Christians Only: The Book of Mormon

[Clear]

Share what you personally believe to be the strongest evidence - either for or against - the Book of Mormon.

Please limit yourself to just the one example and try to keep it civil.

Hi @JesusKnowsYou

The difficulty I have in responding is in the generality of the question in the O.P.

For example, while the base premise of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus is the Christ, the savior and that all men must look to him for salvation (something I certainly agree with), the book contains hebraisms that are incorrect both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon (the way very, very large numbers are described). Even the error I could agree is an authentic, ancient hebraic use of numbers, similar to the errors in the Biblical account, still the actual numbers described are incorrect.

I would, of course, have had the same observations regarding biblical narratives. If someone asks, is the Bible "true", then it is too broad of a question to say yes to, because it has multiple errors which, in my opinion, are typical of early Histories and do not affect the base witness of such early texts. I do agree that revelation is the strongest evidence of the existence of God and of his interest in interacting with mankind in any age.

In any case, I hope your spiritual Journey is wonderful and you can find enjoyable time with your children without overdosing on their energy and becoming frustrated.

Good luck

Clear

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Hi @JesusKnowsYou

The difficulty I have in responding is in the generality of the question in the O.P.

For example, while the base premise of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus is the Christ, the savior and that all men must look to him for salvation (something I certainly agree with), the book contains hebraisms that are incorrect both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon (the way very, very large numbers are described). Even the error I could agree is an authentic, ancient hebraic use of numbers, similar to the errors in the Biblical account, still the actual numbers described are incorrect.

I would, of course, have had the same observations regarding biblical narratives. If someone asks, is the Bible "true", then it is too broad of a question to say yes to, because it has multiple errors which, in my opinion, are typical of early Histories and do not affect the base witness of such early texts. I do agree that revelation is the strongest evidence of the existence of God and of his interest in interacting with mankind in any age.

In any case, I hope your spiritual Journey is wonderful and you can find enjoyable time with your children without overdosing on their energy and becoming frustrated.

Good luck

Clear

Thank you.

Would you mind sharing a little about your concerns regarding hebraisms?

 

[Clear]

Hi @JesusKnowsYou

1) Ancient Hyperbole of numbers as an example of an Hebraism

It has long been noted that the numbers of individuals described in the biblical narrative are often impossible numbers. For example, In Judges 20:2 “the chief of all the people …presented themselves…” and the number of footmen that drew sword” is “400,000”. Presumably because of the use (or misuse) of the early Alef (which had various meanings such as the number of 1,000, etc), the number is off by 1,000 and the current narrative cannot make sense.

Similarly, at Davids feast in 1 Chronicles 12, the current narrative has incredible numbers attend. And these are not “ordinary” men, but of distinguished leaders “captains of thousands” (vs 20). For examples of these incredible numbers, Judah 6,800, Simeon, 7,100, Zebulum 50,000, Reuben, Gad and ½ of Manasseh are 120,000, but Issachar is 200. In all about 340,800 of the “Captains in the host (vs 21).

Similarly, the size of the Israelite population is described in hyperbolic numbers. At the point where Jacobs household in Egypt the text tells us it consists of 70 souls. Later versions have the number at 2.5-3 million (often less). The point is that the numbers are not particularly credible numbers.

Similarly the battle of Cumorah has almost 230,000 of Mormons people die.


2) Hyperbole of numbers both as an example of an error AND as evidence that the narrative fits the ancient pattern OF hyperbole
My point is that the situation is complicated and can go both ways. In one direction, the number is probably incorrectly inflated. In the other direction (in support of the Book of Mormon being authentic on this point), the exact same mistake in numbering is made in the Book of Mormon narrative that was made in the ancient Hebrew biblical narratives. This can be taken as evidence that the book of Mormon narrative is a parallel record with a similar defect as the biblical narrative, evidence it is part of an ancient Hebrew sourced narrative.

Does this make sense to you that the number of people is incorrect (evidence of an error in the Book of Mormon narrative), while making the same type of error as other ancient narratives (evidence of authentic antiquity in FAVOR of the book of Mormon).


3) Sacred records are not expected to attempt to teach math, or geography, or secular history, but instead, their purpose is (typically) for moral tutoring
I do not think any of the sacred narratives are supposed to be math books, or geographical books or even secular historical records, I do think that the religious moral lessons in them are supposed to be the main focus and purpose of such religious records. THIS is where, for me, the Book of Mormon shines and it is the Pearl of Great Price narratives that are more historically fascinating for me.


