The Mormon Archeology Shuffle

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The only thing I can see that could be considered such is the part about infant baptism, which, in a way, has its points. I understand why Catholicism does it, but at the same time, you never see anyone but a willing adult getting baptised in the Bible.

IF you read Act 18:8

And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized.

Now if all his house was baptized there was surly at the very least one small child/infant.

 

[Returning_Home]

IF you read Act 18:8

And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized.

Now if all his house was baptized there was surly at the very least one small child/infant.

I’m afraid you didn’t turn your thinking cap on this morning. When reading the verse, it says that “…many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” To hear, in its context, means to understand and children, babies especially, can hear but cannot comprehend and therefore don’t have the capacity to believe what’s being taught as God intended. That’s the reason that Catholics aren’t confirmed until the age of accountability.

You’re making assumptions not supported by the text and those same type of assumptions are what the LDS uses to ‘prove’ that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all separate and distinct, not triune in nature.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I’m afraid you didn’t turn your thinking cap on this morning. When reading the verse, it says that “…many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” To hear, in its context, means to understand and children, babies especially, can hear but cannot comprehend and therefore don’t have the capacity to believe what’s being taught as God intended. That’s the reason that Catholics aren’t confirmed until the age of accountability.

You’re making assumptions not supported by the text and those same type of assumptions are what the LDS uses to ‘prove’ that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all separate and distinct, not triune in nature.

I am afraid thet it is you with the thinking cap not turn on. If you read the ver first line of the verse it says “And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house…” then say " with all his house…" then we get the addenum “and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed…”

So from the text we have Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue,with all his house, and we have, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized. Crispus and his whole house are seperate from the many Corinthians.

Also only Latin Rite Catholics wait till a person reaches the age of accountability for comfirmation. Eastern Rite Catholics confrim infants at baptizism, as do Orthodox.

 

[Returning_Home]

I am afraid thet it is you with the thinking cap not turn on. If you read the ver first line of the verse it says “And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house…” then say " with all his house…" then we get the addenum “and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed…”

So from the text we have Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue,with all his house, and we have, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized. Crispus and his whole house are seperate from the many Corinthians.

Also only Latin Rite Catholics wait till a person reaches the age of accountability for comfirmation. Eastern Rite Catholics confrim infants at baptizism, as do Orthodox.

But still, you’re taking the meaning to imply something that’s not supported anywhere else here in the text. For that matter, when it says that he believed with all his house, what’s to say that he didn’t believe with all of his wood, plaster, and thatch? After all, it clearly says ‘house’ twice, does it not? Therefore, the argument can be made that all the materials comprising his house believed in God just as easily as this implies infant baptism.

If this is what the text meant, it likely would’ve said it more clearly, but instead, there’s not one mention of babies or even young children that I can find.

That all said, I’m going to have my infant daughter baptized soon; not because it’s some nebulous half wishful thinking as you’ve tried to make it, but rather for tradition’s sake, because I want my kids to have a basis for belief in God to later accept or reject as they choose later.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

But still, you’re taking the meaning to imply something that’s not supported anywhere else here in the text. For that matter, when it says that he believed with all his house, what’s to say that he didn’t believe with all of his wood, plaster, and thatch? After all, it clearly says ‘house’ twice, does it not? Therefore, the argument can be made that all the materials comprising his house believed in God just as easily as this implies infant baptism.

If this is what the text meant, it likely would’ve said it more clearly, but instead, there’s not one mention of babies or even young children that I can find.

That all said, I’m going to have my infant daughter baptized soon; not because it’s some nebulous half wishful thinking as you’ve tried to make it, but rather for tradition’s sake, because I want my kids to have a basis for belief in God to later accept or reject as they choose later.

So when it say the Chirst is from the House of David it means the physical house that King David lived line?
No, it means his family. Just as the word trinity is not found , but we can find the trinity in scripture so to with the case of infant baptizism. Taking that house is used throughout the scpriture more times than not to mean the family of the person being spoken of we can take it to mean he and his entire family were baptized.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But still, you’re taking the meaning to imply something that’s not supported anywhere else here in the text. For that matter, when it says that he believed with all his house, what’s to say that he didn’t believe with all of his wood, plaster, and thatch? After all, it clearly says ‘house’ twice, does it not? Therefore, the argument can be made that all the materials comprising his house believed in God just as easily as this implies infant baptism.

If this is what the text meant, it likely would’ve said it more clearly, but instead, there’s not one mention of babies or even young children that I can find.

That all said, I’m going to have my infant daughter baptized soon; not because it’s some nebulous half wishful thinking as you’ve tried to make it, but rather for tradition’s sake, because I want my kids to have a basis for belief in God to later accept or reject as they choose later.

Hello Returning Home, the NT accounts are of converts, as at this time all were converts. But as you point out, it has been the Tradition of the Church to baptize infants. This is seen in all catholic churches, east and west.

