Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[Sophie]

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

Thanks so much for this post JRR! Very, very interesting! I’ve also seen lists of many other names in the Book of Mormon that very closely resemble names from the bible that many people believe Smith borrowed from and did the same, switching a letter or two around or adding or subtracting a few letters to invent a new word. Wonder where he came up with the word “Nauvoo”, Illinois. Smith said it meant “beautiful place” in “reformed Egyptian”. But there is no such word in any language that means beautiful place.

 

[Sophie]

TOmNossor:

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) .

Tom,

If Rory is a former Protestant Minister who is now Catholic, he obviously now must regret his anti-Catholic explanation of this scripture supporting the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Just as many who refuse to believe in the real presence, some of Jesus’ followers thought the same thing and decided not to follow Him anymore: “This saying is hard: who can accept it?” …As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him." (John 6:60:66) Sounds like Rory now accepts and follows this hard saying of our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Jesus could have said it was only a symbol, but he didn’t because he meant it literally: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” (John 6:53-55) During the Mass, we receive Jesus’ real flesh and blood, presented under the appearances of bread and wine. (Matt. 26:26-28, Luke 22:19, Acts 2:42-46)

 

[Sophie]

Satan tries his best to put so much hatred in the world for the cross and the Mass. Because they are total reminders to him of Christ’s glorious victory over him.

THANK YOU JESUS, THANK YOU JESUS, THANK YOU JESUS!!!
GOD HAS BEEN SO GOOD TO ME!!!

 

[cestusdei]

TOmNossor:

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

Tom,
The problem of course is that the lds have the burden of proof. If someone asked me to show that there were Jews in Palestine 2000 years ago I could do that. Mormons cannot do the same for the New World despite the claims of the BOM or even FARMS.

The sub-apostolic fathers you mention were all Catholic. Ignatius said “where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church”. Polycarp mentions the Catholic Church repeatedly. Clement of course was a Pope. Not to mention Ireneaus who wrote Against the Heresies. They don’t mention Mormon temple cermonies, plurality of gods, or other doctrines peculiar to Mormons. But if they came back today and came to my Mass they would know what was going on.

To discuss the “apostacy” would require a new thread or another forum if you like. However, I am preparing for several weeks in Israel so it will have to wait. But I will give you a homework assignment! What I will be looking for is the exact date and circumstances of this “total apostacy”. I would want to know the people and issues involved as well. Again the burden of proof is on the lds. But we can start when I return. Pax

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

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.

Now you have me confused. Earlier (maybe on a different thread) you said you had a holy envy for the real presence. Now you’re saying that it’s the best possible read of both the Bible and history. If it’s the best possible read of both Bible and history, why do you not hold it to be true? Why wouldn’t you find maybe a branch of LDS or some other religion (obviously my choice would be Catholic) that holds to the real presence?

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Tom,

The problem of course is that the lds have the burden of proof. If someone asked me to show that there were Jews in Palestine 2000 years ago I could do that. Mormons cannot do the same for the New World despite the claims of the BOM or even FARMS.

Neither you nor I can prove our religion is true. I think that evidence suggest that the Catholic Church does not have a global authority from Peter (and certainly does not have the same authority Peter had). I think that evidence suggests that it is hightly unlikely Catholic priests have valid holy orders. A Catholic friend of mine asked me if I would be a restorationist in waiting if there had been no CoJCoLDS. The answer is no. But in light of what I see in history, I can see the need for a restoration. In light of what I see in the restoration, I can look for an apostasy.

cestusdei:
The sub-apostolic fathers you mention were all Catholic. Ignatius said “where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church”. Polycarp mentions the Catholic Church repeatedly. Clement of course was a Pope. Not to mention Ireneaus who wrote Against the Heresies. They don’t mention Mormon temple cermonies, plurality of gods, or other doctrines peculiar to Mormons. But if they came back today and came to my Mass they would know what was going on.

No, the sub-apostolic fathers were catholic as am I and the CoJCoLDS. I do not grant you that the ECF were “your boys.”

