Book Of Mormon Dna, The Church Statement, And The Heartland (Evolution Too!)

[cinepro]

In response to the recent statement from the Church regarding Book of Mormon and DNA, I asked how this might effect the "Heartlanders" (i.e. Rodney Meldrum and others who theorize that Book of Mormon events took place in what is now the USA, and use DNA-based arguments to support their theories).

 

Apparently, the answer is "It will make them very mad."  Jake Hilton, a strong supporter of the traditional/Meldrum theory of Book of Mormon geography, has responded on his Facebook page, and it isn't pretty.

 

https://www.facebook.com/MormonEvidence

 

 

 

Just last week, Church Correlation approved the publication of the Book of Mormon and DNA article on LDS.org. There’s no way to say this softly, so I will just say it: That article is complete and total garbage! I was disgusted by it. (There’s that sledgehammer-bluntness I told you about; it’s time to put the hammer down!) The article cited 28 references. Only ONE of those 28 references was actually from the Book of Mormon itself (Moroni 10:4). The other 25+ were strictly from university professors and FAIR apologists. You know what that says to me? Let’s ignore what the scriptures have to say about the remnant of the House of Israel that was prophesied and promised to be found on this land in the latter-days and how they [the remnant] would come to a knowledge that they’re a descendant of Israel through Lehi, and just take the word of these fallible professors instead. In other words, let’s throw God’s Word out the window and replace it with man’s word.

If you cannot tell, I do not put my trust in the arm of flesh. I only put my trust in God’s Word, and I strongly urge all Christians everywhere to do the same.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Of the 28 references cited in the DNA article, the work of Mormon scientist Ugo A. Perego was cited a total of four times. Mr. Perego is a known evolutionist; meaning, he believes that all plant, animal and human life evolved from primordial sludge over the course of the last supposed 4 billion years. He does not accept what the scriptures plainly teach: That God created this world in a period of 6 days and that death entered the world as a result of Adam’s transgression. He fully acknowledges that the Haplogroup X DNA found in America among the natives is linked to the Middle East, but Mr. Perego does not believe it supports the Book of Mormon because, in his own words:

“Does [Haplogroup X] provide evidence to support a pre-Columbian Israelite migration to [the] Western Hemisphere? No! … Some argue that X shows [the] arrival of Lehi, etc., but this is too easy an explanation. The data seems to indicate it was from an ancient group 12,000 years ago, and Lehi’s mtDNA has disappeared” (Ugo Perego).

“While interesting, at present it does not seem that Haplogroup X can serve as good evidence of the Book of Mormon’s antiquity given the problems of dating…” (FAIR, Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research).

That’s the real reason Mr. Perego and others like him do not accept the DNA evidence to be in support of the Book of Mormon, because of the supposed old age. But the idea that human beings have been around for 12,000 years or longer is in direct conflict with what the scriptures teach. Mr. Perego has stated that Haplogroup X cannot possibly be evidence of the Lamanites because it’s 12,000 years old. 12,000 years old? Really? Let’s think about that for a second, shall we? By my calculations… 12,000 years ago was 6,000 years BEFORE Adam—and Adam was the first man on the earth, as the Word of God teaches. “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul…” (1 Corinthians 15:45); “And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also…” (Moses 3:7). The scriptures are perfectly clear on this matter. Adam was the first man. Period. There were no humans before Adam, therefore Haplogroup X DNA couldn’t possibly be 12,000 years old, nor could any human DNA be more than 6,000 years old. But evolutionists won’t accept that. They MUST believe in millions and billions of years. It’s their religion, and they protect it with dogmatic fervor, because without the millions and billions of years, they cannot possibly postulate either organic or macro evolution (or, as I call it, “molecule-to-man evolution” or even “goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo”).

 

And it gets better from there... 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2014 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

[Rob Osborn]

The Church should have stayed very far away from this. Now its dabbling in the "arm of flesh"- the understanding of man. I agree with the guys post for the most part.

[Calm]

So, Rob (as someone who mostly agrees) the Brethren are clueless about what is being put on lds.org? What about what Elders Pieper and Snow had to say?

See the videos introducing the new topics, especially the third where Elder Snow says they are overseen by the Presiding Brethren of the Church...and somehow I am thinking he doesn't mean those uppity BYU professors.

Edited February 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

So, Rob (as someone who mostly agrees) the Brethren are clueless about what is being put on lds.org? What about what Elder Snow had to say?

Maybe one word can sum it up- Toleration

[Rob Osborn]

I get bothered a bit when the Church trys to rely on letting scholarly attempts to answer questions of the which they have divine revelation towards.