4) Restoration of early religious principles (restorational theology) is happening on many levels in the Historical World
I grew up non-denominational and was older when I discovered restorational theology (i.e. the attempt to discover and restore ancient beliefs to Christianity). However, restorational theology is happening on many levels. For example, the Historians are trying to do the same thing, i.e. find out what early religion was like and what is fascinating is that the historians of early Judeo-Christian literature are being funneled by the early documents in the same direction Joseph Smith pointed to.

For example, Michael Heiser was labeled as a "Closet Mormon" when he presented his doctorate paper on the Council of the Gods (or the God-like beings). He certainly wasn't LDS but his historical discoveries pushed him in a direction that the LDS have always claimed. Charlesworth, the editor of the almost 2000 pages of Jewish epigraphs also became converted to multiple LDS principles as his team gathered, collated, translated and printed ancient early Judeo-Christian literature. This is why the LDS church donates money to efforts to find, collect, translate, publish and distribute early Jewish and Christian historical literature, because such literature demonstrates the LDS doctrines parallel the doctrines found in early literature.


For examples, Pre-mortal existence, existence of spirits, the nature of life as a tutoring experience, the world of spirits beyond death, the principle of constant progression, etc. All these principles are authentic ancient principles of Judeo-Christian religion in their texts. I do not know and never met anyone who had a plausible theory as to how Joseph Smith could possibly have gotten these base principles correct without revelation, especially given the fact that much of the ancient Judeo-christian literature describing these ancient doctrines were not discovered or not available in his day.

In any case, I hope your spiritual Journey is wonderful @JesusKnowsYou

clear
φυτζακω

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Hi @JesusKnowsYou

1) Ancient Hyperbole of numbers as an example of an Hebraism

It has long been noted that the numbers of individuals described in the biblical narrative are often impossible numbers. For example, In Judges 20:2 “the chief of all the people …presented themselves…” and the number of footmen that drew sword” is “400,000”. Presumably because of the use (or misuse) of the early Alef (which had various meanings such as the number of 1,000, etc), the number is off by 1,000 and the current narrative cannot make sense.

Similarly, at Davids feast in 1 Chronicles 12, the current narrative has incredible numbers attend. And these are not “ordinary” men, but of distinguished leaders “captains of thousands” (vs 20). For examples of these incredible numbers, Judah 6,800, Simeon, 7,100, Zebulum 50,000, Reuben, Gad and ½ of Manasseh are 120,000, but Issachar is 200. In all about 340,800 of the “Captains in the host (vs 21).

Similarly, the size of the Israelite population is described in hyperbolic numbers. At the point where Jacobs household in Egypt the text tells us it consists of 70 souls. Later versions have the number at 2.5-3 million (often less). The point is that the numbers are not particularly credible numbers.

Similarly the battle of Cumorah has almost 230,000 of Mormons people die.


2) Hyperbole of numbers both as an example of an error AND as evidence that the narrative fits the ancient pattern OF hyperbole
My point is that the situation is complicated and can go both ways. In one direction, the number is probably incorrectly inflated. In the other direction (in support of the Book of Mormon being authentic on this point), the exact same mistake in numbering is made in the Book of Mormon narrative that was made in the ancient Hebrew biblical narratives. This can be taken as evidence that the book of Mormon narrative is a parallel record with a similar defect as the biblical narrative, evidence it is part of an ancient Hebrew sourced narrative.

Does this make sense to you that the number of people is incorrect (evidence of an error in the Book of Mormon narrative), while making the same type of error as other ancient narratives (evidence of authentic antiquity in FAVOR of the book of Mormon).


3) Sacred records are not expected to attempt to teach math, or geography, or secular history, but instead, their purpose is (typically) for moral tutoring
I do not think any of the sacred narratives are supposed to be math books, or geographical books or even secular historical records, I do think that the religious moral lessons in them are supposed to be the main focus and purpose of such religious records. THIS is where, for me, the Book of Mormon shines and it is the Pearl of Great Price narratives that are more historically fascinating for me.


4) Restoration of early religious principles (restorational theology) is happening on many levels in the Historical World
I grew up non-denominational and was older when I discovered restorational theology (i.e. the attempt to discover and restore ancient beliefs to Christianity). However, restorational theology is happening on many levels. For example, the Historians are trying to do the same thing, i.e. find out what early religion was like and what is fascinating is that the historians of early Judeo-Christian literature are being funneled by the early documents in the same direction Joseph Smith pointed to.

