Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: DNA may help family research, but it won't prove or disprove Book of Mormon
245 comments | Read story
Ben | 9:50 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
I base my faith on religon. It is nice because every couple of years when
doctrine is changed I can change what I believe in (keeps me on my toes).
Monkeys | 10:53 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Yep, no doubt in my mind after reading this post- that all human beings have the
DNA of Monkeys.
Comments continue below
FactChecker | 11:07 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Clark Wrote >I know most of you still believe the Holocaust happened, as do
I, but the fact is, anyone it seems can now find some "expert" to
support their cause. But just because someone has PhD behind their name
doesn't mean their word is the final answer.
Hey Clark, can you say 'Straw Man'?
No one is making that argument -- unless maybe some six year old entered this thread when I wasn't looking.
Clearly people are debating the quality of the research and the conclusions that have been reached.
But if you want to discard your Straw Man and go down the whole meta-analysis path, let's consider the fact the Mormon Apologists have been struggling for almost two centuries and they're still considered to be dead wrong.
Hey Clark, can you say 'Straw Man'?
No one is making that argument -- unless maybe some six year old entered this thread when I wasn't looking.
Clearly people are debating the quality of the research and the conclusions that have been reached.
But if you want to discard your Straw Man and go down the whole meta-analysis path, let's consider the fact the Mormon Apologists have been struggling for almost two centuries and they're still considered to be dead wrong.
FactChecker | 11:11 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Haplogroup X Wrote> Before we all get too excited, one ought to read more
about the evidence DNA scientists are finding all the time. Just take a sec and
go to Wikipedia and read about Haplogroup X. Who knows, maybe this is a smoking
gun...
Oh that gun's smoking all right.
The Apologists were hoping that this would save them but it's turned out to be yet another nail in the coffin of the BOM.
The more you know...
Oh that gun's smoking all right.
The Apologists were hoping that this would save them but it's turned out to be yet another nail in the coffin of the BOM.
The more you know...
David | 11:36 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Wiki will not be able to help you understand Haplogroup X other than to give you
some generic information. While some Mormons might say "aha" here you
go, a scientist will tell you to look at the mutations or deletions which will
give you a great deal of migratory information. Yes, DNA does give the answers,
but you actually have to have all the information and be able to understand
it.
Haplo-T
Haplo-T
David | 11:41 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
TO the poster who claimed Egyptian DNA would solve the LDS/BOM claim, sorry that
only makes the BOM claim so much worse. The proof is in the DNA and clearly the
BOM's glove doesn't fit.
FactChecker | 12:29 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Wrong Place wrote>The scientists are not looking in the right place....
To quote another author�
The final nail in the coffin of your premise is that IF any "non-BOM people" settled in the Americas sometime between the flood of circa 3000 BC and the
"Jaredite" crossing circa 2500 BC, those people would have necessarily been closely related to Noah---a Semite. Since, according to LDS doctrine, only
eight humans survived the flood circa 3000 BC, then all humans who migrated to the Americas after the flood should show a close relationship with a
common, small group of ancestors beginning some 5000 years ago. But they don't. So your premise is destroyed from four directions:
*The lack of evidence for the global flood.
*The archaeological evidence which shows the Americas to have been continuously inhabited for at least 10,000 years.
*The DNA evidence which shows a close relationship between Amerinds and Asians.
*The DNA evidence which does not support the Semite origins of Amerinds in the timeline necessary for us to accept the BOM's claims.
To quote another author�
The final nail in the coffin of your premise is that IF any "non-BOM people" settled in the Americas sometime between the flood of circa 3000 BC and the
"Jaredite" crossing circa 2500 BC, those people would have necessarily been closely related to Noah---a Semite. Since, according to LDS doctrine, only
eight humans survived the flood circa 3000 BC, then all humans who migrated to the Americas after the flood should show a close relationship with a
common, small group of ancestors beginning some 5000 years ago. But they don't. So your premise is destroyed from four directions:
*The lack of evidence for the global flood.
*The archaeological evidence which shows the Americas to have been continuously inhabited for at least 10,000 years.
*The DNA evidence which shows a close relationship between Amerinds and Asians.
*The DNA evidence which does not support the Semite origins of Amerinds in the timeline necessary for us to accept the BOM's claims.
Daniel | 12:34 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
For every person who leaves the church there are thousands who join, whose lives
are enriched and they are happier. Those who leave usually just want an excuse
to be free from having to do what the Lord wants. There is usually another
agenda or they chose to be offended by another person in the church.
Clark | 12:53 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
To FactChecker - Talk about straw man arguments!!!!!! That's what the whole
DNA debate against The Book of Mormon is based on!
For example - Many LDS critics quote 2 Nephi 1:8-9 and suggest that LDS people believe the entire western hemisphere was empty when Lehi and his family arrived. But no one within the LDS Church has ever made such a claim, therefore the argument is simply based on assumption.
Another example - Many critics point to population numbers in the Book of Mormon and insist that Hebrew DNA much therefore match Native American DNA. But critics always fail to point out that throughout the Book of Mormon, there are many wars and destructions which take place, including the destruction of the wicked before Jesus Christ's arrival.
