Apologetics - the new derogatory term

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think both of them feel like they've said their piece and have felt the responses coming from the LDS side have been inadequate and have said so.  Then apologists say, "well, there's still possibility, even Southerton admitted it".  And then I read from him that the issue is still way problematic for the historicity of the book, claiming it ruins Mormonism. 

It feels like more of an impasse than any sort of resolve. 

It was a bust for the naysayers. It utterly failed in what they were hoping to do, disprove the Bbok of Mormon. 

For the believers, on the other hand, the authenticity of the book remains plausible. We have understood all along that science can neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon. 

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was a bust for the naysayers. It utterly failed in what they were hoping to do, disprove the Bbok of Mormon. 

For the believers, on the other hand, the authenticity of the book remains plausible. We have understood all along that science can neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon. 

I think both sides are saying the other is defeated on the grounds that the other is claiming that which they are not.  It certainly still remains the paucity or, as many have concluded, the absolute lack of DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is in the favor of those who would suggest the Book of Mormon is not a historical record.  The apologist side tends to suggest it's possible the Book is ancient even with the lack of evidence because...(the dot dot dot being things like it's likely Lehi's party came over in the Americas and mixed in with a larger dominant peoples which in time erased the DNA markers from his party).  Hey, anything is possible.  But that certainly doesn't erase the evidence we do have which suggests there was not a group of people who came from Jerusalem at the time suggested for Lehi and began a vast civilization in the Americas.  The faith aspect certain creates and impasse when you say anything is possible.

I don't think there's necessarily an utter failure on this topic, even though, interestingly enough some from both sides claim the other has utterly failed

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was a bust for the naysayers. 

Not true from what I've seen (and continue to hear and see with members who learn about the DNA issue).  I think it caused a great deal of damage to the belief that the Book of Mormon was historically factual.  It also led to the change in wording of the introduction to the BofM:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=7403990&itype=NGPSID

So, the discoveries were definitely not a "bust for the naysayers". 

I agree that there's been some evolving and discussion, but it's still been damaging, IMO.

[stemelbow]

Just now, ALarson said:

Not true from what I've seen (and continue to hear and see with members who learn about the DNA issue).  I think it caused a great deal of damage to the belief that the Book of Mormon was historically factual.  It also led to the change in wording of the introduction to the BofM:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=7403990&itype=NGPSID

So, the discoveries were definitely not a "bust for the naysayers". 

I agree that there's been some evolving and discussion, but it's still been damaging, IMO.

If ever a critical position can get the Church to change the wording found in scripture (granted it may be claimed the intro is not inspired, but it remains within the published scriptures) you know there was impact.  Great point. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not true from what I've seen (and continue to hear and see with members who learn about the DNA issue).  I think it caused a great deal of damage to the belief that the Book of Mormon was historically factual.  It also led to the change in wording of the introduction to the BofM:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=7403990&itype=NGPSID

So, the discoveries were definitely not a "bust for the naysayers". 

I agree that there's been some evolving and discussion, but it's still been damaging, IMO.

I remember the epic thread with The Dude (an actual scientist studying human DNA) and David Stewart (I think that was his name). I suppose some people might think it was a draw, but not from where I stand.

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think both sides are saying the other is defeated on the grounds that the other is claiming that which they are not.  It certainly still remains the paucity or, as many have concluded, the absolute lack of DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is in the favor of those who would suggest the Book of Mormon is not a historical record.  The apologist side tends to suggest it's possible the Book is ancient even with the lack of evidence because...(the dot dot dot being things like it's likely Lehi's party came over in the Americas and mixed in with a larger dominant peoples which in time erased the DNA markers from his party).  Hey, anything is possible.  But that certainly doesn't erase the evidence we do have which suggests there was not a group of people who came from Jerusalem at the time suggested for Lehi and began a vast civilization in the Americas.  The faith aspect certain creates and impasse when you say anything is possible.

I don't think there's necessarily an utter failure on this topic, even though, interestingly enough some from both sides claim the other has utterly failed

From the "Gospel Topics" essay:

Quote

Basic principles of population genetics suggest the need for a more careful approach to the data. The conclusions of genetics, like those of any science, are tentative, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the origins of the native populations of the Americas. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples, and even if their genetic profile were known, there are sound scientific reasons that it might remain undetected. For these same reasons, arguments that some defenders of the Book of Mormon make based on DNA studies are also speculative. In short, DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Ergo, we are at square 1: The antagonists cannot claim that DNA evidence disproves the Book of Mormon.

