Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[oat_soda]

I embrace the Bible as the word of God based on the authority of the CoJCoLDS.

the authority of the mormon church is based on joe smiths word? only an insane person would accept this claim without evidence.

he claimed to have recieved revelation from an angel as written on gold tablets. where is the evidence?

he claims that the church fell into apostasy but somehow was able to identify and produce the NT at the same time it defined the doctrine of the trinity which the mormons reject. where is the evidence?

he claims that the BOM is also inspired and that jews in the 6th century bc. migrated to the americas. where is the evidence?

the fact is there is NO EVIDENCE any of this happened.

here is evidence which shows he is fraud:

1)The BOA is a proven forgery

Robert Ritner, an associate professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago was commissioned to translate the surviving parts of the scroll. He stated that Smith’s translation conflicts with the beliefs of professional linguists. … Ritner agrees with other Egyptian historians that the papyri are unrelated to the life of Abraham.http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_bkab.htm

2)joe smith was convicted of scamming people

Court records show Smith was tried on March 20, 1826; charged with, and convicted of, disorderly conduct for so-called money-digging activities: using supposedly supernatural stones to dig for treasure en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

3)joe smith married nearly 30 women of which 11 were married. only a crazy person would do this. wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

 

[oat_soda]

but I do not see the Catholic position as the strongest read of logical or spiritual evidence. anyone who belives that the mormons are more logical then catholics should receive electro-shock therapy.

let’s see, you don’t drink caffeine but believe that Jews lived in the Americas 2600 years ago despite the total lack of evidence (no wheel, horse, chicken, iron, steel, brass, cow, before Columbus).

you believe an angel named moroni gave gold tablets to joe smith who conveniently lost or destroyed them.

you follow a church that taught that blacks couldn’t be priests until 1978 when a revelation from a god said it should be changed.

you believe that the catholic church fell into total apostasy and was founded by satan (1 nephi 13) but accept this churches new testament cannon as inspired.

joe smith’s BOA was proven to be a forgery of a 2nd century copy of an egyptian book of the dead by an Egyptologist when it turned up in 1964 in NYC religioustolerance.org/lds_bkab.htm .

joe smith had at least 30 wives of which 11 had husbands wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

you believe the BOM despite the author’s know record of deception with the BOA and selling scams. Court records show Smith was tried on March 20, 1826; charged with, and convicted of, disorderly conduct for so-called money-digging activities: using supposedly supernatural stones to dig for treasure. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith

joe smith also destroyed an mormon owed printing press when they published an article devoted to criticism of Joseph Smith. The article stated smith had fallen by advocating polygamy, Exaltation, and other controversial doctrines and was thrown in jail as a result where he was later murdered.

 

[TOmNossor]

I do not see Oat Soda’s post when I click on the thread, but when respond I can see his post.

Oat Soda:

*the authority of the mormon church is based on joe smiths word? only an insane person would accept this claim without evidence. **

he claimed to have recieved revelation from an angel as written on* gold tablets. where is the evidence?

TOm:

It is unwise to accept the witness of the Catholic Church without any evidence. I am unsure how you can claim there is no evidence for what Joseph Smith put forth. It is especially confusing when you do not interact with what I claim to be evidence but instead just repeat “only an insane person would accept”

So some of the evidence that the BOM has supernatural origins has been delineated in this thread. You have refused to engage that evidence.

Oat Soda:

but somehow was able to identify and produce the NT at the same time it defined the doctrine of the trinity which the mormons reject. where is the evidence?

TOm:

Actually, I embrace a Social Trinity structure it is just not the Augustinian Trinity. I have explained that the Bible is sufficient but not inerrant. I do not have to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to recognize the value of the Bible. I have mentioned books that should have been included, but called the Catholic Church “a lesser organization” (Pastor of Hermas) and were excluded, despite being used to a greater degree than things like the Book of Jude.

You have abandoned your flawed arguments about Clement and either not read my comments on other things or recognized you had no responses. Now it seems you will move on to other issues having demonstrated that you cannot or will not deal with what I have said. My positions are above including your Clement test.

Oat Soda:

he claims that the BOM is also inspired and that jews in the 6th century bc. migrated to the americas. where is the evidence?
the fact is there is NO EVIDENCE any of this happened.

