Apologetics - the new derogatory term

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Whose "they" in this scenario?  The 15?  Correlation committee?  Church historians office?  Where are you getting this?

Quote

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.

So that it continued to cause problems after the re-write, and perhaps the re-write caused a few itself, means? 

Quote

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

I agree.  It's mostly just impasse, wherein one side is not budging on giving a pass to the other who claims faith, and the faith side ain't budging on anything's possible. 

Quote

Fully agree.

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by stemelbow

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 I wonder why time was spent addressing it, or why the Church changed the intro then, if it was so irrelevant. 

Here is the answer

 

 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

  I wonder why time was spent addressing it, or why the Church changed the intro then, if it was so irrelevant. 

 

Here is the answer

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Whose "they" in this scenario?  The 15?  Correlation committee?  Church historians office?  Where are you getting this?

I've no idea who changed that introduction but I assume it would have been approved by the First Presidency at minimum. The news department just said it wasn't in the initial text and "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known."  But they not surprisingly didn't release the details of their deliberation. But it seems easy to understand given critics were making a big deal about it at the time. (2006) The erroneous statement apparently was written by Richard L. Evans for a book in 1957. I don't know when they changed it in the Book of Mormon but it would have been after that. So we're talking about it being in the book a relatively short period - likely around 40 years.

Quote

So that it continued to cause problems after the re-write, and perhaps the re-write caused a few itself, means? 

Sorry. I'm not following you here. Are you saying Southerton's DNA critique continued to cause troubles for members with a naive view or are you saying something about the text of the Book of Mormon or something else? If you mean the former then I assume there continued to be members with naive views. Hopefully knowing it wasn't doctrine helped. But by and large people with naive quasi-fundamentalist views have lots of problems critics can prey upon. (In general critics aren't noting that there are faithful positions their critiques don't affect - and typically people with naive views aren't terribly well read so they can make easy targets.)

Quote

...and the faith side ain't budging on anything's possible. 

Well again I don't think the faith side are saying "anything is possible." Nor are they typically even saying it's a matter of faith although it may be for some people.

Edited August 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

"many people we know were present have no ancestors."

I think you mean genetic descendants (we know they have descendants due to genealogy, but their DNA markers have been lost).

 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I've no idea who changed that introduction but I assume it would have been approved by the First Presidency at minimum. The news department just said it wasn't in the initial text and "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known."  But they not surprisingly didn't release the details of their deliberation. But it seems easy to understand given critics were making a big deal about it at the time. (2006) The erroneous statement apparently was written by Richard L. Evans for a book in 1957. I don't know when they changed it in the Book of Mormon but it would have been after that. So we're talking about it being in the book a relatively short period - likely around 40 years.

It was added in the 1920's according to FM, if you have a reference to the 1957 book, I would love it.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Here is the answer

 

Well, that's not too convincing....got to be honest with you.  I'm not doubting Petersen's word that maybe behind the scenes there had been talk regarding questioning some wording, but I have to believe that it wasn't just a coincidence that they were prompted or pushed forward to make the change because of what was being revealed.  Just my feelings....

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/19/2017 at 0:48 PM, readstoomuch said:

It is interesting that the urim and thummimm was a type of spectacle or device that had stones in it.  Right there in the bible it is spoken about.

You may be interested in how the High Priest used the Urim v'tummim. Anything sound familiar? Joseph Smith? Moroni asking Alma where to go to intercept the Lamanite army?

http://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

Quote

From the Time of Moses

The urim v'tummim is unlike any other aspect of the priestly garments, for it was not created by those skilled artisans who fashioned the other items, aided by their understanding and inspiration; and it was not created from the donations or contributions of Israel, as were all the other appointments of the Temple. The entire matter is one of those mysteries which was handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai by G-d Himself, and its secret was transmitted orally down through the generations.

At the time of the original Tabernacle erected in the desert, Moses took the original urim v'tummim, written in sublime holiness, and placed it inside the breastplate of judgment, after Aaron donned the ephod. This is reflected by the verse (Lev. 8:7), "... and he put the ephod upon him, and he fastened him with the belt of the ephod... and he put the breastplate upon him, and into the breastplate he put the urim v'tummim."

