Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[ricko]

Rick,
The King James translation of 1 Timothy 3:2-5 says as follows:

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

"Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Verse 5 really does paint a pretty good picture of why it would be important that a bishop be married and that he have children. Verse 2 seems unmistakeably clear to me.

Thanks for asking, and have a good evening.

So by your way of understanding that passage,

A bishop MUST be married.
A bishop MUST have children (more than one)

If his wife and children died then by your reasoning he would be disqualified.
Doesn’t sound good by your reasoning now does it?

What it really means is that IF he is married, it is to be to one woman.

IF he has children, then they must be “in subjection”.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have a wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

 

[mjf001]

[SIGN]Revelation 12:6 and 14 speaks of “the woman” who was a symbol of the true gospel. “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”

“And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” (In other words, she went into hiding.)[/SIGN]

I’m pasting a link to the NAB translations of Revelation chapter 12. Please read the first paragraph of the footnotes. As a Catholic, I prefer this interpretation. I think it more clearly expresses the author’s intent. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation12.htm

[SIGN]So in answer to your statement about “it defies reason”, then I admit it wouldn’t seem logical if one were to make normal assumptions about a powerful Being (Christ) not letting his church go astray, but the Bible indicates that this very thing was prophesied to happen. Yet Christ’s work is still going to be triumphant, and that does not just include the LDS but includes all of the good people in the world who believe in Him and follow Him with sincere hearts. Every sincere follower of Christ has been blessed by Him throughout time, so His atonement has never been in vain, nor were His efforts to specifically organize His church with specific authority and a specific leadership pattern. The pattern was given by Him.[/SIGN]

As a Catholic, I see Jesus as being more than just a powerful being. He is God the Son, 2nd person of the Trinity. “Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father,” from the Nicene Creed. I do believe he was more than capable of protecting his Church. I also believe the Holy Spirit is more than adequate to guide the Church into all truth.

In a way, you’re right His mission is not finished, there is one thing left to do. “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.”

As a Catholic, I believe if Jesus had returned, we would all know it, so I can give no credence to Joseph Smith’s story. Like I always have to say, there are so many things that bother me regarding the origins, doctrines, and founder of the LDS, and they all tend to be interrelated, so separating them is a mess.

[SIGN]Apostasy means authority was lost and prophetic revelation to guide the church so that the church could retain true doctrine and help people come to Christ and gain sanctification, was impurified such that teachings were changed. It doesn’t mean all of the people apostatized from the truths they knew.[/SIGN]

From: newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm

[SIGN]*Apostasy
tt=76

(apo, from, and stasis, station, standing, or position).

The word itself in its etymological sense, signifies the desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate. Most authors, however, distinguish with Benedict XIV (De Synodo di£cesanâ, XIII, xi, 9), between three kinds of apostasy: apostasy a Fide or perfidi£, when a Christian gives up his faith; apostasy ab ordine, when a cleric abandons the ecclesiastical state; apostasy a religione, or monachatus, when a religious leaves the religious life. The Gloss on title 9 of the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX mentions two other kinds of apostasy: apostasy inobedientiæ, disobedience to a command given by lawful authority, and iteratio baptismatis, the repetition of baptism, “quoniam reiterantes baptismum videntur apostatare dum recedunt a priori baptismate”. As all sin involves disobedience, the apostasy inobedientiæ does not constitute a specific offense. In the case of iteratio baptismatis, the offence falls rather under the head of heresy and irregularity than of apostasy; if the latter name has sometimes been given to it, it is due to the fact that the Decretals of Gregory IX combine into one title, under the rubric “De apostatis et reiterantibus baptisma” (V, title 9) the two distinct titles of the Justinian Code: “Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur” and “De apostatis” (I, titles 6, 7), in Corpus juris civilis ed. Krueger, (Berlin, 1888); II 60-61. See München “Das kanonische Gerichtsverfahren und Strafrecht” (Cologne, 1874), II, 362, 363. Apostasy, in its strictest sense, means apostasy a Fide (St. Thomas, Summa theologica, II-II, Q. xii a. 1).*[/SIGN]

As so often happens, we’re using the same words with different meanings. Above is the Catholic definition of apostasy. It has nothing do to with the loss of authority.

