Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

TOm, the issue with your religion is that it claims to be “christian”. if john smith came up with a totally new religion by revelation from a divine being, then this would be a different problem.

if you look into church history, you find out there were always heresies. in fact, Jesus did say that many will come in my name saying i am he and in galicians it says that even if an angel comes with a different gospel, let him be an anathema. for instance, arianism was refuted by appealing to tradition, or what the church has always and everywhere believed which can be shown to have been handed down by a succession of bishops to the apostles and Jesus himself. without this way of discernment, it is impossible to say you are following the way Christ wanted. without tradition, anyone could say they have new revelation.

TOm:

Oh I have looked into church history. This is one of the reason we need an ordained authority to guide the church. You claim the developments of the Catholic Church were correct developments. I claim they were in error. Here are a few things that the Church developed away from that I claim have been restored by the CoJCoLDS. One of the interesting things about this is that much of the writings that show these to be part of Early Christianity were not available to Joseph Smith.

• Creation ex Nihilo is a 2nd century invention. It is embraced by all of Christianity (except LDS), all of Islam, and all of Judaism.
• Baptism by those without proper authority was a 3rd century change. St Cyprian defended (and two African local councils affirmed) the necessity of proper authority and beliefs for baptism, but St. Stephen won this and no longer must one have a priesthood to baptize. In fact some heretical beliefs are fine (but others are not). Martin Luther suggested that if St. Cyprian was correct then there was no valid Christian priesthood/baptized on the earth. How close he was to the truth.
• The lack of subordination within the Godhead is a 4th century invention (as indeed is the formulation of the Trinity, but the lack of subordination is something that was never put forth before Athanasius).
• The presently understood idea of original sin was a 5th century invention from Augustine (the Eastern Orthodox have a belief much more similar to what I would suggest is an original belief).
• The heretical-ness of the statement, “men can become gods” is a development that did not really start until after the 5th century and seemed pretty complete 50 years ago, but non-LDS Christianity is back tracking today.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

now, you don’t hold this criteria to mormonism because you believe revelation has continued up to today. the problem is your faith is based on in some part to historical christian beliefs and practices, such as the bible. if you consider yourself christian or at least related to christianity you are automatically subjecting your faith to historical scrutiny and investigation because mormonism doesn’t claim to be entirely new. it defines itself on christianity’s apostasy and its later restoration according to joe smith’s revelation from an angel.

TOm:

I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. The CoJCoLDS does not define itself based upon Mesoamerican Archeology. I do not claim that looking to this science has no merit in assessing the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS, I just claim that Biblical Archeology and BOM Archeology are radically different in what we can expect and in what things we find might prove. I discuss this a little in post #56.

If you are talking about showing evidence for the apostasy or evidence for a restoration, in my last post I have some restored doctrines we can discuss. And I can link you to some of my thoughts on the apostasy if you like.
oat soda:
you have failed to show any serious evidence that supports the claims of mormonism. the fact is there is absolutely NO historical evidence which supports anything in the BOM. this is why your faith should be rejected. it inherently contradicts itself by on one hand saying that it is the true historical christianity and on the other hand refusing to hold your beliefs to the historical record. Mormonism objective truth is BASED ON FEELINGS and is therefore an irrational fantasy.

I think Nahom is “serious evidence.”

I think post #100 is about 1/3 of a list of “serious evidences.” Things such as the “great white God” in MesoAmerica are already filter out as are “Virgin Birth in Mesoamerica and Kish.

I think Chiasmic structures, ancient Hebrew names, the pattern of converting problems highlighted by critics into evidences, and a few other things are “serious evidences.”

In truth I have not delineated all of these things, but post #100 was of so little interest I didn’t think it mattered too much.

We can talk about evidences or restored doctrines if you like.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

cestusdei:

Mormon,
I suggest No Man Knows My History by Brodie.

I will have to pass on that on the grounds that 1) it is old and outdated by new evidence, 2) it has negative reviews, 3) there are more authorative books and articles that cover the same subjects, and 4) I would be surprised if there are very many Brodie-isms I haven’t already considered (they tend to pop up a lot in literature critical of the church).

Quoting Mormon scripture, the very scripture that is in dispute, is not really helpful.

