A Catholic Look at Mormanism

[ParkerD]

I was a part of that DNA project, and our tribe is one that the Mormons have pinned as descendants of Israel. I am female, which only tests mitachondrial DNA, and the Native lineage is from my mother’s mother. We are not Jewish, and 94% of the members of our tribe that was tested had the same DNA factors as I had. The Jewish theory fails.

Icamay,

That was my point about mitochondrial DNA–that it shows the DNA back up the maternal ancestry, and that the maternal ancestry was neither “Jewish” (from the tribe of Judah) nor “Israelite”, because Manasseh (a son of Joseph) married someone who wasn’t an Israelite, so the maternal DNA was non-Israelite. All the descending maternal DNA would be non-Israelite, so there would be no match to Jewish or Israelite maternal DNA.

So the findings of the tests of your tribe mean that indeed the maternal DNA does not match Jewish DNA, which is 100% to be expected even if your ancestry descended from people described in the Book of Mormon (of which I would have no idea whether they do or don’t).

 

[ParkerD]

I mean no disrespect to our LDS friends. I have found them to be quite faithful, charitable, kind, and that they mean well. That being said, the faith seems to me to be such a fragile theory built on fallacy. The questions that unsettle me are these?

1. Why do the Natives not have an account of Jesus being in America, but we have an account that is so similar to Noah’s story? I find it so unbelievable that our Messiah could have been in America and my people kept it secret. Ever been in a Native American village? The entire town knows I’m home before my rear axle hits the city limit!
2. Why would God have waited 1500 years after the canonization of the NT to “correct” it?
3. Celestial marriage and Matthew 22:23-32:

1. I have heard from several other Native American sources that their tribal stories do have an account that matches with the Book of Mormon account of a visitor to their tribal ancestors who was very good and was a greatly admired teacher within those tribal accounts that were passed on through generations of time.
2. The Book of Mormon isn’t a “correction” of the New Testament, at all.
3. The translation you have quoted from Matthew 22 is a mis-translation that misses some key elements of the account. Verse 30 is particularly mis-translated. You might try the Douay-Rheims translation, if not the King James translation which is my personal preference. Or, you could try a Greek-English comparison translation which are available online.

 

[po18guy]

What cooks it for me is that God sent a series of prophets, each pointing to the One who would fulfill all prophecy. Jesus, the only One in human history whose appearance was predicted ahead of time, introduces the new and everlasting covenant. This word “everlasting” has meaning.

Then, strangely, many others come after him, all claiming to have received a vision, or an angel’s message. Each then reverses prophecy and makes God into either a single person, or one of many. From Muhammad to Joseph Smith, all fall within the period in which “false christs”, “antichrists”, “false teachers” and “false prophets” have gone forth into the world.

There is no way around that, unless one is willing to suspend reason.

 

[mikelionheart]

Parker

Can you explain why Brigham Young University put so much effort into DNA testing Native Americans to prove a common ancester with the Jews today but now you are saying that there would be no common DNA?

Maybe, just maybe, the results weren’t what was wanted so klnow the Mormons are changing their story.
Not for the first time eh?

By the way, the Native Americans would still show DNA that comes from the Middle-Easdt and would also be found in todays Jews, Arabs and others.

But, guess what, it ain’t there.

Back to the drawing board Parker dude.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker

Can you explain why Brigham Young University put so much effort into DNA testing Native Americans to prove a common ancester with the Jews today but now you are saying that there would be no common DNA?

By the way, the Native Americans would still show DNA that comes from the Middle-East and would also be found in todays Jews, Arabs and others.

MikeLionHeart,

Since I know of no such study, I would have no way of knowing why such a study was completed. There certainly are DNA studies being completed by many people interested in the general subject of mapping founding population groups in the world.

Here is a link to an article discussing the subject of DNA and Book of Mormon founding groups, that was written by a BYU writer in 2006:

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=602

The article totally refutes your other comment, but you can certainly have whatever opinion you want to have.