[SIGN]Again, people should certainly “follow Jesus at all” because when the Holy Spirit is with a person, they have complete confidence that they are following Jesus, that the book of Revelation will indeed be realized in that Christ will triumph, and that they can participate in that triumph through His help and guidance and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.[/SIGN]

I agree, people should be guided by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I keep telling you that Catholics are led by the Holy Spirit. But we have to make sure it is the Holy Spirit and not something else. We have to make sure we’re not hearing what we want to hear. We have to make sure there isn’t some psychological barrier keeping us from understanding the truth in the right way, or guiding us to a more convenient solution. There are Angels out there, who try to mimic the Holy Spirit, these angels are not our friends, they desire our damnation. We have to test against all these things. Our salvation depends on it. As I’ve said before, God is truth. He wouldn’t guide one set of people to one conclusion and another set of people to yet another. So, if we’re both getting different answers, then one of us is being guided by another source. I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but it’s an either or proposition. LDS and Catholic both can’t be true. That’s why I said God wants us to use all of the gifts he gave us.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[dianaiad]

So by your way of understanding that passage,

A bishop MUST be married.
A bishop MUST have children (more than one)

If his wife and children died then by your reasoning he would be disqualified.

perhaps. The scriptures don’t say. I suppose it’s possible. On the other hand, a widower HAD a wife and was married.

Oh, by the way, by our lights (that is, LDS doctrine) even if his wife is dead, it’s possible that he is still married to her, so…(shrug)

Doesn’t sound good by your reasoning now does it?

What 'reasoning?" the verse states that a bishop must (and it uses ‘must,’ we don’t) be 'blameless, the husband of one wife…" etc. There really isn’t any way to get around the ‘must’ part.

What it really means is that IF he is married, it is to be to one woman.

eisegesis noted. It SAYS a bishop must have one wife. simple declarative sentence, rhetorically impossible to fool around with.

IF he has children, then they must be “in subjection”.

Uhmn…the verse says he must be 'one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;" because if he can’t take care of his own household, it’s not likely he can take care of the 'church of God."

Nothing there about ‘if’ he has kids, though there IS room for interpretation on that one, since the verse does not specifically demand that he have them, but rather demands that he keep them in line.

There’s no getting around the ‘husband of one wife’ part, though. That’s very specific language. In fact, Young’s literal translation is even more difficult to scoot around. ITS translation of the “keep the kids in line” part reads like this:

v. 4 “his own house leading well, having children in subjection with all gravity”

THAT one can be interpreted as specific instructions to, not only keep the kids in line, but to have them in the first place, I think. In fact, there is no English translation of this verse in any of the fifteen translations I’ve looked at (including the Duoay…) that allows for the words 'if he is married, then he should only have one wife."

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so.

Was he a bishop?

Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet.

He can if his words were inspired and come from the Lord…which, of course, is assumed since this letter is considered scripture. It is quite often done, that the job requirements for one position are listed by someone who holds a different job–and who does not have the requirements for the job being described.

Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

They are, evidently, barred from being bishops. I don’t see a requirement in there that the DEACONS be married, do you?

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have a wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

No, that’s only clear if you insert words. If you may insert words to adjust the meaning to suit you, then it is just as logical for me to insert fewer words.Look at what we have to do to this scripture in order to make it read the way you want it to read: (from the Douay-Rheims)v.2: It behoveth therefore a bishop [if he is married] to be blameless, the husband of only] one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, at teacher, (words in brackets are the words that have to be added in order to achieve the meaning you want to put into this verse).

On the other hand, with exactly the same amount of logic and equal credibility, I could insert far fewer words to make it read a different way. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of at least] one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,…

Why not? It makes at least as much sense.*

 

[ParkerD]

perhaps. The scriptures don’t say. I suppose it’s possible. On the other hand, a widower HAD a wife and was married.

Oh, by the way, by our lights (that is, LDS doctrine) even if his wife is dead, it’s possible that he is still married to her, so…(shrug)

What 'reasoning?" the verse states that a bishop must (and it uses ‘must,’ we don’t) be 'blameless, the husband of one wife…" etc. There really isn’t any way to get around the ‘must’ part.

eisegesis noted. It SAYS a bishop must have one wife. simple declarative sentence, rhetorically impossible to fool around with.

