New Study: Native Americans all descend from a single ancesteral group

[Finrock]

I do not think that I was clear, and that is my fault because I left something out.

If you want to claim that God performed a miracle and removed proof that these people were here, fine. God can do that if he wants.

If you want to refute this study, all you have to do is see where it says that the MAJORITY of their genetic code came from one set of ancestors, not all of it.

Transubtantiation is a bad comparison because it is a miracle in and of itself. Perhaps a better one would be the claim that the Church is unbroken since Peter?

Good afternoon ralphinal! I hope you are well today.

If I may, let me start by just making a general comment. One thing I’ve come to recognize is that communication can be an exceedingly slippery goal. I think my failures to communicate my point in this thread is just another testament to this fact.

To clarify, I am not claiming that God removed evidences of Book of Mormon events and peoples. Neither am I trying to refute the study. Further, I am using transubstantiation only as an example to illustrate how science should not be the basis of one’s faith. Science is good, it is useful, interesting, and can reinforce religious truth, but, I don’t believe it should be the foundation of a person’s faith.

What I’m understanding from the responses to my posts are that we should use science as our measure of truth. If science doesn’t agree with what we believe to be true, then we should reject it. If this is the sentiment of the Catholic audience here, then I simply disagree with that sentiment and further I think it is ironic considering that many Catholic beliefs are refuted by science (transubstantiation being one of them), yet Catholics believe in them despite what science says (which I don’t have a problem with because I think it is a weakness to only believe in religious truths only after you’ve experienced it empirically).

Even if this particular study absolutely vindicated the Book of Mormon, I’m still suggesting to the audience to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon based on a heavenly witness. Whatever the case may be, however, eventually the science of the world will eventually catch up to the truth. Because science at this point may not agree with all portions of the Book of Mormon, just as it doesn’t agree with all portions of the Bible, doesn’t affect it’s truthfullness. It doesn’t mean that we should reject it, any more then we should reject the Bible because science doesn’t agree with every portion of it. This just doesn’t make sense from a religious point-of-view. If you are waiting on science to prove that God exist or that the Bible is true before you will believe it, then you may be waiting for a long time. Like most things in religion, it’s not like there isn’t evidence for these things (and despite the denials of some there is evidence for the Book of Mormon), but ultimately a person is going to have to exercise faith and gain their witness of Godly things outside of the world, including outside of science. Most Catholics…most Christians…seem to agree with this principle, at least in my experience they do. I’ve seen the arguments atheist make against religion in general and non-Mormon Christians on many matters simply have to appeal to faith because science doesn’t support their religious views in these discussions. There is a reason for that, it is because God intends for us to live by faith. Where is the test of our character and of our faith if all eternal truths are manifested to us empirically?

I don’t think it is bad to learn science. I think studies like this are good and interesting. I think people have legitimate reasons to want to discuss this. This study may not support the Book of Mormon claims (although it seems that this study is neutral to the Book of Mormon claims). But regardless of what this scientific study may or may not indicate about the Book of Mormon, even if the scientific data were to be favorable to the Book of Mormon, I’m suggesting you should gain your witness of the Book of Mormon through heavenly means. If your testimony of religious truth is based on a witness from the Holy Ghost, then science all of a sudden becomes irrelevant in validating your faith.

The origin of the Book of Mormon is miraculous. Most people, when they first hear how the Book of Mormon came about, think it is unbelievable. The Book of Mormon requires faith to believe it, science is not going to help you.

As an aside to this discussion, It seems ironic to me that some Christians want to disprove the Book of Mormon. Especially when the main purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Jesus Christ:

"*For if the Book of Mormon is true, then God lives. Testimony upon testimony runs through its pages of the solemn fact that our Father is real, that he is personal, that he loves his children and seeks their happiness.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, born of Mary, “a virgin, most beautiful … above all other virgins” (see 1 Ne. 11:13–21), for the book so testifies in a description unexcelled in all literature.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is verily our Redeemer, the Savior of the world. The great purpose of its preservation and coming forth, according to its own statement, is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.” (Title page of the Book of Mormon.)*" (Gordon B. Hinckley).

