Is everthing written in the Book of Mormon archaelogically and historically accurate...

Magdalena

Well-known member
Like who?
My father did. And he told me about all the discussions in high priest groups.

And when I left on a mission, the missionaries had a meeting with Harold B. Lee in the solemn assembly room in the Salt Lake temple. We could ask him anything we wanted. Someone asked about Jesus being married. He said He thought He was.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
While I don't believe your view is incorrect, per se--I have a couple of particulars to ask of you:

1) What do you find in the Book of Mormon--which you don't find as Christianity--as far as salvational doctrines go? Not found in the Biblical NT?

2) When you state "Christianity"--is that a reference to first century Christianity--or what you believe is Christianity?
Simple.

1.) Jesus, my Lord, God and Savior, is NOT the Jesus in the BoM.

2.) Christianity, as in the true followers of the Way (that would be not Mormons, Jw's, Oneness pentecostals, Christian Science, Roman Catholicism, etc.) as taught from the Bible and the Bible alone. That Christianity.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Bingo! You've nailed it. Thats the problem. Being approached like an object rather than a person. Again, my apologies for being reactive and returning in kind.
I did not personally insult you or call you names like not being human. I stated how things you said came across here. Like when you deny what Mormon leaders have said, or post your own ideas as if they’re Mormon beliefs, it makes it look like you want mormonism to be different than what it is.

You can take offense and try to take the focus off mormonism, but the issues remain.

You keep calling us “judgmental” because we recognize false prophets and speak up about it. Christ told us to recognize false prophets and not follow them. We warn each other, to avoid taking paths that don’t lead to Him. You can’t follow them and Him at the same time.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Simple.

1.) Jesus, my Lord, God and Savior, is NOT the Jesus in the BoM.

Could you explain specifically--how your Jesus differs from the Book of Mormon Jesus?

2.) Christianity, as in the true followers of the Way (that would be not Mormons, Jw's, Oneness pentecostals, Christian Science, Roman Catholicism, etc.) as taught from the Bible and the Bible alone. That Christianity.

And what do you find in the Biblical NT--which isn't also found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go?

James 2:24---King James Version

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Could you explain specifically--how your Jesus differs from the Book of Mormon Jesus?
You already know the difference. That's why you posed your question in this manner:

dberrie2020: When you state "Christianity"--is that a reference to first century Christianity--or what you believe is Christianity?

Mormonism states that Christianity began to apostatize in the 1st century and you alluding to this theology, through your purposefully written question, did not get past me.

And what do you find in the Biblical NT--which isn't also found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go?
You already know the difference.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Mormonism states that Christianity began to apostatize in the 1st century

Such as this?

2 Peter 2:1---King James Version
2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

And, by the 16th century--it was bad enough for a Reformation to begin--where new denominations arose with a different theology. That continues to this day--without the first heavenly authorization.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Such as this?

2 Peter 2:1---King James Version
2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

And, by the 16th century--it was bad enough for a Reformation to begin--where new denominations arose with a different theology. That continues to this day--without the first heavenly authorization.
No. 2 Peter 2:1 doesn't indicate the body of Christ apostatized but made us aware of who would attempt to lead us astray and Smith, and by default, your institution, are guilty of what and who we were warned of. So, that said, you admit you had an agenda with your leading question.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
If the "body of Christ" did not apostatize--then why the need of a Reformation--where numerous new denominations arose --with a different theology? Which one apostatized?
A reformation does not indicate apostatizing. It means that church has fallen into error and needs reformed. So, consequently, your point is moot.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
I made no such claim about "Mormonism".

My claim was---the LiDAR showed the Book of Mormon testimonies relating to population size might be correct. Again--the Book of Mormon population claim was a contested point with some critics-- which some listed as evidence the Book of Mormon contained false claims.
LiDAR findings in no way validate "Mormon testimonies" because it's not possible to validate a fictional narrative, the BoM, with archeology.
That may be a point according to your knowledge--which I can't, nor have--contested that particular.

But the population claims of the Book of Mormon has been vindicated through the LiDAR observations, as well as warfare and physical constructions concerning food and animal production.
You keep regurgitating the same thing. Perhaps we should just move on as this is getting no where.
A "logical progression" which turned in favor of Book of Mormon claims.
See my first comment.
I believe it proves the Book of Mormon claims of the population base and some other claims of Book of Mormon testimonies.
That is your right and your choice. You will be responsible for all you believe as will I.
Archeology is a slow science--it does not cover all points in question at once. The archeology is at a very early stage. The population base is just one brick in the wall.
What is transpiring is not new, it is not slow science. It is continued evidence of the complexity and advanced condition of the Mesoamerica cultures.
Again--the population base is a physical trait of the archeological discoveries of Mesoamerica.
Yes, it is. It is not validation of the BoM narrative. As I have stated, Mormon's are trying to co-opt archeological evidences for their own. It doesn't work that way.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
LiDAR findings in no way validate "Mormon testimonies" because it's not possible to validate a fictional narrative, the BoM, with archeology.

