Has your opinion of the LDS church

[juliann]

As I've explained before to you, but you refuse to accept, the DNA issue was the first issue that ever caught my attention, and was a singular catalyst for me leaving the Church.

You have to be kidding. I'd be embarrassed to admit that considering that all of the Murphy gang has had to concede that DNA cannot prove the issue one way or another..... which is why they have had to join forces with a fundamentalist anti-Mormon ministry to keep an audience by changing the topic.

[Boy Named Sue]

i shouldnt even be defending him, for all i know he is a schmucko. but, i still dont like the treatment he got from farms. and if he really did violate a code of conduct as an employee, let the church declare it from the top and not send out a pitbull on their behalf.

And yet when Palmer does it you say...."he simply voiced the facts as he considered them. " When FARMS voices facts as they see it....well, you get the double standard, er...point.

seriously juliann. i am a dork on a message board. what do i know about palmer? farms is throwing around all the weight of byu and the church, on behalf of the church, to be critical of palmer, for the reasons highlighted by dr. peterson.

farms et al and palmer were coworkers. it looks like a bit of a coworker tizzyfit. if the big boss had an issue, so be it. let the big boss declare his own issue.

[juliann]

farms et al and palmer were coworkers. it looks like a bit of a coworker tizzyfit. if the big boss had an issue, so be it. let the big boss declare his own issue.

Sue, you are all over the place on this. You just said it was BYU and the church throwing their weight around by using FARMS. Then you say let the big boss declare his own issue. Well...isn't that what they just did according to you?

FARMS reviews books. That is part of what they do. You really can't have it both ways...if you are to grant an author his right to speak then you really do have to grant the reviewer his right to speak. Well, unless you are that dork...

[BYU Alterego]

As I've explained before to you, but you refuse to accept, the DNA issue was the first issue that ever caught my attention, and was a singular catalyst for me leaving the Church.

You have to be kidding. I'd be embarrassed to admit that considering that all of the Murphy gang has had to concede that DNA cannot prove the issue one way or another..... which is why they have had to join forces with a fundamentalist anti-Mormon ministry to keep an audience by changing the topic.

Um...you...have to be kidding. The DNA issue proves that the long held tradition of the Hemispheric model is dead. That model of course was perpetuated by the prophet Joseph, but I'm sure you'll find a way to make that okay. Oh wait, that's exactly what this whole thread is about, apologetics.

Call me ex-fundamentalist if you like, but the number of allowances required to make what is written in the BOM and what Joseph taught fit into a modern model that we can accept as doctrine is nauseating. Thus the disgust, and the discrediting of those who peddled these "alternate" theories.

At what point do you just recognize Juliann that the whole affair is revisionist? Are you seriously okay with revisonism in the Lord's "One true Church?" If you are, well, then more power to you and I hope you enjoy life.

But I personally believe you can't embrace truth if it keeps shifting on you.

[juliann]

The DNA issue proves that the long held tradition of the Hemispheric model is dead. That model of course was perpetuated by the prophet Joseph, but I'm sure you'll find a way to make that okay.

Uh huh. So this lame pseudo-science about DNA is really just a conduit to the real gripe....false prophecy. Let me tell you...it is a lot easier to make anything "OK"...or not "OK" without the red herrings.

Oh wait, that's exactly what this whole thread is about, apologetics.

OK....I do get the feeling you are here to defend your position come hell or high water...which is why you will just keep piling on more gripes rather than examining any problems with your assumptions.

Call me ex-fundamentalist if you like, but the number of allowances required to make what is written in the BOM and what Joseph taught fit into a modern model that we can accept as doctrine is nauseating. 

Oh, you are no ex-fundamentalist. Anyone who cannot at least acknowlege what is on the table and visible to everybody else in the same room is hardly a liberal thinker.

At what point do you just recognize Juliann that the whole affair is revisionist?  Are you seriously okay with revisonism in the Lord's "One true Church?"  If you are, well, then more power to you and I hope you enjoy life. 

What you are really saying is that you are unable to handle any uncertainty or ambiguity in the "true church". Again, the issue is your construction of truth and the demands you make of it...something that is common to fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. I'm sure that I do have what you may consider a more postmodern worldview. It is probably no accident that you have chosen the profession that you have....