LDS godhead concepts have routes in pre-exilic Judaism and Early Christianity. The co-equal formulation of Athanasius was theological novem. I like all Trinitarians embrace a unity of God and a plurality of persons who are one God. Mormon temple ceremonies have solid roots in pre-exilic Judaism and some hints within the writings of the Early Church. If we get into apostasy and restoration, I have a large list of doctrines that were restored.

cestusdei:
To discuss the “apostacy” would require a new thread or another forum if you like. However, I am preparing for several weeks in Israel so it will have to wait. But I will give you a homework assignment! What I will be looking for is the exact date and circumstances of this “total apostacy”. I would want to know the people and issues involved as well. Again the burden of proof is on the lds. But we can start when I return. Pax

I hope you enjoy your trip. We can prolly find time afterwards. I do have a certain exactness. What I do not have is proof. If the only reason you wish to address this is so that you can say I have not PROVEN there was an apostasy, then perhaps we do not even need to begin. As I see the evidence, I believe it is more likely that the CoJCoLDS restored the gospel than it is that the Catholic Church still has authority. But your lists of bishops and my “demonstration” that those bishops did not know they were Pope are not proof of either of our positions.

Whey you return, if you like look me up. If I have wondered away, I will try to remember to return and look for a PM from you.

Enjoy your trip. I wish I could go.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Now you have me confused. Earlier (maybe on a different thread) you said you had a holy envy for the real presence. Now you’re saying that it’s the best possible read of both the Bible and history. If it’s the best possible read of both Bible and history, why do you not hold it to be true? Why wouldn’t you find maybe a branch of LDS or some other religion (obviously my choice would be Catholic) that holds to the real presence?

I believe the Gordon B. Hinckley is the prophet of God. I believe that Joseph Smith restored Christ’s church. In alignment with those beliefs, which I hold for intellectual and spiritual reasons, I cannot embrace the real presence.
I suggest that in a vacuum the real presence would be true. I suggest that in a vacuum the perpetual virginity of Mary would be false (although by but a tiny margin). Together, combined with a great deal of other things, I subscribe to the authority of the CoJCoLDS.
Not that you agree, but do you understand what I am saying?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Sophie:

Tom,

If Rory is a former Protestant Minister who is now Catholic, he obviously now must regret his anti-Catholic explanation of this scripture supporting the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Rory had been Catholic for many years. He was just mentioning the best response in his mind. His parents followed him into the Catholic Church largely due to the understanding of the real presence.
Rory’s spiritual experience with the real presence is amazing to me. My experience and the experience of my parents have not been noteworthy.
My mom was always Catholic and my dad joined the Catholic Church and became very committed shortly after I became a LDS. I would suggest we have both been blessed.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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

Your list (or rather the list you copied) is of almost no impact on me. There are a number of strong problems with the BOM, but this is not one.

The name Kish found in the BOM as a Jaradite king and in the Olemec writings as an Olemec king is in my opinion a weak evidence for the BOM, but it by itself is at least as strong as your list of similar names.

Pulling similar sounding words and names with absolutely no additional link in your case and only a little additional linkage in the Kish case does not rise above the level of simple random parellels likely to exist anywhere. IMO.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

Tom,
The whole premise of Mormonism is that the Chuch needs to be restored. If you can’t show an apostacy then the whole thing falls apart. I would say this is crucial. We can deal with this on my return.

PS: I believe Kish is the name of the sidekick amphibious creature on the cartoon Futurama.

 

[Sophie]

TOmNossor:

Rory had been Catholic for many years. He was just mentioning the best response in his mind. His parents followed him into the Catholic Church largely due to the understanding of the real presence.
Rory’s spiritual experience with the real presence is amazing to me. My experience and the experience of my parents have not been noteworthy.
My mom was always Catholic and my dad joined the Catholic Church and became very committed shortly after I became a LDS. I would suggest we have both been blessed.

Charity, TOm/QUOT

How could you and your parents both be blessed when you believe you belong to Christ’s true church and not them?

There is no seperating Christ and his holy Catholic Church! To love the Church is to love Christ. As scripture says, He is the head and we, His Church are His body. Christ established one Church and said it would be forever as both the Old and New Testament reverberate. To believe Joe Smith or L. Ron Hubbard or Mohommad (and the list goes on) actually started Christ’s true church is to believe in false prophets that Christ sternly warned us about.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

There are a number of strong problems with the BOM, but this is not one.

You believe that there are serious problems with the BoM and are still Mormon? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[Sophie]

TOmNossor:

Rory had been Catholic for many years. He was just mentioning the best response in his mind. His parents followed him into the Catholic Church largely due to the understanding of the real presence.
Rory’s spiritual experience with the real presence is amazing to me. My experience and the experience of my parents have not been noteworthy.
My mom was always Catholic and my dad joined the Catholic Church and became very committed shortly after I became a LDS. I would suggest we have both been blessed.