Believers, on the other hand, who never did claim the book could be authenticated by science, can say what we always have: that the question is open, and the seeker, therefore, can reasonably go to God in prayer and ask for an affirming spiritual witness of its truthfulness. We have thus fended off the antagonists and not lost any ground, while the antagonists have run up against a brick wall in their objective. The task they have taken on is much more daunting than ours: They must conclusively disprove the book; all we have to do is keep the question open; we have done that.

 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The task they have taken on is much more daunting than ours: They must conclusively disprove the book; all we have to do is keep the question open; we have done that.

And that's quite different than you claiming that DNA studies regarding the Book Of Mormon have been a "bust" or that they have "utterly failed".   Pretty extreme claim on your part and it's simply not true (more like wishful thinking and I can understand why you'd feel that way).  As far as I know, no scientific data has been found to substantiate an Israelite origin of indigenous peoples anywhere in the Americas for the time period of the Book of Mormon.  I admit I'm no expert on it, but I have not heard of any.  

If you are aware of any, can you supply the links as I'd be interested in reading the most updated information on this.

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They must conclusively disprove the book; all we have to do is keep the question open; we have done that.

 

No.  I don't think disappearing dna or middle eastern dna possibly entering the americas ..... 25,000 years ago ... helps your cause, makes for a stalemate, or shifts the burden to the non-believer.  Scott, you and your church are making the miraculous claim that Israelites came to the americas 600 years before Christ.  The burden forever lies with you until good evidence is produced.

[Scott Lloyd]

Honestly, this whole DNA issue is a yawner for me, for the reasons I have explained: Our message with regard to the Book of Mormon does not rely on our being able to scientifically prove its authenticity. So long as the question remains open, we can be content for now.

Here is a good summary from FairMormon of why the antagonists have failed in their objective with regard to the DNA attack;

 

Quote

 

DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon account fail on numerous grounds

Few criticisms of the Church have received as much media attention as this criticism, with so little thought and science being applied to the question. DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon account fail on numerous grounds.

It is important to realize that critics of the Book of Mormon base their arguments on DNA data that has never been shown to be even relevant to the issue of Book of Mormon genetics, let alone conclusive. Such critics have cobbled together DNA data gathered from unrelated studies to produce arguments with the appearance of scientific weight but having no real significance. No genetic studies have been designed and performed to test the hypothesis that Native Americans were of Lehite descent and that this inheritance is detectable today.

DNA samples taken from modern Native Americans do not match the DNA of modern inhabitants of the Middle East. Critics argue that this means the Book of Mormon's claim that Native Americans are descended from Lehi must be false, and therefore the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record as Joseph Smith claimed. ^[2]

"Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered."^[3] Various geographical models introduce issues unique to each model, but the DNA data is no where as conclusive as some claim, regardless of the geographical model chosen.

Critics tend to opt for the most naive, ill-informed reading possible of the Book of Mormon text, and then cry foul when the Saints point out that they have given much thought to these issues and come to more nuanced conclusions that are more faithful to the Book of Mormon text than the critics' poorly-considered caricatures.

Critics do not provide the "whole story" of the DNA data, and seem to want to use the certainty which DNA provides in modern crime-solving as a springboard to trick the Saints, the media, and investigators into thinking that their historical DNA conclusions are as solid.

DNA data tells us nothing which we did not already know from archaeological data

In fact, DNA data tells us nothing which we did not already know from archaeological data—at present, the human settlement of the Americas is thought to date thousands of years before the advent of Lehi. Many of these settlers have links to east Asia. None of this is news, and none of it threatens the Book of Mormon's status as authentic history.

But, the critics hope that their listeners will be awed by the banner of DNA science, and conclude that something more impressive is going on. Informed members of the Church have not been persuaded by their tactics, and much has been written to help non-specialists understand the "numerous and complex" issues in the fascinating and valuable science of genetics.

 

 

 

Edited to add the URL:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence/Responding_to_critical_claims#Gospel_Topics:_.22Basic_principles_of_population_genetics_suggest_the_need_for_a_more_careful_approach_to_the_data.22

Edited August 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

No.  I don't think disappearing dna or middle eastern dna possibly entering the americas ..... 25,000 years ago ... helps your cause, makes for a stalemate, or shifts the burden to the non-believer.  Scott, you and your church are making the miraculous claim that Israelites came to the americas 600 years before Christ.  The burden forever lies with you until good evidence is produced.

We don't have that burden because we don't make the claim that scientific evidence at present can prove it. All we say is that the question must remain open. The burden is on you or anybody else who claims that the book is demonstrably false. No one has yet shown that.

