Southerton Answers FARMS & FAIR

[praetorian1964]

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. (D&C 9:

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. (D&C 88:118, see also D&C 109:7,14)

Thanks for your reply smac.

Your citations reinforce, rather than undermine, the hierarchy I asserted. Faith, and feeling, offer verification for the untrustworthy workings of the mind.

Put it another way. If revelation isn't superior to intellect, why bother with it at all?

[Mortvola]

Southerton: "It is also clear that American Indian X lineages have been in the New World for in excess of 15,000 years.

"The amount of DNA variation found in each of the five American Indian female DNA lineage families indicates that they have been present in the Americas for at least 15,000 years, possibly longer."

If this is true, it disproves the Bible also. Funny all the Anti's forget that.

Not all anti's hold the Old Testament as factual. I suspect that the majority don't. In fact, I suspect that most people putting forth the DNA argument against the Book of Mormon have not forgotten that it disproves the Bible. Hoever, I know there are some that do try to twist the evidence to save the Bible from the same argument against the Book of Mormon.

[dacook]

Southerton: "It is also clear that American Indian X lineages have been in the New World for in excess of 15,000 years.

"The amount of DNA variation found in each of the five American Indian female DNA lineage families indicates that they have been present in the Americas for at least 15,000 years, possibly longer."

If this is true, it disproves the Bible also. Funny all the Anti's forget that.

Not all anti's hold the Old Testament as factual. I suspect that the majority don't.

I think he probably meant mostly the evangelical christian branch of anti-ism.

I know of a woman who left the LDS church over the DNA issue and joined an evangelical protestant church that believes in Genesis literalism. Somehow she doesn't see a problem with this.

[Matt Andrews]

dacook wrote:

I know of a woman who left the LDS church over the DNA issue and joined an evangelical protestant church that believes in Genesis literalism. Somehow she doesn't see a problem with this.

That is pretty funny. On the other hand, I don't think God is going to damn her for her failure to understand DNA or geology well enough to pick a religion consistent with both. Or damn her for acting on her limited understanding.

I hope not anyway, since it seems that limited understanding is all most of us have.

[Outshined]

If this is true, it disproves the Bible also. Funny all the Anti's forget that.

Let's not forget that the same DNA research claims that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor from several thousand years ago...

[Mortvola]

If this is true, it disproves the Bible also. Funny all the Anti's forget that.

Let's not forget that the same DNA research claims that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor from several thousand years ago...

Several thousand years? The latest research shows that modern man existed as long as 195,000 years ago. Is the DNA research you refer to in conflict with this latest research or are you under exagerating?

Modern man just got older

[Outshined]

If this is true, it disproves the Bible also. Funny all the Anti's forget that.

Let's not forget that the same DNA research claims that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor from several thousand years ago...

Several thousand years? The latest research shows that modern man existed as long as 195,000 years ago. Is the DNA research you refer to in conflict with this latest research or are you under exagerating?

Modern man just got older

My bad; after rereading Mr. Murphy's paper, it looks like he's saying about 5 million years ago. My apologies; I read a lot, and apparently got the figure confused.

He is still saying we came from a common ancestor, though. I do not agree.

Molecular evidence from the analysis of protein immunological data suggests that humans and chimpanzees shared a common African ancestor 5-7 million years ago.

http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp

[Corky Wallace]

Smac97:

I'm not sure that DCP has asserted such a thing. And an affirmative assertion is quite a bit differention from "not discount[ing] the possibility of" such a thing.

>> Fair enough - I didn't specify "all or nearly all" and you're correct that asserting a positive is a sizable leap. Still, are apologists who are trying to create a model for this sort of Meso-originating DNA distribution, or is the consensus to wait for more research to emerge?

Apologist strategy would be interesting to observe in this regard.

A) Look for evidence to support Meso-to-Hemispheric DNA dispersion

B ) Await additional scientific research to debunk that purports to counter BOM claims (if evidence attacks it), or enthusiastically support new scientific evidence (if it lends credibility to BOM or attacks opposing scientific evidence).

C) Begin formulating a BOM-as-inspired-fiction ideological construct.

D) Repeat ad nauseum that God can do whatever he wants, and maybe it is in His plan to deceive people by tricking us with modified DNA evidence, among other things.

[emaughan]

My bad; after rereading Mr. Murphy's paper, it looks like he's saying about 5 million years ago. My apologies; I read a lot, and apparently got the figure confused.

He is still saying we came from a common ancestor, though. I do not agree.