Yes, I agree that there is a limit on how helpful mormon scripture quoting is to those that don’t accept its authority. I still bring it up because it helps interpret what some of the 3 witnesses meant when they say they saw with spiritual eyes.

The interrelationship of the “witnesses” would cause problems in any court.

At the time of their viewing, the 11 witnesses came from 4 distinct families. Even if reduce them to four witnesses it still shouldn’t cause problems in court. Of course questions of conspiracy, integrity, and whether the witnesses were duped or not should be cross-examined. Of course, this is a historical investigation and not a legal investigation, so different standards of evidence may apply.

It raises serious doubts. The ones who left did not deny their “witness”. Why? Because most people don’t want to admit they had lied.

Whether the witnesses lied or not is an an alternative explanation to explore, but this explanation doesn’t fit their life long convictions (to the Book of Mormon) very well.

Many paralells can be drawn to the 12 apostle’s witness of Jesus. The same issues can be raised. How skeptical of their integrity should we be? What do we make of Peter’s denials or Judas’s betrayal? 11 of the apostles come from one limited area (Galilee) and there is at least two sets of brothers in the group.

In my mind accepting one group’s testimony and not the others would take some careful deliberation to avoid a double standard of judgement.

 

[oat_soda]

I am not sure exactly what you are saying here.

let me put it this way, your religion makes serious claims against the history of catholicism. namely, that it fell into apostacy. therefore, you must show evidence that this happened. otherwise, you’re living in a fantasy.

I think Nahom is “serious evidence.”

i don’t know what nahom is. please explain.

“great white God” in MesoAmerica are already filter out as are “Virgin Birth in Mesoamerica and Kish.

first, i could use this for evidence for catholicism. i’m sure joe smith knew about this prophesy of the white god who actually was cortez (red beard) and created the mormon around this. most religions prophesy a saviour who was Jesus.

if that is all you can provide, it just proves my point that mormonism is a fantasy.

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

let me put it this way, your religion makes serious claims against the history of catholicism. namely, that it fell into apostacy. therefore, you must show evidence that this happened. otherwise, you’re living in a fantasy.

In truth, I do not need to show apostasy to you to remove myself from “a fantasy.” I am only in a fantasy if I do not have a good reason to believe there was an apostasy. I can show you an apostasy. I have suggested to Cestusdei that we could engage in some kind of one-on-one thread. Here are some of the basics of my ideas.

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm63.showMessageRange?topicID=370.topic&start=41&stop=55

On this board I have tried to discuss this topic in the open. The result was a few very informed folks and a few informed folks engaging. This is more than I feel I can handle at this point (there is one of me). In addition to this there were plenty of folks for whatever reason who choose to post unrelated problems with the CoJCoLDS (usually pasted from some anti-Mormon site), say negative things about me personally or about the CoJCoLDS, or ask questions I thought I had already answered.

Since you are not interested in converting, forgive me for choosing not to pursue this now.
oat soda:

i don’t know what nahom is. please explain.

It is on this thread. About post #56 I think.
oat soda:

first, i could use this for evidence for catholicism. i’m sure joe smith knew about this prophesy of the white god who actually was cortez (red beard) and created the mormon around this. most religions prophesy a saviour who was Jesus.

if that is all you can provide, it just proves my point that mormonism is a fantasy.

Actually, it is unlikely that Joseph Smith did know about this, but I said my list on post #100 had already filtered these things out as being not particularly convincing.

I guess this means that you did not look at post #56 nor post #100.

I have about 3x as much on post #100, but I cannot explain it in great detail. I have explained Nahom.

Charity, TOm

 

[boppysbud]

Mormon Fool, you know had I been around in the 1830s in upstate New York and Ohio and had signed a statement attesting to having seen the golden plates, I would have been hesitant to retract my statement knowing of the presence of the Danites, and the blood atonement, especially the blood atonement as directed at so called “apostates”.

 

[mormon_fool]

boppysbud:

Mormon Fool, you know had I been around in the 1830s in upstate New York and Ohio and had signed a statement attesting to having seen the golden plates, I would have been hesitant to retract my statement knowing of the presence of the Danites, and the blood atonement, especially the blood atonement as directed at so called “apostates”.

