Z
Zakuska
Guest
“It” was not a single person. But a “Spirit” that was prophecied to come in the 5th Prophetic day of the worlds history.
- Status
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Quoting bible verses will not help your case. I want history past the Apostolic Age (the age LDS believe the apostasy happened). Show me all Christians walked away, not just assertions.It is a matter of history.
2 Tim 1
15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be aturned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
All seven churches in Asia had fallen away from the truth.
Acts 20
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Hmmm the entire flock was killed.
So who was left?
The false teachers.
Peace
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Zakuska said:
No, no, it was the 8th prophetic month in the 3rd prophet hour. I thought you understood this?
Peace
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Here are some of their writings on the Eucharist:
Ignatius of Antioch:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr:
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus:
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria:
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Not a very good one to quote:
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
Christs Blood is love.
Lets do some tests on it after a Priest has prayed over it.
Does it become Immortal flesh and bone?
I’d like to see all these in context.
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
Christs Blood is love.
Lets do some tests on it after a Priest has prayed over it.
Does it become Immortal flesh and bone?
I’d like to see all these in context.
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
This is the trouble with starting a new thread like this. An explosion of posts. But that’s okay. I will deal with this generally.
It seems that I have not clarified something very important that everyone has jumped on. I never said that Jesus came at the wrong time, but simply that the world was not ready to receive him. Think about it: if it was would it have killed him? I’m writing from the perspective on the way John treats the world.
John 14:16-17, 22, 30
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you … Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? … Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
John 15:18-19
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
And so on…
Basically, Jesus was sent to the world at that time exactly because it would not receive him; it hated him. And so it continues to hate those who follow Christ. The world’s lord (or prince) is Satan, not God. There is a concept common in Mormonism, that if Jesus had gone to any other people at any other time, they would have recognized him and would not have crucified their lord. It was because of the evil and apostate state of the Jews that made that time the perfect time for Christ to fulfill his mission.
So, again, what was his mission? Obviously it was more than establishing a Church, but at the same time what he did wouldn’t have much significance without one. I think that this is where the misunderstanding comes from. If I’m not mistaken, the Catholics believe that establishing the Church was just as important, if not moreso, as performing the atonement. For LDS, I think this is a little more muddy. While getting the Church was important, the atonement was infinitely more important.
In LDS theology the work for the dead together with the preaching of the gospel in the spirit world answers a lot of blurriness surrounding the apostasy. Surely there were good people during that time who would have accepted the true gospel had they known what it was, but because of the lack of priesthood authority and doctrinal clarity those people couldn’t obtain it in this life. However, everyone in the end will have the same chances of getting into heaven, and so this seemingly unjust aspect of the apostasy isn’t really a problem for Mormons. If you seriously doubt the validity of temple work for the dead then you would simply disagree with me that it is just, but put yourself in our shoes. This is what Matthew 16:18 refers to, that the Church shall not be overcome by death. The work continues beyond the veil. I think that understanding this principle is extremely important in understanding why the belief in a world-wide apostasy is not morally wrong in the LDS Church.
And I think that this is really the best reason to discuss this topic. To me, proving whether it happened or not is not as important as explaining why such a belief is possible.
It seems that I have not clarified something very important that everyone has jumped on. I never said that Jesus came at the wrong time, but simply that the world was not ready to receive him. Think about it: if it was would it have killed him? I’m writing from the perspective on the way John treats the world.
John 14:16-17, 22, 30
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you … Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? … Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
John 15:18-19
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
And so on…
Basically, Jesus was sent to the world at that time exactly because it would not receive him; it hated him. And so it continues to hate those who follow Christ. The world’s lord (or prince) is Satan, not God. There is a concept common in Mormonism, that if Jesus had gone to any other people at any other time, they would have recognized him and would not have crucified their lord. It was because of the evil and apostate state of the Jews that made that time the perfect time for Christ to fulfill his mission.
