Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[Autodidact]

Here we go again! I guess this argument boils down to a question of science vs. religion. Which do you trust more, the scientific perspective on science with respect to religion or the religion's perspective on science with respect to religion?

Good question, and well put. When science and religion conflict, which do you accept?

 

[Autodidact]

Mmm. I don't agree. It's not science vs. the Book of Mormon. Science hasn't come up with anything that directly opposes the Book of Mormon.

I believe you're incorrect here. For example, archeologists know that the implements, metals, plants, animals and other artifacts described in the BoM did not exist in America prior to the European migration here. The BoM describes millions of people doing very specific things, and there is no trace of them anywhere in America. The BoM describes enormous battles with thousands of soldiers using swords, bows and arrows, armor, etc., but there is no trace of them. The only possible Mormon response to this is that just because we haven't found a scintilla of archeological evidence to support the BoM doesn't mean we won't someday, so let's just keep faith. The problem, of course, is that by now, 150 years later, we've explored most of the Americas, and we know who lived here, where, how many of them, and how they lived. And they just plain aren't the BoM people, period. They don't match the agricultural, pastoral, metallurgy, etc. etc. of the people described there. For example, they didn't have wheels. Period. No wheels. What happened to the populous BoM people with their wheeled chariots? Did they evaporate?

The only way you can say that science doesn't dispute the BoM is to close your eyes, plug your ears, hum loudly and claim that all of the evidence we've found so far is just inconclusive. However, in doing so, you disagree with all of the experts in many different fields, such as genetics, linguistics, archeology, anthropology and so forth.

 

[Autodidact]

My favorite Mormon apologetics for this: When the BoM says "horses," it doesn't really mean "horses," it means "deer." "Cows" means "buffalo," "sheep" means antelopes and so on and so forth, till you need a new Urim and Thurim to translate the BoM from Smithish to English.

 

[DeepShadow]

Um... Asia. We're talking about Asia. It spans a third of the globe! Do you have any idea how far away the Bering Strait is from Israel? No scientist that believes in a North-Asian ancestry is referring to Israel, which is practically an African country in proximity!

What are you talking about?! Nibley's hypothesis (as I cited earlier in this thread) was that the Jaredites were North Asian, and this would give the majority of Lehite peoples North Asian ancestry.

 

[Scott C.]

How do you know? Does the archeological evidence support this? Have we found artifacts of the objects, crops, animals and plants described in the BoM? Does the DNA evidence support it?

Joseph Smith was given the Book of Mormon plates by an angel of God who directed Joseph to translate them. If I were in Joseph Smith's shoes, saw and heard the angel, handled the plates, and experienced the power of God to translate, I would not say, wait, I need to go down to Central America and make sure the archaeology supports the revelation. The Book of Mormon came forward by revelation and is believed by revelation. In due time we'll know how the DNA fits in. Be patient. It will come.

 

[Autodidact]

Joseph Smith was given the Book of Mormon plates by an angel of God who directed Joseph to translate them. If I were in Joseph Smith's shoes, saw and heard the angel, handled the plates, and experienced the power of God to translate, I would not say, wait, I need to go down to Central America and make sure the archaeology supports the revelation. The Book of Mormon came forward by revelation and is believed by revelation. In due time we'll know how the DNA fits in. Be patient. It will come.

The problem is that it has come, and it tends to indicate that Joseph Smith was mistaken in every regard. That is, the archeology does not in fact support the "revelation."

Let me put it this way: So far there, of the hundreds of archeologists excavating hundreds of sites in the Americas, 0% of them match the BoM, and 100% of them contradict it. At what point do you accept that this is reality, or, if this situation continues another 100 years, do you still wait faithfully?

 

[Muffled]

Joseph Smith was given the Book of Mormon plates by an angel of God who directed Joseph to translate them. If I were in Joseph Smith's shoes, saw and heard the angel, handled the plates, and experienced the power of God to translate, I would not say, wait, I need to go down to Central America and make sure the archaeology supports the revelation. The Book of Mormon came forward by revelation and is believed by revelation. In due time we'll know how the DNA fits in. Be patient. It will come.

God told me that the Book of Mormon was written by a contemporary of Joseph Smith as a work of fiction. Later I learned that there was a congregationalist writer who claimed that Joseph Smith had stolen his text. I have read the Book of Mormon and it reads like a mirror image to the Bible except in a couple of instances where it is off a bit. As a fictional story based on the Bible it probably sticks to the facts better than "The Greatest Story Ever Told."

Obviously there will never be any proof that the Book of Mormon is legitimate because it isn't. And I wouldn't make bets on those tablets ever being made available for study because the LDS leaders more than likely know the truth. Of course it wouldn't mean anything if the tablets were translated because supposedly JS scried the translation and it is most likely not even close.

 

[Melissa G]

What are you talking about?! Nibley's hypothesis (as I cited earlier in this thread) was that the Jaredites were North Asian, and this would give the majority of Lehite peoples North Asian ancestry.

Really, so they've gone from being Jews to being Siberian...far out lol. Did they migrate to Israel from Siberia before floating off to the Amercia's. How utterly bizarre, my my your grasping at straws now

Melissa G

 

[Scott C.]

The problem is that it has come, and it tends to indicate that Joseph Smith was mistaken in every regard. That is, the archeology does not in fact support the "revelation."

