Jump to content

From Idaho State Journal


rabanes

Recommended Posts

Thought this was interesting from the Idaho State Journal - Might be old news to some of you, as it is dated 9/10/2004 (shows you how backed up I am).

________BEGIN

Your Views

Book of Mormon/DNA

Several letters have been published denying any problem with scientific studies and the Book of Mormon claims. I trust the lack of correspondence in support of the DNA facts does not indicate agreement with the denials.

The typical "victim mode" seems to dominate the letters, i.e. "These ambitious souls are so eager to discredit the LDS Church ...", Paul Gregersen, Aug. 12, 2004.

To the contrary, the trained experts, which most of us are not, that have spoken in detail in the video, "DNA vs. The Book of Mormon," published by Living Hope Ministries, are Ph.D.s, doctors of molecular biology, molecular anthropology and linguistics. Many of these scientists have ties to the LDS Church; one was a bishop, but his studies caused him to regretfully leave the church.

One quote from the study, "No place, person or event mentioned in the Book

of Mormon has been shown to exist in external studies." In skeletal studies of early inhabitants of the Americas, 99.4 percent show Asian descent while the other .6 of one percent show European or African DNA. One doctor of linguistics stated, "Of 900 languages recorded of early inhabitants of the Americas, none show any ties to the Hebrew language."

Their conclusions are that in a court of law, the claims of the Book of Mormon as to the ancestry of the Lamanites, early Indians of the Americas, would be found fraudulent.

This raises grave concerns as to the reliability of the Book of Mormon as the foundation of the LDS faith. Some, I fear, would rather ignore the science if it doesn't agree with what they choose to believe.

- Norv Brown, Aberdeen

____END

Anyone know who Norv Brown is???

Happy Sunday to all.

R. Abanes

Link to comment
Their conclusions are that in a court of law, the claims of the Book of Mormon as to the ancestry of the Lamanites, early Indians of the Americas, would be found fraudulent.

Was this the pronouncement of a lawyer? Or the conclusion of some nonlegal experts?
Link to comment

Quote from the Article, Gleefully Quoted by RAbanes: "No place, person or event mentioned in the Book of Mormon has been shown to exist in external studies."

Ken Responds: You're kidding me!!! Jerusalem "hasn't been shown to exist in external studies"??? Dang! That's a real bummer, dude! I wuz thinkin' it'd be pretty cool to visit Jerusalem one day! :unsure: Shoot! Man!

Anticipated Response, Exasperatedly Sputtered by Detractors: B-- Bu-- But... You know that's not what the article meant...

Ken Sez: Yeah, yeah, yeah... <_<:ph34r::P

Link to comment
It was published in a newspaper. It has to be true and correct. Letters to the editor are always unbiased professionally written dissertations that no one would ever think to disagree with.
:P

Well said Jesso. LOL

Link to comment

Sigh.

Mr. Norv Brown of Aberdeen inhabits a world where FARMS doesn't exist, a world in which a biochemist, an ecologist, an anatomist, a specialist in human genetics, and a molecular biologist, along with an anthropologist, a Hebraist, a linguist, and a sociologist, haven't already responded to this issue:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna.php?...ion=dna&cat=dna

I suppose dwelling in such a world makes things easier for him.

It's a dimension not of sight and sound, but of mind.

Link to comment

RAbanes Previously Posted: Uhm, er, exactly WHERE in my post did I express glee??? Seemed to be a rather sterile post by me for info purposes and interest.

Ken Responds: <_< Oh. Okay. :P

Link to comment
the claims of the Book of Mormon as to the ancestry of the Lamanites, early Indians of the Americas, would be found fraudulent

What, precisely, are those claims? My reading of the Book of Mormon suggests that it makes no claims for the ancestry of the American Indians, per se. It is, of course, suggestive of the existence of Book of Mormon lineages among the natives encountered by explorers and colonizers. Nevertheless, the book itself makes no claims as to the purity of those lineages, survival of their languages, or any other similar specifics. The DNA evidence suggests that Lamanite lineages are not dominant among the native peoples, but the DNA evidence fails as negative proof.

Link to comment

Again, my .02 . . .

In the BOM, God changed the actual color of the Lamanites skin, DNA determines a human's actual skin color; therefore, God might possibly have changed the Lamanites DNA.

Sounds acceptable to me. Loaves and fishes, walking on water, the Nile to blood, floods, famine, raising the dead, miracles, etc.

For those who laugh I would ask this question . . .

Does God (our Creator) *lack* the power to change our DNA?

Until . . .

