Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[PaulDupre]

Here’s a link to a website that defends the traditional Mormon position that the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, NY is the one and only Cumorah:

xmission.com/~hunter/cumorah.htm

It seems that the two-Cumorahs theory is a recent FARMS invention, necessitated by the utter unreasonableness of the distances traveled on foot by the BOM characters.
Paul

 

[TOmNossor]

Flameburns623,

I am impressed by the fact that you look to your former religion with respect for the sincerity and faithfulness of your former co-religionists. On another board I have suggested that I would enjoy being a Catholic, but that I cannot risk the 90%+ chance of being the type of exMormon I see regularly see in “Christianity.” It is good that you are among the 10%.

It bothers me that you suggest that lack of critical thinking about ones religion is more prevalent within the CoJCoLDS than it is in other religions. I recently wrote this concerning what I consider to be a more global case of this lack of critical thinking.

TOm elsewhere (bolding added):

IMO opinion and in the opinion of some non-LDS, the type of thinking taught by the vast almost universal majority of those who would have LDS leave the CoJCoLDS will also decimate a Christian belief structure. I have seen atheists invite the ex-Mormon to apply the same skepticism to Christianity that they applied to Mormonism so they can complete the journey. I suspect I could easily come up with a number of examples of what I call the glass house rebuttal. When a critic of the church asserts “Position A means the CoJCoLDS is false,” a defender of the church replies “but if Position A is a true test your belief structure is also false.” I also believe where the glass house rebuttal is not applicable the following truth is. It is virtually a universal condition that we look with greater skepticism at the beliefs we do not hold as compared to the level of skepticism we use when we look at our own beliefs. The previously mentioned atheists do not employ the glass house rebuttal but instead suggest that once taught proper skeptical thinking the ex-Mormon should make short work of the myth of Christianity and even God. I believe that this is the type of skeptical thinking taught by the majority of LDS critics, and if it is applied to the belief structures of those critics it will result in the decimation of those structures at least as quickly as it dismantled Mormonism (except of course the large cadre of anti-Mormon atheists who would likely survive most of the onslaught with lack of belief maintained, what a victory).

TOm:

I believe that Catholicism stands taller than the rest of non-LDS Christianity and it is not so easily dismantled (its history is also the most veiled due to its antiquity). I know one critical thinker who I acknowledge is sharper and more informed on things Catholic AND things LDS than I am, but is solidly a convinced Catholic. I have been forced to realize that we see things differently and yet he is not somehow handicapped.

If you really think you can demonstrate that I do not think critically, I am not informed, or … then I would be happy to walk with you down such a path. It would be my purpose to show you that your critic of the quality of LDS thought is unfair.

On this board I have been accused of engaging religion intellectually and dispassionately. I have had folks tell me that I need to let go of the things I have learned and allow the Bible to speak to me (this would of course have been a non-Catholic sola scriptura person). About 5 years ago two Protestant scholars investigated the state of the debate between Evangelicals and Mormons. They wrote a paper that was a call to arms for non-LDS Christian apologists; it was titled, “Losing the Battle and not Knowing it.”

It is my opinion that you may have critically examined Mormonism and Catholicism. This would put you in a minority. I would suggest to you though that I am in that minority too. I like you changed religions and studied extensively to do so. At least one former Catholic priest made an INFORMED decision to become a LDS as well.

While I will not deny that there are many LDS who look with greater skepticism at the beliefs of others than they do at their own beliefs, I will guarantee you there are many in other faith traditions who do the same.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

At least one former Catholic priest made an INFORMED decision to become a LDS as well.

I’m not sure if you are referring to Isaiah Bennett. He’s the only priest I know of who left Catholicism for LDS. If you are, he has since returned to the Catholic church after being dissolutioned by it. He even writes in his book Inside Mormonism that he never doubted that his Catholic beliefs were true, but he was so intrigued by Mormonism that it drew him to it.

What is the CoJCoLDS? Is it a specific branch of the LDS faith? I have never seen anyone use this abbreviation.

 

[TOmNossor]

Concerning the invention of Farms.