This would be something Murphy got right, and I agree with the science on this one - but that's another topic. What Murphy messes up on is thinking that the science can tell us what markers Lehi would have based on the region he was from; this only works well in guessing general population trends for a region as one goes back in time. He missed that big time! In his favor, if one accepts the premiss that Lehi's group was THE group that populated the americas, then he is correct in his conclusion. Unfortunately neither the BoM nor archeology support this idea.

[Mortvola]

What Murphy messes up on is thinking that the science can tell us what markers Lehi would have based on the region he was from; this only works well in guessing general population trends for a region as one goes back in time. He missed that big time! In his favor, if one accepts the premiss that Lehi's group was THE group that populated the americas, then he is correct in his conclusion. Unfortunately neither the BoM nor archeology support this idea.

I agree that archeology does not support the idea that Lehi and his group populated the American continents but what is in the Book of Mormon that is in conflict with this idea? Is it simply the fantistic population growth that must have occured or is there more? What do you read in the Book of Mormon that early Church leaders missed?

[emaughan]

A) Look for evidence to support Meso-to-Hemispheric DNA dispersion

What markers would you use? We do not have the technological capability to look at all the DNA at this time and extrapolate its oragin - you are talking about an extremely complex problem that goes way beyond what can be done with mtDNA or Y chromosomal DNA analysis.

B ) Await additional scientific research to debunk that purports to counter BOM claims (if evidence attacks it), or enthusiastically support new scientific evidence (if it lends credibility to BOM or attacks opposing scientific evidence).

Actually a lot of what I have seen coming out of both FAIR and FARMS is looking at both sides of the evidence presented. I'm surprised that you have such a distorted characture of the work that they are doing. Some LDS apologist have taken that approach, but that is sloppy and of no benefit in the long run.

C) Begin formulating a BOM-as-inspired-fiction ideological construct.

This will not happen in the LDS church. Some appostates maybe, but not the true church. The BoM is either true or false - there is no middle of the road on this one.

D) Repeat ad nauseum that God can do whatever he wants, and maybe it is in His plan to deceive people by tricking us with modified DNA evidence, among other things.

Your confusing use with "Creationist" who ignore the evidence and I've even heard the argument that fossils were a trick used by Satan. The problem is that I do not believe you understand the issue very well and you are assuming things that are not true. If you your up to it answer these questions and then will have a better bases to discuss the issue:

1) What mtDNA markers does Lehi carry and why doesn't it matter as far as modern population analysis?

2) What markers were carried over by Lehi's group (or should have been) and how do arrive at this information?

3) If Sarah, or the daughters of Ishmael had a female ansestor from Asia, how many generations would it take for their mtDNA to become "Hebrew"?

4) What marker is used today to determine if one is descendant from Jewish priest and how many jewish males and how many jewish females carry that marker?

5) Can a DIRECT descendant carry no known markers from an ancestor?

That's enough to get you started. Please do answer the questions before you make any more assumptions as to what DNA can and can not tell us.

[emaughan]

agree that archeology does not support the idea that Lehi and his group populated the American continents but what is in the Book of Mormon that is in conflict with this idea? Is it simply the fantistic population growth that must have occured or is there more? What do you read in the Book of Mormon that early Church leaders missed?

There have been a couple of full length threads discussing this and I believe some stuff on FAIR.

[Corky Wallace]

EMaughn,

What can DNA do?

It can add a whole lot of gravity to previously obscure alternative interpretations of the BOM, and can help mount pressure to change the introduction of a book that historically purported to be the history of the principal ancestors of American Indians.

That's what I've learned, so far. (It seems that LGT advocates should be ecstatic at the evidence supporting their position.)

As for your list of questions for me to answer before intelligently discussing DNA & the Book of Mormon with you fine scholars (I like that tactic, by the way - kind of like a police foot chase scene where the guy being chased throws chairs in the path of the chaser), here are some questions for you to answer regarding the practical effect of this new discovery:

- Why did the LDS church & its leaders portray Lehi & his group as the principal ancestors of American Indians if it wasn't true?

- Why doesn't BYU have the "Lamanite Nation" pageant anymore?

- How would you handle the angry questions of Native Americans - real, living human beings - who felt they were misled by people claiming to speak the absolute truth, delivered from God?

I'll work on the DNA questions and I await your reply I can relate to my Navajo friend.

[smac97]

> Fair enough - I didn't specify "all or nearly all" and you're correct that asserting a positive is a sizable leap.

