Apparently a topic in Institute class is about the similarities between mormons and Maoris. Three heavens, we become gods, a prophecy about the true church coming back and voila, the mormon missionaries appeared. So all the Maori's joined the church, and basically all of NZ converted. Pretty much proves mormonism right. Right?

Anyone familiar with the issues involved and the history of the church in New Zealand?

He loved the Maori people, and a huge factor in his later informal apostasy was watching Maori families being torn apart when a few would convert and others wouldn't...

And I note the Hinkster said about the "we become gods" belief that he wasn't sure whether they taught that one or not...

Not a very comforting announcement from God's elect mouthpiece...

I find that hard to believe. I'll have to look up Maori mythology when I get home.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of google.

Or in this case Wikipedia. The wikipedia article on Maori religion doesn't mention three heavens, and its description doesn't sound anything like Mormonism. It does say that many Maori embraced Christianity in the early 19th century, and then later many joined the LDS church. So my guess is being new converts to Christianity, they were prime candidates for believing Mormon theology.

This post reminds me of Hugh Nibley. I used to read his books and think "WOW, the ancients believe the EXACT SAME THINGS WE BELIEVE!" It was much later that I realized he was combining small pieces of beliefs from a lot of unrelated religions and peoples to make it sound like "the ancients" (never clearly defined) believed the same thing we do. Turns out considering any single ancient religion on its own reveals that it is nothing like Mormonism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2011 03:07PM by bubbleboy.

Yep...especially when it comes to Nibley.

My mother lives in awe of the man, because she took a class from him at BYU and didn't understand any of it. Going over her head was proof that he was wise, right?

I've read Teachings of the Joseph Smith Paparaii, and some of his other things...the man rambles, and doesn't show his work. Just the preliminaries for the founding of FARMS.

Call me old fashioned, but I tend to use my mythology collections as references-
And according to The Illustrated Dictionary of Mythology by Philip Wilkerson, Mormonism is not very much like The Maori myths.

Maori religion is nothing like mormonism except a deep respect for geneology - not record keeping, but a respect for ancestors - and that everything has a "spirit". Their religion is based on what many religions that have a reliance on the earth for survival, namely sun, sky, earth, water, ground.

All the Maoris didn't join the church, and all of NZ didn't convert. Nice FPR's at Institute. No data of course.

From a true blue New Zealander myself, I can testify that those claims are absolute rubbish. Where do they come up with this stuff?

Sure, Maori and other Pacific Islanders tend to be attracted to the Church's teachings perhaps more so than others, but think about it - the Church targets those who are less well off and vulnerable, and well, let's face it, Maori and PI'ers are known to be at the bottom of the economic heap (just stating a fact). You see it other places too, poorer people are more likely to listen to the missionaries and convert to the Church. Why? I don't know.

Anyway, I can't say I'm an expert in Maori religious beliefs (which is shameful, given my -very distant- Maori ancestry), but from what I remember learning in school and from my Nana (who is 1/2 Maori), it's nothing like the Mormon religion. Apart from, as drilldoc points out, the very strong "spiritual" connections they have with their ancestors and their belief that everything has a spirit.

The Maori people have a very rich culture and I feel it an insult to compare their religious beliefs and practices with Mormonism!

And as for the whole of NZ converting? Hell no! Mormons only make up like 1 or 2% of the entire population. I wonder where they got their facts from? What lies!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2011 07:55PM by sarah.

What? The Maori religion was founded by a sex addicted fraudster, too?

an so the BoM was about their ancestors. Being very family oriented and reverent of their ancestors, they were attracted to the Mormon cult because of the lie they were told.

Now that DNA shows they originated in SE Asia, the Mormon cult no longer talks about the Lamanites and the "Isles of the Sea" gospel spreading prophecy, but too late, Polynesians are dyed in the wool cultural Mormons, whether they take all the mumbo jumbo seriously or not.