Lux

BTW - laugh all you want. I'm sure they laughed at those who witnessed the miracles of the Lord too. Oh, and this is NOT in defense of the HGT. It works just fine with the LGT.

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
a world in which a biochemist, an ecologist, an anatomist, a specialist in human genetics, and a molecular biologist, along with an anthropologist, a Hebraist, a linguist, and a sociologist, haven't already responded to this issue:

Of course the only possible conclusion is that the FARMS response is the only correct one and the other experts are just plain wrong...isn't that the FARMS way?

Link to comment
a world in which a biochemist, an ecologist, an anatomist, a specialist in human genetics, and a molecular biologist, along with an anthropologist, a Hebraist, a linguist, and a sociologist, haven't already responded to this issue:

Of course the only possible conclusion is that the FARMS response is the only correct one and the other experts are just plain wrong...isn't that the FARMS way?

Well, as a matter of fact I think they are correct. They're reputable scientists, their work was thoroughly vetted and reviewed prior to publication (which does not seem to be true of the Living Hope Ministries video and probably isn't true of Tom Murphy's ventures into genetics), and their case appears to be sound. Further, I've seen no substantial argument that they're wrong.

However, that wasn't my point. My point was that, for many critics -- of whom Mr. Norv Brown of Aberdeen seems typical -- the FARMS responses don't exist: There is only one side to this dispute. The Mormons have no reply.

Link to comment
Sigh.

Mr. Norv Brown of Aberdeen inhabits a world where FARMS doesn't exist, a world in which a biochemist, an ecologist, an anatomist, a specialist in human genetics, and a molecular biologist, along with an anthropologist, a Hebraist, a linguist, and a sociologist, haven't already responded to this issue:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna.php?...ion=dna&cat=dna

I suppose dwelling in such a world makes things easier for him.

It's a dimension not of sight and sound, but of mind.

And you've been to Aberdeen, where all these people with no way to find the "truth" live?

That little town that lives in the dark ages.

I'm sure they'd all be pleased to know how truly behind the "world" they are.... :P

Link to comment
Sigh.

Mr. Norv Brown of Aberdeen inhabits a world where FARMS doesn't exist, a world in which a biochemist, an ecologist, an anatomist, a specialist in human genetics, and a molecular biologist, along with an anthropologist, a Hebraist, a linguist, and a sociologist, haven't already responded to this issue:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna.php?...ion=dna&cat=dna

I suppose dwelling in such a world makes things easier for him.

It's a dimension not of sight and sound, but of mind.

And you've been to Aberdeen, where all these people with no way to find the "truth" live?

That little town that lives in the dark ages.

I'm sure they'd all be pleased to know how truly behind the "world" they are.... :P

Ummm, Raindancer? My comments about the world in which Mr. Norv Brown resides weren't about Aberdeen, Idaho: "It's a dimension not of sight and sound, but of mind."

Link to comment
Sigh.

Mr. Norv Brown of Aberdeen inhabits a world where FARMS doesn't exist, a world in which a biochemist, an ecologist, an anatomist, a specialist in human genetics, and a molecular biologist, along with an anthropologist, a Hebraist, a linguist, and a sociologist, haven't already responded to this issue:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna.php?...ion=dna&cat=dna

I suppose dwelling in such a world makes things easier for him.

It's a dimension not of sight and sound, but of mind.

And you've been to Aberdeen, where all these people with no way to find the "truth" live?

That little town that lives in the dark ages.

I'm sure they'd all be pleased to know how truly behind the "world" they are.... :P

Ummm, Raindancer? My comments about the world in which Mr. Norv Brown resides weren't about Aberdeen, Idaho: "It's a dimension not of sight and sound, but of mind."

Oh, so you just meant to be insulting of this mans intelligence.(As opposed to the entire town) And you would know this because you undoubtably know him personally, and can make such judgements.

Link to comment
Oh, so you just meant to be insulting of this mans intelligence.(As opposed to the entire town) And you would know this because you undoubtably know him personally, and can make such judgements.

Raindancer, dear, it has nothing to do with his intelligence, either. I was commenting on the complete absence of any acknowledgement in Mr. Norv Brown's letter that another side to this issue exists, that competent (even rather eminent) authorities in the relevant disciplines had publicly responded to the issue. This is, from my considerable reading and monitoring of anti-Mormon discussions on the matter, par for the course. The comment responded to Mr. Norv Brown's letter, which has been published and which I have read.

Link to comment

Oh, so you just meant to be insulting of this mans intelligence.(As opposed to the entire town) And you would know this because you undoubtably know him personally, and can make such judgements.