. . . .I have formed the impression (as have other observers such as Marsden and Noll) that when evangelicals actually do attend university, they tend to show up in the natural sciences, in engineering schools and colleges of medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and rehabilitation therapy, rather than in the humanities, social sciences and law.  Ambiguity, process, tentative conclusions, and continual argument all are endemic to the latter disciplines, and evangelicals may not be well disposed to them. . .Indeed, I propose that there is a kind of twofold Law of Evangelical Incidence here: evangelicals are present in a discipline in inverse proportion to the amount of (1) ambiguity and (2) ideological conflict present in that discipline. 

John G. Stackhouse, Jr, . Evangelical Landscapes:  Facing Critical Issues of the Day (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 146.

[Daniel Peterson]

I note, too, that, for BYU Gestapo, "the DNA issue was [merely] the final nail" in his loss of faith, which suggests, since others with relevant scientific training and experiences and reputations superior to his appear to be untroubled by the DNA issue, that his reaction to the Amerindian DNA question may have been influenced by extrascientific factors.

This is BYU G****** with the "PC" version of his Moniker.

Daniel may I suggest that you are misquoting me? May I also offer that its a chronic habit or yours?

No, you may not. Not truthfully, anyway.

As I've explained before to you, but you refuse to accept, the DNA issue was the first issue that ever caught my attention, and was a singular catalyst for me leaving the Church.

But you also mentioned, before, that you had been unsatisfied with your faith prior to the DNA issue. Do I need to go to the trouble of dredging up the relevant passage?

Your tangential inference that extrascientific factors (whatever that means) played a role is completely superflous to the issue at hand, and is assumably wrong.

No, it is not. People with superor scientific training to yours, much better reputations than yours, and much greater experience than yours look at the same data that you do and see no problem. What is to explain the difference?

By your same logic, would there not be extrascientific factors that influence the LDS scientists you ceaselessly mention to stay faithful to the Church?

Almost certainly so. The DNA data is not a definitive one way or the other. Accordingly, decisions to remain faithful or to fall away must be made on some other basis.

Thank you for that.

By the way, you still on that tired old reputation word?

[Daniel Peterson]

farms is throwing around all the weight of byu and the church, on behalf of the church, to be critical of palmer, for the reasons highlighted by dr. peterson.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. We published some book reviews. That's all. Not "on behalf of the Church," but because I chose to do so. Period. If you would like, I'll say that a third time. Maybe in a few hours.

farms et al and palmer were coworkers.

How? I've never met the man. Grant Palmer has never been on the faculty at BYU. Nor, for that matter, has Davis Bitton. Jim Allen and Louis Midgley are retired from BYU.

If Mr. Palmer and I were co-workers, it would be only in the very vague sense that a seminary teacher in South Africa is a co-worker with a janitor at Temple Square, or a mechanic in southern California is a co-worker with the CEO of Toyota.

it looks like a bit of a coworker tizzyfit.

That's just silly. These were book reviews, not a food fight.

if the big boss had an issue, so be it. let the big boss declare his own issue.

You think that the history of Mr. Palmer's manuscript should be kept secret from the public? Why? Do you generally favor the suppression of historical information?

[Escalante Sam]

it looks like a bit of a coworker tizzyfit.

That's just silly. These were book reviews, not a food fight.

if the big boss had an issue, so be it. let the big boss declare his own issue.

You think that the history of Mr. Palmer's manuscript should be kept secret from the public? Why? Do you generally favor the suppression of historical information?

Well, Sue, I don' know whether I'd call it a coworker tizzyfit. Reminds me more of the nasty mudslingin' in the letters section of intellectually oriented magazines an' journals. That's always the first part of the "Atlantic Monthly" that I read, jus' so I can see how catty them smart gals an' guys can be to one another. An' the less relevant the controversy to the world at large, the nastier the letters. Them academic disputes are like unto a gunfight, 'cept nobody's got a real gun. More like cap pistols n' stick horses.

I ain't no mind-reader, but I think I maybe kinda gits what Sue may be thinkin' about the Big Guy declarin' the issue here. The impression floatin' around out there is that the General Authorities, who by and large ain't trained in this stuff, rely a lot on FARMS to address controversies on church history and the historicity of the LDS scriptures. So, whether there's a been an actual delegation of that task, the impression is out there that FARMS is carryin' water for the GAs, water that the GAs would ruther not talk about theirselves. Maybe a critical review of somethin' like the appalling "To Young Men Only" might help disabuse people of that impression.

