"The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon
'scientifically' has been first to attribute to the Book of
Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the
claim by scientific statements that have not been proven."- Hugh Nibley
The Book of Mormon has come under attack by critics on a number of levels. The most recent attack on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon has been under the guise of "science" in the form of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing on Native American populations. These attacks, spearheaded by former Mormons Thomas W. Murphy (an anthropologist who has been heralded by many as the Mormon Galileo) and Simon Southerton (a plant biologist) essentially run as following:
- The Book of Mormon claims that all Native Americans are descendants of a Middle Eastern Semite named Lehi.
- Genetic testing on Native American populations has shown that Indians are not of Middle Eastern descent, but from Asia.
- Thus, this proves that the Book of Mormon is not a true history.
- Ergo, this disproves any claim by Joseph Smith to have translated ancient records from real ancient Americans.
Take the first part of the argument. Critics claim that the Book of Mormon says that all Native Americans are descendants of Lehi. However, this is poor reading of the text. The Book of Mormon is, as has been shown by Dr. John Sorenson, a linear history, or, in other words, a history that selectively treats few populations. It is not describing the entire history of America in ancient times, but rather select populations.
Furthermore, evidence from the text seems to indicate that when Lehi and his family landed in Mesoamerica (the most likely spot where the events of the Book of Mormon occurred) they encountered and intermingled with native populations that were already present in America. Therefore, if Nephi and his family began intermarrying and mingling with native populations, then their genetic material would be nearly impossible to detect today. This phenomenon is called a population bottleneck. In other words, a genetic drift away from Lehi's genetic structure would take place amongst his descendants as their DNA began to mutate and adapt to the already overwhelming genetic presence of the native population. This bottleneck effect is also perpetuated by massive killings of selected populations that further wipe out whatever genetic material may have been left in the alien population. This is exactly the case with the Nephites, who were, en mass, wiped out (DNA and all) by the thousands.
Another consideration is what is called the founder effect. According to Wikipedia, founder effect is "the loss of genetic variation when a new colony is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population." (See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect)
In other words, as is attested in the Book of Mormon, when a small number of individuals marries and intermingles into a larger population, the genetic signal of the smaller group can become lost or overpowered by the already prevalent genetic makeup of the larger population that the smaller population is being assimilated into. (Interestingly enough, Murphy admitted this himself in his essay critical of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence. See "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy and Genetics," in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature, 2002), 53)
These and other reasons are important in taking to consideration if one is going to pronounce gloom and doom upon the Book of Mormon based on DNA. Simply put, the Book of Mormon does not present a scenario that can be tested by DNA.
Nevertheless, this has not stopped people (and entire organizations) from heralding this as the final nail in the coffin for the Book of Mormon. Much like Charles Larson, who proclaimed that it was "all over!" based on the controversy surrounding the Book of Abraham, so critics have announced that at last the Book of Mormon has been disproven by science.
One such organization, Living Hope Ministry (LHM), has produced a DVD entitled DNA Vs. The Book of Mormon in which Joel Kramer, the producer of the DVD and the head of LHM, has gleefully announced that the false prophet Joseph Smith and his bogus Book of Mormon has been proven to be a fraud. At the end of his DVD, he urges his watchers to accept fundamentalist Protestantism as the true Gospel and to leave Mormonism.
In DNA Vs. The Book of Mormon, Kramer presents that DNA evidence has proven that the Native Americans are from Asia and not the Middle East. This, he says, disproves the Book of Mormon. However, one thing that Kramer is careful not to tell his watchers is the fact that that very same DNA evidence is being used by secular scientists to bolster Darwin's theory of evolution, which is the polar opposite of the ideology of fundamentalist Evangelicalism. Furthermore, Kramer also omits the fact that the DNA used by scientists to link the Indians to Asian ancestry (the very DNA Kramer is proclaiming disproves the Book of Mormon) is believed to have been transmitted to the Americas from between 20,000 to 12,000 BCE. This is further at odds with the fundamentalist Evangelical view that Adam and Eve lived around 8,000-6,000 BCE.
