Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[Autodidact]

Really now....

And you know this because?

It's not like we're looking for one little metal knife. Smelting and forging metal is an industry. It requires mines, furnaces, and so forth, and the process leaves a non-destructible residue in the rocks. If it were there, archeologists would know about it. It isn't.

All the sciences are finding knew things everyday and you say this cannot happen. So what if it ends up being true, what do you do then?[/quote] Change my mind. Of course. I am only interested in the truth. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will change what I believe about it.

Meanwhile, we have lots of evidence that you are wrong. What do you do now?

 

[Sola'lor]

I don't think I've ever denied that there are large amounts of evidence against the Book of Mormon. But to me it is irrelevant. I have had a personal witness of the turth of the Book of Mormon. Thus there is a conflict. How can the Book of Mormon be true but not supported by archeological evidence? In short I don't really know. I've never claimed to know. I've offered theories about how it could be possible. So what I have determined to do is simply wait until a time when all knowledge will become available. Eventually everything will make sense. My belief in the church isn't based on our current level archeologiucal understanding but on my personal interpretation of the witness I recieve from the Holy Spirit. If you think that makes me ignorant then so be it. I firmly believe that eventually everything will make perfect sense. I am waiting for that time and when we reach that time and it a positivly known that my Religion is wrong then I will accept that. But until that time there is no valid reason for doubting the personal experiences I've had and continue to have.

 

[Autodidact]

As I also said, "other people like yourself"

And by this I assume you mean charming, well-dressed and urbane people?

No yet there isn't.

And there is a LOT of evidence to the contrary. So given that we will never excavate every square inch of America, at what point do you throw in the towel? Every actual working archeologist without an axe to grind did so a long time ago. Let's say the situation is the same 100 years from now: Every excavation reveals non-BoM artifacts, and none yields any consistent with it. Do you give up? Or does your faith require you to believe regardless of the evidence? If so, why not just admit this fundamentally anti-scientific stance.

Further, the DNA evidence is consistent with the archeological evidence. That's when you begin to get what scientists call consilience, which is how scientists know they're right. When the evidence from several different fields comes together to support the same conclusion, that's the bullseye of science. Here we have archeology, linguistics, anthropology and now genetics. Again, when do admit what scientists accept? How much evidence does your faith require you to disregard?

 

[Sola'lor]

How much evidence does your faith require you to disregard?

Our faith doesn't require us to accept or disregard any evidence. It's isn't based on archeological evidence. It's based on faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Autodidact]

Our faith doesn't require us to accept or disregard any evidence. It's isn't based on archeological evidence. It's based on faith in Jesus Christ.

O.K., so if the archeological evidence indicates that the events described in the BoM did not happen, your faith doesn't have a problem with you deciding that they didn't?

 

[Bishka]

O.K., so if the archeological evidence indicates that the events described in the BoM did not happen, your faith doesn't have a problem with you deciding that they didn't?

If that ends up being the actual cases when it comes down to it, no, there isn't a problem. Our faith (like so many people have stated, and you've ignore) is not based on archaeological findings. In fact, you should talk to Nutshell, he is a non-literalist Mormon, and in good standing too.

 

[Bishka]

And by this I assume you mean charming, well-dressed and urbane people?

Now you are making a joke.

 

[Autodidact]

If that ends up being the actual cases when it comes down to it, no, there isn't a problem. Our faith (like so many people have stated, and you've ignore) is not based on archaeological findings. In fact, you should talk to Nutshell, he is a non-literalist Mormon, and in good standing too.

And my question is, at what point do you agree with the field of archeology that it has in fact come down to it? If it's not your Mormon faith, then what is causing you to reject what archeology and anthropology accept? Not to mention genetics.

For example, on much scantier evidence, anthropologists believe that Australia was populated by immigrants who travelled fron South-East Asia via Indonesia. I assume you have no problem accepting this? Why do you reject conclusions based on much firmer evidence about the Americas?

Is it just coincidence that the only people who reject the position of modern archeology are Mormons?

 

[Autodidact]

Now you are making a joke.

:yes:
I would hate to think that you are jumping to conclusions and lumping people together. By "people like you," what did you mean, non-Mormons? Archeologists? People who accept modern science?

 

[Sola'lor]

O.K., so if the archeological evidence indicates that the events described in the BoM did not happen, your faith doesn't have a problem with you deciding that they didn't?

Nutshell is a good one to talk to about that. I personally don't see that big of a difference wether the events are literal or not. It's a personal preference. I personally believe that they did happen. We simply haven't found very much evidence in support. Or the evidence has been hidden from us. I imagine that if God could take the Gold Plates back, then He could take a bunch of swords and other evidence. After all if there was tons of evidence in support of the Book of Mormon it would be harder to have faith. People would join the church because of the evidence, not because of faith. Faith isn't supposed to be something easy that has evidence to back it up. It is supposed to be a leap into the unknown. When everything point against something but you still take the action, that is faith. Anyway just some thoughts.

 

[Sola'lor]

And my question is, at what point do you agree with the field of archeology that it has in fact come down to it? If it's not your Mormon faith, then what is causing you to reject what archeology and anthropology accept? Not to mention genetics.

For example, on much scantier evidence, anthropologists believe that Australia was populated by immigrants who travelled fron South-East Asia via Indonesia. I assume you have no problem accepting this? Why do you reject conclusions based on much firmer evidence about the Americas?

Is it just coincidence that the only people who reject the position of modern archeology are Mormons?