For example, Michael Heiser was labeled as a "Closet Mormon" when he presented his doctorate paper on the Council of the Gods (or the God-like beings). He certainly wasn't LDS but his historical discoveries pushed him in a direction that the LDS have always claimed. Charlesworth, the editor of the almost 2000 pages of Jewish epigraphs also became converted to multiple LDS principles as his team gathered, collated, translated and printed ancient early Judeo-Christian literature. This is why the LDS church donates money to efforts to find, collect, translate, publish and distribute early Jewish and Christian historical literature, because such literature demonstrates the LDS doctrines parallel the doctrines found in early literature.


For examples, Pre-mortal existence, existence of spirits, the nature of life as a tutoring experience, the world of spirits beyond death, the principle of constant progression, etc. All these principles are authentic ancient principles of Judeo-Christian religion in their texts. I do not know and never met anyone who had a plausible theory as to how Joseph Smith could possibly have gotten these base principles correct without revelation, especially given the fact that much of the ancient Judeo-christian literature describing these ancient doctrines were not discovered or not available in his day.

In any case, I hope your spiritual Journey is wonderful @JesusKnowsYou

clear
φυτζακω

That's all very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

So then - you consider what you have shared to be the strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Or in other words - would this information be what you would choose to share with a skeptic of a Book of Mormon if you were trying to convince them of its authenticity?

 

[Clear]

Hi @JesusKnowsYou

JesusKnowsYou said : “So then - you consider what you have shared to be the strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon?” (post #24)


No, of course not. My opinions and point have to do with the criteria of judgment itself and being specific about what one claims is "true" (i.e. religious principles versus Geography, Archaeology, and sciences....).


1) Irrelevant Criteria by which religions are judged

For example, I think the people who rely on archaeology to prove authentic “religion” are using the wrong criteria for determining "religious truth". If someone found Jesus’ sandal, or John the revelators pen, that would not proof that Jesus was resurrected, nor that John’s revelation was given by God. Archaeology cannot prove religion and authentic religion involves the existence of a God and a relationship with him.


2) The tendency to create Caricatures of religion and judge the Caricature rather than the religion itself

I think one of the most difficult problem is convincing someone who thinks they know something, that they don’t. For example, you’ve seen the claim already that “the Book of Mormon doesn’t show Native Americans have predominant Jewish DNA”, however that was never a claim the Book of Mormon ever made (as you point out in post #5).

A Critic may leave the discussion thinking they scored a point against the Book of Mormon, while the Mormon leaves the discussion thinking “so what, that was never part of my religion in the first place”. Thus the actual LDS religion goes on, untouched by the irrelevant and misguided criticism that had nothing to do with their actual religion.

The point is that we often tend to create incorrect Caricatures of the religion we are judging and the Caricatures often do not resemble the actual religion. This is partly why various arguments against the Book of Mormon have rarely made a scratch or dent in the faith of the LDS for many, many years.

I remember when I was younger, I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Youngs' diary, (as the LDS crossed the plains to Utah). I had no interest in reading “Brigham Youngs Diary” and so did not read the Book of Mormon for a long time. I had created a Caricature of what the Book of Mormon was and made a misjudgment based on that incorrect Caricature.

It is not merely the LDS who are Caricaturized. Individuals caricaturize the Jews, the Catholics, the Athiests, the Agnostics, the Baptists, the Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. Almost ALL of religious movements suffer the burden of trying to clarify to others what it is they actually believe and despite this, they still must swim upstream against incorrect caricatures of their actual positions.


3) The strongest evidence that a religious principle is to be believed.

In my opinion, authentic revelation from a living God to mankind has always been the main difference between authentic Judeo-Christian religion (which always has involved revelation from God to mankind) and simple theology (which is simply a study of religion that even an atheist can engage in). If this is true, then authentic Revelation to an individual from a living God is, I think, the strongest evidence that God can give to an individual that a specific principle (or set of moral principles) is to be believed or not.

My tentative and current feeling is that I would encourage an individual to give up bias, and, if they can, then after that to then experiment with gaining correct principles and then asking God themselves for their own witness whether he wants them to adopt those principles.