The debate about the location of the BOM has been with the church for a very long time (a component of which would be a Hill Cumorah that exists in MesoAmerica). Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, Parly Pratt, John Taylor, John Page, and others have put forth different views all during the mid-19th century. None of these Apostles and Prophets of the church seemed to have a problem with the fact that they disagreed with eachother.

The Limited Geography Theory became almost universal among scholars who studied the BOM during the early part of the 20th century. The BOM simply does not describe what is called the Hemispheric Geography Theory. In any case to suggest that either of these theories were essential components to the truthfulness of the BOM, the CoJCoLDS, or the Prophethood/Apostleship of there adherents is to grossly misrepresent LDS beliefs.

(the historicalness of this debate into the earliest years of the church is dealt with in FARMS Review Volume 16, Issue 2).

One could argue that the Prophet of God should know the answer to these questions, but I do not see why. In fact, the BOM is amazing in that it does present an internally consistent geography throughout its many pages, travels, and city discoveries. To suggest that Joseph Smith was so bright to perfectly fabricated the internal geography, but was so dull as to think it was aligned with a Hemispheric Geography Theory seems ridiculous to me. That Joseph never considered what the BOM said about distances and days of travel seems more likely. And if he never considered it how lucky must he have been to fabricate a complex and internally consistent geography.

Let us consider a development within the Catholic Church that has limited “glass house” potential AND is very applicable to what leaders should KNOW (even if they have some charisma of infallibility).

St. Irenaeus seems to have been the first to suggest that one must be in agreement with the Church of Rome. From this time till Vatican I the authority of the Pope developed. Interesting things happened. Pope Honorius taught heresy. Scholars argued against the ultimate position of the council on infallibility. The infallibility that emerged was very difficult to define (Some argue that Pope John Paul II has made an infallible decree regarding women and the Priesthood, but Cardinal Ratzinger says no, this was not one because the Priesthood is already infallibly restricted from women. And my fairly educated father (together with his priest as I understand it) both believe that the priesthood will be granted to women). The most concerning aspect of the development of the Papacy is that despite its total reliance upon the position of Peter, it is an authority different from the authority Peter possessed (one might realized that among Catholics there has never been a Peter II). I believe I can make a case that the Papacy was a usurpation not a natural development, but it will still remain that the first Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome) had no idea they were Pope.

I suggest two things from the above. First, Papal authority has developed and responded to pieces of data that seemingly would call into question Papal infallibility. And second, we must allow religions to define their own structures in that infallibility is not granted except when 1. In the Chair of Peter 2.Concerning Faith and Morals 3.In conformance with the “Traditions” of the Church. If you are to strictly define what authority the Pope has, why do you question when I say that it is fine that the prophet did not know that the BOM was set in a LGM not in a HGM.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

I’m not sure if you are referring to Isaiah Bennett. He’s the only priest I know of who left Catholicism for LDS. If you are, he has since returned to the Catholic church after being dissolutioned by it. He even writes in his book Inside Mormonism that he never doubted that his Catholic beliefs were true, but he was so intrigued by Mormonism that it drew him to it.

What is the CoJCoLDS? Is it a specific branch of the LDS faith? I have never seen anyone use this abbreviation.

No, I speak of former Father Jordan Vajda.

I agree that Isaiah Bennett was lacking. His conversion to Mormonism or his conversion back to the Catholic Church (one or both) were poorly reasoned or evidence of a great laxity when it comes to ones spiritual journey or both.

I find it peculiar when Catholics utilize Isaiah Bennett when dealing with the CoJCoLDS. Assuming (as I have been informed) that he is responsible for the Catholic Answers tracts on this web site, he is either being deceptive or speaking as if he possesses an expertise he is quite lacking (and is thus culpably ignorant). He utilizes partial quotes to create false dichotomies and other despicable tactics. Isaiah Bennett is not a credit to the Catholic Church as I see it.

Give me a book by Cardinal Newman, or a copy of the New Mormon Challenge any day.

