New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies

[_Fence Sitter]

So if we accept the Watered Down Dog defense, that people were merely wrong in what they believed the Book of Mormon said, what exactly was the holy ghost confirming to these people when they put the Book of Mormon to the Moroni test?

Maybe the scripture should read something like this.

"And when ye shall receive these things which may or may not be always true, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true or at least if they are not true now; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it, as it currently is understood, unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."

[_DarkHelmet]

The church spends so much time and effort defensing this thing, they would be better off just writing a whole new Book of Mormon. Call it the new and improved Book of Mormon. The old Book of Mormon was written with limited light an knowledge.

[_Quasimodo]

The church spends so much time and effort defensing this thing, they would be better off just writing a whole new Book of Mormon. Call it the new and improved Book of Mormon. The old Book of Mormon was written with limited light an knowledge.

Good thought. Why not? It works extremely well for laundry detergent. Every few months all brands of detergent have "New and Improved" on the box. They sell like hot cakes. It does make you wonder how many improvements can be made to a simple detergent formula.

[_Quasimodo]

So by having things passed down to us that simply aren't true, the church must have fallen into apostasy then, correct? Because all of these things which you reference as not being true are being taught as true in the classrooms and from over the pulpit today.

Perhaps, but also perhaps not. That is a separate discussion. As far as DNA and the Book of Mormon are concerned though, for the sake of argument, feel free to consider that the church is in apostasy. This actually would be quite appropriate as the discussion should consider the Book of Mormon on its own unmolested by the opinions of anybody who's ever touched a copy.

This is the best (or worst) example of tap dancing I've seen on this board. I'm going to remember this the next time I'm asked an uncomfortable question. "Good question, but that is a separate discussion." Or "Please don't clutter this conversation with facts."

This is a discussion board. All topic related statements and questions are valid.

[_aznative]

So by having things passed down to us that simply aren't true, the church must have fallen into apostasy then, correct? Because all of these things which you reference as not being true are being taught as true in the classrooms and from over the pulpit today.

Perhaps, but also perhaps not. That is a separate discussion. As far as DNA and the Book of Mormon are concerned though, for the sake of argument, feel free to consider that the church is in apostasy. This actually would be quite appropriate as the discussion should consider the Book of Mormon on its own unmolested by the opinions of anybody who's ever touched a copy.

It is not a separate discussion. Either the Book of Mormon is what it has been held up to be by the leadership of tscc, the keystone, and it is historically true, or it is not. Either it is a true and correct book which has historical premises, or it does not. It has been stated as doctrine that it is the historical record of the Lamanites remnants, the native americans. So is it or is it not? Because everything else regarding the church relies on it.

[_Fence Sitter]

So if we accept the Watered Down Dog defense, that people were merely wrong in what they believed the Book of Mormon said, what exactly was the holy ghost confirming to these people when they put the Book of Mormon to the Moroni test?

Two questions:

1) Father, is the Book of Mormon a true book of inspired scripture and does it contain the fullness of your gospel?

2) Father, were the people depicted in the Book of Mormon the literal genetic parents of every single Native American? Were they assimilated into a population of native people that already existed? And Father, did those people have a genetic pattern which matches the pattern genetic scientists in 2014 think that ancient Israelites had? Father, in short, should we expect modern Native Americans to have DNA that matches Israelites?

Tell me, do you maybe see a difference between the two questions? What does receiving a Yes answer to #1 tell us about #2? Nothing whatsoever. So how can you claim they didn't receive a real answer to #1 because of their speculations on #2? And speculations, I'll add, which were engaged in long before people had ever even heard of DNA. Until very recently it would not have even occurred to people to pray and seek an answer to #2. What if the Book of Mormon were about a group of people that lived on a completely different planet, what would you say then?

Seriously, you think these questions are actually what people are praying about?

People are praying to find out if the Book of Mormon is "true". Evidently what "true" means to one generation is completely different from the next.

I really think you don't believe most the nonsense you post, but this approach of blaming past generations for incorrect interpretations simply does not pass the sniff test for a church claiming to be led by guys who have some sort of superior communications with God. Please tell me how past beliefs in the Book of Mormon would have been different if the church were led by ordinary men and the Book of Mormon was a fraud?

What we are seeing in these essays are admission after admission that past beliefs were incorrect, that science may not be always be right, that possibilities still exist that somewhere a piece of evidence may turn up about huge civilizations that disappeared with out a trace, that even though there are 9 versions of a particular event we should believe just one, that we really don't understand how a rock can be used for both treasure hunting and translation purposes, that social pressures can prevent God from talking directly to his prophets over a period of 100 years and telling them how racist they are, or that polygamy is not that bad as long as we don't talk about Nauvoo.

it is pretty clear why they are publishing these essays anonymously and without fanfare to the membership in general. They are embarrassed by them and rightfully so.

