Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[articulett]

Horse evolutionyou miss a lot when you think you already know all there is to know because a feeling told you so.)

http://www.ecology.info/horses-2.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050928084511.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

You don't need to pray to know if it's true... you can See DNA... understand exactly how it's passed on... understand exactly what it's telling you--

When parents and religions teach "beliefs" as facts it's confusing for kids and hard on teachers. I want my students to understand what we have figured out and how, but I never know what truths their parents have told them to believe and what the punishment is supposed to be for not believing. I don't like that religions make liars out of those who would share the facts. Mormonism isn't the worst. But much of its claims are not supported by science. God turned Cain black-- not bloody likely. Did he suddenly put a bunch of extra melanin genes directly in his body? It couldn't have happened that way. Nor could Adam and Eve-- nor the rib thing... what sort of perfect designer would make a useless mutated vitamin C gene that doesn't work in our great ape kin either--but works in the lower primates and other mammals?

(And why wouldn't they mention that if they really wanted to impress someone on those damn gold plates?) The truth is much more awesome and fascinating than the story "god" told you was true.

 

[articulett]

I think you may be confused about race... versus ancestry... You do know that Jefferson had children with his slave, right? DNA has proven that. And segregationist Strom Thurmand also has an inter-racial child. But race is a human construct based on what we see. Yes, people who look similar are more likely to share more common ancestry-- but not necessarily. A dark skinned light skinned mating can produce a whole United Nations range of people... and dark skinned people can also produce albinos.

For more info., check this out (and see the series if you can)... http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

 

[RandFan]

RandFan said "Here we have conclusive proof that they are, indeed, Asian." and so I was pointing out that it's not conclusive. According to the articles I've cited, it's not conclusive at all.

Rcronk,

You are not understanding the science of the article.

Across the country there is currently a lot of interest in the prospects of using genetics to determine whether somebody is really Native American.

You see, the issue of the article is whether or not any given person can qualify as Native American based on genetics. This is problematic for the reasons stated.

Of course, if all your other great grandparents were Native American, and your mother’s mother’s mother was non-Indian, then you will most likely not have one of the “Native American” mtDNA haplotypes. So, 7 of your 8 great-grandparents may be Indian, and yet you would not be identified as Indian by this test.

...

But, even taken on their own scientific terms, these tests cannot do much to identify who is and who is not Native American, because they yield many false negatives and false positives.

This is not what we are talking about when it comes to the origin of Native Americans. Not even close. The article is about identifying individuals as Native American.

However, it is the study of groups and the markers of those groups that the findings become clear.

I assure you that article isn't going to give geneticists any concern as to the origin of Native Americans. They are Asian, it was a settled issue before DNA for anthropologists. The DNA was predicted to support the fossil, phenotype and other evidence. It did. It is conclusive.

For more info see: Answering the Book of Mormon DNA apologetics

 

[Elind]

Some Muslims have spoken out against polygamy. There's a curious verse in the Koran which says that it's all right to have multiple wives if you treat them all fairly; and there's another verse that could be read as claiming that no man can treat all his wives fairly.

No doubt some have, but in my time in the Middle East I never heard more than an opinion that it was not a good arrangement, and the more educated people the more likely they were to follow that. But it is still common, and often abused since divorce is so easy (can you say that three times?), it can be a way to have sex (money will change hands) legally. Quick marriage, quick divorce. It is not against the religion in common understanding I'm sure.

Both the old and new testaments allow for polygamy, yet I don't believe that most non-Mormon Christians are having wet dreams about it. And there are non-Mormon Christian polygamous sects of course.

OK. That was a silly joke. Maybe it was a memory of a dream I had....

I've even heard some Muslims argue that the Koran is morally superior to the Bible based on this (Christianity=polygamy, Proper Islam=monogamy). Unfortunately I can't find a web site making this rather bold claim....

I think the main origin of polygamy in Islam derived from creating a way for widows to have a man's support. A brother of the deceased husband, for example. Essentially a noble goal one might think, but time changes everything.