[Calm]

So Elder Snow and Elder Pieper's explanations of why they are doing it and the claim the Presiding Brethren are overseeing it is just so much hot air?

Have you watched the videos?

Edited February 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[Wiki Wonka]

Anyone who argues that there is a disconnect between the essays being posted on the "Gospel Topics" pages on LDS.org and the approval of the brethren hasn't been paying attention.

 

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865592128/LDS-Church-enhances-web-pages-on-its-history-doctrine.html?pg=all

 

LDS Church enhances web pages on its history, doctrine

----------------------

 

 

"We're not trying to cover anything," Elder Pieper said, "we're trying to open up the fullest possibility of everything for people to get in and get their arms around it, but do it with their faith there."

 

The church's First Presidency approves each of the enhanced topic pages.

 

"The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve both have been very supportive of this process," Elder Snow said. "I think they sense the need to provide accurate information to our members to counter a lot of sensationalism that tends to come about online or on the Internet over some of these historical topics."

 

"We want them to be able to go to a place where they can read accurate information and be able to seek to understand those historical chapters in the context of time and place and understand these answers have been approved by the presiding Brethren of the church. I think that will give many of our members confidence that they can rely on those answers."

 

---------------------------

Edited February 11, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[Freedom]

I get bothered a bit when the Church trys to rely on letting scholarly attempts to answer questions of the which they have divine revelation towards.

I get bothered a bit when members of the church reject a statement by the church which published after much prayer and consideration simply because it disagrees with their paradigm. Well, i don't get bothered actually, more entertained. 

[BCSpace]

That article is complete and total garbage!

 

Who'da thunk that Meldrum and Southerton would be in agreement (Other than they are both YECs)?

 

[BCSpace]

I get bothered a bit when the Church trys to rely on letting scholarly attempts to answer questions of the which they have divine revelation towards.

 

I don't think that's true in terms of divine revelation being contradicted in most if not all of these cases.  But I would agree that in several cases, the Church is getting some very very bad advice.

[Gray]

The Church should have stayed very far away from this. Now its dabbling in the "arm of flesh"- the understanding of man. I agree with the guys post for the most part.

 

Let truth come where it may - including a candid look at the totality of the evidence. 

[ALarson]

cinepro, this guy is seriously upset!  That is interesting because Southerton stated he found it interesting (regarding the essay) that it "carefully avoids taking sides in the Meldrumite (Heartland) vs. Sorensonite (Mesoamerica) war....it is obvious that Meldrum and the Sorenson crowd have given input into this document and probably given it the thumbs up".

 

It certainly does not sound like Jake has given it a thumbs up.

 

Here's more of what he wrote:

 

Since the publication of the DNA article last week, I’ve heard several people say this: “Well, if this article is not true, then why was it allowed to be posted on the Church’s official website in the first place?” I think the most important thing to remember is that even though the article was posted on the Church’s official website, it was not written nor signed by any general authorities. It was written by some evolution-believing individuals who either are from FAIR or are highly influenced by FAIR. And that’s the unfortunate and very sad truth we are now facing, that there are many university professors who hold great sway over what Church Correlation accepts as reality. That is why untrue, absurd articles like the DNA article get approved and published—and potentially many more in the future. I imagine it’ll only be a matter of time before Correlation publishes an article stating that God used evolution to create this world over a period of billions of years—and that is simply NOT true! If that ever happens (and God forbid that it does), I advise you to not believe it for a second, and not just because I said so. I advise you to not believe it because evolutionary theory completely undermines the authority of God’s revealed truth and destroys the faith of millions of Christians all over the world.

 

Edited February 11, 2014 by ALarson

[Senator]

I get bothered a bit when members of the church reject a statement by the church which published after much prayer and consideration simply because it disagrees with their paradigm. Well, i don't get bothered actually, more entertained. 

 

I do believe though, as an honest question, that the church needs contemplate any role it may have had in fostering such a paradigm. If it can be shown that the church has even merely allowed such a paradigm to take root, then we perhaps aught not be bothered or entertained by those who offer up resistance when the church then alters the paradigm. 

Edited February 11, 2014 by Senator

[Freedom]

I do believe though, as an honest question, that the church needs contemplate any role it may have had in fostering such a paradigm. If it can be shown that the church has even merely allowed such a paradigm to take root, then we perhaps aught not be bothered or entertained by those who offer up resistance when the church then alters the paradigm. 