Very well said. I definitely think fear was a factor in none of the witnesses denying their statements. But I would attribute that to a fear of God and not man, in violating such a sacred trust.

I think you are being melodramatic with blood atonement (which has never been directed–by the LDS church–at any one, much less apostates) and Danites (who had a very brief and un-condoned existence in the Missouri conflict circa 1838).

Let’s grant your point for the sake of argument, that they didn’t retract their statements because they feared reprisal. How does this explain why they fearlessly made a number of statements that undercut the truth-claims of the LDS church and its prophet? The too-afraid-to-admit-they-were-lying theory doesn’t explain why they continued to re-iterate their claims in regards to the Book of Mormon and went out of their way to correct notions by people who claimed they had retracted. And most probematic for this explanation is that some of them re-iterate their testimonies on their death-bed.

 

[seanie]

Regarding the supposed find at Nahom.

An inscription with “NHM” was found but this does not mean the place or tribe was called “Nahom”.

The problems with the “NHM” link to Nahom are summarized here:

Nahom Identified?

Incidentally, the inscription “NHM” was also featured on an 18th century map by Carsten Niebuhr, as FARMS’ own S. Kent Brown admits.

 

[TOmNossor]

seanie:

Regarding the supposed find at Nahom.

An inscription with “NHM” was found but this does not mean the place or tribe was called “Nahom”.

The problems with the “NHM” link to Nahom are summarized here:

Nahom Identified?

Incidentally, the inscription “NHM” was also featured on an 18th century map by Carsten Niebuhr, as FARMS’ own S. Kent Brown admits.

I personally think putting the map you mentioned in the hands of Joseph Smith is the leading naturalistic explanation. Of course your link (or rather the link already posted on this thread) tries to explain Nahom as being less significant than it seems. I would suggest it is either solid enough to try and place the map in Joseph’s hand or it is so insignificant no map is needed.

I clearly think it is significant and so do many critics of the CoJCoLDS. I cannot decide if you do or not.

What I call the basement library theory is becoming increasingly popular. We have this really quite rare translation of a book in Arabic and many many other books being placed in the basement of Joseph’s house. This book is among an increasing number of books that are placed in Joseph’s hands.

Nahom is also interesting in that the map you speak of was not highlighted in these discussions until the last 10 years or so. This highlighting of the map only came after Nahom was found and the inscriptions were identified. I suggest that this map was/is indeed rare else a critic or apologist would have identified Nahom long ago.

BTW, you can look at post #100 if you like. There is certainly no books that could detail such things as these.

Charity, TOm

 

[oat_soda]

I am only in a fantasy if I do not have a good reason to believe there was an apostasy.

we understand the world around us by making observations. we don’t assume things exist without evidence just because we can’t show they don’t exist. this is insanity and is what mormonism is based on.

Since you are not interested in converting, forgive me for choosing not to pursue this now.

are you serious? i would convert if you can show me some evidence for the hope that is in you. am i supposed to reject reality and by blind faith accept anything someone tells me? if i did that, i would be insane. the point of our life is to find out the Truth!

I guess this means that you did not look at post #56 nor post #100.

i checked out your posts and found no evidence. you are forcing your preconceived ideas on the data instead of looking at the historical record objectively and letting the facts speak for themselves. for you to live in the mormon fantasy, you have to first assume mormonism is the truth. then when you find anything that might support the BOM you say “here is evidence”. this method of thinking is insane because your truth is not founded on observation but on a fantasy, a story based on one guy’s fabrication who had a history of scamming people.

the fact that you ignore the mountain of evidence based on fact against the testimony of joe smith shows how you are unwilling to accept reality.

 

[seanie]

TOm,

I mention the 18th century map as an aside but do not myself think it is necessarily of significance. I am more inclined to think Smith picked a name.

btw do you follow the standard LDS position and regard Joseph Smith as having been a simple farm lad without the ability to write the Book of Mormon? LDS historian D. Michael Quinn does not think so. He writes in “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” about how Smith donated 34 books to the Nauvoo county library in January 1844. Some of these books were on geographical subjects. So yes it appears Smith did indeed have a library (maybe in his basement, maybe not). Quinn also documents how the Palmyra/Manchester/Canandaigua areas were literally overflowing with books at the time.