Charity, TOm

How could both you and your parents be blessed when you believe you belong to Christ’s true church and they don’t?

One cannot seperate Christ from His holy Catholic Church! To love the Church is to love Christ! As scripture tells us, Christ is the head and we, the Church, are one as His body. Christ established one Church and said it would be forever. The Old and New Testaments reverberate this same promise. To believe that Joe Smith or L.Ron Hubbard or Mohommad, (and the list goes on) had to restore Christ’s Church is blasphemy to God and rejects Christ’s warning to us to stay away from false prophets.

Joseph Smith is a false prophet, the Book of Mormon is not true and the CoJCoLDS is not God’s Church.

The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church established by Him for all eternity!

 

[Sophie]

Sorry I posted twice. According to my computer the first one didn’t go thru. God bless.

 

[Sophie]

Tom, also check out the “real presence” topic on the forums just posted.

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Tom,
The whole premise of Mormonism is that the Chuch needs to be restored. If you can’t show an apostacy then the whole thing falls apart. I would say this is crucial. We can deal with this on my return.

PS: I believe Kish is the name of the sidekick amphibious creature on the cartoon Futurama.

I believe I can show an apostasy.
And excellent point about Kish and Futurama. Did Joseph copy Futurama, did the authors of futurama copy Joseph, or does this mean very little.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Sophie:

How could you and your parents both be blessed when you believe you belong to Christ’s true church and not them?

TOm:
Neither the Catholic Church nor the CoJCoLDS believe that merely by aligning with Christs church vocally or partially we will be blessed as God wishes to bless us after we die.
Both the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS have theological positions that allow for the salvation of those who do not align with the visible church.

Who is more aligned with God?
The man who grew up as a German Lutheran having only been taught about Catholicism by other Lutherans, but was a faithful devoted servant to God and lived by the teachings of Jesus Christ as best he understood them.
Or the C&E Catholic, Baptized, Confirmed, aligned in proclaimed affiliation to the Catholic Church; but virtually indistinguishable from the worldly men he carouses with nightly.

I have more room for such ideas within my belief structure than does a Catholic, but there is truth associated with Baptism of Desire, Invincibly Ignorant, Invisible Church, and …
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

You believe that there are serious problems with the BoM and are still Mormon? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

I do not know of any religious structure that intellectually cannot be torn apart if we focus only on the truths our critics wish to share with us.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the more difficult Catholic dogma’s to defend. Were we to decide on the merits of the Catholic Church based solely on this dogma and the evidence of it, the Catholic Church’s position would not be the solution as I see it.

I can defend the perpetual virginity of Mary. I find the pre-Jerome son’s of Joseph, Protoevangelism of James position to be significantly stronger than the post-Jerome more popular currently, cousins argument. But in the end it is the strength of the Catholic Church in other places that would lead me to embrace Catholicism over any EO or Protestant structures.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

Sophie:

Wonder where he came up with the word “Nauvoo”, Illinois. Smith said it meant “beautiful place” in “reformed Egyptian”. But there is no such word in any language that means beautiful place.

Wonder no more! Nauvoo was not said to come from “reformed Egyptian” but Hebrew. In fact the word is found in the Hebrew grammar book Joseph Smith studied from.

from fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc12.html

“Nauvoo is in fact a real Hebrew word. It appears in Isaiah 52:7 and Song of Solomon 1:10. It is the pilel form of the verb na’ah; in modern transliteration we would write it na’wu. It means “to be comely.” Joseph gave the word in the Sephardic transliteration system he learned from Joshua Seixas; in fact, the word Nauvoo is given in the Seixas grammar.”

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I do not know of any religious structure that intellectually cannot be torn apart if we focus only on the truths our critics wish to share with us.

What the critics point to doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that you, personally believe there are serious problems with the BoM. If you, personally believe there are serious problems with the book your religion holds to be the word of God, why would you stay? If I came to the conclusion that there were serious problems with the Catholic church, I wouldn’t stick around.

I must confess I don’t know of the Pre- or Post-Jerome stuff. I do know that either is possible. It’s possible Joseph had other sons. It’s also possible that they were speaking of other kin, whether that be cousins, fellow tribe members, whatever. It’s possible that the verses that mention this were talking about both Joseph’s other sons AND next of kin. Though I don’t see how that fits with you believing that there are serious problems with the BoM…