Only Questions of Congregational Importance

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the 'Urim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

A Meditative Experience and a Prophetic Revelation

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/20/2017 at 7:02 AM, Physics Guy said:

It makes some sense to first establish that the rock-in-hat method was indeed used, before going on to try to account for it. But leaving till last the only article that tackles the fact that rock-in-hat looks more like village seer than like prophet, and having articles before it about what Fielding Smith thought or precisely which stones were used, gives a bit the impression of deliberately turning a blind eye to the really pressing concern.

I would like to hear your reaction to the article about the urim v'tummim I just posted from the Temple Institute.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I've no idea who changed that introduction but I assume it would have been approved by the First Presidency at minimum. The news department just said it wasn't in the initial text and "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known."  But they not surprisingly didn't release the details of their deliberation. But it seems easy to understand given critics were making a big deal about it at the time. (2006) The erroneous statement apparently was written by Richard L. Evans for a book in 1957. I don't know when they changed it in the Book of Mormon but it would have been after that. So we're talking about it being in the book a relatively short period - likely around 40 years.

Sorry. I'm not following you here. Are you saying Southerton's DNA critique continued to cause troubles for members with a naive view or are you saying something about the text of the Book of Mormon or something else? If you mean the former then I assume there continued to be members with naive views. Hopefully knowing it wasn't doctrine helped. But by and large people with naive quasi-fundamentalist views have lots of problems critics can prey upon. (In general critics aren't noting that there are faithful positions their critiques don't affect - and typically people with naive views aren't terribly well read so they can make easy targets.)

Well again I don't think the faith side are saying "anything is possible." Nor are they typically even saying it's a matter of faith although it may be for some people.

I think people have been troubled and have left without having a naïve view as you call it.  Certainly some have come to a different conclusion, but to just generalize and suggest leavers are all naïve, is naïve. 

Of course the faith side is not using the phrase "anything is possible".  As the essay previously quoted suggested, it's not using the words "anything is possible", but that's what I've concluded it essentially what it boils down to.  Consider, again:

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.

This suggest that it's still possible the book of Mormon carries an authentically ancient story in spite of the "tentative" conclusions of Native American origins.  It suggests it's possible that there could have been the people in the Book of Mormon in spite of the "tentative" conclusions because there are "sound scientific reasons" to suggest it's possible their DNA is lost.  In other words, in spite of the "tentative" conclusions, it's still possible.  Thus, anything is possible. 

You may not like the phrase, but I don't see how it can be argued against, other than as a matter of preference to use something else. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, cdowis said:

Here is the answer

 

I have to agree with Alarson on this.

He doesn't really say much besides it has been discussed before the DNA issue arose, by some.  That doesn't suggest the whole issue wasn't a contributing factor in making the change.  It's certainly nice that it was discussed and questioned before.  At least we have people wanting to consider such things. 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

He doesn't really say much besides it has been discussed before the DNA issue arose, by some.  That doesn't suggest the whole issue wasn't a contributing factor in making the change.  It's certainly nice that it was discussed and questioned before.  At least we have people wanting to consider such things. 

It is nice that people were starting to read the actual text of the BOM instead of relying on traditions, such as no inhabitants in America when Lehi landed, only one Hill Cumorah, hemispheric model.  The DNA issue was only a reinforcement that we have to see what the BOM actually claimed.  

Edited August 31, 2017 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

It is nice that people were starting to read the actual text of the BOM instead of relying on traditions, such as no inhabitants in America when Lehi landed, only one Hill Cumorah, hemispheric model.  The DNA issue was only a reinforcement that we have to see what the BOM actually claimed.  

Sure.  Making the issue not irrelevant as someone was adamant about earlier in the thread. 

[clarkgoble]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  Making the issue not irrelevant as someone was adamant about earlier in the thread. 

Come on. Saying the issue isn't irrelevant is akin to some atheist attacking Christianity as false because a bunch of naive people believed Jesus spoke English.

It's irrelevant to any reasonable reading of the text. That it's not irrelevant to people who are ignorant about the text seems a different issue (as I noted). But of course attacking people's ignorant beliefs as if they were the proper way to read the text is just sophistry pure and simple.