==And in the space consumed by that "sizable leap" is, I think, a very plausible interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

> Still, are apologists who are trying to create a model for this sort of Meso-originating DNA distribution, or is the consensus to wait for more research to emerge?

==I think LDS apologists are, in the main, not fixated on so-called "Lamanite DNA." Critics (most notably Murphy and Southerton) have, I think, hanged their hats almost exclusively on extra-textual arguments about the Book of Mormon (i.e. the Introduction's reference to "principal ancestors," culled comments from LDS leaders, etc.) and have largely ignored the actual text of the book itself. They have also tried to posit DNA as the definitive falsifying factor of the Book of Mormon when the subject is obviously much more complex than that (adoptive lineage, heritage-as-lineage, plus the argument set for in the FARMS Review that DNA can neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon). They also seem to be relying on bad science (I'll let greater minds than mine sort that out, but I think the reviews put out by FARMS are quite persuasive).

==Latter-day Saints are, I think, far more flexible and reasonable in their thinking on this matter than the critics (who have been decidedly fundementalistic about it). These critics will, most likely, cast such flexibility as dishonesty, disengenuousness, etc., but that's to be expected, I suppose.

> Apologist strategy would be interesting to observe in this regard.

> A) Look for evidence to support Meso-to-Hemispheric DNA dispersion

==Not really. Again, LDS apologists are not fixated on DNA. Our critics are. Have you read the FARMS reviews on this subject?

> B ) Await additional scientific research to debunk that purports to counter BOM claims (if evidence attacks it), or enthusiastically support new scientific evidence (if it lends credibility to BOM or attacks opposing scientific evidence).

==In other words, you're suggesting LDS apologists will be dishonest. Just a few sentences again I said "critics will, most likely, cast such flexibility as dishonesty, disengenuousness, etc., but that's to be expected, I suppose." I didn't expect to have this prediction proven so quickly.

> C) Begin formulating a BOM-as-inspired-fiction ideological construct.

==Are you even aware of the recently published Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson and published by the FARMS (the same group of yokels that you are suggesting may, at some point, "begin formulating a BOM-as-inspired-fiction ideological construct")? A review of it is available online here. Here are a few comments from the reviewer, Keith Lane (emphases added):

It was probably inevitable that a need for a book like this would arise.

...

It can only be expected, then, that such secularized scholarship would find its way into studies of Latter-day Saint scripture, belief, and practice. A recent trend among a minority of writers has been to give an alternative reading to Latter-day scripture, seeing, for example, the Book of Mormon as an elaborate parable or as a book containing a meaningful ethics or theology, but whose characters and events have no basis in history and whose origin is not what Joseph Smith claimed it was.

Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures responds to the assertion that Latter-day Saint scripture could be in some sense meaningful even if the events and people mentioned in it were not actually real. The resounding response from those whose essays appear in this collection is that it is crucial for Latter-day Saints to hold to the historicity-historical authenticity-of scripture, while at the same time insisting that scripture is more than mere history. And the clear warning is that blindly following naturalism and the Enlightenment when it comes to thinking about Latter-day Saint scripture will lead to a diminished faith for Latter-day Saints.

Edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, this book contains articles by Elder Alexander B. Morrison, James E. Faulconer, John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, Paul Y. Hoskisson, Kent P. Jackson, Robert J. Matthews, Louis Midgley, Robert L. Millet, Daniel C. Peterson, John S. Tanner, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks.

...

Three of the articles (those by Jackson, Midgley, and Oaks) deal directly with the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon�that is, whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be and was received as Joseph claimed it was or, if its historicity is in doubt, whether instead it could still be "true" in some moral or theological sense if its historical contents were rejected or explained away.

...

With characteristic insight, Elder Oaks points out what is at stake here: the foundation of faith for Latter-day Saints. "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived" (p. 244). The other authors who deal exclusively with the Book of Mormon offer similar perspectives.

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson reviews carefully the witnesses to the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

...

Having reviewed Joseph's claims and what the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Three and Eight Witnesses say about the book, Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" (p.137).  All of this comes to a question of what one could trust if there is not a historical grounding for this book. Jackson directs his focus on the crux of the matter:

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be "true," in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events? (pp. 137-38)

The strength of Jackson's article is in its careful and detailed reasoning about the issue and why Latter-day Saints must stand by the traditional account of the Book of Mormon.

...

