DNA Vs Mormonism

[ibkc]

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,510-1-3067-1,00.html

I’ve only found one typed transcript

joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

I skimmed the transcript. I will listen to the soundfiles when I have time (“Top Chef” is calling me now, though.) The transcript is of an Old Testament scholar being very polite to her Mormon audience. It is interesting, but there is nothing earth-shattering there. But I promise I will listen to the soundfiles as soon as I have a chance.

 

[teancum79]

Sounds good. I think I had a few other odds and ends somewhere I’ll try to post them here when I get a chance. Enjoy the show.

Here’s a link to another discussion board with some info.
rsdforum.proboards12.com/index.cgi?board=mormon&action=display&thread=3233

 

[MelanieAnne]

Teancum, I’m curious ~ if someone conclusively proved to you that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century forgery, would you reject the LDS religion?

 

[teancum79]

That an interesting question.

I’ve reached a point where my faith and belief in the LDS faith is not centered in the Book of Mormon sure it helps and I’ve learned from it a lot, but my faith is centered in a knowledge that God can and does answer prayers. So no I’ll not turn my back on the path God has guided me to because of some “proof” anymore than I would reject Christ because some historian proved he was a myth.

A guy I knew a while back had a shirt (I think it was a band) anyhow along with some odd looking people it said “you can not destroy what you did not create”. My faith is centered in God and Christ. I love finding evidence of various things. I take comfort in knowing that Jerusalem is a real place, but even if it’s reality was in question and some schoolers claimed they could disprove it ever was it would not lesson my faith in Christ.

Sorry that’s probably a much longer answer than you wanted, but I felt a simple no would not really do.

 

[LaMar]

That an interesting question.

I’ve reached a point where my faith and belief in the LDS faith is not centered in the Book of Mormon sure it helps and I’ve learned from it a lot, but my faith is centered in a knowledge that God can and does answer prayers. So no I’ll not turn my back on the path God has guided me to because of some “proof” anymore than I would reject Christ because some historian proved he was a myth.

A guy I knew a while back had a shirt (I think it was a band) anyhow along with some odd looking people it said “you can not destroy what you did not create”. My faith is centered in God and Christ. I love finding evidence of various things. I take comfort in knowing that Jerusalem is a real place, but even if it’s reality was in question and some schoolers claimed they could disprove it ever was it would not lesson my faith in Christ.

Sorry that’s probably a much longer answer than you wanted, but I felt a simple no would not really do.

Yes! This is the right way!

People of real faith (like you) are wonderful in the LDS church. This is why I am starting to like Reform Judaism and the Episcopal Church. They’ll come right out and say that it’s probably mythology, but that they love it anyway. We haven’t reached that point yet, but I hope we will some day.

Christ likely never existed, but like you, I take comfort in and inspiration from his teachings. He’s a powerful literary character and that is at least as important as history.

 

[LaMar]

Teancum, I’m curious ~ if someone conclusively proved to you that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century forgery, would you reject the LDS religion?

It’s not really a forgery (what was it a forgery of? Is there a “genuine” book of mormon out there?).

It’s simply an inspirational book, like the Christian Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah, or the Baghavad Gita. It may have been inspired by G-d, or it might not have. We could argue about that for months, and it would make no difference. What is important is the meaning that we give to and get from it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

That an interesting question.

I’ve reached a point where my faith and belief in the LDS faith is not centered in the Book of Mormon sure it helps and I’ve learned from it a lot, but my faith is centered in a knowledge that God can and does answer prayers. So no I’ll not turn my back on the path God has guided me to because of some “proof” anymore than I would reject Christ because some historian proved he was a myth.

A guy I knew a while back had a shirt (I think it was a band) anyhow along with some odd looking people it said “you can not destroy what you did not create”. My faith is centered in God and Christ. I love finding evidence of various things. I take comfort in knowing that Jerusalem is a real place, but even if it’s reality was in question and some schoolers claimed they could disprove it ever was it would not lesson my faith in Christ.

Sorry that’s probably a much longer answer than you wanted, but I felt a simple no would not really do.

It sounds as if the short answer is “no”. I don’t say that to be flip, you gave a very thoughtful answer. But it sounds as if you are comfortable where you are and are not inclined to “rock the boat”.

My experience with Mormons, including those on this forum but also among many friends & acquaintances in my local area is that it is more than a religion, it is also a lifestyle. People who somehow fall away lose more than the church that they go to on Sunday, they lose a lot more.

I don’t find the Joseph Smith story or the Book of Mormon credible, and the more I learn about it, the less credible it seems, so I am not going to go off and become a Mormon anyway. But were I to put myself in a hypothetical situation where some central doctrinal aspect of my faith was proven to be unequivocally false (a pretty high standard!) I believe I would find that troublesome. Of course, as a Catholic, I don’t worry too much about that happening since the church has stood for 2000 years, whereas the cracks in Mormonism started to show in a fraction of that time.