[juliann]

On 8/30/2017 at 7:33 AM, 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

You are claiming that which they are not.  You do not understand the situation or you are confusing Meldrum with geneticists that "apologists" take at their word. It is very simple. DNA has proved nothing to date.  The problem is with those who claim it does. Mormons state the simple situation. DNA proves nothing to date. Even Southerton had to eventually admit that. Perego has stated that he believes there may be eventual resolution as the science advances. But for over a decade of excitement that DNA disproves the BOM, DNA proves nothing. 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/jbms/12/1/S00003-50be689b951354Whiting.pdf

This is one of the early articles that countered Murphy and Southerton's specious claims that DNA disproved the BOM (notice that no one on the other side has ever said DNA proved the BOM.) 

Quote

This paper debunks the myth that the Book of Mormon has been proved false by modern DNA evidence. Critics have tried to apply American Indian DNA-based research to the Book of Mormon without designing a study specifically for that purpose. It is extraordinarily difficult to use DNA sequence information to track the lineage of any group with such a complex lineage history as the Nephites and Lamanites. Possible hypotheses about the populations from the Book of Mormon include the global colonization hypothesis (in which the three colonizing groups came to a land void of humans) and the local colonization hypothesis (in which the land was already occupied in whole or in part by people of an unknown genetic heritage). The latter hypothesis, generally viewed by Book of Mormon scholars as a more accurate interpretation, is much more difficult to investigate by way of DNA evidence. Issues such as genetic introgression, genetic drift, and the founder effect would seriously hamper any attempt to produce a funded, peer-reviewed study of Book of Mormon genetics.  Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003): 24–35, 115–16.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You are claiming that which they are not.  You do not understand the situation or you are confusing Meldrum with geneticists that "apologists" take at their word. It is very simple. DNA has proved nothing to date.  The problem is with those who claim it does. Mormons state the simple situation. DNA proves nothing to date. Even Southerton had to eventually admit that. Perego has stated that he believes there may be eventual resolution as the science advances. But for over a decade of excitement that DNA disproves the BOM, DNA proves nothing. 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/jbms/12/1/S00003-50be689b951354Whiting.pdf

This is one of the early articles that countered Murphy and Southerton's specious claims that DNA disproved the BOM (notice that no one on the other side has ever said DNA proved the BOM.) 

 

I enjoy responses that tell me I'm wrong then go on to seemingly support what I've said. Not sure what to make of it.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I enjoy responses that tell me I'm wrong then go on to seemingly support what I've said. Not sure what to make of it.

You are question begging. You said,

Quote

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. 

I'd like to see that evidence because it is an appeal to ignorance, as in absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not to mention the problem of not having any DNA from Lehi to compare. 

It is a bogus demand, all the way around. As Scott said, the naysayers crashed and burned on this and have yet to add anything of substance aside from false claims that DNA proves something, a position you hold if you continue to insist there is evidence. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are question begging. You said,

I'd like to see that evidence because it is an appeal to ignorance, as in absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not to mention the problem of not having any DNA from Lehi to compare. 

It is a bogus demand, all the way around. As Scott said, the naysayers crashed and burned on this and have yet to add anything of substance aside from false claims that DNA proves something, a position you hold if you continue to insist there is evidence. 

Well I remember that phrase was particularly popular amongst apologists years ago, but it seems to have been abandoned, or I haven't seen it in a while.

Quote

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Wikipedia proves you wrong again, Juliann.  That's ok.  Your absolute statement could never be maintained, I'd say.  Of course it certainly could be possible that if a certain proposition has no evidence to support it that the proposition is true anyway.  But, it is more reasonable, of course, to suggest it did not happen when there is nothing to support a claim. 

If some claim is made and there is no evidence to support it, then the most likely conclusion those who consider it will arrive at is the claim is not true.  Now, that doesnt' mean the claim is proven not true. Only that it is likely not true.  That's why most don't accept the notion of UFOs, or the Book of Mormon being historical.   If there were DNA to support the story of the Book of Mormon, then that which is so irrelevant now, to you, would all of the sudden be relevant.  But in opposition to your, Scott, and Clark's position, it remains evident that there is something relevant here.  That's why the Church addressed it in an essay in recent years.  If it was so irrelevant and so bogus then the Church would see no reason to address it, I'm sure. 