[maxrep12]

My opinion is that trust and credibility are an earned attribute of apologetics.

Of course. As with medicine, dentistry, car repair, and a host of other things.

But please recall that apologetics is not a single unified thing, and that apologists are not a single mass mind.

The last point that deteriorates the efficacy of apologetics is the constant refrain that the church does not hide its history and the individual members are lazy and at fault for not searching out its history.

I've often encountered complaints like "I didn't know that there were multiple versions of the First Vision" and "The Church is trying to hide the fact that Brigham Young was a polygamist."

The latter claim, of course, is absurd and impossible on the face of it. But even the former is merely pathetic. Articles on the various versions of the First Vision have occurred not only in Dialogue and BYU Studies but in the old Improvement Era and the Ensign, to say nothing of books such as Milton Backman's The First Vision and Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration and Jack Welch's Opening the Heavens.

There is a vast literature on Mormon history, published over decades in such outlets as Dialogue, the Utah Historical Quarterly, The Journal of the John Whitmer Historical Association, BYU Studies, The Journal of Mormon History, and Mormon Historical Studies, by publishers such as the University of Illinois Press, Deseret Book, the old Bookcraft, Alfred A. Knopf, etc., etc., etc. The sheer volume of the literature is apparent in the 1152-page, 5.9 pound volume published by James Allen, Ronald Walker, and David Whittaker, Studies in Mormon History, 1830-1997: An Indexed Bibliography (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000).

A generation inclined to spend more time watching videos than reading can hardly complain if it feels uninformed. To expect to derive graduate level historiographical sophistication from the roughly forty 45-minute Gospel Doctrine lessons on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church history that are taught every fourth year, or from the Ensign, is simply unrealistic. (And I might add that to expect it to come from surfing through some web sites is altogether foolhardy.)

Agree or not, thats the situation.

Well then. It seems that when maxrep12 speaks, the thinking has been done. Debate over. Discussion ended.

Daniel,

this would be an example of the "Less effective" apologetic anwer. This scenario here is known as "Vegas Night vs. Lazy Members"

First off: How many thousands of church related magazines, books, and church curiculum items have to be skipped over to happen upon some of the books or articles that Daniel brought up? Do these publications deal solidly with the issues or provide only a glossed over glance? If a member randomly selected a book from deseret each year to read, might this member reach the age of Methusela or die before happening upon the mentioned books? Really, what sort of odds are we talking about?

Daniel says: I've often encountered complaints like "I didn't know that there were multiple versions of the First Vision" and "The Church is trying to hide the fact that Brigham Young was a polygamist."

I didn't know there were multiple first vision accounts. If you, Daniel, are often being told this, perhaps it is time to listen, perhaps it is true! Most all of us know about BY's polygamous wives, but what of the rising generation? When the church erased his polygamous wives from the sunday school manual, could that possibly be construed as whitewashing history?

The sheer odds of any member learning about real church history in its entirety, without the knowledge that another version exists beyond the image that is polished like unto glass in sunday school, are completely staggering. Yes, Vegas Night indeed.

Oh, the comment about the thinkings been done, that came from the bretheren, but it accurately applies here as well. I think my statements in my previous post as well as this one are pretty solid.

[Daniel Peterson]

If a member randomly selected a book from deseret each year to read, might this member reach the age of Methusela or die before happening upon the mentioned books? Really, what sort of odds are we talking about?

If somebody chose books randomly from Amazon, how long would it take to find any serious history at all?

What's the point of that? The fact is that many relevant volumes have been sold in Deseret Book itself. Right there on the shelf. In plain view. I know, because I've bought them. Unless and until people are compelled to buy certain titles and forced at gunpoint to read them, what's to be done? Nobody buys books at random. It's a matter of choice. If a customer chooses Jack Weyland's Charley over Leonard Arrington's Brigham Young: American Moses, what do you propose be done to him?

I didn't know there were multiple first vision accounts.