Since NO ONE has a clue what the specifics were of Nephite and Lamanite populations (how often did they intermix, how often did other civilizations intermix, what was the gentic make up of those who survived the wars and destructions) it really makes the DNA debate practically moot.
How can anyone know what a 5000 piece puzzle looks like, when you only have about 20 or 30 pieces of the puzzle?
For example - Many LDS critics quote 2 Nephi 1:8-9 and suggest that LDS people believe the entire western hemisphere was empty when Lehi and his family arrived. But no one within the LDS Church has ever made such a claim, therefore the argument is simply based on assumption.
Another example - Many critics point to population numbers in the Book of Mormon and insist that Hebrew DNA much therefore match Native American DNA. But critics always fail to point out that throughout the Book of Mormon, there are many wars and destructions which take place, including the destruction of the wicked before Jesus Christ's arrival.
Since NO ONE has a clue what the specifics were of Nephite and Lamanite populations (how often did they intermix, how often did other civilizations intermix, what was the gentic make up of those who survived the wars and destructions) it really makes the DNA debate practically moot.
How can anyone know what a 5000 piece puzzle looks like, when you only have about 20 or 30 pieces of the puzzle?
No Monkey boy | 1:34 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
MR Clark, there ol boy, There is "NO" Book of Mormon DNA. I am a Jew
and my DNA is not the same as any of you. Perhaps European, but not monkey!
To Clark | 3:12 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
RE: "But no one within the LDS Church has ever made such a claim,
therefore the argument is simply based on assumption."
Sorry, buddy, but that was indeed what the church used to teach when I was a member. Of course now that it has been totally discredited, they have had to change their stance (as they have on many many issues. Get your own facts straight.
I would also suggest that you get a better education.
Sorry, buddy, but that was indeed what the church used to teach when I was a member. Of course now that it has been totally discredited, they have had to change their stance (as they have on many many issues. Get your own facts straight.
I would also suggest that you get a better education.
Lyle | 4:02 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Re 3: 12 You are sooooooooooooooooo correct!
Now LDS need to dump section 132 of the D&C, and Then perhaps there will be a great deal many more happy campers out and about the church. It may increase the activity.
Now LDS need to dump section 132 of the D&C, and Then perhaps there will be a great deal many more happy campers out and about the church. It may increase the activity.
Prosecutor | 4:51 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
To Thomas|6:32 p.m.:
Did large groups of people disappear without a trace? Not many, of course. But that's a red herring. No one suggests they did. But, we do have yet to discover which pre-Columbian artifacts are unambiguously affiliated with that Book of Mormon.
That's not surprising. Biblical archaeologists digging there for 75 years have yet to agree on whether the ruins at Khirbet Nisya are of the biblical city Ai. Even though Ai's location is in the Bible, in relation to Bethel and Jericho.
To say that no artifact is unambiguously attributable to Nephites is simply to view the problem through the lens of our unrealistic expectations.
What would it take to unambiguously attribute something to Nephites?
Not many Hebrew roots are associated with Native American languages. So what? Why assume Nephites spoke Hebrew? That a few religious leaders of a small sub-group living amongst a mostly pre-literate society wrote history in Hebrew, using some form of demotic Egyptian script doesn�t mean we should expect the language of average Nephites to be Hebrew. It likely wasn�t. We shouldn�t be surprised to find that Hebrew was not widely spoken in Pre-Columbian America.
Cont'd
Did large groups of people disappear without a trace? Not many, of course. But that's a red herring. No one suggests they did. But, we do have yet to discover which pre-Columbian artifacts are unambiguously affiliated with that Book of Mormon.
That's not surprising. Biblical archaeologists digging there for 75 years have yet to agree on whether the ruins at Khirbet Nisya are of the biblical city Ai. Even though Ai's location is in the Bible, in relation to Bethel and Jericho.
To say that no artifact is unambiguously attributable to Nephites is simply to view the problem through the lens of our unrealistic expectations.
What would it take to unambiguously attribute something to Nephites?
Not many Hebrew roots are associated with Native American languages. So what? Why assume Nephites spoke Hebrew? That a few religious leaders of a small sub-group living amongst a mostly pre-literate society wrote history in Hebrew, using some form of demotic Egyptian script doesn�t mean we should expect the language of average Nephites to be Hebrew. It likely wasn�t. We shouldn�t be surprised to find that Hebrew was not widely spoken in Pre-Columbian America.
Cont'd
Prosecutor | 4:52 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Cont'd:
We have discovered no �Welcome to Zarahemla, Population 10,000� sign. So what? There�s no �Welcome to Teotihuacan� sign either. We don�t even know what the people who lived there called that city. It clearly was not Teotihuacan, since that�s a Nahuatl term for something like �city of the Gods.� We don�t even know what people lived there � some say Toltec, some say Totonac. Others argue Zapotec, Mixtex, even Maya. So why would we require a higher standard of identifying a city as peculiarly Nephite, than we would any other city?
Bottom line � while a lot of work has been done by some very good and dedicated scholars, more is needed to develop a set of criteria from which we could identify artifacts, ruins, and remains as unambiguously Nephite, Lamanite, or Jaredite. But that is just as true of most other ancient cultures, particularly pre-Columbian American cultures.