TOm:

The religious perversion of 600B.C. has been documented. Many aspect of Lehi’s exodus from Jerusalem are inexplicably accurate. These and other things I have mentioned are evidences.

Now having abandoned his previous position, having failed to respond to what I have said, you will move on to other things.

Follow these links if you wish. I am aware of the things you point too, but like an anti-Catholic you wish to focus on only a small fraction of the picture.

1. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=93&table=review This paper generally deals with what you have put forth. In addition to this there are a number of evidences associated with the BOA of the sort I mention wrt the BOM.
2. http://www.shields-research.org/General/LDS_Leaders/1stPres/Joseph_Smith/1826_Trial_Walters.htm

Concerning this, I have not worried as much about the accusations that Joseph was involved in occult activities.

1. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf

I am not a fan of polygamy. I am very thankful that it is not practiced today.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Marriage practices can change. The Catholic Church did not have unmarried authorities originally. Peter and Paul were both married. In truth I do not know exactly what to make of the evidence we have concerning polygamy. I believe there are a number of possibilities. I am convinced that the picture presented by anti-Mormon’s is distorted. Also, whatever the truth is, it does nothing to explain the evidences I have pointed to already.

You are demonstrating that you won’t or you can’t deal with what I provide to you. You are demonstrating that you will continue to add other issues while avoiding to deal with the faulty things you have previously put forth. I do not want to neglect to mention that you have shown that you do not have responses for the things I have presented to you. The Catholic Church has a stronger foundation than you are presenting and the CoJCoLDS is not near so shaky as you might like. I am loosing hope that you will address the things I am saying. I guess that is your choice. I only hope that your continual wandering about speaks to others reading this thread as it speaks to me.

I hope I do not come across as too harsh. Little of the above has to do with the Catholic Church or you as a person. I am just not happy with the way you continue to introduce new things without dealing with my positions. I hope I do not sound too frustrated or even too convinced I am right. If so I apologize. I surely have a problem with being too convinced that what I present is rock solid. I try to quell this too. I hope you will deal with what I say, acknowledge that you won’t or can’t, or move on to other things. I hope I have made it clear that to you and others that you have not dealt with my words. But I also hope I am not offensive.

Charity, TOm

 

[oat_soda]

the fact that you can’t provide a succinct answer any of these challenges directly on this forum only proves my point. those links you provided are a joke. they never refute anything and claim everyone is anti-mormon. stop wasting our time and give us the evidence that we are wrong and you are right.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Marriage practices can change. The Catholic Church did not have unmarried authorities originally. Peter and Paul were both married.

How can you say Paul was married? Do you have proof of this? Paul makes several comments about people remaining as he is (single).

 

[TOmNossor]

Oat Soda:

anyone who belives that the mormons are more logical then catholics should receive electro-shock therapy.

TOm:

I would suggest that anyone who reads our interaction and thinks that you have made your points with your statements about “insanity,” “dishonesty,” and “electroshock therapy,” and your lack of interaction with my positions; is hopelessly biased.

I am not going to call you names. You may continue to speak unkindly to me and unkindly of those in my church, but I am unlikely to become upset. If this is your purpose then I can understand what you are doing, but it will not work. But if this is not your purpose I don’t understand why you insist on using the words you do.

I think I have already pasted links to responses to your last post with the exception of your exaltation comment.

I have another book recommendation for you.

---

Matthias Joseph Scheeben

If man is to be reunited to God as his Father, God Himself must raise him up again to His side…God must again draw man up to His bosom as His child, regenerate him to new divine life, and again clothe him with the garment of His children, the splendor of His own nature and glory…this transformation of the will is essentially bound up with the inner elevation of our entire being by the grace of divine sonship and participation in the divine nature…The children of God participate as such in the divine holiness of their Father, in His very nature. (Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, B. Herder Book Co.: St. Loius, pp. 615, 616, 617, 619 - emphasis mine - German first ed. 1865; English ed. 1946, translated from the 1941 German ed.)

I just got this from the local Newman center today. I had been pointed to this quote and previously read here and a few other spots, but I think this book may be filled with wonderful things.

I can point to a number of “deification” things in the ECF and in modern Catholic writers. One of the things that Scheeban deals with is the being taken up in the NATURE of God.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

How can you say Paul was married? Do you have proof of this? Paul makes several comments about people remaining as he is (single).