Here is an apt cartoon illustrating this:
which cartoon is further explained here for the humor-impaired.
So we see a subtle double standard being employed by Evangelical critics of the Book of Mormon. On the one hand, they want to use DNA to disprove Mormonism. On the other hand, they refuse to apply the same standards (indeed, the very same DNA testing) they are subjecting the Mormons to towards their own paradigm. Considering this, one is forced to wonder just what Mr. Kramer's intentions are. Does he really want to proclaim the truth? Or is he simply trying to get a cheap shot off at the Mormons? In this case, I view the latter as more viable.
In conclusion, despite the popular ideas that the public holds about DNA testing, thanks largely in part to TV programs such as CSI, the Book of Mormon simply cannot be tested by DNA one way or another. It simply does not present a hypothesis that can be tested by DNA.
This has been but a brief overview on the issue of DNA and the Book of Mormon. There is much more that could be said about this issue. Therefore, the reader is advised to follow up on this issue by reading the following links.
Kevin Barney, A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event.". A review of an article on DNA and the Book of Mormon that appeared in Anthropology News.
Cooper Johnson, "DNA and the Book of Mormon," (Redding, California: FAIR, March 2002) Some say that DNA research can disprove (or prove) The Book of Mormon. This article examines a presentation on the subject by Dr. Scott R. Woodward at the 2001 FAIR Conference.
Brant Gardner, "The Tempest in a Teapot: DNA Studies and the Book of Mormon," (Redding, California: FAIR, January 2003) A review of what DNA studies can and, more importantly, cannot tell us about the Book of Mormon.
Jeff Lindsay, Does DNA evidence refute the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has come under heavy fire from critics in light of DNA evidence which is said to utterly refute claims of its historicity. These attacks typically rely on several faulty assumptions about the Book of Mormon and leave out important scientific details about the DNA evidence.
Brent Lee Shelton and Jonathan Marks, "Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity," (City Unknown: Council for Reponsible Genetics, 2002) While not directly citing DNA in relation to the Book of Mormon, this article provides an interesting viewpoint that indicates why DNA tests cannot provide conclusive proof of whether a person belongs to a specific ethnic group (such as Lamanites).
The FARMS Review, 2003. Volume 15, Number 2, pp. 25, 35, 91, 129, 165, 183. (PDF, 6.95 MB). Note that while not all of the essays in this edition of the FARMS Review do not deal with DNA, there a number of important essays on the subject contained therein.
Michael Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, January 2003) Published as a PDF and as a 45-minute video presentation concerning DNA and the Book of Mormon. An excellent resource that explains the problems in drawing definitive conclusions about the Book of Mormon based on DNA findings.
Part 1 - The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
Part 2 - The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
Part 3 - The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
DNA has not disproven the Book of Mormon, but it certainly has diminished it.
ReplyDeleteDNA has had enough of an impact to get the church leadership to change the title page of the Book of Mormon from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors of the Native Americans".
It is similar to how once there was a global flood and now, Noah's ark is reduced to a localized flood in most Christian denominations today as the age of science dispels these problems.
The historicity of the Book of Mormon is becoming less and less relevant.
During the time of Joseph Smith, people wondered where the Native Americans came from. The Book of Mormon helped some people in the 1800's answer the question where the Native Americans came from, because they had no idea.
However, today, nobody wonders where the Native Americans came from because we know where they came from through scientific study. anthropology, archeology and now genetics all confirm that Native Americans came from Asia, not Israel. So now the church has to redefine the Book of Mormon and it is pushed to a very small group that had very little impact on the overall culture.
Zelph:
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree that DNA has even diminished the Book of Mormon.
"DNA has had enough of an impact to get the church leadership to change the title page of the Book of Mormon from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors of the Native Americans"."
Good. This more accurately reflects the text. Furthermore, for what it is worth, the presenters on the DVD dealt with this issue.
