Excellent takedown of Mopologist DNA misinformation

[I Have Questions]

What is really interesting is the lack of rebuttal to Simon's critique. It is ubiquitous in Mormon apologetics to ignore damning information.

I think that rebuttals have been made.

Feel free to link to them and provide quotes. Or is Ugo’s wishful thinking the best there is?

[MG 2.0]

I think our concern ought to be why and how WE got to be here on planet earth. What else is going on out there is above our pay grade.

Regards,
MG

It certainly puts a damper on the idea of Kolob and everyone getting their own planet as we gather more information from telescopes and other scientific instruments.

Joseph Smith’s religious ideas are just a little problematic once we know the speed of light and the distances between planets.

If there is a corporal God that has form then one might expect that this God exists somewhere.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

It certainly puts a damper on the idea of Kolob and everyone getting their own planet as we gather more information from telescopes and other scientific instruments.

Joseph Smith’s religious ideas are just a little problematic once we know the speed of light and the distances between planets.

If there is a corporal God that has form then one might expect that this God exists somewhere.

Regards,
MG

Which God? In Mormonism there are endless numbers of them.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

What is really interesting is the lack of rebuttal to Simon's critique. It is ubiquitous in Mormon apologetics to ignore damning information.

I think that rebuttals have been made. Depending on whether or not one believes that Nephites, Mulekites, and Lamanites existed as one reads the text of the Book of Mormon will influence to some extent where one comes down on DNA research, pro and con. There are other facets/factors that enter into the discussion.

As is par for the course, critics are wont to look at so called ‘issues’ in isolation or in a vacuum without looking at the other moving parts. In this case, what is in between the covers of the Book of Mormon and what it says about itself. Some would say, the spirit of the book and its testimony of Christ and the truths contained therein. That doesn’t matter a whit to secular humanist critics because they’ve already trashed a personal God who could speak through scripture.

The conversation about DNA has been going on quite a while now. I expect that conversation along with others will continue amongst the ‘inteligencia’. While at the same time converts will join the church and believing members will live the covenants they’ve made with a God that they believe in.

Regards,
MG

MG,

You're absolutely right—why bother with the tedious details of population genetics when you have the undeniable "spirit of the book"? It's so much easier to just believe in a Mormon God who speaks through an anachronistic Book of Mormon than to confront the awkward, scientific reality that your foundational narrative has been debunked one genome at a time. I suppose I can't blame you for sticking with what works; after all, it's easier to join a club that validates your feelings than it is to actually engage in reality.

[MG 2.0]

I think that rebuttals have been made.

Feel free to link to them and provide quotes. Or is Ugo’s wishful thinking the best there is?

There have been others that have joined in on the debate.

Michael F. Whiting
Scott Woodward
David Glenn Smith
Jeffrey Meldrum
Brant Gardner

These are not all geneticists, but they have had an interest in the discussion.

I suppose that one might ask how many LDS geneticists have spent the time even looking at this issue. One might suppose that if an LDS geneticist has a spiritual witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon they are less inclined to delve into the DNA controversies. Same with most members of the church I would expect. If you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, some of the unresolved issues don’t play as big a part as it might do among those that never had that testimony.

I remember not that long ago gadianton admitted to the fact that he never really spent much time reading the Book of Mormon. Whether that is true or not with other critics, who knows? Is there anywhere where Simon Southerton has expressed his views or testimony of the Book of Mormon before his ‘awakening’?

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

What is really interesting is the lack of rebuttal to Simon's critique. It is ubiquitous in Mormon apologetics to ignore damning information.

I think that rebuttals have been made. Depending on whether or not one believes that Nephites, Mulekites, and Lamanites existed as one reads the text of the Book of Mormon will influence to some extent where one comes down on DNA research, pro and con. There are other facets/factors that enter into the discussion.

As is par for the course, critics are wont to look at so called ‘issues’ in isolation or in a vacuum without looking at the other moving parts. In this case, what is in between the covers of the Book of Mormon and what it says about itself. Some would say, the spirit of the book and its testimony of Christ and the truths contained therein. That doesn’t matter a whit to secular humanist critics because they’ve already trashed a personal God who could speak through scripture.

The conversation about DNA has been going on quite a while now. I expect that conversation along with others will continue amongst the ‘inteligencia’. While at the same time converts will join the church and believing members will live the covenants they’ve made with a God that they believe in.

