See the Smithsonian Letter on the Book of Mormon.

[MelanieAnne]

I can see that you are a very good English teacher. And a great proofreader!

I am glad you find High schoolers fun - I am not finding mine so fun at the moment!

They’ll grow out of it, in about 10-15 years!

 

[dianaiad]

and
newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

You prove MY POINT!

Galileo attacked the divine authority of the Church and was tired for THAT matter. NOT because of science.

Which, in turn, proves mine…because he was simply talking about scientific matters, the movement of planetary bodies around the sun, as opposed to the churche’s ‘divine authority,’ which stated that the sun revolved around the earth. When the movement of the solar system is made a matter of theology, and is dictated by the ‘divine authority’ of the church, then the church is teaching, and dictating, science.

As to proof…well, what Galleleo presented WAS proof.

The main point also was that science at that time belived in the geocentric system and Galileo and Copernicus ha NO PROOF for their theories.

The proofs for heliocentrism came later, with the perfectionment of the telescope, and the Church easily accepted them!

From the C.E.

Yes… but not because of heliocentrism itself

The Church never condemned Heliocentrism officially, bbut was very cautios when Galileo made his allegations.

The whole thing, hence, was NOT about science, bu was more about the authoriy of the Church to teach the scriptures… and there is a fundamental difference here (if you fail to see it I am sorry)

The problem is that Gallileo did present proof; the math was proof. The telescope, later, simply illustrated and added to that proof, but the math was proof in and of itself.

My position is that when the church insisted that the movement of planetary bodies was of theological importants, and dictated/controlled scientific investigations into them, then it was ‘teaching science,’ because it was using its 'authority to teach the scriptures" to dictate scientific discovery and the actions of people investigating such matters. There is no reasonable moral or ethical aspect to the rotation of heavenly bodies, after all.

Gallileo, remember, didn’t say that the scriptures were wrong. He DID say that the position the church took was wrong…and he was absolutely correct about that. Therefore he did not commit heresy.

 

[dianaiad]

I can see that you are a very good English teacher. And a great proofreader!

I am glad you find High schoolers fun - I am not finding mine so fun at the moment!

yeah, well, remember: my students are ON LINE. That means I’m not the one who has to deal with the kids in the back row texting and sending porn to one another, or listening to the I-pods, or throwing paper darts into the ceiling tiles.

Not my problem.

That’s up to their computer lab teacher. Best of blessings and luck to him/her!!!

 

[Stephen168]

[The problem is that Gallileo did present proof; the math was proof.

What was his mathematical proof?
[/QUOTE]

 

[lax16]

yeah, well, remember: my students are ON LINE. That means I’m not the one who has to deal with the kids in the back row texting and sending porn to one another, or listening to the I-pods, or throwing paper darts into the ceiling tiles.

Not my problem.

That’s up to their computer lab teacher. Best of blessings and luck to him/her!!!

Yeah…times have sure changed.

(Not that we were so perfect at my h.s. but then the kids who didn’t care would sit in the back and doodle on their pee-chee folder)

 

[lax16]

They’ll grow out of it, in about 10-15 years!

Oh I look forward to the day!!!

 

[Stephen168]

Therefore he did not commit heresy.

What was Galileo found guilty of?

 

[Javl]

There are quite a few reasons TO believe in Christ and the miracles He was responsible for. My only point is this: the number of people who believe in them isn’t one of those reasons.

I agree. My reason for believing in, and accepting, Him as my God and Saviour is because of His truths and teachings, not because of His Miracles. I believe in who He says He is. This of course will/does not satisfy many Christians and non-belivers.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

you GOT it! You don’t believe because of the number of people who argue for or against. You believe because of the arguments they make. Some convinced you. Some did not…but it had nothing to do with the number of people who preach against, or for, your faith, did it?

