S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Are there any fomer vocal Mormons that have cited this as a reason they left that Church?
DNA evidence conclusively proves Native Americans did not come from the Middle East, so how does a Mormon explain this?
- Status
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Probably in much the same way young earth creationists explain things like how we can see the light from stars millions of light years away.
A
abirdrrl
Guest
There is also conclusive evidence that there was no worldwide flood, but people are still searching Mt Ararat for an ark 
Faith blinds people from truth.
Faith blinds people from truth.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Yes. I am aware of a website where former Mormons can go as they transition out of the LDS church, for that transition can be very difficult, painful, etc.
Many of them left not only for the reason you post, but it’s not usually just one reason why people resign or leave. It’s normally just one more thing that makes them realize that the LDS church is not what it claims to be or that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Leaving Mormonism isn’t an event. It’s a process. A very painful one.
Marie—A former Temple attending faithful Mormon
S
SteveVH
Guest
Really, this is news to me. Conclusive evidence? Why don’t you provide it?There is also conclusive evidence that there was no worldwide flood, but people are still searching Mt Ararat for an ark
Faith blinds people from truth.
“Faith blinds people from truth”? Do all Bahai “faithful” believe this? I will pray for you. This statement does not come from God. So who do you think might be whispering this in your ear?
V
vickimonica
Guest
I’m simply thrilled that Dianadad was banned. Took them long enough…
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
I don’t know what evidence he is speaking of, but the lack of sufficient volumes of water to cover the entire Earth up to the level of Mt. Everest is something that is pretty difficult to dispute.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Steve,
Catholics **do not need to believe **in a literal worldwide flood (but may if they wish)
I am leaning towards the Catholic faith for precisely this reason.
There is no geological evidence of a literal world-wide flood.
There are numerous problems with the idea that there was one, but let’s not go there now as those topics are most likely still under a “temporary ban” that has never been lifted.
Bahai are in line with the scientific evidence on this, if they are not required to believe in a literal world wide flood event. They would also be in line with Catholic theology in doing so.
Just saying.
Good to see you around!
Z
z0wb13
Guest
if somebody makes a claim, then the burden of proof is on them. so if somebody claims there was a global flood, they should be able to prove it.
conversely, it is almost impossible to prove a negative. so it’s hard to say that 4,530,488,766 KM^3 of water didn’t magically appear and disappear to cover the earth, or that noah didn’t miraculously build a boat that held 7 pairs of all clean animals and 1 pair of all unclean animals (genesis 7:2), but inexplicably left off 99.9% of all the other species that have ever existed (A Mathematical Model for Mass Extinction).
@the OP: mormons won’t ever believe anything that contradicts their faith, because that’s how faith works. it starts out with an answer, and then works backwards collecting facts, ignoring or ascribing to the devil anything that might contradict it. it’s kind of like the opposite of science, reason, logic, criminal detection, medical diagnosis, etc.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
You can Jam my friend!
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
What’s your faith in?
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
LDS apologists and lay faithful do the same with this as Young-Earth Creationists do with strong evidence of evolution and an old Earth: conclude that the science itself is suspect rather than the conclusions which naturally follow it.
A
abirdrrl
Guest
As others have said, there isn’t enough water, there is no geological record of the great flood, no mass extermination of humans (except Noah and his family!), etc. I brought this up because there are so many people who believe in a literal flood against all evidence, while criticizing Mormons for believing Native Americans are from the middle east.
When I said ‘faith blinds people from the truth,’ what I’m saying is since people have already come to a conclusion based on faith (earth is 6k years old, literal flood, Indians come from Middle East) they end up ignoring all evidence to the contrary that would lead them to the truth, and instead cling to their faith. Science and religion should not contradict. I think most Catholics would agree with that. Since they don’t take the bible literally like fundamentalists do, when scientific evidence contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible, it’s not a crisis of faith, it just means that part of the bible shouldn’t be taken literally.
I hope you do pray for me, I need all the prayers I can get. God bless.
B
BlueSapphire
Guest
Jesus mentioned Noah and the Flood, so it must have happened!
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A36-44&version=NIV
42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A36-44&version=NIV
Code:
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 **For in the days before the flood**, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, **up to the day Noah entered the ark**; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Stick with the OP
S
SedesDomi
Guest
Science (especially evolutionary sciences, whether biological or cosmological) rarely operate by “conclusively” (100% without any remote possibility of the case being otherwise) proving or disproving something. One can think up several possible ways in which a Middle Eastern population, having migrated to America 3000 years ago, has American descendants possessing genetic profiles not like those of 20th-century Middle Easterners. Whether those possible scenarios are likely or not is really irrelevant when you’re discussing faith. How scientifically likely is the virgin birth? The resurrection?
F
ForeverGrace
Guest
I have a great friend who is a former true/blue Mormon. She even attended Brigham Young U on a scholarship. She has studied this extensively and has published works that address all areas of Mormon belief.
It might be considered rude to post book titles here on a Catholic Forum, so in respect towards this, I’ll not post it here.
However, If anyone is interested in her work, send me a pm. The book is comprehensive and has been so popular that it is in its third printing.
God Bless
It might be considered rude to post book titles here on a Catholic Forum, so in respect towards this, I’ll not post it here.
However, If anyone is interested in her work, send me a pm. The book is comprehensive and has been so popular that it is in its third printing.
God Bless
N
Nine_Two
Guest
While you are absolutely correct, when someone claims there is conclusive proof on something (even if it be the negative), it is then up to them to back up their claim to this.
For example, if you make the claim that you prefer blue cheese to any other, and I claim that I can conclusively prove this wrong (even though it is impossible to prove your preferences), then the onus is on me to back up my haughty words, and not on you who originally made the claim (itself unprovable).
Z
z0wb13
Guest
i’m not sure i follow you. i can prove that blue cheese is my favorite, it’s all i eat. hook, line, sinker. it would be much harder to prove that blue cheese is the best, but still possible. i would look at worldwide cheese consumption and production, i might have expert cheese tasters evaluate different kinds, i could survey the population at random. it still wouldn’t conclusively prove that blue cheese is the best, because that doesn’t mean anything, but i could then say something about who likes what cheese, and maybe even why.
but if i never broached the subject, i never made a cheese claim, i wouldn’t have to prove anything. claiming there was a global flood is a claim, not claiming so does not require any evidence. the non-claim would be akin to the null hypothesis in statistics. another way to look at this would be to say that not-smoking isn’t a habit, because not-smoking is the default position.
in the same way, claiming the amount of water on earth has remained nearly constant is the default position. there are tsunamis, and depending on one’s perspective, it could appear that water had covered the entire world, but that is only a local flood.
i’m kind of digressing, because i got interested in earth’s water’s origins and looked up a bunch of stuff. but yeah… i don’t have to prove something i didn’t say.
regarding the OP, i’ve also heard that mormons wear special underwear;p that’s a little silly, but there is also the entire claim about the golden tablets that nobody ever corroborated. as they were described, they should have weighed over 150 pounds, yet they were easily moved about by just one person. it’s just another miracle;p
- Status