Midgley is rightly impatient with some Mormon philoso

[smac97]

Praetorian,

> Your citations reinforce, rather than undermine, the hierarchy I asserted.

==You didn't assert a "hierarchy." You asserted a dichotomy, one where Mormons rely on "revelation, then priesthood power and prayer" and, on the other hand, people like Southerton rely on "things like intellect, scholarship, and the wisdom of men." You also falsely characterized these things (intellect, scholarship, etc.) as "the very things that the scripture warn against." The scriptures I cited refute both your false dichotomy and false characterization of what scripture teaches.

> Faith, and feeling, offer verification for the untrustworthy workings of the mind.

==Actually, it's revelation that offers verification. But otherwise you are correct: We use a symbiotic system of intellect and the Spirit to gain knowledge, rather that resorting to only or the other (which was your initial assertion).

> Put it another way. If revelation isn't superior to intellect, why bother with it at all?

==I never said revelation "isn't superior to intellect." That is a strawman of your own invention.

==You are the one that set up an either/or proposition. I dispute that. We need not rely on revelation to the exclusion of study and learning, and indeed we are specifically commanded against such an absurd idea. Nor should we rely on intellect and the wisdom to the exclusion of revelation. We need both, and we as Latter-day Saints believe and teach as much.

-Smac

[Corky Wallace]

Smac97,

An impressive response. A genuine "thank you".

I'm guilty of some of the less scholarly caricatures & attribution of less-than-completely-honest qualities to apologists, and for this I'm sorry. As a relative newbie, I've perhaps been too quick to mimic the frequent tone I see on this board, by both sides. The derisive exchanges have been the biggest surprise, to me, even among very intelligent & otherwise professional individuals.

Watching Daniel Peterson engage in heavy use of sarcasm, apparent word games, and other deflective measures (along with other individuals), has made me assume the apologetic objective is to derail challenges by whatever means necessary, with a bias toward scholarly work, certainly.

What else to think when I read of apologist leaders who (seemingly) allege that nobody leaves the church for other than "personal issues", and insinuate that they have knowledge of specific individuals' "issues"?

Back to your post, I've read the FARMs DNA responses and I think they have valid points that need to be addressed. It also seems to me that Southerton's response clears up *some* of the points of objection.

In any case, this tone is much preferable to the acrimony.

[Beowulf]

Praetorian wrote:

Put it another way. If revelation isn't superior to intellect, why bother with it at all?

Do you mean superior in every possible case?

I ask because I have been reading histories of mathematical ideas in recent weeks. (Great books, btw, on the history of Zero, e, Pi, and so on.) Do you seriously believe that what a Prophet says about the number e, for example, could possibly trump what Newton, Bernoulli, Euler, and other great mathematicians have discovered about this strange number?

One of the books noted, in fact, that the Bible, in describing the Brass Sea in the Temple of Solomon, appears to assert that Pi = 3.0. Is the Bible false? Or are the mathematicians all wrong and Pi really IS 3.0? Or (the most likely explanation) the writer had an imperfect view of a mathematical principle, but it was close enough for application, even in scripture?

My point is: There are things that are more susceptible to the intellect, and other things that are more susceptible to revelation.

Intellect can tell us very little about the Atonement, for example. It can tell us what has been speculated about the Atonement over the centuries (that is what historians are for), but cannot reveal what it is.

On the other hand, intellect can tell us very much about geography (our world has only a finite amount of it, after all) and can probably trump what was learned through revelation in ages when geography was only imperfectly known.

Revelation and intellect both have their places in human thought.

Beowulf

[TrespassersW]

Corky,

I know your questions were for emaughn, but I was a bit confused by them and thought there might need to be some clarification. Let me answer them, and maybe you'll see what I mean:

- Why did the LDS church & its leaders portray Lehi & his group as the principal ancestors of American Indians if it wasn't true?

The obvious answer would be because they thought that was correct at the time. Now that additional evidence has come to light, many have been persuaded that perhaps that isn't the case. I'm not sure why that should be especially significant.

- Why doesn't BYU have the "Lamanite Nation" pageant anymore?

I really don't know. Maybe the pageant wasn't all that good?

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. The LGT does not falsify the idea that Native American are, in fact, Lamanites. In fact, if the Book of Mormon is historical, then it's practically certain that modern Native Americans are, to some degree, descendents from Lehi, and thus, can correctly be called "Lamanites".

- How would you handle the angry questions of Native Americans - real, living human beings - who felt they were misled by people claiming to speak the absolute truth, delivered from God?