Well, yeah, it was…you can attempt to pretty it up by using different words, but that’s pretty much what happened. When the Catholics teach that the ‘scriptures say…’ this thing or that thing, and a scientist comes along and shows that at least the interpretation of those scriptures is incorrect, the church reacted…badly.

Well, yeah, it did, when it went after people for heresy when they were looking at science. When the church decides that some activity/opinion/belief that had to do with what WE call science today, was heresy, then it was indeed ‘teaching science.’

How was it against the theological and moral teachings of the church to point out that the earth revolved around the sun, not vice versa? If the church did not ‘teach science,’ then there would be no theological aspect to the movement of the solar system…but there was, and so…the church taught, and dictated, science.

Actually, he said that the PRIESTS were wrong in their interpretation of the scriptures…which of course proves my point. In fact, Galeleo didn’t mention scripture AT ALL until after he was attacked by Father Loreni, claiming that Galeleo’s work was 'against scripture." Galeleo wrote back and said, in effect, that the scriptures WERE TRUE in themselves, must be 'understood sometimes in a figurative sense." that is, he wasn’t calling the scriptures false. He was saying that the church had a faulty understanding of them if they continued to insist that the sun went around the earth.

Galleleo was forced to write his abjuration…to stop teaching his theories regarding the movement of the solar system, because it was those theories that the church considered to be heretical.

Precisely. I see that you got the point yet again. What the Confederacy thought of slavery did not make it moral, and what some of the early Catholic popes did about it didn’t make it moral, either. It is never the number of people who agree or disagree on somthing that indicates its truth. So, when I am asked how I can believe this thing, or that thing, when so many ‘rail against it,’ I believe that you have the answer. The number of people who ‘rail’ against a thing means nothing in terms of the truth.

I beg to disagree. Although the clergy is in authority, it cannot be said that in many cases they speak for the Church. More often as not they speak of their own, or public, opinion.
If the subject becomes part of doctrine or dogma, then, and only then, does the Church teach on that particular subject.

As for individual interpretation of scripture, the same holds true. It is only opinion. Only when the interpretation is unanimously agreed upon by the theologians, scholars, and clergy ( under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ) is it then taught authoritavely by the Church.

Individual and group errors do occur. “Misteaks” are made and they are always admitted to and corrected. History has proven this. The Church, protected by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, does not, will not, and cannot, ever err in its teachings. Again, history has proven this.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Stephen168]

I can understand why some Protestants might think a priest speaks for the Church, but I’m always surprised when a Catholic or Mormon believes a priest speaks for the Church. I understand how a Mormon Bishop might not speak for Mormonism, but I do make an exception for Joseph Smith. Mormonism seems to depend on the word of Joseph Smith. Now the Book of Mormon has been shown not to be what Joseph Smith said it was. I remember Mormon kids telling me in High school that the Smithsonian used the Book of Mormon. It is interesting that the Smithsonian has had to issue a letter denying what I was told.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Not sure how we got here from the Smithsonian Letter. Let me just say that no one wants exact proof…but we can all go walk the streets Jesus walked. We can walk the streets King David walked. We can even walk the area Moses walked…yet we cannot find a single shred of any of the huge cities of the Book of Mormon.

That truly is troubling

 

[aquabatix]

Thank you for bringing the thread back on topic. It is not up for debate here whether the miracles of Jesus can be proved, let alone anything that would be deemed miraculous from the bom. What is being displayed is that no one can disprove that Jesus walked the earth and that the places His ministry took place were real. Outside sources, even some who would rather down play who Jesus is/was, confirm the He was real and that the places of His life, ministry and death exist. The problem with the bom is that there is no evidence besides the book itself. No outside sources, even ones who would wish to discredit it. One would think that some of these “cursed” people that have descendants today would have stories from their own traditions that made them correct in their history and perhaps even persecuted. Yet there is none. Besides, the accounts in the bom are simply illogical. There were no bees, iron or other items/abilities that would be brought to the new world much much later. That cannot be said about the Bible. The people of both Testaments had the capability and animals that are described. The temples existed, the animals used in battle, weapons and all, were available. Megido excavations find evidence EVERY dig of the people that were there before, just as described. THAT is why the Smithsonian cannot use the bom, it contradicts everything that they find, or don’t find that is.