 

[rcronk]

RandFan and articulett - Ok - that's why I'm not the DNA expert. I was trying to get a non-Book of Mormon article and it apparently missed the mark. How about this one: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=311&table=jbms

That gentleman is a DNA sequencing expert. Please tell me the problems he has with his logic or his science. He disagrees with both of you, so let me know where he's wrong. I will attempt to contact him in the mean time so I can take your concerns to him for him to answer directly. That way, my ignorance won't get in the way again. Thanks. (P.S. articulett is a genetic counselor, what are your qualifications RandFan, so I'll know what to tell him.)

Perhaps this should go on the moderated thread but since the discussion involves more than just RandFan, I'll do it here.

 

[RandFan]

Both the old and new testaments allow for polygamy, yet I don't believe that most non-Mormon Christians are having wet dreams about it. And there are non-Mormon Christian polygamous sects of course.

I think you would be very surprised to know of the fantasies of the average male regardless of religious background. It's wrong to judge men by the most base among us, then again it is wrong to judge men by the standards of polite society.

I have no doubt whatsoever that such fantasies or very similar fantasies play a very big role in the lives of most men. Christian, non, you name it.

Having spent time in therapy because I thought there was something wrong with me for having perverted fantasies I learned it really wasn't something unhealthy or perverse.

Of course if you would prefer to believe Christians don't engage in such fantasies then don't read up on the studies of Kinsey and the many that have followed.

 

[Elind]

RandFan and articulett - Ok - that's why I'm not the DNA expert. I was trying to get a non-Book of Mormon article and it apparently missed the mark. How about this one: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=311&table=jbms

That gentleman is a DNA sequencing expert. Please tell me the problems he has with his logic or his science. He disagrees with both of you, so let me know where he's wrong. I will attempt to contact him in the mean time so I can take your concerns to him for him to answer directly. That way, my ignorance won't get in the way again. Thanks. (P.S. articulett is a genetic counselor, what are your qualifications RandFan, so I'll know what to tell him.)

Perhaps this should go on the moderated thread but since the discussion involves more than just RandFan, I'll do it here.

I'm not going to get into something that would no doubt amount to a Masters degree thesis if we wanted to defend one position or another fully. But I will say that I did that Genographics DNA test to have a look at my line's genealogy, and if you are right that nothing like this can be proven, then it is all a great big fraud and we should all be able to sue National Geographics and many others for fraud.

You don't think that smarter minds (E.G. Lawyers. Hint, OJ) would have figured that out by now?

 

[articulett]

I think you would be very surprised to know of the fantasies of the average male regardless of religious background. It's wrong to judge men by the most base among us, then again it is wrong to judge men by the standards of polite society.

I have no doubt whatsoever that such fantasies or very similar fantasies play a very big role in the lives of most men. Christian, non, you name it.

Having spent time in therapy because I thought there was something wrong with me for having perverted fantasies I learned it really wasn't something unhealthy or perverse.

Of course if you would prefer to believe Christians don't engage in such fantasies then don't read up on the studies of Kinsey and the many that have followed.

That's funny... my late husband "confessed" a racy dream to me-- like he must have felt he had "cheated"-- but I laughed-- I told him he doesn't need to confess his dreams or fantasies (besides... then I'd have to confess mine, right?). I don't want to be lied to, but there are some things I'm just fine with not knowing.

BTW-- great link... "mopologists" (tee-hee)... religions and science are experiencing an increasing schism... not all of them-- but clearly many of them are just plain wrong about FACTS -- I worry about what this does to people, and I find it interesting to read what is going on. It is heartening the way they support and share with each other on that link.

"delightsome"

 

[RandFan]

How about this one: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=311&table=jbms

That gentleman is a DNA sequencing expert. Please tell me the problems he has with his logic or his science. He disagrees with both of you, so let me know where he's wrong. I will attempt to contact him in the mean time so I can take your concerns to him for him to answer directly.

Ok,

Let's look at a few of the items.

However, one might argue that it is possible to indirectly judge the validity of the text by testing the authenticity of the predictions made within the text.