I'm not sure how they've been "misled". Because they were told that Lamanites were their principle ancestors, when they probably weren't? If that's what they're upset about, then I'd suggest that they should probably just get over it and move on with their lives.

[Pahoran]

Praetorian1964,

you wrote:

Here's the real irony of all this discussion:

The unique claim of the LDS church is that it possesses an exclusive access to God-- the keys of the priesthood and it's attendant gifts, especially in this case the gift of revelation, are what sets the church apart from all those with "portions" of the real truth. LDS scholars, on the other hand, the predominant source of LDS apologetics in general and the LGT in specific, are not unique. All religions have these kinds of defenders, and until they make Apologist a Priesthiood office, there is nothing special or sanctioned in about the apologists arguments.

The good people at FARMS, and all other apologists, have less authority to discuss the claims of the BOM than their spiritual superiors. Those superiors have made clear statments about what they consider to be the true order of geography, and until they say otherwise, the prophets have spoken.

A living prophet may trump a dead prophet, but a dead prophet always trumps a living apologist.

And:

If an ordained prophet speaks regarding the BOM, he has, by right of priesthood authority, a superior insight into the BOM and it's origins and teachings, than any secular-based apologist, regardless of whether or not that apologist is a faithful LDS member or not.

And:

What is the best way to "know" something? If the answer is revelation, then priesthood power and prayer are the best way to obtain answers about any question, including doctrine, lineage, or geography. Southerton relies on things like intellect, scholarship, and the wisdom of men--many of the very things that the scripture warn against. It's ironic that so many members here do the same thing.

It's embarrassing to see someone as intelligent as you are get something as elementary as this so horribly wrong.

I refer you to the words of Bruce R. McConkie. You can read them in full here, but the portion I'd like you to particularly notice is:

5. Are all prophetic utterances true? Of course they are! This is what the Lord's system of teaching is all about. Anything which his servants say when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is scripture, and his command to his ministers is: "The Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach" (D&C 42:14).

But not every word that a man who is a prophet speaks is a prophetic utterance. Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938], p. 278). Men who wear the prophetic mantle are still men; they have their own views; and their understanding of gospel truths is dependent upon the study and inspiration that is theirs.

Some prophets

[Pahoran]

Corky Wallace,

speaking of acrimonious tone, you sneered:

C) Begin formulating a BOM-as-inspired-fiction ideological construct.

That's false.

The "BOM-as-inspired-fiction ideological construct" is of anti-Mormon origin. The "inspired" is just a sop to the believers, the spoonful of saccharin to help the arsenic go down. There might somewhere be some believers who are gullible enough to be taken in by this transparent deception, but the Church will not be.

Regards,

Pahoran

[smac97]

Corky,

> I'm guilty of some of the less scholarly caricatures & attribution of less-than-completely-honest qualities to apologists, and for this I'm sorry. As a relative newbie, I've perhaps been too quick to mimic the frequent tone I see on this board, by both sides. The derisive exchanges have been the biggest surprise, to me, even among very intelligent & otherwise professional individuals.

==I'd like to say that I've always been above such behavior, but I can't. I do my best to improve myself, though.

> Watching Daniel Peterson engage in heavy use of sarcasm, apparent word games, and other deflective measures (along with other individuals), has made me assume the apologetic objective is to derail challenges by whatever means necessary, with a bias toward scholarly work, certainly.

==When the people with whom you converse assume a priori that you are a dishonest hack, what sort of response would you make? He could fight fire with fire, I suppose, but he doesn't. He could cut off all discussion, but he doesn't do that, either. He could "play it straight," but that only elicits further accusations of dishonesty, lying, etc. So what does he do? He resorts to sarcasm. Where there is an overt refusal on the part of your opponent to grant an assumption that you are operating in good faith, then straight-forward discussion is simply not possible. DCP resorts to sarcasm because it's about the only mechanism that can facilitate some degree of discussion.

==I try to "play it straight" as much as possible, but that's only because my opponents generally give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that when I say something, I actually mean it. Generally, no such benefit or assumption is granted DCP. I prefer a sarcastic DCP to no DCP at all.

> What else to think when I read of apologist leaders who (seemingly) allege that nobody leaves the church for other than "personal issues", and insinuate that they have knowledge of specific individuals' "issues"?

==I'd like to see the statements to which you are referring. It is odd, though, that you can only bring yourself to characterize DCP's statements as seeming allegations and insinuations, yet you cannot imagine an alternative interpretation of his statements ("What else to think...").