 

[dianaiad]

Not sure how we got here from the Smithsonian Letter. Let me just say that no one wants exact proof…but we can all go walk the streets Jesus walked. We can walk the streets King David walked. We can even walk the area Moses walked…yet we cannot find a single shred of any of the huge cities of the Book of Mormon.

That truly is troubling

Is it?

Let us compare apples to apples, sir.

Many of the locations of the Bible are identifiable…why? Because people have continually lived in them from the beginning, with no interuptions of any great length of time.

To compare like to like, we would have to have the variables the same. What are the BoM variables…that is, IF IT WERE TRUE, what has happened?

1. the people who wrote it and saved the records were pretty much wiped out, and the culture destroyed.
2. it was around 1500 years before any record regarding these peoples and cultures was found.
3. There was no continuous record keeping from that time to this one.

Does the bible have any similar groups or places?
Yes, actually…how about Sodom and Gommorah? Mt. Arrarat? Bethany? Mt. Sinai?

We STILL don’t really know where they are. Modern science has come very close to figuring out where Sodom and Gamorrah were…sorta…but it certainly took awhile…and if that area were covered with foliage we still wouldn’t have a clue. As for the mountains…well, various people identify different ones to apply the name to. All we really know is that the famous monastary on Mt. Sinai is almost certainly on the wrong mountain.

So, personally, I think you should cut the BoM some slack. EVERY place in the BoM is in the fix that Sodom and Gamorrah (If I spell this enough different ways, ONE of them is bound to be right, right?) and the mountains are in–and quite frankly, nobody but Mormons is at all interested, or HAS been interested, in looking into the matter. Whereas people have been trying to find biblical place names for two thousand years.

…and by the way, in spite of the catagorical declaration of Constantine’s mom, we still have not confirmed where Jesus was entombed. You would think, would you not, that something this important would have been kept better track of…but a little time and a lot of having more, shall we say, immediate problems to deal with (like being the fuel for Caligula’s banquet torches)…interfered with continuous identification.

So now we have the Book of Mormon, which has a couple of problems; one related to the above, and another a matter of something else; faith vs. knowledge.

First, EVERY site in the Book of Mormon suffers from the same problems that S & G had, plus one: there was nobody around to hang onto the story that there ever were such places…in writing.

Second…in terms of knowledge vs. faith; think about this one: if even one place, ONE incident, related in the BoM were proven to exist or to have actually happened, what would that mean to the world? To Catholics?

To Protestants?

To everybody?

As a result, the standard for proof would have to be far higher than for anything found in the bible. Remember, we have the peoples who wrote the bible. Putting their beliefs into this compilation of books does not prove that those beliefs are true. However, because of the way we GOT the BoM, proving that, say…Zarahelmla existed would be proof of Mormonism, proof of Christianity and proof of God.

That’s pretty big.

 

[aquabatix]

I’m sorry but that argument does not work. The reason we have the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Ark, even though everyone in the city died or the world (supposedly) flooded is because the opposing people survived and told the story, hence why we have it. Noah and his family or those who were against what S & G were doing passed on the stories.

Supposedly the Native American people are descendents of the Hebrews from the bom times and area. However, they are not. DNA can prove otherwise. Further, these people would supposedly be survivors and could have stories to pass on, in favor of or more likely against, that would verify SOMETHING. But none there either. So you see, they are not the same.

 

[Stephen168]

Let us compare apples to apples, sir.

The Book of Mormon claims to a history to 400AD. There are New Testament fragments older than the Book of Mormon claims to be.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Is it?

Let us compare apples to apples, sir.

I was.

Many of the locations of the Bible are identifiable…why? Because people have continually lived in them from the beginning, with no interuptions of any great length of time.