There isn’t anything in the NT or Tradition that supports withholding baptism from children.

Catholicism is a community of believers. The family unit is a church. A community of believers. How and what Catholics believe about Church and community doesn’t support withholding baptism from our own children. They are a part of the Church (the larger and familial) and so part of our community.

In addition to this, the graces that a baptism provide are truly gifts of the Holy Spirit, that help a child grow in faith. It’s hard to imagine wanting to withhold these from your own children and arguing that it is a good idea.

Beyond this, culturally at the time, what the head of the household did, the rest of the house followed. It would be a poor cultural argument that a man was baptized but his children were not.

Just as circumcision was decided by the parents, and an infant was brought into a covenant with God by circumcision, so it is the same that a infant is brought into Christ’s Church via baptism.

Just as it was required that an adult male convert to Judaism be baptized, so it is required that an adult convert to Catholicism be baptized.

 

[SirThomasMore]

One of the typical responses (and we have seen it here) to the question about Book of Mormon Archeology is that the Book was meant to require faith, so no evidence is needed. That is ahandy answer for a Church that knows that no evidence exists.

But the argument is a specious one.

IF the Book of Mormon was simply a spiritual book of teachings, then yes, no evidence is needed and faith is all that is required.

Where the LDS argument fails is that the BM does NOT just purport to be a spritual book of teachings, but, rather, a history book that tells the history of a specific group of people.

The discussion from non-LDS is NOT that there should be evidence of the spiritual aspects of the book…that is a faith-based issue that is not relevant.

The discussion is about the HISTORICAL aspects of the book. This has NOTHING to do with faith. If the evidence of the historical aspects of a book was that critical, then everyone would believe in God due to the evidence that suuports the historical aspects of the Bible.

Mormons try to muddy water by bringing in faith as a red-herring. This is NOT about faith but about HISTORY. IF the Book is what it purports to be, then there WOULD be historical, geographical, archeological, and scientific evidence.

Mormons always try to claim that no one knows for sure where the BM took place, so excavating is almost impossible. That is hollow because we DO where Cumorah is, and NO excavating has taken place. That tells me that the LDS Church KNOWS there is nothing to be found.

We are told archeology is not important to the LDS Church. Yet, the Church has sponsored or financed several attempts to find evidence. All have failed.

We are told missionary work is more important. Hmmmm. I was LDS. The missionary program is strong. Very strong. The goal, according to LDS leaders is to baptize EVERYONE (not just certain people as Parker stated). Imagine, if you will, how many baptisms the LDS Church would obtain (and by extension, the millions in tithes) if they excavated Cumorah and found solid evidence of two large battles with items as described in the Book of Mormon. What a POWEFUL missionary tool to be able to show the world that what was in the BM has some solid evidence that even non-LDS can agree on (like non-Christians who acknowledge archeological findings that support Biblical history).

Do you really believe the LDs Church would, with millions, perhaps billions in tithes at stake, not to mention the perhaps millions who might become LDS, refuse to excavate if it was even remotely possible that they would find evidence?

The refusal to excavate Cumorah is a tacit admission that LDS leaders know that no evidence exists. That they know the BM is not true. And that they know the LDS Church is not the true Church.

 

[Returning_Home]

So when it say the Chirst is from the House of David it means the physical house that King David lived line?

Of course not, silly, but using your rationale, it might as well be.

No, it means his family. Just as the word trinity is not found , but we can find the trinity in scripture so to with the case of infant baptizism. Taking that house is used throughout the scpriture more times than not to mean the family of the person being spoken of we can take it to mean he and his entire family were baptized.

I agree that it means family, but you’re reading too much into the available text, making arguments that mirror those of Mormons to support their false beliefs. You believe this supports infant baptism because you want it to, not because it actually does.

Hello Returning Home, the NT accounts are of converts, as at this time all were converts. But as you point out, it has been the Tradition of the Church to baptize infants. This is seen in all catholic churches, east and west.

There isn’t anything in the NT or Tradition that supports withholding baptism from children.

This is where we need to separate Catholic tradition from Biblical teachings. As I already said, I have no problem with it as long as it’s done for the right reasons. If not, we’re no better than people who follow the teachings of false prophets and fictional characters in a book plagiairzed from the Bible.

This will be last response on the matter due to it being so far off topic. If anyone wants to discuss if further, start another thread, please.

 

[Returning_Home]

Mormons always try to claim that no one knows for sure where the BM took place, so excavating is almost impossible. That is hollow because we DO where Cumorah is, and NO excavating has taken place. That tells me that the LDS Church KNOWS there is nothing to be found.

We are told archeology is not important to the LDS Church. Yet, the Church has sponsored or financed several attempts to find evidence. All have failed.

This is shown in the church-produced literature getting more vague as time goes on instead of more specific with the development of technology.