But the obverse is also true � there is no set of facts or interpretations that proves the Nephites did not inhabit pre-Columbian America.
We have discovered no �Welcome to Zarahemla, Population 10,000� sign. So what? There�s no �Welcome to Teotihuacan� sign either. We don�t even know what the people who lived there called that city. It clearly was not Teotihuacan, since that�s a Nahuatl term for something like �city of the Gods.� We don�t even know what people lived there � some say Toltec, some say Totonac. Others argue Zapotec, Mixtex, even Maya. So why would we require a higher standard of identifying a city as peculiarly Nephite, than we would any other city?
Bottom line � while a lot of work has been done by some very good and dedicated scholars, more is needed to develop a set of criteria from which we could identify artifacts, ruins, and remains as unambiguously Nephite, Lamanite, or Jaredite. But that is just as true of most other ancient cultures, particularly pre-Columbian American cultures.
But the obverse is also true � there is no set of facts or interpretations that proves the Nephites did not inhabit pre-Columbian America.
RE: TO Clarke | 5:06 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Regardless if someone in the church said "IT".
IT is not doctrine unless the Prophet of the Church says IT.
And UNless the Prophet says IT then the Church does not say IT or teach it.
Otherwise IT is just an opinion of that individual. And they probably should not be teaching IT.
So put blame where it belongs and that's on the individual not the church.
The church has reiterated many times not to teach things that not Official doctrine. NOt to dwell on speculation or mysteries of God. Because there are things that we just don't know and have no offical answer to, yet.
And you can rant&rave all you want about DNA but Eany DNA EXPERT or genetic expert worth their salt will tell you that the DNA information we currently have does NOT PROVE or DISPROVE any of the BoM claims.
We do not know all the genetic make-up of all the people that've come to america. We just know some because knew or thought to look for it.
RE FACT CHECKER:
Exactly what make Noah a semite?
People having large families (10 children or more) can repopulate the earth at an exponential rate (just-a-few-centuries)
IT is not doctrine unless the Prophet of the Church says IT.
And UNless the Prophet says IT then the Church does not say IT or teach it.
Otherwise IT is just an opinion of that individual. And they probably should not be teaching IT.
So put blame where it belongs and that's on the individual not the church.
The church has reiterated many times not to teach things that not Official doctrine. NOt to dwell on speculation or mysteries of God. Because there are things that we just don't know and have no offical answer to, yet.
And you can rant&rave all you want about DNA but Eany DNA EXPERT or genetic expert worth their salt will tell you that the DNA information we currently have does NOT PROVE or DISPROVE any of the BoM claims.
We do not know all the genetic make-up of all the people that've come to america. We just know some because knew or thought to look for it.
RE FACT CHECKER:
Exactly what make Noah a semite?
People having large families (10 children or more) can repopulate the earth at an exponential rate (just-a-few-centuries)
Ken | 6:02 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
I am ashamed at this kind of journalistic dribble. It makes us look weak. It is
no wonder that people are leaving the church and activity is down!
Clark | 6:11 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
To David 11:41 - You said, "Yes, DNA does give the answers, but you
actually have to have all the information and be able to understand it."
I could not agree more. That's why the whole DNA argument against the BOM is moot. No one knows what the specific, detailed migration patterns of the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites were. No one knows how often these groups intermixed with other civilizations, and no one knows if the DNA of the Nephites living in 400 A.D. was in anyway similar to the DNA of the Nephites in 600 B.C.
To No Monkey boy 1:34 - I never said you were a monkey. I've never even used the word monkey.
To To Clark 3:12 - I've been LDS my whole life, and not once have I ever heard a General Authority or LDS author state that the BOM people were the first America arrivals.
I will admit some LDS members, including some Sunday School teachers and missionaries, have probably made this assumption. BUT in 1929, (long before DNA research) Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned members to avoid this assumption. Again, the BOM is only one piece of large puzzle.
I could not agree more. That's why the whole DNA argument against the BOM is moot. No one knows what the specific, detailed migration patterns of the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites were. No one knows how often these groups intermixed with other civilizations, and no one knows if the DNA of the Nephites living in 400 A.D. was in anyway similar to the DNA of the Nephites in 600 B.C.
To No Monkey boy 1:34 - I never said you were a monkey. I've never even used the word monkey.
To To Clark 3:12 - I've been LDS my whole life, and not once have I ever heard a General Authority or LDS author state that the BOM people were the first America arrivals.
I will admit some LDS members, including some Sunday School teachers and missionaries, have probably made this assumption. BUT in 1929, (long before DNA research) Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned members to avoid this assumption. Again, the BOM is only one piece of large puzzle.
Thomas | 7:00 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Prosecutor, I admire your diligence in presenting your case. The problem is
that it has the appearance of a defense attorney trying to raise a reasonable
doubt in the case against the Book of Mormon, when the burden is on the
proponent of the document to establish its authenticity. (After all, we're
in "best evidence rule" territory here, since we don't have the
original document.)
