Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[catholic-rcia]

The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains / A study / The other view

http://www.irr.org/mit/bomarch1.html

For today only I have placed the Video (DNA and the book of Mormon / Mormon Scholars on my site)

http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/DNA_Mormon.html

It would also be wise to study the Mayan Civilization and their beliefs found online. You should also take note of the Aztecs.

Are they found in the book of Mormon? Would be a good question.

If there was a book written about America in 2,500 years would there be anything about America, Americans written? Think about the Aztecs. A very, very large Civilization.

 

[catholic-rcia]

You can see the DNA Video here from your computer.
lhvm.org/dna_view.htm

God Bless
Rich

 

[oat_soda]

You can see the DNA Video here from your computer.
lhvm.org/dna_view.htm

excellent video of the unrefutable errors and contradictions of mormonism. DNA, LINGUISTIC, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ALL SHOW THE BOM TO BE WRONG.

there are two possibilities: 1) BOM was fabricated during the 19th century or 2)DNA, linguistic, and archological sciences are totally unreliable. this would refute that we can gain knowledge of the world through observation of the world around us. this would put all knowlege in question and would fundamentally contadict existance itself. so really, there is only one possibility, number 1).

TOm, you are not open to dialouge. you are here to convert someone to your fantasy. like i said, you are insane for buying into mormonism if you have taken a honest look at the evidence. s

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains / A study / The other view

I have seen these discussions before. That does not mean that valuable information is not being conveyed only that I have already taken into account this information.

There are a number of things that have been discussed about the LGT before archeology (and way before DNA said what little it can say) seemed to demand it. I have already posted a number of things on this thread that mitigate the damage done by the lack of archeological evidence.

My position has always been that there are problems with the BOM, but the fraud theory is less able to explain the evidences than is the authentic theory able to explain the problems. For a non-Mormon perspective on this please see the following article by two well respected Evangelical Christian scholars.

Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect – Losing the Battle and not Knowing It.

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

If you think Catholics are in a better position than Evangelicals you are both right and wrong. Towards attacking the beliefs of LDS Catholic have been much poorer than Evangelicals. The strongest most cogent attacks upon the CoJCoLDS come from Atheists in my opinion, but Mosser and Owen are rising to the challenge. Isaiah Bennett in my opinion could not even shine their shoes.

On the other hand, Catholics if they so choose could stand on defending against the apostasy (if they truly believed that was sufficient to make their points)

Here is an excellent exchange on just that between a Catholic and a LDS.

http://www.transporter.com/apologia/lds_rcc/index.html

The Aztec seem to be a little late if I remember correctly. The surviving Maya and Aztec witness would be from the post genocide (through killing or forcibly converting) of those who followed Christ. Some of the Mayan culture especially and solid earlier things would be of possible interest wrt the BOM. Also the Olemec culture would be interesting wrt the Jaradites in the BOM. Neither of these links is hard and solid, but they are in the proper place and time according to the best scholarly reconstructions. As you have pointed out the evidence is quite scant in favor of the BOM and there are some problems associated with pointing to these cultures, but as Mosser and Owen acknowledge these problems have ALL been addressed. It is the evidences that have not been addressed.

DNA does not do what it claims to be able to do. (I have seen the video). Perhaps DNA has something to say about the HGT, but the LGT is hardly affected at all. Here is quote from Robert Pollack (a Jewish man):

“…there are no DNA sequences common to all Jews and absent from all non-Jews. There is nothing in the human genome that makes or diagnoses a person as a Jew.”

This is contained in the Jewish weekly, Forward.

BYU geneticist have been saying this for quite some time, but since I knew nobody would believe them here is a non-BYU scientist (he is a mathematician I believe) who likely has little idea how his words effect our discussion.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

excellent video of the unrefutable errors and contradictions of mormonism. DNA, LINGUISTIC, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ALL SHOW THE BOM TO BE WRONG.

there are two possibilities: 1) BOM was fabricated during the 19th century or 2)DNA, linguistic, and archological sciences are totally unreliable. this would refute that we can gain knowledge of the world through observation of the world around us. this would put all knowlege in question and would fundamentally contadict existance itself. so really, there is only one possibility, number 1).

TOm, you are not open to dialouge. you are here to convert someone to your fantasy. like i said, you are insane for buying into mormonism if you have taken a honest look at the evidence. s

Again, you use this phase, “you are insane for buying into mormonism if you have taken a honest look at the evidence.”

