K
- Status
M
Mike_D30
Guest
This has been a controversy for years now. a little backround for the people here.
The Book of Mormon professes that principle ancestors of the Native Americans were Ancient Hebrews. The Hebrews had a problem within the family where some followed a son called Nephi, and the others the (disobedient ones) followed I believe Laman and Lemuel. The Lamanites were punished for not obeying Nephi and had their skin turned black. There was a big war where the Lamanites killed all the Nephites, and the Lamanites are actually moden day Native Americans.
The biggest problem with this core belief to Mormon doctrine is that when they test Native Americans, their DNA says that they are from Asian descent not Middle eastern. This is an issue of concern for Mormon’s without a doubt.
However in all fairness the article is very biased. You can see where the journalist actually puts forth a Mormon apologists position and refutes it without ever interviewing the apologist, or a mormon geneticist. Is this more damaging than evolution and radioactive dating has been to the Bible?
Mormon apologists have their refutations such as the “limited geographic theory”, and the fact that the DNA “doesn’t exclude Native Americans from coming from the Middle east”, but the fact that it doesn’t help the case, is enormously damaging.
When you read the Book of Mormon it makes apparent that the Nephites and Lamanites filled the all of North and South America with their seed. So to think there is no remaining Hebrew DNA left is tough to swallow.
The Book of Mormon professes that principle ancestors of the Native Americans were Ancient Hebrews. The Hebrews had a problem within the family where some followed a son called Nephi, and the others the (disobedient ones) followed I believe Laman and Lemuel. The Lamanites were punished for not obeying Nephi and had their skin turned black. There was a big war where the Lamanites killed all the Nephites, and the Lamanites are actually moden day Native Americans.
The biggest problem with this core belief to Mormon doctrine is that when they test Native Americans, their DNA says that they are from Asian descent not Middle eastern. This is an issue of concern for Mormon’s without a doubt.
However in all fairness the article is very biased. You can see where the journalist actually puts forth a Mormon apologists position and refutes it without ever interviewing the apologist, or a mormon geneticist. Is this more damaging than evolution and radioactive dating has been to the Bible?
Mormon apologists have their refutations such as the “limited geographic theory”, and the fact that the DNA “doesn’t exclude Native Americans from coming from the Middle east”, but the fact that it doesn’t help the case, is enormously damaging.
When you read the Book of Mormon it makes apparent that the Nephites and Lamanites filled the all of North and South America with their seed. So to think there is no remaining Hebrew DNA left is tough to swallow.
D
donbjc
Guest
I am reading the Book of Mormon now, and am on chapter 53 of the Book of Alma. I do not remember any part of the book so far saying the Nephites and Lamanites filled the whole of South and North America. So far it seems to be mostly Central America and a bit of South America where the narrow neck of land joins the two. Could you point out this part of the book? They also make it clear that they descended from a couple of tribes, and since DNA comes from the mother who knows where Suriah(sp)came from, or any of the wives of the sons and the servant of Laban who fled with them to the desert and wandered for 8 years before arriving in what is now Oman, and building the boat which they boarded to sail through the Islands of Indonesia and stopping along the way to fish and replenish their supplies. They were not in a hurry, so this could have taken and most probably did take more than a year, possibly several years. They could have taken others with them from those islands and eventually they landed in what is now the west coast of Guatemala. That is what is speculated upon and seems the most plausable. It is an incredible story and I don’t know how there could be DNA proof one way or another without any bodies to test. Joseph Smith thought the American Indians were the descendants, but he could have been wrong about that.
It is great fun to speculate, but one guess is as good as another. I am still reading and speculating. Still a Catholic, but intrigued by the story.
I will be interested to find the passage that says they inhabited the whole of North and South America.
Don
It is great fun to speculate, but one guess is as good as another. I am still reading and speculating. Still a Catholic, but intrigued by the story.
I will be interested to find the passage that says they inhabited the whole of North and South America.