 

[stemelbow]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From the "Gospel Topics" essay:

Ergo, we are at square 1: The antagonists cannot claim that DNA evidence disproves the Book of Mormon.

Believers, on the other hand, who never did claim the book could be authenticated by science, can say what we always have: that the question is open, and the seeker, therefore, can reasonably go to God in prayer and ask for an affirming spiritual witness of its truthfulness. We have thus fended off the antagonists and not lost any ground, while the antagonists have run up against a brick wall in their objective. The task they have taken on is much more daunting than ours: They must conclusively disprove the book; all we have to do is keep the question open; we have done that.

 

I agree with the quote.  It can't do so decisively, only because it's possible that a small group entering a larger population could lose some DNA markers, over time.  But that doesn't really address the critical perspective directly. If there is no way to affirm the historicity of the Book through DNA studies to date, then the conclusion is there is no evidence to support it.  Without evidence to support a proposition concludes that the proposition is likely untrue.  It's more likely, because of this, that the history described in the Book of Mormon did not happen. 

That in no way describes a "bust" for a critical perspective.  The opposite in fact.  To maintain faith you have to adopt an impasse position on this topic, because anything is possible. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Honestly, this whole DNA issue is a yawner for me, for the reasons I have explained:

I get why you'd react that way.  I respect your right to ignore the evidence that has been provided and interpret it however you wish.  

Bottom line is that no scientific data has been found to substantiate an Israelite origin of indigenous peoples anywhere in the Americas for the time period of the Book of Mormon.  However, there has been DNA evidence provided that indicates where the Native Americans did originate and it does not support the BofM narrative.   I would not call that an utter failure or a bust.  

Combine that with the fact that the introduction of the Book of Mormon was altered after this discovery, and it most definitely was not a bust.

 

 

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Honestly, this whole DNA issue is a yawner for me, for the reasons I have explained: Our message with regard to the Book of Mormon does not rely on our being able to scientifically prove its authenticity. So long as the question remains open, we can be content for now.

Here is a good summary from FairMormon of why the antagonists have failed in their objective with regard to the DNA attack;

 

 

Well Scott...you can believe anything you want.  But just because you believe it doesn't mean others who don't believe have to accept there's reason to believe it.  Your "bust" claim is just way off. 

[ALarson]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Well Scott...you can believe anything you want.  But just because you believe it doesn't mean others who don't believe have to accept there's reason to believe it.  Your "bust" claim is just way off. 

I agree.  I see people in our ward struggling with this issue (and a few who left over the DNA/Book of Mormon evidence).  From what I've seen, many who start having doubts over historical issues seem to hold onto their testimony of the Book of Mormon as their last hope.  When they learn about the DNA issues, that's the final straw for them.  

So no, it's not a bust or an utter failure, but has been very effective.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We don't have that burden because we don't make the claim that scientific evidence at present can prove it. All we say is that the question must remain open. The burden is on you or anybody else who claims that the book is demonstrably false. No one has yet shown that.

 

It shouldn't remain open about dna and it's wishful thinking to so hold. There is no dna evidence to support isaelites coming to the americas in 600 b.c.

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It shouldn't remain open about dna and it's wishful thinking to so hold. There is no dna evidence to support isaelites coming to the americas in 600 b.c.

There's no evidence against it -- which means the question is still open. That is sufficient to the moment.

For now, the proof of the book's authenticity is in the heart of each sincere seeker who prays for and receives a spiritual witness.

It was not intended that scientific evidence definitively prove the book to be true. That would negate the need to develop faith and trust in God.

 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I agree with the quote.  It can't do so decisively, only because it's possible that a small group entering a larger population could lose some DNA markers, over time.  But that doesn't really address the critical perspective directly. If there is no way to affirm the historicity of the Book through DNA studies to date, then the conclusion is there is no evidence to support it.  Without evidence to support a proposition concludes that the proposition is likely untrue.  It's more likely, because of this, that the history described in the Book of Mormon did not happen. 

That in no way describes a "bust" for a critical perspective.  The opposite in fact.  To maintain faith you have to adopt an impasse position on this topic, because anything is possible. 

Saying "anything is possible" seems misleading at best. 