The Asian connection wasn't even via the Nth American Asian Lamanite blood, but direct over the Pacific, so they have zero connection with the "promised land" of the Americas.

In Auckland NZ you can just about see the next chapel from the one you're at, but they are fenced off and get vandalised like any other building. A community that respected Mormonism like sacred things of their own creation would have more respect for the buildings.

ozpoof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The Asian connection wasn't even via the Nth
> American Asian Lamanite blood, but direct over the
> Pacific, so they have zero connection with the
> "promised land" of the Americas.
>

TSCC may like to call Islanders "Lamanites", but if, as most Mos acknowledge, the Islanders descended from the Pacific voyages led by Hagoth, then they would actually be "Nephites".

According to the BOM, Hagoth and his ocean-going group were derived from those folks that descended from Nephi and his colony, rather than from the cursed Laman and Lemuel and their peoples.

Don't ask me how their skin got darkened! Maybe Joe Smith can explain it...

Either way, they were supposed to be descended from a patriarch of Israel, Manasseh. So their genetics should reflect a Hebrew origin.

Who knew the Hebrews had a colony in Taiwan? Mysterious ways...

I think the worst thing about the mormoroid conversions is the way they end up coercing natives to start wearing white shirts and black ties, like '50s salesmen or something ... depressing Western uniformity replacing the colorful native (and more climate-appropriate) clothing.

I agree. No offense to all Americans, but I've always been annoyed at how the church tries to Americanize everywhere they go. It just doesn't fit other cultures. That's just my opinion anyway, I hope no-one takes it the wrong way =)

I agree, Sarah.

+2

I was in Phnom Penh for a month once when I was still active but not believing. I went to church and got invited to the mission president's place for lunch with some senior missionaries. I told them that I was taking a ond-day trip up to Angkor Wat, and that got them started on the whole Book of Mormon connection and Tower of Babel and I don't-know-what. They all remarked about how Angkor Wat, the Great Pyramids, and the Mayan temples were related to the Tower of Babel and proved the BoM and "the scriptures" because the various sites were all built within a few years of each other and were all similar looks and use. My brain was about to explode. I finally had to say something like, "Uh, you know,... Angkor Wat is not very old, and was built only in the 12th and 13th centuries. The Great Pyramids date back to 2500 BC, and the Mayan people began about 2000 BC and endure as a people to this day. Angkor Wat was a series of Hindu/Buddhist temples. The Great Pyramids were tombs, and the Mayan temples were devoted to human sacrifice. The were not alike, didn't look alike, were built thousands of years apart, and used for different purposes."

There were crickets at first, and then one of the old guys protested what I said about Angkor Wat, that it was "very old--incredibly old," not "young" as I had inferred.

I tried to explain that 800-900 years old just isn't old at all in the scheme of things, and that the temple sites looked older than they were because of the destructive and dramatic forces of the jungle plants. None of my comments sat well with them, but it was a testimony to me that people really stretch out on shaky limbs to try to rationalize and give meaning to Joe's Book About Nothing.

In not sharing the full truth of the difference..would this be like "milk before meat"..I was recently told that Mormons don't
know anything about this term ? They are in their 60's so I assume the same was taught all around Salt Lake ?

I am a Ngapuhi Kaumatua (elder) and a 5th generation Mormon. I lectured in Maori at the University of Auckland for 13 years and have at the present time 3 daughters lecturing there as well. Two other children of mine are teachers in Maori Kura Kaupapa schools and we are all very happy to be Mormons. I am frequently consulted by a wide variety of Tertiary Education providers including Wananga o Aotearoa, Wananga o Raukawa, The Regent Training Center etc. I spent almost 20 years teaching in New Zealand secondary schools before University lecturing.

In association with Television New Zealand we have produced programs screened in the Waka Huia series that have been very well received. One such program aired several months ago.

I am a Justice of the Peace and currently sit on the District Court bench.

