Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[tomspug]

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.

But Jesus Christ EXISTED! That's my point, whether or not you believe in his miracles and godhood. The Lamaanites and the Nephites clearly DID NOT exist in the eyes of history and science. Only in the eyes of the Mormon religion did they exist.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Well, that's approximately .03 peppercorns of evidence. The scientific term for that is "coincidence." For it to rise to the level of evidence, you have to measure 100 teams, have 50 of them pray for people to teach, 50 not, and count how many total people they each get--that would be something more like evidence.

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.

I agree with this. From my perspective, that is why the entire notion of faith is crazy. For one thing, how do you know which faith to be blind about? Why not Mithraism?

 

[Sola'lor]

Awwww I made a good post in reply to some of your stuff but it got deleted. I couldn't get back to the site for a few minutes. Oh well.

 

[Bishka]

But Jesus Christ EXISTED! That's my point, whether or not you believe in his miracles and godhood. The Lamaanites and the Nephites clearly DID NOT exist in the eyes of history and science. Only in the eyes of the Mormon religion did they exist.

Not really.

You cannot prove that the Son of God existed (only faith will do that), you can only prove that a man named Yeshua existed.

Wait, you have definite proof and hard science that the Book of Mormon culture did not exist? And science will never prove otherwise? Do share. What happens if science proves they existed, what will you do then?

 

[nutshell]

I guess I'm on ignore now.

 

[Sola'lor]

I guess I'm on ignore now.

Who would put you on ignore?

 

[nutshell]

Who would put you on ignore?

Auto has not responded to my last two posts.

 

[Sola'lor]

I wish more LDS would reply on this thread I want to hear other opinions about this topic. I think Autodidact is getting bored with my replies.

 

[Bishka]

I wish more LDS would reply on this thread I want to hear other opinions about this topic. I think Autodidact is getting bored with my replies.

The problem is that this idea has been rehashed over and over again on this forum.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Did anyone here call you stupid?
You are clearly rejecting science, so that group would include basically the whole world.
Nobody's forcing you to participate. Are you asking me to stop posting? I thought that's what this forum was for?
Apparently I have more faith in human nature than you.
I'm always open to wherever the evidence leads. Got any?

 

[Autodidact]

But Jesus Christ EXISTED! That's my point, whether or not you believe in his miracles and godhood. The Lamaanites and the Nephites clearly DID NOT exist in the eyes of history and science. Only in the eyes of the Mormon religion did they exist.

Preacher Yeshua does not necessarily equal Jesus Christ. We don't know whether Jesus Christ existed.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sorry, Nutshell, it must have been pages ago. What was the question?

 

[Bishka]

Did anyone here call you stupid?
You are clearly rejecting science, so that group would include basically the whole world.

Not at all.

Science hasn't disproven or proven it yet.

I'm not at all rejecting science.

 

[Autodidact]

Not at all.

Science hasn't disproven or proven it yet.

I'm not at all rejecting science.

Science has never proven nor disproven anything, ever. Science isn't about proof. Science is about evidence. When the evidence indicates something to be true, science accepts it as true. When the evidence indicates that it is not true, then science rejects it. In this case, science indicates that the BoM is not literally true, yet you insist on continuing to believe it. You may like to think that you are accepting science, but in fact you are not. You are deluding yourself.

 

[Starfish]

Science has never proven nor disproven anything, ever. Science isn't about proof. Science is about evidence. When the evidence indicates something to be true, science accepts it as true. When the evidence indicates that it is not true, then science rejects it. In this case, science indicates that the BoM is not literally true, yet you insist on continuing to believe it. You may like to think that you are accepting science, but in fact you are not. You are deluding yourself.

Since this is an extremely long thread, I'm bound to repeat someone else here. There is quite a bit of physical evidence to support the Book of Mormon. It gets no press, and the Church doesn't feel it necessary to prove itself to the world.
Some call it delusion. We call it faith. We're here to develope our faith, not to be convinced by evidence or signs. I have no doubt that ultimately science and the BoM will agree completely.
Again, sorry for the repetition.

 

[Francine]

I have no doubt that ultimately science and the BoM will agree completely.

I agree, but it's not science that will move.

1 new word in Book of Mormon stirs church-vs.-science debate

 

[Katzpur]

I agree, but it's not science that will move.

So not only has God stopped talking, but science has stopped moving, too?

 

[Autodidact]

Since this is an extremely long thread, I'm bound to repeat someone else here. There is quite a bit of physical evidence to support the Book of Mormon. It gets no press, and the Church doesn't feel it necessary to prove itself to the world.
Some call it delusion. We call it faith. We're here to develope our faith, not to be convinced by evidence or signs. I have no doubt that ultimately science and the BoM will agree completely.
Again, sorry for the repetition.

No repetition. I don't recall anyone presenting any such evidence here. Please bring it forth.
Let's start with the DNA, since that was the subject of the OP. Will you please present the DNA evidence that supports the story told in the BoM, that America was settled by a small group of immigrants from the ANE who brought forth hundreds of thousands of descendants within a few centuries?

 

[Autodidact]

So not only has God stopped talking, but science has stopped moving, too?

So far the change seems to be going in the other direction; Mormon doctrine is changing to be more consistent with scientific findings.
Science is always changing, but the direction of research in this area seems to moving in the opposite direction from the BoM. The more research we do, the more the BoM is undermined.

 

[Bishka]

So far the change seems to be going in the other direction; Mormon doctrine is changing to be more consistent with scientific findings.
Science is always changing, but the direction of research in this area seems to moving in the opposite direction from the BoM. The more research we do, the more the BoM is undermined.

Would you care to explain change?

And remember we have always believed in revelation.