Why are you working so hard to pick a fight? If you don't like the reaction to this then go to another thread.

Link to comment

Oh, so you just meant to be insulting of this mans intelligence.(As opposed to the entire town) And you would know this because you undoubtably know him personally, and can make such judgements.

Why are you working so hard to pick a fight? If you don't like the reaction to this then go to another thread.

Did it occur to you that someone perhaps might know people in Aberdeen?

Would you like it if someone you knew was being mocked because he wrote a letter to his local paper?

I really liked the poster that looked him up on google and posted his address and phone number? What would be the purpose of that? Were we all to call him up, and tell him how wrong his opinion was?

Why do you care if I pick a fight with Peterson anyway (Which for what its worth, I am not trying to do)? I'm pretty sure he can handle himself without help.

Link to comment
Quote from the Article, Gleefully Quoted by RAbanes: "No place, person or event mentioned in the Book of Mormon has been shown to exist in external studies."

Ken Responds: You're kidding me!!! Jerusalem "hasn't been shown to exist in external studies"??? Dang! That's a real bummer, dude! I wuz thinkin' it'd be pretty cool to visit Jerusalem one day! :P Shoot! Man!

Score 1 point for Ken!!!

Link to comment
Oh, so you just meant to be insulting of this mans intelligence.(As opposed to the entire town) And you would know this because you undoubtably know him personally, and can make such judgements.

Raindancer, dear, it has nothing to do with his intelligence, either. I was commenting on the complete absence of any acknowledgement in Mr. Norv Brown's letter that another side to this issue exists, that competent (even rather eminent) authorities in the relevant disciplines had publicly responded to the issue. This is, from my considerable reading and monitoring of anti-Mormon discussions on the matter, par for the course. The comment responded to Mr. Norv Brown's letter, which has been published and which I have read.

He was writing his opinion. Since when does ones opinion have to include the other side of the story?

Link to comment

John Russell wrote:

The DNA evidence suggests that Lamanite lineages are not dominant among the native peoples, but the DNA evidence fails as negative proof.

I think this gets at the critical difference between the apologists and the critics in the DNA debate. It is, I think, misleading to say the DNA evidence proves there were no Nephites/Lamanites.

Here are four theories I think are consistent with (but not proved by) the DNA evidence:

1) The Book of Mormon people were quite small compared to other groups in the Americas.

2) The BoM peoples may have been large, but were wiped out by the other groups(the Lamanites sometime after Moroni).

3) There were never any Nephites. The BoM is not literal history.

4) Space aliens changed the DNA of the Lamanites at some point, by means which we do not understand, and are unable to detect.

Again, none of these three are proven by the DNA evidence, but they are consistent with it.

The gap between the two groups isn't that one side is incompetent in their understanding of DNA, but rather that they disagree on the probabilities they assign to each of these theories. (Apologists seem to use number one a lot, critics seem to pick number 3.)

(If anyone believes any of these theories wouldn't be consistent with the DNA evidence, or has other possibilities they think would be consistent with it, please let me know. I'm here to learn.)

Link to comment

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Mr. Norv Brown of Aberdeen inhabits a world where FARMS doesn't exist, a world in which a biochemist, an ecologist, an anatomist, a specialist in human genetics, and a molecular biologist, along with an anthropologist, a Hebraist, a linguist, and a sociologist, haven't already responded to this issue...

I don't know Norv Brown, so you may be right. Another, perhaps more gracious, theory that would be consistent with his letter would be that he found their responses unconvincing, or not related enough to the point of his letter, as he saw it.

I would guess that apologists might also occasionally fail to mention the work of critics at times, not because they live in a world where the critics don't exist, but because they find the critics' arguments unconvincing, or unrelated to the point they are trying to make.

Link to comment
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mr. Norv Brown of Aberdeen inhabits a world where FARMS doesn't exist, a world in which a biochemist, an ecologist, an anatomist, a specialist in human genetics, and a molecular biologist, along with an anthropologist, a Hebraist, a linguist, and a sociologist, haven't already responded to this issue...

I don't know Norv Brown, so you may be right. Another, perhaps more gracious, theory that would be consistent with his letter would be that he found their responses unconvincing, or not related enough to the point of his letter, as he saw it.

I would guess that apologists might also occasionally fail to mention the work of critics at times, not because they live in a world where the critics don't exist, but because they find the critics' arguments unconvincing, or unrelated to the point they are trying to make.

Thank you. I could not get the words right in my frustration, and apparently came out sounding like I was trying to pick a fight.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...