Articles on the various versions of the First Vision have occurred not only in Dialogue and BYU Studies but in the old Improvement Era and the Ensign, to say nothing of books such as Milton Backman's The First Vision and Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration and Jack Welch's recent Opening the Heavens. When I discussed the First Vision in my Gospel Doctrine class back in January, I used the various accounts in my lesson. I've known about them for at least thirty years.

Hugh Nibley used to complain that Church members seemed completely uninterested in the different accounts, and in the rich details given in them. He was right, of course. Perhaps home teachers need to be sent door to door to read some of these materials aloud to people who have not chosen to read them on their own.

If you, Daniel, are often being told this, perhaps it is time to listen, perhaps it is true!

Of course it's true. And who do you think is "telling" me this? Do you think that I was born and raised in the Church Historical Department? Or even in Utah? How do you think I, of all people, discovered these mysteries?

Most all of us know about BY's polygamous wives, but what of the rising generation?

I haven't met any who don't know.

When the church erased his polygamous wives from the sunday school manual, could that possibly be construed as whitewashing history?

Is there really no mention of plural marriage in the little book Our Heritage?

I don't have it right here with me at the moment, but I'm reasonably confident that it mentions plural marriage. You might want to look again.

The sheer odds of any member learning about real church history in its entirety, without the knowledge that another version exists beyond the image that is polished like unto glass in sunday school, are completely staggering. Yes, Vegas Night indeed.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I'm the only one. What a miracle!

Oh, the comment about the thinkings been done, that came from the bretheren, but it accurately applies here as well. I think my statements in my previous post as well as this one are pretty solid.

Actually, it came from a clerk in the Presiding Bishop's office, and was repudiated by President George Albert Smith. And when he spoke, the thinking was done. Or it wasn't.

[Agent Smith]

[if a customer chooses Jack Weyland's Charley over Leonard Arrington's Brigham Young: American Moses, what do you propose be done to him?

We pray for him, earnestly.

[BobHewson]

Daniel,

Might I posit that, like you, there are other believing members who know the full history of the church but maybe you aren't the majority?

The church is NOT the same everywhere and things like Joseph's polygamy, multiple first vision accounts, his treasure seeking may not be common knowledge for over half the church membership.

Those aren't things that are normally taught in Sunday School, if the teacher is going by the regulation manuals, scriptures, and nothing else.

-Bob

[urroner]

Doctor Dan, I have found, as have you probably, that when those who have a grudge against the Church and will bring up stuff like the Church is hiding the fact that there are several versions of the First Vision, it's trying to hide its polygamous history, and bring up the quote "the thinking has been done," it's sad to say, but I must, that on their part, no thinking has been done. No amount of discussing or the presentation of overwhelming evidence that their statements are duplicitous or said in complete ignorance and with no forethought will ever change their mind.

[urroner]

Daniel,

Might I posit that, like you, there are other believing members who know the full history of the church but maybe you aren't the majority?

The church is NOT the same everywhere and things like Joseph's polygamy, multiple first vision accounts, his treasure seeking may not be common knowledge for over half the church membership.

Those aren't things that are normally taught in Sunday School, if the teacher is going by the regulation manuals, scriptures, and nothing else.

-Bob

And just because the teacher might not comment on the complete history of the Church during the year when Church history is covered, is this evidence that the Church is attempting to cover up and rewrite its history?

The kids that go to seminary in my ward discussed polygamy and the several different versions of the First vision during the year Church history was covered. Shoot, even the ban on blacks from holding the priesthood was covered and discussed.

Sad to say, the teacher that led these students down this vile path and deserved to be exed and then shot, is still teaching seminary with a heap of kids attending her class. I even had a son who attended her class and he still went on a mission.

[Boy Named Sue]

Sad to say, the teacher that led these students down this vile path and deserved to be exed and then shot, is still teaching seminary with a heap of kids attending her class. I even had a son who attended her class and he still went on a mission.

was this meant to be funny?

[BobHewson]

And just because the teacher might not comment on the complete history of the Church during the year when Church history is covered, is this evidence that the Church is attempting to cover up and rewrite its history?

If the teacher is only teaching from the lesson manual and that information is not in the lesson manual, then yes, I would say the church is glossing over it's history at the very least.

It sounds as if your church experience was similar to Daniel's. If only that were true for more of the membership so they could make a more informed decision about their beliefs and where they should be placed.