I must say I have seldom seen so much ignorance displayed by any group on the topic of Maori, and of Mormons as I have seen on this site. Please do Maori and Mormon Maori the courtesy of more serious research before resorting to malicious drivel.

The Book of Mormon is "religious drivel". Your Doctrine and Covenants, section 28 is allegedly the words of your Lord to take the Book of Mormon to the descendants of the Lamanites.

The first LDS mission to them was to the Seneca Nation in New York. They are not descended from Hebrew people. D&C 57:4 identifies the American Indian west of the Mississippi as being Jews. They are not from Hebrew ancestors either.

Your people were introduced to the Book of Mormon only after it was first taken to the American Indian. You are not genetically related to America's indigenous people from a timeline of the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

You are free to believe whatever pseudohistory you choose, but the American Indian were initially designated as "Lamanites". They are not what Mormonism teaches and neither are you.

I am under no obligation to believe your delusion. If you do not agree with what you read here, then don't read it.

Maori believed in 12 Heavens divided into 3 groupings, Tikitikiorangi, Rangituhaha and Ranginui. The Apostle Paul seem to have written about this in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41. The Whare Wananga (School of Priests) "Marino Kato" taught that the purpose of mortality (Tutangatatanga) was to qualify oneself for Godhood (Tuatuatanga). That Whare Wananga was set up by Nukutawhiti (Captain of the voyaging waka "Ngatokimatawhaorua" in the 11th Century, almost 800 years before the Mormons arrived in New Zealand. They didn't introduce the subject to Maori. We already had it!

Is this a good publication about your traditions?

http://www.archive.org/stream/someaspectsofmao01bestuoft#page/n3/mode/2up

When Europeans in 1840 asked some 40 or so Maori Tohunga (Priests) where the Maori came from they answered from the East, ..."Hawaiki Panamaho i te hononga o nga wai e rua" (from Panama on an isthmus dividing 2 great oceans). They came on a waka named "TeUruao" captained by Hawaiinui, navigator Matariki and crew who were all named. Maori also knew what the craft carried as cargo which included Polynesian Cotton which was a hibrid of the American cotton variety. The Book of Mormon told of such a voyage but provided a different Captain's name "Hagoth."

The language of the indigenous people of Middle and South America is Quechua. A 1930s study of this language by a German linguist stated that over 70% of it is Polynesian. In Chile an axe is "Toki" as it is in Maori, The Incas call lightning "Vira" and Maori say "Uwira." "Aumatua" in Chilean is "Kaumatua" in Maori. There are hundreds of similar comparisons.

An Australian study into Blood Typing found that Type A characteristic in Maori is not found in South East Asia but is found in the indigenous people of the Americas. Read too "American Indians in the Pacific" by Thor Heyerdahl and you have another Non Mormon presenting a similar scenario to Mormons and Maori.

Tapir Rider, If you bury your head in the sand your ears will never hear the truth nor will your eyes see. I suggest you allow Maori to speak for themselves and don't presume you have their mandate to speak for them.

Then will you do the same thing for my fellow American Indians?

No matter what fantasy your religion has sold you, my ancestors did NOT come from Israel on a boat.

Itzpapalotl, are you aware that the Mormon First Presidency told the Maori that they are better than the American Indian?

http://lds.org/new-era/1981/06/maori-traditions-and-the-mormon-church?lang=eng

“The Lord … directed their course away from this continent [America] to their [the Polynesian ancestors’] island homes, that they might not be left to be preyed upon and destroyed by the more wicked part of the House of Israel whose descendants still roam upon this continent in a fallen and degraded state. … This is the secret of the overruling hand of providence which has been over you all from that time until you received the gospel through the preaching of the elders, and until the present time. …"

“And we repeat, the reason that few of the islands of the sea have been more highly favored and blessed in the Lord than those of your brethren of this continent is because of the worthiness of your forefathers who were led away and separated from their brethren of this continent, and because of the blessing of the Lord which has attended you, their children, from that time to the present.”