IF this is correct, then I would want to encourage a person firstly, to try to recognize and give up prior biases, and then, if they can, encourage them to engage in an experiment whereby they can ask God themselves whether they are to believe in the moral principles represented by any text whether it is book of Mormon, or bible, or the holy Quran or any religious narratives or traditions. If they feel that God tells them to believe something else, then that is what they are to do at that point in their quest.

This is, I think, in agreement with the promise of the Book of Mormon : 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Moroni 10:1-5

I hope my opinions make sense to you @JesusKnowsYou .

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is full of insights and good experiences @JesusKnowsYou

Clear
φυφυτζω

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Hi @JesusKnowsYou

JesusKnowsYou said : “So then - you consider what you have shared to be the strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon?” (post #24)


No, of course not. My opinions and point have to do with the criteria of judgment itself and being specific about what one claims is "true" (i.e. religious principles versus Geography, Archaeology, and sciences....).


1) Irrelevant Criteria by which religions are judged

For example, I think the people who rely on archaeology to prove authentic “religion” are using the wrong criteria for determining "religious truth". If someone found Jesus’ sandal, or John the revelators pen, that would not proof that Jesus was resurrected, nor that John’s revelation was given by God. Archaeology cannot prove religion and authentic religion involves the existence of a God and a relationship with him.


2) The tendency to create Caricatures of religion and judge the Caricature rather than the religion itself

I think one of the most difficult problem is convincing someone who thinks they know something, that they don’t. For example, you’ve seen the claim already that “the Book of Mormon doesn’t show Native Americans have predominant Jewish DNA”, however that was never a claim the Book of Mormon ever made (as you point out in post #5).

A Critic may leave the discussion thinking they scored a point against the Book of Mormon, while the Mormon leaves the discussion thinking “so what, that was never part of my religion in the first place”. Thus the actual LDS religion goes on, untouched by the irrelevant and misguided criticism that had nothing to do with their actual religion.

The point is that we often tend to create incorrect Caricatures of the religion we are judging and the Caricatures often do not resemble the actual religion. This is partly why various arguments against the Book of Mormon have rarely made a scratch or dent in the faith of the LDS for many, many years.

I remember when I was younger, I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Youngs' diary, (as the LDS crossed the plains to Utah). I had no interest in reading “Brigham Youngs Diary” and so did not read the Book of Mormon for a long time. I had created a Caricature of what the Book of Mormon was and made a misjudgment based on that incorrect Caricature.

It is not merely the LDS who are Caricaturized. Individuals caricaturize the Jews, the Catholics, the Athiests, the Agnostics, the Baptists, the Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. Almost ALL of religious movements suffer the burden of trying to clarify to others what it is they actually believe and despite this, they still must swim upstream against incorrect caricatures of their actual positions.


3) The strongest evidence that a religious principle is to be believed.

In my opinion, authentic revelation from a living God to mankind has always been the main difference between authentic Judeo-Christian religion (which always has involved revelation from God to mankind) and simple theology (which is simply a study of religion that even an atheist can engage in). If this is true, then authentic Revelation to an individual from a living God is, I think, the strongest evidence that God can give to an individual that a specific principle (or set of moral principles) is to be believed or not.

My tentative and current feeling is that I would encourage an individual to give up bias, and, if they can, then after that to then experiment with gaining correct principles and then asking God themselves for their own witness whether he wants them to adopt those principles.

IF this is correct, then I would want to encourage a person firstly, to try to recognize and give up prior biases, and then, if they can, encourage them to engage in an experiment whereby they can ask God themselves whether they are to believe in the moral principles represented by any text whether it is book of Mormon, or bible, or the holy Quran or any religious narratives or traditions. If they feel that God tells them to believe something else, then that is what they are to do at that point in their quest.

This is, I think, in agreement with the promise of the Book of Mormon : 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. Moroni 10:1-5

I hope my opinions make sense to you @JesusKnowsYou .

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is full of insights and good experiences @JesusKnowsYou

Clear
φυφυτζω

This is exactly what I was looking for.

You believe that the strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon - or any true idea/principle/doctrine - is revelation received by God to someone with an open mind.

Thank you.

 

[Clear]

This is exactly what I was looking for.

You believe that the strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon - or any true idea/principle/doctrine - is revelation received by God to someone with an open mind.

Thank you.

