Dna Revisited

[Who Knows]

Then you don't understand my point. You minimized what Simon did ("All he did..."), which is common among those who see him as a valiant, persecuted scholar. The fact that other scholars looked at the same data and didn't apostatize (or lead others out of the Church) should say something about Simon's choices in the matter.

So my point, which you missed, is that minimization of Simon's actions and their effect on others is probably not appropriate.

-Allen

I guess I am just not understanding your point. The data that Simon presented, as well as his findings (that Lehi and his group of 30 are not the main ancestors of Native Americans) is the same data and findings that apologists are using (except for Stewart). His own personal conclusions are different - but so what? Educated and rational people can come to different conclusions when it comes to religion - everyone knows that.

And this sentence of yours is one of my favorites: "The fact that other scholars looked at the same data and didn't apostatize (or lead others out of the Church) should say something about Simon's choices in the matter."

Like I said, when it comes to religion, equally educated and rational people can come to 2 different conclusions.

I would be interested in hearing about some of those people, if anyone knows them personally. I'm sure there are some for whom DNA was an issue, I'm just not sure it could ever be a sufficient reason for leaving the Church.

Realizing that Lehi's group is not the reason there are Native Americans today, played a part in a laundry list of items that led me into questioning my own beliefs.

Blame that on Simon if you want, but that's the message I got from apologists too....

[katherine the great]

Like I said, when it comes to religion, equally educated and rational people can come to 2 different conclusions.

That occasionally applies to scientists as well.

[awyatt]

I would be interested in hearing about some of those people, if anyone knows them personally. I'm sure there are some for whom DNA was an issue, I'm just not sure it could ever be a sufficient reason for leaving the Church.

Well, I'm not sure how you would find them personally. But many of them have apparently found Simon, since he posts the following at the end of his exit story over on RFM.

June 2005

Do you need advice or assistance?

Over the last 6 years I have received hundreds of emails in response to my letter. Some have been from Mormons who have had a similar experience in the church. Others have friends who are Mormons and want to know how to help them. A growing number of emails come from people who were investigating Mormonism and want to know some background information before making any commitment. During that time I have only received 4 or 5 emails from hostile Mormons.

I have attempted as best I could to respond to all of those emails; however, the time that this takes increasingly eats into time with my family. I feel that I am at a stage in my recovery from Mormonism where I need to devote more time to my family and to life after Mormonism.

If you feel that you need assistance with coping with the transition out of Mormonism then I strongly suggest that you join one of the following online exmormon communities. Just post a message in the chat groups and you will reach many people who have valuable insight to share with you...

Seems he is comfortable with leading others out of the Church. Don't know why Who Knows shouldn't be comfortable with that aspect of "all he did."

-Allen

[USU78]

Well, I'm not sure how you would find them personally. But many of them have apparently found Simon, since he posts the following at the end of his exit story over on RFM.

June 2005

Do you need advice or assistance?

Over the last 6 years I have received hundreds of emails in response to my letter. Some have been from Mormons who have had a similar experience in the church. Others have friends who are Mormons and want to know how to help them. A growing number of emails come from people who were investigating Mormonism and want to know some background information before making any commitment. During that time I have only received 4 or 5 emails from hostile Mormons.

I have attempted as best I could to respond to all of those emails; however, the time that this takes increasingly eats into time with my family. I feel that I am at a stage in my recovery from Mormonism where I need to devote more time to my family and to life after Mormonism.

If you feel that you need assistance with coping with the transition out of Mormonism then I strongly suggest that you join one of the following online exmormon communities. Just post a message in the chat groups and you will reach many people who have valuable insight to share with you...

Seems he is comfortable with leading others out of the Church. Don't know why Who Knows shouldn't be comfortable with that aspect of "all he did." -Allen

I always get a kick out of these, "I want to bear you my testimony of the falsity of the Church," statements. So many of the publicity-hound-type-apostates just have to give themselves a testimonial send-off in whatever publication (or venue) will have them so as to justify themselves in their apostasy.

USU "Color me unimpressed" 78

[Son]

Did the Lamanites receive a mark from God? Were they made different?

Can someone site the event in the BoM please?

Can you start a new thread, please? ~mods

[awyatt]

If you are talking about a physical mark (something visible) there is much debate about whether that is actually the case or not.

