ML/NJ
Posted on 09/02/2009 2:24:14 PM PDT by delacoert
One of the attractive components to Mormon theology was the notion that Mormons were a chosen people, and both figuratively and literally part of the House of Israel. The Book of Mormon also offered the idea that Israel was all over the earth throughout time in various times and places and that they are always the chosen people. Mormon youth (and adults) who receive a Patriarchal Blessing are personally informed of their own lineage as a member of the House of Israel. So, how does this compare to other religions’ views of Israel and Judaism?
Christian sects have a Jewish problem. Christ was a Jew who either fulfilled or rejected the faith in which he was raised. Christianity shed basic tenets of Judaism including circumcision, dietary restrictions, the authority of the rabbis, and rituals that became impractical as the religion gained non-Jewish converts. Early Christians invested in highlighting any Old Testament scripture that could plausibly be considered Messianic to bolster their claim that Jesus was divine. Many early Christians sought to discredit the Jews to make it clear that despite their common roots, it was the parent religion that was in error, not its offspring. A negative cycle of Jewish antagonism ensued which resulted in some of the worst atrocities of humanity, including the Inquisition and the Holocaust.
From its inception, Mormonism re-invented the relationship of Christianity to its Hebrew roots. The Book of Mormon purports to be written by Hebraic people who openly worshiped Jesus Christ and knew directly about him, hundreds of years before his birth. In proposing a pre-Christ Christology, Mormonism created an alternate Jewish history with a very recognizable and familiar Jesus Christ in the role of Messiah. Even Isaiah is quoted at length to further solidify the notion that Isaiah was specifically talking about Jesus.
From the very beginning, Mormons have viewed themselves as an actual part of the House of Israel. This belief in being part of “the chosen people” gives Mormons today and early Mormons a sense of purpose. Some of the “Israel-centric” beliefs of Mormonism:
When apostasy struck in Kirtland (over the bank failure and economic crisis of 1837), elders were sent under Heber C. Kimball’s leadership to England to preach. Within 8 months, there were two thousand converts to Mormonism, many of whom are ancestors of current members of the church. Most of these new converts (through Patriarchal Blessings) were assigned to the tribe of Ephraim. Is the claim that the British descend from the tribe of Ephraim credible? Interestingly, the idea that the Celts were descended from the Hebrews (tribe of Ephraim) has many non-LDS and LDS proponents. This idea became popular in England, especially during the Victorian age; critics considered it an attempt to justify colonialism. The catalyst for its popularity was a book written in 1871 by Edward Hine.
A few reasons Celts are believed to descend from the tribe of Ephraim:
I am thinking genetic testing pretty well killed this, didn’t it?
(Same comment posted on an unrelated thread earlier today)
There was a huge push in the late Renaissance through the Victorian era for rulers in Europe to somehow establish a religious authority of their rule or country by claiming some sort of descent from Israel or the early church. They wanted to prove their nation was ordained by God and in many cases, made up entire lineages and histories. Many of these are still being used a source material in modern Anglo-Israeli type groups and beliefs. For example, the Scottish historian(sic) Sir Lawrence Gardner has written and documented extensively from these old documents how Scotland was actually the 'new Jerusalem' and the Scottish kings were the rightful rulers of Britain through such (as well as a bunch of other nutty connections.)
It makes for fascinating fiction, but only if you understand it as such and the motivation behind it.
Cognative disonance doesn't dampen out in religious cults.
Ugh!
Cognitive dissonance
You seemed to miss the key word "adoption".
I would be interested to see you explain why adopted children would have the same genetic ancestory?
Why use strawman arguments against Mormonism? Why not just use the fact that all prophets and prophecy is false?
Where to start? How about at one the links? The Celtic and Hebrew names.
At that link,:
Gomer = Welsh
According to Hosea (ch.1) the Lost Ten Tribes would be identifiable as the Sons of Gomer which seemed to hint at the possibility of amalgamation with Gomer son of Japhet (Genesis ch.10). The Welsh call themselves Cumbri, Cymri, Kumeri, and Gumbri and their language “Kumeraeg” or “Gumeraeg”. The Welsh name Montgomery means “Mons Gomericus” or Mountain of Gomer!:
No, it doesn’t. Momtgomery comes from not Gomer but guman which means man and from which we get the word human.
And it’s all down hill from there.
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
mega dittoes! Just so much story-telling.
I am thinking genetic testing pretty well killed this, didn’t it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes.
ALL of the DNA evidence supports Native Americans being of east asian descent. There has never even been a trace of middle eastern dna found in any pre-Columbus Native American remains.
I’ve never seen the adoption bit before; that seems new and a bit inconsistent with the little I know about Mormons.
And, for the record, I am not making any arguments about Mormonism, one way or the other.
All I know about Mormonism is that the founders snaked my fraternity’s inititiation and turned the fraternity handshakes of the first 4 degrees of masonry into tokens to get into levels of heaven -— and here I just used them to get free beer.
I think the poster is not arguing that the Mormon’s themselves are not genetically Jews and killed the idea that the Book of Mormon could be taken seriously on matters of history; but that the native Americans are in no way shape or form descended of a semitic people.
What is of interest to me is that many of the same people who champion the ability of this scientific technique to show that Jewish people and Native American people do not share a very recent common ancestor reject utterly the exact same technique when used to show that humans and chimps share a common ancestor more recently than either shares ancestry with a gorilla.
“but that the native Americans are in no way shape or form descended of a semitic people.”
Correct.
“do not share a very recent common ancestor reject utterly the exact same technique when used to show that humans and chimps share a common ancestor more recently than either shares ancestry with a gorilla”
Incorrect (as to me). I am not a luddite, and am very willing to believe that Genesis is an executive summary.
What is your logic behind accepting the technique for establishing the common ancestry of Semites east Asians and native Americans, but rejecting the exact same methodology for gorillas humans and chimps?
“What is your logic behind accepting the technique for establishing the common ancestry of Semites east Asians and native Americans, but rejecting the exact same methodology for gorillas humans and chimps?”
Your preconceived beliefs caused you to misread my post.
You probably want to apologize.
To me it seems that you said “correct” to my cite of the use of the methodology to discern that native Americans and east Asians are more closely related than either is to a Semitic person. You then said “incorrect” to my cite of the use of the same methodology to discern that chimps and humans are more closely related then either is to a gorilla.
If it was not your intent to do so, then you need to improve your writing to better convey your meaning.
Pretty sure you got that exactly backwards, but I defer.
“many of the same people” who accept one reject the other.
That is in no way incorrect just because it is not applicable to you specifically. We seem to be of a like mind on the subject.
I noticed it when the subject of common ancestry of native Americans came up, many FR creationists lauded the use of the technique to show how wrong the Book of Mormon was, and yet they utterly reject the utilization of the exact same technique when used to show that humans and chimps share most recent common ancestry among the apes.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
ML/NJ
The Mormon assertion that spiritual adoption equates to being made a member of one of the tribes of Israel is every bit as ludicrous as the story of a Hebrew migration to the Americas.
The notion that Mormons were chosen to become part of the House of Israel is untrue both figuratively (through a heretical misinterpretation of the meaning of spiritual adoption) and literally (through a fictitious story of the migration of the lost tribes to the Americas).
Why use straw man arguments against Mormonism?
No straw man arguments from me. Just plain old arguments. There are no such thing as Lamanites in the Americas. Mormons are not adopted into the tribe of Ephraim or any other tribe of Israel. The Mormon doctrine of pre-Christ Christology is a heresy.
Why not just use the fact that all prophets and prophecy is false?
No, but Book of Mormon prophets and prophesy is false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