'Bye, Mike.

 

[mikelionheart]

Parker

Thanks for that link.
I’ve read that before.
I’ve been debating Mormons for many, many years so am well aware of how their position changes when evidence stacks up against them.

The particular article you posted was badly written and desperately unscientific. The idea that DNA can change so much within a couple of thousand years that we could find no link whatsoever between the Jews (and others of the MIddle-East) today and the Native Americans (if they were descended from the BOM tribe -which they are not) is laughable.

BUt whether it’s a lack for evidence for, or stacks of evidence against, it really makes no difference to the cognitive dissonance of some Mormons does it Parker?

 

[Tmaque]

Reading through this thread brought back the feelings of frustration and confusion I had as a Mormon. Having to suspend logic at times, needing to rely on “feelings” to discern truth, the disconcerting nature of ever-changing doctrines, etc eventually drove me to disbelief and atheism. Faith must rest on reason. The lack of evidence for the truth of Mormonism is big. The refutations of the Book of Mormon as history are impossible to ignore…(if one is really seeking truth and not locked into a belief system they refuse to even consider might be false).

Mormonism is unreasonable. My reason led me to atheism. I later discovered that atheism is itself unreasonable. Not as unreasonable as Mormonism but unreasonable nonetheless.

The Catholic Church on the other hand has given me what Mormonism and atheism ever could. Reason AND Faith together in perfect harmony. I THOUGHT I knew the LDS Church was true based on feelings alone. I DO KNOW the Catholic Church is the true church of Jesus Christ based on faith and reason.

Thank God I’m a Catholic!

 

[TexanKnight]

Essentially, the LDS Church bases its beliefs on a moving target. The spent millions on DNA research to prove their teachings on descendant from Jews…until DNA disproved their point…so they spend a lot of time and effort disproving DNA relevance.

They spent millions on archaeology to prove their Book of Mormon…until archaeology disproved their stories…so they spend a lot of time and effort disproving archaeology relevance.

It is the LDS Way. The LDS belief system is a moving target that changes as their stories are dis-proven and as they watch polls to what Americans will accept.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RJ,

Correct, and we have no knowledge at all of the ancestry of Sariah. If the pattern is consistent, and could well be, then she was not a descendant herself of the house of Israel.

PD, I understand the need to think this way, but it is just speculation. There is absolutely no way of knowing. You can’t discern lineage by “patterns”.

But whatever, it doesn’t matter. Fictional characters don’t have lineage.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

I suggest a person wondering about evidence of “anything Christian” study about the Dead Sea scrolls. Those show that there was some pre-“Christian” knowledge about a coming Messiah.

We don’t even need the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Old Testament, since Genesis, all points to a coming Messiah. What does this have to do with Christ visiting other continents? Christ was the Messiah, he came, and he founded a Church and commissioned it to continue his work throughout the entire world, saying that it would do even greater things than he had done; that he would remain with it until the end of time and not leave it orphaned. It is through his Church that he would bring salvation to the world, not by personally visiting each contintent. And, as I said, if that was his intention, then he failed miserably. We know very well the history of the Church he founded, and how it spread throughout the world. This is why the very idea of a “Great Apostasy”, when viewed in light of historical evidence, falls on its face.

The Old Testament has many prophecies about the scattering of Israel and the gathering of Israel, and about “remnants” and about part of the scattering occurring to the “isles of the sea”.

When the 12 tribes “scattered”, other than the house of Judah, they mixed with pagans and believed in their false gods. They did not remain faithful to God. That is what Hosea is all about. They were unfaithful. Why would it matter where they went? They certainly did not bring news of the coming Messiah to anyone.

No one had “to wait for Joseph Smith”. Every person can receive as much knowledge and wisdom from God as they sincerely seek for. (Joseph Smith did show that pattern and teach that it can be done, through sincere prayer and living by gospel teachings.)