Don
M
Mike_D30
Guest
Heres what I got, this is from someone more knowledgable than I am, I highlighted the parts that insinuate about North and South America being filled, but agan the LGT is used to counter this idea:
""In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years. The Book of Mormon records that soon after their arrival in the Americas, **the descendants of Lehi ‘multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land’ (Jarom 1:8). ** By about 46 BC, after which time they had joined with the Mulekites, they had multiplied until they **'covered the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east (Hel. 3:8). ** By the time of the final conflagrations around 400 AD, the Israelite populations numbered in the many hundreds of thousands if not millions. There is not a single mention in the text of groups of people living in ancient America, other than the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites. All three population groups had very large populations. It is hardly surprising then that Joseph Smith and all other church leaders have regarded Native Americans to be the descendants of the Lamanites. The God speaking to Joseph Smith in 1830-31 referred to the ‘borders of the Lamanites’ when talking about missionaries being sent to teach Native Americans who had been relocated to Missouri (D&C 28: 9; 54: 8)""
– Simon Southerton
That and this is from the Book of Mormon introducton:
"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Principal ancestors is where they really indict themselves. Principal means main ancestor of the american Indians. As far as body to test they do test them, there’s hundreds of thousands of Native Americans left, and like 96% of them have Asiatic descent with some African and European from marriage etc… But here is no Hebrew DNA. And that is a big indictment.
Like I said though I felt the article was biased, and I’m not certain this is more damaging than evolution or carbon dating is to the Bible. But to pretend like it isn’t hugely damaging is not dealing in reality.
M
majick275
Guest
Well let’s see, this is from the Introduction in the BoM:
*After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.
*
This isn’t BoM but it IS canonized LDS scripture:
“And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them…” (D&C 28:8).
“And that which I have appointed unto him is that he [Parley P. Pratt] shall go with my servants Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.”
D&C 54:
8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.
This may a bit more specific:
*“He [Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants …” *(Joseph Smith 2:34
Brigham Young explained it like this:
“There is a curse on these aborigines of our country who roam the plains, and are so wild that you cannot tame them. They are of the House of Israel; they once had the Gospel delivered to them, they had the oracles of truth; Jesus came and administered to them after his resurrection, and they received and delighted in the Gospel until the fourth generation when they turned away and became so wicked that God cursed them with this dark and benighted and loathsome condition.” [Quoted from Discourses of Brigham Young, compiled by John A. Widtsoe, pages 122, 123.]
Maybe we need to hear from a modern “prophet”:
*“You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your islands. There are probably sixty million of you on the two continents and on the Pacific Islands, all related by blood ties. The Lord calls you Lamanites, a name which has a pleasant ring, for many of the grandest people ever to live upon the earth were so called. In a limited sense, the name signifies the descendants of Laman and Lemuel, sons of your first American parent, Lehi; but you undoubtedly possess also the blood of the other sons, Sam, Nephi, and Jacob. And you likely have some Jewish blood from Mulek, son of Zedekiah, king of Judah. The name Lamanite distinguishes you from other peoples. It is not a name of derision or embarrassment, but one of which to be very proud.” *(The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.596)
The likelihood of a small group of people amongst a large group of indigenous folks seems unlikely as the BoM tells us of each encounter with other groups and it would have us believe that they were a VAST civilization.Two million people were killed in a single series of wars [Ether 15:2]. The Book of Mormon describes a single battle between Nephites and Lamanites where the Nephite casualties alone numbered over 100,000 [Mormon chapter 6]
I believe you asked where the BoM said that they were all over the whole of the americas?
*And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, and from the sea west to the sea east." *Helaman 3:8].
We could also talk about Zelph the white lamanite and the great nephite city of Manti in Missouri. (according to Joseph smith Jr.)
We don’t need to speculate we can read what Joseph Smith Jr. Wrote and what subsequent LDS prophets have said about it.
*After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.
*
This isn’t BoM but it IS canonized LDS scripture:
“And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them…” (D&C 28:8).
