Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[cestusdei]

Tom,
I refuse to slip into the subjective faith debate. I am trying to focus on basic historical evidence. That way we avoid bias. Let’s just take the last example you give about the Maya. I am no mesoamerican scholar, but I do know that non lds mesoamerican scholars do not consider there to be any link between the Mayans and the Hebrews. If you check the links I gave you will find that DNA evidence does not support any genetic link. That is just one refutation of one of your examples. I am sure FARMS can give you lots, but until we see this being treated seriously by archeologists and scholars you are barking up the wrong tree. You have to face the fact that if your examples were so conclusive it would be an archeological revolution. It would make someones career. It would be all over the news. It would be taught in Universities, besides BYU. The people of Santa Rosa would be very surprised that they haven’t noticed the ruins of a huge ancient city all over the place. I mean how do you miss the temple in your back yard? If you could have given me the evidence I asked for you already would have. You have tried, I will give you that. But you can’t prove your case well enough to convince non lds experts or me.

I was once challenged by a Mormon missionary to pray and ask God if the BOM was true. Being fair I did so. I received a reply. God said very clearly, “No”. When you add that to what my reason tells me then the conclusion is also quite clear. The BOM is a figment of Smiths very fertile imagination.

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Tom,
I refuse to slip into the subjective faith debate. I am trying to focus on basic historical evidence. That way we avoid bias. Let’s just take the last example you give about the Maya. I am no mesoamerican scholar, but I do know that non lds mesoamerican scholars do not consider there to be any link between the Mayans and the Hebrews. If you check the links I gave you will find that DNA evidence does not support any genetic link. That is just one refutation of one of your examples. I am sure FARMS can give you lots, but until we see this being treated seriously by archeologists and scholars you are barking up the wrong tree. You have to face the fact that if your examples were so conclusive it would be an archeological revolution. It would make someones career. It would be all over the news. It would be taught in Universities, besides BYU
I was once challenged by a Mormon missionary to pray and ask God if the BOM was true. Being fair I did so. I received a reply. God said very clearly, “No”. When you add that to what my reason tells me then the conclusion is also quite clear. The BOM is a figment of Smiths very fertile imagination.

It is fine for you to frame our debate as basic historical evidence. I do not agree that this will eliminate all bias, but it is fine.

As I suggested, we cannot base our decisions on one aspect of the discussion. The Catholic Church would not have near as strong of a position if you let me or Protestants define the field upon which we will play.

I do not think that New World archeology has demonstrated that Lehi and Nephi were residents of ancient America. I however also do not believe that science or archeology have remotely demonstrated that they were not.

If your position is that you have proven the BOM to be false, then I surely cannot see any such FACTS in your posts. If your position is that I have not proven the BOM to be true history, then I can agree with this.

In my mind the fraud theory explains the data worse than the supernatural revelation theory, but I must admit that I include in this data things that are not just historical facts concerning the New World.

I would not expect the surviving witness of Mesoamerica to be illustrative of a Jewish culture. Not only this, but the scholarship of Margaret Barker suggests that much of the generally accepted aspects of this Jewish culture may not be something we would see in a group who left decrying the reforms taking place in 600B.C. The BOM teaches us that the group that held to the traditions that might indicate Jewish or Christian belief were the victims of some type of genocide like cleansing. We also know that the Mesoamerican cultures that we know about did not have extensive records kept (or at least surviving to today). Concerning DNA, I can walk this road with you, but those who claim that DNA proves the BOM to be false are vastly overstating their evidence and applying it to ideas that have never been part of binding LDS doctrine anyway.

Long ago I realize that not all who prayed to know if the BOM was true would receive an affirmative answer. I believe some of the typical LDS explanation for these phenomena can explain a number of non-confirming answers. But I also believe that all non-confirming answers are not explained by typical LDS answers. I believe that “intellectual” Catholics should follow your lead, read the BOM, pray, ponder, and receive a witness. “Intellectual and Spiritual” Catholics may not need to do this, but some may feel the need. There is much more to the BOM than has been presented on this thread. There is much more to it than difficult to explain evidences and difficult to explain problems. Of course this is true of components of all religions.

Oh, and I spent a number of months trying understand the strength of the Catholic position. I also spent 20 years attending mass. I looked first to Catholic sources in my search. I did not confine my review to aspects that would likely confirm some preconceived position. I did develop Holy Envy for the “real presence.” I was blessed by my search. But I came to the intellectual conclusion that the CoJCoLDS being God’s church accounted more fully for the data available than the conclusion that the Catholic Church was God’s church. In addition to this I received spiritual confirmation.