> Back to your post, I've read the FARMs DNA responses and I think they have valid points that need to be addressed. It also seems to me that Southerton's response clears up *some* of the points of objection.

==Perhaps so. I've not had time to peruse it in detail.

> In any case, this tone is much preferable to the acrimony.

==I'm glad we can get along.

-Smac

[emaughan]

Why did the LDS church & its leaders portray Lehi & his group as the principal ancestors of American Indians if it wasn't true?

Because that is what they believed and if you have read some of my other post - I believe it as well. Throughout the scriptures I see adoption into a covenant people as a theme. Even Ruth, anscestor of Christ, was adopted into the house of Israel. All who are baptized are adopted into the family of Abraham. Thus, from what I have read - all NA are considered children of Lehi and have a right to the blessings promissed to Lehi and his descendants.

- Why doesn't BYU have the "Lamanite Nation" pageant anymore?

Why don't most wards do road shows anymore? I have no idea. Best ask someone at BYU as to why?

- How would you handle the angry questions of Native Americans - real, living human beings -

What else would they be!? Real live Bobcats?

who felt they were misled by people claiming to speak the absolute truth, delivered from God?

See the answer to the first question. I do not believe that NAs are excluded from Lehi's family - they have full rights to those blessings under covenant from God. Why are they angry that honest men believed that they have a special promise from God?

Also, where did their testimony come from - God or man. If man, then they should either try gaining a spiritual witness, or move on to something else.

[praetorian1964]

Smac:

Thanks for your response.

I asserted a hierarchy, you assumed a dichotomy.

The language used, and the field of epistemology in general, implies that there are many ways of knowing, each with relative strengths. In LDS theology and scripture, revelation and spiritual means of knowing are are reliable and valuable than relying on the arm of flesh.

Pahoran:

Thanks for your lengthy and substantive response. It's always good to hear your thoughts. I'll respond when I have more time tonight. But in the meantime, I'd like to ask you a question:

On what basis do you accept Mckonkie as an authority? Is it his priesthood calling, his fund of scriptural knowledge, or your admiration for him as a person?

I agree that apologists have their place. I don't agree they bear the spiritual weight of God's annointed. Your thoughts?

[Corky Wallace]

Trespasser,

I think your "get over it" prescription for those Native Americans who feel misled about having been taught that Lehi & his group were their principal ancestor is a little harsh, especially for folks who at one time bought into LDS ideology in a substantial way, and who may have in turn preached to other Indians of their principal Israelite heritage.

Actually, I think many (if not most) have gotten past what they were taught - and perhaps at one time believed - but I'm afraid the LDS church and Mormons in general have not come out of the exchange in a particularly good light. The term I heard was "just another scheme of the white man" to deceive & exploit Indians, not the kind of image I think the LDS church or its adherents would desire, I would think.

But I don't blame Mormon folks who may be weary of hearing of these kinds of reactions.

One thing I believe this entire episode has done is to help temper the zeal with which LDS leaders make proclamative statements. Current church leaders seem far more conservative and judicious in what they say, compared to what flowed from the mouth of Brigham Young, for example.

For example, even when I was a kid in the 70s I heard more than a few lessons about how the Catholic Church was a great abomination, etc. I don't think this is taught anymore.

Today's access to information has probably tempered many authoritative statements that were in the past said in more strident ways, in more protected contexts, without so many eyes & ears able to quickly compare past statements, etc. (This goes for a lot of institutions beyond the LDS church.)

[smac97]

> I asserted a hierarchy, you assumed a dichotomy.

==You made each method of epistemology (revelation and intellect) mutually exclusive. You characterized Mormons as relying on revlation and not relying on intellect. You characterized scripture as "warning against . . . things like intellect, scholarship, and the wisdom of men." That's not a hierarchy, where one (revelation) is deemed more important or reliable than the other (intellect). That is a dichotomy.

==I understand why you don't want to admit to positing a dichotomy, but that is precisely what you did.

> The language used, and the field of epistemology in general, implies that there are many ways of knowing, each with relative strengths.

==Right. But you characterized LDS belief as eschewing "things like intellect, scholarship, and the wisdom of men" in favor of revelation. That is a false characterization of our beliefs.

> In LDS theology and scripture, revelation and spiritual means of knowing are are reliable and valuable than relying on the arm of flesh.

==To the extent that one must be elevated above the other, you are correct. But that's not what you said initially.

-Smac