I think it is obvious that I have looked at far more evidence than have you. This is born out time and time and time again on this thread. A notable occurrence was when you claimed Clement was not a Mormon, but said you had never read Clement and didn’t need to.

So, I am dishonest or insane. I am virtually certain I am not dishonest. And I truly doubt I am insane, but I guess many insane people just don’t know.

What I do know is that you have dealt with almost zero things I have said and I have dealt with close to everything you have said. One of is not dialoguing, but it is not me.

Now concerning converting others.

I truly do believe that the CoJCoLDS is a better read of history, sciences, and the data we have than is Catholicism, but AugustineH354 disagrees. He is both more intelligent and more informed than I am, and I am convinced he is completely honest. Intelligent and informed people can disagree on these issues.

If my sole purpose was to convert Catholics, I would not intentional confine my comments to this thread. I would spread challenging bits of information all around Catholic Answers. People like you who think Clement was a Catholic would have conflicting data thrust upon them. I do not do this.

Instead, I both refute incorrect positions (it came to pass) and utilize the glass house principle (Oat Soda says … I say if … is true then Catholicism is less supportable than Mormonism). I once feared that I would not convert Catholics (which would not necessarily be bad), but that I would throw Catholics off balance with my words. I am not particularly concerned with this any longer. People like AugustineH354 know more about Mormonism and Catholicism than I do and are solidly Catholic. People like Catholic-rcia seem to have some spiritual reasons to be Catholic and do not pay much attention to my responses. People like you may or may not have any good reason to be Catholic, but are so dismissive of what I say you couldn’t possibly learn or be thrown off balance.

I do hope that those who truly believe that LDS are insane, uninformed, or dishonest will change their opinion. This is my stated intention, and it is the foundation of my purposes. And in all honesty, I enjoy the interaction in a way that I am suspect is not wholly righteous.

So I will continue to point out that you are calling me names, not responding to the things I say to you, and are generally not contributing to this dialogue. This is not intended to mean that you are not a good person or even a good Catholic. I hope you are served well by your faith.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

“I have seen these discussions before. That does not mean that valuable information is not being conveyed only that I have already taken into account this information.”

When A Mormon Missionary teaches about the fall of the Apostolic Church, do they give those that do not know the other view of the Apostasy those lessons as well? There are many sites that they can be directed to online. Or do they assume that those they teach already now this view? Assuming they have investigated this themselves. If not, that would be a shame. It would be wrong. As a Catholic I can give all views and feel very, very comfortable in this. It’s amazing, when a Mormon starts to learn about the Catholic faith, one that is truly and honestly inquiring and this is not a easy thing to do, everyone of them, every one of them is amazed at what they learn. Compared to what they were told. I had a step mother who was very jealous of my mother. She had not one good thing to say about her, even after she died. But I knew my mother. I held on to her as a child and she always held on to me. Although, she got lost in this world, she was a very, very special person. It was my father that left her for one younger women, the one who spoke bad things about my mother. It’s interesting what Jealousy can do without forgiveness and reconciliation. As to my step mother, I am the only one who stays in touch with her. You know why? Because deep down and with Christ in my life , I love her to……

God Bless

 

[catholic-rcia]

“:if they truly believed that was sufficient to make their points”

I am a rare Catholic. Most, if not all that I know would be uncomfortable with this kind of dialogue. Most do not feel the need for this power. Or they shy from it. I have so much respect for most Catholics. And for those that I do not have respect for, well for this I go to confession. Who am I to judge? I wish at times I was one, but I have my calling. Points! Arguments! It’s all human.

It’s more about power than really spreading Christ. I am right you are wrong. And even when right you have to be very careful. There are many hurting people out there in the world. Catholics are all over this world for them. Online searches will show this if you need to look for whatever reason. They are in the darkest areas of this world bringing hope to them. Many even today are dying for them. But we are in this great Country; even many Catholics here do not see this. What are these missionaries bringing to others? Not some kind of marketing plan, for they are not required to go, nor are they concerned with catching the big fish and displaying their catch. They are simply called by God to go. Not a church for a certain number, just to spread the hope of Christ. And this hope is not always done in the name of the Church and in the name of Jesus. Rather Jesus bringing Hope to others through each of us in person because we have Trinity in our lives. It’s not about us, it has to be about others. Jesus was perfect in this, with Jesus we to can be perfect in this at times if we can get the focus off of ourselves. The very focus that is the LDS Church. It is black and white, unless you want to get into a dialogue that stands in the mud. If so, it is amazing at how fast and how deep you can sink. Look, it’s about Jesus in our lives. It’s about Trinity in our lives. It’s about Christianity in out lives.