"The historicity of the Book of Mormon is becoming less and less relevant."
I strongly disagree. The historicity is very relevant. It always has been and it always will be.
"During the time of Joseph Smith, people wondered where the Native Americans came from. The Book of Mormon helped some people in the 1800's answer the question where the Native Americans came from, because they had no idea."
How does this effect the veracity of the Book of Mormon? How do different interpretations about Book of Mormon historicity effect whether or not the book is ancient history? As I pointed out in the post, all that DNA does it discredit certain interpretations of the text, but not the text itself.
"However, today, nobody wonders where the Native Americans came from because we know where they came from through scientific study."
If only it were that simple. However, new evidence is pointing to a very diverse history and origin of Native Americans. This is touched on in the FAIR video I posted.
"anthropology, archeology and now genetics all confirm that Native Americans came from Asia, not Israel."
Correction, it confirms that most came from Asia, with evidence from elsewhere. See the video for more information on this.
"So now the church has to redefine the Book of Mormon and it is pushed to a very small group that had very little impact on the overall culture."
Church leaders and scholars have been coming to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon deals with a Limited Geography decades before DNA ever came into the picture. See the following:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml#others
stesmo-
ReplyDeleteThank you for the references, and I did watch the videos, but I simply have found them to be unconvincing at this point. I am also aware of the first heretics that suggested the limited geography view of the Book of Mormon.
It makes me wonder what kind of heretics today will be referenced a few decades from now to point out things that will become more widely accepted. Perhaps one day when is more widely accepted that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction, people will refer to heretics today as 'proof' that it is not in any way a new concept.
Let me retract my statement, because I try not to be too negative sounding. The Book of Mormon itself is not diminished with a limited geography, or even a work of inspired fiction. The Book of Mormon can hold up as a spiritual guide book regardless of the historicity.
May I suggest the Book New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology
I am sure you are aware of the LDS "inspired fiction" crowd, and this would be a good book to see their view.
@zelph:
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to make the assertion that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than inspired fiction. There is now more evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon than there is against it. Your arguments against its historicity and authenticity (that it is a book of scripture written by an ancient people) are focusing on a narrow slice of rhetoric against the book.
You need to qualify your thesis that the historicity is becoming less relevant by providing plausible and reasoned responses to other questions, such as how Joseph was able to guess, luck into, or be inspired enough of his own accord to have consistently stayed true to complex and interwoven timelines, to have produced abundant hebraisms and chiasmus that read strangely in English but make perfect sense in Hebrew, have an intricate understanding of guerrilla warfare methods and geology of mesoamerica over 100 years before modern scientists would discover the same, and a host of other questions.
Disillusioned and anti-Mormons should at least attempt to provide logically and scientifically sound answers and refrain from recycling 150 year-old boilerplate responses. Doubts about historicity that arise from co-opted, manipulated, and misquoted DNA research do little to solidify any arguments against this book.
Either it's true or it's not. There's no middle ground.
Rob Watson-
ReplyDelete"There is now more evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon than there is against it"
That is a false statement if I have ever heard one.
I am sorry, but can you tell me where Ramah was, or Moron, or Ogath, or Moriantum, or Teancum, or Angola, or Ohidah, or Kiskumen, or the Land of Lehi-Nephi, or Jacobugath,or Alma, or Shilom were? Or where the Nephite temples are?
The metal swords(yes, metal swords, not wooden clubs with obsidian blades), or the calendar system used by the Nephites, or any archaeological evidence of any of the wars from the BoM, or economic, political or social culture, the plants, weapons, animals, buildings, governmental types, monetary systems, tools as described in the BoM?
Please reference a source that gives more evidence, because I have not seen any evidence.
Of course as always, you are missing the most fundamental flaw in all of this, and that is the simple fact that there is no control group.