After reading through what I’ve written, I realize that this post has become a general answer to all, not just your specific points. Sorry…

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

As an aside to this discussion, It seems ironic to me that some Christians want to disprove the Book of Mormon. Especially when the main purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Jesus Christ:

"*For if the Book of Mormon is true, then God lives. Testimony upon testimony runs through its pages of the solemn fact that our Father is real, that he is personal, that he loves his children and seeks their happiness.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, born of Mary, “a virgin, most beautiful … above all other virgins” (see 1 Ne. 11:13–21), for the book so testifies in a description unexcelled in all literature.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is verily our Redeemer, the Savior of the world. The great purpose of its preservation and coming forth, according to its own statement, is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.” (Title page of the Book of Mormon.)*" (Gordon B. Hinckley).

After reading through what I’ve written, I realize that this post has become a general answer to all, not just your specific points. Sorry…

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Conversely, do you believe that if the BoM is not true that Jesus is not your Redeemer and Savior of the world? Or, that God does not live?

These statements are astounding in making the BoM the foundation for your belief in Jesus Christ.

 

[Finrock]

How can they be irrelevant when the Book of Mormon is portrayed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as portraying real, historical events with real, historical peoples? Such studies should be relevant if the Book of Mormon is a historical document portraying a real history!

Hello Religio71 and good afternoon to you!

Thank you for the question. Remember, the purpose of this thread is not to discuss history, but it is intended to show that science has proven that the Book of Mormon is false and by implication that Joseph Smith is a fraud, thus implying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is false. This isn’t a question of history, it is a question of faith. In so far as science speaks to history, it is relevant. But, as I stated, insofar as someone wants to use science to prove or disprove a matter of faith, it is ultimately irrelevant.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon “…is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations…” The LDS claim is that the Book of Mormon was preserved for our time by miraculous means. It was brought forth in our time through miraculous means. The story of it’s origins is a miracle. It is, above anything else, a religious book. Yes, just like the Bible, it does take place in history and it deals with real people, but, it doesn’t purport to be a history book. The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon’s message and of it’s origin is not to be found in science, any more than the truthfulness of the Bible’s message and it’s origin is to be found in science. Science can no more tell you that the Book of Mormon came from God than it can tell you that the Bible came from God. If anyone wants to know of it’s divine origin, then they will have to get that witness from God.

“The evidence for [the Book of Mormon’s] truth, for its validity in a world that is prone
to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. Reasonable people may sincerely question its origin; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel” (Godon B. Hinckley).

Thank you for reading and responding to my post!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[PaulDupre]

Hello All,

I am going to make a few quick points on this. Wasn’t it official during the Middle ages that the Earth was Flat and the Universe rotated around the Earth? Wasn’t that the official belief of the Catholic Church back in the day?

This is absolutely false. The Church never taught that the earth is flat. The Church has always agreed with all the ancient Greek philosophers (since Pythagoras in the 6th century BC), that the earth is a sphere.

I challenge you to produce a statement from any pope teaching that the earth is flat.

Paul

 

[ralphinal]

Good afternoon ralphinal! I hope you are well today.

If I may, let me start by just making a general comment. One thing I’ve come to recognize is that communication can be an exceedingly slippery goal. I think my failures to communicate my point in this thread is just another testament to this fact.

To clarify, I am not claiming that God removed evidences of Book of Mormon events and peoples. Neither am I trying to refute the study. Further, I am using transubstantiation only as an example to illustrate how science should not be the basis of one’s faith. Science is good, it is useful, interesting, and can reinforce religious truth, but, I don’t believe it should be the foundation of a person’s faith.