Everyone has their path and the right to decide for themselves whether or not to change that path. Having said that, I submit that the path God guides you to may not always be what you think. It’s not necessarily the safe path, or the easy path, or the same path as everyone else you know.

 

[teancum79]

Yes! This is the right way!

People of real faith (like you) are wonderful in the LDS church. This is why I am starting to like Reform Judaism and the Episcopal Church. They’ll come right out and say that it’s probably mythology, but that they love it anyway. We haven’t reached that point yet, but I hope we will some day.

Christ likely never existed, but like you, I take comfort in and inspiration from his teachings. He’s a powerful literary character and that is at least as important as history.

Just so we are clear. I’m 110%+ confident in Christ existence. His being the son of God and making a very real sacrifice so that we can return to live with God. Yes there may be some details that we have misunderstood or lost over the years (IE was Joseph a a carpenter or a stone mason), but I do believe fully in his reality and teachings. That belief however is not limited to historical information. It is merely supported by it.

 

[LaMar]

Just so we are clear. I’m 110%+ confident in Christ existence. His being the son of God and making a very real sacrifice so that we can return to live with God. Yes there may be some details that we have misunderstood or lost over the years (IE was Joseph a a carpenter or a stone mason), but I do believe fully in his reality and teachings. That belief however is not limited to historical information. It is merely supported by it.

That’s cool, because your faith (which is real faith, not historical theories) in the book of mormon suggests you’d follow the teachings of Jesus even if you didn’t believe he was historical.

This is a good thing. It’s all good. If there were more people like you in the church, I would be much more active.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It’s not really a forgery (what was it a forgery of? Is there a “genuine” book of mormon out there?).

Forgery is also sometimes used to describe something that the creator knows to be false, but which is trotted out as something genuine. In that sense, the Book of Mormon is a forgery.

But in answer to your question, no, there is no genuine book of mormon. All books of mormon are products of plagiarism and the musings of its author, Joseph Smith.

 

[LaMar]

Forgery is also sometimes used to describe something that the creator knows to be false, but which is trotted out as something genuine. In that sense, the Book of Mormon is a forgery.

But in answer to your question, no, there is no genuine book of mormon. All books of mormon are products of plagiarism and the musings of its author, Joseph Smith.

I agree. Just like the bible. It’s mythology which no serious scholar believes has anything to do with the historical record.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I agree. Just like the bible. It’s mythology which no serious scholar believes has anything to do with the historical record.

I don’t classify the Bible in the same way that I would classify the Book of Mormon.

 

[ibkc]

LaMar can be ignored as far as “what scholars believe” goes. He has been unable to produce any evidence that scholars think the Bible is a fraudulent document, but he persists in piping up with this line anyway. Responding to him only reinforces, in his mind, his own credibility.

 

[Benadam]

LaMar can be ignored as far as “what scholars believe” goes. He has been unable to produce any evidence that scholars think the Bible is a fraudulent document, but he persists in piping up with this line anyway. Responding to him only reinforces, in his mind, his own credibility.

Indeed. Although it is an interesting bond Lamar is attempting to forge. Since it’s foundation is a denial of authentic religious tradition it may be one sided.

 

[MelanieAnne]

LaMar can be ignored as far as “what scholars believe” goes. He has been unable to produce any evidence that scholars think the Bible is a fraudulent document, but he persists in piping up with this line anyway. Responding to him only reinforces, in his mind, his own credibility.

So in other words “what scholars believe” = “what LaMar believes”? Yeah, I got that sense. I find the cynicism a very sad actually. There’s an amazing depth of pessimism underlying statements such as “Christ likely never existed” or “it’s probably mythology” or “Just like the bible. It’s mythology which no serious scholar believes has anything to do with the historical record.”.

Most atheists and agnostics I’ve run up against like to think of themselves, as well as portray themselves to others, as very intelligent, intellectual, and broadminded, but not susceptible to what they describe as the “myths” of religion, which they will often ridicule, at least privately. I’ve heard religion described as something you “grow out of” ~ as if only immature-minded people would still hold to religion as adults.

Some go so far as to quote the Marxist line, considering religion a means to control the masses, but of course not them! They’re much too clever for that! Others just consign religion to the province of mythology ~ a collection of pretty stories, with perhaps some human educational value, but that’s the end of it.

More often than not it’s a mask ~ a cover for intellectual laziness, ignorance and self-absorption occasionally bordering on narcissism. And the saddest thing is that they are all too often the most unhappy people around. If there’s something to be said for atheism, I’ve yet to see an concrete example.