Have you considered that the only reason why people find parallels in Mesoamerica with the BoM is because it is the only place people are looking? This is the problem I keep bringing up. What if the church spent just as much time looking in a completely unrelated location, like Africa or India? How many parallels would they find in those regions? Would they find just as many or even more parallels in those areas? It is impossible to know, because obviously such an experiment would never occur. That is the point, it is impossible to know how important the parallels found in Mesoamerica are, since we have no control group. If you have taken High School science, then you can see where the problem is from a scientific approach.
Zelph:
ReplyDeleteYou want references? Here is a good one. Brand new, hot off the press from Greg Kofford Books.
Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon. 6 Volumes
This series is written by Brant Gardner, who has an M.S. in Anthropology (specializing in Mesoamerican Ethnohistory) from State University of New York at Albany. His published works include chapters in Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl and Symbol and Meaning beyond the Closed Community: Essays in Mesoamerican Ideas.
Or what about Dr. John L. Sorenson's "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" and his other works? Dr. Sorenson has a Ph.D from the University of California, Los Angeles.
How come I think you are not too familiar with the scholarship of Latter-day Saint historians and scholars? If you are, then the burden of proof rests on you to disprove the arguments of said scholars.
"I am sorry, but can you tell me where Ramah was, or Moron, or Ogath, or Moriantum, or Teancum, or Angola, or Ohidah, or Kiskumen, or the Land of Lehi-Nephi, or Jacobugath,or Alma, or Shilom were? Or where the Nephite temples are?"
This is assuming that Mesoamerican archeology, as it stands, could be able to find such. You seem to be under the delusion that we have found 100% of everything ever in Mesoamerica. That is false. According to Mark Wright, when I spoke with him a few weeks ago, who is currently working on a PhD in Mesoamerican archeology, we have uncovered less than 1/2 of 1% that is down there. See the following: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=39
"The metal swords(yes, metal swords, not wooden clubs with obsidian blades)"
Your ignorance of Mormon scholarship in this regards is staggering. When you have bothered to read Mormon scholarship, feel free to come back and disprove their arguments.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=OTY2MjQ5OTIzLTgtMS5wZGY=&type=amJtcw==
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MTIwNjczMzA0My01LTEucGRm&type=amJtcw==
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_warfare:Swords
"or the calendar system used by the Nephites,"
Consistent with Mesoamerica. See the works by Gardner and Sorenson.
"or any archaeological evidence of any of the wars from the BoM"
Good grief. You really don't know anything about LDS research. Yor ignorance coupled with such bombastic dogmatism is startling.
On warfare in the Book of Mormon, see "Warfare in the Book of Mormon" edited by William Hamblin from FARMS.
"or economic, political or social culture, the plants, weapons, animals, buildings, governmental types, monetary systems, tools as described in the BoM?"
Sign...I can tell you know next to nothing about these issue. Please, I am begging you, please read the works I referenced. Pretty please! Do yourself a favor by reading LDS scholarship before you make such bogus claims.
"Please reference a source that gives more evidence, because I have not seen any evidence."
You are not seeing any evidence because you refuse to see any evidence. Your mind is made up and your eyes closed. Nothing is going to persuade you. Nevertheless, I would encourage you to pick up Gardner's new commentary. It is really very good and deals with everything you have brought up.
"Have you considered that the only reason why people find parallels in Mesoamerica with the BoM is because it is the only place people are looking? "
False. People, such as Rodney Meldrum, reject Mesoamerica and favor a North American geography. Others prefer a South American geography, etc. Nice straw man, BTW.
"What if the church spent just as much time looking in a completely unrelated location, like Africa or India? "
Methodologically unsound and a red herring. Actually, research has been done in Arabia. Rob and I have posted on it. Feel free to read our posts and engage in our research and the links we posted.
"That is the point, it is impossible to know how important the parallels found in Mesoamerica are, since we have no control group. If you have taken High School science, then you can see where the problem is from a scientific approach."