And the best place to stay close to Jesus is at His table receiving Him. It is a table 2000 years old. The Apostles sat at it and their eyes were opened. Just like them mine have been opened as well.

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:
When A Mormon Missionary teaches about the fall of the ApostolicChurch, do they give those that do not know the other view of the Apostasy those lessons as well? There are many sites that they can be directed to online. Or do they assume that those they teach already now this view? Assuming they have investigated this themselves. If not, that would be a shame. It would be wrong. As a Catholic I can give all views and feel very, very comfortable in this.

TOm:

I am certain that very few LDS missionaries or LDS for that matter know a tremendous amount about the fall of the Catholic Church or the strengths of the Catholic Church. The miracle that was/is the BOM, the miracle that was/is the first vision, and the miracle that was/is the restoration bear witness to the truthfulness of the CoJCoLDS. There are clearly ways to question the above miracles, you have demonstrated a number with respect to the BOM already, but if these miracles are what they say they are then the Catholic Church is apostate. The fact that false dilemmas are taught by anti-Catholics is unfortunate. The fact that there are real dilemmas within the foundations of Catholicism is something I place beside the real dilemmas that exist in Mormonism. (also of note is what I said before, LDS apologetics are generally directed at protestants and not at intelligent, informed, committed Catholics).

I suggest to you that I have presented a more balances position with respect to Catholicism than you have with respect to Mormonism. I could have jumped on some of the issues that Tdnick mentioned are problematic for most non-Catholics, but in fairness they are non-issues and I explained why they are non-issue. You have generally presented one side of issues such as DNA and the absence of Christ in the lives of LDS. I really do not see your criticism of the missionaries as not being applicable to you too.

I believe your heart is in the correct place, but nobody perfectly balances issues and few people try very hard.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

Tom

I just posted a new Thread. We to have many wonderful people in our Church. They may not stand out as much as in other Churches. But then again they do not have to, and being in Christ, why should they have to. Many stay in the shadows passing on gifts without end to others. But then you may not be witness to this, for it is not seen as well as in other Churches. But the question is, who can we ever really impress other that God Himself. In order not to shine, this relationship has to be real and it has to be strong. For many that I have come to know who share in holy Communion this bond is pretty awsome. It is so different. It is the treasure found.

 

[catholic-rcia]

I must have gotton a good night sleep.

This is a great site:
scripturecatholic.com/

 

[catholic-rcia]

Let’s try this Tom.

Using the Bible, King James Version, let’s compare the Mormon Church to the Catholic Church. You can begin, just pick a subject. A belief within your Church. But let’s not enter in our own thoughts. Just use Scripture. You pick the subject and then we will go to the Scriptures. This way we will be able to place these scriptures side by side.

Three Heavens

Trinity

Marriage

Baptism for the dead etc

Papal Succession

Jesus the brother of Satan etc…

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

Let’s try this Tom.

Using the Bible, King James Version, let’s compare the Mormon Church to the Catholic Church. You can begin, just pick a subject. A belief within your Church. But let’s not enter in our own thoughts. Just use Scripture. You pick the subject and then we will go to the Scriptures. This way we will be able to place these scriptures side by side.

Three Heavens

Trinity

Marriage

Baptism for the dead etc

Papal Succession

Jesus the brother of Satan etc…

Let me make a few comments and then you can choose if you wish to go forward with my choice.

The most glaring comment is that neither of us are sola scripturists. For our doctrines to not be perfectly definable from the Bible is not a “fatal flaw.” You add in tradition with authoritative interpretation. I add in other scriptures with semi-authoritative interpretation.

Next, you did not include what I believe to be your most difficult doctrine to defend against the Bible. In my opinion that is the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Lastly, I am not sure what you hope to accomplish by this. I know which scriptures I would use to defend the above Catholic and LDS doctrines (even the perpetual virginity of Mary). Where are we going with this?