I am sure that Mr. Bennett feels like he is of service to the Catholic Church. We can only serve God in accordance with the light and knowledge we have. But he has only shown me another example of what anti-Mormonism can be, not added to the compelling picture of Christianity that is the Catholic Church.

Charity, TOm

I missed this sorry.
LDS - Latter Day Saint.
CoJCoLDS - Church of Jesus Christ of LDS
We are LDS. We are members of the CoJCoLDS.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Are you saying that you believe the BoM to be mythology?

No. I believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. My statement was meant to counter the theory that many would flock to the CoJCoLDS if greater archaeogical evidence existed.

I am saying that disregarding the Book of Mormon is still a rational option, even if so. For example: just because the ancient city of Troy has been found, it doesn’t require anyone to believe the mythology it expouses. Surely we can come up with other reasons for disbelief than a lack of archaelogical verification if we want to.

 

[catsrus]

No, I speak of former Father Jordan Vajda.

I am in shock - sort of…
Fr. Jordan Vajda was a priest at the ASU Newman Center while I attended Mass there. I attended a talk he gave to the young adult group once on whether mormonism is Christian . We (the group) came away a bit disturbed by his contention that “it is and isn’t”. I still have my notes from that meeting.
Shortly thereafter, he abruptly disappeared from the parish and no one knew why but a few joked, “Maybe he went to join the mormon church”. And now I find out that that conjecture was correct?!

 

[mormon_fool]

catsrus:

I am in shock - sort of…
Fr. Jordan Vajda was a priest at the ASU Newman Center while I attended Mass there

It would be interesting to see if the chronology matches at all. In 1998 he wrote a Master’s theses called “‘Partakers of the Divine Nature’: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization”. I think he got baptized in the LDS faith in June 2003.

references:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=371

p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm63.showMessageRange?topicID=457.topic&start=23&stop=23

fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=CC-34400117&Category_Code=&Search=jordan+vajda&Offset=&filter_cat=&exclude_word=&the_fieldlist=g.SRCH_NAME%7Cg.SRCH_DESC&range_low=&range_high=&dopowersearch=1&SRCH_CATEGORY_HF=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=

 

[mormon_fool]

For an LDS review (if anyone’s interested) on Bennett see:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=396

A Passion for Faultfinding: The Deconversion of a Former Catholic Priest
Review of When Mormons Call: Answering Mormon Missionaries at Your Door by Isaiah Bennett
Reviewed By: Barry R. Bickmore
Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001. Pp. 201—81

 

[cestusdei]

Tom,
I find that many Mormons tend to be rather unfair to ex-Mormons. For example Bennet was no doubt lauded when he joined you, but when he left…well suddenly he was no longer the cats meow. I too have heard of former Fr. Jordan. Given the state of his religious community nothing surprises me. But if he left tomorrow I expect that suddenly he too would be disparaged.

My challenge to Mormons was simple. Give me one, just one, archeological find that would be accepted by non-Mormon experts that proves the BOM civilizations existed. I can show you remains of ancient Hebrew civilizations in Israel that even an athiest would accept as proof they at least existed as a people. I am not asking for anything miraculous. Just one tiny bit of evidence that shows these vast civilizations actually existed. Just a coin, piece of parchment, heck even a gold book. Believe me, if you had really found such a thing it would have been already trumpted in National Geographic and everywhere else.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

CoJCoLDS - Church of Jesus Christ of LDS

I figured this out on my way home from work today. Too bad it took me like 4 hours to actually figure it out…Man, am I slow!

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

For an LDS review (if anyone’s interested) on Bennett see:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=396

A Passion for Faultfinding: The Deconversion of a Former Catholic Priest
Review of When Mormons Call: Answering Mormon Missionaries at Your Door by Isaiah Bennett
Reviewed By: Barry R. Bickmore
Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001. Pp. 201—81

I’ve read both of Isaiah Bennett’s books, and I have found them to be probably the most charitable books toward the LDS that I have read (from a non-LDS source that is disputing LDS beliefs).

