[Details about the exchanges between Dr. Woodward and Dr. Southerton have been shared with me by Dr. Woodward himself. He also read, edited and approved this blog entry.]
On January 28, 2009 Simon Southerton posted the following comments on the discussion board at exmormon.org about my recent scientific publication on Native American origins. He also took the opportunity to criticize Dr. Scott Woodward, former molecular biologist at Brigham Young University and current director of the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF).
Having great familiarity and being personally involved with the subjects mentioned in Southerton’s remarks, I deemed it necessary to provide an alternative and more accurate version of the facts. This is simply a rebuttal to Southerton’s specific posting and it is not meant to be another treatise on the Book of Mormon vs. DNA issue, since there is already a great abundance of LDS scholarship addressing the topic.
Southerton’s posting, each section of which appears below, was retrieved from exmormon.org. Below is each section of his posting, along with my comments.
When I resigned in 1998 after discovering DNA evidence that American Indians were essentially all descended from Asian ancestors, I was counseled by the Area Presidency to get in touch with Professor Scott Woodward, a “world-renowned DNA expert” at BYU. In a handful of email exchanges that I had with Woodward, in amongst his lengthy molecular apologetics, he admitted that he had found it difficult to talk to other people about the DNA work and that after a few years of struggling he had reconciled most of the issues it raised.
The use of the word “discovering” is interesting in the opening sentence of Southerton’s remarks. It appears that Southerton deliberately wants to give the impression to those who are unfamiliar with studies in population genetics that he is the one to first discover a genetic link between Native Americans and Asian populations. Dr. Antonio Torroni and Dr. Theodore Schurr were the first two researchers to make public such discoveries in the early nineties (references available upon request) when population genetic studies based on mitochondrial DNA variation were still in their infancy. When Dr. Woodward began his correspondence with Southerton in 1998, he wrote that he was aware of the papers mentioned and was surprised that Southerton thought it was a new problem. In his book Losing a Lost Tribe (Signature Books, 2004), Southerton provides proper citations to these earlier scientific works, but I noticed that in his informal communications he tends to be a bit vague about who did the actual DNA work on Native American populations.
During the communication exchange between Southerton and Woodward in 1998, Woodward expressed how difficult it was for him to explain DNA related concepts to people (Southerton included) who did not want to understand or put serious effort into understanding the concepts involved. Woodward’s “difficulty” was not in reconciling Book of Mormon issues, but in dealing with people that refused to listen.
Woodward’s emails from 1998 were eventually edited by Southerton and forwarded to LDS Church leaders in Utah, with the objective of hurting Woodward’s teaching position at BYU. This event greatly upset Woodward. When in 2004 Southerton visited Woodward at SMGF, he admitted his earlier intentions and apologized for what he did in 1998. I was present at that meeting.
I met Woodward when I visited the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF) in Salt Lake City a few years ago. At the time he angrily defended the Book of Mormon and hinted that SMGF scientists were finding exciting new evidence that supported the Book of Mormon (must be still finding it).
There were four people present at that more than three hour long meeting in 2004: Woodward, Southerton, Luke Hutchison (currently at MIT completing his doctorate studies), and myself. I did not speak much, but I remember vividly the meeting and listened carefully to the conversation that took place.
During that occasion, Woodward did not “angrily defend” the Book of Mormon, but there was definitely some tension in the room due to what Southerton attempted to do to him in 1998. As I already stated, Southerton admitted to sending communications to LDS leaders in an attempt to purposely hurt Woodward’s academic position at BYU, and said he was sorry for what he did. However, we had a hard time believing that he was sincere in his apologies since his recent book Losing a Lost Tribe contained several innuendos about the nature of Woodward’s work with SMGF, insisting on possible connections with the search for Lamanite DNA evidence.
Woodward and Hutchison explained to Southerton the complexity surrounding the issue of identifying unknown Israelite DNA among modern Native American populations, the limited data available at the time, the limitations in building or interpreting phylogenetic trees, and other basic population genetic principles as they pertain to the arrival of a small family group in an already largely populated continent. It was emphasized over and over that DNA may or may not yield in the future any evidence about a non-Asian contribution to the modern Native American gene-pool, but the bottom line is that any attempt of using genetic data to support or attack the Book of Mormon is highly complicated and fails to put this matter to rest. Eventually Southerton admitted that he did not know much about population genetics (he is a plant geneticist) and that he did not understand phylogenies but, nonetheless, he was still “very proud of his book.” That pretty much ended that long debate…
No one at that meeting (except, apparently, Southerton) recalls any mention of “finding exciting new evidence that supported the Book of Mormon,” particularly with regards to the work done at SMGF, as DNA and family history data collected in the first few years of the project were mainly of Anglo-Saxon extraction. However, references were made about the work of researchers from other universities publishing data that did not fit with the classic “Asian” markers as found among the majority of pre-Columbian groups. In some cases, the hypotheses surrounding their possible presence in the Western Hemisphere are still a matter of dispute (these arguments have already been discussed elsewhere and basically they have been promptly dismissed by those criticizing the historicity of the Book of Mormon).
This month in the scientific journal Current Biology, Woodward co-authors a research paper that clearly demonstrates that the ancestors the American Indians arrived in North America over 15,000 years ago via two routes from Asia (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(08)01618-7). The founders brought 5 major maternal DNA lineages with them, named A, B, C, D and X. One group of founders brought the X lineage to the region adjacent to the Great Lakes as they migrated between ice sheets across what is now central Canada. The other group followed the Pacific coast, probably bringing the other four DNA lineages (A, B, C and D).
An international team of 16 scientists worked on this research for the past 18 months. Dr. Achilli and I were the leading authors on this project, which was conducted under the mentorship of the corresponding author, Dr. Antonio Torroni. All the other authors contributed to some degree to the developing of the project, the analysis of the data, and the writing of the manuscript. I find it interesting how Woodward was singled out by Southerton for his contribution to this research paper. (By the way, the link provided in Southerton’s post does not work. A summary is available at this address. For a copy of the full article, please contact me directly at [email protected]).
Geneticists in the past emphasized a single arrival for the first Paleo-Indians and this was in clear opposition with scientists from other fields (linguists, anthropologists, archaeologists, etc.), as they were convinced that there is enough evidence to support a multi-origin of all the modern Native Americans. Our paper shifts the position of population geneticists to be more in line with researchers from other fields.
There are currently eleven recognized mitochondrial DNA lineages among modern Native American populations: A2, B2, C1b, C1c, C1d, D1, C4c, D2, D3, D4h3, and X2a. Approximately 95% of modern Native American maternal lineages belong to one of the first six in this list. The others are considered rare lineages. The paper discusses two of these less common mtDNA haplogroups (D4h3 and X2a). D4h3 was identified as a new Native American lineage for the first time in 2007, when DNA extracted from the remains of a 10,300 year old skeleton found in Alaska yielded a genetic sequence that did not match any of the known Native American mtDNA haplogroups. A careful survey of DNA databases identified a significant number of previously unclassified DNA sequences in modern Native American populations belonging to this new haplogroup, which was eventually called D4h3. Although D4h3 is also of probable Asian origin, this important discovery underlines the problematic issue with genetic sequences that were initially ignored simply because they did not fit with the classic “Asian” haplogroups. It is possible that in the years to come, additional rare lineages will be identified both in modern and ancient samples.
The migratory routes followed by the ancestors of these two rare lineages were drawn based on the available data, as it was inferred by the distribution of mtDNAs collected and analyzed in the modern population. These conclusions may be adjusted at future times based on new data both from DNA and/or from other fields. In fact, the paper starts with this clear statement: “When and from where did the first Americans arrive, and what migratory routes did they follow? Scientists from several disciplines continue to search for answers to these questions, but, despite new important evidence, the debate concerning the peopling of the Americas is far from resolved.” Southerton, on the other hand, thinks that this matter is clearly already resolved.
In this paper Woodward helps bury a pile of apologetic trash from both the Mesoamerican (church approved) and Heartland (church still watching) Geographists who have variously claimed in the past that the X lineage came from Israel. The X lineage is conclusively shown to have arrived in the New World thousands of years before the Book of Mormon period.
None of these studies on Native Americans, including the current one published in January 2009 in Current Biology were designed to address the Lamanite/Book of Mormon issue. Data for this study were collected and analyzed with the objective of shedding new light about the origins of Paleo-Indians; not to identify additional migratory events in the following millennia and the role they may have played in re-shaping the genetic pool already existing in America’s double continent. Therefore, I don’t see how “Woodward” is helping in burying anything here, particularly with regards to Southerton’s personal interpretation of what is considered “church approved.”
Some LDS scholars suggest that haplogroup X2a—found exclusively in northern North America—could be a proof of Lehi’s genetic legacy, but at this time there is not enough data to support these conclusions. Reidla and colleagues in 2003 began exploring the origin and distribution of haplogroup X among the world populations and they concluded that “phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of subhaplogroup X2.” Regarding the presence of a few sequences belonging to haplogroup X found in the Altai population of central Asia, the authors commented that “under the assumption that these sequences are a random sample of the Altaian haplogroup X [they provide a] a time depth of <6700 years, and it would suggest that Altaians have acquired haplogroup X2 only relatively recently.” In other words, haplogroup X2 in modern Asian populations is NOT ancestral to haplogroup X2 found in Native Americans. Reidla and colleagues concluded that “the few Altaian and Siberian haplogroup X lineages are not related to the Native American cluster, and they are more likely explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia.”
Much can still be said about haplogroup X2 in the Americas. In our paper, two sub-branches of the Native American haplogroup X2a have been classified as X2a1 with an estimated age of 9200-9400 years and as X2a2 with an estimated age of 2300-3800 years. A possible third X2a sub-branch (X2a3?) was identified among the indigenous groups of British Columbia in Canada, but there is not sufficient data at this time to confirm this hypothesis. Furthermore, we reported in this paper the discovery of a previously unidentified X2 lineage in an Ojibwa sample – which we named X2g – that has never been previously observed in Native American populations or elsewhere.
Lastly, a paper published on PLoS One in 2008 (Shlush et al.) provides important clues about the possible origin of haplogroup X: “No population or geographic region has been identified to date, in which haplogroup X and its major subhaplogroups are found at both high frequency and high diversity, which could provide a potential clue as to their geographic origin. Here we suggest that the Druze population of northern Israel may represent just such a population.”
Our paper in Current Biology does not discuss (and does not dismiss) a potential ancient origin for haplogroup X in the ancient Near East, as proposed by Shlush and Reidla (and their co-authors, including important names in population genetics such as Michael Hammer, Doron Behar, Toomas Kivisild, Richard Villems, Antonio Torroni, Alessandro Achilli, etc.), but we emphasize how this haplogroup marked a separate migratory event that characterized the history of Native American populations. Apart from anyone who believes haplogroup X to be the ultimate proof marking the arrival of Lehi’s group to the Americas (something that neither Woodward, nor myself advocate), the bottom line is that there is still much to research about the origin and dispersal of this and the other pre-Columbian lineages.
But Woodward is not always so open with his research. Back in 1998 Woodward told me that his group had DNA tested 6500 American Indians from Peru. I could hardly believe it. All other research groups combined at the time had only DNA tested about 2000 American Indians across the entire New World! There can be little doubt that Woodward had been hunting for Lamanite DNA but apologists of course would deny this. Woodward clearly found none because those Peruvian DNA lineages remain unpublished over a decade later.
So, if Woodward participates in a research project using his data, he is criticized for doing so, and if he doesn’t, he is criticized anyway. This seems to be the common theme linking the last two sections presented by Southerton. First he praises Woodward for “burying piles of apologetic trash,” then he criticizes him for hunting Lamanite DNA and not publishing the data he has available! Could there be room for a third explanation? Could it be that Woodward and his colleagues at SMGF are not searching for a genetic fingerprint of Lehi’s descendants in the Americas? Could it be that LDS scholars can actually participate in genuine scientific research without being biased by their personal beliefs? Apparently to some people this last option is mere fantasy!
So, what about the samples described by Woodward in 1998 to Southerton? These are 6500 samples from Peru collected by the late Joel Myres over a period of eight years (Joel passed away in 2001). Most of the samples were typed for a small segment of the mtDNA control region in Woodward’s lab at BYU (which was standard procedure given the cost and technology of 1998) and meticulously recorded in several files. These data were partially published in two research papers and in a scientific poster (references available upon request). Joel was working on four additional manuscripts at the time of his premature death. The files and the 6500 biological specimen are currently in my office and have been shown and shared with a number of researchers that have demonstrated interest in them. This was indeed a remarkable collection of Native American data from a very fascinating geographic area, particularly for 1998, and for sure a greater number of interesting population, medical, and anthropological papers would have been published if Joel was still living. Southerton’s obsession with Lamanite DNA, stands in clear opposition with the anthropological passion Joel had for Peru.
