Who Are Indians Really?

[_Pokatator]

Charity, you started this thread with another one of your neener, neeners and the following challenge:

Argue with me all you want.

I guess your manner and demeanor often offends me before I can get into the substance of your posts. Then with your continuous calls for references, and your need for exactness out of everyone else but you don't seem to hold yourself to the same standard. I think your statements in the following quotes illustrate your double standard of accuracy and exactness.

Sorry if I assumed you were in bed with the other geneticist who has been quoted ad nauseum that the Asian DNA "proves" that the Book of Mormon is false. You are saying that DNA studies aren't relevant to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon?

So where has this been quoted at “ad nauseum”? You should be suppling numerous examples here to back up your statement.

And I am very sensitive to overblown claims. Murphy claimed that the DNA evidence proved the Book of Mormon to be false. What a crackpot. Southern, who also holds similar views, still says that DNA could not disprove the existence of a group such as the Lehites.

Your claim, “Murphy claimed that the DNA evidence proved the Book of Mormon to be false” still seems inaccurate from:

"To the contrary, I have only maintained that a 19th century origin of the Book of Mormon is the best explanation of historical and scientific evidence. The scripture may be historical fiction and still contain spiritual truths emanating from a propeht of God."

I am very sensitive to overblown claims, too. I believe you are guilty of the overblown statements. You would better serve yourself if you stayed with direct and accurate quotes.

[_The Dude]

Verse 6:

And it came to pass that he came unto me, and on this wise did he speak unto me, saying: Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ.

What do we make of the fact that Sherem addresses him "Brother Jacob"? Sorenson quitely assumes Brother is a title, but it could indicate kinship and blow Sorenson's argument out of the water.

Forced reading + hidden assumptions + invented story elements... Sorenson seems like a real joker.

[_charity]

Verse 6:

And it came to pass that he came unto me, and on this wise did he speak unto me, saying: Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ.

What do we make of the fact that Sherem addresses him "Brother Jacob"? Sorenson quitely assumes Brother is a title, but it could indicate kinship and blow Sorenson's argument out of the water.

Forced reading + hidden assumptions + invented story elements... Sorenson seems like a real joker.

I like v. 6, too. Kinship? We know that Sherem was not Jacob's brother. The only people I refer to as brother, who aren't my sibling, are church members that I use the title Brother for.

And the phrase "for I have heard and also know" is not a phrase you would use for someone you know personally.

[_cksalmon]

Charity--

My concern is as follows:

I'm absolutely open to learning of a source for your purported Murphy claim. I think it's definitely within the realm of possibility. If you can't find it, though, I'll be sorely tempted to conclude that yours was an "overblown," "crackpot" claim unsubstantiated by the actual evidence. Where does Murphy state what you allege he has? (And bear in mind that "proof" is a different animal than opinion [Book of Mormon as inspired fiction] or currently-factual statements [DNA evidence lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs.])

CKS

Dialogue: Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 2003, V. 36, #4

Murphy was responding to a claim that Michael Whiting had said MUrphy has announced that DNA research has conlcusively proved that the Book of Mormon is false and Joseph Smith is a fraud.

Murphy then states, "To the contrary, I have only maintained that a 19th century origin of the Book of Mormon is the best explanation of historical and scientific evidence. The scripture may be historical fiction and still contain spiritual truths emanating from a propeht of God."

Murphy's logic is pretty strange if he really believes he hasn't said that DNA proves the Book of Mormon to be false.

So what scientific evidence is Murphy relying on for his "explanation" of the Book of Mormon as 19th century fiction?
DNA
And if the Book of Mormon is 19th century fiction when Joseph Smith told an entirely different story, then Joseph Smith is a
FRAUD.

And he didn't say that DNA disproved the Book of Mormon and that Joseph was a fraud?

Charity

This has to be one of the strangest posts I've seen you make.

Just so that we can all be on the same page here:

(1) Charity claimed that Murphy has stated that DNA evidence proves Book of Mormon wrong.

(2) In defense of this claim, Charity doesn't provide a source for her statement, but actually cites Murphy's denial that he has said any such thing.

That's too much for me. I've done.

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
Charity.

This reasoning only works if you assume the historicity of the Book of Mormon as a given. If you consider that it may be a work of fiction, the reasoning falls apart, because fiction does not always make sense.