Yes, the BOM makes scientific claims. We can test those claims. If the claims are found to be false then it would require a belief that god is somehow fooling us to believe that the BOM is the word of god.

Ok, the author makes two hypotheses derived from the writings of the BOM in which we can attempt to falsify.

1. The Global Colonization Hypothesis. Basically, the inhabitants of the Americas prior to Columbus were predominantly the descendants of Jaredites, Mulekites, and Nephties & Lamanites.
2. The Local Colonization Hypothesis. The Jaredites, Mulekites, and Nephties & Lamanites were NOT the ancestors of most Native Americans.

The article simply asserts that #2 is the more likely hypothesis to be drawn, appeals to unnamed scholars and then sets about to falsify #2.

However, there's a problem. A big one. God. You see, the Mormon Church maintains that it is the only Church with a living prophet. A prophet is one who talks to god. God is omnipotent and omniscient. God sees the future.

So, why is that a problem?

In 1981 an introductory paragraph was added to The Book of Mormon identifying the Lamanites as the "principal ancestors of the American Indians."

Why was this paragraph added if it wasn't true? Who knows better, the scholars referenced in the article or the Prophet of God?

Further, Church leaders have frequently played on the misconceptions of skin color and behavior that was part of this story of origination of the American Indians.

Why do church leaders make a point of skin color?

To the uninitiated let me give you some background.

According to the bible, when Cain killed his brother Abel he was marked. The Bible doesn't say what this mark was. However, Mormons and some Christians believe that the mark was dark skin. It was believed that Cain's descendants were cursed with this mark.

As an aside, Mormons believe that humans live in a pre-existence and some humans sin in this pre-existence. These humans were sent down to have dark skin. This is significant because Mormons don't believe that anyone should be punished for other peoples transgressions (see the second article of faith).

Fast-forward to 600 BC, a group of Israelites leave the old world and come to the Americas. Some of the individuals are unrighteous (the sin) and like Cain their skins are turned darks.

Fast-forward to 1960:

Theories about Lamanites' "skin of blackness"

Spencer W. Kimball, another apostle of the LDS Church, who later became president of the church, also spoke about Lamanites in October 1960, in the context of LDS missionary efforts: :"(Navajo) ...are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The Indian children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3) This statement is similar to others by Kimball regarding Latter-day Saint attitudes towards Blacks. See Blacks and Mormonism.

Bear in mind, Spencer W. Kimball is a living prophet, he talks to God.

Questions:

1. Is it just a coincidence that all Native Americans have dark skin?
2. Why do the pictures in the BOM depict Lamanites as typical Native Americans?
3. Why does Spencer W. Kimball suggest that some random Navajo children are turning white simply by living with Mormons?

 

[articulett]

RandFan and articulett - Ok - that's why I'm not the DNA expert. I was trying to get a non-Book of Mormon article and it apparently missed the mark. How about this one: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=311&table=jbms

That gentleman is a DNA sequencing expert. Please tell me the problems he has with his logic or his science. He disagrees with both of you, so let me know where he's wrong. I will attempt to contact him in the mean time so I can take your concerns to him for him to answer directly. That way, my ignorance won't get in the way again. Thanks. (P.S. articulett is a genetic counselor, what are your qualifications RandFan, so I'll know what to tell him.)

Perhaps this should go on the moderated thread but since the discussion involves more than just RandFan, I'll do it here.

This is basic apologetics with a Mormon flair-- he's saying the scientists are not specifically testing the claims in the book of Mormon-- true... just like we're not testing the claims of Scientology-- we just follow the evidence, and so far no religions seem to have been particularly prescient in regards to anything. Moreover, he claims that Mormonism and god is outside of scientific testing... which is what all religions claim, unless some science seems to maybe support what they are trying to proffer (like your Berkeley study). The
Shroud of Turin was eagerly touted as a true relic until carbon dating and DNA testing showing that it was created later and the mark's were'n't blood-- but paint.