Woodward is now leading an organization (SMGF) that has much more DNA data on American Indians than any other group in the world. His group has undoubtedly DNA tested thousands of individuals from Central America including Mesoamerica. Woodward knows that Mayans, Mesoamericans, Central Americans etc don’t have Israelite ancestors. How long he will hold on to this truth is anyone’s guess.
Woodward has been leading the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF) since 2001. That is where Southerton met him in 2004. To date, SMGF has collected DNA samples and genealogical data from approximately 105,000 volunteer participants representing more than 170 countries. These samples have been sequenced and linked to corresponding family history records and regularly uploaded in a public database on the project website at www.smgf.org. Additionally, these data have been used to produce a number of scientific publications with researchers from both the US and internationally (see a partial list online). Our dataset includes thousands of samples from Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas. Southerton insists that all these data, the years of work, the resources employed, the collaborations with scientists from other institutions and universities, the publications, etc. have as an ultimate purpose the discovery of Israelite DNA in the Americas and we are failing at it. Further, in Southerton’s viewpoint not only are we failing at what he erroneously insists is our goal, but we are suffering the failure without admitting it.
The ‘truth’ that Israelite DNA (whatever that might be) has not been found in Mesoamerica is public knowledge, a concept that finds Woodward and me with peace of mind. But Southerton is obsessed with the hopeless idea that Woodward and others at SMGF are still searching restlessly for this genetic link so that we can finally reconcile our LDS beliefs and be done with our work!
Perhaps the time has come for Southerton to recognize the considerable contribution that Woodward and the SMGF team have brought both to the scientific and the genealogical community, continuing to pursue the initial mission of building a genetic database to be used as a valuable research and humanitarian tool. This database was voted as one of the best genealogical resources available on the internet (for the years 2007 and 2008) out of more than 300,000 genealogical websites by the popular Family Tree Magazine.
Thankfully there is a public effort in progress that will be looking at large numbers of American Indians from all across the Americas. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/about.html
We can expect that data to be published in a timely manner over the next couple of years.
Southerton concludes his remarks with a reference to the National Geographic’s Genographic Project that has been also collecting thousands of DNA samples worldwide with the objective of reconstructing the history of mankind as it developed thousands of years ago. The Genographic Project is definitely praiseworthy and Woodward and colleagues have met in the past with some of its key researchers. As with other groups, we have been exploring opportunities to collaborate and share our data to further scientific knowledge in the field of anthropology, genealogy, and history. The Genographic Project, just like SMGF, has already published a number of important scientific papers on different populations. Contrary to SMGF, they have not yet published a single paper on Native American populations, but we are exploring the possibility to share our data with them as they had some difficulties collecting the necessary samples among indigenous groups from the Western Hemisphere (see for example an article published in the New York Times).
Despite Southerton’s continued efforts to discredit the professional integrity of institutions and/or individuals affiliated with the LDS faith, the debate about the origin of Native American populations is still wide open as demonstrated by the great amount of scholarship that scientists from different fields are still producing today. Rather than pick and choose from the scientific literature what fits best with his personal interpretation of the history of the Western Hemisphere, Southerton should attempt his own population genetic study to test the hypothesis for “Lamanite DNA.” He will soon “discover” the limitations with designing such a research project, the difficulties in obtaining and processing the necessary ancient and modern DNA samples (including those for comparison), find “reconciliation” between his conclusions with those from other disciplines (such as linguistic, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, etc.), find a suitable journal with a high impact factor that will publish his work, and be ready to reply to criticisms from other scientists, including geneticists. Through this experiment he might finally realize the complexity of such proposition and understand that others are not actively pursuing a similar objective.
The Book of Mormon withstood 180 years of criticism and it should be evident by now that man-made philosophies alone can neither destroy nor support its truthfulness. The book itself provides a pattern to know if it is from God or from man. As a scientist and as a member of the LDS faith, I find no difficulties in reconciling my scientific passion about Native American history with my religious beliefs. I am not looking for a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon in the double helix. The scientific method and the test of faith are two strongly connected dimensions of my existence, working synergistically in providing greater understanding, knowledge, and from time to time even a glimpse into God’s eternal mysteries.
I have always been fascinated with ancient civilizations and I look forward to my involvement in future genetic studies that would contribute to a greater understanding of human history, including that of Native American populations.
-Ugo Perego
Thank you Ugo. The information you provide here is fascinating far and above it being a response to Simon Southerton. I sometimes have to bless our critics because some of our best material comes in response to some of the basest criticism. I really love this statement:
“As a scientist and as a member of the LDS faith, I find no difficulties in reconciling my scientific passion about Native American history with my religious beliefs. I am not looking for a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon in the double helix. The scientific method and the test of faith are two strongly connected dimensions of my existence, working synergistically in providing greater understanding, knowledge, and from time to time even a glimpse into God’s eternal mysteries.”
And I relate to it too. My testimony, which comes from the application of the principle and methodology of Moroni’s promise, enables me to seek and accept truth in other sources including science.
This was a great read.
Great response. Having this sort of information available is a usefule tool to help everyday members that come into contact with Southerton’s materials that one can draw multiple conclusions from the same set of facts.
Great work Bro. Perego! I really enjoyed the information you have presented.
Well done!
Thank you, Ugo. This is not only a great response to Southerton’s claims, it’s a fascinating review of SMGF, its purposes and successes.
What are the names of those few Mormons, MM?
Thanks for this, Ugo. I read about the Current Biology article last week, but had no idea you and Woodward were involved. Congratulations on that.
Were you referring to me Juliann? I was just going by the article above.
I think it unlikely to be the case myself and am always quite careful and skeptical about positive claims for the Book of Mormon. It always looks bad when they turn out to be false. Of course in science a hypothesis often is falsified and no one cares. I notice that due to the politicized nature of the Book of Mormon evidences our critics tend to make a bigger deal when a hypothesis turns out to be false. Which is of course silly of them. But it’s a fact of light and thus I try to emphasize the tentative nature of any such hypothesis.
Sorry “fact of life” not “fact of light”
Ugo Parego’s commentary above, has added significant detail about Southerton’s various remarks about DNA and the Book of Mormon. On 5/16/2008, I noticed on the Signature Books webpage an apologia by Simon Southerton entitled “How DNA Divides LDS Apologists.” In “How DNA Divides,” Southerton complains about being identified as a “plant geneticist.” It is not clear why this annoys him. He identifies himself as “Principle Research Scientist Group Leader, Applied Biotechnology and Genomics, CSIRO Forest Biosciences, Canberra, Australia.” Boiled down, this seems to suggest that he works on applying plant genetics to agribusiness, would it not? It is clear that Southerton has molecular research training and experience. But he comes to human population genetics, like most of those who have opined about DNA and the Book of Mormon, without a primary focus on human population genetics. There is nothing that I can see in his title he gives himself that suggests that he is an expert on human population genetics. He charges that many of those he disparages as “LDS apologists” have “no molecular training.” These include, among others, Rodney Meldrum and his associates.
Imagining the place where the events depicted in the Book of Mormon could or may have taken place has been a kind of LDS parlor game. Anyone is free to offer suggestions and many have. There is no one prescribed party-line, though I am unaware of any of these many geographies that have held that all of North and South America provide the setting for the events depicted in the Book of Mormon, or that the Book of Mormon is the history of the initial peopling of the Americas. Be that as it may, there is and has never been a single apologetic stance. So it is true, just as Southerton claims, that Latter-day Saints, with vastly different capacities and qualifications, have proposed a host competing geographies for the Book of Mormon.
It has only been since WW II, with the emergence of what Southerton chooses to identify as “the now quasi-official view,” that there has come to be a widely accepted notion that “the Book of Mormon events took place in a small region of Mesoamerica.” This limited rather than continental or hemispheric Book of Mormon geography, in several slightly different versions, has flourished since WW II. Unlike other efforts to identify a geographical setting for the Book of Mormon, this “now quasi-official view” is not the product of dilettante Sunday afternoon speculation by well-intentioned novices, but it is, instead, the fruit of the first serious scholarship applied to both the crafting of what amounts to an internal geography fashioned by carefully identifying the clues in the Book of Mormon indicating the relative location of places and hence also the imposing evidence indicating how small the area was in which the events described therein took place, which was then coupled with efforts to link this internal geography to a map indicating in at least a general way where those events might have taken place and then to what is known of the material remains of the peoples in that location.
The purpose of this endeavor has not been to prove the Book of Mormon true, since those who have been involved in this endeavor begin believing that it was revealed to Joseph Smith through the gift and power of God. This scholarly endeavor has been an effort to better understand a text that is already believed to have been made available to Joseph Smith by divine agents, and also an effort to find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon and thereby deepen our understanding of that text. Southerton is thus correct in holding that the theory he associates with the Maxwell Institute limits the area in which the events described in the Book of Mormon could have taken place upon the arrival of the Lehi colony in America, and he is also correct that this theory also allows for and assumes a sizeable population of indigenous people already present when the Lehi colony arrived in the New World. This theory, he correctly notes, has been “championed by John Sorenson and his associates at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.”
Southerton admits that what he calls this “quasi-official” Book of Mormon geography rests on the belief that the Lehi colony “was a small group of colonists who entered a heavily populated New World. Consequently, they made an undetectable contribution to the American Indian gene pool.” Southerton slightly overstates the position set out by those naughty “FARMS apologists.” What those he denigrate as apologists hold is that, with the current state of DNA technology, as well as for other technical reasons, it is not likely that the DNA signature of the Lehi colony can be identified. It is therefore understandable that those most closely associated with this now “quasi-official” Book of Mormon geography have not been troubled by the efforts of those critics of the Book of Mormon to pull the Church from its crucial historical foundations by making a fuss about the supposed absence of Jewish or Israelite DNA in the New World. Even if it was possible to identify a specific Jewish DNA in 600BC, it is not likely that it would turn up in the New World. Southerton has admitted that this is the case.
Even after having made this admission, Southerton still wrongly insists that those naughty “apologist” have frantically begun to limit the area in which the events described in the Book of Mormon are believed to have taken place in an effort to salvage the historicity of the Book of Mormon from his supposedly devastating scientific arguments. This is rubbish. Why? Southerton associates John Sorenson with the theory that the events depicted in the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. The fact is that Sorenson and many others were advancing a limited Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon long before there was any effort to employ DNA studies to understand large scale population dynamics. Put bluntly, the limited geography for the Book of Mormon did not arise from efforts to salvage the historicity of the Book of Mormon from speculation about the founding population(s) of Amerindians. Instead, as I have explained, it arose primarily from a careful reading of the Book of Mormon for clues about the extent of the area in which the events depicted in it took place.
In addition, none of the so-called “barrage” of competing Book of Mormon geographies mentioned by Southerton advance what he calls a hemispheric geography; all are limited in one way or another. Those who insist that the Book of Mormon must be read as the history of every pre-Columbian in the Americas are Thomas Murphy and Simon Southerton. None of these most recent bits of novice speculation see the Book of Mormon as the history of all Amerindians. Talk about a popular hemispheric understanding of the place for the events depicted in the Book of Mormon is merely a Straw Man fashioned for polemical purposes by critics of the Church.
Southerton, in a recent effort to defend his attack on the Book of Mormon, insists that “DNA evidence severely calls into question all of the competing apologetic theories.” This is rubbish. Why? He had already admitted that the insertion of a small group such as the Lehi colony into a much larger indigenous population would probably leave no trace of the genetic markers now used by those who speculate about large scale population dynamics.
Southerton also opines that there is now “overwhelming scientific evidence that American Indians are essentially all descended from Siberian ancestors who have lived in the Americas for about 20,000 years.” Essentially all? Really? If, as Southerton admits, a small colony inserted into a much larger indigenous population would probably leave no currently identifiable genetic markers, then there could have been many hundreds of such incursions into the Americas, none or few of which would leave clearly identifiable genetic markers. How can we be sure “essentially all” Amerindians were the exclusive descendants of those who are believed to have ventured into North America some 20,000 years ago, given the fact that the insertion of small colonies into an already existing genetic pool would, according to Southerton, probably not leave an identifiable genetic trace?
Southerton hints at the existence of a wide variety of efforts to set out a geography for the Book of Mormon. He specifically mentions one of many recent amateurish efforts to place the events described in the Book of Mormon in the Great Lakes area–he has in mind Rodney Meldrum’s speculation, and also one effort to place the events in the Malay Peninsula. He then declines to provide “a comprehensive response” to what he inflates into a veritable a “barrage” of competing efforts to defend the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Instead of providing “a comprehensive response to such divided apologetic barrage,” what he claims, instead, is that “many of the most hostile apologetic attacks on the critics [of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon] could also be directed against competing LDS apologetic theories.” This is, of course, true, since this is exactly his most recent apologia for his own stance on the Book of Mormon. But it is not a substantive argument against the position taken by those associated with the Maxwell Institute. Merely showing that there are alternative opinions does not by itself constitute a refutation of the studies published by the Maxwell Institute. In addition, probably only Rodney Meldrum’s Book of Mormon geography specifically targeted the Mesoamerican geography advanced by John Sorenson and others associated with the Maxwell Institute. Meldrum’s geography is attached to the claim that he has discovered a genetic proof for the Book of Mormon by pointing to one mutation of the X marker found among a few native American peoples. What Ugo Parego has written above calls into question this supposed “proof.”