Then what is the purpose of the Mormon church, if anyone can “receive as much knowledge and wisdom from God as they sincerely seek for” ? From a Catholic standpoint, the Church is the people of God. Having a relationship with God means having a relationship with his Church; the Church in which he remains; body, blood, soul and divinity, and through which he communicates his saving grace. It is Christ’s presence on earth and one must have a relationship with him if they are to be saved. It is this Church that proclaims the good news to all the world; not a remnant of the lost tribes of Israel or Jesus personally visiting the continents of the world.

In any event, I wish you and your family a blessed and holy Christmas.

 

[SteveVH]

Essentially, the LDS Church bases its beliefs on a moving target. The spent millions on DNA research to prove their teachings on descendant from Jews…until DNA disproved their point…so they spend a lot of time and effort disproving DNA relevance.

They spent millions on archaeology to prove their Book of Mormon…until archaeology disproved their stories…so they spend a lot of time and effort disproving archaeology relevance.

It is the LDS Way. The LDS belief system is a moving target that changes as their stories are dis-proven and as they watch polls to what Americans will accept.

I was just thinking this morning, believe it or not, that Mormonism is a lot like believing in Big Foot. Well, no one has proven that it is not true, so couldn’t it be true? Yes I know that there is not a lot of evidence, some fuzzy pictures, maybe, but still, couldn’t there be a chance?

 

[TexanKnight]

Mormons believe that 3 nephites and Apostle John, all who had the Priesthood, never left earth and still are among us today. Yet Joseph Smith was needed to restore the priesthood. How could it need restoration of at least 4 people were on the earth who had it? Was he more worthy than the Apostle John?

The story simply does not make sense.

And how could there be an apostasy when at least 4 people had the Priesthood? And for the story to be true, John must have been INCREDIBLY disobedient, because he walked around for 1500 years and did not “Preach the Gospel to All Nations baptizing them…”.

They simply can;t pass the logic test

Be Blessed

 

[JHow]

I was just thinking this morning, believe it or not, that Mormonism is a lot like believing in Big Foot…

Hey! I like Big Foot! He’s totally harmless to believe in. People thought the Okapi was a myth too.

 

[Khalid]

The particular article you posted was badly written and desperately unscientific. The idea that DNA can change so much within a couple of thousand years that we could find no link whatsoever between the Jews (and others of the MIddle-East) today and the Native Americans (if they were descended from the BOM tribe -which they are not) is laughable.

Actually, I think it does fit in young-earth creationist theories (which are desperately unscientific themselves) of intrabaraminic diversification, as presented in Dr Wise’s Faith, Form and Time. I don’t know if Mormons are YECs, but I think they are since they believe in a literal universal flood as the “baptism of the world” (From Bruce McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine) and a literal descent from only Adam and Eve, and a literal universal flood and a literal Adam and Eve story only work within YEC, and are generally shibboleths of YECs.

(I do believe in a literal, real Adam and Eve and the history of the Fall in Genesis 3, but not that we are all descended from both, but some are, and some only one or the other, for man was created from hominids, as represented in Dr Feser’s Modern Biology and Original Sin.)

 

[po18guy]

Genesis 3:4-5
The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 11:4
They said, “Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”

Genesis 11:6-8
The LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.

Matthew 23:12
Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

Luke 14:11
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Luke 18:14
I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Luke 23:42-43
And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come [a]in Your kingdom!” And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven (“Moroni”) should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

Essentially, the LDS preach a “gospel other than” The men desire to be gods, yet God has humbled all such throughout history. The bible contradicts LDS beliefs. Since only the Book of Mormon is consistent with LDS beliefs, they are neither Christian, nor do they worship the same god. Honest missionaries will admit that their god is different in substance, from the God of Israel.

