DNA Vs Mormonism

[ibkc]

The Bible was a collection of holy writings and yes it never was 100% , but the church Christ set up was for a time.

One of the earliest Christian documents in existence is called the Didache. It’s so old that it may even predate the Gospels. It is a simple instructional guide to being Christian, informing followers of the new religion on how to keep the Commandments, how to baptize, and how to celebrate the Eucharist. Nothing in the Didache resembles the rituals or beliefs of the LDS church, but the seeds of the modern Catholic church can be clearly seen. You can read the Didache here. So given that this document was written as early as around 15 years after Christ’s death and resurrection, at what point did your great apostacy occur?

 

[Stephen168]

Would God inspire people to write things down in such a way as to create the level of confusion and hostility that is common between the various sects of Christianity?

The Bible I read says that God is not into that.

**Would God inspire people to write things down in such a way as to create the level of confusion and hostility that is common between the various sects of Mormonism?

Before Smith died there were:**
Church of Christ (now LDS (Young)
Pure Church of Christ
Church of Christ (Booth)
Church of Christ (Parrish)
Alston Church
Church of Christ (Chubby)
Church of Christ (Page)
Church of Christ, the Bride, the Lamb’s Wife
True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

When Joseph Smith died there became:
The Church of Jesus Christ (Rigdon)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Young)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strang)
Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints (now Community of Christ)

From these groups we also got:
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Church of the First Born
The Church of Zion
Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Most High
The Latter Day Church of Christ
Aaronic Order
True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Latter Days
Church of Christ (Aaron Smith)
Church of Christ (Whitmerite)
Church of Christ (Brewsterite)
Congregation of Jehovah’s Presbyter of Zion
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Gladden)
The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutler)
The Bride, The Lamb’s Wife
Church of the Potter Christ
Church of Jesus Christ (Bickerton)
Church of Christ (Hedrick)
Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints (Bickerton)
Primitive Church of Jesus Christ
Church of the Christian Brotherhood
Church of Christ with Elijah Message

All within 180 years!!!

 

[MelanieAnne]

One of the earliest Christian documents in existence is called the Didache. It’s so old that it may even predate the Gospels. It is a simple instructional guide to being Christian, informing followers of the new religion on how to keep the Commandments, how to baptize, and how to celebrate the Eucharist. Nothing in the Didache resembles the rituals or beliefs of the LDS church, but the seeds of the modern Catholic church can be clearly seen. You can read the Didache here. So given that this document was written as early as around 15 years after Christ’s death and resurrection, at what point did your great apostacy occur?

The “apostasy” allegedly occurred after the death of the last Apostle ~ within 100 years. Which is why the Mormons have “restored” the “original church” complete with a living prophet and a quorum of 12 Apostles so that God can again have a hotline to humans and have the “true church” back on the earth after centuries of absence.

You make an excellent reference. I’m sure that many will find it interesting that the time period immediately following the Ascension is more like Catholic than Mormon. That’s what I would expect. I’m not sure that’s what a Mormon expects (but then I would bet that 99.9% of all Mormons have never heard of the Didache). Simply said, there is no evidence that there WAS an early version of Mormonism. It’s common sense that a church cannot be “restored” that never existed in the first place.

Since there is no evidence of their existence before Joseph Smith “restored” the church, Mormons can only say that references to their earlier existence have been “lost” over time. Dark conspiracies are alleged. But what has been forgotten is the size of the Roman Empire at the time ~ which is where any conspiracy to stamp out the “true” Mormon church would have had to occur. Suggestions that it could have been easily done, involve only a few people, and leave no trace are at best naive.

But then most Mormons I have run into have little or no knowledge of the period. I have found, at least with those Mormons I know personally, a total lack of curiosity about other faiths and some really amazing false beliefs/assumptions ~ such as any church called “orthodox” must be Jewish and to genuflect is to make the sign of the cross. They actually believe these things, but I assume it’s because they don’t know any better and were never curious enough to find out. Early Church History is not even on their radar screen.

Once upon a time the Mormons set themselves clearly apart from other faiths. Now they’re doing a little more cozying up to Christians (although how any ecumenical efforts could be successful is beyond me when their understanding of God is so different). But suffice it to say that “Early Church History” to them starts in the 19th century in New York and people like Ignatius don’t show up in their discussions.

 

[teancum79]

I must say I find it interesting how quickly people claim that there is no evidence of anything that does not fit the CC position. From these and other statements I’ll have to assume that none catholic schoolers are by definition anti-catholic and therefore wrong. Much in the same way that only anti-Mormon schoolers are objective.

Anyone else see a problem with that assumption?

 

[ibkc]

I must say I find it interesting how quickly people claim that there is no evidence of anything that does not fit the CC position. From these and other statements I’ll have to assume that none catholic schoolers are by definition anti-catholic and therefore wrong. Much in the same way that only anti-Mormon schoolers are objective.

