Mormon Epistemology

[LifeOnaPlate]

I would have thought it would be easier for you to show me one that has, rather than me show you none have, however outside of the Mormon church nothing has been found so I would be interested to know if anything has internally as if it has not many people seem to know about it

What sort of info are you looking for? What would qualify, and why would we expect that kind of data?

[bobg]

Reverend Smith

[LifeOnaPlate]

You make a fair point and I don't really want to push this one too much as you rightly say I havent read it, will save this for when I have,

You're going to read an astronomy textbook from the 1920s instead of a recent text, why exactly?

[bobg]

What sort of info are you looking for? What would qualify, and why would we expect that kind of data?

Fair point I think I would allow you the same things that I allow myself (aren't I nice) as in I would not expect Jesus coming to America to be proved, however some evidence that tribes of Israel came to America at that time, that the language was spoke their and then, proof of the battle on hill cummorah body fragments etc.

Something like that.

[LifeOnaPlate]

However BYU through studying DNA then led to the book of Mormon introduction having to be changed and even when Mormon scholars do honest study into the book of Mormon background they find nothing.

False, but I am interested in what source misled you in this manner. Was it a pastor? A website?

[bobg]

You're going to read an astronomy textbook from the 1920s instead of a recent text, why exactly?

Because that's just the kind of guy I am !!

Rest assured though the Fair website will be one of my first stops after I have to see what modern LDS scholars make of it all (I promise

[LifeOnaPlate]

Fair point I think I would allow you the same things that I allow myself (aren't I nice) as in I would not expect Jesus coming to America to be proved, however some evidence that tribes of Israel came to America at that time, that the language was spoke their and then, proof of the battle on hill cummorah body fragments etc.

Something like that.

OK, where is the Hill? What sort of evidence from corpses is expected? How would time and the environment handle preserving corpses as they were depicted in the text itself? Do languages ever become extinct? How would conditions in the New World effect the language of a small group of incomers? What language did those incomers speak to begin with?

[bobg]

False, but I am interested in what source misled you in this manner. Was it a pastor? A website?

It was many things.

Firstly the BOM introduction has been changed. From principle ancestors to among the ancestors. (am I allowed to quote the LDS scriptures site to show this?)

And as I said Simon Southerton (not from BYU I could be wrong on that (see i told you I can be wrong!!) however I do not want to spend all night looking so I will concede, he was a Mormon bishop and said this.

On March 17, 2000, a Mormon scientist in Australia posted on the Internet his struggle with DNA studies and its implications for the Book of Mormon.

. . . My name is Simon Southerton. I am married to Jane and we are the parents of five children. . . . We left the Church together towards the end of 1998. At the time I was a bishop in Brisbane, Australia. . . . During my PhD study I became fascinated with the power of molecular genetics to answer biological questions. I took the opportunity to learn many of the fundamentals of DNA technology in the stimulating and challenging environment of the John Innes Institute. . . .

At the end of January 1998 I took time off work and spent two months studying for an exam to enter a graduate medicine degree at the University of Queensland. The first subject I studied was biology. . . . Soon after completing my study I read an article on the Flood and the Tower of Babel in the January 1998 issue of the Ensign magazine. . . . I concluded that the Internet was the quickest and most readily available avenue for me to find out what other Latter-day Saints thought about the Flood. . . .

Without doubt the article that had the most impact on me was a statement published by the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. concerning the Book of Mormon. In very strong language this statement spoke of a complete lack of evidence for any connection between the Old World and the New World. The strength of this statement jolted me. Scientists rarely make such dogmatic statements unless they have plenty of evidence (or none in this case) to back them up. I had been told in seminary that the Smithsonian had been known to use the Book of Mormon in their research. The statement utterly refuted this claim. . . . I believed the Book of Mormon was true and that Hebrew civilization had occurred on the American continent. . . . With this in mind I decided to look for myself for research that supported Old World migrations to the Americas.

I began searching for research papers having some connection with American Indians or Polynesians. Because I was familiar with plant genetics I became interested in recent research on the DNA of American Indians. The principles of DNA analysis are applicable to all living things so it was relatively easy to jump from the plant to the animal kingdom. I rapidly accumulated many scientific papers comparing the mitochondrial DNA of American Indians from numerous tribes with the mitochondrial DNA of other populations around the world. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child each generation. It is essentially a female genealogical lineage, or a maiden name if you like, stored in the mitochondrial DNA sequence. This part of the total DNA genome is used for population studies in many animal species. . . .