Actually I accept a lot of archeology. I figure most interpretations ar fairly accurate to what actually happened.

Based on my current understanding I reject the following:
Evolution, accuracy of carbon dating, and various thoeries in some other fields.

There's probably some more but I can't think of it right now.

 

[tomspug]

Our faith doesn't require us to accept or disregard any evidence. It's isn't based on archeological evidence. It's based on faith in Jesus Christ.

Right, but Jesus Christ actually EXISTED. If it was proven that he didn't exist, I would think I would have a hard time having faith in someone who was never there.

Faith isn't based on evidence, but faith with no evidence is blind.

 

[Sola'lor]

Right, but Jesus Christ actually EXISTED. If it was proven that he didn't exist, I would think I would have a hard time having faith in someone who was never there.

How could it be proven if he didn't exist or that he did? I imagine it would be pretty difficult to completely prove it either way without some doubt remaining on either side. I think that's pretty much my stance that at our current point in the world it is impossible to completely prove anything without having some doubt remaining. We can have a pretty good idea of something. But a pretty good idea of something still doesn't prove that idea.

Faith isn't based on evidence, but faith with no evidence is blind.

I would agree with you. But evidence isn't always archeological. Evidence also can include personal experiences.

For example, On my mission we fasted an prayed that we could find more people to teach. that same day we has some out of the ordinary experiences where we found three people to teach. Thus my faith in the principle of fasting has increased. I have personally seen evidence that it works.

On the other hand, I don't have as much faith in priesthood blessings. I've never witnessed a blessing that actually curred someone. I've heard stories but never witnessed it my self. As a result I have a lower level of faith in Priesthood blessings than I do with Fasting.

But back to the statement, I think all faith must, at the begining, be blind. That's the whole idea behind faith. Faith can increase and decrease depending on personal witnesses and trials of faith. But that initial step of faith is trusting in God regardless of anything else.

But I could be wrong.

 

[Bishka]

Right, but Jesus Christ actually EXISTED. If it was proven that he didn't exist, I would think I would have a hard time having faith in someone who was never there.

Faith isn't based on evidence, but faith with no evidence is blind.

You have hard evidence that He existed?

 

[Bishka]

:yes:
I would hate to think that you are jumping to conclusions and lumping people together. By "people like you," what did you mean, non-Mormons? Archeologists? People who accept modern science?

People who enjoy telling Mormons that they are stupid and don't accept science.

We've already done this in countless past threads, do you enjoy drudging it up again. You know nobody's mind is going to be changed.

 

[Autodidact]

Nutshell is a good one to talk to about that. I personally don't see that big of a difference wether the events are literal or not. It's a personal preference.

Well, it's only a matter of what is true. I don't consider reality to be a personal preference, but, as I say, I'm not a post-modern contructivist who believes we can create our own reality.

I personally believe that they did happen.

Based on what? Because the evidence is very strong that they didn't.

We simply haven't found very much evidence in support.

Even though we've been looking for over 100 years. We've also found a lot of evidence that contradicts it. However, if you've decided in advance to keep believing according to your "preference," then the evidence is irrelevant to you. I wish you would change your signaure, though.

Or the evidence has been hidden from us. I imagine that if God could take the Gold Plates back, then He could take a bunch of swords and other evidence. After all if there was tons of evidence in support of the Book of Mormon it would be harder to have faith. People would join the church because of the evidence, not because of faith. Faith isn't supposed to be something easy that has evidence to back it up. It is supposed to be a leap into the unknown. When everything point against something but you still take the action, that is faith. Anyway just some thoughts.

Yes, an all-powerful, deceptive, liar God could and would do that. He could also have created everything in the world, including me, as a vast, matrix-like hologram in which you are the only sentient being. He could also have created the earth and everything in it, including you, ten minutes ago, with the appearance and false memories to make it appear 4.56 billion years old. Not only are these rather odd notions, but it requires to worship a God whose purpose is to deceive you. Would you want to worship such a God? Actually, wouldn't that being be closer to Satan?

 

[Sola'lor]

People who enjoy telling Mormons that they are stupid and don't accept science.

We've already done this in countless past threads, do you enjoy drudging it up again. You know nobody's mind is going to be changed.

I wonder if there has ever been a debate on RF where someone has been convinced by the opponent and changed their views.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually I accept a lot of archeology. I figure most interpretations ar fairly accurate to what actually happened.

Right, you just reject those parts that conflict with your religious faith. At this point, your signature is plainly false.

Based on my current understanding I reject the following:
Evolution, accuracy of carbon dating, and various thoeries in some other fields.

Well, your current understanding is wrong. Which of these topics would you like to debate in a separate thread?

 

[Autodidact]

Right, but Jesus Christ actually EXISTED. If it was proven that he didn't exist, I would think I would have a hard time having faith in someone who was never there.

Faith isn't based on evidence, but faith with no evidence is blind.

Well, that's not quite true, tomspug. The majority, but by no means a consensus, of historians of the period, agree that there was a preacher named Yeshua in Israel around that time, who was executed by the Romans. It's a heck of along way from that to a Son of God who rose from the dead. That has no evidence, outside of the Bible, which is very weak because written so long after the fact.

 

[tomspug]

You have hard evidence that He existed?

Shows how much you know.

Josephus and Jesus Christ
Cornelius Tacitus
Lucian. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response
Ancient Hebrew (Talmud) account of Christ

Here's a nice collaberation (including biblical sources, if that's ok with people):
Evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ

Who are you going to believe? SOME historians, or MOST historians?