The apologists' case seems more and more to be described as the Case of the Incredible Shrinking Nephites, i.e., making the Book of Mormon civilization so small that the whole thing -- language, artifacts, genes and all -- could plausibly all have disappeared down the mists-of-time hole. And there is some mileage to be gotten out of that approach, even if it requires what I believe to be some pretty unparsimonious assumptions.
But the purpose of the Book of Mormon is supposed to be to *persuade* its audience of something. It's hardly persuasive, when we have to suspend our usual epistemological principles just to keep the Book itself marginally plausible.
The apologists' case seems more and more to be described as the Case of the Incredible Shrinking Nephites, i.e., making the Book of Mormon civilization so small that the whole thing -- language, artifacts, genes and all -- could plausibly all have disappeared down the mists-of-time hole. And there is some mileage to be gotten out of that approach, even if it requires what I believe to be some pretty unparsimonious assumptions.
But the purpose of the Book of Mormon is supposed to be to *persuade* its audience of something. It's hardly persuasive, when we have to suspend our usual epistemological principles just to keep the Book itself marginally plausible.
Thomas | 7:21 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Prosecutor, further:
Regarding "Ai," it's not an accurate analogy. Nobody, I presume, is disputing that the ruins in question are of some Middle Eastern Bronze Age civilization. The artifacts found there appear to be similar to artifacts left elsewhere by related cultures.
Mesoamerican archaeology, on the other hand, reveals cultures with virtually no convincing parallels to Old World cultures. I suppose Teotihuacan *could* be a Nephite city -- if we assume that the Nephites went totally native pretty much right after stepping off the boat, assimilating thoroughly with the natives (who the Book of Mormon authors inexplicably forgot to mention) like Kevin Costner in "Dances with Wolves."
History is supposed to piece together its best account of what actually happened from what evidence has been left behind. Pseudohistory, in contrast, starts with an idea, and attempts to cram the evidence into the preconceived form. This is all uncomfortably close to the Afrocentric lunacy that tries to prove that Socrates or some other worthy was black. It may well help some deluded people's self-esteem, but it is not history, and it's not honest.
Regarding "Ai," it's not an accurate analogy. Nobody, I presume, is disputing that the ruins in question are of some Middle Eastern Bronze Age civilization. The artifacts found there appear to be similar to artifacts left elsewhere by related cultures.
Mesoamerican archaeology, on the other hand, reveals cultures with virtually no convincing parallels to Old World cultures. I suppose Teotihuacan *could* be a Nephite city -- if we assume that the Nephites went totally native pretty much right after stepping off the boat, assimilating thoroughly with the natives (who the Book of Mormon authors inexplicably forgot to mention) like Kevin Costner in "Dances with Wolves."
History is supposed to piece together its best account of what actually happened from what evidence has been left behind. Pseudohistory, in contrast, starts with an idea, and attempts to cram the evidence into the preconceived form. This is all uncomfortably close to the Afrocentric lunacy that tries to prove that Socrates or some other worthy was black. It may well help some deluded people's self-esteem, but it is not history, and it's not honest.
Keeping Score | 9:24 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Thomas: 2
Prosecutor: 0
Prosecutor: 0
To Keeping Score | 9:56 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
I have read many scholarly pieces about Book of Mormon evidences that
haven't even been touched by critics. Most critics aren't aware of
them since the anti-Mormons such as Ed Decker or the Tanners don't have the
scholarly background to tackle them. And the Book of Mormon scholars don't
care to present them as an "in your face" approach. Volumes and
volumes on scholarly subjects on the Book of Mormon are out there, isolated in
Mormon scholarly circles because critics don't care because they are
"losing the battle and not knowing it" (an actual phrase by a critic).
The critics' simply rehash old and tired and simpleton things such as
"adieu", or "land of Jerusalem" thinking they have won some
contest.
And the rules are? | 10:42 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
To Keeping Score 9:24 - I suppose if insulting people and talking down to them
is the proper way to win a debate, Thomas is ahead. And I suppose, if building
straw man arguments and avoiding the text of the actual book or document in
question is the way to win an argument, Thomas is ahead there as well.
The fact of the matter is blanket attacks against LDS apologists, while avoiding the substance of their argument, does NOT win the debate. Carefully avoiding certain chapters and verses in the Book of Mormon, since they might cancel out your argument, does NOT win the debate either. And making ridiculous comments like, "It may well help some deluded people's self-esteem" only shows your argument is even weaker than you want to admit.
Just once I would like to hear a legitimate argument against the Book of Mormon which did not involve blanket, non-substantive attacks against LDS apologists, or which did not accuse Church members of racism, ignorance and lunacy.
The fact of the matter is blanket attacks against LDS apologists, while avoiding the substance of their argument, does NOT win the debate. Carefully avoiding certain chapters and verses in the Book of Mormon, since they might cancel out your argument, does NOT win the debate either. And making ridiculous comments like, "It may well help some deluded people's self-esteem" only shows your argument is even weaker than you want to admit.
Just once I would like to hear a legitimate argument against the Book of Mormon which did not involve blanket, non-substantive attacks against LDS apologists, or which did not accuse Church members of racism, ignorance and lunacy.