Sean.

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

i checked out your posts and found no evidence. you are forcing your preconceived ideas on the data instead of looking at the historical record objectively and letting the facts speak for themselves. for you to live in the mormon fantasy, you have to first assume mormonism is the truth. then when you find anything that might support the BOM you say “here is evidence”. this method of thinking is insane because your truth is not founded on observation but on a fantasy, a story based on one guy’s fabrication who had a history of scamming people.

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 it is for Catholicism.

I fully recognize that I do not see the world as it is but rather as I am. I consciously try to move past this bias, but I am certain I am not perfect at doing this.

Most Catholics I know see evidence of the Papacy in the earliest writings of the church. When Catholics do this and point to the Bible as if it clearly establishes some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church they are starting with their conclusion and searching for support. I do not think this is necessarily a flawed way of addressing this.

After 1900 years of development it would be difficult to look in upon a day in the life of Clement and know if he was a Catholic or a LDS. I suggest that your test, “looking at the historical record objectively and letting the facts speak for themselves” does not point one to Catholicism. Were I to do this, I would be a restorationist in waiting. The early church can be argued to be the seed of Catholicism, but the seed only bares passing similarity to the fruit.

The BOM and Mesoamerican history and culture have similar resemblances (somewhat weaker in fairness but not phenomenally so). The reason the resemblances between BOM/Mesoamerica are more convincing than the Catholic/Early Church resemblances comes when trying to explain either with naturalistic explanations. It is easy to postulate that the Catholic Church is a naturalist corruption of the Early Church, but it is impossible to suggest that the points of contact between the BOM/Mesoamerica are naturalistic.

I am sure you do not agree, but your methods decimate all Christianity unless you apply them with different skepticism to your own personal favorite structure. IMO.

Charity, TOm

 

[oat_soda]

Religious truth is not founded upon observation it is founded upon faith.

WRONG!! you wouldn’t even know about mormonism unless someone told you. our catholic faith did not come from some salesman from upstate NY, but from the Word. the apostles saw the Word made flesh and his works. they saw him cruxified and later rise from the dead. are you trying to say that the apostles knew Jesus was God before they ever saw him? how can we know anything unless we observe the world around us? if truth is based on faith, then why did God give us a brain and reason? this is the craziest thing i’ve heard yet.

I think the answer for Catholicism and Mormonism is yes. I just believe that the foundation is stronger for Mormonism than it is for Catholicism.

like i said, you are insane. nobody could honestly look at the evidence and say that unless they are crazy.

it would be difficult to look in upon a day in the life of Clement and know if he was a Catholic or a LDS

what are you talking about? if Clement was a mormon, why hasn’t anyone based upon his writings and other evidence considered him that before joe smith was alive? if mormonism is just as plausible as catholicism, then why hasn’t anyone claimed clement to believe in polygamy, three distinct gods, baptism of the dead… etc. before joe smith? the church has always considered clement to be catholic.

but your methods decimate all Christianity unless you apply them with different skepticism to your own personal favorite structure

i am totally serious about finding out the truth. if mormonism is the truth, please show me the evidence.

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

i am totally serious about finding out the truth. if mormonism is the truth, please show me the evidence.

I suspect there is some truth to this statement of yours, but it is unlikely your search for truth will be aided by telling folks who disagree with you that they are “insane” or do not “honestly” look at the evidence.
You may look at the apostasy arguement I linked you to or any of the other things we have discussed.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

seanie:

I mention the 18th century map as an aside but do not myself think it is necessarily of significance. I am more inclined to think Smith picked a name.

I disagree that Nahom could reasonably be linked to coincidence. It would seem that the number of critics who have chosen to try and put this map in Smith’s hand agree with me. I stand by them and say, “Nahom is significant.”

seanie:

btw do you follow the standard LDS position and regard Joseph Smith as having been a simple farm lad without the ability to write the Book of Mormon? LDS historian D. Michael Quinn does not think so. He writes in “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” about how Smith donated 34 books to the Nauvoo county library in January 1844. Some of these books were on geographical subjects. So yes it appears Smith did indeed have a library (maybe in his basement, maybe not). Quinn also documents how the Palmyra/Manchester/Canandaigua areas were literally overflowing with books at the time.