He's not really wrong-- just obfuscatory-- he's a lot like Behe-- an intelligent design proponent and Catholic apologist who, nevertheless, manages to sound a lot more sensible than Mormons. Humans descended from apes-- there is no doubt about this from looking at the genomes... how religions incorporate that into their stories is something they will have to deal with-- how that has to do with "original sin" is something they will have to make up stories for. Your apologetic author is just saying that you can't "test god"-- which is convenient, because then you can say whatever you want and declare it a revelation from god-- as most religions do. If you can't test god and can't tell him from another religions god or a delusion or a false prophet or a drug trip-- then maybe... just maybe... he's not worthy of faith.

If you ever come out of your mind fog you will see that even the Mormon apologist isn't saying what you think he's saying. He's just saying, scientists have never specifically tested the book of Mormon--and they can't anyhow, because god lies outside the testing procedure.

That makes god on par with Xenu in the world of science. Science is about the facts that are the same for everyone. Religions are about truths that you need to believe-- and then prop up with facts, feelings, spin, confirmation bias, converting others, affirmations, etc. See the difference. We didn't learn about the nature of our universe through scripture... but by slowly and steadily accumulating data, correcting error, honing our understanding, building a foundation of knowledge. The same for DNA. And the facts cannot help that they don't match up with any religions magic story. I see you have a strong need to believe-- but that will never get a skeptic to believe-- and certainlly won't convince anyone who understood the facts before having the BoM inflicted upon them.

You're doing something weird that I've seen other apologists do for other religions. You're assuming "authorities" are saying what you are saying because of your biased extrapolation... and then you are accusing us of calling the authorities wrong. Your authorities aren't "wrong"-- although the FAIR (mormon apologist group) was disingenuous and obfuscating-- but they are not making the case for your beliefs that you imagine them to be making. I know that you could hear similar arguments for Scientology or other religions and recognize the logical fallacies at once. At least I think you could. I think your apologetics sounds like all religious apologetics, anyhow. When the facts don't add up-- spin what you have and throw in pedantics and emotions and diversions with a tad of science to impress those who don't understand what people are talking about.

 

[RandFan]

That's funny... my late husband "confessed" a racy dream to me-- like he must have felt he had "cheated"-- but I laughed-- I told him he doesn't need to confess his dreams or fantasies (besides... then I'd have to confess mine, right?). I don't want to be lied to, but there are some things I'm just fine with not knowing.

There are people who honestly believe that a fantasy is adultry.

BTW-- great link... "mopologists" (tee-hee)... religions and science are experiencing an increasing schism... not all of them-- but clearly many of them are just plain wrong about FACTS -- I worry about what this does to people, and I find it interesting to read what is going on. It is heartening the way they support and share with each other on that link.

Many of the people I love the most in the world are Mormons. It's difficult for me in some ways. I wish my family hadn't been Mormons but it was Mormonism that brought my parents together so I have my existence to owe for that fact I guess.

 

[articulett]

And btw, rconk, in regards to your last link, he doesn't really disagree with both of us-- he's just saying that your god lies outside science-- he could have made things look all wrong just to fool us... and that scientific results don't matter because they weren't specifically testing the BoM (and we don't specifically test the bible either-- but there is no evidence of talking snakes and people poofed into being from adulthood-- and lots of evidence to show the opposite--) Do you understand?

 

[articulett]

There are people who honestly believe that a fantasy is adultry.

Many of the people I love the most in the world are Mormons. It's difficult for me in some ways. I wish my family hadn't been Mormons but it was Mormonism that brought my parents together so I have my existence to owe for that fact I guess.

I feel similarly about Catholicism... and they need to feel I'm the "liar" when it is the religion that has lied to them. Mostly, I shut up. Catholics have that "sinning in your heart" is the same as doing thing too.

That's just crazy. Look, you can molest my kid in your mind, and you can torture me in your thoughts-- and you can kill my loved ones in your dreams-- but if you do it in reality-- you can bet it will make a big difference to me. And to the law. You can't damage people or impregnate them or pass on venereal disease or end lives with "thoughts".