“And that which I have appointed unto him is that he [Parley P. Pratt] shall go with my servants Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.”
D&C 54:
8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.
This may a bit more specific:
*“He [Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants …” *(Joseph Smith 2:34
Brigham Young explained it like this:
“There is a curse on these aborigines of our country who roam the plains, and are so wild that you cannot tame them. They are of the House of Israel; they once had the Gospel delivered to them, they had the oracles of truth; Jesus came and administered to them after his resurrection, and they received and delighted in the Gospel until the fourth generation when they turned away and became so wicked that God cursed them with this dark and benighted and loathsome condition.” [Quoted from Discourses of Brigham Young, compiled by John A. Widtsoe, pages 122, 123.]
Maybe we need to hear from a modern “prophet”:
*“You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your islands. There are probably sixty million of you on the two continents and on the Pacific Islands, all related by blood ties. The Lord calls you Lamanites, a name which has a pleasant ring, for many of the grandest people ever to live upon the earth were so called. In a limited sense, the name signifies the descendants of Laman and Lemuel, sons of your first American parent, Lehi; but you undoubtedly possess also the blood of the other sons, Sam, Nephi, and Jacob. And you likely have some Jewish blood from Mulek, son of Zedekiah, king of Judah. The name Lamanite distinguishes you from other peoples. It is not a name of derision or embarrassment, but one of which to be very proud.” *(The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.596)
The likelihood of a small group of people amongst a large group of indigenous folks seems unlikely as the BoM tells us of each encounter with other groups and it would have us believe that they were a VAST civilization.Two million people were killed in a single series of wars [Ether 15:2]. The Book of Mormon describes a single battle between Nephites and Lamanites where the Nephite casualties alone numbered over 100,000 [Mormon chapter 6]
I believe you asked where the BoM said that they were all over the whole of the americas?
*And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, and from the sea west to the sea east." *Helaman 3:8].
We could also talk about Zelph the white lamanite and the great nephite city of Manti in Missouri. (according to Joseph smith Jr.)
We don’t need to speculate we can read what Joseph Smith Jr. Wrote and what subsequent LDS prophets have said about it.
D
donbjc
Guest
When that was written in Helaman 3:8 could he have been talking about the world as he knew it? Like Noah’s ark where Noah thought the whole world was flooded, but now we believe it was only a part of the world that was known at the time of Noah.
It has been explained in these forums that the whole world was not really flooded, so although I am not a scholar,( far from it) it seems that we as Catholics do not believe that the flood literally covered the whole earth. Just as the lamanites did not cover the whole continent, but thought they did. If you have ever done any genealogy, you can see how just a few hundred years can cause a huge population explosion. My great-great grandfather had 14 children and that was only my mother’s great grandfather, so you can see when they all multiply how fast the population grows and that is only one family in 150 years time, which has grown to the point of not being able to count them all.
Thanks for the info, now I will have to keep reading.
Don
It has been explained in these forums that the whole world was not really flooded, so although I am not a scholar,( far from it) it seems that we as Catholics do not believe that the flood literally covered the whole earth. Just as the lamanites did not cover the whole continent, but thought they did. If you have ever done any genealogy, you can see how just a few hundred years can cause a huge population explosion. My great-great grandfather had 14 children and that was only my mother’s great grandfather, so you can see when they all multiply how fast the population grows and that is only one family in 150 years time, which has grown to the point of not being able to count them all.
Thanks for the info, now I will have to keep reading.
Don
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Mormons aren’t sola scriptura; if they were, then they’d have a problem.
M
majick275
Guest
you might want to know that in the older versions of the BoM the footnotes told specifically that the description in Helaman specifically showed ALL of the Americas was included in that area.