TOm:

I believe Joseph Smith was quite brilliant. I however do generally recognize he was fairly unlearned before 1830. His friends and critics who knew him during this time have been virtually unanimous in their suggestion that he was unlearned. Some have suggested that he was unintelligent as well.

It is interesting to me that the BOM was dismissed as the product of a simpleton name Joseph Smith by the earliest critical witnesses. As the internal complexity of the BOM has been recognized, as the evidence of real places and events has increased, AND as the separation in time from those who were contemporaries of the BOM production; critics have been continually redefining the source of the BOM.

Some say it came from a brilliant Joseph. Some say it came from some specific folks. Some say it came from somebody, but they don’t say who. Some say the devil did it. Some point to other ideas.

And I just continue to say that it is best explained by supernatural explanations.

So Quinn’s ideas are late on the scene and far removed from what the original critics claimed to witness. But, the history of the church does not support a stupid Joseph. One could argue that before he was anointed as a prophet he was a simpleton, but his intellect was quickened by his contact with God. Whatever the explanation, Joseph did begin to study Hebrew and other subjects in the mid to late 30’s. He was an intelligent student.

I was once very interested in studying IQ. If one acknowledges that the BOM and the CoJCoLDS came from divine sources, but Joseph Smith was not quickened in his ability to study and learn I would suggest he is about 1/1000 or 1/10000 IQ level.

If one does not acknowledge divine sources and neglects the many conflicting (seemingly stupid) things in his life, I would suggest he is better than 1/1000000.

If you argue that he was a simpleton before his contact with the divine, his natural intelligence would seem to be in the very average range perhaps slightly below average.

Oh and 1844 was 14 years after the BOM was written. There is nobody who disputes that Joseph Smith studied from the mid-30’s until his death.

Charity, TOm

 

[oat_soda]

but it is unlikely your search for truth will be aided by telling folks who disagree with you that they are “insane” or do not “honestly” look at the evidence.

don’t take it personally, anyone who denies God’s existence is technically “insane” because he is Truth and reality who IS. this would make most people, including myself insane every time i intentionally sin.

again, please explain to us how we can come to know the truth without or before making a rational decision based on observations.

if Clement was a mormon, why hasn’t anyone based upon his writings and other evidence considered him that before joe smith was alive? if mormonism is just as plausible as catholicism, then why hasn’t anyone claimed clement to believe in polygamy, three distinct gods, baptism of the dead… etc. before joe smith? the church has always considered clement to be catholic.

you didn’t answer this.

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

don’t take it personally, anyone who denies God’s existence is technically “insane” because he is Truth and reality who IS. this would make most people, including myself insane every time i intentionally sin.

TOm:
If this was your point, it sure was missed upon me. Perhaps the “honesty” word also made it hard for me to see your point.
oat soda:

again, please explain to us how we can come to know the truth without or before making a rational decision based on observations.

TOm:

The missionary discussions and LDS apologetics form a framework that can be examined by a rational mind.

It is my observation that you have not engaged either my comments nor the rational conclusion of your comments. I will demonstrate the later now.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

you didn’t answer this.

oat soda question:
if mormonism is just as plausible as catholicism, then why hasn’t anyone claimed clement to believe in polygamy, three distinct gods, baptism of the dead… etc. before joe smith? the church has always considered clement to be catholic.

TOm:

Not only did you ask it once but you asked it twice.

The rational conclusion to be drawn from this question that you who claim he is a Catholic could provide a response to the following.
logical reverse of oat soda:
if Catholicism is just as plausible as Mormonism, then why hasn’t anyone claimed clement to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the real presence in the Eucharist, the Trintity, and (just for fun) Creation ex Nihilo. etc. for the last 1900 years? The belief structure I embrace has never acknowledged Clement as a proto-Catholic.

TOm:

First, I said that after 1900 years of development we could not look in upon a day in the life of Clement and see that he was a Catholic OR A MORMON. So your attack was against a position I did not advocate.

Second, if you consider you test to be valid then you will need to abandon the Catholic Church. I suspect you will not do this, but this is the LOGICAL conclusion of the position you have put forth.

Third, I will show some things that I see in Clement that we might note.