Let me put it this way: So far there, of the hundreds of archeologists excavating hundreds of sites in the Americas, 0% of them match the BoM, and 100% of them contradict it. At what point do you accept that this is reality, or, if this situation continues another 100 years, do you still wait faithfully?

Well, I'll be dead in 100 years . But seriously, I know you won't buy it, but I do have my own spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon and I don't intend to walk away from that based on something I'm hearing about DNA.

 

[Scott C.]

God told me that the Book of Mormon was written by a contemporary of Joseph Smith as a work of fiction.

I can't speak to the experiences you've had communicating with God. I can only speak to mine.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I'll be dead in 100 years . But seriously, I know you won't buy it, but I do have my own spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon and I don't intend to walk away from that based on something I'm hearing about DNA.

So when religious faith and science conflict, you go with the religious faith?

 

[Scott C.]

So when religious faith and science conflict, you go with the religious faith?

Yes, but not always. If science (or alleged science) conflicts with something I consider absolute in my faith, I go with my religion. If it conflicts with a non essential part, I can be swayed by science. For example, believing that all native americans descended from the Book of Mormon people is not essential to my faith. I may have held an incorrect view in this regard. I can be swayed by scientific evidence to beiieve otherwise. But, the fact that Book of Mormon people did literally exist and inhabit some part or parts of the Americas is non-negotiable to me. True science and true religion can't contradict one another. I respect science and believe it should never be suppressed or ignored. But, I recognize and accept revealed truth also.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, but not always. If science (or alleged science) conflicts with something I consider absolute in my faith, I go with my religion. If it conflicts with a non essential part, I can be swayed by science. For example, believing that all native americans descended from the Book of Mormon people is not essential to my faith. I may have held an incorrect view in this regard. I can be swayed by scientific evidence to beiieve otherwise. But, the fact that Book of Mormon people did literally exist and inhabit some part or parts of the Americas is non-negotiable to me. True science and true religion can't contradict one another. I respect science and believe it should never be suppressed or ignored. But, I recognize and accept revealed truth also.

O.K., how did you decide which religion to believe on faith, without and even despite the evidence? Did you do a comparative study of all of them? On what basis do you choose?

 

[Scott C.]

O.K., how did you decide which religion to believe on faith, without and even despite the evidence? Did you do a comparative study of all of them? On what basis do you choose?

I chose to pursue the faith in which I was raised based on answers to prayer and spiritual manifestations to me that this is what I should do. So, I believe there is evidence for my belief and there is logic behind it. The Book of Mormon has a promise that if we will read it and ask God if it's true, with a sincere heart, the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth of it to us. I tried it and it worked. So to me, God proved it and provided the evidence of a spiritual nature.

 

[Autodidact]

That's what I figured. The strongest predictor of someone's religious beliefs are the beliefs with which they were raised. Had you been born in Pakistan, chances are you would believe Islam just as fervently, and for much the same reasons.

 

[Scott C.]

That's what I figured. The strongest predictor of someone's religious beliefs are the beliefs with which they were raised. Had you been born in Pakistan, chances are you would believe Islam just as fervently, and for much the same reasons.

Don't blow if off just because I was raised in my faith. A very high percentage of LDS are converts.

 

[Autodidact]

Don't blow if off just because I was raised in my faith. A very high percentage of LDS are converts.

I didn't blow anything off. I just pointed out that there is an extremely high correlation between people who are born in place X where the people believe in religion Y and being raised by Y people, and turning out to believe in Y yourself.

I figure that if children were not raised to "believe" and "have spiritual experiences with the holy spirit" and the like, but were offered a variety of the world's religions and lack thereof at some age like 17, the world would be a very different place, and, among other things, there would be far fewer Mormons.

 

[Scott C.]

I didn't blow anything off. I just pointed out that there is an extremely high correlation between people who are born in place X where the people believe in religion Y and being raised by Y people, and turning out to believe in Y yourself.

I figure that if children were not raised to "believe" and "have spiritual experiences with the holy spirit" and the like, but were offered a variety of the world's religions and lack thereof at some age like 17, the world would be a very different place, and, among other things, there would be far fewer Mormons.

It is true that when LDS parents believe the faith and are good examples in the way they live the faith, many children adopt the same faith. It is also true that many converts find their way into the LDS church.

 

[Katzpur]

I figure that if children were not raised to "believe" and "have spiritual experiences with the holy spirit" and the like, but were offered a variety of the world's religions and lack thereof at some age like 17, the world would be a very different place, and, among other things, there would be far fewer Mormons.

The only problem with what you "figure" is that your conclusion cannot be substantiated by the facts. More than two-thirds of the LDS Church's 13 million members not "raised to believe" but are first-generation converts who did, in fact, come from a variety of the world's religions. I completely agree with you that the religion in which a person was raised play an enormous part in the religion he'll be as an adult, but the generalization doesn't stretch quite as far as you would like to believe.

 

[Autodidact]

The only problem with what you "figure" is that your conclusion cannot be substantiated by the facts. More than two-thirds of the LDS Church's 13 million members not "raised to believe" but are first-generation converts who did, in fact, come from a variety of the world's religions. I completely agree with you that the religion in which a person was raised play an enormous part in the religion he'll be as an adult, but the generalization doesn't stretch quite as far as you would like to believe.

Let me make sure I understand this statistic: You're saying that 2/3 of today's Mormons were not born to Mormon families? Is that right?