So, again, what was his mission? Obviously it was more than establishing a Church, but at the same time what he did wouldn’t have much significance without one. I think that this is where the misunderstanding comes from. If I’m not mistaken, the Catholics believe that establishing the Church was just as important, if not moreso, as performing the atonement. For LDS, I think this is a little more muddy. While getting the Church was important, the atonement was infinitely more important.
In LDS theology the work for the dead together with the preaching of the gospel in the spirit world answers a lot of blurriness surrounding the apostasy. Surely there were good people during that time who would have accepted the true gospel had they known what it was, but because of the lack of priesthood authority and doctrinal clarity those people couldn’t obtain it in this life. However, everyone in the end will have the same chances of getting into heaven, and so this seemingly unjust aspect of the apostasy isn’t really a problem for Mormons. If you seriously doubt the validity of temple work for the dead then you would simply disagree with me that it is just, but put yourself in our shoes. This is what Matthew 16:18 refers to, that the Church shall not be overcome by death. The work continues beyond the veil. I think that understanding this principle is extremely important in understanding why the belief in a world-wide apostasy is not morally wrong in the LDS Church.
This is absolutely true. The apostasy, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the subsequent beliefs, practices, and organizations are all deeply connected together. If you can down one of these you’ve downed them all. Equally, if the apostasy could be proved that would down the whole Catholic Church, so the balance point really is the apostasy.
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
As far as what is used as evidence, I have seen that Mormons often use various Bible passages, some of which I find very self-explanatory, and several (mainly from the OT) that I think are more abstract and do not prove the argument very well. The only possible scriptural reference I have heard of against the apostasy is Matthew 16:18, that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church. I have heard some others used too, but find them to be severely misused. So, let’s take it one step at a time. What Biblical passages are there for and against the apostasy? We will then probably get into discussing some of their inticacies. Feel free to copy/paste.
Mormons do use historical evidence, though probably not the kind that most Christians find empirically valid. For example, the history of attrocities committed by certain officials, the arguing among protestant sects, the lack of human progress following the fall of the Roman Empire until the Rennaissance, etc, are all interpreted by the majority of Mormons to indicate that something was seriously wrong. Usually you don’t see much more detail than the way I have listed things here. Various talks have been given and pieces written on the preparation for the restoration, AKA the development in humanistic thinking, major technological advances, the discovery of the Americas, the Reformation, new political ideals, etc. Some of those are also very interesting. In fact, I remember hearing a talk at last General Conference, I think during the Sunday afternoon session, that explained exactly this: a brief history of Christ’s mission, the early Church, the apostasy, the preparation, and the restoration. You Catholics may want to question some of these things in more detail, because to Mormons this is the picture that is painted and it seems very logical that an apostasy had occurred. As far as Catholic historical evidence I’m not really sure what there is. I’m ignorant of any list of names of successors from Peter to Constantine or other compelling historical facts, so if there is anything like that I’d be interested to see it.
As far as the ECF goes, I don’t really know much, although I have read many articles by LDS apologists quoting them heavily. Hmm… For that maybe it’s better to start a separate thread and decide what each one’s message really was, because that seems to me to be too big a topic to have here as a sub-topic. I think that the ‘doctrinal development’ argument should be in a separate thread.
Really, I’m not sure what kinds of evidences there are other than that…
Mormons do use historical evidence, though probably not the kind that most Christians find empirically valid. For example, the history of attrocities committed by certain officials, the arguing among protestant sects, the lack of human progress following the fall of the Roman Empire until the Rennaissance, etc, are all interpreted by the majority of Mormons to indicate that something was seriously wrong. Usually you don’t see much more detail than the way I have listed things here. Various talks have been given and pieces written on the preparation for the restoration, AKA the development in humanistic thinking, major technological advances, the discovery of the Americas, the Reformation, new political ideals, etc. Some of those are also very interesting. In fact, I remember hearing a talk at last General Conference, I think during the Sunday afternoon session, that explained exactly this: a brief history of Christ’s mission, the early Church, the apostasy, the preparation, and the restoration. You Catholics may want to question some of these things in more detail, because to Mormons this is the picture that is painted and it seems very logical that an apostasy had occurred. As far as Catholic historical evidence I’m not really sure what there is. I’m ignorant of any list of names of successors from Peter to Constantine or other compelling historical facts, so if there is anything like that I’d be interested to see it.