Unfortunately, unless someone polls the entire current membership of the church it remains to be seen which side is the majority.

-Bob

[urroner]

Sad to say, the teacher that led these students down this vile path and deserved to be exed and then shot, is still teaching seminary with a heap of kids attending her class.  I even had a son who attended her class and he still went on a mission.

was this meant to be funny?

Sarcastic.

[BYU Alterego]

The DNA issue proves that the long held tradition of the Hemispheric model is dead.  That model of course was perpetuated by the prophet Joseph, but I'm sure you'll find a way to make that okay. 

Uh huh. So this lame pseudo-science about DNA is really just a conduit to the real gripe....false prophecy. Let me tell you...it is a lot easier to make anything "OK"...or not "OK" without the red herrings.

ROFL...Pseudoscience?? Of course the real gripe is false prophecy, did I try to hide that? I have no gripe against science... The whole DNA issue shows that what Joseph said was false.

What other issue could you possibly be thinking of?

Oh wait, that's exactly what this whole thread is about, apologetics.

OK....I do get the feeling you are here to defend your position come hell or high water...which is why you will just keep piling on more gripes rather than examining any problems with your assumptions.

What other gripes? I was transitioning the discussion back on topic...

Call me ex-fundamentalist if you like, but the number of allowances required to make what is written in the BOM and what Joseph taught fit into a modern model that we can accept as doctrine is nauseating. 

Oh, you are no ex-fundamentalist. Anyone who cannot at least acknowlege what is on the table and visible to everybody else in the same room is hardly a liberal thinker.

Okay...now you're just not making sense anymore...I don't follow you on this at all.

At what point do you just recognize Juliann that the whole affair is revisionist?  Are you seriously okay with revisonism in the Lord's "One true Church?"  If you are, well, then more power to you and I hope you enjoy life. 

What you are really saying is that you are unable to handle any uncertainty or ambiguity in the "true church". Again, the issue is your construction of truth and the demands you make of it...something that is common to fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. I'm sure that I do have what you may consider a more postmodern worldview. It is probably no accident that you have chosen the profession that you have....

Now you're just getting wierd. Seriously no offense, but what does my choice of profession tell you that I'm not seeing here?

Of course I can't handle uncertainty and ambiguity in something that has the word "true" or "truth" in it. The very root of the word ambiguity means "both," or "two." It's very related to ambivalent. Can the ambigiously faithful or ambivalently repentant get into heaven? Your logic is really warped.

Uncertainty is a word you use when you don't know something. And I would love to hear you bear a testimony using it.

"I'm so grateful that the Lord has made my knowledge of doctrine uncertain and ambigious. I feel the spirit both confirming and denying at the same time that this is true."

. . . .I have formed the impression (as have other observers such as Marsden and Noll) that when evangelicals actually do attend university, they tend to show up in the natural sciences, in engineering schools and colleges of medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and rehabilitation therapy, rather than in the humanities, social sciences and law.  Ambiguity, process, tentative conclusions, and continual argument all are endemic to the latter disciplines, and evangelicals may not be well disposed to them. . .Indeed, I propose that there is a kind of twofold Law of Evangelical Incidence here: evangelicals are present in a discipline in inverse proportion to the amount of (1) ambiguity and (2) ideological conflict present in that discipline. 

John G. Stackhouse, Jr, . Evangelical Landscapes:  Facing Critical Issues of the Day (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 146.

Um...the above is frankly worthless. I think it speaks for itself.

[KevinG]

I have loved learning more about the tidbits and historical minutia regarding my chosen faith. In many cases I have had questions answered and misconceptions clarified. Over all I have loved the detail I have learned about Joseph and other Prophets, the cultural context of the Old and New Testaments as well as the Book of Mormon, and other apocryphal information. It adds dimension to my understanding of the Savior and His servants. It makes them more real for me, and gives me hope that if the very human servants of the Lord can come unto Him, then I may also do so some day.

[Daniel Peterson]

The whole DNA issue shows that what Joseph said was false.