 

[Telstar]

I was just thinking this morning, believe it or not, that Mormonism is a lot like believing in Big Foot. Well, no one has proven that it is not true, so couldn’t it be true? Yes I know that there is not a lot of evidence, some fuzzy pictures, maybe, but still, couldn’t there be a chance?

I think there’s more scientific evidence of existence of Bigfoot than there is of the “great apostasy”, or the Jews that traveled to the Americas, or the “golden plates” combined. JMHO

 

[SteveVH]

I think there’s more scientific evidence of existence of Bigfoot than there is of the “great apostasy”, or the Jews that traveled to the Americas, or the “golden plates” combined. JMHO

You may be right, but I think I took a pretty cheap shot so I would actually like to apologize to the Mormons on this forum who might read this. If I could remove the post, I would.

If we could be serious for a moment, however, the analogy holds from the standpoint that Mormonism is based upon nothing more than the claims of a man and when placed under scrutiny cannot hold up against the mountains of evidence against it. When we place historical, scriptural and rational evidence beside the claims of JS and the resulting theological and doctrinal conclusions; the constant shifting and contradicting doctrines, I am personally amazed that anyone can take it seriously and remain intellectually honest.

On the other hand, I do not doubt the sincerity of the Mormon posters here. I find it fascinating that people with relatively equal intelligence and with the same information available to them, can come to such opposing positions of belief.

 

[PaulDupre]

On the other hand, I do not doubt the sincerity of the Mormon posters here. I find it fascinating that people with relatively equal intelligence and with the same information available to them, can come to such opposing positions of belief.

Smart and wise are not the same thing.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)

 

[KathleenGee]

Satan offered the forbidden fruit so their eyes may be open…but what Adam and Eve saw was their own nakedness…

vs. Christ Himself opening Scriptures on the Road to Emmaus…It is Christ Himself, the Eternal Word, through the Holy Spirit, Who teaches us everything in Scripture…no one else following Him.

 

[Telstar]

You may be right, but I think I took a pretty cheap shot so I would actually like to apologize to the Mormons on this forum who might read this. If I could remove the post, I would.

If we could be serious for a moment, however, the analogy holds from the standpoint that Mormonism is based upon nothing more than the claims of a man and when placed under scrutiny cannot hold up against the mountains of evidence against it. When we place historical, scriptural and rational evidence beside the claims of JS and the resulting theological and doctrinal conclusions; the constant shifting and contradicting doctrines, I am personally amazed that anyone can take it seriously and remain intellectually honest.

On the other hand, I do not doubt the sincerity of the Mormon posters here. I find it fascinating that people with relatively equal intelligence and with the same information available to them, can come to such opposing positions of belief.

Maybe it was a bit of a cheap shot, and I’m sorry if it’s a bit harsh, but the fact remains that there really is more evidence to support believing in Bigfoot. That’s what always boggles my mind. I have no doubt that there are many Mormons that are convinced that it’s all true, and I do admire them for their strong faith. But, even from the LDS posters here, some of them pick and choose whether to fully accept certain things that they aren’t quite as sure about. At the same time, they will still defend them as they are taught by the church, because so many of their own family and friends really do believe them. It seems that they are less obliged to believe in some of those things than they are in fulfilling their temple rites and rituals.

That’s what makes it all so confusing to me. They take the same concept as being a “cafeteria Catholic”, and take it to a whole new level. Personally, I really appreciate having the solid definitions of right and wrong, with more solid directions about what we need to do and not do, in the RCC. I also love having the 2000 years of definitive history that I can find in the Catholic Church that’s much more tangible and provable. I don’t have to wonder whether or not the things I believe in will ever have any kind of tangible evidence that it ever happened. The BoM definitely requires people to take a complete leap of faith to believe in any of it. I really don’t think I could ever do that. I must be much more of a pragmatist, I guess. I tend to look at everything with a heavy dose of skepticism before I’ll decide whether to believe it’s true or not. I’m not big on putting a whole lot of faith in my personal ‘feelings’.