I'll say in the future as more and more work is put into this field, there will be more and more to discuss as it relates to the Book of Mormon.  So much for irrelevant and bogus.  And as more and more comes out, I certainly hope there is more and more intrigue-sentiment for the Book of Mormon by more and more people.  I say that as one who feels it's like the Book Of Mormon story is likely not a set of historical accounts. 

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Come on. Saying the issue isn't irrelevant is akin to some atheist attacking Christianity as false because a bunch of naive people believed Jesus spoke English.

Well you should have told the Church that before they decided to address the issue in an essay, thus immortalizing it as a relevant issue. 

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's irrelevant to any reasonable reading of the text. That it's not irrelevant to people who are ignorant about the text seems a different issue (as I noted). But of course attacking people's ignorant beliefs as if they were the proper way to read the text is just sophistry pure and simple.

So you're just employing sophistry, admittedly?  Ok.  I guess I've been duped.  So you've agreed this whole time?  Alright then.  Have a good one. 

[juliann]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well I remember that phrase was particularly popular amongst apologists years ago, but it seems to have been abandoned, or I haven't seen it in a while.

 

1. CFR that it saying DNA proved the BOM was "particularly popular" with anyone beyond random internet sorts and Meldrum.  That is absurd. Meanwhile, it is quite popular for critics to maintain that DNA disproves the BOM regardless despite there being no evidence for such a position. 

Quote

Wikipedia proves you wrong again, Juliann.  That's ok.  Your absolute statement could never be maintained, I'd say.  Of course it certainly could be possible that if a certain proposition has no evidence to support it that the proposition is true anyway.  But, it is more reasonable, of course, to suggest it did not happen when there is nothing to support a claim.

My absolute statement that DNA has proved nothing to date?  2. CFR that DNA has disproved the BOM. As to Wikipedia proving me wrong that you are committed to a logical fallacy in thinking that lack of evidence proves something about DNA, (3) produce Lehi's genetic makeup.  Or explain how it is possible to prove or disprove a DNA match when you have nothing to match it to.

That is three CFRs. 

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, juliann said:

You are question begging. You said,

I'd like to see that evidence because it is an appeal to ignorance, as in absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not to mention the problem of not having any DNA from Lehi to compare. 

It is a bogus demand, all the way around. As Scott said, the naysayers crashed and burned on this and have yet to add anything of substance aside from false claims that DNA proves something, a position you hold if you continue to insist there is evidence. 

I would just suggest you guys are just way too defensive and willing to play off of the notion of taking sides on this.  There is no crashing and burning.  Anything is possible.  Even though the evidence does not favor the Book of Mormon it's still possible that there was a small group of people who lost their DNA markers over time within the dominant and various cultures and peoples in the Americas.  But contrary to your repeated appeal to "you can't claim lacking evidence means it didn't happen", it is just a fact of life that when there is no reason to accept a claim the most common response is not accept the claim.  Sure there were witch burnings because people just decided to accept a claim, there are superstitions.  There are tons of things that people accept without evidence.  And hey, I'd even give them plenty of room to accept whatever they want as long as they aren't out hurting others.  But, that someone accepts a claim does not mean another should feel compelled to say there is a reason for he to accept it. 

I'm beginning to think you don't understand the concept of begging the question.  Here's a brief (again Wikipedia showing you the way):

Quote

To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by stemelbow

[Marginal Gains]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

1. CFR that it saying DNA proved the BOM was "particularly popular" with anyone beyond random internet sorts and Meldrum.  That is absurd. Meanwhile, it is quite popular for critics to maintain that DNA disproves the BOM regardless despite there being no evidence for such a position. 

My absolute statement that DNA has proved nothing to date?  2. CFR that DNA has disproved the BOM. As to Wikipedia proving me wrong that you are committed to a logical fallacy in thinking that lack of evidence proves something about DNA, (3) produce Lehi's genetic makeup.  Or explain how it is possible to prove or disprove a DNA match when you have nothing to match it to.

That is three CFRs. 

As I understand burdens of proof, it’s not for the critic to prove the Book of Mormon isn’t true, it’s for the believer to prove it is. DNA certainly doesn’t help prove the Book of Mormon is true.

DNA research has proven numerous things, but it hasn’t proven the Book of Mormon peoples were real.