In this recent apologia for his rejection of the Book of Mormon, Southerton has brushed aside the substantive analyses of the Book of Mormon published by the Maxwell Institute. Instead, he claims that “Mormons are still expected to believe things about American Indians that are not true.” This is nonsense. Why? There are, as he admits, perfectly reasonable explanations for why DNA markers from colonists from the Near East, even if it were possible to identify these original markers, probably would not turn up in DNA samples.
Southerton has identified a primary reason why this is the case. Those associated with the Maxwell Institute have argued that the Lehi colony was a small group that arrived in an already populated New World. Southerton grants that a small colony would have “made an undetectable contribution to the American Indian gene pool.” He seems to have learned this from his initial contact with Scott Woodward.. Hence earlier Southerton admitted that “in 600 bc there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.” If this is true, and I can see no reason why it is not, then it is simply pointless to claim that the results of current DNA sampling and the subsequent speculation about large-scale population dynamics, as interesting and valuable as it obviously is, can cast light one way or another on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
Thank you for this response to Simon’s posting. One thing that did bother me was how often you implied meaning behind seemingly innocuous statements by Southerton. Perhaps I am misreading him, but I have never felt that Southerton has ever implied that he was the one to discover Asian DNA.
There are a number of cases where you claim that Southerton is implying something pompous in nature that he is not. It is unfortunate that you do this because it tends to undermine the otherwise dispassionate, informative tone of your posting.
If failure to find DNA evidence is “proof” that it does not exist, then we must conclude that Joseph Smith had no children by any woman other than Emma Smith. After all genetic research by Ugo Perego failed to find any of these people.
Ok I’m a dummy.
As an active believing Mormon I was always taught the following doctrines:
That the earth was only 6’000 years old,(see D&C 77)
That Adam and Eve departed the Garden of Eden in 4000 BCE http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/chrono
That physical death was introduced into the world with the fall of Adam in 4,000 BCE. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ba805f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=664ea41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
That there was a literal universal flood that killed every living thing save those on the Ark. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4a5557b60090c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
That all language diversity came as a result of God confusing the languages at the Tower of Babel following the flood in 2200 BCE (see earlier Ensign Article)
So yeah I’m a dummy… your DNA studies are suggesting that there has been life in the Americas from a time “Before the flood” wouldn’t they have all been destroyed in that universal flood?
And where did all these American-Asians come from…if NOT from Adam 6,000 years ago?
And how did you extract DNA from a 10,000 year old bone that supposedly died before Adam introduced death?
Sorry but I’m a dummy and can’t seem to reconcile the science of your study from Mormon doctrine? Could you please help me out?
Unless you’re suggesting that the Universal flood was Not Universal.
Or that there WAS death before Adam.
That the Earth IS actually older than 6,000 years.
And the diversion of language did NOT evolve from Babel.
And that Adam was NOT the father of all human life beginning 6,000 years ago.
So I am interested in your helping me understand…because your science is conflicting with the doctrine.
Craig,
Since you have posted a rather turgid “exit story” on the RFM message board, I highly doubt you are seriously interested in answers to any of the questions you pose above.
It’s abundantly clear that you saw — and continue to see — Mormon doctrine in only the most rigid, fundamentalist way possible. This view has been held by some prominent Latter-day Saint leaders, but there are other interpretations that allow for a much more open understanding.
Too bad you didn’t bother to explore any of these before you jettisoned your former faith.
I don’t think Noah’s flood covered the whole earth.
I haven’t thought that since I graduated from Primary.
Looks like yet another fellow who took “Mormon Doctrine” just a tad too seriously.
This is a timely article on the subject of whether science conflicts with doctrine:
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/71097/1121
Ummm…Mike…Help me understand…I am sincerely interested in how one is supposed to fit the pieces of this puzzle together so that prophetic utterances, LDS scripture, current church lessons and teachings, church doctrine and science can all be reconciled. What are these “other interpretations that allow for a much more open understanding” and make all of these conflicts disappear? I really want to know.
If Mormonism is what it claims to be…then these supposed conflicts should be easily reconciled. Heck, I’ll even accept the more complex answers. If true, I’d be stupid to reject Mormonism…and should be quickly repenting of all of my supposed sins and beating a path back into the church of my birth.
So Mike, in all sincerity…how does a modern thinking Mormon reconcile these supposed conflicts? I’m willing to open my mind to your explanation.
Seth R. Says:
Looks like yet another fellow who took “Mormon Doctrine” just a tad too seriously.
Gee Seth, You don’t take Mormon Doctrine Seriously? If not seriously, HOW do you take it…with a grain of salt or rather Skepticism?
Craig,
I’m with Mike on this one. No matter how many times you say “sincerely” in your posts, I sincerely doubt if you are sincere. (But, perchance, your responses will prove me wrong.)
Even so, I find your list very interesting. If, as you say, you were “always taught” those doctrines, that is a shame. The never-changing teaching that you experienced is not consistent with my experience.
Which, then, represents the “true” Mormonism? Your experience or mine? My experience–apparently contrary to yours–has shown a religion that has very few cast-in-stone “doctrines” and quite a few teachings that can and do change. I–again apparently contrary to you–do not find such fluidity bothersome in the least, as it allows me to discover my own answers and not have to hew to some orthodoxy that members of the Church (or its critics) try to impose on me.
So, to turn your sincere questions around, why do you insist it is impossible to be a faithful, believing Mormon who (a) doesn’t think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, (b) doesn’t think Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden in 4000 BCE, (c) doesn’t believe that physical death began in 4000 BCE, (d) that leans more toward a localized rather than universal flood, and (e) doesn’t think language diversity should necessarily be pinned to 2200 BCE?
If you view such issues as some sort of litmus test for Mormonism, then perhaps you really didn’t understand Mormonism as much as you thought you did. (And those who taught you that such issues were, in fact, unalterable and immutable doctrines did you a great disservice.)
(By the way, did you miss my post along this very line back in September?)
-Allen
I agree with Ugo Perego on this issue. The science is not far enough along and we don’t have the mitochondrial DNA of the women that came across with Lehi. The tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were scattered, so we have nothing to compare the mitochondrial DNA to. Maybe the Asian populations are also from the scattered tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh and the Asian mitochondrial DNA of the Book of Mormon peoples match the current Asian mitochondrial DNA. There really isn’t enough evidence and likely won’t be to make any conclusive statement about the DNA of the Book of Mormon people without mitochondrial DNA from the women that fled Israel with Lehi’s family.
Thanks for giving me the courtesy of a reply Allen. I appreciate it. Allen, I don’t discount your Mormon experience at all…I’m sure that what you describe was in fact the experience you had. However, my Mormon education was just as I described… very literal.
From Spencer Kimble’s conference declaration that every North and South American Indian was a descendant of Lehi,
Adam’s emergence from Eden in 4000 BCE, did u look at the link?
A universal flood,
To Bruce McConkie’s pronouncement that “If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life. If Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement. If there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life, nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God. The fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself”. – Bruce R. McConkie
Did you by any change read any of the links I referenced in my original post? These are current articles and lessons being taught in the church today…they are being taught today just as they were taught to me when I was a member of the church. They are being taught just as I taught them.
Which begs the question, how did you have such a different experience than the literal one I received?
Since these same teaching are STILL being taught in the church and are currently found in Ensign articles, GA addresses and lesson manuals. I would chance to state that my experience was the norm rather than the exception. But hey that’s just me.
So YES you can be… a faithful, believing Mormon who (a) doesn’t think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, (b) doesn’t think Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden in 4000 BCE, (c) doesn’t believe that physical death began in 4000 BCE, (d) that leans more toward a localized rather than universal flood, and (e) doesn’t think language diversity should necessarily be pinned to 2200 BCE?
But I just don’t know HOW you can…to me it’s just a reshuffling of the deck, one that isn’t even taught in church.
Perhaps what I am asking is in light of scripture…HOW do you not believe in a 6,000 year earth age, In light of current church teaching HOW do you NOT believe in a 4000BCE garden eviction, In light of GA pronouncements HOW do you NOT believe their words and instead accept scientific reality and yet STILL accept them as inspired leaders, or in light of BoM literalness…how can you discount the story of Babel…isn’t the truth claim of the BoM dependant on the tower of Babel being an actual historical event?
I know why I no longer believe…I just don’t know HOW you believe … particularly in light of all the conflicting evidence…so again I ask how do you reconcile scientific reality with Mormon claimed reality? Yes I’m asking sincerely.
Craig has raised some legitimate questions to which, just for the record, I will attempt to briefly present my quasi orthodox views.
Age of the earth: According to the account in Abraham the creation occurred over six creative periods called “times” (Abraham 4). In the temple these creative periods are named as the first day, second day, etc. However these periods could not be what we now know as 24 hour periods because Adam did not receive his reckoning of time until he was cast out of the garden (Abraham 5:13). So the creation was of seven periods of indeterminate time. No conflict with science there.
Age of man: Adam was the first man and the scriptural record is clear that he was expelled from the Garden about 6,000 years ago. This is in conflict with current carbon dating theories. Carbon dating is based on the premise that the C14 in the atmosphere has been relatively constant from day one. However, the C14 in the atmosphere is still increasing and varying from sun radiation. Although there are formula estimates to try and adjust for it, it is simply not known what the ancient levels were. A small reduction in ancient levels of C14 would make a large error in the estimated age. My opinion is that the science will one day improve to coincide with the scriptural record.
Death in the earth: The fall of Adam and Eve brought death into the world, meaning to them and their descendents. There are fossils of living plants and animals that obviously predate man. The concept that Adam’s fall brought death to all creatures stems from the following scripture:
My personal interpretation of this scripture is that it does not mean that no animal or plant ever died before the fall of Adam. The plant material that Adam and the animals ate obviously died. But it means that nothing could have progressed from the telestial and terrestrial states in which they were created. Adam and Eve were created outside of the terrestrial Garden of Eden and then later placed in the Garden. Eve knew about the lone and dreary world outside of the Garden because they had once lived there. She knew that because of her transgression she would be cast back out there and Adam would be a lone man in the garden. There was obviously a significant difference between conditions inside and conditions outside of the garden.
Universal Flood: The scriptural account of the flood is clear that it was universal and that “all flesh” was destroyed except those saved in the ark. I accept the scriptural account on faith. The scientific case against a universal flood is based on theories and subjective interpretation of evidence. Again, I believe that the science will one day catch up to the scriptures.
Confounding of Tongues: Too much scriptural evidence not to be true. Science will have to catch up.
Hi Craig,
I appreciate your questions. I think the more we understand each other, the better off we all are.
I have been a Bishop, my father was a Bishop, and my Grandfather was a Bishop. My extended family has also been Bishops and/or involved in various stake callings including being in stake presidencies. I only give the family history to say that we are, and have been, pretty mainstream Mormons. It is not given to say I am better or more spiritual, or even more knowledgeable than anyone else.
I have never been taught to believe in the 7000 year old earth theory. Quite the contrary. My father taught biology. I have always been taught that evolution is God’s way of creating change. The 7000 yr thing is just recorded religious history.
You ask an interesting question as to how it can be reconciled. Clearly, there are church lessons and and books from General Authorities that seem to promote the 7000 yr old earth and are anti-evolution. But, what you seem to be missing is that there has always been difference of opinion among the brethren. They don’t speak with a unified voice on this subject. To help calm the differences in this area, the Church sponsored talks and printed brochures from different points of view.
The BYU Biology department teaches evolution. They have a packet that has been put together and approved by the Church. It is pretty much what you would expect to find in a biology department anywhere.
I think you will find this article on Wikipedia interesting. It is worth the read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_evolution
Especially read the information on the various church leaders at the bottom.
You might also want to take a look at this very short blurb at FAIR here:
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Evolution
Check out the three short primary source document links as well.
One other story–I heard from a primary source–but my details may be wrong–that some of the students at Utah State University were upset that the biology department was not teaching about man as outlined in Joseph F. Smith’s book “Man, His Origin and Destiny.” They were holding up the books in class as protest. David O McKay himself went to visit to quell the troubles. His response was “Adam was the first man who spoke with God.” The rest hasn’t been revealed so it remains only the opinion of Brother Smith.
Some things are literal and historical in the scriptures, and some things are allegorical to teach principals. I do find it interesting that those who are raised in more literal environments seem to be more likely to be those who leave the church. Perhaps therein lies the difference between those who go and those who stay.
If you come up with insights from this discussion, please share them with us here. We may or may not agree, but it should lead to an interesting discussion.
One more thought on Universal Flood. At the time when the scripture was written we did not have satellites or the space program. When they talked about the earth,it meant something totally different than what it means to us today. People have interpreted the scriptures which simply say “the earth” to mean the entire world.