That is sorta one of my points…

To compare like to like, we would have to have the variables the same. What are the BoM variables…that is, IF IT WERE TRUE, what has happened?

1. the people who wrote it and saved the records were pretty much wiped out, and the culture destroyed.

With all respect, that is not a viable story. Aside from volcanos, etc, no civilazation has had every member wiped out. The Book of Mormon claims they all just killled each other. That is not plausable. There were hundreds of thousands of Book of Mormon people and you claim that every single one was wiped out? Then how were there any decendants as claimed? And even if all the people were wiped out, remnants of these huge cities and temples would still be around. Yet, no one has ever found the millions of bones you would have if every man, woman and child of hundreds of thousands of people were all destoyed and no one has ever found remnants of the huge cities and temples, etc.

1. it was around 1500 years before any record regarding these peoples and cultures was found.

Irrelevant. Archeology has discovered remnant much older from older civilazations.

Does the bible have any similar groups or places?
Yes, actually…how about Sodom and Gommorah?

God destroyed it from heaven. I am guessing that when God wants something wiped from the earth, it stays wiped. So, since you wish to discuss apples and apples, let’s not compare a city that God wiped from the earth with a huge civilazation that God did NOT wipe from the earth.

Mt. Arrarat? Bethany? Mt. Sinai?

We know where these mountains are. The Ark has allegedly been found recently ON Mt. Arrarat.

So, personally, I think you should cut the BoM some slack. EVERY place in the BoM is in the fix that Sodom and Gamorrah (If I spell this enough different ways, ONE of them is bound to be right, right?) and the mountains are in–and quite frankly, nobody but Mormons is at all interested, or HAS been interested, in looking into the matter. Whereas people have been trying to find biblical place names for two thousand years.

Again, you say you want to discuss apples and apples, but you are not doing so. You are picking THREE OR FOUR PLACES out of the Bible and saying it is the same as finding NO PLACES in the Book of Mormon. It is not even close. What would be apples and apples is if we knew where lots of Book of Mormon places are and could not find three of four. What makes it worse is that you do not even know where the Book of Mormon lands are! We do not know if they were in South America, Central America, or the United States. Apples and Apples, we KNOW where the Biblical Lands are.

…and by the way, in spite of the catagorical declaration of Constantine’s mom, we still have not confirmed where Jesus was entombed. You would think, would you not, that something this important would have been kept better track of…but a little time and a lot of having more, shall we say, immediate problems to deal with (like being the fuel for Caligula’s banquet torches)…interfered with continuous identification.

Actually, we DO know. It is marked. No is claiming it is not the location. In fact, when I was LDS, even my instructors said that where the tomb is purported to be IS the tomb.

So now we have the Book of Mormon, which has a couple of problems; one related to the above, and another a matter of something else; faith vs. knowledge.

A couple? I believe that is incorrect. We have several. We have no archeological proof. We have no scientific proof. We have no DNA proof. We have no geographical proof. We have no geological proof. We have problerms with the story of how it was found, how it was translated and where it came from. We have a LOT of problems with the Book of Mormon

First, EVERY site in the Book of Mormon suffers from the same problems that S & G had, plus one: there was nobody around to hang onto the story that there ever were such places…in writing.

Yes, you compare ALL places with ONE place. That is an unfair burden. You seem to believe that since we can;t ONE place, but we CAN find a whole bunch of places, that you can get awasy without even knowing what continent the Book took place on.

Second…in terms of knowledge vs. faith; think about this one: if even one place, ONE incident, related in the BoM were proven to exist or to have actually happened, what would that mean to the world? To Catholics?

To Protestants?

To everybody?

Dunno. I suppose it would have to be dependant on what incident or place it was or if any other Non-LDS scientists or archeologists agreed. It would be interesting if that ever occurred. In the meantime, you have huge problems with lack of ANY evidence of the Book of Mormon, while there is a ton of evidence re: the Bible.

