My First Encounters with Institutional Mormonism

[Guest]

Faqs,
When you contradict what the brethren teach... Does it mean you are wrong or that they are wrong?

I don't contradict the Brethren..... I contradict the false assumptions, beliefs, and interpretations of the anti-mormon.... YOU.

Having been an anti-mormon..... I simply now know more than you.

The anti-mormon interpretation of our scriptures, our leaders words and the totality thereof is NOT Mormonism, it's anti-mormon. Mormonism has far more facts and details which entirely debunk anti-mormon claims.

It's just like I've shown above. Even the DNA science entirely debunks the anti-mormon claim.
Even if we take the claim at face value that "every single native American" is descended from Lehi, well in fact they actually ARE.... Thus, either way you cut it, the anti-mormon claim is bunk.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey LDS,

Thus, either way you cute it, anti-mormon claims concerning the DNA is ONE BIG LIE!!!!

Are you suggesting that an anti-Mormon is appealing, delightful, and charming while they lie?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_SteelHead]

So when the brethren have consistently, persistently and repeatedly taught that Lehi is the father of the Lamanites they were wrong. Thank you for the clarification.

As to knowing more than me..... I greatly doubt it. I guess that makes you a liar.

[_Stormy Waters]

Having been an anti-mormon..... I simply now know more than you.

Anyone who was once a apologist could make the same claim. Except most of them don't seem to have the need to mention it in every other post. Also this is a naked "appeal to authority" expect in this case the authority is yourself.

[_brade]

Mormons had LONG known that most natives of the America's were of Asiatic decent.

"You native Americans who are called Indians--who are you? Where did you come from?..

...The Book of Mormon tells how your forefathers came from Jerusalem about 600 years before the birth of Jesus Christ."

Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1974.

[_bcspace]

After more than a decade still simplistically reading are we?

I still haven't mastered the apologetic art of ignoring what is plainly written to see the hidden truths only apologists can divine.

Yes, well I'm still wondering when this...

Mormons believe that there are genetic ties between Native Americans and Middle Eastern populations.

...became doctrine.

I suppose one might argue that by implication, but even before your own apostasy, the Church published Sorensen's work as a plausible explanation an LDS person might accept and not be in conflict with doctrine (else the Church wouldn't have published it). DNA is not even a factor in Book of Mormon historicity.

[_Darth J]

I "laughed" at Murphy DNA (then Southerton).....

Mormons had LONG known that most natives of the America's were of Asiatic decent.
There was nothing "new" by such a revelation.
Lamanites were always everyone Non-Nephite, and the Book of Mormon's version of the Bibles "Gentile".

Mormons NEVER have believed that Lamanites were "only" those descended from Lamen/Lemuel.

That was an anti-mormon strawman created by Murphy and Southerton.

Further, Murphy and Southerton misused the DNA sciences to make their claims.
There are many problems with their claims, but the most important one they entirely ignore is the fact that due to genetic drift, Lehi's DNA, whatever it was, WOULD in fact be in most natives of the America's, because enough time has passed. Yes, it wouldn't be the dominant/detectable DNA (again whatever it was), but it would be in nearly every native.

Thus, either way you cut it, anti-mormon claims concerning the DNA somehow "debunking Mormonism" is ONE BIG LIE!!!!
I and other LDS had LONG resolved the issues of DNA and Mormonism well before DNA came out. Anti-mormons long before had used "body typing" study's to try and debunk Mormonism. DNA was simply a "new" version of that same theme, a new "twist" on the same anti-mormon argument. It wasn't true then, and it's not true now.

How fondly I remember that song I learned in Primary:

Book of Mormon stories that my teacher tells to me,
Are about the Lamanites in a richly anaphoric lineage history full of loan-shifted words and subtle clues so we can conform the text to the evidence,
Long ago a small portion of their fathers came from far across the sea while most of them were of Asiatic descent and then they interbred with this huge native population that is not mentioned one single time in the thousand years between leaving Jerusalem and Moroni burying the plates,
Giv’n the land of Mesoamerica but with prophecies that apply to the United States if they lived righteously.

Kind of hard to make those lyrics fit the beat, though.

[_ldsfaqs]

So when the brethren have consistently, persistently and repeatedly taught that Lehi is the father of the Lamanites they were wrong. Thank you for the clarification.

As to knowing more than me..... I greatly doubt it. I guess that makes you a liar.

I know I know more than you, because you just lied misrepresenting what I said.
I said the anti-mormon was wrong, not LDS leaders.
I also know for sure I know more than you, I've actually been an ignorant anti-mormon like you. I know your ignorance better than the back of my hand.

[_bcspace]

"You native Americans who are called Indians--who are you? Where did you come from?..

...The Book of Mormon tells how your forefathers came from Jerusalem about 600 years before the birth of Jesus Christ."

Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1974.

Principal ancestors.

prin·ci·pal [prin-suh-puhl]
adjective

1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost.

[_ldsfaqs]

Having been an anti-mormon..... I simply now know more than you.

Anyone who was once a apologist could make the same claim. Except most of them don't seem to have the need to mention it in every other post. Also this is a naked "appeal to authority" expect in this case the authority is yourself.

No, you can't make the same claim, because I'm both a convert and a basic believer/apologist who THEN became anti-mormon.

I'm at minimum One Step ahead of you all, not to mention being a convert also, which means I have a more objective and experienced background.