That the Book of Mormon testimony correlates with the LiDAR findings on population base, warfare, etc--is not fictional.

What is transpiring is not new, it is not slow science. It is continued evidence of the complexity and advanced condition of the Mesoamerica cultures.

Which the extent of structures and population base has not been known until the recent observations of LiDAR. The excavations of those discoveries will tell more--but that is a long, painstaking process. Yes--it's a slow science, knee-jerk conclusions excluded.

Yes, it is. It is not validation of the BoM narrative.

Denial won't change the fact the Book of Mormon testimony of certain facts have now been validated by LiDAR. Did you view the article?

As I have stated, Mormon's are trying to co-opt archeological evidences for their own. It doesn't work that way.

What the LiDAR revealed isn't of private ownership--as no entity can claim ownership of truth--truth stands independent of any and all spheres.

What LiDAR revealed correlates with Book of Mormon history.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
A reformation does not indicate apostatizing.

LOL!!! Of course it does. Why would there be a need for different denominations--with a different theology--if there hadn't been an apostasy?

It means that church has fallen into error and needs reformed.

That's one of the parameters of an apostasy. There is one thing for sure--the gospel does not need to be reformed.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
LOL!!! Of course it does. Why would there be a need for different denominations--with a different theology--if there hadn't been an apostasy?
That's a Mormon narrative and the Bible disagrees with you. But this type discussion is not for here but on the Roman Catholic forum.
That's one of the parameters of an apostasy.
See my comments above.
There is one thing for sure--the gospel does not need to be reformed.
The only gospel you should be concerned with is as taught in the Bible. Not in Smiths apostate musings.

Happy Thanksgiving
 
Last edited:

dberrie2020

Well-known member
That's a Mormon narrative and the Bible disagrees with you. But this type discussion is not for here but on the Roman Catholic forum.

The Reformation is a "Mormon narrative"? I was thinking it's a historical fact.

The only gospel you should be concerned with is as taught in the Bible.

And what do you find in the Biblical text--which isn't found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as far as salvational doctrines go?
 

Yitoz

Active member
If the "body of Christ" did not apostatize--then why the need of a Reformation--where numerous new denominations arose --with a different theology? Which one apostatized?
The eastern and western Catholic churches split in 1054. Unlike the western RCC, the eastern churches never had a reformation, so ignoring their claims to unbroken apostolic authority does not validate the false mormon claims of any alleged restoration because that postulate doesn't apply. The liturgy practiced in the majority of eastern churches is over 1600 years old, which despite any claims of modern protestantism, branches, or other closely related splinter denominations (e.g. mormonism) brings their traditions much closer to the apostolic period than any other Christian sexts. While I may not agree with many of their practices, I find them to be far more palatable than many mormon practices, especially those that are related to the demonic mormon temple rites. The SLC sect and all lesser associated groups have no historical standing regarding any kind of claims to a restoration.
 

organgrinder

Super Member
Just a note here, Last days. The LDS believe God the Son is the Eternal, or everlasting Father. Just not God the Father, thus the clarification of specific designation of "Son", or--God the Son. The LDS also believe all the faithful fathers here--- will be eternal fathers--but not God the Father, as we know Him now. That needs to be clarified--and was.

Isaiah also designates God the Son as such:

Isaiah 9:6---King James Version
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Just a note here, dberrie....your church made a change to the revealed text that wasn't in the original. That is a problem. Clarifications should always be in marginal notes or cross references, not a deliberate change to the text itself.

Thye original "plates" don't exist. At least they aren't available. The translation method was a face in the hat and seer stones, so the only original document we have is what Salt Lake may have squirreled away in the vaults. You don't make "corrections" like that to the most correct book. And BOJ's cop-out of Smith having editorial license is just plain horse hockey.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
The eastern and western Catholic churches split in 1054. Unlike the western RCC, the eastern churches never had a reformation, so ignoring their claims to unbroken apostolic authority does not validate the false mormon claims of any alleged restoration because that postulate doesn't apply. The liturgy practiced in the majority of eastern churches is over 1600 years old, which despite any claims of modern protestantism, branches, or other closely related splinter denominations (e.g. mormonism) brings their traditions much closer to the apostolic period than any other Christian sexts. While I may not agree with many of their practices, I find them to be far more palatable than many mormon practices, especially those that are related to the demonic mormon temple rites. The SLC sect and all lesser associated groups have no historical standing regarding any kind of claims to a restoration.

The scriptures prophesy of a restoration:

Acts 3:21---King James Version

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

I don't know of any critic here which claims Catholic affiliations--or Orthodox. Or any heavenly appearances.
 
Top