Anyway…
Read this part of the BoM:
I think that rules out a siginificant number of other people already being here. (or coming in later)
Another Mormon classic is “A marvelous work and a wonder” by LeGrand Richards:
Of course it might be wise to see what the current “prophet” has to say:
*Now, recently, when the Mexico City Temple was dedicated, they came by the thousands. . . . Most of them have the blood of Lehi in their veins. The shackles of darkness have fallen from their eyes, as promised by the prophets of the Book of Mormon. They have become “a pure and a delightsome people” (2 Ne. 30:6) *(Gordon B. Hinckley Ensign, Nov. 1985).
as to growth rates:
it is apparent that large numbers of Book of Mormon peoples could not have been produced from the tiny Lehi-Mulek colonizing groups. No growth rate even close to the rate of increase prevalent from 590 B.C.E. to C.E. 390 would have produced population sizes described in the scriptures, even if there had been no wars, famine, earthquakes, or disease…(John C. Kunich, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Multiply Exceedingly: Book of Mormon Population Sizes, pp. 247, 265)
Anyway…
Read this part of the BoM:
- There shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
Code:
Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. . . . And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves *(2 Nephi 1:6-9).Another Mormon classic is “A marvelous work and a wonder” by LeGrand Richards:
- The Book of Mormon gives a very definite account of who the American Indians are and how they came to the western hemisphere. The first people of whom we have record who occupied the western hemisphere were the Jaredites . . .
Code:
Lehi and his family were led from Jerusalem 600 B.C. by the hand of God to the land of America. . . . However, shortly after their arrival there, because of the wickedness of the followers of two of the sons of Lehi—Laman and Lemuel—the Lord cursed them, and to separate them from their brothers caused that their skin become dark . . .
Those who were thus cursed succeeded in destroying all the white people, save twenty-four souls, about A.D. 384.
The dark-skinned people who occupied the land of America from that time on were called, in the Book of Mormon, Lamanites, which are the people known generally as the American Indians, who are of the house of Israel *(A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, by LeGrand Richards, Deseret Book, 1979 ed., pp. 72-73).*Now, recently, when the Mexico City Temple was dedicated, they came by the thousands. . . . Most of them have the blood of Lehi in their veins. The shackles of darkness have fallen from their eyes, as promised by the prophets of the Book of Mormon. They have become “a pure and a delightsome people” (2 Ne. 30:6) *(Gordon B. Hinckley Ensign, Nov. 1985).
as to growth rates:
it is apparent that large numbers of Book of Mormon peoples could not have been produced from the tiny Lehi-Mulek colonizing groups. No growth rate even close to the rate of increase prevalent from 590 B.C.E. to C.E. 390 would have produced population sizes described in the scriptures, even if there had been no wars, famine, earthquakes, or disease…(John C. Kunich, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Multiply Exceedingly: Book of Mormon Population Sizes, pp. 247, 265)
D
donbjc
Guest
Maybe, the reason they changed the words is for the same reason that all words that are insensitive, have been changed to reflect our culture of political correctness. If you read any of the earlier writings of our culture, you will find names and words that are now considered derogatory or politically incorrect. The names have been changed to reflect the increased sensitivity to differences in race and different cultures. Now, to say a word that was perfectly OK fifty years ago, is an extreme insult. For instance to be gay, once meant someone was very happy. Now it has a different meaning.
I find your posts very interesting and your knowledge amazing, I have no where near the knowledge you have on the subject. I only have questions and thoughts that may not seem intelligent in comparison to your knowledge on the subject.
I have noticed that several posters have stressed the race card here and to my mind that is an unfair stab, considering that things have changed a lot in the past 30 years in regards to African-Americans. Do you think it is a good thing to take a few words spoken long ago and make it the main focus in anti-mormon attacks? Maybe those words are the biggest fault that can be sited in the Book of Mormon, it seems to be a real big focus of the posters here.
Do you think Catholics have ever been racist? I’m sure you may find passages in the Holy Scriptures that may not be politically correct, or a member of the Church who has been racist in the past, but possibly changed their thinking with the passage of time. Just thinking out loud, and wondering does any of this make sense? Don
I find your posts very interesting and your knowledge amazing, I have no where near the knowledge you have on the subject. I only have questions and thoughts that may not seem intelligent in comparison to your knowledge on the subject.