I am not interested in DNA evidence in regards to the Book of Mormon as a means to proving the triumph of science of the “mythology of religion” in general. On the other hand, it is good to have confirmation of something I always suspected ~ that there is no evidence of a migration of a group from the Middle East to the Americas in the time period described in the Book of Mormon. Anything that tends to take people off that erroneous path is a good thing.

 

[Elric]

Wow I’m amazed at how quickly a thread can get so far off the original issue.

I’ve seen oft repeated something to the effect that their is no evidence of the BOM being right. Frankly that is a lie (or a result of very poor study). The evidence is far from conclusive proof, but there are many cultural traditions to support that it could have happened. The Words of Joseph Smith conference a year or two back addressed a few of them.

The BoM is really at the heart of the matter, since it is the source of the ancestory claim. So its not really going off the original issue.

Accusations of lies and/poor study is a pretty bold thing to do, especally when you dont name any of the evidence that supports the BoM.

When you look at claims, one thing you do is see if the source is reliable. In this case the BoM is the source.

So the question is: Is the BoM reliable?

The answer is absolutly not.

On one hand if it is true that would make God falliable and incompetent, because he couldnt get it right the first time due to all the corrections and changes done to it.

On the other hand if it is false, well then it was simply made up.

Either way it cant be relied upon. So where else are these claims being made?

Denying that something does not exist at all is an easy route to go, but it lacks the intellectual honesty that we should have.

There isnt any denying going on, there wasnt anything there in the first place to deny. People have looked and have not found anything and with the claims being made, there should be plenty of evidence.

Can the evidence that supports the BOM validity be a result from something else sure. It would be a logical fallacy to assume that the assorted bits and peaces are conclusive, but they do open the door to the possibility.

First you have to list this evidence.

Oh and you also have to admit that God is incompetent and falliable (that is if you believe the BoM is true).

Back to the original issue if a theory can’t be tested without reliance on the theories assumptions it’s not very scientific.

?

To prove something there must be more than a lack of evidence. Heck Christ’s life can’t be proven. The Bible could have been faked, the region is full of religious nuts. There is only the word of people who are in on it that it is any more than a bunch of words. The writers probably stole their marital form others and made up the rest. Its internal complexity and historical accuracies are of no relevance it’s just a bunch of words made of to deceive people.

Nice shot at the misdirection bit, but we are not talking about the bible. If you want to raise issues about the validity of the bible, you would be better off starting a new topic about it rather than trying to change the subject in this one.

Besides, the two came to be in very different ways and are not actually comparable.

 

[BartBurk]

I found this video on youtube addressing the negative results in regards of finding Jewish DNA within the indiginous South American peoples. Several Mormon scientists are interviewed. It’s kinda long 49 min. I would be interested in how other Mormon’s are dealing with the issue it is presenting.

YouTube - DNA vs. The Book of Mormon

My feeling is that Mormons simply can’t deal with reality when it comes to the DNA issue. They know it blows their whole religion out of the water. All they can do is make excuses about why the DNA studies don’t prove anything. They don’t want to accept the obvious because their whole world view would fall apart.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Last I checked they did not find a genetic marker. Much like asking God to make a personal appearance if he does you really have something, but if not you have not proved anything. While some LDS base their beliefs on scientific evidence most have a knowledge that comes from the Holy Ghost. Such are not troubled by trivial science anymore than those who believe in the creation are bothered by a pro Darwin study.

Here’s the thing teancum. God created all things, including DNA and the all the “trivial” scientific discoveries are not in opposition to God. It is people, discovering God’s wondrous work.

So, how is that split from the knowledge of the Holy Spirit? If God created DNA and the cellular mechanisms by which evolution occurs, how can a knowledge come from the Holy Spirit that negates God’s creation?

How far would you take this line of reasoning?

 

[teancum79]

Here’s the thing teancum. God created all things, including DNA and the all the “trivial” scientific discoveries are not in opposition to God. It is people, discovering God’s wondrous work.

So, how is that split from the knowledge of the Holy Spirit? If God created DNA and the cellular mechanisms by which evolution occurs, how can a knowledge come from the Holy Spirit that negates God’s creation?

How far would you take this line of reasoning?

I’m not Denying DNA I’m questioning the assumptions that are not consistent with the principles of good research. And again we here there is no evidence. has anyone even bother to look at the info I posted?

 

[Jerusha]

It’s simply an inspirational book, like the Christian Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah, or the Baghavad Gita. It may have been inspired by G-d, or it might not have. We could argue about that for months, and it would make no difference. What is important is the meaning that we give to and get from it.

It’s mythology which no serious scholar believes has anything to do with the historical record

Why can’t you accept LaMar’s belief about the BOM? It contains a story which could be re-worked and improved on, which has meaning for those who choose to read it carefully. My study of the BOM was certainly an eye-opening experience, and changed my life, although it did not convert me.

To believe that it is literally all true and historically accurate is beyond the realm of possibility.