In order to believe that, you have to believe that Joseph actually taught a doctrinally binding hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon. However, for well over a hundred years the Church has denied that there is any official Book of Mormon geography. Moreover, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith thought otherwise and, as Matthew Roper has demonstrated quite nicely, it seems that Joseph himself felt free to speculate, from time to time, on the geography of the Book of Mormon. Over the years, his focus seems to have rested increasingly on what we today call Mesoamerica.

[BYU Alterego]

By the way, you still on that tired old reputation word?

[Programmer]

...

Since most of us are not geneticists, we have to rely on experts.  We can rely on several with international reputations and the highest level of certification, or we can rely on one with no reputation at all and with the lowest level of certification.  The prudent choice seems rather obvious.

OMG...you know nothing of my certification...hehe. That's okay though, I'm not asking you to think of me as an expert in this area, just to consider my point of view as not being trivial. You keep glossing over the fact that am very, very much not alone in this point of view. I'm not some sole voice cutting against the grain.

The fact that you debate this way is risable and discredits you.

...

That's the humorous tidbit of the day:

I routinely defer to people more experienced than myself in all areas of life. I routinely defer to my doctors opinion on medical matters. I always trusted my physics professors judgement on mathematical and physical matters. I never trusted myself with a short pencil in chemical matters. Experts are experts for a REASON.

Of course you don't have live that way, you can go ahead and consult the garbage man on matters of medicine, or ask your accountant to fix your car, or offer to fix your neighbors TV even though you may know nothing of electronics.

You may do that, but you wouldn't be humble, and thus I think you would probably make people miserable around you with your overabundance of pride.

Brother Peterson, it seems to me is nestled in perfectly sound judgement, and using common sense and REASON by Deferring to experts on the matter. ...

[BYU Alterego]

The whole DNA issue shows that what Joseph said was false.

In order to believe that, you have to believe that Joseph actually taught a doctrinally binding hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon. However, for well over a hundred years the Church has denied that there is any official Book of Mormon geography. Moreover, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith thought otherwise and, as Matthew Roper has demonstrated quite nicely, it seems that Joseph himself felt free to speculate, from time to time, on the geography of the Book of Mormon. Over the years, his focus seems to have rested increasingly on what we today call Mesoamerica.

So the argument is that because they never officially defined it, though an obvious "unofficial" view, that's we're not to question the brethen's gift of prophesy over this? Come on.

I love your phrasing "doctrinally binding." What you're really saying is that Joseph taught this, but he wasn't sure about it, so don't get too attached.

Joseph taught that the brethren at some point might take Lamanite plural wives. He referred to the Indians just over the Missouri border. That is actually not Mexico, in case you didn't know.

Joseph taught that in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" that the Whole of North and South America were to be part of the new Zion and would be an inheritance to the Lost tribes (aka Lamanites). Joseph believed Zelph was Nephite? What was he doing so far north then?

Your characterization is weak attempt to rephrase Joseph's teachings into a framework that can agree with what science tells us. Obviously what the prophet teaches in general is "binding" or you wouldn't go to so much effort to cast his words in such a different light.

[edited by moderator] Read our board policy before you post again.

[Dunamis]

BYUalterego, a word of advice. You can get away with some sarcasm, biting wit and even rudeness if you have demonstrated that you can also contribute substance to the board. It is always a good idea to put your best foot forward when you enter a new situation. I suggest you start using both feet immediately.

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh my gosh...you know nothing of my certification...hehe.

As I recall, you don't have a graduate degree. And I'm aware of no evidence that you possess an international reputation in genetics or molecular biology.

The situation is rather different with people like Dr. Parr, Dr. Whiting, Dr. McLellan, Dr. Woodward, and Dr. Butler.

In areas requiring specialized knowledge that I lack, I tend to rely on specialists. And I prefer to find the best available. I don't think that's particularly odd. I went to a surgeon when I needed knee surgery, not to my neighbor the accountant. When we needed assistance with family trusts and wills, we went to a highly recommended lawyer who specializes in the subject, not to the retired dentist around the corner. In my own case, although I often hear strong opinions about Islam from neighbors and lay people, I often tend, for certain reasons, to prefer my own views.

That's okay though, I'm not asking you to think of me as an expert in this area, just to consider my point of view as not being trivial.

Your wish is granted. I've never considered your point of view trivial, and have never said that I did.