 

[SirThomasMore]

COLOR=“Blue”]Now that we have that out of the way for now, might I point you to a good book? It is called “Voices From the Dust”.by David Calderwood. I have read the book and heard David give a talk.

David is LDS and served his mission in South America. He has done a TON of research and traveling in South and Central America. He has read old archeology books, etc. He has made some pretty startling discoveries (assuming they are true). For example, there are old caves with drawings that show white men hunting black men…nephites and lamanites? he talks about a very old custom that goes back centuries where the tribe would extinguisgh all flames and light in the camp for 3 or 4 days in memory of a time when all the lights in the sky went out and a man came down…sound like 3rd Nephi?

Anyway, a very good book. No non-LDS has given it any validity, but it does make you think.

 

[lax16]

Is it?

Let us compare apples to apples, sir.

Many of the locations of the Bible are identifiable…why? Because people have continually lived in them from the beginning, with no interuptions of any great length of time.

To compare like to like, we would have to have the variables the same. What are the BoM variables…that is, IF IT WERE TRUE, what has happened?

1. the people who wrote it and saved the records were pretty much wiped out, and the culture destroyed.
2. it was around 1500 years before any record regarding these peoples and cultures was found.
3. There was no continuous record keeping from that time to this one.

Does the bible have any similar groups or places?
Yes, actually…how about Sodom and Gommorah? Mt. Arrarat? Bethany? Mt. Sinai?

We STILL don’t really know where they are. Modern science has come very close to figuring out where Sodom and Gamorrah were…sorta…but it certainly took awhile…and if that area were covered with foliage we still wouldn’t have a clue. As for the mountains…well, various people identify different ones to apply the name to. All we really know is that the famous monastary on Mt. Sinai is almost certainly on the wrong mountain.

So, personally, I think you should cut the BoM some slack. EVERY place in the BoM is in the fix that Sodom and Gamorrah (If I spell this enough different ways, ONE of them is bound to be right, right?) and the mountains are in–and quite frankly, nobody but Mormons is at all interested, or HAS been interested, in looking into the matter. Whereas people have been trying to find biblical place names for two thousand years.

…and by the way, in spite of the catagorical declaration of Constantine’s mom, we still have not confirmed where Jesus was entombed. You would think, would you not, that something this important would have been kept better track of…but a little time and a lot of having more, shall we say, immediate problems to deal with (like being the fuel for Caligula’s banquet torches)…interfered with continuous identification.

So now we have the Book of Mormon, which has a couple of problems; one related to the above, and another a matter of something else; faith vs. knowledge.

First, EVERY site in the Book of Mormon suffers from the same problems that S & G had, plus one: there was nobody around to hang onto the story that there ever were such places…in writing.

Second…in terms of knowledge vs. faith; think about this one: if even one place, ONE incident, related in the BoM were proven to exist or to have actually happened, what would that mean to the world? To Catholics?

To Protestants?

To everybody?

As a result, the standard for proof would have to be far higher than for anything found in the bible. Remember, we have the peoples who wrote the bible. Putting their beliefs into this compilation of books does not prove that those beliefs are true. However, because of the way we GOT the BoM, proving that, say…Zarahelmla existed would be proof of Mormonism, proof of Christianity and proof of God.

That’s pretty big.

Diana - Somebody would have mentioned the BoM people somewhere as a cross-reference. Didn’t they trade with any people? Didn’t they build aqueducts? Where are they? How did they get all of their supplies and materials?
If everyone was wiped out, then how can there be descendants?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Diana - Somebody would have mentioned the BoM people somewhere as a cross-reference. Didn’t they trade with any people? Didn’t they build aqueducts? Where are they? How did they get all of their supplies and materials?
If everyone was wiped out, then how can there be descendants?

Not fair, I already asked that…

 

[lax16]

Not fair, I already asked that…

Not the trade and aqueducts part!