I have noticed that several posters have stressed the race card here and to my mind that is an unfair stab, considering that things have changed a lot in the past 30 years in regards to African-Americans. Do you think it is a good thing to take a few words spoken long ago and make it the main focus in anti-mormon attacks? Maybe those words are the biggest fault that can be sited in the Book of Mormon, it seems to be a real big focus of the posters here.
Do you think Catholics have ever been racist? I’m sure you may find passages in the Holy Scriptures that may not be politically correct, or a member of the Church who has been racist in the past, but possibly changed their thinking with the passage of time. Just thinking out loud, and wondering does any of this make sense? Don
M
Mike_D30
Guest
Don, while it’s wrong to use the race issue to take an unfair stab, it is definitely within board limits to show how the past doctrine has been changed and altered to reflect modern public sentiment, it changes with the times and that is a very relevant topic. Is it really possible to ‘attack’ a religion using race baiting, and only use their holy book, and words spoken by their own prophets?
M
majick275
Guest
You know I could accept that if it was just descriptuve terms. Like calling someone a “Lehite” instead of a “lamanite” but it goes deeper. LDS doctrine has taught (and still does) that certain races were cursed. They currently teach that the curse is “finished” thus no longer has a “practical” effect but they have never denied the original position that dark skin marked which races were cursed. They never denied the doctrine that those spirits who were born into those races were put there because of their “works” in the pre-existence. I would be willing to just drop the issue if they had denounced the previous position as being wrong. (like they did with Adam-God theory) But they didn’t. If you read the OD in the D&C and look at the specific wording that Spencer Kimball used you can see that he still maintains that the original teaching was correct. He claims (and rightfully so according to LDS teachings) that the curse was supposed to end one day and merely implies that the day came early due to fervent prayers from the leadership of the LDS church. (conveniently at a time when tax exempt status for the chruch and NCAA participation by BYU were being “threatened”) here is the link:
scriptures.lds.org/od/2
D
donbjc
Guest
Seems to me to correspond with their belief that the Prophet receives ongoing revelations from God that gives further enlightenment to man according to his ability to receive new guidance on matters.
I personally, do not believe it was or is a race issue at all, simply a belief that the African descendants were not ready for certain commandments. If they or anyone for that matter were fed the meat of the gospel before they were ready to partake they would choke on it and be doomed. If they are prepared and have been taught then they can graduate from milk to meat and will have complete understanding of God’s plan for man.
I attend services with my wife and there are quite a few African-Americans involved in the LDS church, they seem to accept and enjoy the same fellowship with everyone else. Gladys Knight and many others are Mormon and seem to be accepting of the thing that upsets you so much. Are you black? Do you really have the interest of the black people at heart? or are you simply using what is past to attack them. I am aware of many things the Catholic Church did in the past that is racist and would not be looked upon today with the least bit of understanding. But, they have moved on to a new time, new Popes and new understanding from God.
We all have moved on, so get over the past and move on to the present.
Don
I personally, do not believe it was or is a race issue at all, simply a belief that the African descendants were not ready for certain commandments. If they or anyone for that matter were fed the meat of the gospel before they were ready to partake they would choke on it and be doomed. If they are prepared and have been taught then they can graduate from milk to meat and will have complete understanding of God’s plan for man.
I attend services with my wife and there are quite a few African-Americans involved in the LDS church, they seem to accept and enjoy the same fellowship with everyone else. Gladys Knight and many others are Mormon and seem to be accepting of the thing that upsets you so much. Are you black? Do you really have the interest of the black people at heart? or are you simply using what is past to attack them. I am aware of many things the Catholic Church did in the past that is racist and would not be looked upon today with the least bit of understanding. But, they have moved on to a new time, new Popes and new understanding from God.
We all have moved on, so get over the past and move on to the present.