You keep glossing over the fact that am very, very much not alone in this point of view.  I'm not some sole voice cutting against the grain. . .  people with superior training, better reputations and greater experience agree with me.

I know that the Australian plant geneticist Simon Southerton and the Washington State cultural anthropologist Thomas Murphy are, more or less, on your side. (They're somewhat less absolutist than you are in their claims, but I'm willing to count them as on your side, nonetheless.) Who else is there? Who else is out there who has expressly rejected the claims of the Book of Mormon, as stated by the best scholarship on the Book of Mormon (we're not talking here, I hope, about puncturing mere folk notions), on the basis of genetic evidence? Even Tom Murphy has refused, in print, to say that the genetic data disproves the Book of Mormon. And, as you can see below, Simon Southerton has actually conceded a principal contention of the biologists, geneticists, and anthropologists who have written on this topic for FARMS.

The fact that you debate this way is risable and discredits you.

Uh huh.

So you know better than I if I'm being misquoted?

Perhaps. But what I really had in mind is that I know better than you whether misquotation is a chronic habit of mine, as you said before and as you will say again immediately below:

It is chronic habit of yours.

QED.

You ceaselessly portray people and issues in only the most convenient light to you.  Don't kid yourself man.

Let's see. Thus far, in this post, my debating style is risible and discredited, I'm habitually inaccurate, and, it seems, self-deceived. And we've only just begun!

As I've explained before to you, but you refuse to accept, the DNA issue was the first issue that ever caught my attention, and was a singular catalyst for me leaving the Church.

But you also mentioned, before, that you had been unsatisfied with your faith prior to the DNA issue. Do I need to go to the trouble of dredging up the relevant passage?

No, I said that my experience with prayer made a lot more sense after the fact.

And your prayer life, prior to the DNA issue, had been very positive and satisfying? You were perfectly content in your religious experiences, with a robust faith, such that the DNA matter hit you completely and unpleasantly out of the blue?

The fact that you keep suggesting this in every forum where we interact just shows that  you again are trying to muddle the waters.

I wonder how I should count that one above. Am I perhaps deliberately deceptive? That sounds like a reasonable construal of the sentence. On that assumption, I'm now risible, discredited, self-deceived, habitually inaccurate, and deliberately deceptive of others.

You ignore this because you don't care to read their words that I've referred you to.

Have I said that I haven't read The Four Articles? Do you know that, if I have not already, I will not? How?

I think I'm now risible, discredited, self-deceived, habitually inaccurate, deliberately deceptive of others, and intellectually dishonest. Would that be a fair summary of your position thus far?

Whiting says that natural selection/Genetic drift would affect the results....um...many papers directly disagree with that.  Parr claims that it would be easy to have mtDNA/Y Chromosome lineages die out, making the Lehites/Mulekites untraceable...the entire body of  Genetic Anthropology literature disagrees with that.  We have roughly 25 lineages that all go back a long, long, way.  There is no evidence of recent lineage extinction anywhere.

The difference Daniel is obvious.  Your buddies have something to defend.

Elsewhere, you've suggested to me that Dr. Whiting (whose professional peers seem to hold him in exceptionally high regard) is both incompetent and lacking in integrity, and, if I'm not mistaken, you've made similar insinuations with respect -- perhaps I should say, rather, without respect -- to some or all of the others who have written for FARMS on this topic. Earlier on this thread, you called them "yes men," and now you suggest, rather demeaningly, that my "buddies" are mere partisan hacks, perhaps even with a vested interest in misrepresenting the scientific situation. Have I caught the spirit of your position here?

I think you like to rag on my credentials so much because it must irk you that this stuff flies over your head and that you have to rely on others.

No, not really. I routinely rely on professionals in medicine, dentistry, car repair, carpentry, law, and a great many other subjects, and am not at all embarrassed by that. What's more, I think that doctorates in fields other than my own endow their possessors, on the whole, with more knowledge of those fields than I have. That's rather the point of it all, and, again, it doesn't trouble me in the slightest.

Rude of me to say perhaps

Yes, but not surprising.

Your tagline in this forum that you wear like a little red badge of courage

Zing!

is a perfect example.  You don't even understand what is being said but your ill placed confidence makes you think you're making a profound statement.    Yawn.

The affected boredom is a very nice touch, too.