In the last decade scientists from several research groups had tested the mitochondrial DNA of over 2000 American Indians from about a hundred tribes scattered over the length of the Americas. It soon became apparent to me that about 99% of their female lineages were brought into the Americas in excess of 12,000 years ago. Almost all of these lineages are most closely related to those of people in Asia, particularly in southern Siberia near Mongolia. Several tribes in Mesoamerica (which included Aztecs and Mayans) had been tested and all but a couple of individuals out of about 500 had mitochondrial DNA of Asian origin. The small fraction of Native American lineages that were not from Asia appeared to originate in Europe, most likely Spain. . . .

For two weeks I wrestled with the research. I collected more and more research papers but failed to find anything that supported migration of Jewish people before Columbus. Enough is known about the DNA lineages of Jews to be very confident that they are clearly distinguishable from Asian lineages. They would also be easily identifiable if they were present in the Americas in significant numbers. I struggled with the complete discrepancy between the research and my understanding of the Book of Mormon and the doctrine of the Lamanites. The Book of Mormon describes the occurrence of Hebrew civilizations in the Americas numbering in the millions. It is clear that the victorious Lamanites would have numbered in the millions in about 400 AD. I could not understand how such large numbers of people could have escaped detection.

. . . As much as I wanted the Book of Mormon to be true, I suddenly knew that it wasn't. It might be full of some remarkable stories and scriptural writings, but it wasn't history about real people. My belief in the Book of Mormon was the foundation for my belief in Mormonism. When it was shattered it brought a lot down with it. I immediately knew that I must be released from my calling. . . .

I became aware for the first time in my life about many other issues surrounding the origin of the Church. I was particularly troubled to learn more about the Book of Abraham, another Latter-day Saint scripture originating with Joseph Smith. Joseph claimed that it was a direct translation from some papyri written by the hand of Abraham. I learned that the papyri were thought to have been destroyed in a fire in Chicago, however, they were discovered in a museum in New York in 1966 and returned to the Church the following year. . . . Pictures of the papyri were published in the New Era and Egyptologists, including several Latter-day Saints, translated the text. They were found to be nothing more than common funeral texts that were traditionally placed with mummies at burial and they dated to about 100 AD. This event occurred just before I was baptized into the Church. Thirty years later I had never heard anything about it. . . .

There were large volumes of other "interesting Church issues" that I discovered. With my eyes now open the difficulties with the Book of Mormon seem endless. They range from a complete absence of all the Old World crops and animals mentioned in the text through to the absence of metallurgy, horse drawn wheeled vehicles and any Hebraic or Egyptian-like writings in pre-Columbus America. With the origin of the Book of Abraham exposed, and my faith in the Book of Mormon so recently shattered, I have no faith in anything that the Mormon Church claims. At almost every turn, facts are distorted and truth concealed in order to maintain the faith of most inquiring Latter-day Saints. . . .

My brother and his wife and five children left at about the same time and are now happily attending another church. The DNA evidence was just another problem in a long list of issues that seriously troubled them about the church. My brother had served in many senior leadership positions including seven years as a bishop, as a stake young men president and as a member of a mission presidency. His wife had known for years that the Church was not true. She had realized that many of her friends shared just as strong feelings about the churches that they attended. She couldn't continue to feel that they were any less important in God's eyes, or that their feelings were any less valid. She struggled for years to hide this from the extended family group. They were both greatly relieved when all their children left with them. . . .

Apologies if long quotes are not allowed

[bobg]

OK, where is the Hill? What sort of evidence from corpses is expected? How would time and the environment handle preserving corpses as they were depicted in the text itself? Do languages ever become extinct? How would conditions in the New World effect the language of a small group of incomers? What language did those incomers speak to begin with?

I was hoping there would come a point where you tell me, otherwise lets just leave this for now.

[volgadon]

I'm still waiting.

[bobg]

It might be easier, but since you are the one who made a wild claim, you are the one who should substantiate it. I am still waiting.

I do need to watch my wild statements dont I, what I will do is spend some time looking at Fair and Farms and come back to you, I will maybe do an article on my blog about it, or start a topic and pm you, but this wont have a quick answer.

[bobg]

I'm still waiting.

And your patience is appreciated

[LifeOnaPlate]

It was many things.

Firstly the BOM introduction has been changed. From principle ancestors to among the ancestors. (am I allowed to quote the LDS scriptures site to show this?)

And as I said Simon Southerton (not from BYU I could be wrong on that (see i told you I can be wrong!!) however I do not want to spend all night looking so I will concede, he was a Mormon bishop and said this...

Apologies if long quotes are not allowed

Quotes are allowed, but you ought to pick out the bits you find relevant and then simply provide a link to the source itself, that is the most handy way to do it. (Also, review the board guidelines, there are a few off-limits topics including politics, LDS temple ritual, and personal attacks. Also, if you make a claim and someone asks for a reference ["CFR," call for reference] you are required to provide one or retract the statement. So far you're doing just adequately at answering calls for references or withdrawing statements imo.)