There's A Simpler Way | 11:20 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
To the critics here, of which there are many...
There is a much simpler way to find out if the Book of Mormon is true.
Why don't you actully read it, become familiar with it's teachings, seriously contemplate them and then ask God? I mean REALLY, sincerely ask God. I suspect that that will require you to be so humble as to be willing to admit that you deduced information incorrectly. The Lord won't hold it against you.
I asked God. On more than one occasion. And He told me the book is pure scripture. Twice. Am I sure? Yes.
No matter what you say, no matter what supposedly "bullet-proof" science you find, I know. I've already went to the source. The ONLY truly, dependable source.
Criticize if you wish.
I know.
Regards -
Dan Maloy
Enid, OK
There is a much simpler way to find out if the Book of Mormon is true.
Why don't you actully read it, become familiar with it's teachings, seriously contemplate them and then ask God? I mean REALLY, sincerely ask God. I suspect that that will require you to be so humble as to be willing to admit that you deduced information incorrectly. The Lord won't hold it against you.
I asked God. On more than one occasion. And He told me the book is pure scripture. Twice. Am I sure? Yes.
No matter what you say, no matter what supposedly "bullet-proof" science you find, I know. I've already went to the source. The ONLY truly, dependable source.
Criticize if you wish.
I know.
Regards -
Dan Maloy
Enid, OK
Prosecutor | 4:30 a.m. Aug. 28, 2008
To Thomas:
At its base, your argument is that it's somehow goofy or dishonest to have faith in the teachings of the Book of Mormon, since there's been no discovery of a sign reading "Welcome to Zarahemla, Kiwanis Club meets on Thursday."
That's what's goofy or dishonest.
Clearly, lots of people like to stroke their egos by suggesting that believers are idiots. But the point that has clearly won the day is just this -- belief _is_ a matter of _faith_. Not dishonesty or gullibility.
While science has not, and cannot, proven the truth of the Book of Mormon, it has not, and cannot, prove the goofiness or dishonesty of millions whose lives are happier for living by its precepts, either.
At its base, your argument is that it's somehow goofy or dishonest to have faith in the teachings of the Book of Mormon, since there's been no discovery of a sign reading "Welcome to Zarahemla, Kiwanis Club meets on Thursday."
That's what's goofy or dishonest.
Clearly, lots of people like to stroke their egos by suggesting that believers are idiots. But the point that has clearly won the day is just this -- belief _is_ a matter of _faith_. Not dishonesty or gullibility.
While science has not, and cannot, proven the truth of the Book of Mormon, it has not, and cannot, prove the goofiness or dishonesty of millions whose lives are happier for living by its precepts, either.
A Simpler Way | 8:38 a.m. Aug. 28, 2008
Dan Maloy,
I have followed your "simpler way to find out if the Book of Mormon is true."
I actully read it and became familiar with it's teachings over a full decade. I seriously contemplated them and asked God, not once, but on countless occasions over 10 years. I mean I REALLY, sincerely asked God! I was honestly so humble as to be willing to admit that I had deduced information incorrectly!
And you are right. The Lord did NOT hold it against me. He told me clearly and directly each and every time I asked, in a still, small voice of His Spirit: No, the Book of Mormon is not true. Am I sure? Absolutely. I have never been more sure of anything in my life.
No matter what you say, no matter what supposedly "science-proof" testimony you claim, I KNOW! I've already went to the source: God Himself! The ONLY truly, dependable source!
Criticize if you wish.
I KNOW!
Regards -
Eric Hansen
Salt Lake City, Utah
I have followed your "simpler way to find out if the Book of Mormon is true."
I actully read it and became familiar with it's teachings over a full decade. I seriously contemplated them and asked God, not once, but on countless occasions over 10 years. I mean I REALLY, sincerely asked God! I was honestly so humble as to be willing to admit that I had deduced information incorrectly!
And you are right. The Lord did NOT hold it against me. He told me clearly and directly each and every time I asked, in a still, small voice of His Spirit: No, the Book of Mormon is not true. Am I sure? Absolutely. I have never been more sure of anything in my life.
No matter what you say, no matter what supposedly "science-proof" testimony you claim, I KNOW! I've already went to the source: God Himself! The ONLY truly, dependable source!
Criticize if you wish.
I KNOW!
Regards -
Eric Hansen
Salt Lake City, Utah
Garret | 9:21 a.m. Aug. 28, 2008
To Prosecutor
At its base, YOUR argument is that "While science has not, and cannot, proven the truth of the Book of Mormon, it has not, and cannot, prove the goofiness or dishonesty of millions whose lives are happier for living by its precepts, either."
But your claims to the "truth" of the Book of Mormon cannot prove the goofiness and dishonestly of the millions of people whose lifes are happier for growing and smoking marijuana, either.
Just because something appears to make millions of people "happier" does not make it true.
I guarantee you the number of people (children) whose lives are "happier" because they believe in Santa Claus FAR OUTNUMBER the number of Mormons in the world today! But the fact that the story of Santa Claus makes so many millions happy does not even logically support the idea that the story is true!