Anyone else see a problem with that assumption?

Look, there is plenty of evidence of non-Catholic beliefs in early Christianity: the gnostics, the Arians, etc. There are in fact quite a lot of Christian writings available that were circulated and used before the canon of the Bible was determined. For your part, maybe you could look at these writings and show us some evidence of early Christians who believed and worshiped like modern Mormons, especially to the point where those non-Catholic worshipers can be shown to be “The True Church”. That would be more helpful to your position.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I must say I find it interesting how quickly people claim that there is no evidence of anything that does not fit the CC position. From these and other statements I’ll have to assume that none catholic schoolers are by definition anti-catholic and therefore wrong. Much in the same way that only anti-Mormon schoolers are objective.

Anyone else see a problem with that assumption?

I see a problem with your statement. It’s purely defensive and not based on fact. The fact is that Early Church History DOES support the Catholic position and DOES NOT support the Mormon position. That’s just reality. And no amount of imaginary conspiracy theories will change that. If there was an early Church that was like the Mormon Church, where was it? Who were its leaders? Where are their writings? Where is the proof that they even existed?

In answer to such questions, what we’re confronted with in Mormonism is a statement, unsupported by even a shred of evidence, that the Early Christian Church was what is now known as the Mormon Church and that by some hushed up conspiracy, for which, again, there is not a shred of evidence, the Early Church morphed into what we know as the Catholic Church today, and then divided into the spectrum of Christianity we see today.

While there is evidence, already cited, that supports the Catholic position, the Mormon position is supported only by statements from Mormons that the evidence of the true early church was “lost” but some unknown, unverified & unverifiable plot.

But that’s not the whole problem with Mormonism. If that were the only factual issue with Mormonism, you might have a case at least for doubt. But the entire Joseph Smith story is riddled with impossible claims. Just as an example, I read on this forum (sorry I didn’t retain the detail of the citation) about how someone had done a study of what the weight of the “golden plates” had to be and compared this to the claim that Joseph Smith ran with them carried under his arm or some such physical example. The analysis was that such a claim would be impossible due to the intrinsic weight of the gold. Yet everyone is supposed to take all these claims on faith. No one ever checks the claim that such a thing would even be possible. What’s the answer? The Angel Moroni was really carrying them for Joseph? He was given superhuman strength by Heavenly Father at that critical moment?

When one thing after another makes no logical sense, and when there is no evidence to support the historical claims unless you also accept the idea of a conspiracy throughout the entire Roman World, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Mormon claims are utterly lacking in substance. You don’t have to be a scholar to figure that out, you only have to use the brain God gave you.

But in the end, what does it matter? You have already stated that you are going to stay on this path where you have been guded by God. Even if DNA evidence of the Book of Mormon story is utterly absent, even if the Book of Mormon was proved in some way to be utterly false, you have already stated that you would remain on the same path. So why does it really matter what the facts are?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I must say I find it interesting how quickly people claim that there is no evidence of anything that does not fit the CC position. From these and other statements I’ll have to assume that none catholic schoolers are by definition anti-catholic and therefore wrong. Much in the same way that only anti-Mormon schoolers are objective.

Anyone else see a problem with that assumption?

No, we do not view non-Catholic scholars as anti-Catholic. There are many good non-Catholic, Christian, scholars.

Mormonism by its own definition, not ours, is not Christian. Mormonism uses the same words as Christianity, but you have changed the definition of those words. Mormons believe and have doctrines that are far outside of Christianity. This is fact, and for some reasons, Mormons tend to take a view that these facts are anti-Mormon.

Do you see a problem with this?

 

[teancum79]

Thanks for the responses it has given me deeper insight into the lines of thought on this forum.

 

[ibkc]

Thanks for the responses it has given me deeper insight into the lines of thought on this forum.

That we like claims to be documentable? Yep, that’s us. Seriously, no one has asked anything outrageous of you. If there is any evidence at all of Mormon belief and practice in early Christianity, surely it’s possible to find it and point it out to us. Early anti-Catholic heresies like Montanism, Gnosticism, Arianism etc are well-documented. Where are all the Mormons?

 

[teancum79]

That we like claims to be documentable? Yep, that’s us. Seriously, no one has asked anything outrageous of you. If there is any evidence at all of Mormon belief and practice in early Christianity, surely it’s possible to find it and point it out to us. Early anti-Catholic heresies like Montanism, Gnosticism, Arianism etc are well-documented. Where are all the Mormons?

I could make a list, but many of them have been discussed on other threads here. As I have seen many times there is a tendency to disregard biblical statements that clash with CC tradition are dismissed out of hand so pointing to doctrinal differences will only server to wast all our time.

 

[ibkc]

I could make a list, but many of them have been discussed on other threads here.