What I’m understanding from the responses to my posts are that we should use science as our measure of truth. If science doesn’t agree with what we believe to be true, then we should reject it. If this is the sentiment of the Catholic audience here, then I simply disagree with that sentiment and further I think it is ironic considering that many Catholic beliefs are refuted by science (transubstantiation being one of them), yet Catholics believe in them despite what science says (which I don’t have a problem with because I think it is a weakness to only believe in religious truths only after you’ve experienced it empirically).

Even if this particular study absolutely vindicated the Book of Mormon, I’m still suggesting to the audience to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon based on a heavenly witness. Whatever the case may be, however, eventually the science of the world will eventually catch up to the truth. Because science at this point may not agree with all portions of the Book of Mormon, just as it doesn’t agree with all portions of the Bible, doesn’t affect it’s truthfullness. It doesn’t mean that we should reject it, any more then we should reject the Bible because science doesn’t agree with every portion of it. This just doesn’t make sense from a religious point-of-view. If you are waiting on science to prove that God exist or that the Bible is true before you will believe it, then you may be waiting for a long time. Like most things in religion, it’s not like there isn’t evidence for these things (and despite the denials of some there is evidence for the Book of Mormon), but ultimately a person is going to have to exercise faith and gain their witness of Godly things outside of the world, including outside of science. Most Catholics…most Christians…seem to agree with this principle, at least in my experience they do. I’ve seen the arguments atheist make against religion in general and non-Mormon Christians on many matters simply have to appeal to faith because science doesn’t support their religious views in these discussions. There is a reason for that, it is because God intends for us to live by faith. Where is the test of our character and of our faith if all eternal truths are manifested to us empirically?

I don’t think it is bad to learn science. I think studies like this are good and interesting. I think people have legitimate reasons to want to discuss this. This study may not support the Book of Mormon claims (although it seems that this study is neutral to the Book of Mormon claims). But regardless of what this scientific study may or may not indicate about the Book of Mormon, even if the scientific data were to be favorable to the Book of Mormon, I’m suggesting you should gain your witness of the Book of Mormon through heavenly means. If your testimony of religious truth is based on a witness from the Holy Ghost, then science all of a sudden becomes irrelevant in validating your faith.

The origin of the Book of Mormon is miraculous. Most people, when they first hear how the Book of Mormon came about, think it is unbelievable. The Book of Mormon requires faith to believe it, science is not going to help you.

As an aside to this discussion, It seems ironic to me that some Christians want to disprove the Book of Mormon. Especially when the main purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Jesus Christ:

"*For if the Book of Mormon is true, then God lives. Testimony upon testimony runs through its pages of the solemn fact that our Father is real, that he is personal, that he loves his children and seeks their happiness.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, born of Mary, “a virgin, most beautiful … above all other virgins” (see 1 Ne. 11:13–21), for the book so testifies in a description unexcelled in all literature.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is verily our Redeemer, the Savior of the world. The great purpose of its preservation and coming forth, according to its own statement, is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.” (Title page of the Book of Mormon.)*" (Gordon B. Hinckley).

After reading through what I’ve written, I realize that this post has become a general answer to all, not just your specific points. Sorry…

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I understand.

You do know, however, that if the Book of Mormon is false, the rest of the statements are still true? Jesus was born of a Virgin, is God, and desires the salvation of all mankind.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I am only suggesting plausibility, not probability.

Well, there you go. Maybe an explanation, but not necessarily a possibility.

You mind me of someone who tries to break down another programmer’s algorithm. Sure, what they are suggesting and possibly happen if the network packets collide - plausible, and if even probable, highly unlikely to happen.

I have not yet had a chance to actually read the study. I assume you have purchased it and read it thoroughly? I will, to the best of my ability.

However, I assure you my motives are not to determine whether the Mormon’s “account” of “Ancient America” are true (I already know your book is false), but as a study of my people (the Nuhuatl).

 

[ParkerD]

Well, there you go. Maybe an explanation, but not necessarily a possibility.

You mind me of someone who tries to break down another programmer’s algorithm. Sure, what they are suggesting and possibly happen if the network packets collide - plausible, and if even probable, highly unlikely to happen.