In terms of matching up to Lehi’s DNA, you wouldn’t need to know what Lehi’s DNA looked like. All you’d need is to find a DNA group that wasn’t allocated to some other population ancestry. It would only need to be an unexplained DNA, an odd one out as it were. Have they found any DNA for which they cannot allocate a population ancestry?

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

1. CFR that it saying DNA proved the BOM was "particularly popular" with anyone beyond random internet sorts and Meldrum.  

I was referring to your appeal to the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".  There's no success there.  Yes, years ago apologists, as I recall, used it quite frequently.  Then as more and more objected it went out of style.  It really is a weak counter-argument if you think about.  One says, "There is no DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon".  One would think one would either agree or disagree and explain why.  But instead it seems you are saying it best to respond with well "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".  uh....ok.  Instead of a reasoned response it comes off as a defensive reflex.  Instead of conversation or thoughtful it's empty and foolish. 

9 hours ago, juliann said:

That is absurd. Meanwhile, it is quite popular for critics to maintain that DNA disproves the BOM regardless despite there being no evidence for such a position. 

I don't think you really understand what I've said.  I'm the one who indicated that often the critic side has over-played their hand here.  THat's not to say that there is DNA evidence supporting the Book of MOrmon story.  I think it remains possible that in spite of what we have and know about DNA and the people's of Mesoamerica or other parts of our two continents, it remains possible that there was a Lehi and Nephi from the era claimed in the Book of Mormon.  But hey, anything's possible.  THat's really all we have here, at this juncture. 

9 hours ago, juliann said:

My absolute statement that DNA has proved nothing to date?

Of course I didn't suggest as much.  I was referring to your statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".  Here it comes again since it appears you missed it:  "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."  Since I have a feeling you will continue to misunderstand let me clarify more.  It is not absolutely true that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  You think that somehow this saves the Book of Mormon.  It does not.  Now, just to help this along, this also does not mean this is a case wherein the DNA studies are to a point wherein we can safely say there is proof that the Book of Mormon is not of ancient origins.  All we can muster is, there is no evidence.  Hopefully an appeal to the studies being in their infancy continues to save a bit of face for the LDS side.  I guess we'll see. 

9 hours ago, juliann said:

  2. CFR that DNA has disproved the BOM.

You're grasping at straws.  I didn't saying anything about proving or disproving as it relates to DNA. 

9 hours ago, juliann said:

As to Wikipedia proving me wrong that you are committed to a logical fallacy in thinking that lack of evidence proves something about DNA, (3) produce Lehi's genetic makeup.

It's as if you entered a whole new forest and are barking up a tree, no one's around and can even hear you.  One would have to wonder if you're even there, or making a noise since no one hears it. 

9 hours ago, juliann said:

 Or explain how it is possible to prove or disprove a DNA match when you have nothing to match it to.

That is three CFRs. 

Issuing CFRs for claims I have in no way made is some weird posturing. 

[cdowis]

37 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

As I understand burdens of proof, it’s not for the critic to prove the Book of Mormon isn’t true, it’s for the believer to prove it is.

Moroni 10:4-5.  What greater evidence than from God Himself.  

As Christ said to Peter
Matt 16 [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Now the burden lies upon yourself.  The decisions we make in this life can have eternal consequences, and I will not be responsible for the decisions you make.  I can merely mark the path, and the burden now lies with you.

Edited September 1, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well I remember that phrase was particularly popular amongst apologists years ago, but it seems to have been abandoned, or I haven't seen it in a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Wikipedia proves you wrong again, Juliann. 

Did you actually read the article.  Let me help you:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators"

Note the words, "some" and "assumed".

Let me ask you  very simple questions.  What was the DNA characteristics of Lehi?  If we use Jewish DNA in the comparison, can we "safely assume" that they are identical to Lehi?  Since Lehi's group consisted of a few dozen individuals who then merged with millions of inhabitants of the Americas, can we safely assume.... what?  Virtually the entire Nephite race itself was exterminated, we can also safely assume.....?

And I have not even mentioned the sampling issues, the Greek connection,  and the unknown source of haplogroup X

Can you honestly, really  declare that this is one of those "some circumstances".

When you refer to a source, I suggest you thoughtfully read it, otherwise you will.......

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by cdowis