Don
A
ABalch
Guest
Donbjc,
I don’t wish to turn this into a we said, they said sort of argument, but if you insist that you know of past racial biases of the Catholic Church, perhaps you could provide some examples of these things here, or on a new thread to prevent derailing this one. For, I am unaware of any doctrinal bias of the Catholic Church to discriminate against someone based on their race. I don’t claim to be an expert, nor even claim to be an unbiased person in my views on this issue, being Catholic myself. But, to make a claim such as you did, and not provide some sort of concrete example, well, anyone could make a claim like that, with no proof.
May the peace of Our Lord be with you always,
ABalch
I don’t wish to turn this into a we said, they said sort of argument, but if you insist that you know of past racial biases of the Catholic Church, perhaps you could provide some examples of these things here, or on a new thread to prevent derailing this one. For, I am unaware of any doctrinal bias of the Catholic Church to discriminate against someone based on their race. I don’t claim to be an expert, nor even claim to be an unbiased person in my views on this issue, being Catholic myself. But, to make a claim such as you did, and not provide some sort of concrete example, well, anyone could make a claim like that, with no proof.
May the peace of Our Lord be with you always,
ABalch
D
donbjc
Guest
I did not wish to bring up the many crimes against Jews in WWII by the Pope, and the Catholic Church, as with any church the people make the discriminations not God who is the Father of all people. I can not believe you do not know of any Catholics who have discriminated at any time in history against another race or creed. Each person is responsible for his own choices and his own words, the Church as a whole is not responsible, and God would not condone what past Popes have done in His name.
As a Catholic I simply put the past in the past and move on to the present. If the Catholic Church had not become politically correct along with the rest of Civilization today, I would say more and delve deeper into past wrongs, but hey! Things were different in the old days and people had misconceptions and prejudices that hopefully we do not have today. I am not a student of these things and do not wish to study the bloody days of the early Catholic church, but to say there was no wrong doing by the Popes of the early Church is to stick your head in the sand. We and our Popes have not always made the best choices in regards to treating people equally and with love and kindness.
Have a great Day!
Don
Sorry to derail this thread, but it is only a slight derailment, now on with the subject at hand, and upward hopefully. Keep it fair…don’t play the race card, it has nothing to do with the LDS Church today any more than the Catholic Church today.
M
Mike_D30
Guest
First off Don, you have to realize that we don’t say the Pope is a prophet of God, and what he says and puts into the D&C or Journals and Discourses, or Pearl of Great Price is scripture, LDS DO! (and that’s where we are getting these statements from official SCRIPTURE of the LDS Chrurhc) the nonsense you bring up is just inflamatory rhetoric, that adds zip. Why this is so difficult for you to understand is beyond me. Catholic’s also don’t have clear examples of racism and prejudice in their scriptures towards people of color, LDS DO! Catholic’s didn’t block black folks from the priesthood, LDS did. The Pope is ONLY infallible on matters of teaching faith and morals, and only Magesterium. I think you need to read up a little on your own “supposed” religion, because I don’t believe you’re a Catholic for a minute.
So a Pope can personally be a bad guy, no way denies that has happened, however as Catholics (you may not be aware of this) we believe that the Pope can not lead us astray on matters of faith and morals. In other words if the Pope came out tomorrow and tried to say abortion isn’t against God, or Jesus wasn’t divine, we believe God would not let that happen, even by death. HOWEVER if the Pope tomorrow was caught imbezzeling funds from the Vatican, that has zero to do with passing forth teachings to the Church in the matter of a Magesterium.
Again the difference is Briham Young was a supposed PROPHET from GOD! Do you have any idea what that is suppsoed to mean? It means he is on par with John the Baptist. SO LDS view his teachings on matters of scripture and doctrine as coming from God.