I have not yet had a chance to actually read the study. I assume you have purchased it and read it thoroughly? I will, to the best of my ability.

However, I assure you my motives are not to determine whether the Mormon’s “account” of “Ancient America” are true (I already know your book is false), but as a study of my people (the Nuhuatl).

Gracious,
I suppose you haven’t read along here in this dialogue very thoroughly. That’s OK, but if you had you would have noticed that I have read the studies (there are four) which I received from one of the authors by email after I had written to them with a couple of specific questions. Yes, I have “read it thoroughly”.

I hope you find something of interest in the studies. I did. I appreciated the scientists’ work and findings, very much so.

I’ll tell you what–I’ll check back through the material and see if I find anything about the Nuhuatl and could share it with you here. Peace to you.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Gracious,
I suppose you haven’t read along here in this dialogue very thoroughly. That’s OK, but if you had you would have noticed that I have read the studies (there are four) which I received from one of the authors by email after I had written to them with a couple of specific questions. Yes, I have “read it thoroughly”.

I hope you find something of interest in the studies. I did. I appreciated the scientists’ work and findings, very much so.

I’ll tell you what–I’ll check back through the material and see if I find anything about the Nuhuatl and could share it with you here. Peace to you.

You know who the “Nuhuatl” are, don’t you? They’re the people pretty much referenced in this study.

And no, I have not read all 5 pages because I’ve had to work.

 

[ParkerD]

You know who the “Nuhuatl” are, don’t you? They’re the people pretty much referenced in this study.

And no, I have not read all 5 pages because I’ve had to work.

Gracious,
I have re-looked at the studies, and find no mention of Nuhuatl or Nahua or Aztec, but there are samples for Maya and Pima. Here are two tables of information that may help you decide if some of the data will hold interest for you:

Table 1
Estimated Native American Ancestry in 13 Latin American Mestizo Populations
Group
Frequency of
the 9-Repeat
Allele at D9S1120
Mean Estimated
Native American
Ancestry across Loci
(Standard Deviation)
Estimated Native
American Ancestry
at D9S1120
Proportion of Loci with
Estimated Native American
Ancestry Less Than or
Equal to That of D9S1120
Catamarca 0.036 0.444 (0.311) 0.106 0.190
Cundinamarca 0.211 0.506 (0.271) 0.625 0.673
CVCR 0.175 0.335 (0.268) 0.462 0.705
Medellin 0.025 0.310 (0.265) 0.064 0.227
Mexico City 0.079 0.410 (0.270) 0.229 0.283
Oriente 0.211 0.528 (0.271) 0.532 0.488
Paposo 0.250 0.542 (0.300) 0.689 0.662
Pasto 0.132 0.546 (0.278) 0.365 0.249
Peque 0.275 0.567 (0.310) 0.768 0.699
Quetalmahue 0.175 0.494 (0.317) 0.436 0.425
RGS 0.050 0.262 (0.240) 0.143 0.378
Salta 0.211 0.667 (0.278) 0.591 0.348
Tucuman 0.105 0.331 (0.261) 0.265 0.422
Combined admixed sample 0.151 0.454 (0.131) 0.422 0.370