All scripture is filtered through the understanding of the men who wrote it and the people who are reading it.
So the bottom line is that we really don’t know how much was really covered. There is not enough information.
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Global_or_local_Flood
Craig
I suppose tensions exist in all areas of our lives, including faith. Perhaps some sheltering occurs with the very young, but certainly by the time most folks enter college the existence of these tensions becomes very clear. This results in a bit of a struggle. For most it’s healthy — it’s a growth thing. Through it our lives become more real. For some the tension is a reason to give up — to feel embittered about being deceived as youth. That’s unfortunate. I guess we can all choose.
Best
Rudy
Scott,
I have to disagree with your premise on the scriptures of the flood. Moses didn’t get his information of the creation and the flood from some previous writings. He received it directly from God, who certainly knew of the entire earth.
Allen and Scott have said pretty much everything I would have. My experience coincides with theirs.
The prevalence and forcefulness of a certain strain of “orthodox” thinking in the Church today is a holdover from the views of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, whose writings were both prolific and emphatic. Before their time there was significant — and often public — disagreement among Church leaders about some of the questions Craig raised. I’m thinking particularly of the heated disagreement between B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith, in which the First Presidency had to intervene.
As time passes, Smith and McConkie’s views have waned in popularity, and balance is being restored. There has always been a great deal of deference given by current Church leaders to previous Church leaders, so you’re not going to see anything like a “disavowal” of these men, but you’ll find the Mormon Doctrine and Doctrines of Salvation are being quoted less and less often, and no longer used as primary sources in Church-published material.
Meanwhile, thoughtful Latter-day Saint conversations are taking place about, for example, the necessity of a global flood. (Clayton White and Mark Thomas’ recent Dialogue article is a must-read on this subject.) Personally, I hold to a local flood. But then I also believe in a very old earth and in human evolution.
And, yet, I remain a faithful, active member of the Church — as well as a high priest group leader and the instructor of a weekday evening adult religion class — despite my “heresies.”
I grieve for Craig, because it appears that his faith was incubated in an overly-rigid environment that didn’t allow for shades of gray, fallibility, different interpretations, or reason and science. I have said before that fundamentalism drives more people out of the Church, and — based on what I’ve seen so far — I think he is a textbook example of this problem.
Of course I take “Mormon Doctrine” with a grain of salt Craig. You should too.
In a Church where the members are being continually called upon to gain a testimony for themselves of the truthfulness of what Church leaders are teaching, how could you view a book from those leaders any other way?
I am skeptical of Bruce R. McConkie. Spencer W. Kimball too. And Thomas S. Monson for that matter. I don’t take it for granted that any of them got it right. I have to study it out for myself and come to that conclusion independently – which is exactly what Joseph Smith CONSTANTLY advocated we all do.
Prophets don’t get a free hall pass in my book.
I think McConkie’s theories on “No Death Before the Fall” were extremely sketchy, and I don’t subscribe to them. I think his assertion that belief that God used evolutionary processes is one of the “Seven Deadly Heresies” is ridiculous.
I also find various other assertions of LDS authorities rather silly. But thank God we were all given brains and the right to pray for discernment.
Unfortunate that so many in the Church choose to squander this gift and responsibility.
The Bottom line and conclusion is that Simon Southerton is correct in stating: “DNA evidence that American Indians were essentially all descended from Asian ancestors.” That makes the Book of Mormon and the Prophets who have repeatedly stated that they are direct decedents of Lehi a total and absolute LIE!
If you call into question anything and everything that you feel contradicts your own thinking, you are not in any position to seriously promote a universal truth, such as today’s LDS Church, GAs and missionaries, do.
Therein lie my own reasons for abandoning Mormonism.
BKP said:
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. I’ll give you a personal example.
My father’s father’s father’s mother was full-blooded Cherokee. If you test my mtDNA you won’t find any evidence of her in me. Does that mean that I am not descended from her? Does it mean that she is not one of my ancestors?
Once you understand that answer to that question you’ll figure out why your conclusion doesn’t necessarily flow from your premise.
-Allen
Here’s the Rub…Is Not Mormonism the SUM of all its Parts?
I understand the LDS proposition that the Church is true regardless of any and all conflicting facts, truths or knowledge that may cast doubt on that proposition. Nor am I ignorant of the new Mormon world view that allows LDS leaders (past and present) to be more human, fallible and often, just plain wrong yet still able to maintain their credibility, at least within the confines of the church.
But Mormonism is the Sum of all of its many fragmented parts…it is the churches responsibility to make these many parts fit together in a cohesive understandable manner. The new religion that FAIR apologizes for is a far different religion than Mormonism of say 10,20 or 30 years ago. It has evolved from the religion I taught as a missionary or that my parents or grandparents were active members of…it has had to change to maintain its relevancy as it has succumbed to the social and scientific realities of today. And through this evolution it has become …a new species …a far different church than the one Joseph Smith founded.
So it is no wonder that the doctrinal church of Joseph Fielding Smith, Spencer Kimble and Bruce McConkie has been relegated to nostalgia and is in fact quite different than the modern LDS church. Could anyone today imagine Thomas Monson publically declaring that there was no death prior to Adam 6,000 years ago or that all currently living North and South continental Amerindians as well as the inhabitants of the Pacific Islands are descendants of an Israelite named Lehi? Well not if he wanted to maintain any credibility or relevancy.
Now before I am accused of not paying homage to the LDS escape clause better known as “modern day revelation”, which by its very definition suggests change, I add…how much can God change and still be God. How many truths can be testified too, accompanied by spiritual witness, later to be proven false and still be true? How many Prophetic pronouncements can turn out to be the mere views of a falable man and still be viewed as Prophetic…before one is justified in accepting reality and coming to the conclusion that Mormonism is not what it claims to be?
To accept the church that the good and very fair folks here on the F.A.I.R. blog promote, is to accept and believe in a church that is foreign to the one I grew up loving…it would require my accepting a reinvented church, one that discounts or ignores past treachings. One that teaches or has taught one thing in the past but has now accepts scientific realities and rejects the so-called God given prophetic worldview of supposed former God-inspired leaders.
I applauded you good F.A.I.R. folks for being able to twist your minds into pretzels to accommodate all of the many conflicting scriptures, prophetic statements, GA remarks, teachings and doctrine in order to accommodate belief…I see what you have to do…I just don’t understand HOW you do it.
PS: My sincere apologies to Dr. Ugo Perego, it was not my intention to hijack this thread.
Craig,
Basically it sounds like you’re bitter that being religious forces you to think like a grown up. It seems you were hoping for a much easier mental free ride through life.
Sorry to disappoint you.
I’m just curious to know if anyone reading this thread has any idea where any Lamanite descendants presently live.
If anyone knows then please respond with your email address and the postal code (or latitude/longitude within 250km) of at least one known Lamanite descendant.
Craig Paxton said:
Your statement implies that the Church as it existed 10, 20, or 30 years ago was not “a far different church than the one Joseph Smith founded.” That would, of course, be incorrect. One of the amazing things that I’ve noticed with the Church in my 50+ years is that it is very adept at changing, reinventing, and refocusing itself every 10, 20, or 30 years.
To me that is a marvel. To others (Craig?) it may be the mark up “just another church; nothing special.”
And such has always been the problem when it comes to prophets, no? Did Joshua have a hard time filling Moses’ sandals? Did he do things different? Did he change things that he felt God impressed him to change? How about Peter? How about Paul?
Take your pick of any prophet you want–they all do things differently. How, then, does one reconcile the acts, beliefs, teachings, or behaviors of one prophet when compared with another?
To my mind, one does it by (in a sense) bypassing the prophet. A testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel should not be founded on what a prophet does or doesn’t do; that is a “cult of personality,” if you will. The testimony should be anchored on the Lord. Establish the relationship with Him and the rest becomes (almost) flotsam and jetsam, moving in and out with the tide and winds.
-Allen
Alex said:
My feeling? They are all around us. I have read population studies that indicate that through the miracle of intermarriage (think seven degrees of separation across generations) any living person, today, is related to any given individual living about 600 years ago.
So, Laman lives 2600 years ago and starts the very human process of living, loving, and procreating. His children do the same, and their children, and their children, and on and on and on. Through the same miracle of intermarriage, every person anywhere on the Americas was descended from Laman–including me and probably you.
And before you say “show me the DNA!”, see my earlier comment about my fourth great grandmother being full-blooded Cherokee and me not having any DNA to show for it.
Such is life.
-Allen
I’m a former member of the LDS Church who was sent as a naïve, believing 19-year-old Mormon to Peru in 1984 to proselytize to the “sons and daughters of Lehi”, according to what the LDS Church had systematically taught me to believe. Since leaving the church in ’92, I’ve read a lot of scientific literature about Native Americans, none of which supports the Book of Mormon and church teachings and LDS beliefs about it.
I’m in my mid-40’s and over the past 16 years, I’ve collected LDS materials such as church lesson manuals, Seminary work booklets, and The Friend and New Era magazines that were used to indoctrinate me in the Mormon ‘truth’ that Native Americans descended from a small group of Jews who left Jerusalem about 600 BC and sailed to the New World. Science has thoroughly discredited that ‘true’ church teaching, as many Mormons have come to realize in the past decade and a half of Internet growth.
As a teen, I attended the LDS Cumorah Pageant (outside of Palmyra, NY) three times, where I witnessed the LDS Church promulgating its ‘truth’ about the Jewish ancestry of Native Americans to thousands of people through the nightly presentation. What people saw was enacted fiction, not historical reality, as science has proven.
There is no scientific evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, the “keystone” of the LDS religion and “the most correct of any book on earth”, according to Joseph Smith. I learned about the complete lack of supporting evidence after I contacted the Anthropology Dept. of 15 universities in the U.S., Canada and Mexico with researchers specializing in Native American peoples and cultures, past and present. I also learned of a ‘mountain’ of scientific evidence related to Native Americans, genetic, archaeological, and otherwise, proving that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.
It was the British pamphleteer, inventor, and intellectual Thomas Paine who wrote, “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” Foundational teachings and claims of the LDS Church shrink from inquiry; they wither under the spotlight of scientific and historical facts and critical/rational thinking.
Given the great abundance of non-supportive evidence, there is only one correct conclusion for Latter-day Saints to come to: Mormonism has been based on a fraud since the beginning (1830). Demonstrably, Joseph Smith lied about the Book of Mormon and its origins (and many other things). Thousands of people terminate their membership in the chronically dishonest LDS Church each year after learning their trust was abused by the organization.
Many ‘faithful’ Mormons try to mentally flee from the legions of facts that conflict with their religious beliefs and harm themselves psychologically in the process. No one can undermine their critical thinking and betray their rational mind and avoid paying the price in terms of their psychological health.
Seth R. Said:
Basically it sounds like you’re bitter that being religious forces you to think like a grown up. It seems you were hoping for a much easier mental free ride through life.
Sorry to disappoint you
————————————————————
Umm…Seth or maybe it could be that I actually studied these things out in my mindand came to a rational conclusion that Mormonism was not based in reality. But I’m trying to have an open mind…like I said IF Mormonism is what it claims to be…my questions should be quite easy to answer in a logical sensible manner….and be consistent with church doctrine and prophetic pronouncements. Am I asking too much?
I’ve approached my comments here on FAIR with a sincere heart, hoping to have an honest conversation but yeah I’ve grown skeptical of Mormon claims…but at least contribute to the conversation and try to help me understand. I’ll leave my polemicist at the door or for another platform if you will try to do the same.
Your seemingly personal derisions…do not serve your line of reasoning or position well. It merely exposes the weakness of your argument…Ummm…sorry did you have an argument? Sorry couldn’t help myself.
To Scott Gordon,
Thank you for taking the calm, reasoned approuch. You are a credit to your religion. I sincerley appreciate the information you have offered. I will read it and reply with my thoughts.
Oh and one more thought regarding Seth,
When I was an active believing member of the church I had a difficult time with Cafeteria Mormon’s, those who picked and chose what parts of the church to believe in. Silly me, maybe if I had been less dogmatic and took more of what the brethren were teaching, as you say, with a grain of salt, I’d still be a member today.
Ironic isn’t it, that by believing in the teachings of the church literally as taught and not picking and choosing what to believe….I would be the one of the outside while you are still an active, practicing (note: I don’t say believing) Mormon.
No apologies needed Craig.
Here are a couple of pieces of information regarding the issues you brought up. I believe that what you refer as recent changes in LDS position (including FAIR) are actually on going issues that have been with us for a longer time.
