Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Islander

  1. Not so. DNA material is not "diluted" by intermarriage. There are 3.2 billion base pairs in the the DNA and there are genetic markers that are passed across thousands of years from both sides, maternal and paternal. That is why we know that the Native Americans are descendants from North East Asia people that migrated to the Americas 10,000 plus years ago. They share genetic markers with fossils recovered in that region. The Y chromosome research is exciting because it looks at very specific (3) defects passed from fathers to sons in every generation. It is like a clock which allows to "count back" how many generations/years to ancestral DNA and track movement of said groups across the earth. It is rather exciting to look at history thru the lenses of DNA.
  2. It is not that complicated. The Good Samaritan is a parable, not an allegory. They are two different things. What those that heard the parable understood is what the Lord intended to communicate and that is precisely what it means. We can not just stretch the meaning into anything "we think" it means. There is no creative license when it comes to the word of God. You are free to think what you want but Christianity and the Bible are 2000 years old and have been studied and scrutinized by brilliant minds. I suggest what what you think holds very little weight. Jesus proved to the scribes and Pharisees that they have corrupted the meaning of the law to accommodate their racism and prejudice, giving them license to hate the Samaritans and the gentiles. He illustrated to them in the parable that in order to enter the kingdom of God we must live the law and carry it to the full extent of its intention; to love our neighbors, regardless of who they are as the Samaritan did. The Samaritan saw the injured Jew as someone in need and rendered care and attention above and beyond, regardless. The good man was a Samaritan, Jesus is drawing a strong contrast between those who believed they knew the law and those who actually followed the law in their lifestyle and conduct. Jesus ends the exchange by telling the lawyer to “go and do likewise,” meaning that he should start living the spirit of the law in their every day life. That is the intended meaning of the parable created for an audience that could relate to its meaning. We can't just spiritualize that scripture beyond the intent of the Lord. That is just bad theology.
  3. Elsewhere I wrote: The very essence of science is continues inquiry. But with every iteration the picture gets clearer. Both genetic and radiometric-dating gets more accurate every decade. Single chromosome genomic testing allows to trace populations across time based on a set of fixed genetic mutation passed thru the males in the family tree. It is "a clock" and thus able to tell "time" based on the number of intergenerational defects as population groups move across the earth. I am involved in precision medicine research which is a fairly new field of studdy that relies heavily on genetics. My field of study deals with neurological and psychiatric disorders with a strong hereditary component. This book is re-writing history based on genetic research. Elsewhere I wrote: According to the BoB, the Lehite company arrived about 2600 years ago and grew to be in the millions. If the DNA of those that arrived earlier can be traced, it is, statistically speaking, impossible that ALL Lehite DNA could be wiped out. The statistical probabilities that no trace of DNA of a population numbering in the millions could be wiped out in a land mass like the American continent in 2600 years are astronomical. There are 3.2 billion base pairs in the human DNA. Especially when other groups, much smaller in number survived from much earlier to the present. As far my professional field of endeavor, I should just say that I hold graduates degrees in physiology and pharmachology. I am not a geneticist but I can read a cM segment on a genetic chart. You attempted to make an argument from authority which is pretty lame rather than address the issue I raised. Typical
  4. Well, we are talking about 9,000-12,000 years ago earlier. According to the BoB the Lehite company arrive about 2600 years ago and grew to be millions. If the DNA of those that arriver earlier can be traced, it is statistically speaking impossible that ALL Lehite DNA could be wiped out. The statistical probabilities that no trace of DNA of a population numbering in the millions could be wiped out in a land mass like the American continent are astronical. Especially when other groups, much smaller in number survived from much earlier to the present. It does not hold water. Read the while book, not just a summary.
  5. I am sorry but that is an erroneous assumption. The Savior had a specific teaching in mind and He crafted a message that the audience could grasp and relate to in place and time. We can not "spiritualize" or extend the meaning of the parable beyond the significance and its contextual frame of reference. That is just bad theology. The Lord has endowed each and every one of His servants with specific talents and abilities. He expects us to put them to good use in the building up of his kingdom so that our efforts bear fruit in that endeavor. He severely chastises the servant that did absolutely nothing with the resources/skills/talents/abilities entrusted to his while living off the substance of His master. Thus he proved to be worthless in the enterprise and a thief for which he was severely punished. Our diligence in the work of the Lord is the evidence of our love for Him and commitment to the covenant and promises we have made to Him. We can not read into the text something is not there and that is completely anachronistic. Especially not out of convenience. None of us would think to sell everything we have and give it to the poor to follow Christ, for example.