All of my old literature is very clear as to where the Hill Cumorah is but the church is now reluctant to put it in any one place because of the heat that we’re putting on them. Church leaders know that we’re waiting for them to make mistakes which is primarily the reason it is almost frozen in that aspect, forced to bring it all down to faith.

 

[PaulDupre]

It is only a matter of time until the LDS church will re-invent its position on the BoM and the BoA. A few years from now, Diana and the others will be telling us that the LDS church has never claimed that those books recounted real historical events or were translated from actual documents, but have always said that they were received in revelation by Smith as divine allegory. All of the statements from the LDS prophets and apostles, all the lesson manuals and the intros to the books themselves - well those were just someone’s opinions, now shown to be incorrect by the current prophet who has shed more light and knowledge on the matter.

 

[twopekinguys]

It is only a matter of time until the LDS church will re-invent its position on the BoM and the BoA. A few years from now, Diana and the others will be telling us that the LDS church has never claimed that those books recounted real historical events or were translated from actual documents, but have always said that they were received in revelation by Smith as divine allegory. All of the statements from the LDS prophets and apostles, all the lesson manuals and the intros to the books themselves - well those were just someone’s opinions, now shown to be incorrect by the current prophet who has shed more light and knowledge on the matter.

I believe it has already started when one the the lds apologists say not everything in BoA needs to be defended.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It is only a matter of time until the LDS church will re-invent its position on the BoM and the BoA. A few years from now, Diana and the others will be telling us that the LDS church has never claimed that those books recounted real historical events or were translated from actual documents, but have always said that they were received in revelation by Smith as divine allegory. All of the statements from the LDS prophets and apostles, all the lesson manuals and the intros to the books themselves - well those were just someone’s opinions, now shown to be incorrect by the current prophet who has shed more light and knowledge on the matter.

And when will they adopt the mainstream Christian definition of the Trinity? Can it be far behind?

 

[SirThomasMore]

no, the next thing will be that all the bones from millions of Book of Mormon people and all the huge cities and ruins of those cities and every trace of anything in the Book of Mormon was taken into heave to be with gold plates.

 

[Javl]

Maybe someday the LDS will wake up and throw off their yoke of sham, falsity, and error, as did Herbert Armstrong’s “Worldwide Church of God”, and become true Christians.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[PaulDupre]

Maybe someday the LDS will wake up and throw off their yoke of sham, falsity, and error, as did Herbert Armstrong’s “Worldwide Church of God”, and become true Christians.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

It’s only a matter of time.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I will be very happy on the day that Mormons are recognized as Christians by the entire Christian world.

 

[SnakeMauler]

You guys are all forgetting one simple thing: How would you prove anything is “Cumorah” anyway? Even if we did find some kind of large ruins in the United States, there’s no way to prove that it has anything to do with the people in the Book of Mormon. I mean theoretically it is possible for some Native Americans (not the book of Mormon) to have SOMEHOW had some kind of lost cities somewhere. Who knows? And if we found human bones in this alleged “Cumorah” site, we could simply do a DNA test on them to see if they had anything common with middle eastern people. And if they didn’t, Mormons would come up with some BS excuse that god made them that way as punishment or whatever, and if they did had some DNA stuff in common or whatever with middle eastern people, it doesn’t mean that they’re some people from the book of mormon. They could have been shipwrecked arabs or something.

Conclusively, Mormons are the epitamy of BSing and just compromise after compromise and whatnot. That’s probably the reason why they never gave concrete locations on anything. I mean, if Joseph Smith thought hard into it at all, he probably figured that maybe some “Ruins” that no one could identify would turn up someday that someone could say “proves” the book of mormon.

 

[SnakeMauler]

I will be very happy on the day that Mormons are recognized as Christians by the entire Christian world.

That’s the day when Mormons actually become something OTHER than Mormon, or their prophets receive a “Revelation” that everything they’ve been doing and believing in is 100 percent wrong and change to Orthodox catholic beliefs.

 

[SnakeMauler]

I couldn’t even get interested in reading the book of Mormon. It’s like dull. When you open the Bible you get that ol tinge feeling in your stomach when you read “God creatived the heavens and the earth” and whatnot and you read action packed stories like Moses, Judges, Jesus, and of course, ACTS!

The book of mormon I opened up and I was like wtf? People read this? People waste money printing it? The Koran was slightly less dull.

 

[Returning_Home]

I couldn’t even get interested in reading the book of Mormon. It’s like dull. The book of mormon I opened up and I was like wtf? People read this? People waste money printing it? The Koran was slightly less dull.

What you need to know is this: the BOM, even if the events were correct and accurate, has nothing to do with modern Mormonism. The missionaries won’t tell you that, but it’s true. In fact, you won’t find a plurality of gods, God once being a man, God having a physical body, the pre-mortal existance, a Heavenly mother, or anything else unique to Mormonism in its pages. No, the BOM is basically Protestant in its concept for its first edition.