As far as the ECF goes, I don’t really know much, although I have read many articles by LDS apologists quoting them heavily. Hmm… For that maybe it’s better to start a separate thread and decide what each one’s message really was, because that seems to me to be too big a topic to have here as a sub-topic. I think that the ‘doctrinal development’ argument should be in a separate thread.
Really, I’m not sure what kinds of evidences there are other than that…
Z
Zakuska
Guest
That all depends… there are seven prophectic days layed out. the 5000th years was the 1260 year long reign of the antichrist.
6000th years is the restoration and the harvest.
Z
Zakuska
Guest
I started a new thread on real presence, and ECFs.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1050059#post1050059
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1050059#post1050059
M
majick275
Guest
The only bible scriptures that the LDS have used here all speak of individuals or at best small groups apostatizing NEVER the whole church, certainly not the entire earth.
Z
Zakuska
Guest
We have Paul saying that ALL seven Chruchs in India… the same ones the Lord chastizes in Rev 1-3 had all turned away from the truth. We also have Paul warning that wolves would enter in and kill the flock.
Lets look at the Antichrist scriptures.
1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.
1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Dan. 7: 7
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth abeast•, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great biron• teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had cten• horns.
Rev. 11: 7
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
Rev. 13: 7
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and apower was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Two competing world leaders would corrupt the church:
Dan 11
17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.
Lets look at the Antichrist scriptures.
1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.
1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Dan. 7: 7
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth abeast•, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great biron• teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had cten• horns.
Rev. 11: 7
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
Rev. 13: 7
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and apower was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Two competing world leaders would corrupt the church:
Dan 11
17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.
St. Ignatius clear back in the 1st century told us that the Anti-Christ was already here. So Did John and So did Paul.
W
Writer
Guest
Furthermore…what about the DNA evidence which contradicts what the Mormons claim concerning the events they describe having taken place in the New World? Is there a shred of historical or scientific evidence to support even one aspect of LDS theology?
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Becareful when youy wield the sword of “DNA evidence”. For the same “evidence” refutes the Bible as well.
Jerusalem is where the BOM says it should be… So are all the landmarks given in Lehi’s journeys.
nephiproject.com
M
majick275
Guest
your going to tout the nephi project as scientific evidence? please.
BoM geography isn’t even established by LDS. The location of Jerusalem was never lost. Lehi’s journey is a myth with only guesses at what those “landmarks” really are. Show me where your “prophets” make these claims.
There is no DNA evidence refuting the Bible. Show me what you think disproves the Bible without using FAIR, FARMS or the nephi project none of whom have any academic credibility.
BoM geography isn’t even established by LDS. The location of Jerusalem was never lost. Lehi’s journey is a myth with only guesses at what those “landmarks” really are. Show me where your “prophets” make these claims.
There is no DNA evidence refuting the Bible. Show me what you think disproves the Bible without using FAIR, FARMS or the nephi project none of whom have any academic credibility.
A
arieh0310
Guest
Nice Ignatius quote Zak! I highly encourage your further study of ECF writings, preferably in their entirety.
BTW, who is more ashamed of the Cross, Mormons or Catholics?
B
ben_dy
Guest
Chris Jodrey:
A fairly good list of popes can be found here - it’s not quite as complete as some lists and is not the authoritative list published annually in the Annuario Pontificio (the 2005 edition is still available online from paxbook.com). Still, it’s an excellent resource and, it’s free. The Vatican website is good as well, with an excellent search engine, but not all documents are available in English.
So first let us assume that you are speaking of St. Peter, and then let us know of which Constantine you are familiar - there is a 400 year gap between the two and those ages are not nearly as dark, historically, as people often think (or hope).