Uhmn…the verse says he must be 'one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;" because if he can’t take care of his own household, it’s not likely he can take care of the 'church of God."

Nothing there about ‘if’ he has kids, though there IS room for interpretation on that one, since the verse does not specifically demand that he have them, but rather demands that he keep them in line.

There’s no getting around the ‘husband of one wife’ part, though. That’s very specific language. In fact, Young’s literal translation is even more difficult to scoot around. ITS translation of the “keep the kids in line” part reads like this:

v. 4 “his own house leading well, having children in subjection with all gravity”

THAT one can be interpreted as specific instructions to, not only keep the kids in line, but to have them in the first place, I think. In fact, there is no English translation of this verse in any of the fifteen translations I’ve looked at (including the Duoay…) that allows for the words 'if he is married, then he should only have one wife."

Was he a bishop?

He can if his words were inspired and come from the Lord…which, of course, is assumed since this letter is considered scripture. It is quite often done, that the job requirements for one position are listed by someone who holds a different job–and who does not have the requirements for the job being described.

They are, evidently, barred from being bishops. I don’t see a requirement in there that the DEACONS be married, do you?

No, that’s only clear if you insert words. If you may insert words to adjust the meaning to suit you, then it is just as logical for me to insert fewer words.Look at what we have to do to this scripture in order to make it read the way you want it to read: (from the Douay-Rheims)v.2: It behoveth therefore a bishop [if he is married] to be blameless, the husband of only*] one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, at teacher, (words in brackets are the words that have to be added in order to achieve the meaning you want to put into this verse).

On the other hand, with exactly the same amount of logic and equal credibility, I could insert far fewer words to make it read a different way. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of at least] one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,…

Why not? It makes at least as much sense.

Dianaiad,
That was, as my children would say, “awesome”.

Rick,
If you could just step back and think about why it might be important for a bishop to have personal first-hand experience in matters of marriage and parenthood (even if a child had died, by the way, the parent was still a parent and still is–the child is still alive, just in a different place, and the parent can still have concern for and love for that child). A bishop is a counselor and an advisor, a teacher, an encourager–how better to encourage than both by example and by having experience in the very matters that everyday run-of-the-mill people have in their ongoing lives? Paul had a different calling, and traveled a great deal as you know plus he was imprisoned a great deal. But the bishops were the steadiers of the church in each community where the church became established. Paul was giving inspired, very direct and specific direction about their calling.

But choose as you wish and as you will. I think Diana put the matter to rest as to what Paul taught. Thanks again, Diana.

 

[RebeccaJ]

'Becca, he has been grasping for years, just to keep his job. Sometimes intelligent men find themselves in a situation where they have to lie a lot. Sad but true.

I’m surprised that it took him so long to get here. He must not have checked our past threads, to see that we are far beyond the NHM straw. What a feeble one, and not even in the Americas.

Some people believe they are far beyond everyone else.

 

[zaffiroborant]

As so often happens, we’re using the same words with different meanings. Above is the Catholic definition of apostasy. It has nothing do to with the loss of authority.

The OED doesn’t define it that way either:shrug:

 

[ParkerD]

I agree, people should be guided by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I keep telling you that Catholics are led by the Holy Spirit. But we have to make sure it is the Holy Spirit and not something else. We have to make sure we’re not hearing what we want to hear. We have to make sure there isn’t some psychological barrier keeping us from understanding the truth in the right way, or guiding us to a more convenient solution. There are Angels out there, who try to mimic the Holy Spirit, these angels are not our friends, they desire our damnation. We have to test against all these things. Our salvation depends on it. As I’ve said before, God is truth. He wouldn’t guide one set of people to one conclusion and another set of people to yet another. So, if we’re both getting different answers, then one of us is being guided by another source. I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but it’s an either or proposition. LDS and Catholic both can’t be true. That’s why I said God wants us to use all of the gifts he gave us.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
You have said much in the sincerity of your beliefs, and I appreciate your sincerity.