Of the above I guess I would choose the Trinity. It is the most interesting in my opinion. The biggest problem with the Trinity will be that we will need to define what it is before we decide if scripture is able to point us to “it” or not. Why don’t you define what you believe about the Trinity. I will ask you some questions. Then from that definition we will see if the Bible can produce the Trinity.

Another option if it is in fact my choice would be Papal Succession which would certainly include Papal Authority I assume.

Anyway, if you wish to do this I will be able to post some ideas.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

You give me the official Mormon Church’s view of the Trinity in a full disclosure. Not holding back and keeping within the 5000 character limit. The clear and precise stuff that is written, that is doctrine.

I will do the same with the Catholic Church, this is where we will try and define our faiths position on God / Trinity. This is where we can start.

When you have done so let me know and I will post at the same time you do. I am busy today so lets give each other time.
Say by 6:00 tonight.

Let’s use our Churches Traditional teachings as it is written, but let’s make sure we back it up with Scripture notations. Not placing our own comments in between anywhere.

You wrote: Let’s see if the Bible can produce the Trinity

Let’s see

Let me know when you are done defining Trinity / God / 5000 characters using Scripture and your Doctrine.

 

[oat_soda]

Clement was not a Mormon, but said you had never read Clement and didn’t need to.

i’m not going to waste time on clement. he was a pope and was recognized as one back in the 2nd century by Jerome. give it up. he was never considered a mormon by anyone until you started looking at the church fathers.

why argue with you? you told us that truth is determined by faith. this means your reality is not based on observation but on a fantasy. no matter how much proof and evidence we show you that mormonism is a lie, you will always hold on to it because of blind faith. it’s a waste of time. you are crazy.

 

[Sophie]

TOmNossor:

Were Joseph Smith the author he would have thought as a modern person, and he would have avoided such errors. But Joseph Smith is not the author

Sorry Tom, but Joseph Smith admitted he was the author of his Book of Mormon. His 1830 BOM title page states: Written by Joseph Smith, Jr.,
author and proprietor

This was years later changed to as it reads today: translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

Sophie:
Sorry Tom, but Joseph Smith admitted he was the author of his Book of Mormon. His 1830 BOM title page states: Written by Joseph Smith, Jr.,
author and proprietor

This was years later changed to as it reads today: translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.

Sophie,

I am impressed that you know this bit of trivia. Many sophisticated arguments exist that Joseph Smith was the sole author of the Book of Mormon. Yours is but one that I have seen. Of course the opposite is also true, and I think arguments against Joseph Smith’s authorship are more impressive. Some of this has already been presented in this thread such as witnesses’ statements that I have defended and the ancient correspondences such as TOm has presented.

Let me humbly offer an explanation for your observation. The “author and proprietor” remark in the first edition was to secure the copyright for the BoM according to a New York statute at the time. In the preface Joseph Smith clarifies that he worked as a translator. Joseph Smith’s earliest critics, like Alexander Campbell and J.B. Turner, both thought that Joseph Smith wasn’t the sole author. Another evidence against Joseph Smith’s authorship is that some statistical analysis has shown difference in the style of four different authors in the BoM. We will call them Nephi, Jacob, Mormon, and Moroni.

Later,
fool

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:
You give me the official Mormon Church’s view of the Trinity in a full disclosure. Not holding back and keeping within the 5000 character limit. The clear and precise stuff that is written, that is doctrine.

I will do the same with the Catholic Church, this is where we will try and define our faiths position on God / Trinity. This is where we can start.

When you have done so let me know and I will post at the same time you do. I am busy today so lets give each other time.

Say by 6:00 tonight.

Let’s use our Churches Traditional teachings as it is written, but let’s make sure we back it up with Scripture notations. Not placing our own comments in between anywhere.

You wrote: Let’s see if the Bible can produce the Trinity

Let’s see

Let me know when you are done defining Trinity / God / 5000 characters using Scripture and your Doctrine.

Hmmm!

I thought I said a lot more of interest than just, Trinity, including asking you what you hope to do/prove with this exercise. But…

As I suspect you know, “the official Mormon Church’s view” is contained wholly in the scriptures with no extra words. I see a few options for my answer to your question. I can quote a number of scriptures to you and say here it is. I am not sure that would be satisfactory to you. I can utilize the concepts of someone like Blake Ostler and create a complex synthesis of scripture that my be true, but is certainly not binding LDS doctrine. Or, I can provide a few simple words that provide a general boundary for LDS belief.