Ignatius said Paul was married I believe. I can look it up if you like.
Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I do not have to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to recognize the value of the Bible. I have mentioned books that should have been included, but called the Catholic Church “a lesser organization” (Pastor of Hermas) and were excluded, despite being used to a greater degree than things like the Book of Jude.

I’m curious…if you hold this view of the Catholic church, what is your view of the KJV and Luther, who removed 7 books and several chapters from the already flawed book you claim the Bible to be? You use the KJV, which is missing 7 whole books and parts of others thanks to one Martin Luther. THAT is what I call having many plain and precious things removed.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Ignatius said Paul was married I believe. I can look it up if you like.
Charity, TOm

Please!

 

[oat_soda]

farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=93&table=review
the above link is supposedly refutes the idea that the BOA is a forgery by claiming “The papyri we now have are not proven to be the very ones that Joseph Smith used in his translation of the book of Abraham”. once again, they think everything is a conspriacy against them. but he says at the bottom in the first note that

"In other words, if you want to know if the book of Abraham is true, read it with an open mind, then humbly ask God if it is true, and “he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Moroni 10:4-5).

for a mormon, you shouldn’t use logic or reason to find the truth, as if it is contradicted by it, but your feelings. here is the heart of the problem of mormonism. no matter how much evidence you show them, they will always hold onto a feeling as being the ultimate test of truth. they are living in a total fantasy.

 

[tkdnick]

farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=93&table=review
the above link is supposedly refutes the idea that the BOA is a forgery by claiming “The papyri we now have are not proven to be the very ones that Joseph Smith used in his translation of the book of Abraham”. once again, they think everything is a conspriacy against them. but he says at the bottom in the first note that for a mormon, you shouldn’t use logic or reason to find the truth, as if it is contradicted by it, but your feelings. here is the heart of the problem of mormonism. no matter how much evidence you show them, they will always hold onto a feeling as being the ultimate test of truth. they are living in a total fantasy.

While I agree with you in generality, TOm Nossor seems to have done his homework…and done so pretty well.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Only Christ can lead me to ChristThis is so true. And if I hit a cord anywhere Tom it ain’t because of me. I am just a long for the ride. And I give thanks for the opportunity to ride along. I was nothing and now I am something. That is a pretty special gift from a very speciaL God.

Take Care Tom

God Bless
Rich

 

[mormon_fool]

To beat TOm to the punch in regards to Paul’s wife, here are some quotes from Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius citing C of A:

“Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: ‘Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?’ But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any scandal being aroused.”

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20001023/002254.html

Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. “Or will they,” says he, “reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife ,whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.”

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/npnf201/htm/iii.viii.xxx.htm

other references:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=78

http://www.catholicmind.com/articles/celibacy.htm

I’ll add a few synthesizing comments. From 1 Cor. 7:7-9 it can be argued that Paul was a widower. Further adding to this was his status as a Pharisee and possible one of the Sanhederin, which would probably required marriage. Clement appears to be using Phil 4:2-3 and 1 Cor. 9:5, but perhaps he has other inside information.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tkdnick,

I finally found what I was looking for. It is from Ignatius and it is below.

Clement of Alexandria and Origin also say that Paul was married.

Scripture is somewhat ambiguous in that Philippians 4:3 suggest that Paul had a wife, but you are correct in other places Paul seems to indicate that he is single. I have not done a detailed study of this.

In truth the tradition of priests and bishops being unmarried is tradition with a small “t.” It can be changed.

Now if woman were to become priests, that would introduce a fundamental change in Tradition. That would not be possible.