So before you start blaiming Catholics for the Holocaust, you may want to sit back and actually learn a little something about the religion you claim to be…Instead of just spouting inflamatory BS. Why not talk about the 6,000 Jewish Children Pope Pius moved to Palestine? Or the Jews he persoanlly hid from the Nazi’s. You’re statements are inflammatory and inaccurate. The matter is much more complex than, “the many crimes against Jews in WWII by the Pope, and the Catholic Church”. It’s estimated the Catholic CHurch saved 860,000 Jewish lives during the Holocaust. So please Don keep your ridiculous blanket statements to yourself.
There’s many many innumberable instances of Catholic’s trying to save the lives of Jews during the Holocaust, including Pope Pius XII. I wonder if things were a little difficult for the Pope considering he resides in the middle of a FASCIST country that was allied with Hitler?
You are over simplifying everything in this discussion. And I’m certain you’re one of two things:
- LDS and lying to be a Catholic
- A self loathing Catholic, and fallen away from the Church. There’s no way you can be a Catholic and such hateful inflamatory things about YOUR Church and people.
E
Ella
Guest
EXCELLENT POST MIKE. And I totally agree… Don, IF you’re a Catholic, you’re exceedingly ignorant about the history and doctrines of Catholicism. I suggest that you try “Catholicism for Dummies” as a start and consider going to RCIA. Ignorance is not a sin and can be cured by study. On the other hand if you’re lying to us about being Catholic remember that lying IS a sin and shame on you!
B
Brad_Haas
Guest
pulls Pope Fiction from the shelf (pp. 285-306)
donbjc:
If he committed crimes against Jews, why did the World Jewish Congress send a gift of two million lire as thanks for all the Church had done for Jews? Israel’s government estimated the number of Jews that Pius XII saved at 800,000, more than all other relief organizations combined. They planned to plant a forest with 800,000 trees in his honor.
It’s a popular myth that Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope,” but now you’ve heard the facts, so please don’t believe it.
Don, what crimes? Was it a crime for Pope Pius XII to draft the enyclical With Burning Anxiety, issued by Pius XI, which condemned anti-Semitism and identified Catholics as “spiritual Semites”? Was it his hatred of Jews that led a Nazi newspaper to say “Pius XI was a half-Jew, for his mother was a Dutch Jewess, but Cardinal Pacelli [Pius XII] is a full Jew” and “his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for … Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews”? Was it a crime to save “the 20,000 Jewish refugees from internment camps in Northern Italy” or numerous other groups of refugees in similar situations? Was it his cooperation with the Nazis that led Hitler to order him to be kidnapped?
If he committed crimes against Jews, why did the World Jewish Congress send a gift of two million lire as thanks for all the Church had done for Jews? Israel’s government estimated the number of Jews that Pius XII saved at 800,000, more than all other relief organizations combined. They planned to plant a forest with 800,000 trees in his honor.
It’s a popular myth that Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope,” but now you’ve heard the facts, so please don’t believe it.
D
donbjc
Guest
First of all I am Catholic, my parish is Holy Family in CH, CA and I was raised in a Catholic Orphanage called St Patrick’s, second of all I did not blame the Catholic Church for the Holocaust and I did not say anything against the church. I only pointed out the same as you pointed out that the Church is correct under God, but the people sometimes are not. You reiterated that when you said that Popes are not infallible(just what I said)
What makes you think that Prophets are inffalible in personal viewpoints whether it be ancient times or present times, they still are men and have their own personal views. They are only infallible when it comes to spiritual things and guiding the Church. My wife is Mormon and I get some of what I say in defense of Mormons from her, but I have also read a little in the 7 years we have been married and I think the things you say are very unfair and reflect a personal bias against the LDS church.
As a Catholic, I have my own thoughts and sometimes they do not seem to take the Catholic line, but neither do the priests I have been in contact with. They all have different spins on what we believe, so if it seems that my thoughts are anti-Catholic, you are wrong, and I am not bitter, just confused by the priests who do not agree with each other .
I’m just saying be fair do not play the race card, the polygamy card or any other past issue. It has been discussed through and through. Bring up current things that you want to discuss.