So, the argument against the Book of Mormon is that it makes sense as it should if it is what it says it is?

Thanks for the laugh, beastie. It has been a grim day. Dental appointment and all.

No, Charity, that is not the argument at all. I’ll use a fictional example to try to demonstrate.

A text is discovered that purports to be the actual history of a group of shipwrecked travelers whose ship sunk near a deserted island 200 years ago. Group X believes the text to be an actual history. Group Y believes the text to be fiction, written by someone pulling off a hoax. Group Z is weighing the strength of the arguments from each side.

The text says these thirty people went on to construct a building similar to the Roman Coliseum within a decade. Within two hundred years the text describes a complex society including layers of bureaucracy and formal wars. The text also claims that the people used automobiles and references other technology that did not exist at the time period.

In trying to pinpoint the area that the text could have occurred in, Group X fixates upon Hawaii, since that is the only island with any sort of complex civilization 200 years ago. However, problems still exist for Group X due to the fact that Hawaii did not have automobiles or several other items mentioned in the text, and Hawaii had a large population already. Group Y points out that the existence of automobiles and other anachronisms in the text, combined with the fact that the text does not mention the large population on this island that the text makes appear to be deserted, support their assertion that this is a fictional text written by an immature mind. Group X points out that there is no way that the thirty shipwrecked people could have built a building like the Roman Coliseum by themselves, so of course there were other people there, so this counts as evidence for the mention of the preexisting population!!!

Group Y points out that this cannot constitute evidence for a pre-existing population in the text when their explanation is that this is simply a work of fiction, written by an immature mind who did not understand population growth or have a realistic idea of how human civilizations develop.

Do you really believe Group Z is going to be persuaded by Group X’s argument?

[_beastie]

This has to be one of the strangest posts I've seen you make.

Just so that we can all be on the same page here:

(1) Charity claimed that Murphy has stated that DNA evidence proves Book of Mormon wrong.

(2) In defense of this claim, Charity doesn't provide a source for her statement, but actually cites Murphy's denial that he has said any such thing.

That's too much for me. I've done.

I gave up on Charity a while ago. Any responses I make to her are not for her benefit, but for other readers. She's impervious to logic.

[_Pokatator]

Charity's threads and posts and Mormon apologetics in general seem like a Rube Goldberg machine.

Definition: A Rube Goldberg machine is an exceedingly complex apparatus that performs a very simple task in a very indirect and convoluted way.

source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine

An example of Charity explaining DNA vs Book of Mormon via a Goldberg like machine:

[_charity]

\
Charity

This has to be one of the strangest posts I've seen you make.

Just so that we can all be on the same page here:

(1) Charity claimed that Murphy has stated that DNA evidence proves Book of Mormon wrong.

(2) In defense of this claim, Charity doesn't provide a source for her statement, but actually cites Murphy's denial that he has said any such thing.

That's too much for me. I've done.

Can't you see through the smoke Murphy is blowing? He says, "When I said scientific evidence shows that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction, I didn't say DNA proves the Book of Mormon false or Joseph Smith a fraud."

But what is he saying? I asked you, and you could not seem to anser: 1. What is the scientific evidence if it isn't DNA? 2. If Joseph Smith lied about the origin of the Book of Mormon, isn't that saying he was a fraud?

Murphy can't simply wiggle out by saying, "I didn't say what I said."

[_Runtu]

Can't you see through the smoke Murphy is blowing? He says, "When I said scientific evidence shows that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction, I didn't say DNA proves the Book of Mormon false or Joseph Smith a fraud."

But what is he saying? I asked you, and you could not seem to anser: 1. What is the scientific evidence if it isn't DNA? 2. If Joseph Smith lied about the origin of the Book of Mormon, isn't that saying he was a fraud?

Murphy can't simply wiggle out by saying, "I didn't say what I said."

I give up, too. Murphy states the obvious: the best explanation is a 19th-century origin, and then you take that as his saying that DNA "proves" the Book of Mormon is false. Truly bizarre.

[_charity]

If you can't see what Murphy is saying, when it is laid right out in front of you, there isn't any hope for dialgoue.

I thought you guys were more logical than that. I give up.