I think that is fairly close to what I think. However, I think that God will direct us toward any improvement of current knowledge and doctrine and morals. What I mean is that I think the spirit will direct us to a higher level of truth and civility even if that higher level is not the greatest truth or the greatest moral civility. If he gives us truth and improvement "line upon line and precept upon precept" then I can envision him directing a person to accept a religious movement that is not the most truthful if the person is willing to accept more truth, but either is not ready to accept the highest truth or moral improvement or the person does not have access to a higher level of truth or insight into the highest level of moral improvement.

For example, If I am an athiest there are three religious movement where I am in life. I think the spirit will direct me towards the position that is perhaps most truthful of the three religions that I am aware of and am able to accept, EVEN IF there is another religious movement that is more truthful than these three, but I am unaware of it or unprepared to accept it.

My point is that I think the spirit will do the best he can with the conditions we give him. He may tell me to accept a set of teachings that is less true than another set IF that is the most improvement I am able to accept. I don't know if this is correct, but it explains why multiple individuals have spiritual experiences that direct them towards a higher level of truth and moral behavior while others have different spiritual experiences that direct them in somewhat different directions. It is the best model of conflicting spiritual experiences I have, pending better data.

The problem comes when we assume that the new level of understanding and behavior is the end of our search and assume that no greater level of truth or moral behaviors are necessary or that they are not to be had. In actuality, we have simply stepped through a decisional door that leads into a process of discovery, rather than a being the "end-all" of spiritual or religious discoveries. In reality, there may be greater truth to be had, better behaviors the individual can try to attain to.

In any case, good luck and good journey


Clear
φυακνεω

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I think that is fairly close to what I think. However, I think that God will direct us toward any improvement of current knowledge and doctrine and morals. What I mean is that I think the spirit will direct us to a higher level of truth and civility even if that higher level is not the greatest truth or the greatest moral civility. If he gives us truth and improvement "line upon line and precept upon precept" then I can envision him directing a person to accept a religious movement that is not the most truthful if the person is willing to accept more truth, but either is not ready to accept the highest truth or moral improvement or the person does not have access to a higher level of truth or insight into the highest level of moral improvement.

For example, If I am an athiest there are three religious movement where I am in life. I think the spirit will direct me towards the position that is perhaps most truthful of the three religions that I am aware of and am able to accept, EVEN IF there is another religious movement that is more truthful than these three, but I am unaware of it or unprepared to accept it.

My point is that I think the spirit will do the best he can with the conditions we give him. He may tell me to accept a set of teachings that is less true than another set IF that is the most improvement I am able to accept. I don't know if this is correct, but it explains why multiple individuals have spiritual experiences that direct them towards a higher level of truth and moral behavior while others have different spiritual experiences that direct them in somewhat different directions. It is the best model of conflicting spiritual experiences I have, pending better data.

The problem comes when we assume that the new level of understanding and behavior is the end of our search and assume that no greater level of truth or moral behaviors are necessary or that they are not to be had. In actuality, we have simply stepped through a decisional door that leads into a process of discovery, rather than a being the "end-all" of spiritual or religious discoveries. In reality, there may be greater truth to be had, better behaviors the individual can try to attain to.

In any case, good luck and good journey


Clear
φυακνεω

I agree with your assessment.

Someone having the perfect tool does not guarantee that they will do a perfect job - because the tool has them as its user.

The Holy Ghost can only do what we allow, accept, comprehend or endure.

He is not about to send us a message He knows we are going to reject.

It's the "milk before meat" principle in practice.

I believe that we will continue this process of accepting truth and growing - then accepting more and growing more - little by little - until the perfect day.

This process will continue long after we leave this world - our Final Judgment - and into the Celestial Kingdom if we are worthy to inherit it.

It's exciting.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible has an endless amount of historical and archeological evidence to support it. The Book of Mormon has not a shred of such evidence, not even a single coin as evidence for the stories which supposedly took place in America.

This right here is the compelling evidence for me. And I'd also expand on that to say that the Hebrew texts and Greek texts evidence a continuity of community thought that I just don't find in the BoM. Additionally, there's no source material available. Even in the early OT writings, we find a whole lot of material that is lifted from earlier materials from Babylon, Sumeria, Egypt, etc. Added to that is the way in which the different texts came to us. the biblical texts show evidence of editing, redacting, mushing together of texts, and translation undertaken by groups of scholars. No so with the BoM. It's written in a language that's apparently unlike a Hebraic parent language (which would be the case if a "lost tribe of Israel" produced it.

So - to you - the historical and archaeological evidence is what proves the truths written in the Bible?

