nc47 wrote:DrW wrote:Perhaps. However, Mormonism isn't most religions. Ask any Mormon.
Tell me: which one of these could you deny or disobey and still receive a TR?
Do you think that one could still get a TR with if one denied/disobeyed 99% of these?
What about admittance to the Celestial Kingdom?
You can deny all of them and get a temple recommend and go into the celestial kingdom. Last time I checked the TR interviews didn't cover any of those questions. Mormonism is more concerned with practice.
The foundational claim of all of Christianity is that Christ rose from the dead. For Mormons, it's that plus the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith.
I'll respond to those claims anyway cuz I'm in a good mood:
1. Who the hell believes this is investigable scientifically? This is at most an interesting metaphysical question, and many non-LDS theologians and philosophers are coming around to God being material in some way. The proof for divine embodiment was done by Sarot, and Stephen Webb has constructed an entire metaphysical scheme around it.
Come on, nc47, you claim to be well versed in things scientific. If God has a body of flesh and bone, then his location in space can be specified. If this is the case, and if he hangs out outside the solar system, then he violates the laws of physics every time he answers a prayer or takes any immediate action here in Earth (such as giving guidance to Joseph Smith as he translated the golden plates, or helping absent minded Mormons to find their car keys).
nc47 wrote:2. This is an obvious metaphor. In the Bible (Job 38:6-7)and the wider Ancient Near East, divine beings were represented by heavenly bodies. In the Canaanite pantheon, the sons of El were called an "assembly of stars." Kolob is the star closet to God and represents Jesus.
What? The sun gets its light from Jesus? Kolob might be an obvious metaphor to you. To Mormonism and to non-Mormons reading about Kolob Cosmology in LDS scripture, it is just silly - and an embarrassment.
nc47 wrote:3. As Andrew Sullivan said, anyone with half a brain knows this is metaphor. The allegorical nature is amplified for anyone who's been through the temple.
Yet another metaphor. Nice try. Someone should get in touch with the Correlation Committee about this idea because Adam and Eve as the parents of all living is still Gospel Doctrine according to the Gospel Doctrine Manual.
http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-6-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=engnc47 wrote:4. This is a historical question, not a scientific one, unless you consider Egyptology a science. Then the definition of science becomes so broad it's useless.
Linguists would be disappointed to know that you don't consider what they do to be scientific. The linguistics Society of America defines linguistics as
"bringing a scientific perspective and scientific methods to the quintessentially human phenomenon of language". In other words, linguistics is a science. By the way, and for future reference, Egyptology is also a science, defined as
"the scientific study of the history and culture of ancient Eqypt --".
nc47 wrote:5. I have never been taught this.
Then you have not been paying attention when you read the Book of Mormon. And you have not been paying attention to the words of the prophets, even Jeffrey R. Holland.
nc47 wrote:6. This is has potential to generate a testable hypothesis through DNA testing, but not currently. The Middle Eastern DNA among natives has been on America too long to fit the Book of Mormon timeline.
Then why continue the argument? The Book of Mormon contradicts science - period.
nc47 wrote:About 1/3 of Cherokee have Hebrew DNA, but you can't tell if it's post- or pre-Columbian with the precision of current molecular clocks.
This statement reflects a terrible misunderstanding of population genetics. I have posted references to the peer reviewed evidence to the contrary here so many times I will leave it to you to find it if you ware interested. Search terms such as
mtDNA,
Amerindian and
Beringia entered with
DrW as the author will get you to the cited papers fairly quickly. Another look at Simon Southertons' blog couldn't hurt, either.
nc47 wrote:The Cherokee themselves claim they are Jews, but we can't tell.
The scientific data on mtDNA from Cherokees shows that it contains the same (Beringia Hold-up) markers as those found in the other Amerindian tribes and lineages. Compared to the other tribes, Cherokees have no special claim to being Jewish. You are sounding sillier and more desperate with each response here, my friend.
If you have been reading much on this board, you will know that there are dozens of recent scientific papers that show that you are simply wrong here. If you have been paying attention to Simon Southerton's blog entries on the matter, you know that you are wrong here.
nc47 wrote:7. Yeah, check the news.
I have. The fact that societal pressure forced the LDS Church to disavow this racist doctrine, held for more than a century, certainly does not indicate that it had a divine origin, does it? Nonetheless, currently disavowed or not, this uniquely Mormon doctrine is in direct conflict with science.
nc47 wrote:8. Richard Feynman considers these health studies to be in the realm of pseudoscience. I don't quite agree with him, but epidemiological studies show both good impact and bad side effects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY In any case, there are social cohesion benefits from building an identity around people with Kosher laws and the such anyway.
As one well versed in science, you should know that Richard Feynman died in 1988. So when you use the present tense to describe his beliefs, you are either being misleading or demonstrating your lack of relevant knowledge. He was a physicist, not an epidemiologist.
And the fact remains that any number of epidemiological studies, including many published since 1988, demonstrate the health benefits of natural products such as coffee, tea and red wine, all of which are prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. No matter how you try to justify it, many of the dietary prohibitions set forth in the Word of Wisdom are in direct conflict with science.
Discussing all this with you has been interesting. If your responses are the best that LDS apologists have, then the Church is right to discourage apologetics.
Most of the response you provided in your last few posts were beside the points, silly, or both. Responses like this do more harm than good to your cause. Believe me.