 

[flameburns623]

TOmNossor:

Flameburns623,

I am impressed by the fact that you look to your former religion with respect for the sincerity and faithfulness of your former co-religionists. On another board I have suggested that I would enjoy being a Catholic, but that I cannot risk the 90%+ chance of being the type of exMormon I see regularly see in “Christianity.” It is good that you are among the 10%.

It bothers me that you suggest that lack of critical thinking about ones religion is more prevalent within the CoJCoLDS than it is in other religions. I recently wrote this concerning what I consider to be a more global case of this lack of critical thinking.

Hi TOmNossor:

I absolutely LOVED the day-to-day, nuts’n’bolts aspects of being a Mormon. I find the LDS Scriptures with References to be nearly so invaluable a Bible study aid as the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. I think Roman Catholics would be shocked at the difference in qulaity between the assistance offered to people by their own charities and by what the LDS Church offers.

(I am not being ungrateful but some years ago, after a series of car accidents–not my fault, no permanent injuries, but still a huge financial impact–I found myself job-rich and cash-poor and obliged for several months to rely for help upon charitable organizations. My family and I quickly discovered that the grocery assistance offered to us by the LDS church far outstripped anything we received from other groups: the Mormon ‘storehouse’ system is rather like a miniature Aldi’s store, and the food assistance is grocery-store new–not day-old discards, or foods two days’ removed from the expiration date. Again–when one needs help one needs it and I do NOT mean to sound ungrateful, but there was a clear difference in the caliber of help. The LDS Church can do this because all active Mormons ‘fast’ for two meals once a month AND EARMARK THE MONEY SAVED–usually considered to be about $5.00 to $7.00 per fasting family member–SPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT THE LDS SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM. This is over and above the tithing monies which go to other purposes. Just imagine what this adds up to.

(Moreover, my wife was astonished at the friendliness and kindliness of the LDS people–she attended services with me for a couple of months, etcetera. She found them boring–my wife very much prefers the ‘seeker-sensitive’ Pentecostal type of worship with loud bands and lots of hand-clapping and hand-waving. She despises Anglican worship for the same reason she disliked Mormonism, btw, so she attends worship in a different church than I. But the point is that to this day my wife says she has never met such friendly and caring people as in the LDS church.

(Anyhow: the one distinction I would make is that I ‘qualified’ for assistance from the LDS Church simply by dint of being {formerly} Mormon. We also got help from a Catholic charitable org that neither asked nor cared that no one in my family is Roman Catholic. So there are trade-offs involved. I doubt that any needy Roman Catholic on this forum could just show up at an LDS storehouse and obtain food or other asistance, but a needy Mormon could show up at many Catholic charities and get help, no questions asked).

(continued)

 

[flameburns623]

Sorry about the digression into somewhat personal matters.

Anyhow: I don’t think I agree at all with your analysis that skepticism vis’a’vis Chrisitianity has the same case to make as critics of Mormonism. Real archaeological evidence exists for the Bible, and whilst there are differences in opinon about how to interpret such evidence–the Christian interpretation is not unreasonable. Sound philosophical reasoning has been applied for centuries to the details of the Christian faith and it holds up under scrutiny at least so well as do whatever ‘alternatives’ get offered by skeptics.

Make no mistake: I strongly dislike Richard Abanes’ book on the history of Mormonism. He relies–uncritically–upon historical sources which are clearly tainted by bias, and he nowhere makes it clear that his sources are biased. Read his book “One Nation Under Gods” with no further background to LDS history and you will walk away with an extremely jaundiced view of Joseph Smith–and one which does NOT take into account the vast numbers of people who knew Smith. loved him, admired him, and deemed him a Godly and sincere soul. Joseph Smith was simply more complex than Abanes’ book takes into account. The Tanners are likewise at pains to present evidence against Mormonism in the worst possible of lights.