The undeniable fact, however, is that the Nephites thought the Lamanites were both marked and cursed, and that such was from God.

-Allen

[Who Knows]

Seems he is comfortable with leading others out of the Church. Don't know why Who Knows shouldn't be comfortable with that aspect of "all he did."

-Allen

Sorry, I just don't see it. I see him helping others as they leave the church. He is not forcing people to leave the church. His reasons for leaving the church are based on science that any apologist would agree with (again, except for Stewart).

It seems to me like the beef is more with his 'fame' related to his departure from the church, rather than causing people to leave the church (as this can hardly even begin to be demonstrated).

I can understand though having a beef with someone like Ed Decker - for his lies, deception, etc.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

[Son]

If you are talking about a physical mark (something visible) there is much debate about whether that is actually the case or not.

The undeniable fact, however, is that the Nephites thought the Lamanites were both marked and cursed, and that such was from God.

-Allen

So if they were that would fit the same situation of the Caananites receiving a mark/curse?

[The Dude]

His reasons for leaving the church are based on science that any apologist would agree with (again, except for Stewart).

Not necessarily -- or, not completely because of science. In relation to DNA, his reason for leaving the Church was [1] his fundamentalist nature keeping him from changing his views from a form of traditional Hemispheric Geography Theory to the more progressive Limited Geography Theory. At least, that was Kevin Barney's summary IIRC. Or maybe [2] he had serious intellectual reservations about LGT, like Stewart does to some degree.

I have no philosophical problem with LGT, except that I find the arguments of its proponents to be weak both scientifically and theologically. Book of Mormon geography models, while interesting, typically range from the troubled (i.e. significant inconsistencies) to the speculative (nice ideas but little data). I have also found a widespread use of selective data, with individuals presenting data points that seem conducive to their views while ignoring contrary evidence. I would not have a problem being convinced by LGT if there was compelling evidence that passed muster, but little of it -- in my opinion -- rises above the level of speculation. I have found no reason to abandon the traditional teachings of LDS leaders.

Edit for epiphany: The two things I mentioned above -- aren't they just two sides of the same coin?

[wg_vogel]

Seems he is comfortable with leading others out of the Church. Don't know why Who Knows shouldn't be comfortable with that aspect of "all he did." -Allen

I always get a kick out of these, "I want to bear you my testimony of the falsity of the Church," statements. So many of the publicity-hound-type-apostates just have to give themselves a testimonial send-off in whatever publication (or venue) will have them so as to justify themselves in their apostasy.

USU "Color me unimpressed" 78

So are we to understand from your statement that testimony-bearing is only acceptable if that testimony is "I know this Church is true"? Future ex-Mormons will have been accustomed to testimony bearing, naturally. I never understood the "keep your trap shut unless it is a positive testimony" complaints.

I do not believe the DNA issue will cause many dissidents, but it will be used successfully for those who are trying to impede LDS growth. Missionaries are not equipped to argue against this.

[Who Knows]

Not necessarily -- or, not completely because of science. In relation to DNA, his reason for leaving the Church was [1] his fundamentalist nature keeping him from changing his views from a form of traditional Hemispheric Geography Theory to the more progressive Limited Geography Theory. At least, that was Kevin Barney's summary IIRC. Or maybe [2] he had serious intellectual reservations about LGT, like Stewart does to some degree.

What I meant, is that science showed his fundamentalist beliefs were not correct. And that caused his unbelief.

[maklelan]

To me, the big issue - the elephant in the room - is the timing issue. It seems to me that a lot of people just kind of glance over this, and tend to focus on matching native american dna to isreali dna. Who cares about that when the timing is substantially off?

The article addresses the timing issue quite well.

[Who Knows]

The article addresses the timing issue quite well.

Are we reading the same article?

[The Dude]

The article addresses the timing issue quite well.

Just stay tuned. That's all I'm saying.

[maklelan]

I'm staying tuned. I'm just addressing the concern. The article I posted does address the issue of when the evidence says the migration was made.

[Who Knows]

We need a bigger picture of The Dude! The old, small, square pic. is so old school.