I haven’t seen any. Could you remind us all? Or at least point to some of these threads?

 

[PaulDupre]

No list required. Just one will do. C’mon, show us the Mormons!

 

[xixxvmcm85]

All one has to do to put this entire issue (of the LDS alleged apostasy) is to have a Latter Day Saint give an actual date of apostasy. It doesn’t have to be specific to the month and day, or even the year.

Just give me a 50-100 year period when this apostasy could have occurred and then I can show you that contemporary Catholic teaching (and no Mormon teaching) was believed before and after that date.

What is the effect of this?

It then forces that LDS apologist to push the date of this “apostasy” further and further back until we get all the way to Jesus himself, which I would argue make’s Jesus having started a church completely pointless if it was to apostasize in less than one generation.

 

[teancum79]

I’m not sure given that most of the apostles where dead by 100 AD I’d say that would be a good time frame to start from. It was not a single event though Peter’s death was a major one.

As far as teachings:

Baptisms for the dead referenced by Paul and done by some before the CC decided they don’t like it.

God and Christ are separate people not a big mussy shapeless thing.

These are of course denied by the CC, but the Bible speaks to them as valid.

 

[ibkc]

I’m not sure given that most of the apostles where dead by 100 AD I’d say that would be a good time frame to start from. It was not a single event though Peter’s death was a major one.

As far as teachings:

Baptisms for the dead referenced by Paul and done by some before the CC decided they don’t like it.

God and Christ are separate people not a big mussy shapeless thing.

These are of course denied by the CC, but the Bible speaks to them as valid.

These are things in the NT that are somewhat nebulous when viewed from a non-Catholic understanding. What I am asking is for you to show us, using non-Biblical documents, why and how the REAL early church was Mormon. As I said, the major opponents of the Catholic Church are well-documented, so it seems strange that if the REAL church was Mormon there is no record of that at all. Where are the Mormons in early Christian history?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I’m not sure given that most of the apostles where dead by 100 AD I’d say that would be a good time frame to start from. It was not a single event though Peter’s death was a major one.

As far as teachings:

Baptisms for the dead referenced by Paul and done by some before the CC decided they don’t like it.

God and Christ are separate people not a big mussy shapeless thing.

These are of course denied by the CC, but the Bible speaks to them as valid.

1. Baptism for the dead was mentioned ONCE in the Bible and mind you not as a command to do so.
2. The Bible has innumerable references to the trinity as does the Didache (Teachings of the Apostles) and almost every discourse of the Church fathers. The whole trinity VS non-trinity debate boils down to interpretation, which in turn boils down to authority to interpret which I guess for the sake of this debate would be settled by settling the whole “apostasy” issue.

Yes you may find one, two, or even a couple dozen references from early Christians that seem to indicate that they held heretical views (not just non-trinitarian views, but nestorian views of divinity, and gnostic views of a bipartisan “yin-yang” deity (go figure, humanity doesn’t think in homogenous terms.), however the vast majority align with Catholic teaching.

 

[teancum79]

1. Baptism for the dead was mentioned ONCE in the Bible and mind you not as a command to do so.
2. The Bible has innumerable references to the trinity as does the Didache (Teachings of the Apostles) and almost every discourse of the Church fathers. The whole trinity VS non-trinity debate boils down to interpretation, which in turn boils down to authority to interpret which I guess for the sake of this debate would be settled by settling the whole “apostasy” issue.

Yes you may find one, two, or even a couple dozen references from early Christians that seem to indicate that they held heretical views (not just non-trinitarian views, but nestorian views of divinity, and gnostic views of a bipartisan “yin-yang” deity (go figure, humanity doesn’t think in homogenous terms.), however the vast majority align with Catholic teaching.

Paul used baptisms for the dead to explain a doctrine that was being questioned. A skilled teacher does not use the world being flat to explain things to students.

The issue of the trinity can be settled by the words of Christ himself. I think John 17 spells it out in very plan terms.

 

[ibkc]

The issue of the trinity can be settled by the words of Christ himself. I think John 17 spells it out in very plan terms.

Can you quote John 17 and then explain what you mean?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The issue of the trinity can be settled by the words of Christ himself. I think John 17 spells it out in very plan terms.

Jesus prays = No trinity?

I don’t quite understand where you’re going with this. If you could maybe explain.

 

[teancum79]

Bible version

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Trinity version
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Me, the hour is come; glorify Me, that I also may glorify Me:
2 As I hast given Me power over all flesh, that I should give eternal life to as many as I hast given Me.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know Me the only true God, and Me , whom I hast sent.
4 I have glorified Me on the earth: I have finished the work which I gavest me to do.
5 And now, Me, glorify thou me with my own self with the glory which I had with me before the world was.

I could keep going but I think this makes the point.