And as you demonstrate by your comment, the fact that a person can type and construct sentences does not prove that logic and reason has any place in their thoughts.
At its base, YOUR argument is that "While science has not, and cannot, proven the truth of the Book of Mormon, it has not, and cannot, prove the goofiness or dishonesty of millions whose lives are happier for living by its precepts, either."
But your claims to the "truth" of the Book of Mormon cannot prove the goofiness and dishonestly of the millions of people whose lifes are happier for growing and smoking marijuana, either.
Just because something appears to make millions of people "happier" does not make it true.
I guarantee you the number of people (children) whose lives are "happier" because they believe in Santa Claus FAR OUTNUMBER the number of Mormons in the world today! But the fact that the story of Santa Claus makes so many millions happy does not even logically support the idea that the story is true!
And as you demonstrate by your comment, the fact that a person can type and construct sentences does not prove that logic and reason has any place in their thoughts.
You both came to different | 9:42 a.m. Aug. 28, 2008
conclusions because there is truth everywhere! The BOM contains it as well as
many other sources all around us. There is no one truth!
Just an Observation | 11:01 a.m. Aug. 28, 2008
The Book of Mormon is the most boring and poorly writen book I have ever read.
Real historical biographies are much more inspirational and are backed up by
research. I can't believe the God of the Universe would write that badly
if He really wanted to communicate with us.
Prosecutor | 12:15 p.m. Aug. 28, 2008
To Garret:
Thanks for making my point.
It's a matter of faith. No logical argument, theological model, or scientific proof suffices to prove the Book of Mormon. But, neither do any of the above provide the honest unbeliever with an effective bludgeon to beat the belief out of a faithful person.
In other words, there is no logical, theologicl or scientific reason to disbelieve the Book of Mormon.
It's a matter of faith.
Thanks for making my point.
It's a matter of faith. No logical argument, theological model, or scientific proof suffices to prove the Book of Mormon. But, neither do any of the above provide the honest unbeliever with an effective bludgeon to beat the belief out of a faithful person.
In other words, there is no logical, theologicl or scientific reason to disbelieve the Book of Mormon.
It's a matter of faith.
Thomas | 12:24 p.m. Aug. 28, 2008
"Rules": I am truly sorry if I am being insulting. That is not my
intention, nor, according to the best of my judgment, is it the objective import
of my words. Neither am I trying to talk down to anyone. I owe those to whom I
write a duty to state my thinking as clearly as I know how. That I have
done.
Please tell me where I have made straw man arguments or avoided your side's best evidence.
My comment "It may help some deluded people's self-esteem" was not directed at LDS apologetics, but against the lunacy of Afrocentric history -- and all pseudohistory that begins with the conclusion in mind, and works backwards to get there. I will not apologize for calling *that* dishonest. If people are uncomfortable with that, let them not practice pseudohistory.
Freedom and reason make us men. I have no patience with the sloppy nothingness expressed in that "sophisticated" sentiment "There is no one truth." There absolutely is, and it is the right and duty of a *man* to find it and follow it.
Please tell me where I have made straw man arguments or avoided your side's best evidence.
My comment "It may help some deluded people's self-esteem" was not directed at LDS apologetics, but against the lunacy of Afrocentric history -- and all pseudohistory that begins with the conclusion in mind, and works backwards to get there. I will not apologize for calling *that* dishonest. If people are uncomfortable with that, let them not practice pseudohistory.
Freedom and reason make us men. I have no patience with the sloppy nothingness expressed in that "sophisticated" sentiment "There is no one truth." There absolutely is, and it is the right and duty of a *man* to find it and follow it.
Thomas | 12:40 p.m. Aug. 28, 2008
Prosecutor, your argument is *exactly* what I am tempted to do when I have the
weaker argument: Portray the *other* side's argument as something other
than what it is.
It is not merely the absence of any particular type of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon (for instance, your proverbial "Zarahemla City Limits" sign). For me, the issue is the overall weight of all the evidence, taken together. I find myself compelled to the conclusion that the weight of the evidence is against the Book of Mormon being an ancient document. It would be dishonest *of me* to deny that. However, that does not mean it is dishonest of *you* to view the same evidence, and draw a different conclusion. People can be mistaken without being dishonest; either you or I may be.
I am still holding out a rapidly-diminishing hope that the Lord might reveal, by some infallible spiritual means, that my read of the evidence is wrong, and that the church of my birth has a firm foundation. But for now, it would no more be "faith" for me to reject my honest reading of the evidence, than I could have "faith" that I am really a frog.
It is not merely the absence of any particular type of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon (for instance, your proverbial "Zarahemla City Limits" sign). For me, the issue is the overall weight of all the evidence, taken together. I find myself compelled to the conclusion that the weight of the evidence is against the Book of Mormon being an ancient document. It would be dishonest *of me* to deny that. However, that does not mean it is dishonest of *you* to view the same evidence, and draw a different conclusion. People can be mistaken without being dishonest; either you or I may be.
I am still holding out a rapidly-diminishing hope that the Lord might reveal, by some infallible spiritual means, that my read of the evidence is wrong, and that the church of my birth has a firm foundation. But for now, it would no more be "faith" for me to reject my honest reading of the evidence, than I could have "faith" that I am really a frog.