Chris Jodrey:
The primary problem that I see - which I stated rather too emphatically, perhaps, in my first message on this thread - is that history disproves any notion of a “Great Apostasy” and, as the burden of proof always lies with the accusers, I don’t see that the LDS church has any form of proof at all. To quote warnings and admonitions by Paul to his various congregations proves nothing - in fact it is from some of those wellsprings that bore Popes and where Christendom is still alive and where perhaps the most ‘primitive’ of forms of liturgy are to be found. And the appeal to the Apocalypse simply doesn’t cut the mustard at all (unless you are convinced that Christ will return as a seven horned, seven eyed slaughtered lamb - ignoring metaphor and symbolism in apocalyptic literature of the period).
As I see matters, the only recourse that the LDS church has in assuming some sort of “Great Apostasy” is in the Book of Mormon itself. And it goes without saying, I think, that, as history and archeology argue so well against the veracity of the BoM that LDS leaders have issued grave warnings against even attempting to reconcile the BoM with anthropology, geography, archeology, DNA results, etc., for a very good reason: for the membership of the LDS church there does not exist even rudimentary reason in belief in the BoM - it is blind faith or nothing. Christians visit Israel and can come close - if not spot on - the areas where Christ walked 2,000 years ago and see the clay oil lamps which He would have used; yet the Mormon who would hope to find a sword of one of 200,000+ fallen Nephites on or around the Hill Cumorah is not only advised not to look but not even to speculate that, as so great a battle would have left artifacts galore yet there are none to be found, there may have been another Hill Cumorah. For the Christian, innocent jaunts into history and Biblical archeology can only be awesome and result in an even deeper faith; for the Mormon following the same route in search of reason in the Book of Mormon, it can only cast doubt and, often, destroy faith. So just as LDS prophets have warned against looking too closely into the history within the ‘history’ of the Book of Mormon, I think it would be wise, in discussing a “Great Apostasy” to leave the BoM on the shelf, as well.
Now - begin your case of proving this Great Apostasy,
This, then, may prove to be a fruitless discussion for in that sentence I am uncertain if you are discussing the 86 or so Popes from St. Peter to Pope Constantine, a Syrian who was Pope between 708-715, or are rather referring to Constantine the Great, Emperor, Flavius Valerius Constantinus.
A fairly good list of popes can be found here - it’s not quite as complete as some lists and is not the authoritative list published annually in the Annuario Pontificio (the 2005 edition is still available online from paxbook.com). Still, it’s an excellent resource and, it’s free. The Vatican website is good as well, with an excellent search engine, but not all documents are available in English.
So first let us assume that you are speaking of St. Peter, and then let us know of which Constantine you are familiar - there is a 400 year gap between the two and those ages are not nearly as dark, historically, as people often think (or hope).
Chris Jodrey:
Writings and translations of the ECF’s are all over the Internet - New Advent (cited earlier) has online publications and a Google search just found a site - ccel.org/fathers2/ - which looks to have documents of the Apostolic Fathers in PDF format.
The primary problem that I see - which I stated rather too emphatically, perhaps, in my first message on this thread - is that history disproves any notion of a “Great Apostasy” and, as the burden of proof always lies with the accusers, I don’t see that the LDS church has any form of proof at all. To quote warnings and admonitions by Paul to his various congregations proves nothing - in fact it is from some of those wellsprings that bore Popes and where Christendom is still alive and where perhaps the most ‘primitive’ of forms of liturgy are to be found. And the appeal to the Apocalypse simply doesn’t cut the mustard at all (unless you are convinced that Christ will return as a seven horned, seven eyed slaughtered lamb - ignoring metaphor and symbolism in apocalyptic literature of the period).