Regarding Bruce R. McConkie and Spencer W. Kimball (quotes taken from Chapter 11, pp. 96-101, of Lengthen Your Stride, the biography of President Kimball by Edward Kimball):
“In 1979 President Kimball met with the Presiding Bishopric…and Elder McConkie to discuss a proposal that on the Church’s sequicentennial the First Presidency publish an official statement on the creation and evolution. But after extended discussion, they decided in 1980 not to issue any such official statement. According to Elder Ezra Taft Benson’s grandson Stephen, Elder Benson had strong personal anti-evolution views but “acknowledged that ‘the Lord may not have revealed enough to create unanimity among the Brethren.’” Elder Benson reportedly said any statement would be “unwise” and serve only to “widen differences…”
President Kimball was not a doctrinaire, and he felt a need to intervene in doctrinal matters only when he saw strong statements of personal opinion as being divisive. Elder McConkie’s talk at BYU on “The Seven Deadly Heresies” implied he had authority to define heresy…President Kimball responded to the uproar by calling Elder McConkie in to discuss the talk. As a consequence, Elder McConkie revised the talk for publication so as to clarify that he was stating personal views…But there was no corrective public criticism of the talk…
These statements, without any public expression of a different view by other leaders, gave the mistaken impression that the Church had a position on the issue, despite the continuing hands-off position of the First Presidency and the Twelve.
According to Edward Kimball, President Kimball said little about the issue in public and was noncommittal in family discussions, viewing it as a distracting issue.”
This second quote comes from the April 1910 Improvement Era. It is an official statement by the then First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund) to further clarify their position following the proclamation on The Origin of Man in 1909 (http://tinyurl.com/OriginOfMan):
“Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles…; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.” (emphasis added).
The testimony should be anchored on the Lord. Establish the relationship with Him and the rest becomes (almost) flotsam and jetsam, moving in and out with the tide and winds.
——————————————————
I agree, unfortunately for you the entire relationship with the Lord is intimately tied to the validity of the Book of Mormon and the Prophets who represent it including their retoric. If the latter is false then so is the former. I chose to throw out the Book of Mormon and be rid of the conflicts, mental gymnastics, and obvious falsities. Now I only focus on Jesus the Christ. My internal compass is all I truly need for my eternal progression. Mormons are not so fortunate.
Ok Scott Gordon and Theodore Brandley…I like both of your approaches…each of you is trying to explain your beliefs in an honest sincere manner. Thanks you.
Scott, after reading the links you provided (I have read these before) I come to the following conclusion… Bottom line…The Church has no official position on evolution.
I find this rather sad. Evolution is a reality. Like it or not…it’s a reality and a provable fact. You can engage in an honest debate around the edges but the core fact is that Darwin got it right. Evolution happened and continues to happen today.
When you read the following statements from church leaders….it seems to me that they are merely trying unsuccessfully to keep their fingers in a dike that is forever springing leaks. IN other words their definitive silence on this matter can only lead to loss of belief and faith in the very institution they have sworn to protect.
For example John Taylor’s uninformed statement that…
…. These principles do not change, as represented by evolutionists of the Darwinian school, but the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from the Maker. … [Man] did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God.” – John Taylor
He couldn’t have been more wrong. To suggest that “the primitive organisms of all living beings exist in the same form as when they first received their impress from the Maker” in light of what we know today is well…unsupportable. (I’m being kind)
And then you add the first presidency statement of 1933 to the argument…and all you get is a statement of the obvious when they state: “We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion” What? Nothing could be further from the truth…every advantage could be gained by merely stating that evolution is either real or it is not as it relates to church doctrines…UNLESS as is clear they are merely hedging their bets…
Here’s the entire statement:
“Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the people of the world. Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research…. We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion … but on the contrary are certain it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: ‘Adam is the primal parent of our race. – 1933 First Presidency Statement
But I saved the best for last…the ever lovable Gordon Hinckley…the master
‘Studied all about it. Didn’t worry me then. Doesn’t worry me now.’ Gordon Hinckley
Well thanks for that definitive declaration President Hinckley…I’m certainly glad that this question doesn’t worry YOU…but it sure as heck worries a lot of the church you once presided over…wouldn’t it have been helpful to offer a more definitive answer?
One of the reasons this question is even an issue today is that the leadership of the church refuses to offer any definitive answer. How can the reality of Evolution be explained in light of church doctrine?
Church answer: Don’t worry bout it!
ARGGGGGGGGGGGG
BKP said:
Again, I disagree with your conclusion. Your statement is reminiscent of a person who believes in an inerrant Bible and then loses all faith when he later discovers an error. Instead of seeing the fault in the pedistal on which he placed the Bible, he externalizes the fault and throws the baby out with the bathwater.
I choose to view the prophets (whether they be the ones living today or the ones who wrote the scriptures) as men who can and do make mistakes–even in what they write. You may not like it, but God works with such imperfect individuals and allows them to make mistakes. You may long for something that is “mistake free” or somehow perfect, but such is not our lot in life.
Did you throw out the Bible too? Many have, and use the same verbiage that you do in order to justify their decision. It is a pity to see such decisions but, as you state, such is your choice.
And you speak for all Mormons, I presume?
-Allen
BKP,
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.(The Articles of Faith 1:11)
You might consider giving us the same courtesy.
Thank you Dr. Perego…that was interesting information, I was not aware of this background story.
I still would hope that in light of scientific reality, the First Presedency would come out and make a definitive statement with respect to this question rather than allowing the membership of the church to speculate.
Evolution is a fact. Period. It would be nice to understand how this reality can be better understood in light of church doctrines.
Evolution is a popular and interesting theory but it is not a proven fact. In fact, evolution from a lower form of life to a higher form of life, or even from one species to another, has never been observed. The commonality between different species is actually stronger evidence for a common design than it is for a common parent. The mathematical probability of life as we know it evolving randomly by chance is zero. God could have used evolution to fill the earth with life, but He specifically said that He didn’t. He specifically commanded every form of life to multiply each after their own kind, in their own sphere and element. This precludes evolution.
Careful, Theodore. When you say this:
You are treading where prophets have failed to go. Read the comment by Ugo earlier in this thread and you’ll find evidence–from prophets–that the case is not as open and shut as you imply.
-Allen
Craig,
I appreciate your frustration on the matter. There are a couple of issues (not this one) that sometimes frustrate me and I wish the church would take a more definitive stance. Additionally, the earthly bureaucracy is sometimes something we have to roll our eyes over. So why do I stay?
1) I believe in God
2) I believe the Book of Mormon is historical.
3) Therefore–Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.
I have read the books and webpages that I have been directed to by post-Mormons, and I find the scholarship to be sloppy and lacking. Yes, I can say the same thing about many of the pro-church books. But, I find that most (not all) historical arguments against the church are resolved by going back and looking at the actual and the cultural context. It is often the paradigm we use when we look at church history that seems to make the difference.
I understand your disdain for cafeteria Mormons. I don’t consider myself one of those. But, I feel free to believe what I wish on those items on which the Church doesn’t have an official position–however frustrating that lack of position may be.
This next item isn’t meant to be a stab, but I recognize it will probably come across as one. My apologies in advance, but I hope it helps you understand where I am coming from. While you are frustrated by the belief-pretzels we believers sometimes tie ourselves up into, I get frustrated by the intellectual laziness of some of the ex-Members who use books like Palmer’s and Southerton’s as a justification to leave. I know I probably expect too much from a culture that loves TV programming geared to an 7th & 8th grade level.
I find there are many bright, intelligent, warm, and funny people who have chosen to leave the church. My heart goes out to their suffering in making the transition through the life changing decision like they have made. I hope that we can all continue to make progress toward building a better and healthier community.
Allen,
I have the luxury of speaking only for myself, from my own reasoning from the scriptures. Living prophets must be more guarded or they will stir up a hornets nest for the Church.
Do you not agree that God commanded every form of life to multiply each after their own kind, in their own sphere and element? And, do you not agree that God said that all forms of life obeyed His commands to do so?
If you agree to those statements, how would you conclude that God used evolution to fill the earth?
Theodore
I wonder if Alex DeGaston, see above, currently thinks of himself as a Latter-day Saint, or has he shed the identity he once made a covenant to follow–that is, to take upon himself the name of the Messiah or Christ. Or, moving in a different direction, he could think of himself as French because of his father’s surname, or does he choose to identify with some portion of his mother’s ancestors? He could, of course, if it suited his purposes, pick some special identity from a whole host of ancestors or from no ancestor at all. If he will think about how identities, including kinship identities, are formed and transformed, he will begin to see why his supposedly devastating remarks are confused. I wonder what identity he hopes his own children will come to adopt. They could, if so disposed, eventually come to think of themselves as French or Polish or whatever, given the way kinship labels tend to work. I have witnessed individuals insist that they were Maori when the best they could come up with is one ancestor out of 64 or 128. They would insist that they were Maori in their hearts or at their core. And others would welcome them as such. Just two days ago I received an email message from a Maori who addressed me in terms that included me among his kinship. If Alex will think about these things, he will have the answer to his question. Put another way, if we make and then strive to keep the covenant we make with God, we are thereby transformed into the seed or children of Christ and join his extended family.
To Theodore:
Perhaps the following article by Hugh Nibley (Before Adam) can offer you an alternative and less orthodox view on the creation: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73. By no means I take the words of Professor Nibley as the revealed gospel and the talk itself is quite outdated in few parts as it is nearly 30 years old (for example it is now evident through genetic data that the Neanderthals are not the ancestors to modern humans). However, I like Nibley’s take on the subject as it is very much in line with some of my thoughts when I study the creation accounts through my scientist glasses, particularly the one given in the 4th chapter of the Book of Abraham:
20. And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; the fowls, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.
21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great awhales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.
24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.
25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.
Note that it was the waters (primordial soup?) and the earth that brought forth the moving and living creatures. The Gods prepared the “ingredients” and blessed them.
Regarding: “Do you not agree that God commanded every form of life to multiply each after their own kind, in their own sphere and element?” My simplistic explanation (and opinion) on this subject is that there could be little or unnoticeable difference between two generations of the same living origanism, but after hundreds or thousands of generations, these differences could be more evident to the point that you may argue that the original living form is ancestral to the one observed today. Therefore, the law of multiplying after their own kind is respected from one generation to the next, but “bended” when comparison is made between organisms separated by a very large number of generations.
You raise some good points Lou. Looking back a few generations in my own family I see that about 200 years before I was born was the average birth year for my 64 great-great-great-great grandparents. Assuming 3 generations per century would make 60 generations going back 20 centuries to circa 30 BC. That’s over a quintillion placeholders in the 60th generation going back. Undoubtedly there was some overlap with plenty of distant cousins intermarrying. There has been plenty of DNA mixing going on.
In the 60th generation there is only one pure paternal line (i.e. y-ch DNA). Likewise there is only one pure maternal line (i.e. m-DNA). And that’s where I focus my questions on DNA studies as they relate to the Book of Mormon.
Theodore said:
I have a problem with what you seem to be implying—that the Brethren say one thing in public but another in private. It is (to me) tantamount to saying “well, if the Brethren were really free to talk, you would find out that they agree with me.” That is an assertion without evidence, honestly.
If your implication is true, then it is possible that they keep their private speculations (including those about the origins of life) out of the public sphere because they are just that—speculations. And, those speculations could be just as strong for evolution as against it; it cuts both ways.
I agree that this is what scripture reports. As to whether God really did those things or whether the ancients felt it was self-evident that God must have done those things, I can’t really say.
I don’t conclude what you assert that I am concluding. What I conclude is very simple—we don’t know. We don’t know if God spoke and everything came about and operated by command (which is very close to the concept of creation ex nihilio, which which I disagree) or if God used natural methods (including evolution) to bring about His purposes.
The bottom line is that He has not revealed the means by which He created the Earth and everything in it. I trust that someday I will understand, and until then I am willing to have an open mind on both sides.
-Allen
Theodore Brandley Said:
Evolution is a popular and interesting theory but it is not a proven fact.
…………………………………………………..
HUH? You’re kidding right? With all due respect Theodore, Gravity is only a theory but I seriously doubt you questions its existance.
The only people I know that do not accept evolution as fact are those people that have not studied it. May I suggest an excellent introduction to evolution “Evolution” by Carl Zimmer, after reading this book, I seriously doubt that you will be able to question the reality of Evolution.
Oh and it’s ok to study Evolution…BYU teaches it so you already have a subtle green light from the First Presidency.
Craig wrote:
I agree with you, Craig, that evolution is a fact. And I wholeheartedly agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s conclusion that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” The evidence for it is overwhelming, and the arguments against it are extremely weak.
There has been and continues to be rejection of evolution among doctrinally hard-line Mormons (there’s that fundamentalism again). This resistance has a long history, going back to the publication of Darwin’s work 150 years ago. It is a mirror of the larger Christian community’s difficulty squaring science with a literal reading of the Bible.
And that last sentence is important to understanding what’s going on here. There is nothing in Mormon scripture or revelation that invalidates evolution, only in the interpretation by some of that scripture and revelation. Some prominent Latter-day Saint leaders were comfortable with evolution (most notably James E. Talmage), while others railed against it (most notably Joseph Fielding Smith). While many Latter-day Saints have followed JFS’s approach, many others have not. Well-known LDS scientist Henry Eyring (father of the current apostle) believed in an old earth and rejected JFS’s arguments. Today there are even blogs by LDS scientists who advocate for evolution.