Good or bad, LDS do not have a CCC. We have a short canonized creedal statement called the Articles of Faith. But as I said before, there are a few beliefs associated with being a LDS. We are more orthoprax than orthodox.

I am leaning towards the providing of general boundaries (which I suspect will easily take less than 5000 words).

I hope you are not too disappointed that I did not post until well after your 6pm suggestion. If you agree, I think I can do a 1pm MST post for tomorrow (Monday). In addition to my previous question, I wonder what the simultaneous posting is for.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

i’m not going to waste time on clement. he was a pope and was recognized as one back in the 2nd century by Jerome. give it up. he was never considered a mormon by anyone until you started looking at the church fathers.

I said it was not possible to show from Clement that he was a Mormon or a Catholic. It was you who defined a test that reasonably applied to your own beliefs demonstrated that Catholicism was false and Clement not only was not the first Pope, but was not a Catholic. I claimed your test was flawed, but you had no interest in engaging in a discussion. Post #178 shows how damaging your test is to Catholicism. You have never dealt with what I said on post #178, but instead claim to not need to read Clement. Who has blind faith?

More times than not when you provide data about the early church you demonstrate that it is you who have an unresearched, uncritical acceptance of the things told you by your church. In you latest post you claim that Jerome wrote in the 2nd Century, but he was born in the mid-fourth century.

If the foundation of your faith is thought and observation, you have demonstrated that you have made your observations from an unreliable source. Clement does not say anything like you think he does; I know I have read what he wrote. Jerome did not put forth a list of Bishops in the 2nd Century. I know because I have read some of Jerome and read about Jerome’s life. Irenaeus did put forth a list of bishops in the very late 2nd century (180-200AD), I know because I have read much of what he wrote.
oat soda:

why argue with you? you told us that truth is determined by faith. this means your reality is not based on observation but on a fantasy.

I actually told you that the final leap was a leap of faith. My words were, “Religious truth is not founded upon observation it is founded upon faith. The question becomes is there a sufficient foundation from which to build? I think the answer for Catholicism and Mormonism is yes. I just believe that the foundation is stronger for Mormonism than Catholicism (post #172).
oat soda:

no matter how much proof and evidence we show you that mormonism is a lie, you will always hold on to it because of blind faith. it’s a waste of time. you are crazy.

The problem is that the things that you think are proof are not. The things you point to as evidence I address, but you do not pay attention to what I say. The things I claim as evidence you dismiss with almost no logic.

And you continue to call me crazy. I think this is unproductive.

I hope you can stop using words like “crazy” that contribute nothing to our discussion and could be viewed as uncharitable. The Catholic Church has a very strong position. I do not think you demonstrate that by using words such as “crazy” and concepts such as your “Clement test” and pointing to Jerome as a 2nd century fellow.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Sophie:

Sorry Tom, but Joseph Smith admitted he was the author of his Book of Mormon. His 1830 BOM title page states: Written by Joseph Smith, Jr.,
author and proprietor
This was years later changed to as it reads today: translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.

Mormon Fool answered this quite well. I have heard this from critics before, but I really do not think it is too damaging.

To my knowledge Joseph Smith never claimed to be the author of the BOM and the BOM text makes it clear that this was not the books claim.

It seems to me that for this argument to get off the ground, you would need to be suggesting that Joseph Smith originally claimed to be the author but later decided to claim to be a “translator.” Is this your position? Do you have any data other than what Mormon Fool already addressed?

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

Lets do the articles of faith and the Christian creed. To be honest, I would be like a Daisy trying to understand Trinity.
But as a Daisy compared to God, I surly would have placed His word to us in the forefront. For me the Trinity is laced throughout the Holy Bible. It’s like looking for a certain shell on a beach. You find a couple, then you start to seeing them everywhere. I love (1 Cor 12)

I am really busy this week but I can start. Make sure you give Biblical notations from the King James. If each belief in your article is (as is) make sure you state this next to each article. This would be for someone who might might be reading it for the first time. I would assume that it is very clear. If this Creed has changed through time please post the original. I know that it can be found.

I will post the Apostles here. The Nicene tonight. These are the only two.

Talk soon Tom