach – Lamanites – were not really Lamanites. However, the quote from Gazelam…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was Nephi and his descendants that worshiped God loyally (and were eventually wiped out) and the Lamanites who eventually fell into polytheism and other practices: they are said to be the modern Native Americans (who Joseph Smith had sent people to teach). So it is a relevant post from this view.

Both groups were said to be from the middle east. How is it relevant?