I think the critics had an effect because it falsified a common if unsupported Mormon view of the Book of Mormon as a hemispheric model with basically all inhabitants at the time of Columbus being descended from the Lamanites. Now of course that model came from an extremely superficial reading of the text that really couldn't be reconciled with even a slightly careful reading of the text. But lots of people believed it and sadly the Church didn't do much for decades to disabuse people of that. This was part and parcel of the condemnation of the church by the Lord for not taking the Book of Mormon seriously. (Reiterated by Pres. Benson in 1986 -- well before DNA evidence popped up)

Even though by the time DNA evidence became an issue scholars doing closer readings had moved to a limited geographic model with Lehites entering a population of existing peoples in the millions, the average Mormon didn't believe that. This in turn I think we have to blame the Church for because they'd not updated their materials. (I'd go so far as to say they still haven't gone far enough updating their lesson materials) So when these people with this superficial and wrong view of the Book of Mormon encountered the DNA arguments they were shaken. They shouldn't have been shaken but were because of how we'd done as a people such a poor job teaching the Book of Mormon.

To anyone with a modicum of familiarity with Book of Mormon scholarship by the 90's the DNA argument was completely irrelevant. To many typical members though it was a shock. 

 

Two quibbles though. First off I think a reasonable if ultimately insufficient argument for the Book of Mormon is possible. The main deciding evidence is always personal revelation. I'd also say small populations entering large populations typically disappear, based upon my understanding of the literature. It's not just possible but probable. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Edited August 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Saying "anything is possible" seems misleading at best. 

I think the critics had an effect because it falsified a common if unsupported Mormon view of the Book of Mormon as a hemispheric model with basically all inhabitants at the time of Columbus being descended from the Lamanites. Now of course that model came from an extremely superficial reading of the text that really couldn't be reconciled with even a slightly careful reading of the text. But lots of people believed it and sadly the Church didn't do much for decades to disabuse people of that. This was part and parcel of the condemnation of the church by the Lord for not taking the Book of Mormon seriously. (Reiterated by Pres. Benson in 1986 -- well before DNA evidence popped up)

Even though by the time DNA evidence became an issue scholars doing closer readings had moved to a limited geographic model with Lehites entering a population of existing peoples in the millions, the average Mormon didn't believe that. This in turn I think we have to blame the Church for because they'd not updated their materials. (I'd go so far as to say they still haven't gone far enough updating their lesson materials) So when these people with this superficial and wrong view of the Book of Mormon encountered the DNA arguments they were shaken. They shouldn't have been shaken but were because of how we'd done as a people such a poor job teaching the Book of Mormon.

To anyone with a modicum of familiarity with Book of Mormon scholarship by the 90's the DNA argument was completely irrelevant. To many typical members though it was a shock. 

 

Two quibbles though. First off I think a reasonable if ultimately insufficient argument for the Book of Mormon is possible. The main deciding evidence is always personal revelation. I'd also say small populations entering large populations typically disappear, based upon my understanding of the literature. It's not just possible but probable. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

I'm misleading "at best", but you aren't when you say the DNA argument was completely irrelevant by 1999?  I don't think Thomas Murphy and Southerton (maybe I recall Southerton in the 90s) came onto the scene until the 2000s, even if the limited Geography model was largely adopted by LDS scholars.  I wonder why time was spent addressing it, or why the Church changed the intro then, if it was so irrelevant. 

There remains, in DNA studies, no support for the story in the Book of Mormon.  I disagree with you and agree with the essay, which Scott quoted, by saying there is plenty ahead of us in this field of study. 

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm misleading "at best", but you aren't when you say the DNA argument was completely irrelevant by 1999?  I don't think Thomas Murphy and Southerton (maybe I recall Southerton in the 90s) came onto the scene until the 2000s, even if the limited Geography model was largely adopted by LDS scholars.  I wonder why time was spent addressing it, or why the Church changed the intro then, if it was so irrelevant. 

There remains, in DNA studies, no support for the story in the Book of Mormon.  I disagree with you and agree with the essay, which Scott quoted, by saying there is plenty ahead of us in this field of study. 

The Church modified it because it was largely written in terms of that naive model I mentioned. As I said while the scholarship had by the 90's discarded the naive model far too many of Church materials had not. That's still true. So while Southerton was irrelevant to informed members when he popped up in the early naughts, the beliefs of most members who held to naive models were affected.

Whether there's things that can be said remains unclear. I know some think there will be but I'm pretty skeptical. It's always possible though, to use your phrase. Perhaps against the odds some Nephite marker survived for instance and just happened to match up with some marker we're able to get out of the middle east (since we don't know Lehi's DNA) that can't be explained in some other fashion. I certainly accord it a low probability though.

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Church modified it because it was largely written in terms of that naive model I mentioned.

I'd say the Church modified it when it did because the complaints weren't made irrelevant in the 90s.  ah well...

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 

As I said while the scholarship had by the 90's discarded the naive model far too many of Church materials had not. That's still true. So while Southerton was irrelevant to informed members when he popped up in the early naughts, the beliefs of most members who held to naive models were affected.