Ignatius to Philadelphians, Chapter 4 (long version)

I have confidence of you in the Lord, that ye will be of no other mind.Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behoves you also, therefore, as “a peculiar people, and a holy nation,” to perform all things with harmony in Christ. Wives, be ye subject to your husbands in the fear of God; and ye virgins, to Christ in purity, not counting marriage an abomination, but desiring that which is better, not for the reproach of wedlock, but for the sake of meditating on the law. Children, obey your parents, and have an affection for them, as workers together with God for your birth [into the world]. Servants, be subject to your masters in God, that ye may be the freed-men of Christ. Husbands, love your wives, as fellow-servants of God, as your own body, as the partners of your life, and your co-adjutors in the procreation of children. Virgins, have Christ alone before your eyes, and His Father in your prayers, being enlightened by the Spirit. May I have pleasure in your purity, as that of Elijah, or as of Joshua the son of Nun, as of Melchizedek, or as of Elisha, as of Jeremiah, or as of John the Baptist, as of the beloved disciple, as of Timothy, as of Titus, as of Evodius, as of Clement, who departed this life in [perfect] chastity, Not, however, that I blame the other blessed [saints] because they entered into the married state, of which I have just spoken. For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men

. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind. …

TOm:
It is certainly true that Ignatius (above the bolded part) is suggesting that he, Ignatius, will be celibate though.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

mormon fool:

To beat TOm to the punch in regards to Paul’s wife

Hey!
But I found the Ignatuis quote that seems to never be mentioned in these discussions.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

I’m curious…if you hold this view of the Catholic church, what is your view of the KJV and Luther, who removed 7 books and several chapters from the already flawed book you claim the Bible to be? You use the KJV, which is missing 7 whole books and parts of others thanks to one Martin Luther. THAT is what I call having many plain and precious things removed.

I agree with the Catholic Church that the KJV of the Bible removed these books. I disagree with the protestant position that the Catholic Church added these books.

Interestingly enough these books were included (in an apocryphal section, but included) in the original KJV of the Bible. Another interesting thing for KJV-only folks is that the translators did not claim to be beyond making errors.

Joseph Smith read what Protestants and Joseph Smith called the apocrypha. He said that if it was read with the proper spirit it could provide benefit, but it was not necessary. It is not canonized scripture for a LDS.

As I suggested above, I believe the choice of the KJV of the Bible was largely for the establishing of common ground with the Christians most proselytized by LDS, Protestants. I believe LDS missionaries (like JWs) are poorly prepared to engage Catholics (committed or educated Catholics that is). I have little problem with this, but I personally found that the Catholic Church was where I needed to search for a possible alternative to the CoJCoLDS.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

TOmNossor:

Hey!
But I found the Ignatuis quote that seems to never be mentioned in these discussions.
Charity, TOm

All right, you win. Your quote is earlier than mine and it doesn’t seem to be as easy to dismiss as Clement, who could be argued to be mis-reading scripture. I wonder why the Ignatuis quote is more obscur?

 

[TOmNossor]

mormon fool:

All right, you win. Your quote is earlier than mine and it doesn’t seem to be as easy to dismiss as Clement, who could be argued to be mis-reading scripture. I wonder why the Ignatuis quote is more obscur?

Well, I am not sure I win, but I remembered that passage from reading Ignatius. I expected to find some comment about it on the web. I could not so I had to search Ignatius again. It did take much longer than I had thought.

I am not sure why the Ignatius quote is not used more. The topic of the marriage of the apostles is of a little more importance to the CoJCoLDS than it is to other churches. Ignatius while providing a witness of the married status of the Apostles does suggest that to remain chaste and unmarried is also noble. I do not think this is a large of a problem for LDS in that we certainly teach the importance of celibacy outside of marriage, and Ignatius only seems to condemn the practice of uniting for gratification not uniting for procreation. But it would be nice if Ignatius were to have set marriage for procreation solidly above celibacy (nice for LDS not so nice for Catholics that is). Alas he says what he says.

Charity, TOm

 

[boppysbud]

Even though it has been a little while since TNosser made his comments about “divinisation” I just got here and wish to discuss it.

There is a huge difference between Mormon “divinisation” and the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine of Theosis that Mr. Nosser is ignoring here.

Mormon teaching is there are a huge number of “godS” (plural) even though they worship and pray to only one of their “godS”. Divinisation is the teaching that after death Mormons will become “godS” themselves, if they are “worthy” and follow all the commandments, they will be given their own worlds to run and populate with “spirit children”. These “godS” will share the same nature as “heavenly Father”. Indeed to Mormons “heavenly Father” was just a human being the same as us with a physical body of “flesh and bone”.

Catholic and Orthodox teaching is that there is only one God and will never be more Gods. We teach that although we may come to share in the energies of God, we will never share in the essence or nature of God.