As for changing "principle" to among," this was a good move imo. The chapter headings, introduction, etc. of the current BoM version contains what you might call "official opinions," and are always subject to change in Mormonism. Note that the term "principle" itself already allows for the presence of others in the New World alongside the Lehite colony, that not all surviving Native Americans would carry the genetic signature of the Lehites (in this case, the mtDNA bit passed on from mother to children only. So what did the mtDNA look like for the Lehites? We don't know. No one knows. So what are we trying to track down? We don't know. We may never know. DNA science is currently not well situated to address the problem as found in the BoM.) See more here.

Simon Southerton, a former Mormon, tends to explain Mormon beliefs from his own perspective without due regard for the perspective of people who actually still believe in Mormonism. He has made attempts to disprove the BoM through DNA analysis, but his work is literally fatally flawed. He's not a specialist in population genetics, which wouldn't be a particular problem if it weren't for the fact that his non-specialist staus shows through in his work quite obviously. He is also not a specialist in LDS perspectives and possibilities (or if he is, he chooses not to disclose it). Here's a somewhat complex discussion on the DNA stuff and the BoM. It's probaby the best I've read so far and it is brand spankin' new (and free!).

[LifeOnaPlate]

updated my post above at 10:36am. And here's another enlightening response to Southerton from Blake Ostler, another non-specialist. (the article above from Ugo Perego is about as specialist as they come, however.)

"Simon Says, but that doesn't make it so," letter to the editor.

[mfbukowski]

Firstly Volgadon I have answered it now.

Secondly I initially believed the bible simply because the things it said happen actually happen. Such as my life being changed when I trusted in what it said and put my faith in Christ as well as seeing other people being changed and being healed etc. Since then as my belief and knowledge of the bible has matured I am aware of the overwhelming support it has firstly in terms of accuracy, there are hundreds if not thousands of early documents still out there from the bible from various parts of the world and when compared with each other are 99% or thereabouts in line with each other. Which helps show it has not been changed over time.

And as well as this the locations, currencies and civilizations that are in the bible can be verified, where as none of this can be with the book of Mormon.

You make the right point that ultimately it comes down to faith, you cannot prove that Jesus died, rose again for us there is a strong element of faith however I think there needs to be external supports as well.

You totally miss the point.

The Koran and other foreign "scriptures" have all the things you cite here.

I can only ask again- Besides being old, how do you know the Bible is from God?

Edit:

Bobg, on a personal note, you are contending here with people who know each of your arguments inside out. We deal with these every day. You are not too well informed as far as critics go- there are many who know their material better and make the same arguments- and no one here is impressed by any of it.

I suggest you hang out for awhile, get acquainted with the arguments against your position, and then come back with some new ones when you are ready. And you might learn something- that there is a lot more to the gospel than you ever dreamed!

The bottom line, is that your own website points out that your testimony of Christ was based on a personal spiritual experience.

That's great- but from a debate point of view- it's over dude! Hang in there and learn something ok?

[mfbukowski]

Apologies if long quotes are not allowed

Here's the deal: We have seen that hundreds of times, and you end up spending time typing it in- with some kind of attitude that you have found the holy grail and we are all going to just capitulate to your new-found quote.

Get some education, hang around and get a little humble and you will learn stuff. You are talking to people here who are very familiar with anything you can throw at us.

[Vance]

You are talking to people here who are very familiar with anything you can throw at us.

Whoa! whoa! I thought that we Mormons werewas all ignorantigneret, mislead, deceived cultish, polygamist, false god worshiping anti-Christian rubes.

Edited to correct obvious errors and omissions.

[volgadon]

Correction: was all igneret

[mfbukowski]

Whoa! whoa! I thought that we Mormons were all ignorant, mislead, deceived rubes.

You forgot the cultish, polygamist, false god worshiping anti-Christian part!

And besides! We added to the Bible!

[semlogo]

Since then as my belief and knowledge of the bible has matured I am aware of the overwhelming support it has firstly in terms of accuracy, there are hundreds if not thousands of early documents still out there from the bible from various parts of the world and when compared with each other are 99% or thereabouts in line with each other. Which helps show it has not been changed over time.

There are literally thousands and thousands of changes in Bible manuscripts, many minor, some major.

[bobg]

Here's the deal: We have seen that hundreds of times, and you end up spending time typing it in- with some kind of attitude that you have found the holy grail and we are all going to just capitulate to your new-found quote.

Get some education, hang around and get a little humble and you will learn stuff. You are talking to people here who are very familiar with anything you can throw at us.