When dealing with a historical document, no such control group can be used. This is impossible when dealing with history. Only the hard sciences, like physics, biology, chemistry, etc. are in a position to utilize controls. See the article by Hamblin that I posted.
Also, I have read the book by Metcalfe and found it unconvincing. I could talk ages about it, but since I have neither the time nor the want at the moment, I will refer you to this:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/reviewvolume.php?volume=6&number=1
Furthermore, since the Book of Abraham seems to have caused you a lot of trouble, are you familiar with the research of Hugh Nibley, John Gee, John Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, Kerry Shirts, Michael Rhodes, Richly Crapo, Daniel C. Peterson, Paul Y. Hoskisson or James R. Harris? If so, would you be so kind as to evaluate and refute their research? Or, for that matter, would you care to take a look at this? http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf
Really, I see this a lot. A critics comes, assuming with bombastic certitude that he/she/it has all the evidence in the world to disprove the Book of Mormon, then does not bother to check up on the latest research. I am so sorry that this seems to be the case. I am sorry that you jettisoned your testimony prematurely without first looking at the other side. Oh well. I would only encourage you to read LDS research on these issues, ponder and carefully qualify their arguments, and consider other possibilities. Though...I am not holding my breath...
stesmo-
ReplyDeleteThank you for the reference. I am unfamiliar with Brant Gardner.
However, I have read Sorenson's "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon". Ironically, it is what ultimately led to my disillusionment. Needless to say that it was very unconvincing, and I highlighted several instances where many of his claims were easily dispelled. The book is in a storage unit, but if you like, I can pull it out and point out specifically what I am referring to.
Your links are bad. Can you make them into a hotlink, because I think that they are cut-off and this is all I am getting:
"PDF NOT FOUND pdf/966249923-8-"
"PDF NOT FOUND pdf/120673"
"Book of Mormon and warfare:S
From FAIRMormon
Jump to: navigation, search
There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page."
You wrote "are you familiar with the research of Hugh Nibley, John Gee, John Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, Kerry Shirts, Michael Rhodes, Richly Crapo, Daniel C. Peterson, Paul Y. Hoskisson or James R. Harris? If so, would you be so kind as to evaluate and refute their research?"
Once again, I have not read every book on the subject, but I have heard every defense for the Book of Abraham and have found them to be inadequate and easily disproved. I believe that I have stated my reasoning on an earlier post.
Your link on the Book of Abraham was the only valid link, but once again, I had read that link during my extensive research on the subject and once again feel that the explanations in the FAIR article were unconvincing. Once again, it was articles like these that really put the last nail in the coffin for me. Let me ask you something. Have you seen the film "The lost Book of Abraham:Investigating a Remarkable Mormon Claim" that the article is referring to?
I believe that you are incorrect in your assertion that the burden of proof lies with people to disprove the Book of Mormon. In fact, I don't even consider myself in that category. I simply have not seen any substantial evidence that supports the Book of Mormon, just 'plausibilities' for people that already believe it is true.
I do not believe that I have to 'check in' every few months for the latest letdown. I figure that if there is any real hard evidence it will come to me.
I don't mean to be too combative, so maybe we can find some common ground. I think that we can both agree that if someone already believes in the Book of Mormon, they don't require 'proof' but just 'plausibility'. However, if someone like me becomes more skeptical, then the 'plausibility' becomes less than satisfying.
I think the common ground is that it is perfectly logical and defensible to take either point depending on what you put your trust in--faith or reason. Which side you fall in depends on where you place your faith -- for or against since both sides can be argued for. We just happen to believe that it's only faith that makes the ultimate determination. The scientific part is incidental to that.
ReplyDeleteI rely first on my testimony that the Book of Mormon is true, for that is the surest way of knowing. If I can't trust God to tell me the truth, which I know He has to me, then whom can I trust?