Charity, TOm

 

[Sophie]

oat soda:

also the fact that the book of abraham was really a 2nd century copy of the egyptian book of dead and there is absolutely no archeological evidence to support what is written in the BOM. you can’t hide lies forever.

Anyone see the Tournament of Roses Parade on New Year’s Day. There was an Egyptian float with the mythical Egyptian god Osiris. This is the god Joe Smith mistakenly said was “Abraham fastened upon an alter” in his Facsimile #l located in his Book of Abraham.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

LDS critics must address Nahom, Chiasms, Pre-exilic theology in the BOM, witness statements, transmission (translation) methods, …

I don’t know anything about Nahom, so I can’t say for that. As Chiasms…you can find those in TONS of readings that aren’t related at all to Hebrew (at least what I’ve heard). I have NO IDEA what Pre-exilic theology is. Witness Statements - anyone can make any claim they want about anything. It’s not LDS critics who must adress this, but the LDS that must prove what these witnesses claim is true. Translation methods: everyone knows the story of how the BoM was translated…prove it happened that way. Why should I believe that som guy translated gold plates using some rocks? (obviously that was a simplified version of what happened)

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I did develop Holy Envy for the “real presence.” I was blessed by my search.

What is a “Holy Envy for the ‘real presence’?” Did you mean that you did believe in the real presence? Isn’t the real presence idea either 1) Yes Jesus is really present in the bread and wine; or 2) No Jesus is not? If you believed in the real presence, how could you leave for a church that believes it is only a symbol?

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

I don’t know anything about Nahom, so I can’t say for that. As Chiasms…you can find those in TONS of readings that aren’t related at all to Hebrew (at least what I’ve heard). I have NO IDEA what Pre-exilic theology is. Witness Statements - anyone can make any claim they want about anything. It’s not LDS critics who must adress this, but the LDS that must prove what these witnesses claim is true. Translation methods: everyone knows the story of how the BoM was translated…prove it happened that way. Why should I believe that som guy translated gold plates using some rocks? (obviously that was a simplified version of what happened)

Again, I claim no proof. I claim that intellectually the supernatural explanation accounts for the data much better than a naturalistic explanation.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

What is a “Holy Envy for the ‘real presence’?” Did you mean that you did believe in the real presence? Isn’t the real presence idea either 1) Yes Jesus is really present in the bread and wine; or 2) No Jesus is not? If you believed in the real presence, how could you leave for a church that believes it is only a symbol?

Holy Envy is a term from the former Dean of Harvard Divinity School Dr. Stendahl.

He has three rules.

Three rules of Lutheran Bishop Krister Stendahl:

1. 
   *]If you want to learn about a religion, you should use their sources, and talk to their adherents. After all, you wouldn’t ask a Nazi to explain Judaism to you (a question of bias). You also wouldn’t question a Bible-thumping southerner about Islam, for the same reason you wouldn’t ask an art historian about mechanical engineering (a question of expertise). Go to the source and its native interpretations. (Of course, the average John Doe, Eliezer Cohen, or Mohammed Abdullah may not be the most knowledgeable, literate spokesperson for his religious tradition.
   *]Compare best to best. We (Stendahl says, speaking in general) are often too guilty of comparing our bests to their worsts.
   *]Allow room for “holy envy.” For me, I have holy envy of the Catholic doctrine of the real presence. I could see myself in a spiritual ecstasy after partaking of the literal presence.
   
   TOm:
   
   I do not believe that the real presence is a reality. I would love to, but I do not think the authority claims stand up in light of what I know of about the Catholic Church and the Restoration.
   
   Charity, TOm

 

[Sophie]

TOmNossor:

I do not believe that the real presence is a reality.

I do believe in the Real Presence because our dear Lord Jesus said it’s so:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” (John 6:53 - 56)

“This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:58)

Also John 6:35 -71
Mt. 26
Mark 14:22
Luke 22:17
1 Cor. 10:16
1 Cor. 11:23 - 29
Ex. 12: 8 - 46
Jn. 1:29
1 Cor. 5:7
Jn. 4:31-34
Mt. 16:5 - 12
1 Cor. 2:14, 3:4
Ps. 14:4
Is. 9:18-20
Is. 49:26
Mic. 3:3
2 Sm. 23:15-17
Rv. 17:6, 16

Also many quotes from the early Church fathers to verify the Eucharist as the Precious Body and Blood of Jesus.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Allow room for “holy envy.”

I guess my question was…What is “holy envy”? What does that mean?

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

I guess my question was…What is “holy envy”? What does that mean?