Ok I think I am gonna do a rare thing and admit maybe I have bitten off more than I can chew here, I am outguned and ill prepared and maybe I was just trying to plug my blog a bit

However I appreciate your grace in this and will take this opportunity to hang around and gently start contributing to some discussions, though if anyone here has left comments on my blog I will get back to you soon.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ok I think I am gonna do a rare thing and admit maybe I have bitten off more than I can chew here, I am outguned and ill prepared and maybe I was just trying to plug my blog a bit

However I appreciate your grace in this and will take this opportunity to hang around and gently start contributing to some discussions, though if anyone here has left comments on my blog I will get back to you soon.

I think, given the flow of responses you've tried to field and the willingness to back down on some claims, you've shown yourself to be a pretty swell person. You may have brought some of the same old tired (and flawed) anti-Mormon arguments to the forum, but you have not demonstrated the same level of unwillingness to discuss. I think that is pretty good, and pretty unusual. My additional advice is to stop the crusade against the Mormons and start preaching Christ and him crucified instead. Consider the C.S. Lewis quote in my signature in light of your blog and planned trip to Utah.

[Vance]

However I appreciate your grace in this and will take this opportunity to hang around and gently start contributing to some discussions . . .

You are not acting like the typical anti-Mormon troll.

Contributions to discussions are welcome.

[mfbukowski]

Ok I think I am gonna do a rare thing and admit maybe I have bitten off more than I can chew here, I am outguned and ill prepared and maybe I was just trying to plug my blog a bit

However I appreciate your grace in this and will take this opportunity to hang around and gently start contributing to some discussions, though if anyone here has left comments on my blog I will get back to you soon.

Great! You definitely will learn a lot about the bible and a whole lot of other stuff too! Welcome!

I just want to say this- not as a parting shot, but just maybe some further thing for you to think about-- the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically- though of course one has the argument that all of nature testifies of Him- and I would agree with that- but that argument does not impress an unbeliever one iota. You can't go up in a space craft and take his picture, or show the influence of "spirit" on some kind of meter.

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever in a scientific sense which shows that God even exists.

If that is true, why would ANY kind of evidence- historical or otherwise- prove that God "breathed" revelation exists anywhere?

If evidence cannot even prove he exists, then evidence cannot prove he has left artifacts or given mankind messages, much less that any given message is valid where others are not!

It's really as simple as that!

The only way one can know that Jesus is our savior is the way you found out yourself- by spiritual experience that in principle no one else can know happened to you- any more than you can prove any private experience happened to you. You know for yourself what is true, but you cannot show evidence of that to others, except perhaps in your change of life-style etc.

But all a change of life style shows is that you have changed- not what caused it. One could say "his belief in God changed him- fool that he is". It doesn't prove that God exists- just that you have changed and you say that it is your belief which caused it.

I hope it is something you will think about.

Spiritual experiences are as valid as any other experience which alters one's life- and life-altering decisions are almost never based on scientific evidence.

[bobg]

Great! You definitely will learn a lot about the bible and a whole lot of other stuff too! Welcome!

I just want to say this- not as a parting shot, but just maybe some further thing for you to think about-- the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically- though of course one has the argument that all of nature testifies of Him- and I would agree with that- but that argument does not impress an unbeliever one iota. You can't go up in a space craft and take his picture, or show the influence of "spirit" on some kind of meter.

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever in a scientific sense which shows that God even exists.

If that is true, why would ANY kind of evidence- historical or otherwise- prove that God "breathed" revelation exists anywhere?

If evidence cannot even prove he exists, then evidence cannot prove he has left artifacts or given mankind messages, much less that any given message is valid where others are not!

It's really as simple as that!

The only way one can know that Jesus is our savior is the way you found out yourself- by spiritual experience that in principle no one else can know happened to you- any more than you can prove any private experience happened to you. You know for yourself what is true, but you cannot show evidence of that to others, except perhaps in your change of life-style etc.

But all a change of life style shows is that you have changed- not what caused it. One could say "his belief in God changed him- fool that he is". It doesn't prove that God exists- just that you have changed and you say that it is your belief which caused it.

I hope it is something you will think about.

Spiritual experiences are as valid as any other experience which alters one's life- and life-altering decisions are almost never based on scientific evidence.

Thankyou for that and thankyou all for your comments they are appreciated.

I am certainly not going to start the debate all over again but I will simply say that just as comments were made to me about how do I know the bible is better than any other scripture etc I would say that religious experience also happens in various faiths to various degrees so there has to be something external to support it that stands up to some level of scrutiny.

What that thing is, is for another discussion and thankyou all again for welcoming me to stay on.