C.S. Lewis proffers that same B.S.-- and he also says "pride is the worse sin of all"-- not bigotry, torture, pedophilia, or genocide-- heck that is endorsed in scriptures-- but PRIDE??!! Clearly not a divinely inspired message. And aren't those who claim to know what the invisible creator of the universe wants exhibiting some pretty megalomanical pride while pretending to be humble anyhow?

How many good people have felt awful by feelings and thoughts they never "chose". And, yes, the sex drive evolved to be very strong and not particularly under rational control. Why? Because those with the strongest, least controllable sex drives spawned our ancestors! Duh. Trying to control such feelings is like trying to get an unfixed dog to stop humping things. We don't need to understand why or the hows of the sex drive... we just need to desire the thing that spawns the next generation. Both the Catholics and the Mormons have the guilt thing down. But when you read the posts at the exmormon site-- aren't you heartened at the way people reach out and share with others and help each other? It gives me a kind of hope. I hope you listen to some of the podcasts I linked. There are some really good people amongst the "apostates". It hurts me to think of them being shunned to keep the belief alive. And there is always the notion about when or if you should speak out or if your silence is seen as shame or implied agreement and such. Shunning is a very manipulative thing that many religions use to enforce the paradigm.

I think it was Tal Bachman who says he asks believers, "if you could know whether Joseph Smith WAS a true prophet or not-- would you want to know?" And that lets him gage where people are at. He wanted to be the next "Donny Osmond" Mormon church pop star at one time (he wrote songs like "she's so high above me"... and the son of "bachman" in BTO.) I just think his story is very touching. His wife also (and they have 8 kids).

 

[RandFan]

I think it was Tal Bachman who says he asks believers, "if you could know whether Joseph Smith WAS a true prophet or not-- would you want to know?" And that lets him gage where people are at. He wanted to be the next "Donny Osmond" Mormon church pop star at one time (he wrote songs like "she's so high above me"... and the son of "bachman" in BTO.) I just think his story is very touching. His wife also (and they have 8 kids).

I had to quickly respond to this. I did not know. I'm a huge BTO fan and I really like "she's so high above me". I have it on my computer. My music tastes span 4 decades.

When I first seriously considered that Joseph Smith was a fraud I wept. I'm not exagerating. Much of my life was about Joseph Smith. I had a poster of Joseph and books about Joseph. I could say with all sincerity that I loved Joseph Smith. Why? I never knew the guy. He never knew me. How can you love a stranger?

I found the answer. I found the answer in the Lancet Fluke.

... by comparing the idea of religion to a tiny parasite, a lancet fluke, 'a little brain worm', that changes the behaviour of an ant, its host, in order to get itself swallowed by a sheep or a cow so it can reproduce in a bovine gut.

'What I have done is to show people that they have to let go of a lot of instincts they have about their minds,' he says, 'but also that when they have done that, everything is hunky dory; they have got free will, they have got consciousness and they don't need God to explain any of it.'

And, they don't need Joseph Smith.

 

[Kopji]

Can I reject it (or them?)... I have it on authority from childhood slumber party guests that I can't make it to the highest heaven. I know I can't be an official apostate, but still...

In any case... many LDS must have relatives that are FLDS or RLDS, right? Who is the prophet of the RLDS? And doesn't the FLDS have assorted prophets depending on which FLDS you belong too. Are you familiar with people who have switched between them? I've read of Mormons who become fundamentalist Christians--which I think is it's own kind of weirdness-- but it underlies the whole problem with telling people that faith can bring "truth".

As a woman I just used to look at all of these men... all so sure that they were right and none agreed. I sure couldn't figure it out. And the women just seemed to be making the peace and going along with things hoping not to screw up their eternity from what I could tell. I still have a mental disconnect to think of all the "infallible" people that are said to exist and speak for god--

If people truly think their eternity is at stake, isn't it risky to just assume you happen to be born into or stumbled upon the right religion?

Kopji, is your family still RLDS? I wonder if former Mormon support groups also have former FLDS or RLDS? Do the RLDS have large families? Do they proselytize?

I've heard the term "exmo" and "Formon" for former Mormons. Sometimes I wish I was a former Mormon...