There is a document called the Second Epistle of Clement. Included with the discovery of this document is an expanded First Epistle of Clement. We have reason to believe that the Second Epistle is not from Clement, which would cast some shadows upon the additional verses in First Clement. But, Second Clement could be from Clement, even if Second Clement is not from Clement the extended First Clement could be, and even if neither are from Clement these documents are clearly ancient (pre-200AD most likely).

The extension of 1st Clement teaches Creation ex Materia like LDS and in opposition to Catholic Creation ex Nihilo.

Concerning other things from Clement. Polygamy was not practiced during the first years of the CoJCoLDS nor is it practiced now. I do not see any reason to assume Polygamy was practiced in the Early Church. The subordination of Jesus Christ to God the Father was taught by every pre-Nicean theologian who bother to teach concerning this (with the exception of those like Sabellius who taught modalism). Clement did not mention it, but Justin Martyr did. A co-equal Trinity is not the most clear read of scriptures nor pre-Nicean writings. There was greater separation in the Godhead before Nicea. And Baptism for the Dead (mentioned in the Bible) would be an esoteric practice that would not be delineated openly.

Now there is one thing missing in Clement that one would expect. One would expect that Clement knew he heads the church. Despite calling upon a Moses like (who was head of the church) fellow to take responsibility he did not look to himself. Despite outlining the authority structure of the church toward correcting the aberrant behavior of the Corinthian Church, he did not mention his position. Clement was oblivious to the fact that he was the Pope. Cardinal Newman recognizes this, and so do I. It is peculiar that the Pope had no idea he was prime.

So, on the whole, I see the examination of the writings of Clement of Rome to be very damaging to the Catholic position. I provide greater detail on the thread I linked you to if you like.

Your test invalidates Catholicism. Your test is less applicable to Mormonism than you might like. Your test addresses claims I did not make. And Clement does not provide a lot of positive evidence for Catholicism.

Charity, TOm

 

[oat_soda]

if Catholicism is just as plausible as Mormonism, then why hasn’t anyone claimed clement to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the real presence in the Eucharist, the Trintity, and (just for fun) Creation ex Nihilo. etc. for the last 1900 years? The belief structure I embrace has never acknowledged Clement as a proto-Catholic.first, i don’t have the time to read all of his writings to find out evidence for the above teachings because i don’t have to. the church from the earliest times considered him catholic

According to Tertullian

, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv). newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

First, I said that after 1900 years of development we could not look in upon a day in the life of Clement and see that he was a Catholic OR A MORMON. so, you must subscribe that the apostasy happened during the lifetime of the apostles if clement wasn’t mormon. the evidence of this is not there. our earliest manuscripts of the new testament date from the frist and second centuries, during the lifetime of the apostles! no distinct mormon teachings were ever found in the new testament. and why does the mormon church accept the authenticity of the new testament? The Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

You put yourself in an illogical impossible position. On one hand, you assume that the church fell into apostasy and lost the fullness of the mormon faith and reject the doctrines of the trinity defined during the 4th century (381). On the other, you accept the NT which is a product of the catholic church during the 4th century.

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

first, i don’t have the time to read all of his writings to find out evidence for the above teachings because i don’t have to. the church from the earliest times considered him catholic

You do not have to do anything. Reading every word Clement wrote and survives today would prolly take you less than 1 hour.

In it you will find none of the things I requested of you.

I was only applying your test to your beliefs. Your test is flawed or Clement was neither Catholic nor Mormon and presumably neither of our churches are build upon Christ. It was your test and you did ask twice.

I consider Clement to be a properly ordained Bishop of Rome with local authority. He was not prime and did not write as if he was at the head of the entire church.
oat soda:

you must subscribe that the apostasy happened during the lifetime of the apostles if clement wasn’t mormon.

TOm:

Actually, it was I who said that churches develop and that from what we have of Clement’s writings we could not assign him to either of our churches. I submit that the authority Clement held is the authority held by a LDS Bishop today, but the demonstration of this position has little to do directly with the tiny bit of evidence we have from Clement.

And I believe that the authority of Peter was not passed to Linus, Cletus, or Clement. This was the beginning of the apostasy. Heretical beliefs crept into the church as a group of local authorities (Bishops) tried to make decisions for the entire church.

Cont…