Table S1. Populations sampled in this study. Population Symbol Sample size Region Dataset
Aleut 34 17 Americas AMAS40
Apache 39 19 Americas AMAS40
Cherokee 49 10 Americas AMAS40
Chippewa 45 11 Americas AMAS40
Creek 47 4 Americas AMAS40
Dogrib 37 11 Americas AMAS40
Fox 48 2 Americas AMAS40
Huichol 42 9 Americas AMAS40
Inuit 53 3 Americas AMAS40
Jemez 41 6 Americas AMAS40
Mixtec 44 27 Americas AMAS40
NorthernPaiute 36 8 Americas AMAS40
Seri 38 9 Americas AMAS40
Sioux 43 5 Americas AMAS40
Washo 35 9 Americas AMAS40
Karitiana 51 24 Americas HGDP45
Maya 46 25 Americas HGDP45
Piapoco 50 13 Americas HGDP45
Pima 40 21 Americas HGDP45
Surui 52 21 Americas HGDP45
Chukchi 33 22 East-Central Asia AMAS40
Koryaks 32 19 East-Central Asia AMAS40
AltaiKazakh 13 14 East-Central Asia AMAS40
Mongola-OuterMongolia 20 20 East-Central Asia AMAS40
NorthernAltai 12 2 East-Central Asia AMAS40
SouthernAltai 11 5 East-Central Asia AMAS40
Cambodian 19 9 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Dai 16 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Daur 27 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Han 24 34 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Han-NorthernChina 23 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Hezhen 30 9 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Japanese 31 29 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Lahu 15 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Miao 22 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Mongola-InnerMongolia 25 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Naxi 14 9 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Oroqen 28 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
She 26 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Tu 17 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Tujia 21 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Uygur 9 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Xibo 10 9 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Yakut 29 25 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Yi 18 10 East-Central Asia HGDP45
Balochi 2 24 South Asia HGDP45

 

[ParkerD]

Gracious,
Please do take the time to read what I had written in my earlier posts on the subject of these studies. I tried to describe the studies in a summary form as best I could, besides what was already available from the UCDavis article and the abstract that is available on-line.

All the best to you.

 

[GodIsGracious]

ParkerD, I’ll read the thread when I can.

In your list, “Mexico City” is listed. That is in the heart of what used to be the Aztec empire.

And the term “Nuhuatl” is actually referring to pretty much most of Americas, perhaps more than just Central America. It’s the “native peoples” word for themselves.

“Aztec” - I know for sure, maybe “Mayan” - I have to confirm - and definitely “Hispanic” and “Latin” are terms made up of Euro-centric people when they came over and “discovered” the Nuhuatl, who, I am sure, did not realize they were lost.

 

[Jerusha]

“Hispanic” and “Latin” are terms made up of Euro-centric people when they came over and “discovered” the Nuhuatl, who, I am sure, did not realize they were lost.

:clapping: LOL Welcome to the debate. They have no idea how racist they are, and the unutterable gall they have, in telling who they think we are.

 

[ParkerD]

LOL Welcome to the debate. They have no idea how “racist” they are, and the “unutterable gall” they have, in telling who they think we are.

Jerusha,
If by “they” you have included myself, then I had better clarify that I hold no notion of your ancestral background at all, nor of Gracious’ background, nor of any person who would be inferred in this study. My opinion would be that some of the mixing of DNA that is represented by the 65% group whose DNA doesn’t match the particular characteristic cited by the study, could be descendants of Lamanites, but those would mostly be in Central America and perhaps Brazil, with the possibility of some in Mexico and Colombia.

As far as I’m concerned, you’re whoever you want to be. I assume you are doing that, and enjoying the result, hopefully. I assume you feel that you have a noble, special heritage, and I totally agree with that. Have a nice weekend.

 

[Finrock]

Conversely, do you believe that if the BoM is not true that Jesus is not your Redeemer and Savior of the world? Or, that God does not live?

These statements are astounding in making the BoM the foundation for your belief in Jesus Christ.

Good evening RebeccaJ! I hope your day has been great and your evening has been peaceful.

Thank you for your questions. I can see why you would ask the questions you do and I’ll see if I can clarify what those quotes are saying or not saying. First, let me state that the quotes aren’t saying that only if the Book of Mormon is true (meaning true scripture), then those things are true. They are saying that if the Book of Mormon is true scripture, then those things are necessarily true. There is a logic rule that speaks to why the reverse of those statements do not mean the conclusions are false, but instead of getting in to all that, I’ll just state that the reverse of those statements do not mean that the conclusions are false. If we reverse the statements, then it only follows that the Book of Mormon claims may or may not be true.