As to how today’s Church leaders feel, note the BYU news article Trevor previously posted. Evolution is taught at BYU without hesitation or reserve. BYU’s board of trustees is made up largely of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve; they could shut down the teaching of evolution today, if they wanted. Instead, they allow free and fair instruction of it without religious interference. Personally, I think that speaks volumes.
So why doesn’t the Church take a stand on the veracity of evolution? I think there are two reasons:
So while the truth of evolution seem indisputable to me, and I sometimes struggle with what I see as an anti-intellectual strain among some Mormons with whom I associate, ultimately whether one accepts or rejects it has not bearing on whether we are saved in the kingdom of God. And so I maintain my friendships with Saints who don’t believe as I do on evolution, and enjoy the healthy debate I have with them, and rejoice that we’re all still brothers and sisters in the gospel.
So a pattern is immerging…let me see if I am correctly interpreting your brand of Mormonism…
You reject:
The young earth theory as set in scripture in D&C 77
The Mormon scripture/doctrine that demands death being introduced with the fall.
A universal flood that baptized the earth (so the earth had a catholic baptism of sprinkling?)
The scripturalized historical Babel story
You accept that:
Mormon Prophets are Fallible, subject to human error and are often wrong
Evolution is a reality and is God’s tool for creation (interesting accommodation)
The earth is Billions of years old…more than likely just as science claims…4.5 billion give or take a few million years.
The America’s where pre-populated prior to Lehi’s supposed arrival
Humankind emerged out of Africa and not Missouri.
The America’s were not touched by the flood…thus its inhabitants were also unaffected as was the majority of the worlds population. (This accommodation seems to undermine a lot of the Bible’s credibility but I’m ok with that)
Human-kind has existed in its present form for 10’s of thousands of years (coincidently just like science claims)
Death has existed for literally billions not thousands of years.
The revelatory powers of the Mormon “Brethren” are more human feeling based rather than an actual physical experience…i.e. feelings rather than a personal P.P.I. with Jesus on a monthly basis. (although I may have gone too far on that one…I think most of you still beleive that Jesus physically makes regular visits with his annointed church leaders)
Hmmm…maybe there is hope for me…we agree on a whole lot more than I could have imagined. But I still don’t know how in light of Mormon doctrine you make these accommodations…although I understand why you do.
Craig,
I pretty much agree with your list, with a few exceptions:
And, FWIW, I know lots of other Latter-day Saints who believe like I do. Your experience seems to be limited to only the most extremely orthodox Mormons, but they are not the sum total of the Church, especially among those who have done any serious reading of Church history and doctrine.
Alex wrote: “In the 60th generation there is only one pure paternal line (i.e. y-ch DNA). Likewise there is only one pure maternal line (i.e. m-DNA). And that’s where I focus my questions on DNA studies as they relate to the Book of Mormon.” I am not sure I would use the term “pure” the way he does. Even those who carry those markers also carry a huge mixture of genetic material. So in this sense Alex is wrong. There are only two markers that, at least at this time, can be used in population genetics. But, for various reasons, the identities we think of when we refer to the descendants of the Lehi colony or to the Maori or to the French or Brits are social constructions and do not low grade genetic science. With the desire Alex seems to have of identifying a pure Lamanite, I must point out that there has been in any reasonable view, mixing of genetic materials that simply cannot now be tracked. This is one of he reasons why the insertion of a small group into a much larger population will probably not leave a trace that can now be identified. And this is one of several reasons why Simon Southerton was wrong to turn to population genetics to try to justify his having gone missing. Alex and others need to figure out exactly why Southerton once admitted that, if the Lehi colony arrived in an already populated America, which is the standard belief now among educated Latter-day Saints, the possibility of identifying a Lehi marker, if it that was even known with certainty, would be next to impossible.
Ugo Perego’s comments made a solid contribution to getting these matters sorted out. His commentary helps us to understand what was driving Southerton ventures. And getting these things sorted out does not assist those who want to hang their unfaith on his opinions. This appears to be the reason Craig Paxton shifted away from a discussion of DNA and the Book of Mormon. And hence why he shifted, instead, to a list of elements in folk Mormonism that he thinks one must believe and defend or else go missing. From my perspective what he must have been, if his list is at all an accurate reflection of his version of folk Mormonism, is a kind of Protestant fundamentalist type of Latter-day Saint. He does not seem to have been at all focused on the core elements of the faith–the doctrine or gospel of Christ–that is on the absolute necessity of repentance (or turning or returning to God and away from the ways of the world), or on faith (understood as trust in the Holy One of Israel for redemption from death and sin), and on the necessity of allowing the Holy Spirit to burn out of us the old stuff and transform us into new sanctified beings that Jesus Christ (the God of the Old Testament) in the final judgment can present to his father (known at times as the Most High God and the one Jesus called Daddy when he prayed) as now justified and hence ready to live in the presence of divine beings.
Craig seems obsessed with the necessity of the Saints entertaining as opinions the idea that Adam got booted out of the garden park in 4000BCE, or that death started at that moment, or that the story of the flood that is found in the Bible demands that we believe that mountains well over twenty thousand feet high were covered with water, of course, without being able to explain where all that water came from or went, and so forth. I have always believed that the meaning of that story for those who told it was based on some large local event. The land that was covered was the land as they knew it. I have also always believed in some version of organic evolution. Put another way, I have never thought of the grounds and contents of my faith required me to make war on sciences. Most of my colleagues at BYU, in one way or another, share my unwillingness to imitate the worst elements of Protestant fundamentalism by making war on all intellectual endeavors, including the natural sciences.
Hence, I do not need and do not expect or want the Brethren to be issuing official statements in which they sort these things out for me. They seem properly content to let the sciences, which hopefully are in the long term self-corrective, sort these matters out. It appears, unfortunately, that Craig started out believing that the Brethren must be infallible and that every element of folk Mormonism must be made by them to appear in harmony with every other item, or the Church is not what he imagined it claimed to be, to borrow some of the language from one of his friends.
I am not, of course, pleased with those Craig calls “cafeteria Mormons,” but I also believe that it is wise and necessary for the Saints to jettison some elements of folk Mormonism, including much or what is found in Mormon Doctrine and other similar efforts to fashion a dogmatic theology. The reason is that the Saints, I believe, should be focus on the redemption from sin and death provided by Jesus of Nazareth. One reason is that we live by stories and not by dogmatic theology, much of which turns out to be mere speculation piled on speculation that tends to decoy us from what is crucial in our faith. We do not or at least should not strive to live by creeds for dogmatic theology but by faith–that is, by discovering in our lives the wondrous, enchanted and enchanting world described for us in our scriptures and in the founding story of the Restoration. We must live in the Light and not just talk about it as it it were some ideology. Striving to do this should take all the wind out of our sails and hence dampen our urge to harmonize and speculate.
I regret seeing RfM type former fundamentalist Saints turn up on this blog. It seems that they have come here in an effort to justify their rebellion against God. I am confident that they can gain the applause they seek on other venues. And I am also puzzled by Craig Paxton’s list of what he sees as absurdities that he wants to insist must be part of the opinions of the Saints, on the false assumption that what is revealed to Prophets and seen by Seers is a kind of alternative science. While saluting what he calls science, he also gives the back of his hand to his former faith. I am genuinely interested in figuring out what drives people like Craig. I wonder why those like Craig, who have fled the faith, don’t find something better to do than post up a storm trying to convince themselves and others of the folly of faith. Why is it that someone like Craig must constantly busy themselves making war on the faith of the Saints. Isn’t there something better they can think of doing with what remains of their probation? If all they are is an accident of blind chance, can’t they find something better to do with their time before, as they must insist, their light goes out permanently? Their passionate religious devotion to their unfaith is, for me, puzzling. I simply don’t believe that their constant version of secular “home teaching” or pulpit preaching is part of a therapy they must endure to rid themselves of the evils inflicted on them in Sunday School. But an additional puzzle is why they cannot remain focused on the topic of a blog, in this case the soundness of Southeton’s opining about DNA and the Book of Mormon.
I heartily second Lou’s remarks, above. The purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ is to bring people to Christ, not to bring them to a correct scientific understanding or whatever.
Whether my opinion on the age of the earth is correct or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether I have been regenerated by allowing the Holy Spirit to make me into what God wants me to be.
Unfortunately, two or three now-deceased LDS leaders have gathered up a following among the Saints by teaching that correct beliefs about evolution and other such things are essential to salvation. On this point I vigorously disagree with them. If God can forgive my unjust acts that offend others, he can certainly forgive any of my errors in reasoning that offend no one.
And that is ultimately what concerns me most — forgiveness and exaltation.
In addition to what I wrote earlier, I’d like to add, after having read all the posts here to date, there seems to be a strong tendency on the part of active LDS posters here, to base comments they make on the rather condecending premise of “Here’s where you are wrong about almost everything” and/or “We’ve already addressed the issues many times” and/or “If you think about it some more, you’ll find out that I’m right, after all” and/or “I’m sorry for you.”
At least Craig politely acknowledges that he learned something from you. I can’t say the same.
How can a church that purports to be ‘the only true church on the face of the earth’ and also ‘the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ” – NOT be able to clearly and definitively answer, through a prophet of God, basic questions about the origins of human beings?
To use the general TBM approach in this discussion, there is an elephant in your room. And when you acknowledge it and deal with it, you will eventually come to accept reality.
Ken,
The irony of you chastising the Saints for being condescending and then telling us to “accept reality” is quite thick.
The biological origin of human beings has been the subject of much speculation among Mormons since at least the days of Brigham Young. I find it interesting, however, that our scriptures are entirely focused on the covenant relationship between men and God. That is what is important when it comes to salvation.
And salvation is what the Latter-day Saints as a group are concerned about, not scientific understanding.
Ken,
How is your last statement (“when you acknowledge it and deal with it, you will eventually come to accept reality”) any different than the types of statements you decry among other comments (such as “if you think about it some more, you’ll find out I’m right”)? It is not productive to resort to stereotyping while engaging in the same stereotyping.
In reading back through the comments, I don’t think anyone gave a blanket renunciation of Craig’s comments. Mike agreed with many of them. Craig, in turn, asked how someone could reconcile what he saw as irreconcilable. And, the answers were provided. From those answers Craig said he learned from that he and at least Mike Parker “agree on a whole lot more than I could have imagined.”
That isn’t condescension; that’s discussion.
-Allen
Mike, I was reluctantly using YOUR approach, in spite of the fact that I do believe what I wrote. If you read what I wrote more carefully, you’d have seen that. (Thick?)
You say your scriptures are “…entirely focused on the covenant relationship between men and God.” I don’t think so.
Agreed, in the context of Mormonism, salvation is paramount to science.
But to me, it’s truth — at any and all levels.
Ugo,
There are two problems with this theory. First, it assumes that if the created creatures broke the command of God a little bit at time God would still consider them as obeying Him, even though in the end they produced an entirely different creature. I don’t think He would let us get away with that in our own lives. 🙂 Second, this is not consistent with the fossil record. The fossil record does not show this gradual, blending transition but shows various periods when a plethora of new species suddenly come into existence, which is consistent with the scriptural record.
Allen,
I apologize that I gave you that impression. I was not implying that at all. I’m sure that some of the Brethren would privately agree with you and some may even agree with me. As you have pointed out, and what I was implying in my post, is that these things are of private speculations. That is why I can speak openly about these things but they cannot.
Being that you are willing to have an open mind on this issue you might consider the following:
Because our natural and scientific knowledge of the power and workings of God are limited we tend to confine His methods to concepts we can more easily understand and relate to. What we understand we call natural processes and what we do not understand we call supernatural. The supernatural is discounted by most scientists. For example, with our present understanding of physics we cannot relate to how Jesus got His resurrected physical body through the walls or the ceiling of a locked room so that His disciples could feel the prints of the nails in His hands. So, most scientists discount this event as fiction.
Moses was a highly educated warrior and engineer. After the Lord showed him the vision of every particle of this earth and every inhabitant thereof (past, present and future), the first response from the enquiring mind of Moses was to ask the Lord two questions. “Why did you do it,” and, “how did you do it?” (paraphrase from Moses 1:27-30) The Lord was very direct in His answer to both questions. To the “why” question the Lord answered, “To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). To the “how” question the Lord was equally concise and direct, “By the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son” (Moses 1:32). The power of God is such that the elements of the universe are controlled by His words. The creation account is clear that when God commanded things to happen “it was so even as I spake” (Moses 2:11). Even Satan understood this. He said to Jesus, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread” (Matthew 4:3). Water to wine; instantly providing cooked loaves of bread and fish flesh; walking on and calming water; were simple demonstrations that He was the creator and that He created and controlled the earth by His words. Nephi understood this when he said, “If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done (1 Nephi 17:50). Lazarus had been dead four days and his body was decomposing and rotting, but at the command of the Son of God, Lazarus came forth from the tomb alive. In my opinion, God didn’t need, or use, a low tech “natural” process that we can now relate to in order to create the earth. The fossil record does not match the theory of evolution but it does match the scriptural account.