In 1981 the Ensign printed this drivel, claiming that the American Indian were in a fallen and degraded state and that the Maori were "more highly favored and blessed". Just goes to show how recently the Mormons have stirred up garbage ideas of one group of people towards another.

"I suggest you allow Maori to speak for themselves and don't presume you have their mandate to speak for them."

You make a false accusation of me. I have not claimed a mandate to speak for your people. But you do not speak for your people when you erroneously mix your real history with fantasy. You degrade your true history and allow yourself to be made subordinate to an outdated Eurocentric philosophy.

Do you know what was in North America during the time period when your people were just beginning to colonize New Zeland? Near St. Louis, Mo was a city called Cahokia. In 1250 AD it was larger than London. That does not fit the nonsensical Book of Mormon delusion of an idle, cursed and wicked, loathsome people who had destroyed the followers of Jesus.

Earliest human colonisation of New Zeland about 1280-1300 AD, and no earlier.
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/research_details.asp?Research_Content_ID=50

This does not fit the Book of Mormon fantasy. You do not have indigenous American haplotypes. You might wish to study the research of LDS scientist Ugo Perego as a beginning point for the origins of America's indigenous people.

Heyerdahl's theory has been found to be in error for the colonization of the Pacific. The sweet potato was his motivation. Very recent studies now indicate that Andean mariners overlapped with Polynesian on Easter Island, introducing the sweet potato there. It was taken by Polynesians into the Pacific, not by Americans.

My apologies for misspelling New Zealand.

Here is one more source for the arrival of humans to New Zealand. This is long, long after the mythical Hagoth.

Dating the late prehistory dispersal of Polynesians to New Zealand using the commensal Pacific rat, 2008
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/22/7676.full.pdf+html

Your story doesn't add up. Just what is "Autama" in "Chilean"?
Also, many there are many different oral traditions of the origins of Maori people, but the science says you are wrong.

What are your sources? Because ours are pretty damn good.

All I'm hearing is some serious parallelomania.

In corinthians 15:40-58 Paul is NOT talking about three degrees of glory.

He is explaining duality - that humans have a body and and a spirit. The body dies but the spirit lives.

Mormons have taken this out of context by only quoting Corinthians 15:40-41

Just as in the case of quetzalcoatl being like jesus. (they are not similar it turns out, but mormons will tell you that they are)

Joseph Smith took the idea of three degrees of glory from the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. We know this because Smith actually commented on Swedenborg.

Somehow, every idea that was floating around in the 1800s was "adopted" into Mormonism.
All you have to do is read the Journal of Discourses to see
what was taught as god's truth by those wacky early Mormons.


BTW, most ancient religions had a concept of 7 heavens, seventh heaven being the highest.
7 was considered the perfect number.

And a huge element of his later informal apostasy was seeing how Maori families would split up when one or two members would convert, and the rest would hold to their traditional beliefs.

He was acutely sensitive to this, and when he returned stateside, he majored in philosophy at the University of Utah, going through what he described as a hellish process, and eventually talking my grandmother "out" of the church as well. There was no formal resignation process back then, but an aunt expanded the family tradition of apostasy by marrying a Catholic and blowing off the church court that was called as a result. She was excommunicated shortly afterwards...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2011 12:53PM by SL Cabbie.

I'm not an expert on Maori religion, but I do know a few things about my own tribal spirituality, and I also remember feeling the pressure to draw some correlation between my ancestral traditions and the Book of Mormon. In my case, I did not join the church because of some perceived similarity between the two; rather, I joined the church as a young man and then worked backwards to make it all fit. Unfortunately, the more I tried to re-work my own tribal religion to accommodate Mormon idealogy, the more I missed the authentic richness of my own tradition. Years later, I removed the cultural blinders and discovered that any similarities between the church and the teaching of my elders were rather superficial and coincidental. I also discovered that my ancestral tradition was far more complex and meaningful than anything I ever learned in Mormonism.