However, the important thing I was pointing out is that if the Book of Mormon is true scripture, then necessarily it’s scriptural claims must be true. And what does the Book of Mormon primarily claim and what is it self-proclaimed purpose? It is to testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, and the Savior of mankind. Given this, I would think every Christian would be praying that it is true!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Hi ralphinal!

I understand.

Great. Thanks for taking part in this dialogue with me. I do appreciate it and I’ve enjoyed it.

You do know, however, that if the Book of Mormon is false, the rest of the statements are still true? Jesus was born of a Virgin, is God, and desires the salvation of all mankind.

Of course. As I posted to RebeccaJ because she had a similar concern, those statements aren’t saying that only if the Book of Mormon is true, then those things are true. They are saying, however, if the Book of Mormon is true scripture, then those things are necessarily true. And given that the Book of Mormon’s main purpose and claim is to testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, and Savior of mankind, I would think that more Christians would be hoping that it is true.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Good evening RebeccaJ! I hope your day has been great and your evening has been peaceful.

Thank you for your questions. I can see why you would ask the questions you do and I’ll see if I can clarify what those quotes are saying or not saying. First, let me state that the quotes aren’t saying that only if the Book of Mormon is true (meaning true scripture), then those things are true. They are saying that if the Book of Mormon is true scripture, then those things are necessarily true. There is a logical rule that speaks to why the reverse of those statements do not mean the conclusions are false, but instead of getting in to all that, I’ll just state that the reverse of those statements do not mean that the conclusions are false. If we reverse the statements, then it only follows that the Book of Mormon claims may or may not be true.

However, the important thing I was pointing out is that if the Book of Mormon is true scripture, then necessarily it’s scriptural claims must be true. And what does the Book of Mormon primarily claim and what is it self-proclaimed purpose? It is to testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, and the Savior of mankind. Given this, I would think every Christian would be praying that it is true!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I see, I suppose. It is also the foundation of a false religion, so no, we don’t pray any such thing.

 

[Finrock]

I see, I suppose.

You don’t have to get so excited about it! I’m kidding. I’m actually glad that there is some understanding for us.

It is also the foundation of a false religion, so no, we don’t pray any such thing.

I understand and respect your sentiment, but did you know that not all Christians feel the same way as you do? Some non-Mormon Christians do hope that the Book of Mormon is true and many of those eventually find out that it is true and they are converted and are baptized in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thank you. You have been kind enough to read and respond to my posts and I appreciate that. Have a good night!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

I understand and respect your sentiment, but did you know that not all Christians feel the same way as you do? Some non-Mormon Christians do hope that the Book of Mormon is true and many of those eventually find out that it is true and they are converted and are baptized in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thank you. You have been kind enough to read and respond to my posts and I appreciate that. Have a good night!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

And did you know that most Christians would see right through the defects of Mormon claims? Mormonism has nothing that a Christian should want or desire. If a Christian is seeking a deeper understanding of Christ, they should prayerfully look to Christian belief and understanding. Not to the errors of Mormonism.

 

[Finrock]

And did you know that most Christians would see right through the defects of Mormon claims? Mormonism has nothing that a Christian should want or desire. If a Christian is seeking a deeper understanding of Christ, they should prayerfully look to Christian belief and understanding. Not to the errors of Mormonism.

I didn’t know that and I, personally, haven’t experienced anything that would lead me to that conclusion. My experience has been much different. There is much that traditional Christianity and LDS Christianity share in common. I’ve spoken with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of non-Mormon Christians who have desired and respected much of what the LDS church teaches and stands for. As a matter of fact, in my experience, only the most polemical critics who, for one reason or another, have let hate take over their lives, do not find anything in the Mormon church that they desire, respect, or agree with. But, to come across someone like that has, by far, been the exception in my life.

If nothing else, I certainly see so much in Catholicism that is wonderful and desirable.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, and personal attack is a common tactic among Mormons, passive aggressive as they may be.

You were not originally speaking of commonalities, you were speaking of converting Christians away from Christianity. This, I know, is why Mormons come here. You are proselyting.