[_aznative]

It is not a separate discussion. Either the Book of Mormon is what it has been held up to be by the leadership of tscc, the keystone, and it is historically true, or it is not. Either it is a true and correct book which has historical premises, or it does not. It has been stated as doctrine that it is the historical record of the Lamanites remnants, the native americans. So is it or is it not? Because everything else regarding the church relies on it.

It is a totally separate discussion. It is completely possible that the Book of Mormon is true and that the church IS in apostasy. For the sake of argument, what if that's the case? It's not appropriate to illegitimatize the Book of Mormon based on potentially illegitimate sources. If you want to make the argument that some church leader said something that was plainly wrong and uninspired based on modern DNA science, that's fine, but understand that in so doing you're not illegitimizing the Book of Mormon, but just that leader.

So, from the onset, the teachings of the leadership of the church have been false? These claims of the Book of Mormon being a historical record of the Native Americans being the direct descendants of the Lamanites are consistent with the teachings of the first prophets, namely Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

This leaves no other choices except that the claims of the leadership of the church from the onset that the Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites or the church and the Book of Mormon are false.

There are no other choices that would be bona fide. These are not random buss hit stories leaders of late have come up with.

[_Fence Sitter]

So, from the onset, the teachings of the leadership of the church have been false? These claims of the Book of Mormon being a historical record of the Native Americans being the direct descendants of the Lamanites are consistent with the teachings of the first prophets, namely Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

This leaves no other choices except that the claims of the leadership of the church from the onset that the Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites or the church and the Book of Mormon are false.

There are no other choices that would be bona fide. These are not random buss hit stories leaders of late have come up with.

Actually a member has no way of knowing if the current position of the church is any more accurate than past positions, especially since, according to the church, the science is obviously inexact, future DNA scientist may be able to prove the current ones wrong and show that all native Americans have middle eastern DNA. Presto Chango President Newsroom in 2030 will issue a statement about how past leaders and members were just incorrect in their assumptions about a limited geography and once again the introduction to the Book of Mormon will claim that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians

Seriously, what is it a prophet does again?

[Guest]

Matter Unorganized, over on the postmo board, mentioned another very inconvenient passage of scripture relative to the claim in the essay that there was interbreeding with populations already in the New World.

I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi. I have reason to bless my God and my Savior Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, (and no one knew it save it were himself and those whom he brought out of that land) and that he hath given me and my people so much knowledge unto the salvation of our souls.

It is exceedingly unlikely (some would say not possible) that Mormon would have been a pure descendant of Lehi, after more than 800 years and some 40 generations, if there had been genetic mixing of the small band of Lehites with a much larger population already in the New World.

With this passage, the author was making clear that, in his fantasy story, Moroni was a racially pure individual of Semitic descent.

Yet, as the science shows very clearly, no Semitic DNA entered the genome of the New World in the period between about 20,000 years ago to the arrival of the Spaniards This includes the entire time span of the Book of Mormon (with at least 1,000 years or so tacked on to either end).

[_aznative]

So, from the onset, the teachings of the leadership of the church have been false? These claims of the Book of Mormon being a historical record of the Native Americans being the direct descendants of the Lamanites are consistent with the teachings of the first prophets, namely Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

This leaves no other choices except that the claims of the leadership of the church from the onset that the Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites or the church and the Book of Mormon are false.

There are no other choices that would be bona fide. These are not random buss hit stories leaders of late have come up with.

Actually a member has no way of knowing if the current position of the church is any more accurate than past positions, especially since, according to the church, the science is obviously inexact, future DNA scientist may be able to prove the current ones wrong and show that all native Americans have middle eastern DNA. Presto Chango President Newsroom in 2030 will issue a statement about how past leaders and members were just incorrect in their assumptions about a limited geography and once again the introduction to the Book of Mormon will claim that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians

Seriously, what is it a prophet does again?

Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous? The fluidity with which the Spirit grants the prophets allows them to be mealy mouthed in all things except those things which they have personal affection for or those things which they find icky.

I mean hell. They don't have to do any relevating. Or seeing. Or prophecy. Or any witnessing.

Why the hell do they have to do a damn thing except allow the ministry of truth newsroom make whatever relative announcement is needed so the party members can get their 5 minutes of hate on and feel closer to the leaders because of it?

Fence Sitter, prophets don't do a damn thing anymore except make sure their existences are supported by the masses giving their 10%.