I am very much aware of the existence of false spirits, manifest in ways that are detectable–contentiousness, bitterness, condemning others, having the spirit of fear and not of faith, doubting the power of Christ to complete His work on the earth up until the end of time when He indeed will triumph, seeking the pleasures of addictions of their various kinds, backbiting, faultfinding, seeking signs, seeking to dominate another without allowing their free agency to have full fruition in their life–to name a few aspects of where false spirits will lead. The Holy Spirit leads to peace, joy, kindheartedness, gentleness, love, forgiveness, patience, compassion, willingness to serve, thanksgiving and gratitude, humility, comfort in the midst of sorrow. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are discernible and are plainly manifest. There need be no mystery about them.

The Holy Spirit does not force people into a direction in life, not anyone, whatever their position or circumstance. The Bible gave ample warning that the leaders and members of the church needed to be very mindful of keeping the Holy Spirit with them, because the Holy Spirit was something they could lose–it was not a guaranteed gift. It is just as you said about false spirits. False spirits could attempt to mimic the Holy Spirit, and people including leaders could be deceived, especially if they had a strong agenda which they brought with them from their past. Paul warns against this very thing over and over about those clinging to the law of circumcision as still being necessary in the new church.

But you have the Bible and its doctrines, and as you follow them I think Christ can guide you and I’m just not going to worry about the truths you may lack–because I experience growth in truths of the gospel week by week and year by year, and I have no hesitation in knowing that Christ guides more people than just the LDS in the world. He guides them to growth, to forgiveness, to change in their lives and doing good toward others. He will always do that, as long as people are willing to listen and to follow. He will guide them to the level of truth that they are willing to seek for and follow, but will not force and will be very, very patient in their progress in life. Peace to you and yours.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Do you support what Jake wrote about mormon and the mormon church? He claims to be a catholic. I think that what he wrote was hateful and gives catholics a bad reputation. What do you think?

Rebecca claimed on a public forum that she doesn’t trust a single mormon. I am not gossiping, that is what she wrote. I say that is uncatholic too. I would not meet a priest who would support Jake or Rebecca in their comments.

What do their actions have to do with your gossiping?

Did you confess your gossiping before attending Mass on this Holy day of Obligation?

 

[Religio71]

I don’t know if I’m reading this correctly, but it seems that it’s being said that 1 Timothy 3 means that bishops must be married. Well, if we use that logic, then 1 Timothy 3:12 also means that deacons must be married.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t know if I’m reading this correctly, but it seems that it’s being said that 1 Timothy 3 means that bishops must be married. Well, if we use that logic, then 1 Timothy 3:12 also means that deacons must be married.

You know, you are absolutely right. That is what 1 Timothy 3:12 states.

So, if we expand this to mean that ‘bishop’ and ‘deacon’ represent ‘priesthood’ as a whole, it looks as if the bible states that men who hold the priesthood should get married.

If we restrict this to just those two ‘callings,’ it looks as if at that time, both Bishops and Deacons should be married.

Interesting idea to explore, since both Catholics AND Mormons seem to have altered it a bit.

 

[why_me]

Did you confess your gossiping before attending Mass on this Holy day of Obligation?

I see no gossiping. I am replying to posts that were made on this thread. How is that gossiping?

 

[ricko]

I read that verse without knowing the Catholic interpretation and keeping an open mind while doing it. After your responses I did some research and found that one line to be disputed with as many meanings as you can shake a stick at.

The Catholic interpretation is that it is not a requirement to BE married. Remember, in the Catholic Church there are many priests and bishops that are married except not in the Latin Rite. Even in the Latin Rite there are exceptions. Two priests in my parish were from Protestant religions and were married.

Parker backs up his thinking with you must have “experience” in being married in order to be a counselor. While that may be nice, it is not an absolute as there are many marriage counselors that are single. A firearms instructor can teach a class on firing a weapon and maintaining it without ever firing a weapon in his life.

I believe when you read that verse, as with any, you must put aside previous teachings and read with an unbiased, open mind which is rare. Anyway I still believe my interpretation considering Paul’s statements to be accurate as I’m sure you believe yours to be true.

I recommend this link which seems to be fair and open minded as a learning experience.

spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/15/15.pdf

 

[zaffiroborant]

I see no gossiping. I am replying to posts that were made on this thread. How is that gossiping?