[Catholic Guy]

The results that were paraded about as a "Galileo event" were grossly misinterpreted, apparently. The scientists involved stated that Mongolians or a common ancestor to Mongolians (modern Mongolians, mind you. There is no DNA for Mongolians before the Jewish dispersian) and Native Americans is most likely responsible. The only ancient Chinese and Japanese DNA available for study is strikingly different than modern Chinese DNA, also. Only 13 percent of the ancient Chinese DNA we have have any of the haplotypes pointed out as common to Native American DNA, and that 13 percent only has 2 of the 4 haplotypes. The further back the ancient Chinese DNA goes, the more it resembles European DNA over modern Chinese. It is illustrated this way in the article: If really ancient Chinese people moved to an Island and lived there completely isolated from the world their DNA would today show European ancestry. Then we'd have evangelicals screaming about how they aren't Chinese at all.

It seems impossible to conclude that matching Lehi's DNA with modern Jews would be ridiculous, so trying to match Native American DNA with modern Israeli DNA is equally as ridiculous. Concluding that the evidence shows all Native Americans came straight from a single tribe in Southern Asia just because their DNA is close to that modern tribe's is also ludicrous.

This "Galileo event" vanished like a you-know-what in the wind.

What is your definition of the term "Galileo event" and what does it have to do with the BoM DNA study?

[why me]

What is your definition of the term "Galileo event" and what does it have to do with the BoM DNA study?

It has to do with science and the world is flat, and the problem that Galileo had with the catholic church. At least I think that this is why the poster used it.

[The Dude]

What is your definition of the term "Galileo event" and what does it have to do with the BoM DNA study?

For a full explanation, see here.

[asbestosman]

Some of us get over the personal reasons and continue the debates just for the intellectual challenge.

Well, at least you don't consider debating Mormonism to be like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll take that as a tacit compliment--as long as you do NOT consider debating creationists to be an intellectual challenge.

[Sethbag]

I think a lot of you are missing the point. At least for me, and probably for a lot of other people, it's not enough that one or two areas of the church have to be wrong in order to be motivated to leave it, or at least stop believing in it. The whole thing has to be suspect. I mean, consider that the Book of Mormon were true, the Book of Abraham was true, Joseph Smith really saw his First Vision, really did receive the priesthood under the hands of first John the Baptist, then Peter, James, and John, really did have all those Bible prophets visit him and confer the keys of the kingdom, etc. Then we find out that there are DNA problems with the Hemispheric Model.

Does that all of a sudden cause anyone to leave? I seriously doubt it.

What it might do, however, is open someone up to the possibility that the church is wrong about something serious, and lead them to consider other areas of the church with a critical eye as well. If they then see the problems in these other areas, then they may come to realize the whole church foundation is in fact made up, and smoke and mirrors. Then they leave the church. And trying to criticize one aspect of the critics' newfound insight into the church is not going to suddenly go around fixing all of the other areas.

When someone believes that the Book of Abraham was made up, Joseph's Polygamy was simply dead wrong, the First Vision story probably didn't happen that way, the Book of Mormon is probably not a historicaly record of things which actually occurred, that the Bible itself is probably a collection of mythology and wishful-thinking theology (flood, Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, etc. on down), that there is no reliable witness of God that is any different than all of the false witnesses of those other, false, churches, etc. there is no nipping this all off at the bud by trying to throw some ambiguity into the DNA argument.

So if Simon has lead others out of the church, it is by leading others to realize that the church might simply be wrong about something, and that attitude, if employed against other aspects of the church, soon turns up quite a laundry list of things the church has wrong, including much of its founding story. I argue it's not Simon's DNA argument per se which leads people out of the church. It's the attitude of assuming the church must be true and must be right in all areas that it claims to be, that Simon shot down with some people, which leads to their deconversion.

As for me personally, I hadn't heard of Simon Southerton until after I had already dwindled in unbelief. For me, the straw that broke the camel's back, that lead me to realize the possibility that, gasp, the church was not actually true, was in fact reading Larson's "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" book on the Book of Abraham. But even that didn't convince me, in insolation, that the church wasn't true. All it did was push me over the edge where I finally admitted that there was a possibility that the church was not true. Once I took that possibility seriously, and allowed it as one of the possibile explanations, a lot of other things clicked for me. Now that these other things have clicked in my brain, even a thorough casting of doubt on Larson's conclusions wouldn't be enough to bring me back into belief; there are just too many other things where I believe the evidence is clear that the church isn't true.