Theodore
“As you have pointed out, and what I was implying in my post, is that these things are of private speculations.”
If you’d just leave it there Theodore, that would be great.
It’s when you start asserting that we all have to follow your private interpretation that we have problems.
I notice that some who have for whatever reason gone missing now insist that the Saints must read this or that passage of scripture in the most wooden possible way. They do this in an effort to argue that what the Saints must believe is such that a moments reflection on science will demonstrate that their faith is absurd and hence must be abandoned. They insist that the faith of the Saints is absurd because it is challenged at every possible point by what they understand as science. But it turns out that in the case of population genetics, they are simply wrong, as has been demonstrated on this blog and elsewhere. So they slide around that issue. And trot out their favorite laundry list of silly things Latter-day Saints have believed, none of which are crucial to the faith of the Saints. While on probation, we are not having our intellect tested. If that were the case, we would have no hope whatsoever. The good news—the gospel—is that death is not the end, this life is a probation, and we can, if we desire, avoid the consequences of sin by seeking the gifts offered to us by our God. I do not think we are being tested on how well we have mastered the rules of chess, or how well we did in selling used cars or insurance to talking people into investing in stock. Or how well we mastered the current science. But if we use our understanding or misunderstanding of some science to justify our rebellion against God, then we have dug a big hole for ourselves. The gospel of Jesus Christ requires the right deeds and not the right opinions. No thoughtful person can imagine that God is alarmed at our holding the wrong opinion about something. But anyone who has even glanced at the scriptures must see that God is profoundly concerned about our deeds.
On this blog we have seen evidence that some once seemingly Protestant fundamentalist type Saints now claim to have been taught to read see in the scriptures answers to questions that the authors of the language they mine could not possibly have asked and clearly were not addressing. They insist that the scriptures coupled with every opinion ever uttered by one of the Brethren must somehow add up to a system that has to be at war at every point with truth, where truth is understood as science as they imagine science to be. From my perspective, they end up having one imaginary Straw Man doing battle with another Straw Man. They clearly have employed these images as part of their argumentative ploy. My hunch is that they do this as a way of convincing themselves that they are all for truth and nothing but the truth, and so forth. They even boast of how they are sincere and honest. And if the faithful were like them, then faith would presumably evaporate.
It is, from my perspective, clear to thoughtful and faithful Saints, those who have passed through the inevitable challenges to some initial naïve faith, that their faith is not necessarily in conflict with what goes on in the sciences. One obvious reason is that the scriptures are not badly conceived science. They are, instead, primarily stories, always from the perspective of the believes, of some of their encounters with God, and then what they learned the hard way by not keeping faithfully the covenants they once made. The scriptures do not teach a physics or a geology—they are not what is commonly called theoretical but practical or moral. It is true that there are some myths about the sciences that since the Enlightenment have functioned as a kind of substitute religion—what is often called scientism—that are latched onto by those whose experience within the Church of Jesus Christ has been closely patterned after the very worst of what is found in Protestant fundamentalism, who end up using that nonsense as a stick to beat the Church. But the faith of the Saints does not rest, for example, on some speculation by the Bishop of Ussher about when Adam got the boot from the garden or on the age of the earth and so forth.
My advice to those who insist on parading their prattle, in the name of honesty and truth, against the faith of the Saints, is to either stick to getting clear on the problems in Simon Southerton’s rationalization for his having gone missing or take their act to some venue where they can get some unfaith supporting applause from the rabble.
Ken,
You strike me as a textbook example of a fundamentalist, orthodox Mormon who encountered science and reason and had your rigid preconceptions shattered — along with your faith. You’re out of the Church, but you’re still as fundamentalist as you were before, only now you’ve replaced the falsehood of an inerrant Gospel with the falsehood of inerrant Science.
Now you come demanding that we be fundamentalist Mormons like you were, so we too can have our faith shredded and replaced by Perfect Reason.
But we don’t have to fall for that false dilemma, when there are other alternatives that incorporate both perspectives quite adequately.
Seth,
I don’t recall asserting that everyone has to follow me, and if I did it was not intentional. As I mentioned to Allen above, “you might consider the following.” What I have said is intended to be persuasive, not assertive.
Theodore
Craig,
You wrote,
The First Presidency has declined to offer definitive statements on important scientific issues such as Special Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, or the Big Bang.
And why should they comment on such things? As others have already pointed out, the First Presidency has other concerns.
You seem to be saying that it is a bad thing that the church members are allowed to speculate. What do you have against speculation?
You also wrote,
Suppose we agree to accept the theory of evolution as true in the scientific sense (that is, not falsified). How does that that understanding affect in any way the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
In my view, Mormonism is compatible with Science and Reason.
Many Latter-day Saint leaders would agree with you, BHodges, including, but not limited to:
And also LDS scientists like:
And many others that I’m not including here.
It’s unfortunate that the contributions of all these men to LDS thought on the sciences have been lost by focusing on two or three Mormon leaders who were, by most definition, anti-science.
Whoever P. K. Andersen is, he has made some very good points in what he just posted. In addition, his use of the word “falsified” is a clue that he probably understands how science is currently often thought to work. And also perhpas why it seems to consist of what are sometimes called conjectures and refutations.
I am 53 years old. I studied evolution in school in the 1960s and 1970s. In Provo Utah (the heart of Mormondom). At Provo HS and then at BYU.
So why this insistence that what people are saying here about Mormonism and science is NEW? Ever since I can remember it has been like this.
Mike,
Sorry to disappoint you, but you’ve got it wrong about me. I don’t expect to convince you otherwise. But why not try? I’ve heard your “Ex-Mormon Fundamentalist argument” from others, many times before now.
Frankly, it’s just a little too “neat” of you to put me in that box – I just don’t fit in it, and I never have, even when I was IN the church. I have PLENTY of room in my mind and heart for uncertainty, and believe me, there is PLENTY of it.
But I know when I’ve been lied to. And lies do not sit well with me.
Why, I ask myself, do TBMs INSIST that an honest search for the truth is “fundamentalism?” Beats me, but that’s what it seems like many TBMs do.
I do not demand anything of you, Mike. But the attitudes, arguments and tones I see here on this particular thread of this blog remind me of some pseudo-authoritative religious leaders who has come to set me straight. And that was my point from the beginning.
By the way, if there is a “textbook” about “fundamentalist, orthodox Mormons” there must be a lot of them around. Would you not be led to wonder why there are so many? They might be wrong, but there sure are a LOT of them these days.
And for the record, I freely admit that science is NOT inerrant, as you imply I might think. I’ve noted that both science AND faith are corrected fairly regularly. Science is hardly “perfect reason.” (Where did you get THAT idea?)
No, Mike, you needn’t “fall” for anything at all. You’ve got the “only true church on earth” in which you are apparently an advanced believer and thinker, and you can formulate thoughts and ideas that fit with your personal philosophy. The “best of all possible worlds.”
More power to you. Just watch out for the elephant.
Peace.
Whenever I venture onto the FAIR-Blog I feel as if I’ve entered the Twilight Zone or an Alternative Universe where reality is sacrificed for the sake of maintaining belief.
It is regrettable that Brother Midgley wants to make this about me and my apostasy from Mormonism rather than on the sincere legitimate questions I’ve brought up and others have been willing to discuss in an open-minded manner. But since this seems to be where Brother Midley always wants to go…let’s go there and be done with it.
Brother Midgley asserts that I had ulterior motives for joining this discussion…perhaps acting as the water boy for Simon Southerton…by drawing attention away from the original content of this thread.
Lou said: (may I call you Lou?)
“And getting these things sorted out does not assist those who want to hang their unfaith on his opinions. This appears to be the reason Craig Paxton shifted away from a discussion of DNA and the Book of Mormon. And hence why he shifted, instead, to a list of elements in folk Mormonism that he thinks one must believe and defend or else go missing.”
Gee Lou, I’m sure it couldn’t have been that I was hoping to form a bridge of understanding and really did have some legitimate questions, that you refer disparagingly to as “Folk Mormonism”. I find it interesting that this so-called folk Momonism is the very Mormonism that is currently being taught in the Mormon church.
You go on to quantify me by stating:
He does not seem to have been at all focused on the core elements of the faith–the doctrine or gospel of Christ–.
Ummm…I don’t ever remember meeting or speaking with you Lou (other than here at FAIR-Blog) How could you possibly know the depth of my soul or the one time level of my commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ while an active believing Mormon? Are you using your super-human priesthood powers of discernment? (couldn’t help myself)
You continue:
Craig seems obsessed with the necessity of the Saints entertaining as opinions the idea that Adam got booted out of the garden park in 4000BCE, or that death started at that moment, or that the story of the flood that is found in the Bible demands that we believe that mountains well over twenty thousand feet high were covered with water, of course, without being able to explain where all that water came from or went, and so forth.
I wonder where I might have gotten these CRAZY fundamentalist ideas Lou? Any ideas? I know I’m not as progressive as you are…I only accepted the words of the so-called prophets (both living and dead) of Mormonism whole cloth…silly me. I must have slept through that lesson where they tell you one can discount and ignore the pronouncements of God’s anointed.
You continue:
Hence, I do not need and do not expect or want the Brethren to be issuing official statements in which they sort these things out for me. They seem properly content to let the sciences, which hopefully are in the long term self-corrective, sort these matters out.
Seems to me that it is Mormonism that is shifting to Science rather than science shifting to Mormonism.
More assumptions:
It appears, unfortunately, that Craig started out believing that the Brethren must be infallible and that every element of folk Mormonism must be made by them to appear in harmony with every other item, or the Church is not what he imagined it claimed to be, to borrow some of the language from one of his friends.
Well at least you made me laugh Lou…Infallible no…consistent and not in conplete conflict with their predecessors, yes.
Some agreement:
I am not, of course, pleased with those Craig calls “cafeteria Mormons,” but I also believe that it is wise and necessary for the Saints to jettison some elements of folk Mormonism, including much or what is found in Mormon Doctrine and other similar efforts to fashion a dogmatic theology. The reason is that the Saints, I believe, should be focus on the redemption from sin and death provided by Jesus of Nazareth.
Yeah you wouldn’t want the members of the church to focus on whether the church IS what it claims to be (to borrow a phrase from one of my firneds)
More from Lou:
I regret seeing RfM type former fundamentalist Saints turn up on this blog. It seems that they have come here in an effort to justify their rebellion against God. I am confident that they can gain the applause they seek on other venues.
Personally, I take offence with your attempt to put me in your stereotyped box as an “RFM type former fundamentalist Saint”, although I understand your need to place these restraints on me in your attempt to diminish me…but seriously Lou, although in this response I’ve taken on a more cynical voice, my participation and questions have been honest and sincere.
Even More:
And I am also puzzled by Craig Paxton’s list of what he sees as absurdities that he wants to insist must be part of the opinions of the Saints, on the false assumption that what is revealed to Prophets and seen by Seers is a kind of alternative science. While saluting what he calls science, he also gives the back of his hand to his former faith. I am genuinely interested in figuring out what drives people like Craig.
First many of those so called absurdities seem to be ideas shared in common with some of the posters on this board. Second I am driven my a sincere search for the truth and an insatiable curiosity in all things Mormon.
And Yet More:
I wonder why those like Craig, who have fled the faith, don’t find something better to do than post up a storm trying to convince themselves and others of the folly of faith. Why is it that someone like Craig must constantly busy themselves making war on the faith of the Saints.
There are other like me?
Isn’t there something better they can think of doing with what remains of their probation? If all they are is an accident of blind chance, can’t they find something better to do with their time before, as they must insist, their light goes out permanently? Their passionate religious devotion to their unfaith is, for me, puzzling. I simply don’t believe that their constant version of secular “home teaching” or pulpit preaching is part of a therapy they must endure to rid themselves of the evils inflicted on them in Sunday School.
Nope nothing better to do…way too much time on my hands and actually here you are very wrong….it’s very therapeutic in ridding myself of these evils.
And finally:
But an additional puzzle is why they cannot remain focused on the topic of a blog, in this case the soundness of Southeton’s opining about DNA and the Book of Mormon.
I agree and apologized to the author.
NOW that we have that out of the way…can we bury our preconceived notions and have an honest conversation free of polemic tricks, personal attacks and hyperbolae and just have an honest conversation with the intent of forming bridges of understanding?
Ken,
Don’t you find it odd that you would come here, tell us that we’re believing a lie, and then complain when we respond and compare us to “pseudo-authoritative religious leaders who [have] come to set me straight?”
I can tell you how many times I’ve heard the “I’ve been lied to” excuse. It doesn’t fly with me anymore. I’ll accept being told something that wasn’t correct by people who were well-meaning but misinformed, sure. But claiming you’ve been lied to requires you show proof of intent.