This is, in my view, impossible. We know so little of our world that it is impossible to distinguish between paradigm and fact. The church bases many of their positions on current available research. This guides their policy on parenting, health, teaching techniques, building construction and a host of other areas of expertise. The current research on DNA is as the church presents it, and it does a lot to counter any efforts to misuse dna to discredit the church. Basically they are saying 'this is what the experts are saying, so what is the fuss about'. 

[Senator]

This is, in my view, impossible.

What is impossible? Taking a step back and analyzing past teachings and then studying any correlation to present beliefs in members? That would be a very doable task.

 

We know so little of our world that it is impossible to distinguish between paradigm and fact.

I don't follow.

The church bases many of their positions on current available research.

This would be another illuminating part of the evaluation. Acknowledging just how past positions were derived.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Senator

[Freedom]

People create their own paradigms and find justification for it. If there was a paradigm that there was only one hill then I didn't see it. Those who see it want to see it. If there is a paradigm that the earth is 6000 years old then I didn't see it. When you have 10 hours of conference talks twice/year that are not vetted before they are presented then there are hundreds of opportunities for people with pre-conceived ideas to justify a paradigm based on something someone says at one of the conferences. 

 

Today the church has a formal research department. 50 years ago, leaders spoke off the cuff with no consideration of the consequences of their opinions. Despite the expression of their opinions,  it has always been clear that individual opinions are not doctrine. 

[Buckeye]

Cinepro,

 

I've had a profound change of heart the past few weeks as I've seen the link you posted and many other outbursts by traditional members who are struggling to accept the new Gospel Topic essays.  I come from Southern US heritage; my extended family joined the church in the south after WWII.  Growing up, I was too young to understand when the '78 revelation happened, but I overheard many subsequent family conversations mentioning that some members had left the church because of it.  From my background and ignorance, I always assumed these former members left because of they were racist.  I've now come to realize that most of them were probably just fundamentalists who had embraced (and possibly sacrified to accept) the prior teachings justifying the ban. 

 

I'm sorry I misjudged these former members.  Most of them were likely not racists, at least not strong ones.  They simply believed that prophets could not change their minds. 

[Senator]

People create their own paradigms and find justification for it.

Yes, justifiably so sometimes. People don't form paradigms in a vacuum.

 

If there was a paradigm that there was only one hill then I didn't see it. Those who see it want to see it.

I did. And the only reason I wanted to see it, that I can think of, is because those that I respected as leaders also must have wanted to see it.

 

When you have 10 hours of conference talks twice/year that are not vetted before they are presented then there are hundreds of opportunities for people with pre-conceived ideas to justify a paradigm based on something someone says at one of the conferences.

...and conference talks are rehashed and rehashed and rehashed......

 

Today the church has a formal research department. 50 years ago, leaders spoke off the cuff with no consideration of the consequences of their opinions. Despite the expression of their opinions,  it has always been clear that individual opinions are not doctrine.

I'm not positive that it always has been that clear.

[canard78]

Can anyone say "Denver Snuffer?"

[Rivers]

I think the DNA article is great but I do agree that it causes some more problems.  The answers that the article provides are based on an old-earth evolutionary model that the church has not yet embraced. So I can understand why the author of the Facebook post is frustrated.   We now have some very contradictory information coming from the church.  I would really love to see a Gospel Topics article on evolution or science that can clear up this confusion.

[thesometimesaint]

I think the DNA article is great but I do agree that it causes some more problems.  The answers that the article provides are based on an old-earth evolutionary model that the church has not yet embraced. So I can understand why the author of the Facebook post is frustrated.   We now have some very contradictory information coming from the church.  I would really love to see a Gospel Topics article on evolution or science that can clear up this confusion.

 

I'm not too sure it would do much good for the Church to do that. Religion, in general, has a very troubled history with science, and any time a scientist makes categorical statements about God. He/she often gets it wrong). I don't see any resolution for that problem coming any time soon. In the meanwhile I'm content to let God tell me why he did it, and science to tell me how he did it.

[Rob Osborn]

I think the DNA article is great but I do agree that it causes some more problems.  The answers that the article provides are based on an old-earth evolutionary model that the church has not yet embraced. So I can understand why the author of the Facebook post is frustrated.   We now have some very contradictory information coming from the church.  I would really love to see a Gospel Topics article on evolution or science that can clear up this confusion.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the Church follow up on the article it published and clarify things as now its going to create more problems than it attempted to solve.

[Anijen]

It wouldn't surprise me to see the Church follow up on the article it published and clarify things as now its going to create more problems than it attempted to solve.

I think this article was the clarification, accept it or not.

[Rob Osborn]

I think this article was the clarification, accept it or not.

It is an attempt at clarification. I am pretty sure there is more to come as now there will be more issues to deal with.