Regards,
MG

This idea that god works as if the world and his goals are essentially a giant Mormon Rubik's cube isn't supported by the evidence. It isn't just one issue in isolation. Every single Mormon truth claim favors the critic. The defensive strategy of the believer is to create obfuscation on every single one of them. Essentially they create a monocolored cube so all the moving pieces fit no matter the direction of the turn.

[I Have Questions]

Feel free to link to them and provide quotes. Or is Ugo’s wishful thinking the best there is?

There have been others that have joined in on the debate.

Michael F. Whiting
Scott Woodward
David Glenn Smith
Jeffrey Meldrum
Brant Gardner

These are not all geneticists, but they have had an interest in the discussion.

I suppose that one might ask how many LDS geneticists have spent the time even looking at this issue. One might suppose that if an LDS geneticist has a spiritual witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon they are less inclined to delve into the DNA controversies. Same with most members of the church I would expect. If you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, some of the unresolved issues don’t play as big a part as it might do among those that never had that testimony.

I remember not that long ago gadianton admitted to the fact that he never really spent much time reading the Book of Mormon. Whether that is true or not with other critics, who knows? Is there anywhere where Simon Southerton has expressed his views or testimony of the Book of Mormon before his ‘awakening’?

Regards,
MG

Feel free to link to them and provide quotes. Pick the one that you think has the most compelling rebuttal, quote it and provide a reference link (DO NOT link and run or use AI).

[MG 2.0]

There have been others that have joined in on the debate.

Michael F. Whiting
Scott Woodward
David Glenn Smith
Jeffrey Meldrum
Brant Gardner

These are not all geneticists, but they have had an interest in the discussion.

I suppose that one might ask how many LDS geneticists have spent the time even looking at this issue. One might suppose that if an LDS geneticist has a spiritual witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon they are less inclined to delve into the DNA controversies. Same with most members of the church I would expect. If you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, some of the unresolved issues don’t play as big a part as it might do among those that never had that testimony.

I remember not that long ago gadianton admitted to the fact that he never really spent much time reading the Book of Mormon. Whether that is true or not with other critics, who knows? Is there anywhere where Simon Southerton has expressed his views or testimony of the Book of Mormon before his ‘awakening’?

Regards,
MG

Feel free to link to them and provide quotes. Pick the one that you think has the most compelling rebuttal, quite it and provide a reference link (DO NOT link and run or use AI).

I’m happy to let others do their own research. I’m not qualified to get into the weeds in regards to who has the most compelling argument. What I will say is that I have found the conversation from all sides interesting. Thoughtful and intelligent people can differ in their conclusions and what is considered to be evidence vs. conjecture. You have your own conclusions, right? Truthfully, I think…as with many other things having to do with faith/belief…there are options available to go various directions.

And people will find personal reasons to go the direction that they do. As have you, I’m sure. Although we have no idea what those reasons might be.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Feel free to link to them and provide quotes. Pick the one that you think has the most compelling rebuttal, quite it and provide a reference link (DO NOT link and run or use AI).

I’m happy to let others do their own research. I’m not qualified to get into the weeds in regards to who has the most compelling argument. What I will say is that I have found the conversation from all sides interesting. Thoughtful and intelligent people can differ in their conclusions and what is considered to be evidence vs. conjecture. You have your own conclusions, right? Truthfully, I think…as with many other things having to do with faith/belief…there are options available to go various directions.

And people will find personal reasons to go the direction that they do. As have you, I’m sure. Although we have no idea what those reasons might be.

Regards,
MG

So no, you can’t. Okay.

[MG 2.0]

I’m happy to let others do their own research. I’m not qualified to get into the weeds in regards to who has the most compelling argument. What I will say is that I have found the conversation from all sides interesting. Thoughtful and intelligent people can differ in their conclusions and what is considered to be evidence vs. conjecture. You have your own conclusions, right? Truthfully, I think…as with many other things having to do with faith/belief…there are options available to go various directions.

And people will find personal reasons to go the direction that they do. As have you, I’m sure. Although we have no idea what those reasons might be.

Regards,
MG

So no, you can’t. Okay.

IHQ, lazy bones, you can do SOMETHING other than constantly criticizing can’t you?

What I’ve said, stands.

Regards,
MG