I find this misleading.  The arguments based on DNA continue today.  They aren't irrelevant.  The studies continue ahead.  Someday historicity supporters may get a great sense of relief if something comes out of this wherein it appears there is evidence for the BoM claims.  But that's just not the case, at this time. 

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Whether there's things that can be said remains unclear. I know some think there will be but I'm pretty skeptical. It's always possible though, to use your phrase. Perhaps against the odds some Nephite marker survived for instance and just happened to match up with some marker we're able to get out of the middle east (since we don't know Lehi's DNA) that can't be explained in some other fashion. I certainly accord it a low probability though.

Me too.  See we can agree?  But, it remains--there is no DNA evidence supporting the story of the BoM.  That may be ok to those who believe a historic BoM because it's still possible.  But, as I told Scott, that hardly means those who don't believe it have reason to based on DNA. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 

 

Two quibbles though. First off I think a reasonable if ultimately insufficient argument for the Book of Mormon is possible. The main deciding evidence is always personal revelation. I'd also say small populations entering large populations typically disappear, based upon my understanding of the literature. It's not just possible but probable. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

We'd have to identify small populations entering large populations wherein DNA markers disappear in order to know.  If other evidence suggests small populations entered larger ones then we have some evidence.  But I don't know that means anything near that markers typically disappear in such a scenario. 

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We'd have to identify small populations entering large populations wherein DNA markers disappear in order to know.  If other evidence suggests small populations entered larger ones then we have some evidence.  But I don't know that means anything near that markers typically disappear in such a scenario. 

But that has been studied. There are lots of examples where we know of a group entering into a large group leaving no DNA evidence behind. Most of the articles on Book of Mormon DNA give some examples. The issue of bottlenecks in populations in those studying genetic anthropology are pretty common. While that's a slightly different issue it ends up being the same phenomena. The most recent well reported example is the DNA influence of vikings and Romans on the UK. Again not exactly the same as the Book of Mormon since in a few places there's some evidence. Yet the phenomena at play is well demonstrated.  The main argument is from Iceland where many people we know were present have no ancestors. (I recognize critics have a rejoinder but it largely is beside the point since all that matters is that small populations can disappear genetically - we're talking about a couple of dozen people among millions)  

Edited August 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say the Church modified it when it did because the complaints weren't made irrelevant in the 90s.  ah well...

Well both statements are true. They didn't feel the need to rewrite things despite the problems because it wasn't causing a practical problem. Once it started having practical problems they changed the manuals. While it's unfortunate the Church waits to rewrite their manuals and literature only when it causes a problem, it's perhaps not surprising.

Quote

I find this misleading.  The arguments based on DNA continue today.  They aren't irrelevant.  The studies continue ahead.  Someday historicity supporters may get a great sense of relief if something comes out of this wherein it appears there is evidence for the BoM claims.  But that's just not the case, at this time. 

I eagerly await the new arguments. Thus far I've not seen anything particularly new.

Quote

But, it remains--there is no DNA evidence supporting the story of the BoM.  That may be ok to those who believe a historic BoM because it's still possible.  But, as I told Scott, that hardly means those who don't believe it have reason to based on DNA. 

Fully agree.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

So while Southerton was irrelevant to informed members when he popped up in the early naughts, the beliefs of most members who held to naive models were affected.

Well the "informed members" must have been a very small percentage of the church membership.  DNA consideration wasn't even on most member's radar before Murphy and Southerton began publishing their findings (and still isn't for many members).   Members are still learning about it for the first time.  It may seem naive to you, but I believe many still believe the old narrative regarding the locations in the BofM and the ancestry of today's native Americans. They are shocked to learn about the DNA findings from the testing of thousands of native Americans. 

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But that has been studied. There are lots of examples where we know of a group entering into a large group leaving no DNA evidence behind.

Define lots?

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Most of the articles on Book of Mormon DNA give some examples. The issue of bottlenecks in populations in those studying genetic anthropology are pretty common. While that's a slightly different issue it ends up being the same phenomena. The most recent well reported example is the DNA influence of vikings and Romans on the UK. Again not exactly the same as the Book of Mormon since in a few places there's some evidence. Yet the phenomena at play is well demonstrated.  The main argument is from Iceland where many people we know were present have no ancestors. (I recognize critics have a rejoinder but it largely is beside the point since all that matters is that small populations can disappear genetically - we're talking about a couple of dozen people among millions)  

I think I've read a couple of examples.  But it remains that we need something to provide evidence of a people who were lost.  That also remains an issue that is tied in here.  The BoM is coming up short in most people's view.