I am saying that the Catholic church has a sometimes jaded past also, and whether the Popes were infallible has nothing to do with the past wrong doings, and of course many Catholics saved Jews, more did than did not. Of course the Pope was in a difficult situation. We all are at times and that is the test, we either stand up for the right or we don’t. This thread was on genetic evidence and non of this has anything to do with genetic evidence, which you are putting too much emphasis on anyway, because
DNA research is still very new and can not be the last word in proof against the Mormons. Maybe it will be, but unless you have done the research yourself and see proof positive, it is not fair to bring up someone else’s anti-Mormon research. Why in the world would someone work so hard to prove such a thing, unless they were rabidly anti-mormon? Is that a Christian attitude?
Don
What makes you think that Prophets are inffalible in personal viewpoints whether it be ancient times or present times, they still are men and have their own personal views. They are only infallible when it comes to spiritual things and guiding the Church. My wife is Mormon and I get some of what I say in defense of Mormons from her, but I have also read a little in the 7 years we have been married and I think the things you say are very unfair and reflect a personal bias against the LDS church.
As a Catholic, I have my own thoughts and sometimes they do not seem to take the Catholic line, but neither do the priests I have been in contact with. They all have different spins on what we believe, so if it seems that my thoughts are anti-Catholic, you are wrong, and I am not bitter, just confused by the priests who do not agree with each other .
I’m just saying be fair do not play the race card, the polygamy card or any other past issue. It has been discussed through and through. Bring up current things that you want to discuss.
I am saying that the Catholic church has a sometimes jaded past also, and whether the Popes were infallible has nothing to do with the past wrong doings, and of course many Catholics saved Jews, more did than did not. Of course the Pope was in a difficult situation. We all are at times and that is the test, we either stand up for the right or we don’t. This thread was on genetic evidence and non of this has anything to do with genetic evidence, which you are putting too much emphasis on anyway, because
DNA research is still very new and can not be the last word in proof against the Mormons. Maybe it will be, but unless you have done the research yourself and see proof positive, it is not fair to bring up someone else’s anti-Mormon research. Why in the world would someone work so hard to prove such a thing, unless they were rabidly anti-mormon? Is that a Christian attitude?
Don
M
Mike_D30
Guest
No Don what you posted was inflammatory BS to make a very poorly scored point. It would be the same as us trashing and trying to invalidate the Mormon Church based on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which we didn’t do, because that has zip to do with the teachings of the Mormon Church but rather an embarrassing unfortunate incident. The preisthood ban was a TEACHING of the CHURCH! it was in their SCRIPTURES. Why is this so hard to get through your head Don? Polygamy and the Priesthood ban was a matter of DOGMA for the LDS Church. If you can point out where any poor actions of the Catholic Church were a matter of Catholic dogma, and in our scriptures instead of human failings, I will take back any criticism.
If you have issue with the Catholic Churches actions during the Holocaust why not cite examples? And THEN to make it work in this discussion quote Catholic SCRIPTURE that seems to back your points up like we did Don, instead of just trashing the Church for no reason.
You say you’re a Catholic Don, but I don’t believe you for a minute. You have anti-Catholic in disguise written all over you.
D
donbjc
Guest
Brad Haas said:
You are right of course, I watch too many history channel stuff, and just pulled something out of the hat when I was challenged to do so. I was not writing to be anti-Catholic, but to defend against what I perceived as an unfair attack on the Mormons, one of whom I love very much(my wife). I only know in my heart that the Mormon people are among the most Christian. I do not know their history, any more than I know the history of the Catholic Church.
Sorry, but this just struck me as an unfair and un-Christian attack on a group of very devoted Christians. Again why would anyone go to such great lengths to prove them wrong. I for one do not care if they are wrong or not, and would not go to such lengths as researching DNA to prove such a thing. What good does it do? We already know they are wrong, why stir up hatred and discontent by arguing the point in so many different ways.
Peace be with you and Have a good Saturday,
Don
- Status