I have said repeatedly–I will say again–Roman Catholics and other Christians who seek to refute LDS teaching should either commit themselves to a rather protracted study of the subject to enable themselves to discenr wheat from chaff OR should focus more upon a positive presentation of Christianity which they can contrast against the teachings of the LDS Church. Trying to go ‘on the offensive’ with materials of often questionable value is ill-advised. LEARN, KNOW, STUDY CHRISTIANITY–in a fashion amenable to comparative discoussions with people of all sorts of other persuasions. It is the safest and surest way for busy people with lives outside of books and off-line to be prepared to ‘give everyone an answer’ for the faith which lies within us. If one MUST study Mormonism to refute it–try reading one or several books by Mormons about Mormonism, such as the body of works by Talmage (particularly Articles of Faith or Jesus the Christ). Or similar works, widely accepted and utilized in instructing LDS investigators and newly-converted Mormons. Contrast what these books say with what Christianity has said historically–and figure out ‘why’ the Christian Church has taught and defended it’s doctrines in such a fashion. I think one would arrive at much more ‘telling’ refutations of LDS theoogy, AND will deepen one’s own knowledge of Christ, the Scriptures, and the Church in the process.

All of which said–the LDS Church itself, in it’s catechetical materials–does NOT in my humble opinion, rely upon sound argumentation or evidence to convince investigators. It calls upon them, over and over again, to seek a ‘personal conviction’, a ‘burning in the bosom’, an untestable subjective experience. Even if we grant that faith is a gift and that some aspects of belief are always ‘felt’ more than ‘testable’–no mainstream Christian body which I know of relies so heavily upon subjectivism as does the LDS Church.

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Tom,

I find that many Mormons tend to be rather unfair to ex-Mormons. For example Bennet was no doubt lauded when he joined you, but when he left…well suddenly he was no longer the cats meow. I too have heard of former Fr. Jordan. Given the state of his religious community nothing surprises me. But if he left tomorrow I expect that suddenly he too would be disparaged.

And

tkdnick:

I’ve read both of Isaiah Bennett’s books, and I have found them to be probably the most charitable books toward the LDS that I have read (from a non-LDS source that is disputing LDS beliefs).

I do not claim that Isaiah Bennett speaks in an ugly way. I claim that he is intentionally deceptive or while presenting himself as an expert he is grossly misinformed (in a culpable way). I wrote to Catholic answers about 1.5 years ago, received a reply and an assurance that they desired to correct lies or omissions. http://www.catholic.com/library/Mormon_Stumpers.asp (authored by Isaiah Bennett as I understand on fair but not ironclad sources) has not been changed despite the fact that it selectively quotes sources in what (at least now that I have pointed to this deception) one can only assume is intentional misrepresentation. I am a little guy, but I have explained to a Temple Presidents and others that they did not understand the claims of the Catholic Church. If we believe we stand on solid ground we should not have to lie to make our case. And when I see Catholic Answers and Isaiah Bennett do as they have done, I am unimpressed.

Brent Metcalf is a former Mormon. He is a strong critic of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. From what I have read of him and from him he is knowledgeable and respectful. I would suggest that he could be an exMormon that stands taller than Isaiah Bennett.

However, I will acknowledge that there likely is some extra sting to the exMormon critic that produces an impetus to be less charitable than we are called to be.

Still, Bennett put down his Holy Orders, wondered away, and then wondered back (some Catholic friends of mine have added in additional negative details to this, but they are personal and hearsay). Ad Hominem arguments do not deal with the substance of his words (I touched upon some of that above and I am not questioning his words with this line of discussion), but I really do not think I would consider him to be much of a hero were I Catholic.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:
My challenge to Mormons was simple. Give me one, just one, archeological find that would be accepted by non-Mormon experts that proves the BOM civilizations existed. I can show you remains of ancient Hebrew civilizations in Israel that even an athiest would accept as proof they at least existed as a people. I am not asking for anything miraculous. Just one tiny bit of evidence that shows these vast civilizations actually existed. Just a coin, piece of parchment, heck even a gold book. Believe me, if you had really found such a thing it would have been already trumpted in National Geographic and everywhere else.

I will do 4 things. I will give you ONE archeological find that shows that BOM civilizations exited (very limited civilization at the time of this existence, but in complete accord with the BOM, and I have seen an atheist/agnostic label this find as noteworthy). I will suggest that the evidence for New World BOM peoples would be significantly harder to find than Old World evidences. I will suggest that convincing archeology associated with the BOM is radically altering of the faith landscape were Biblical archeology is by comparison barely an eyebrow raiser. And lastly, I will suggest that the presence of archeological evidence is hardly a test for divinity.