To leave room for “holy envy” (as I understand it) is to look to religions you are trying to learn more about with a place in your heart for intense respect for some of the practices you will study. In some instances these practices can be made part of your current worship. In other instances these practices will be part of what you consider wonderful in the beliefs of others. The “real presence” is something I consider wonderful, very wonderful, in the Catholic Church.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

To leave room for “holy envy” (as I understand it) is to look to religions you are trying to learn more about with a place in your heart for intense respect for some of the practices you will study. In some instances these practices can be made part of your current worship. In other instances these practices will be part of what you consider wonderful in the beliefs of others. The “real presence” is something I consider wonderful, very wonderful, in the Catholic Church.

Charity, TOm

Thanks for the explanation.

We consider the real presence to be TRULY WONDERFUL as well! (See…we can agree on some things )

 

[TOmNossor]

Sophie:

I do believe in the Real Presence because our dear Lord Jesus said it’s so:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” (John 6:53 - 56)

“This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:58)

Also John 6:35 -71
Mt. 26
Mark 14:22
Luke 22:17
1 Cor. 10:16
1 Cor. 11:23 - 29
Ex. 12: 8 - 46
Jn. 1:29
1 Cor. 5:7
Jn. 4:31-34
Mt. 16:5 - 12
1 Cor. 2:14, 3:4
Ps. 14:4
Is. 9:18-20
Is. 49:26
Mic. 3:3
2 Sm. 23:15-17
Rv. 17:6, 16

Also many quotes from the early Church fathers to verify the Eucharist as the Precious Body and Blood of Jesus.

I dealt with this on this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=30457
Post #41, but I will link to another discussion from post #41 (I like the introduction on 41).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Thanks for the explanation.

We consider the real presence to be TRULY WONDERFUL as well! (See…we can agree on some things )

In truth probably more than we diagree on.
But the “real presence” is wonderful and it is wonderful to agree on some things.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I dealt with this on this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=30457
Post #41, but I will link to another discussion from post #41 (I like the introduction on 41).

Charity, TOm

Funny how we moved from a statement from the Smithsonian to debating the real presence huh?

I didn’t read your whole thread link, but one thing I didn’t see. In the original Greek of John 6, Jesus first says “eat”. The second and third times He says it, He uses the word which more literally translates as “gnaw”. That seems pretty literal to me. He tells them that in order to have eternal life they must gnaw on His flesh. Not only does that sound digusting, but it’s seems pretty darn literal to me. Another…why would He allow so many of His followers to leave Him if He were only speaking figuratively? Why wouldn’t He stop them and explain what He meant as He had in several of His other parables that people didn’t understand?

 

[cestusdei]

Tom,
It is not necessary for me to prove there was not a Hebrew civilization in the New World. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult. And I have no burden of proof here at all. I think the weight of the evidence is sufficient and the BOM is as the Smithsonian and Nat. Geographic Society state ie. having no basis in historical fact.

I think if you look at the historical records we do have from the patristic period it quickly becomes clear that the early Church was Catholic. I have yet to get a specific answer as to when any alleged total apostacy took place. But I see no evidence of a Mormon church. I do fully understand your holy envy. I felt the same way. Maybe that holy envy is in fact a burning in the bosom…?

 

[oat_soda]

The “real presence” is something I consider wonderful, very wonderful, in the Catholic Church.

that’s really great Tom, many catholics don’t even know about his real presence let alone apreciate it. i hope you keep the eucharist at the center of you spirituality. your recognition of the eucharist is definitively the Holy Spirit working in your heart. I can’t encourage you enough to learn, contemplate, and study, all you can on his real substantial presence in the eucharist. it is the greatest gift, and seriously couldn’t imagine to be apart from him in the eucharist.

Have you ever spent time at eucharistic adoration? they have it at most catholic parishes. you have to give it a try and see where the Holy Spirit leads you. what have you got to lose?

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

that’s really great Tom, many catholics don’t even know about his real presence let alone apreciate it. i hope you keep the eucharist at the center of you spirituality. your recognition of the eucharist is definitively the Holy Spirit working in your heart. I can’t encourage you enough to learn, contemplate, and study, all you can on his real substantial presence in the eucharist. it is the greatest gift, and seriously couldn’t imagine to be apart from him in the eucharist.

Have you ever spent time at eucharistic adoration? they have it at most catholic parishes. you have to give it a try and see where the Holy Spirit leads you. what have you got to lose?

I did do that (on the thread I linked to I was invited and I did go).