The whole reason why Simon brought that issue up is because it's irrelevant.  It's a red herring, a non issue.  It's an issue apologists have tried to make relevant when it's ridiculously the opposite.

But, of course, Drs. Woodward, Sorenson, Parr, Meldrum, Butler, Stephens, Whiting, and McLellan don't think it irrelevant. They think it fundamental to a proper understanding of the situation. As do Matthew Roper, John Tvedtnes, and Brian Stubbs, who have also published on this issue.

So let me get this straight... you agree that non scientific issues play a role in keeping LDS scientists faithful....and that has no bearing on their scientific judgement in this matter how?....

No, poor fellow. I think that, when the scientific case is not open and shut such that it compels one particular conclusion, those who choose one side over the other (whichever it turns out to be) must unavoidably choose that side for reasons that go beyond the scientific evidence specific to the issue. That's true for you, and that's true for them.

The difference is that you, unlike even Tom Murphy and perhaps unlike Simon Southerton and certainly unlike Roper, Woodward, Meldrum, Parr, Stubbs, Stephens, Sorenson, Butler, McLellan, and Whiting, think that the scientific case against the Book of Mormon is conclusive.

My disdain is very specific and exists for a more obvious reasons than  the random generalizations you tried to portray.

That's comforting.

And I am absolutely confident that I can give you a two to one ratio on citations.  That would easy considering the body of work that LDS apologists go directly against.  Not that you would ever read them of course...but we've covered that.

Yes. I think we established my intellectual dishonesty several lines above.

By the way, how would you know the relevance of articles that you've never read, and refuse to read?  Amazing trick that.

And how would you know both that I have never read them and that I refuse to read them? Mind reading?

that makes you dishonest.

Isn't that accusation a bit redundant? Please don't start repeating yourself.

So the argument is that because they never officially defined it, though an obvious "unofficial" view, that's we're not to question the brethen's gift of prophesy over this?  Come on.

The Church's failure to define a binding Book of Mormon geography, and the insistence of its leaders since well back into the nineteenth century that there is no official geography for the Book of Mormon, flows from the fact that the Church has never claimed, but has repeatedly denied, that it has received divine revelation specifying the geography of the Book of Mormon.

Accordingly, to hold various opinions on Book of Mormon geography (as Church leaders, including Joseph Smith, have done) in no way questions "the Brethrens' gift of prophecy" on the matter, which they have not invoked.

I love your phrasing "doctrinally binding."  What you're really saying is that Joseph taught this, but he wasn't sure about it, so don't get too attached.

No. Not quite. I'm saying that Joseph doesn't appear to have taught this, that he was plainly unsure about the geography of the Book of Mormon, and that it would be silly to be more dogmatically attached, for religious reasons, to any specific theory than he appears to have been.

Joseph taught that the brethren at some point might take Lamanite plural wives.  He referred to the Indians just over the Missouri border.  That is actually not Mexico, in case you didn't know.

Nice sarcasm. And well aimed, too. I'm notorious for my abysmal ignorance of global geography. Why, I seldom leave Utah County!

Am I supposed to be disturbed by Joseph's reference to Lamanites just beyond Missouri?

I'm not. And you would understand why, if you cared about really understanding my position and the position of those whose articles I've published. (They've discussed this matter, you know. Or do you know?)

Joseph taught that in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" that the Whole of North and South America were to be part of the new Zion and would be an inheritance to the Lost tribes (aka Lamanites).

See above.

Joseph believed Zelph was Nephite?  What was he doing so far north then?

I have no idea. Neither he nor the "great prophet" with whom he was associated is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, I don't know their dates, and "the land northward" has no defined northern border in the text. Zelph and Onandagus certainly lived beyond either the time period or the geographical confines of the Book of Mormon story, and perhaps both. There might be any number of explanations for Zelph's apparent presence in the north -- each of them lacking any supporting evidence.

JYour characterization is weak attempt to rephrase Joseph's teachings into a framework that can agree with what science tells us.

Scarcely. As is well known and fully documented in print, limited geographical models for the Book of Mormon long antedate even the work of Crick and Watson on the structure of DNA.

I'm sorry that your last comment about my "blatant dishonesty" was removed. I would actually have preferred that it remain, so as to fully preserve the tenor and flavor of your remarks.