The same goes for nearly all of these scholars cited who claim to be faithful to the teachings of the LDS Church. Even though some have obviously made their life's work out of researching the Book of Mormon from a scientific angle, each has publicly stated that their knowledge of the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon has less to do with scientific, tangible proofs than it does with pure testimony. They're not doing their research in spite of the Book of Mormon, but because the possibility that physical proof exists for what they already believe to be true is a tantalizing prospect. But tangible evidence is certainly not the only way of knowing something.
For example, a biologist looks through his microscope, measures and dissects his specimen, and states that God does not exist. Likewise, a Creationist opens his scriptures, interprets literally what he reads, and declares that everything was created ex nihilo (out of nothing).
Both are making the mistake of applying the wrong way of knowing to different realities. Science can only answer questions about the physical, tangible world and religion can only answer questions about the "metaphysical" world, if you will.
The crossover can and does occur when something in the physical world strongly correlates to something in the spiritual world. That's why humans do archaeology because we find it intellectually satisfying when something that someone wrote 3000 years ago has a strong relationship to something physical that we've discovered today. But when it comes to things that are considered of spiritual worth, that physical "proof" is only one aspect of the puzzle and will probably be interpreted in as many ways as there are people interpreting it. To truly get to the answer of whether any scripture is true, we also have to turn to God to help us fill in the blanks and correct our understandings.
Now, is God going to say "Yes, that huge skull with the hole in the forehead belongs to Goliath whom David slew"? No. God never intended for us to accept His truth based on visual evidences only. On the contrary, we are to apply faith and prayer and a humble heart (and reason, to the extent that it doesn't consume us and turn us away from God) and then accept the answer He gives us. If that doesn't agree with what we physically experience, so be it. His answer is the ultimate answer we need. Anything else is to look to false sources for truth.
2 Ne. 9: 28-29
28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
and, to correlate to the same teaching in the bible:
2 Cor. 10:3-5
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the purpose of this blog is to talk about the Book of Mormon from the context of faith with real-world evidences as but one support. However, I would like to emphasize that if someone put a gun to my head, so to speak, and I had to choose between one and the other, I would choose the faith context over the science context every single time. For me, these evidences are meant stimulate thinking and conversation, not to be a means to an end.
Rob, I think we agree on that.
ReplyDelete"I rely first on my testimony that the Book of Mormon is true, for that is the surest way of knowing. If I can't trust God to tell me the truth, which I know He has to me, then whom can I trust?"
I used to believe that this was the best way to determine truth. Pray about something and if you felt in your heart that it was true, then that makes it true.
However, I no longer believe this is the best and most reliable method of determining truth.
I will admit that LDS apologists have demonstrated how the BoM is 'plausible'.
The reason I no longer believe that praying and basing your entire belief on a feeling is because of several instances where the spirit has been wrong.
I have spoken with Mormon Fundamentalists that have born their testimony that Warren Jeffs is a true prophet, and they say it with just as much conviction as the members of the LDS church had with Gordon B. Hinckley. I know Muslims that try to get me to read the Qur'an and testify of its truthfulness and that it is God's word as given to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. They have just as much conviction of the Qur'an that members of the LDS church have with the BoM. They used the exact same method to determine that the Qur'an is true. They say if you just read it and pray to Allah you will know it is true. I think you are aware that "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" referring specifically to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
My parents fostered a Native American boy that lived with us. My parents prayed and felt the spirit confirm to them that he was a descendant of the Lamanites. He is Navajo. It turns out that Navajo Native Americans have nothing to do with the history of the Book of Mormon. They are among the 98% that came over from Asia. It seems that the spirit got that one wrong. Of course my parents cope with it by saying that he must have some relatives tied to the Lamanites, which is kind of silly for anyone that looks at the history and origin of the Navajo would find that silly. Their dialect is closely related to languages spoken by tribes in Alaska and NW Canada. Navajo have nothing to do with Mesoamerica. Nothing whatsoever. However, for my parents, they still draw a 'plausibility', even if it seems kinda ridiculous and very improbable.
I believe that the best way to determine truth is to study it and think critically. That is God's gift to man to discern truth, not a subjective feeling that can depend on as little as what you had for dinner.