In reverse order because that will be more fun.

1. Let me just say Homer’s Iliad. Troy has been found (most likely). Archeology supports the Iliad. I doubt we will be worshiping Zeus any time soon. Ancient books with ancient pedigrees like the Bible and the Iliad can easily have archeological evidence next to their theology.
2. The BOM on the other hand does not have an ancient pedigree. We the BOM is proven true, not only must all Christians get in line for LDS baptism, but all those who reject Christ must as well. In 33AD (or so) men could not travel from Jerusalem to South America instantly (only God could do such a thing). I suppose we could choose to have faith in other aspects of Joseph Smith teachings or not, but Christ would be merely a deductive conclusion.
3. The history of the Old World includes a number of anchors. Cities have maintained their names in some cases. We know were to look for pillars of salt that could have been Lot’s wife. The history of Mesoamerica as contained in our history books and as contained in the BOM does not present ANY anchors. In addition to this there are far fewer written records from the period than from the Bible periods. In addition to this the environment is less conducive to preservation of interesting bits of information than is the Old World areas. And lastly, fewer people have been looking for less time.
4. Well, having explained that New World evidence is much more difficult to find let me present you with archeological evidence that the little band Lehi lead did exactly as the BOM says they did. Lehi left Jerusalem about 600B.C. (Margaret Barker a Methodist scholar and minister is doing some amazing work that suggests that many aspects of the BOM that seem peculiar to an Old Testament setting, would be right at home in the transition from the 1st Temple cult to the post 600 B.C. Judaism). Lehi walked the frankincense trail to Nahom where he turned eastward. The place of Nahom has been identified. It also fits solidly as a place to bury Ishmael (as it was prolly a place of burial or mourning). Inscriptions on 3 alters and at least one additional artifact place Nahom where it should be, along the frankincense trail, at the eastward turn, as a burial place.

One more little ditty so you might know that I do not just randomly grab great white God theories, virgin birth literature, and Mesoamerican crosses to show the BOM is true.

The Olemec people had a king named Kish. As did the Jaredites in BOM. It is generally acknowledge that Olemec people are in the correct place and time to be the Jaredites, but I would not go so far as to say that one name parallel in about the correct time is particularly convincing. Nahom is though.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Flameburns623,

Again, thank you for such a nice post.

I have quoted Father Charles McCoart, “Not because of their faith but because of ours,” to my LDS brothers and sisters many times. I usually receive back an assurance that the CoJCoLDS gives tremendous amounts to non-LDS. This is certainly true (in fact I think every dime of fast offering collected tomorrow goes to tidal wave victims), but I think we could do more. We could learn from Catholic Charities.

Moving on:

Flameburns623:

All of which said–the LDS Church itself, in it’s catechetical materials–does NOT in my humble opinion, rely upon sound argumentation or evidence to convince investigators. It calls upon them, over and over again, to seek a ‘personal conviction’, a ‘burning in the bosom’, an untestable subjective experience. Even if we grant that faith is a gift and that some aspects of belief are always ‘felt’ more than ‘testable’–no mainstream Christian body which I know of relies so heavily upon subjectivism as does the LDS Church.

TOm:

What you say here is true of the CoJCoLDS and I believe what you say about non-LDS Christians is also true of the majority of them. I will talk about this in a bit, but I do not think what you say here is near as objectionable as the following.

Flameburns623 (earlier in this thread):

they simply believe their faith very very intensely, and the LDS tend to lack an objective, rational faculty.

TOm:

In searching for the above bit, I must admit that for whatever reason my original rapid scan of this thread resulted in catching some of your more positive statements about LDS and statements about the Catholic use of logic, coupled with these words. Your posts in totality do not seem to say what I had originally thought they did.

Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

Continued…

I spent my first 6+ years as a LDS without much of a spiritual testimony. When I looked at what the BOM was and what the CoJCoLDS was, I came to the conclusion that Joseph Smith couldn’t do it and the devil wouldn’t do it. I examined evidences and problems with the CoJCoLDS. Not only did the above pillar hold, but I found that LDS apologist have fair to good answers for virtually every problem I was ever shown, but critics have left many fairly powerful evidences unanswered (either because they ignorantly discount LDS scholars as Owen and Mosser suggest is the case or because there is no answer as some LDS suggest). When an Evangelical friend (who seems likely to be on the road to Rome which I hope I encouraged) reformulated why the devil might do it, I finally had to develop a spiritual testimony (and I asked to know if true or false or wait. 30 hours latter came a clear “wait” and I did for 2 months).
I still believe that if we do not look to the devil as guiding the Catholic Church or as guiding the CoJCoLDS the position of the CoJCoLDS is stronger. When we acknowledge that the devil can deceive, the problems of both structures become less important and the evidences for both structures become less compelling. A spiritual witness becomes necessary.

I do not think it so unwise to see spiritual confirmation. With logic alone, I would be a LDS and many LDS could also say the same thing. I have been blessed by my critical inquires, but I know others who are certainly more blessed than I am who have walked a different path. I am only prepared to say that if one feels the need to examine the problems and evidences then they should. If one KNOWS and this is enough, then this is ok too.

Your observation about LDS starting with the assumption of God is interesting and certainly true in many respects. The missionaries are prepared to start with a theist or suggest that one my know God through feeling the spirit.

Few LDS are versed in Summa Theologica and Aquinas’ five proofs. Few LDS know what the Fine Tuning Argument is. Few LDS know why abiogenesis seems to be what converted Anthony Flew (although we did mention his conversion in Sunday School 3 weeks ago, acknowledging that he is not much of a theist as we see things). I am interested in such things and have looked into FTA and Abiogenesis a fair amount. The most articulate Atheist with whom I have dialogued has suggested that Spiritual Experiences are ultimately flawed, but are better than either of these or all of what Aquinas has to offer. I generally agree with him concerning the superiority of SEs to FTA, Abiogenesis, or the five proofs (LDS cannot completely avail ourselves of the five proofs so I neglect them some).

I think RCIA is much more detailed than the Missionary discussions. I think the Missionary discussion, the post Baptism discussions, and 4 years of Gospel Essentials is both superior in some ways and inferior in others to RCIA. I am not a scriptural inerranist and while I do not read the Bible or any scripture with the assumption that any words are in error, I think sola scriptura is a non-Biblical invention, late in Christianity, that is difficult to embrace in light of the historical record concerning the Bible.

So my critical mind would have to give the nod to RCIA as superior to the Missionary discussions for logically addressing reasons to believe, but the sufficiency of scripture arguments among Protestants I think are more flawed than are Missionary discussions.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

TOmNossor:

I do not claim that Isaiah Bennett speaks in an ugly way. I claim that he is intentionally deceptive or while presenting himself as an expert he is grossly misinformed (in a culpable way). I wrote to Catholic answers about 1.5 years ago, received a reply and an assurance that they desired to correct lies or omissions. http://www.catholic.com/library/Mormon_Stumpers.asp (authored by Isaiah Bennett as I understand on fair but not ironclad sources) has not been changed despite the fact that it selectively quotes sources in what (at least now that I have pointed to this deception) one can only assume is intentional misrepresentation. I am a little guy, but I have explained to a Temple Presidents and others that they did not understand the claims of the Catholic Church. If we believe we stand on solid ground we should not have to lie to make our case. And when I see Catholic Answers and Isaiah Bennett do as they have done, I am unimpressed.

Brent Metcalf is a former Mormon. He is a strong critic of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. From what I have read of him and from him he is knowledgeable and respectful. I would suggest that he could be an exMormon that stands taller than Isaiah Bennett.

However, I will acknowledge that there likely is some extra sting to the exMormon critic that produces an impetus to be less charitable than we are called to be.