Prosecutor | 1:40 p.m. Aug. 28, 2008
To Thomas:
We appear to be in violent agreement on the _only_ issue I wanted to make -- there is nothing in science, theology, or logic that prevents a reasonably intelligent and honest person from believing the Book of Mormon to be the account it purports to be.
The evidence I've seen, particularly when stripped of cultural bias, comfortably accommodates the Book of Mormon cultures described in its pages. And, I hope you will continue to honestly and fairly confront your doubts. I pray doing so will be as productive for you as it has been for me.
We appear to be in violent agreement on the _only_ issue I wanted to make -- there is nothing in science, theology, or logic that prevents a reasonably intelligent and honest person from believing the Book of Mormon to be the account it purports to be.
The evidence I've seen, particularly when stripped of cultural bias, comfortably accommodates the Book of Mormon cultures described in its pages. And, I hope you will continue to honestly and fairly confront your doubts. I pray doing so will be as productive for you as it has been for me.
Nauseous | 1:46 p.m. Aug. 28, 2008
Lets all hold hands and sing Kumbya...
Thomas | 2:07 p.m. Aug. 28, 2008
Prosecutor, I'll grant you this: A reasonably intelligent and honest
person can fairly choose to believe that the Book of Mormon is what it purports
to be *if* (1) he reasonably believes he has received an infallible divine
revelation of its truth, or (2) he reasonably hopes to receive such a revelation
in the future.
I only wish (not that I have any right to expect, nor should it color my thinking one way or the other) that Latter-day Saints would not so often presume that the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is so compellingly self-evident that it takes an act of willful self-delusion to conclude otherwise.
Now back to my cigars, Scotch, and multiple torrid affairs. Because of course the only reason I find myself thinking this way is my obvious desire to justify a life of sin.
Anyway, Pros, thanks for the prayers and good will. Same to you.
I only wish (not that I have any right to expect, nor should it color my thinking one way or the other) that Latter-day Saints would not so often presume that the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is so compellingly self-evident that it takes an act of willful self-delusion to conclude otherwise.
Now back to my cigars, Scotch, and multiple torrid affairs. Because of course the only reason I find myself thinking this way is my obvious desire to justify a life of sin.
Anyway, Pros, thanks for the prayers and good will. Same to you.
RE: THOMAS | 9:38 p.m. Aug. 28, 2008
Truth always is self-evident.
To Just An Observation | 10:13 p.m. Aug. 28, 2008
I second that!
To: Just An Observation | 3:51 a.m. Aug. 29, 2008
Um. The God of the Universe didn't write the Book of Mormon, and nobody
believes that He did. If you'd actually read it, you'd know that.
Thomas | 12:43 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
Maybe I'm misunderstanding "Truth always is self-evident," but if
what you're trying to express is that truth is *obvious*, and immediately
apparent to any person who is "honest in heart," then how would you
explain the three-plus years it took Brigham Young to be convinced the LDS
Church was true?
Truth is self-evident once it's known -- but getting to that point can be hard. Most things worth anything are.
Truth is self-evident once it's known -- but getting to that point can be hard. Most things worth anything are.
My Experience | 2:53 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
Born into the Church, I am an active, temple-recommend-holding Latter-day Saint
for over 26 years. I have read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover a minimum of 30
times (I didn't start counting until just before my mission).
I took 3 different classes on the BoM at BYU. I attended Education Weeks, Sperry Symposia, and other events for over 5 years. I have taught the BoM as a Gospel Doctrine instructor 4 times in 4 different Stakes. I have probably read almost everything Deseret Book or the Church has published on the BoM in 20 years.
In all that time, I have NEVER borne my testimony of the truthfulness of the BoM because, despite praying earnestly countless times, I have never had a spiritual confirmation of it. For as long as I can remember, I have felt that the book has a forced, contrived, self-aware tone to it, as if Joseph Smith was afraid readers would not believe it, and so was deliberately trying to convince the reader it is true. I have never gotten that impression from any other book. I have asked Heavenly Father countless times if it is true, and this contrived impression never goes away.
I took 3 different classes on the BoM at BYU. I attended Education Weeks, Sperry Symposia, and other events for over 5 years. I have taught the BoM as a Gospel Doctrine instructor 4 times in 4 different Stakes. I have probably read almost everything Deseret Book or the Church has published on the BoM in 20 years.
In all that time, I have NEVER borne my testimony of the truthfulness of the BoM because, despite praying earnestly countless times, I have never had a spiritual confirmation of it. For as long as I can remember, I have felt that the book has a forced, contrived, self-aware tone to it, as if Joseph Smith was afraid readers would not believe it, and so was deliberately trying to convince the reader it is true. I have never gotten that impression from any other book. I have asked Heavenly Father countless times if it is true, and this contrived impression never goes away.
Amy | 5:08 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
To My Experience:
The Lord does not lie. The promise is there in the book itself and has been repeated time and time again by the Lords modern day prophets. If we seek with a sincere heart we will receive the answer. In my experience people who claim not to recieve an answer either need to resolve certain issues, or have already decided beforehand what they want that answer to be. As I said before the Lord does not lie and neither do his prophets.