This is the official 'RLDS' website and can answer many questions:
http://www.cofchrist.org/
(I'm sure they'll be tickled to find themselves linked here.)

My sister actually joined the LDS for a few years, accompanied by many weird stories that made me almost sympathize with their efforts to assimilate an RLDS. When I visited last I heard she'd returned to RLDS.

I know a couple of LDS who joined RLDS and vice versa. FLDS is really out there and has less in common with RLDS because LDS and RLDS rose from the same root cause - Joseph Smith's death - while FLDS came much later from Utah. From a traditional RLDS perspective, followers of Brigham Young were rebaptized when they went to Utah, so are a different church. This is a fairly esoteric question about something called priesthood authority, but Mormons would understand the implications that rebaptism raises.

All the Mormon churches arose from a distinct period of the 1800's and contain dire eternal warnings against leaving or knowing too much and then turning away. The BoM has severe admonitions against teaching against scripture, etc. Apostates, 'Sons of perdition'... Mormonism is not usually thought of to contain a traditional concept of hell, except for one thing - those who belong and then leave the church. Damned to hellfire. And yes, I know people who would kill me and consider it an act of holy service. So I take it seriously, at least between episodes of Kim Possible marathons.

I feel I'm distracting from rcronk's honest questions though.

 

[articulett]

Well, check out the Tal tapes:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_podcast.html#pub_-1456460392

And here are a couple more cool links I found while looking for it.

http://mormonskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/05/response-to-tal-bachmans-comments.html
http://mormontruthpodcast.blogspot.com/

He has a lot of articles here: http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_podcast.html

And his wife spoke at the exmo conference I linked earlier. He was devastated at first... I think you will find yourself relating. I heard this a year or two ago, and I've been so eager to share it with someone, but I don't know anyone who would be interested. But I just think he's great... his story is great. His faith was great.

And the fluke thing is from Dennett, right? And, yes, it makes so much sense. Dennett spoke at TAM one year. Religion does hijack the minds of some very good, very trusting people who desperately want to do what is right.

 

[RandFan]

And the fluke thing is from Dennett, right? And, yes, it makes so much sense. Dennett spoke at TAM one year. Religion does hijack the minds of some very good, very trusting people who desperately want to do what is right.

That is where I heard about the Lancet Fluke. TAM5, were you there? If so then, damn, I wish I could have met you.

 

[RandFan]

Well, check out the Tal tapes:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_podcast.html#pub_-1456460392

Damn, the links to the tapes are dead. The website that hosted the tapes http://thechurchisnottrue.com is parked (no longer active).

I hate it when that happens. I was really looking forward to listening to them.

 

[Pixel42]

How about this one: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=311&table=jbms

This is the same tactic the creationists use: "You have loads of geologists who say that the Grand Canyon was formed over immense periods of time, but I've found one who says something I interpret as meaning it could have been formed overnight as a result of the Flood. Therefore the question of how old it is remains open". Or the global warming deniers: "You have loads of climate scientists who say that the earth is warming, but I've found one who says something I interpret as meaning we're due for an Ice Age. Therefore the question of whether global warming is occuring remains open". Or the conspiracy theorists: "You have loads of photographers who say that the moon landing photos are genuine, but I've found one who says something I interpret as meaning they could have been faked. Therefore the question of whether the moon landings were faked remains open".

It won't wash. Just because it's possible to find people who will argue both sides of a question, that does not mean that both opinions are equally likely to be correct. I could point you to some articles which argue persuasively that the earth is flat. Does that mean that the question of the earth's shape remains open?

There is such a thing as an overwhelming weight of evidence. There is such a thing as a scientific consensus.

 

[articulett]

Damn, the links to the tapes are dead. The website that hosted the tapes http://thechurchisnottrue.com is parked (no longer active).

I hate it when that happens. I was really looking forward to listening to them.

These have links that include TAl : http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/listen.htm
http://exmormonfoundation.org/files/media/2005Conference/Saturday-Bachman-Performance.mp3

They have Tal who is excellent... I'll try to track down the interviews from the dead link, because they were just excellent.

He's a better person than the god he once believed in.