Still, Bennett put down his Holy Orders, wondered away, and then wondered back (some Catholic friends of mine have added in additional negative details to this, but they are personal and hearsay). Ad Hominem arguments do not deal with the substance of his words (I touched upon some of that above and I am not questioning his words with this line of discussion), but I really do not think I would consider him to be much of a hero were I Catholic.

Charity, TOm

As I said, he was a hero when he joined and now he is not. Actually I know a bit about why he left us. He is not being deceptive. This reinforces what I have said. You claim you don’t dislike him, but then clearly indicate your distaste. This enables you to dismiss what he says. In Jordans case I frankly blame his Order and its formation more then I would him. Priests leave for all kinds of reasons. We are often seen as great “catches” by various groups. What 19 year old Mormon missionary wouldn’t want to go home and brag he converted a Catholic priest.

 

[cestusdei]

1. Let me just say Homer’s Iliad. Troy has been found (most likely). Archeology supports the Iliad. I doubt we will be worshiping Zeus any time soon. Ancient books with ancient pedigrees like the Bible and the Iliad can easily have archeological evidence next to their theology.

#Great, so we found Troy. I await a similiar find in New York.

1. The BOM on the other hand does not have an ancient pedigree. We the BOM is proven true, not only must all Christians get in line for LDS baptism, but all those who reject Christ must as well. In 33AD (or so) men could not travel from Jerusalem to South America instantly (only God could do such a thing). I suppose we could choose to have faith in other aspects of Joseph Smith teachings or not, but Christ would be merely a deductive conclusion.

#You are right. It was written in the early 19th century. It has no ancient pedigree at all. Hence you will find nothing.

1. The history of the Old World includes a number of anchors. Cities have maintained their names in some cases. We know were to look for pillars of salt that could have been Lot’s wife. The history of Mesoamerica as contained in our history books and as contained in the BOM does not present ANY anchors. In addition to this there are far fewer written records from the period than from the Bible periods. In addition to this the environment is less conducive to preservation of interesting bits of information than is the Old World areas. And lastly, fewer people have been looking for less time.

#Why would the environment be worse? Surely there would be ancient tells to excavate. Hebrews loved to leave written records. Surely we would have found even one. Perhaps an inscription somewhere in Hebrew or “reformed egytian”. Just one. But you are right there are no anchors, because they don’t exist.

1. Well, having explained that New World evidence is much more difficult to find let me present you with archeological evidence that the little band Lehi lead did exactly as the BOM says they did. Lehi left Jerusalem about 600B.C. (Margaret Barker a Methodist scholar and minister is doing some amazing work that suggests that many aspects of the BOM that seem peculiar to an Old Testament setting, would be right at home in the transition from the 1st Temple cult to the post 600 B.C. Judaism). Lehi walked the frankincense trail to Nahom where he turned eastward. The place of Nahom has been identified. It also fits solidly as a place to bury Ishmael (as it was prolly a place of burial or mourning). Inscriptions on 3 alters and at least one additional artifact place Nahom where it should be, along the frankincense trail, at the eastward turn, as a burial place.

#Of course Smith had the OT available, so it isn’t like he knew nothing about the Hebrews. But I find nothing in Biblical Archeological Review that speaks of Lehi sailing to the New World. Look, just give me a coin from New York that is positively dated and indentified as Nephite by non-Mormon archeologists. So far you have given me nothing of what I asked for.

One more little ditty so you might know that I do not just randomly grab great white God theories, virgin birth literature, and Mesoamerican crosses to show the BOM is true.

#Well that’s good. It saves me the trouble of refuting them.

The Olemec people had a king named Kish. As did the Jaredites in BOM. It is generally acknowledge that Olemec people are in the correct place and time to be the Jaredites, but I would not go so far as to say that one name parallel in about the correct time is particularly convincing. Nahom is though.

#Ok find me a non-Mormon archeologist of repute who will claim that the Olemec were Jewish. On the dead sea scrolls I am told there are lists of angels names. One of them seems to correspond to Moroni. But before you get your hopes up…he is on the list of fallen angels. So should we then conclude that Moroni was demonic? Nothing you have said here gives the tiny bit of evidence I requested.