I think you're conflating "theological truth" with "veracity of authenticity." The BoM may contain theological truths, but the historical, archaeological and literary evidence (or lack thereof) determine the authenticity of the texts with regard to origin.

I'm not here to bash the LDS or the BoM; I respect your beliefs. But I just can't buy either the premise or the lack of continuity with historic and Apostolic Xy. That being said, if the text is useful to one's spiritual journey and serves to aid in immersion in one's religious community, then it has served its purpose.

 

[Watchmen]

So in sum, it looks like believers rely on fairy tale feelings for confirmation (like ), while non-believers rely on actual, objective evidence.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The Mormon temple rituals are anti- biblical not only because the old covenant has been replaced with the new covenant, but also because the Mormon temple and the ceremonies which take place there are based on Masonic Lodge rituals which are simply demonic witchcraft.

Most of our founding fathers were Masons. I don't think they were demonic.

 

[InChrist]

Most of our founding fathers were Masons. I don't think they were demonic.

Maybe not knowingly, but the Masonic rituals are similar to the practices of witchcraft which by their very nature are self-exalting and in opposition to the true Creator God.

 

[Muffled]

Moderator note: Thread moved to Same Faith Debates

I believe since this thread does not appear to be limited to Mormons that it should have been placed in Scriptural Debates.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Share what you personally believe to be the strongest evidence - either for or against - the Book of Mormon.

Please limit yourself to just the one example and try to keep it civil.

I would appreciate it if you provided what you believe is the strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon.

 

[mac]

The Bible has an endless amount of historical and archeological evidence to support it. The Book of Mormon has not a shred of such evidence, not even a single coin as evidence for the stories which supposedly took place in America.


Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia

For me a strong witness to the fact of Jesus visiting the Ancient Americas is the Indians themselves, wether it be the aztecs, the maya, the Incas, etc.
They all speak of a White bearded God visiting their ancesters, whom healed their sicked, performed many miracles amongst them, taught them to love one another, they say this white Bearded God was killed by his own people across the great waters, but such was his power he arose from the dead, they also say he had marks in his hands and when he left them he promised to return unto them in the last days....

 

[InChrist]

For me a strong witness to the fact of Jesus visiting the Ancient Americas is the Indians themselves, wether it be the aztecs, the maya, the Incas, etc.
They all speak of a White bearded God visiting their ancesters, whom healed their sicked, performed many miracles amongst them, taught them to love one another, they say this white Bearded God was killed by his own people across the great waters, but such was his power he arose from the dead, they also say he had marks in his hands and when he left them he promised to return unto them in the last days....

Well, that’s what I used to think made sense when I was a Mormon. The problem is that DNA now disproves the Book of Mormon account that the Nephites were descendants Lehi who came to America from Jerusalem because Native Americans do not have DNA which shows Jewish ancestry.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Well, that’s what I used to think made sense when I was a Mormon. The problem is that DNA now disproves the Book of Mormon account that the Nephites were descendants Lehi who came to America from Jerusalem because Native Americans do not have DNA which shows Jewish ancestry.

Doesn't the Book of Mormon only record a handful of people coming with Lehi though?

 

[InChrist]

Doesn't the Book of Mormon only record a handful of people coming with Lehi though?

From my recollection, Lehi’s sons Nephi and Laman established two nations, the Nephites and the Lamanites. So according to the Book of Mormon, Lehi is considered one of the principal ancestors of the Native American people.

 

[Zaha Torte]

From my recollection, Lehi’s sons Nephi and Laman established two nations, the Nephites and the Lamanites. So according to the Book of Mormon, Lehi is considered one of the principal ancestors of the Native American people.

This is so interesting because these very things were the subject of many conversations I have had with LDS members. They explained that even though the Book of Mormon narrative is focused on Lehi and his family the book claims that there were other people already there wherever they landed and implies that Lehi and his family mingled with them. I did read this book and found it interesting but I'm no scholar. I do remember mention of other peoples. I do remember asking about the whole "principal" thing and was told that it wasn't a claim about numbers or quantity of ancestors but about the importance or "quality" of that lineage. And according to the definition of the word "principal" that makes sense. Basically, they claimed that many things are said about the Book of Mormon that the book itself does not claim and I should take anything I hear with a grain of salt. Something to think about at least.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe not knowingly, but the Masonic rituals are similar to the practices of witchcraft which by their very nature are self-exalting and in opposition to the true Creator God.

What do you know about Masonic ritual, and how did you come by that knowledge?