Perhaps it would be accurate to say that Simon's DNA stuff, and things like the Book of Abraham stuff, are "gateway" ideas into the notion that the church isn't really true.

[YH8]

For me, the straw that broke the camel's back, that lead me to realize the possibility that, gasp, the church was not actually true, . . .

So, Sethb,

Where do you stand on "the possibility that, gasp, the church" may actually be true? Or has your pendulum swung to the other side?

[Sethbag]

So, Sethb,

Where do you stand on "the possibility that, gasp, the church" may actually be true? Or has your pendulum swung to the other side?

I always consider the possibility that the church is actually true. But considering the possibility doesn't guarantee that it will come up true in my calculations. And so far, the big-picture view of things has the church being a manmade institution similar in many ways to so many other manmade churches, and not literally true, as LDS believe it to be.

Of course I could be wrong. And any particular criticism I have of the church could contain elements which are later determined to be false. But nitpicking one little detail off of a whole family of criticisms of the church doesn't suddenly vindicate the church. Whether Stewart wins a few points off The Dude in their debate, or not, will not change the fact that I see Joseph Smith's introduction and practice of "plural marriage" as a hideous and monstrous practice, and that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham, or any number of other criticisms.

So even though I acknowledge I could be wrong and the church could in fact be true, you're never going to convince someone like me that it was OK for Joseph Smith to send a guy on a mission and then propose to his wife while he was gone by saying it was OK because God told him to. That argument might hold some sway if I believed God every said one word to Joseph Smith, but I don't.

Back to DNA. This issue could well go either way, and it won't sway someone who holds criticisms of so many other areas of the church. Whether DNA evidence is sufficient to conclude that no Lehites can be detected in any Native American population or not, there's still no good reason to believe the Lehites ever even existed at all, in my estimation. Even if Simon Southerton's entire proposition was convincingly and conclusively shot down in flames, anyone who had left the church after reading Southerton's book would still have no reason to return, if the many other church criticisms still hold.

[Tchild2]

So, Sethb,

Where do you stand on "the possibility that, gasp, the church" may actually be true? Or has your pendulum swung to the other side?

Why don't you afford that possibility to all the other churches in existance Y8H. Why are you just so dead set on your one little sect? Open your mind, give each religion the benefit of the doubt for a decade or two before you make up your mind. If you ask it others, do it yourself.

[Catholic Guy]

QUOTE(Catholic Guy @ Oct 6 2006, 12:49 AM)

What is your definition of the term "Galileo event" and what does it have to do with the BoM DNA study?

For a full explanation, see here.

The reason I asked this questions is because it is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for discarding the Aristotelian geocentric view of the solar system for the heliocentric view and that the Catholic Church abhors science and refuses to abandon outdated teachings.

I would first state that I know very little about genetics and the science involved with it. I do however have a strong background (without revealing myself) of history and theology. My comments in this section are only in regards to the term "Galileo event" thrown around loosely by individuals who may only understand the Galilean vs. Roman Catholic Church controversy in a purely sensational revisionist historical sense. I will attempt to give the short version or paraphrase a great article found here on what happened without side stepping into all of the little details.

For starters the Catholic Church is not anti-scientific either in modern times or during Galileoâ??s time. Years prior to Galileo, Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicusâ?? work and it found a welcome reception among the Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements. Kepler and Copernicus received opposition and scorn among the Protestants for their heliocentric views. This brings up an important question, why would Galileo be tried by the Church for his work on heliocentricity and why were Copernicus and Kepler not tried? The answer is because Copernicus and Kepler kept their work in the realm of science and not in the realm of theology. Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileoâ??s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Galileo did not propose heliocentricity as a theory or a simple reason to explain the planetsâ?? motions. His problem started when he stopped presenting it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth without conclusive proof. He then moved the debate out of the realm of science and into the realm of theology. Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. This should not have posed a problem because as Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: â??I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.â?? For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustineâ??s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally. The language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense. During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a laymanâ??s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileoâ??s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileoâ??s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit and one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion. The Catholic Church issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning Galileo, a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileoâ??s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but also the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move and that it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth. As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileoâ??s views, and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them, the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

The question now arises in the LDS BoM DNA debate who or what is analogous to Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church of his time?