  6. I suggest that such position approaches superstition rather than truth, and quickly. Truth can not and will not be denied by science since truth belongs to God and exits in the realm in which He created it. We discover truth by empirical means and become aware of it at some point in time but it has always existed. It is absurd to hold on to a position that is clearly unsupported by science, no matter who claims to have revelation to the contrary. I am not referring in particular to the Adam and Eve issue since those are elements that could still be argued on scientific basis. I suggest that the DNA issue in relationship to the Lamanites is a lot more problematic in the light of recent scientific breakthroughs. Traced: Human DNA's Big Surprise by Nathaniel Jeanson, significantly shakes the position of the Church in connection to the Lehi family migration and expansion proposition of the BoM. The Y chromosome transgenerational defect clock provides a solid foundation for the creation theory and the Christian position of a young earth based on genetics. At the same time, it closes the door to the possible migration of a definitively Jewish group that later expanded to millions of inhabitant in the north American continent whom later vanish whiteout leaving a genetic echo. The apologetic position in the Gospel Topic essay does not hold water in the face of this newest research. In sum, holding on to a position that is unequivocally denied by sound scientific inquiry is not faith. It's superstition, to say the list. It will put us in the same group of other 19th century cults that made failed prophesies and prediction which history obviously proved categorically wrong. That should be a concern.
  7. On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man. “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it." Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard?
  8. I suggest that in many wards there is no true fellowship. People are isolated, aloof and withdrawn from one another and unable to trust in anyone in order to share the pain and suffering they may be experiencing. There is an enormous pressure to "be perfect". The health and wealth disease has infected the church in a significant way. I heard a man say in church that "poverty is the result of sin". I confronted him with the fact that there are millions of very faithful saints that will never attain the financial position we enjoy in this country while making greater sacrifice and enduring privation and persecution which are unknown to us in America. People are mostly self absorbed and disconnected. We come to church on Sunday and Wednesday for a couple of hours, smile as a matter of protocol and go home and to our own world. People move from ward to ward chasing financial opportunities for their families wile diluted thinking that "we prayed about it". God does not care where you live and work but where you are to be more useful to the building up of His Kingdom. Moved to the new ward, spent 5 years and did nothing, really, and on to the next. I think covid provided the proverbial scape hatch for a lot of people. It's been over a year since we went back to church and there are a number of families that remain unaccounted for by choice. Again, it is hard to discern what is actually taking place.
  9. It is difficult to discern what is actually taking place but several families did not return to church after covid. They remain aloof and have avoided contact since then. Only time will tell.
  10. It is worth looking at the whole passage to gain insight in to the context rather than assign meaning to a sentence. Samuel expands later in the text: “For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry” (1 Sam. 15:23). Disobeying God is rebellion against Him. Samuel equated it to paganism and witchcraft. In Saul’s case, it was also connected to his pride. Saul decided he knew better than God. All rebellion is idolatry, a form of self-worship. Samuel said, “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.” God took away Saul’s throne and cut his dynasty short (1 Samuel 13:14; 15:28). Rebellion wasn’t Saul’s only wrongdoing. For Saul, fear of man—and desiring their praise—offset God’s priority of obedience. We see that in his confession in verse 24: “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them.” Saul was afraid of losing people’s adulation. Even when he said, “I have sinned,” he also said, “please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel” (1 Sam. 15:30). Saul then, usurping the priestly privilege of the prophet Samuel decided to stage a sacrifice in an effort to offset his transgression. The prophet rejected it and thus stated that obeying the word of the Lord is better than and outward show of piety. God and the prophets have always rejected the outward performance of the law when used in exchange for a truly contrite heart and humility. "Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting." Isa. 1:13
  11. The earliest reference to the NT books date from 250 A.D., Origen produced a complete list of all 27 New Testament books–more than a hundred years before Athanasius. In his typical allegorical fashion, Origen used the story of Joshua to describe the New Testament canon. This is 200 plus years prior to any catholic council. Subsequent councils reaffirmed what the primitive church had established since early on. The letters of Paul were in circulation in the 50's AD.
  12. Well, the people to whom the revelation was given believed it. If you don't believe that revelation you should not believe any other. The scriptures are not a buffet line to pick and chose what you would like to believe and discard what you would not.
  13. Again, you are speculating as to the likelihood of the text being edited. We know that the Genesis was extemporaneous; a revelation of God to Moses. but subsequent books are not likely to be distant from the source. The same the Gospels and all of Paul's letter being written within a few decades after the events and during the lives of many eyewitnesses. The Greek texts are translations and thus not relevant to the discussion.
  14. Those are good questions. Apologists twist into a pretzel to explain those changes. I tend to question the changes. In Hebrew every letter has a numerical equivalent so the sentences are totaled by the scribes to ensure accuracy. The changes are problematic, no doubt. There is no history of prophets during OT times editing revelation. God seems clear in Deuteronomy about the fate of a prophet who says something in the name of the Lord that the lord has not spoken. It seem God did not extend any margin for error to His prophets.