You say that uncertainty sits well with you, and yet it’s that very same uncertainty that you’re not willing to accept within the Church. You wanted your religious and scientific paradigm validated, and when it wasn’t, you bolted.
More power to you as well. Including the power to accept that you’ve changed your views and move on. Hanging around on the most-poorly-named “Recovery from Mormonism” board is about the worst therapy you could get.
Craig,
You continue to not see the forest for the trees. Young-earth creationism, the global Flood, and the division of languages at Babel are peripheral issues that Mormons have (for over 100 years) discussed and debated. But, in the end, whether one takes them literally or not is not an article of faith.
Did you read the Dialogue article that I linked earlier? Funny how Clayton White is a believing Mormon and BYU professor, and yet he still retains his job and church membership after publishing an article shredding the notion of a global flood.
(Dr. Duane Jeffrey did the same thing in Sunstone a few years ago, and he’s still teaching and practicing, too.)
Mike,
I came here because I wanted to see what you folks might say about Simon’s latest post on DNA and the BOM. I don’t think I’ve ever come here before that – although I have visited either FARMS or FAIR in the past and read some posts.
I do apologize for having discussed other issues on this thread.
In light of that, I won’t continue here, but would welcome a private discussion with you any time. I do have some very specific responses to what you wrote last. But…. it’s up to you; here’s my email: taylorken AT aol DOT com.
[Email address edited by admin to defeat spam bots.]
Mike Parker Said:
“You continue to not see the forest for the trees. Young-earth creationism, the global Flood, and the division of languages at Babel are peripheral issues that Mormons have (for over 100 years) discussed and debated. But, in the end, whether one takes them literally or not is not an article of faith.”
Granted, but it does go to the heart of the churches credibility claim does it not? If current and past men who allegedly speak with God can’t get it right on these myths it begs the question what else are they misinformed on?
“Did you read the Dialogue article that I linked earlier?”
Yes …read it several years ago…Loved it…I salute these brave men who had to undergo a lot of criticism and several editing’s before they felt they could publish their thoughts. I also believe that their paper was rejected by BYU was it not? I’d have loved to be able to read their original paper.
Craig,
You assume that since prophets receive revelation from God that they therefore are inspired in all their personal beliefs and every public teaching. The first does not require the second. Joseph Smith famously noted exactly that, and his exact words (“a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such”) are well-known throughout the Church.
The only Mormons I know who accept every word the comes from the prophet’s mouth are those who have left the faith over that very issue.
White and Thomas discuss the history of their article in endnote 1. They were very complimentary of the dozens of people who read and commented on their original drafts (many of them BYU professors and believing Mormons). Personally, I wish BYU Studies had published it, but I’m not on their review panel.
Ken,
I appreciate you taking the time to comment here, even though I obviously disagree with your point of view.
While I enjoy a good back-and-forth here once in a while, I don’t know exactly what profit would come from an email exchange. We both have made up our minds, and I highly doubt either of us is going to persuade the other.
But thank you for the invitation.
So Mike….and honest question…which prophetic pronouncements am I supposed to ignore?
Prophetic pronouncements — those given when the prophet is acting officially in his capacity as prophet and president of the Church — should not be ignored. The Proclamation to the World on the family is an example of an authoritative statement from the Brethren.
All other statements, including General Conference sermons, should be given serious consideration, but you are not under obligation to do or believe anything unless the Holy Spirit testifies to you that you should.
This is basic stuff, discussed in Sunday School. (At least the classes I’ve been to.)
Here’s some reading for you: Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders.
Oh, and here’s a statement issued recently by the Church:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine
My wife is calling me for dinner, so I’m off for the night. I’ll check in here tomorrow.
Thanks Mike,
I know I’ve taken this thread into areas the author never intended…so maybe I should just let this go…but I do note that the president of the church gets a pass. Pres. Lee stated that exception is …”unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception”
And yes I know that this is basic stuff… I was on my stake’s high council after all…but much of this arugment is like trying to nail jell-o to a wall…Impossible to nail down.
But thanks just the same…
So what if it’s hard to nail down?
Why is this a problem?
Understood, Craig. Thanks for being fair and non-confrontational, even in the face of my initial doubts as to your sincerity.
I wish you peace and happiness.
As an interesting aside note:
I meet with several current and former members of the church for lunch on a regular basis. We’re friends and we haven’t allowed our differnt takes or loss of belief to become a wedge in our friendship, despite our often heated discussions over religion.
Every one of the good non-believers and former members in this group would jump at the opportunity to return to the church if they thought for an instant that the church was what it claims to be.
Each of us has served in high leadership positions. Each was married in the temple and served honorable missions. We are NOT the kinds of members that the church was supposed to lose.
Our biggest problem was that we maybe believed in the church too much…and to some here it seem too literally and then tried to learn more. Although I would never have classified any of us with any of the terms Lou Midgley’s disparagingly designed, stereotypically besmirching subgroups he likes to place people who disagree with him in, I do at least give him credit. It does make it easier to dismiss a so-called enemy when we apply labels to them that are intended to make them appear less intelligent, less dedicated or seemingly fanatical. Becasue surely we couldn’t have lost our testimonies for other reasons. Hey labeling works in all kinds of wars right? Didn’t we apply belittling labels in WW II and Vietnam to our enemies? So if applying labels to those of us who have left the church for valid reasons helps you maintain your faith I guess that is your right. But not all Exmo’s left because of some imagined unresolved sin. In fact I’d say thats just another made up church myth.
For those you who took the high ground and tried to help me understand how your brand of Mormonism works for you in light of reality, I thank you. You’ve given me something to think about…and I do enjoy thinking.
Cheers
Craig
Craig,
You made this very interesting statement in your last comment:
That has given me a lot to think about. I think I will post an entirely different blog post about that since it is far afield from the topic of this thread. Please–watch for it, as I would be very interested in your observations.
-Allen
Craig,
This comment of yours is not only insightful, it also works both ways:
The same is also true of those who stay in the Church — not all (or even most) of them are still faithful because they have been “duped” or had to do “pretzel-twisting logic” to rationalize their beliefs. That’s just another made up ex-Mo myth that helps people on the RfM board explain why so many people don’t “see the light” like they have.
Craig:
Despite the snide stereotyping you employ to demonize me, I am quite impressed with the reasonableness of your last post. Both in tone and content, I sense an improvement. And I also agree fully with the note with which you ended an earlier message where you invited all of us to “bury our preconceived notions and have an honest conversation free of polemical tricks, personal attacks and hyperbolae and just have an honest conversation with the intent of forming bridges of understanding.” Who would want to object to such an enlightened proposal, unless they were partisans in a war against the Church?
But I notice in this last post a bit of what seems to me to constitute a bit of a polemical trick and also a personal attack on me. And earlier I noticed some stereotyping and mocking. But this last item suggests a change of mind. Good. But I still must complain about the following: “Whenever I venture onto the FAIR-Blog I feel as if I’ve entered the Twilight Zone or an Alternative Universe where reality is sacrificed for the sake of maintaining belief.” Unless you are ready to jettison those on RfM who have turned up on this blog, and hence back away from that nonsense, how can we possibly have a genuine conversation? Productive, fruitful conversations leading to increased understanding , rather than merely scoring points before a real or imaginary audience, require what ancient philosophers called friendship. What they had in mind in part was an equality between those taking part in the conversation. In a conversation between a child and an adult or between a childish adult and a wise person (think a lover of wisdom), there is no equality. In such situations the best thing would be for the child to shut up and just listen. Now apply this to the endless opining on the lists, boards and blogs.
I hope that you genuinely desire a productive conversation. At least your language suggests that you have changed your mind. It would please me if you honestly and sincerely want a conversation aimed at genuine understanding and for the purpose of build bridges. Such a conversation cannot be focused on you proclaiming why you went missing. And, if you still believe that those on the Fair list who have participated in this blog sacrifice what you call reality in an effort to maintain their faith, and hence are not sincere, honest seekers of that truth, as you indicate you are, then a fruitful conversation is impossible. When we are seen as MORGBOTS and so forth, nothing can flow from an exchange. And those who employ those kinds of labels do not desire a real conversation and will not permit one. They clearly occupy the rhetorical gutter, which we strive, sometimes unsuccessfully, to avoid.
Craig:
While you are thinking about my earlier post, I will comment on your complaint that some of my remarks hurt your feelingsor, I believe you said, offended you, when I described you as seemingly a kind of Mormon version of a rigid Protestant fundamentalist. I was not, as you imagined, guessing about your youth or whatever. Instead, I took you seriously when you claimed that you had been taught as, if I understood you correctly, that you were tought as a younger fellow that Latter-day Saints must eschew the sciences grounded specifically in a theory of evolution, and they must believe in a young earth, and hence also one must believe that Adam got the boot from the garden in exactly 4000BCE, that prior to that boot, there had been no death on this earth, and so forth. Every item in your list, except for that no-death-before-the-fall business, I have heard from a few Latter-day Saints now and again. But I have attended Church services recently in four nations and never heard that stuff even once. I have not encountered any of those dogmas at BYU in the last half of my teaching career, and then only among a few in Religous Education who are now long gone.
That no-death business I first heard only perhaps a year ago and then from an someone who had gone missing and was using it as a stick to beat the Church. I never read Mormon Doctrine. I never read Cleon Skousen’s thousand year series. I once had a set in my possession and they immediately went in a trash bin, with my wife’s full approval.
I will, however, grant that there is a naive faith among Latter-day Saints that just accepts some ideas that are at times somewhat similar to what one finds in Protestant fundamentalism. But in many instances, when this naive faith confronts the intellectual world around us, then there is the necessity for the person undergoing the crisis to put aside folk Mormonism and with it some other childish things. My own experience indicates that faith in Jesus Christ and conficence in the Restoration actually thrives on challenges and dealing with doubts. They seen to me to help feed both spiritual and intellectual growth.
Some however, who have never sought to own their own faith and for whom it remains what they once were taught, when they fase a crisis, jettison their faith and they may end up running with the dogs and messing up their lives. They also no longer have a real moral anchor. One can see the signs of this by glancing at RfM.
But what comes after the crisis in which an initial naive faith can be a more mature, reasonable, profound faith. One enters what has sometimes been called a second naivety where some of the old things are shed and one’s faith is better grounded, more mature and productive. I know or have met some of the Brethren. And this is clearly the case with each of them, as well as virtually all of my associates and colleagues at BYU and in my immediate experience in CES and so forth.
What puzzles me is why something like this did not happen to you. I sort of suspect that you may never have really come to own your faith so that you got past this business of talking about what you were taught in Sunday School. I also wonder if you read widely prior to your encounter with doubts? I did.
I have elsewhere published an essay describing my own passion for putting myself out in the field of fire so that I could see for myself whether my faith could stand up to whatever is out there. I made a minor career out of pawing through the most radical of Protestant theology. In addition, I have tried my best to read and absorb the arguments of the very first ancient shy and retiring atheists, as well as the bold ones who turned up later. I very much want to understand them from their point of view.
I can, however, understand how someone who does not read or care to think about such things might get a jolt when they encounter some of the vast, confusing and interesting intellectual world out there. I have not wanted to miss the fun of being right in the middle of that mix.
For me, I find the discussion of evolution and the age of the Earth to be a red herring. As has been pointed out, there are plenty of explanations of creation that allow for evolution and a very old Earth. We don’t know how long the creative periods were, we don’t know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, we don’t know if there was death before the fall, etc…
There is one doctrine regarding the creation that is quite firmly set in Mormonism. The BYU evolution packet clearly explains this one key doctrine. The essence of statements by the first presidency is this: We don’t know how the creation was performed, but we do know that Adam is the father of all of the generations of man.
There is the key doctrine that Mormons have to explain. Everything else is just a red herring. We have a firm checkpoint in history at 4,000 BCE. All humans must descend from this single man. That’s a pretty difficult argument to defend. In fact, the above defense regarding Book of Mormon DNA depends upon the falsity of this checkpoint.
Ummmm…are you kidding me? “We don’t know if there was death before the fall”? The Church I go to knows.
cinepro, you make a good point. I agree that church doctrine is clear on this issue, but there is still a fair bit of debate among members regarding this issue. I was trying to point out that the key, indisputable element of Mormon doctrine is that a man named Adam lived at 4,000 BCE and is a common ancestor to the entire human race. This is the key doctrine which MUST be reconciled with science.
Cinepro — Does that reference apply only to human beings? It defines physical death as the separation of the spirit from the body. I probably should know this, but does the Church, i.e., anyone entitled to provide a more authoritative statement on the issue than my musings, teach that animals have spirits? Or if they do, do they have spirits in the same sense as people do?
(Do viruses have spirits? If so, I just emerged from an encounter with a particularly reprobate bunch, who doubtless were less valiant in the virus pre-existence.)
Anyway, if that passage only refers to humanity, then I see no problem believing human death only came into the world after the Fall of Adam, who I understand to be the first human being who climbed far enough down from the trees for God to have a rational conversation with him. There was no (human) death before the Fall, because there were no true human beings before Adam.