As I see matters, the only recourse that the LDS church has in assuming some sort of “Great Apostasy” is in the Book of Mormon itself. And it goes without saying, I think, that, as history and archeology argue so well against the veracity of the BoM that LDS leaders have issued grave warnings against even attempting to reconcile the BoM with anthropology, geography, archeology, DNA results, etc., for a very good reason: for the membership of the LDS church there does not exist even rudimentary reason in belief in the BoM - it is blind faith or nothing. Christians visit Israel and can come close - if not spot on - the areas where Christ walked 2,000 years ago and see the clay oil lamps which He would have used; yet the Mormon who would hope to find a sword of one of 200,000+ fallen Nephites on or around the Hill Cumorah is not only advised not to look but not even to speculate that, as so great a battle would have left artifacts galore yet there are none to be found, there may have been another Hill Cumorah. For the Christian, innocent jaunts into history and Biblical archeology can only be awesome and result in an even deeper faith; for the Mormon following the same route in search of reason in the Book of Mormon, it can only cast doubt and, often, destroy faith. So just as LDS prophets have warned against looking too closely into the history within the ‘history’ of the Book of Mormon, I think it would be wise, in discussing a “Great Apostasy” to leave the BoM on the shelf, as well.
Now - begin your case of proving this Great Apostasy,
C
Chris-WA
Guest
The context of this quote is in the second paragraph which you did not choose to put in your post.
B
ben_dy
Guest
What in the world do you mean?Becareful when youy wield the sword of “DNA evidence”. For the same “evidence” refutes the Bible as well.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hello Chris J;
Thanks for starting an interesting thread.
You stated in an earlier post…
Chris Jodrey:
Thanks for starting an interesting thread.
You stated in an earlier post…
Chris Jodrey:
Herein lies the problem with the LDS theology. It is not a matter of “belief” (faith) to accept or deny that the “great apostasy” occurred. There is either historical evidence of a complete change in christian doctrine shortly after the death of the last Apostle, or there is not. The issue is not properly a matter of faith or belief, just as the jewish holocaust is not a matter of belief or faith. The holocaust, like the great apostasy, either happened or it did not, and a study of history proves or disproves its occurrence. The LDS “faith” position on the apostasy is akin to those who deny the holocaust actually occurred. They support their position by simply discounting the tangible evidence of history under the claim of falsity. Like those who would set aside the truth of the holocaust, and cast the burden back upon those who rely upon the tangible evidence of history, it is the burden of the LDS church to come up with some historical proof for the position - simply denying the evidence of history and claiming “knowledge” or “belief” of the truth is not sufficient. “Faith” that the “great apostasy” happened in the face of tangible evidence that it did not happen is not faith, it is revisionism.
C
Chris_Jodrey
Guest
Why are you changing the subject? The only way this could possibly relate is to say that if we ask for evidence for the non-apostasy we should also be able to provide evidence for other things, which really just leads around in a circle. If you want to talk about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon make another thread.
Ben, you seem to be a smart guy, but judging by your post it seems that you haven’t read much on Mormon apologetics on this issue. I have studied these ‘problems’ that you suggest but come to far different conclusions. There are many considerations to think on here. For example, what kinds of swords are we looking for? The Aztecs used some pretty nasty swords, as the Spaniards all called them. They actually feared them greatly. Since wood decomposes though, it’s no wonder that swords of that nature do not go back to BoM times. You should also know that Biblical archaeological research has not always been so developed. Also, know that archaeology in the America is limited in a few very notable ways. That’s why the Lehi project in the old world is more concrete than anything around here. Another thing - there is no way to historically coroborate the BoM history since in Mesoamerica because no written history dating to that time and general place exists, unlike the situation in the old world. (In fact, the first somewhat reliable oral records go back to about 600AD in Mesoamerica with only estimates and more obscure archaeology before that, but with nothing really known about the culture.) If you want to believe that Mormons are just plain wrong then you can take this lack of evidence to mean that we’re wrong, but from my POV this is quite understandable, and I believe it will develop further in the future, for the positive. Anyway, I have failed to see anything concrete in history or anthropology negating the BoM account. Maybe you’re familiar with the Smithsonian standard statement reform on the Book of Mormon. To me, that proves that there are many common misconceptions even among the elite on new world anthropology that are slowly being addressed. Again, if you want to talk about this more, start a new thread.
- Status