I enjoyed my time. It was wonderful to pray among others who were praying. Part of me would have liked to have felt the real presence while I was there. Part of me would be very threatened by feeling the real presence while I was there. I am still a LDS.

I intend to read and pray and contemplate. I intend to put myself in positions were the Lord can call me to Him regardless of how stressful responding to that call will be. I am of the opinion that I am already abiding the call of the Lord, but I hope to listen and know and be.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Funny how we moved from a statement from the Smithsonian to debating the real presence huh?

I didn’t read your whole thread link, but one thing I didn’t see. In the original Greek of John 6, Jesus first says “eat”. The second and third times He says it, He uses the word which more literally translates as “gnaw”. That seems pretty literal to me. He tells them that in order to have eternal life they must gnaw on His flesh. Not only does that sound digusting, but it’s seems pretty darn literal to me. Another…why would He allow so many of His followers to leave Him if He were only speaking figuratively? Why wouldn’t He stop them and explain what He meant as He had in several of His other parables that people didn’t understand?

There was no discussion of “gnaw” in the thread. Rory (a former Protestant minister who became a Catholic) did provide what he felt was the best response to the “why wouldn’t He stop them”

Rory said:

Among the better efforts in my opinion, are from those who note that further down, when the “true” disciples are having it explained further and the Lord says, “…the words I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” (paraphrase) This interpretation is willing to admit that the disciples who stumbled at misunderstanding the teaching, were bad eggs anyway. Rather than challenging the Lord, they should have waited for an explanation as Peter and the others did. Those who waited were informed that Jesus was speaking figuratively (the meaning of His words being spirit). For that reason it is warranted to avoid literalism.

TOm:

Remember, I concede. The “real presence” is the best read of the Bible and history. I do not subscribe to it because on other issues I think the authority of the CoJCoLDS is the authority most in alignment with God. I learn of God through this structure because I believe there is to be a visible church.

Charity, TOm

 

[JRR]

Have you ever looked at the place names of towns and cities located in the Northeast U.S. / Southeast Canada and compaired these place names to the towns and cities in the Book of Mormon. All of these actual place names are within several hundred miles or less from Palmyra, New York. This is very interesting and something to think about.

Actual Place Names: Book Of Mormon

Agath, Saint Ogath
Alma Alma Valley of
Angola Angola
Boaz Boaz
Conner Comner
Ephrem, Saint Ephraim Hill
Hellam Helam
Jacobsburg Jacobugath
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Jordan Jordan
Kishkiminetas Kishkumen
Lehigh Lehi
Mantua Manti
Monroe Moroni
Minoa Minon
Moraviantown Morianton
Noah Lake Noah, land of
Oneida Onidah
Oneida Castle Onidah, Hill
Omer Omner
Rama Ramah
Ripple Lake Ripliancum, Waters of
Sodom Sidom
Shiloh Shilom
Tecumseh /Tenicum Teancum

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Tom,
It is not necessary for me to prove there was not a Hebrew civilization in the New World. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult. And I have no burden of proof here at all. I think the weight of the evidence is sufficient and the BOM is as the Smithsonian and Nat. Geographic Society state ie. having no basis in historical fact.

I think if you look at the historical records we do have from the patristic period it quickly becomes clear that the early Church was Catholic. I have yet to get a specific answer as to when any alleged total apostacy took place. But I see no evidence of a Mormon church. I do fully understand your holy envy. I felt the same way. Maybe that holy envy is in fact a burning in the bosom…?

I agree that it is quite difficult to prove a negative, but to me the problems highlighted to cast doubt upon the CoJCoLDS are more effectively addressed (by LDS) than are the evidences highlighted to demonstrate the divine origins of the CoJCoLDS (by critics). BTW, I can say the same thing about the Catholic Church.

When you say the records we have indicate the early church was Catholic, surely you do not mean that Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome would see nothing foreign in the church today.

I have spent a great deal of time developing and apostasy paradigm. I would be happy to share it with you. In the past on this board, I was bombarded with a few good responses but mostly with unrelated or already addressed issues. If you would like to open a thread and request that you and I be given the opportunity to interact with little (or no) distraction, that would be more manageable than trying to post long complex things interrupted by comments ranging from good to bad, kind to unchristian.

If you would rather we could go to a LDS board and I could prolly secure us a one-on-one discussion.

Or if you do not want to carry out our discussion in private this would be fine too.

Or perhaps we should not worry about this.

I felt a long time ago that if I was to be drawn to the Catholic Church, the real presence would be part of it. I still think this is true. It has been quite some time since I felt I needed to ask of God which church was His. Instead, I just ask to know and follow his will.

Charity, TOm