  15. So, it is the word of God, in part, with errors, thus not reliable or trustworthy? So why bother? Notice that is just opinion rather. You have absolutely no evidence that the word of God lacks precision and certainty. That is a very low view of God and scripture. I guess we'll have to disagree on that point.
  16. I am talking about direct revelation from the mind of God to the mind of the prophet. Your view of the God of the universe is too low. You do not believe that He can use the words, language and intelligence of men to get a clear and concise message to them, meaning precisely what He wants to say while ensuring they understand precisely what He means? You may be worshiping another God. Because, by the same argument, we can not be sure then than the translation and revelation of the Restoration are accurate. After all Joseph was mostly illiterate and unsophisticated. You can't have it both ways. Either the revelation is what God intended to say or is not. There is but ONE meaning to the word of God. Applications may very but God says what He means to say and what He intends us to understand from His word. How does that applies to our lives is a different story.
  17. You missed the point. It was important for God to issue such command. What is said in the name of God is equally important now. Lucky us we are under grace and no longer under the Law. Otherwise we should have put to death all of the prophets from B. Young to S.W Kimball for a racial ban that was never revelation from God but rather just racial bias. Which kept millions of God's children from the blessings of the temple and the priesthood. Given that during the life of Joseph black men were ordained to the priesthood and there is absolutely nothing in the biblical record that God himself had such restrictions. To the contrary. Moses was married to a black woman and had children that were counted among the Levites. Simon, also called Niger was counted among the "teachers and prophets" in the church in Antioch. But I digress.
  18. Personal revelation is irrelevant and subjective if the facts are wrong. The divorce rate within the church is evidence. They were all sure their was a marriage forever, this was the person that was intended to be with and chosen by God and it failed later. That is how marriage is sold to converts the world over. Facts matter and the church spends millions to package the facts about the truth claim of the Restoration because they are important. God commanded to put to death anyone that spoke as a prophet when in fact it was not so. Why? Because whether or not He speaks and what He says matters. There is no room for error there. if you want to find an accommodation in view of inconsistencies, go right ahead. But you find yourself outside of what God says when it comes to His revelation.
  19. What happens is that pretty soon nobody knows what sound doctrine is. It is not a free for all. Either God decides who He is and what are we to do to worship Him as he desires or chaos descend on the church as it is evident in some denominations. It destroys confidence in the word of God. We also have creeds. The temple interview is a good example of it. Try and say that you do not pay tithing or adhere to the word of wisdom and see what happens. LIke I said, as long as it does not clash with explicit LDS doctrine is a free for all.
  20. I understand that human beings are imperfect. However, God has relied on human beings as a channel for revelation for thousands of years and there is no room for error when revelation is concerned. Either God said something of He did not. Otherwise there is absolutely no confidence in ANYTING that has been allegedly revealed. If we can question anything and everything a prophet says they he might as well not say anything. You are attempting to create room for errors and omissions when, otherwise, God is very clear about wen and how He speaks. If a prophet says something that God has not said that "prophet should be put to death..." that sounds very serious to me.
  21. I'm sorry, but direct revelation from God is A LOT more important that some work meeting. What actually happened has cosmic implications and such a claim HAS to be validated and solidly confirmed by the historical record at every turn. No room for ambiguity or inconsistencies there.
  22. Women function under that authority of the priesthood and under such they are directed to perform certain tasks in the church building and in the temple. But their is no ordination to the office as such.
  23. That is by far the larger issue. The Church can not bring itself to disavow such statements without, by the same token, place in jeopardy the "authority" of B. Young and subsequent leaders. However, such "doctrines" have no biblical or historical support. Moses wife, as well as her father were Ethiopians and thus clearly African. His sons were ranked with the Levites although is not clear to what extent they were involved with priesthood duties (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary, Vol. I, p. 498, Robert Jamieson). A relevant character is mentioned in Acts 13:1 as being one of the "prophets and teachers" in the church of Antioch: In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. This Simeon was undoubtedly of African descent. In sum, there is absolutely nothing in terms of revelation from Joseph in regards to the priesthood ban for people of African descent that remained in place under B. Young until the tenure of S.W Kimball. Elijah Able (sometimes spelled Abel or Ables) was an early African-American member of the Church and the best-known of the few black men who were ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions given the facts.
  24. I tend to agree. But, there is an aversion in the Church to correct erroneous doctrine spoken from the pulpit or within a class setting if such is not blatantly juxtaposed to explicit Church doctrine or dogma. That is a petri dish for wild and convoluted "theories" and theological positions. Also, there are statements from GA's and the like in the historical record that the Church can not retract from which today sound pretty outlandish. But such "statements" fall under the lose and rather dubious category of "revelation". All the Church can do is attempt to sweep it under the proverbial rug which is becoming increasingly harder to do in the information age.
  25. I read de JS Papers and the Church acknowledged that much.
  • Create New...