The Lord does not lie. The promise is there in the book itself and has been repeated time and time again by the Lords modern day prophets. If we seek with a sincere heart we will receive the answer. In my experience people who claim not to recieve an answer either need to resolve certain issues, or have already decided beforehand what they want that answer to be. As I said before the Lord does not lie and neither do his prophets.
RE: THomas | 5:49 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
The truth is self-eveident.
But people can be stubborn, stiff-necked, and very resistant to change.
Even when it's for the better.
But people can be stubborn, stiff-necked, and very resistant to change.
Even when it's for the better.
Ginger | 6:19 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
Just remember there is free agency. Some people see things differently then LDS.
We are all different and that is good and makes the world amore interesting
place.
To My Experience | 9:09 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
I've noticed the same thing, both in the Book of Mormon and in the other
Standard Works, including the Bible.
So what?
We should remember that the Book of Mormon is a translation of a compilation of many records, including another translation, in the case of Ether. Each writer, compiler, and translator was a fallible human being, probably dragging some personal baggage or operating under some personal agenda.
I've worked as an editor of others' writing, and I've made a living as a translator. Neither activity is an exact science, and, trust me, there are ample opportunities to editorialize in both activities.
I've translated Church materials and in Church meetings, strongly feeling the guiding hand of the Spirit as I did so. That does not mean the translations were perfect, or that some of my own ideas were not injected.
Maybe that's why the intro of the Book of Mormon notes, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."
Good advice.
So what?
We should remember that the Book of Mormon is a translation of a compilation of many records, including another translation, in the case of Ether. Each writer, compiler, and translator was a fallible human being, probably dragging some personal baggage or operating under some personal agenda.
I've worked as an editor of others' writing, and I've made a living as a translator. Neither activity is an exact science, and, trust me, there are ample opportunities to editorialize in both activities.
I've translated Church materials and in Church meetings, strongly feeling the guiding hand of the Spirit as I did so. That does not mean the translations were perfect, or that some of my own ideas were not injected.
Maybe that's why the intro of the Book of Mormon notes, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."
Good advice.
Thomas | 9:09 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
It's an interesting spectacle to to see people who pride themselves on
their humility presuming to set themselves up in judgment of the character of
people they have never met and know nothing about.
And it's curious that the Truth proclaimed by these people is so obvious and self-evident that it must be accompanied by threats that people must believe it or else -- whereas the mundane truths of science and everyday life are satisfied to stand or fall on their merits alone, with no need to threaten the skeptical with damnation or denounce them as immoral, stiffnecked reprobates.
Is this kind of white-knuckled, brittle thinking truly as good as Mormon religious conviction gets? Because truly, it's no improvement on anything preached by any other religion over the ages.
I am looking for a true Faith. If this is as good as it gets -- include me out.
And it's curious that the Truth proclaimed by these people is so obvious and self-evident that it must be accompanied by threats that people must believe it or else -- whereas the mundane truths of science and everyday life are satisfied to stand or fall on their merits alone, with no need to threaten the skeptical with damnation or denounce them as immoral, stiffnecked reprobates.
Is this kind of white-knuckled, brittle thinking truly as good as Mormon religious conviction gets? Because truly, it's no improvement on anything preached by any other religion over the ages.
I am looking for a true Faith. If this is as good as it gets -- include me out.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- RSL will play for MLS Cup tonight 3:06 a.m.
- Jazz outlast Pistons in overtime 3:06 a.m.
- Utah Utes whip SDSU 3:05 a.m.
- BYU records with win 3:05 a.m.
- RSL dancing with soccer stars 3:04 a.m.
- Cougars turn focus to dreaded rivals 3:04 a.m.
- Dixie State campus briefs 3:03 a.m.
- Weber State campus briefs 3:02 a.m.
- UVU campus briefs 3:01 a.m.
- BYU campus briefs 2:59 a.m.
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force?
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii
- Huntsman blasts media over trip
- Police link alcohol to murder
- Christian leaders not backing down
- BYU records with win
- TCU still has a chance
- Orem man acquitted in tot's death
- Religion cited in deportation fight
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
192 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah173
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?129
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified122
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case103
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.100
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio98
- BYU records with win95
- Utes knock off rival Aggies93
- Huntsman pleased with Obama87
Latest comments
Beck is extremely smart, he is selling books and is very popular on TV. All...
@Mick, the Federal Govt is run by corporations through contributions and...
Lets bond together and hope for a REAL celebration SUnday night, can hardly...
I was on the playground too and some teachers came out and called us all to...
B.Y.U. has been a consistent a top 25 ranked winner under Max Hall. Hall has...
Did Timp win four in a row or 4 in 4 years?
You have a lot of growing up to do, It seems like you have not cxperienced...
The proposed ethics law puts roughly the same burden on a legislator that a...
Hall ACTUALLY broke the all timme wins record vs WYO last week. I guess...
Sounds to me like Kraig Powell may be a candidate for resignation. So long,...
Advertisements
Have a nice day you rascal :-)