That is why in my disillusionment, I have become seriously skeptical at the Bible as I have come to discover regardless what Evangelicals claim, the Bible has the same criticism as the BoM. So applying the same method to the Bible, I question the authenticity of most of the stories as being literal histories, even the historical Jesus.
I believe that the best way to determine truth is to study it and think critically. That is God's gift to man to discern truth, not a subjective feeling that can depend on as little as what you had for dinner.
ReplyDeleteHow about both? The scriptures teach that we should study things out in our minds and hearts and then ask God if they're true.
The reason I no longer believe that praying and basing your entire belief on a feeling is because of several instances where the spirit has been wrong.
Was the Spirit wrong? Or did the receiver receive the wrong message? Did they mistake their emotions for the Spirit? That does happen. Our vision is so limited that it could have been the Spirit is right, but they haven't seen the full outcome of the answer. The full story could be years away from playing itself out. Just because we don't see the "why" right now, doesn't mean there isn't one.
The convictions of other people towards their own faiths can indeed seem to contradict our own as members of the Church. But it is interesting to note that the convictions of others outside the Church don't seem to include a testimony of where to go for one single source of truth. Even among Islamic religious societies, there are about as many sects and break-offs as there are within Christianity. Each one (Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) claims its own cornered market on truth, but don't provide full answers to basic human questions such as who we are, why we're here, and where we're going (and what it's like, most importantly). Each other faith has a way of explaining their gaps in knowledge by calling them "mysteries" or "things knowable only to God". We claim the privilege of receiving _all_ knowledge from God directly through revelation for our individual benefit. That's something no other Church provides.
Besides, if all truth comes through logic and reasoning alone, does that mean that only people who can manage that level of higher-order thinking are able to find truth? If a mentally or educationally challenged person seeks truth, are they forever barred from it because of a physical economic handicap?
If truth is solely arrived at by logic, what happens when two people come to polar opposite conclusions by using identical logic? This occurs often in political (especially regarding abortion) and religious debates.
You're kind of contradicting yourself, in a way. On the one hand you're saying that you don't have a testimony because all we Mormons do is go on feelings. But if you listen in Church, we're told never to go on feelings alone. We're constantly taught to read scriptures, ponder what they say, and do as much as we can to understand on an intellectual level before we apply the prayer part. The pharisees went on logic alone, which led them to deny their own faith and erect all kinds of strange doctrines and laws that Jesus came to renounce.
What your parents learned through revelation was for their benefit alone, and not meant as a general declaration of Church doctrine on the provenance of the Navajo people. What they learned was not necessary for salvation. What they learned through revelation pertained to that boy alone, whose ancestry remains undocumented and frankly, who cares? It's just not important enough to lose your faith over it.
There were many things 1000 years ago that people would have thought ridiculous and illogical that to us make perfect sense based on logic and facts. For example, if you got in a time machine and went back to the days of Plato and told him that microorganisms were responsible for most sicknesses and it wasn't "bad air" or "curses", you would have been laughed off the flat edge of the planet. But our knowledge today, which I believe is revealed from God, tells us that microorganisms are completely logical and factual.
God is not a respecter of persons. If you live the right way under any religion and for the right reasons, you will be blessed for the parts that you got right. Muslims fast and give money to the poor. Jews have feasts of thanksgiving and celebrations of atonement days (Rosh Hashana). Buddhists revere their ancestors (hearts turned to their fathers). Hindus revere animal life and strive to protect it (word of wisdom and prohibitions on eating too much meat in times of plenty). Our knowledge has not reached the point where we can say this with any certainty. But who's to say that God didn't give these specific religions to these groups of people to prepare them for greater light and knowledge later?
rob- you have some valid points and I understand where you are coming from. I do not believe I am any smarter than you or any member of the church, I just believe that I have come to a different conclusion, which as you said, happens with logic and reason, as it happens with prayer and feelings.
ReplyDelete