I’m not talking about your posts here. I’m talking about the ones on another board where you talk specifically about people on this board, and none to kindly I might add.

 

[MelanieAnne]

As so often happens, we’re using the same words with different meanings. Above is the Catholic definition of apostasy. It has nothing do to with the loss of authority.

This is a big issue and one, in my opinion, Mormons often exploit to their advantage, either knowingly (which is intrinsically evil) or in ignorance (which is still wrong.)

Mormons co-opted all the words and terms of Christianity and then gave many of them (if not all of them) different meanings. But it’s very handy how they don’t explain the differences to potential converts. So they lure people in, with only bits and pieces of information ~ they explain this as “milk before meat” or some such nonsense (and they never tell them the crazy stories like about the magic rocks, etc.) and then when the new converts find out the truth about Mormonism they either choose to ignore it and stay, or risk the ostracism of leaving. Great little system.

Ask a Mormon Bishop or Stake President about retention and you will most likely not get a straight answer, why? because people LEAVE after they find out the truth. And yet they’re still counted…

But back to the point at hand ~ in any discussion with a Mormon the terms that most Christians take for granted have to be clearly, precisely defined down to the tiniest detail. Otherwise, it’s like you’re speaking 2 different languages but using the same words.

 

[mjf001]

This is a big issue and one, in my opinion, Mormons often exploit to their advantage, either knowingly (which is intrinsically evil) or in ignorance (which is still wrong.)

Mormons co-opted all the words and terms of Christianity and then gave many of them (if not all of them) different meanings. But it’s very handy how they don’t explain the differences to potential converts. So they lure people in, with only bits and pieces of information ~ they explain this as “milk before meat” or some such nonsense (and they never tell them the crazy stories like about the magic rocks, etc.) and then when the new converts find out the truth about Mormonism they either choose to ignore it and stay, or risk the ostracism of leaving. Great little system.

Ask a Mormon Bishop or Stake President about retention and you will most likely not get a straight answer, why? because people LEAVE after they find out the truth. And yet they’re still counted…

But back to the point at hand ~ in any discussion with a Mormon the terms that most Christians take for granted have to be clearly, precisely defined down to the tiniest detail. Otherwise, it’s like you’re speaking 2 different languages but using the same words.

Melanie, thanks for our (name removed by moderator)ut. Yes, same terminology, different meanings. I don’t think the people involved in LDS do it intentionally, they’re teaching what they’re taught. I do believe however, that the original motive was deception by the person who gave traditional Christian terminology distinctly LDS meanings. Of course, now I’ll probably get accused of bashing by someone. I can’t help what I believe - it’s part of the reason I left the LDS church in the first place. Sometime, I’ve got to get around to writing down my conversion story.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melanie, thanks for our (name removed by moderator)ut. Yes, same terminology, different meanings. I don’t think the people involved in LDS do it intentionally, they’re teaching what they’re taught. I do believe however, that the original motive was deception by the person who gave traditional Christian terminology distinctly LDS meanings. Of course, now I’ll probably get accused of bashing by someone. I can’t help what I believe - it’s part of the reason I left the LDS church in the first place. Sometime, I’ve got to get around to writing down my conversion story.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, however you got here, I’m just glad you’re here!

 

[ParkerD]

Michael,
Thanks for expressing your feelings about the use of the word “apostasy”. I’ve never felt like that was the “right word” for what was being talked about, so I agree with you from the standpoint that it is not the “right word,” but as far as I know there is no “right word”. One could say the “falling away” but I don’t think that expresses what happened, either. One could say the “straying away”, and perhaps that would best fit but it would still need to be explained. I wish there were a different, distinctive word that would have a single connotation that would not be able to misunderstood. But there’s the English language for you–words with several connotations, and sometimes no word at all to fit the exact meaning desired by the speaker or the writer. I wish with all of my heart that there were a different word in existence in this case. I think it would alleviate a lot of misunderstanding.

Have a good evening.

 

[Religio71]

Here is something interesting I read:

understandingmormonism.org/book_of_mormon_evidence

"Frequently in Ancient American literature and legends, reference is made to a “white, bearded god who descended out of the heavens.” Although he is referred to by several names, this legendary figure is often referred to as Quetzalcoatl. “Historians of the sixteenth century recorded pre-Hispanic beliefs concerning the white, bearded god who came to the Americas long before the arrival of the Spanish conquerors” (Brewerton, 30). While this may seem to be merely a legend or an unexplainable part of history, the Book of Mormon, believed to be written by ancient American prophets, reports the visitation of Jesus Christ to the American continent following his resurrection. The congruencies between the Book of Mormon account and Native American legends are astonishing. The following paragraphs contain examples of these Native American legends"

From wikipedia, the all-source D):
**
"Some Mormon scholars believe that Quetzalcoatl, as a white, bearded God who came from the sky and promised to return, was actually Jesus Christ. According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus visited the American natives after his resurrection.[15]

Latter-day Saint President John Taylor wrote:
"The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanitish source, which has sadly disfigured and perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior's life and ministry."[16] "**

 

[dianaiad]

Here is something interesting I read:

understandingmormonism.org/book_of_mormon_evidence

"Frequently in Ancient American literature and legends, reference is made to a “white, bearded god who descended out of the heavens.” Although he is referred to by several names, this legendary figure is often referred to as Quetzalcoatl. “Historians of the sixteenth century recorded pre-Hispanic beliefs concerning the white, bearded god who came to the Americas long before the arrival of the Spanish conquerors” (Brewerton, 30). While this may seem to be merely a legend or an unexplainable part of history, the Book of Mormon, believed to be written by ancient American prophets, reports the visitation of Jesus Christ to the American continent following his resurrection. The congruencies between the Book of Mormon account and Native American legends are astonishing. The following paragraphs contain examples of these Native American legends"

From wikipedia, the all-source D):
**
"Some Mormon scholars believe that Quetzalcoatl, as a white, bearded God who came from the sky and promised to return, was actually Jesus Christ. According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus visited the American natives after his resurrection.[15]

Latter-day Saint President John Taylor wrote:

"The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanitish source, which has sadly disfigured and perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior's life and ministry."[16] "**

Well, it would work. I mean, that legend sure played hob with Montezuma and friends, didn’t it?

As well, I have a book called “He walked the Americas” that has a bunch of native American legends regarding that Quetzalcoatl character.

Antrhopologically speaking, that the legend of Quetzalcoatle would be widespread is not a bit surprising. There was communication among the peoples of ancient America, and stories—well, they travel. Good stories travel well.

It would be rather nice if this particular myth had a basis in the story of Christ’s visit to the Americas, but we’d need a lot more evidence to nail that down. As for me, it’s one of those ‘how interesting’ things. It is nice for those who already believe in the Book of Mormon: such a tale seems to corroborate something already believed in. However, it is by no means sufficient evidence to change the mind of someone who doesn’t believe the BoM is history, and it is certainly not enough to convince someone who believes the BoM to be fiction.

(shrug)

We CAN say that the Quetzalcoatle myth doesn’t prove the Book of Mormon to be false. To some of the people I talk to, that’s almost a resounding defeat.

Diana

 

[Religio71]

Well, it would work. I mean, that legend sure played hob with Montezuma and friends, didn’t it?

As well, I have a book called “He walked the Americas” that has a bunch of native American legends regarding that Quetzalcoatl character.

Antrhopologically speaking, that the legend of Quetzalcoatle would be widespread is not a bit surprising. There was communication among the peoples of ancient America, and stories—well, they travel. Good stories travel well.

It would be rather nice if this particular myth had a basis in the story of Christ’s visit to the Americas, but we’d need a lot more evidence to nail that down. As for me, it’s one of those ‘how interesting’ things. It is nice for those who already believe in the Book of Mormon: such a tale seems to corroborate something already believed in. However, it is by no means sufficient evidence to change the mind of someone who doesn’t believe the BoM is history, and it is certainly not enough to convince someone who believes the BoM to be fiction.

(shrug)

We CAN say that the Quetzalcoatle myth doesn’t prove the Book of Mormon to be false. To some of the people I talk to, that’s almost a resounding defeat.

Diana

I agree, I think it’s in the “how interesting” category for me. I haven’t read much about Quetzalcoatl, but from the wikipedia page, apparently he was sometimes seen as a symbol of death and resurrection, and was born of a virgin (along with his twin).