Posted by: Mark ®
05/27/2003, 17:53:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Regarding the web site
http://www.mormonchallenge.com/
on DNA evidence re the BoM, and the video they're developing on this topic, I noticed at the bottom of their "Bulletin" page the
following:
March 27, 2003:
The video project has been finished since mid February. The most recent developement is that Living Hope Ministries has sent a copy to every address in our town (7500 tapes). There will be an open meeting on Friday March 28 at the Brigham City community center. It will be an open meeting to ask us questions about the project and why we have done it. Please join us at 7:00 pm.Which got me wondering how this Mormon town (Brigham City) reacted to this. So I did a google search ("Brigham City" DNA "Book of Mormon")
and found an article in the Standard Examiner newspaper of Ogden, Utah (which serves Brigham City), at http://www.standard.net/standard/news.html?subcat=religion+txt=Religion You have to register to look at the article but it basically talks about how many in the community have reacted very negatively to receiving the video, returning it to sender after mutilating or breaking the tape or with attached nastigrams or threats. It'd be interesting to know how many actually watched the tape and if there was any significant defection from the Church as a result. I'd doubt it for a number of reasons: of the probable minority who did watch it, many would dismiss it as anti-mormon propaganda that can't be believed (even if this is a pretty straightforward video covering scientific problems with the BoM's stance on the origin of Ancient Americans), leaving an even smaller minority who would be troubled by it, and among those few would act immediately or in concert with each other to indicate that they're leaving the Church; most of even this small minority troubled by it would struggle with it privately for awhile so as to not upset family or other relationships. Interesting to see how difficult it is to change people's perceptions on things like this -- no matter how clear the evidence and the presentation. Regards,
Mark
|
Posted by: dan ®
06/11/2003, 10:39:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
Regarding Thomas Murphy, just to be fair, check out this:
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/murphy.pdfAlso, I recently watched a FARMS taped presentation by Michael Whiting given at BYU earlier this year in rebuttal to what critics have been saying about DNA and the BOM. I am no scientist and my mind is not made up yet on the BOM, but I thought he did a pretty good job of casting doubt on Thomas Murphy and others and their conclusions. Poor science on either side of the debate is what offends me. If you read the article on the above link and watch that FARMS video, giving the other side a chance to speak, I don't see how anyone could consider the matter of DNA and the BOM to be so concluded. Murphy's conclusiveness seems kind of amateurish and scientifically immature. One's desire to be famous and/or disprove the BOM should never get in the way of honest scientific inquiry. I think people like him give a bad name to those who are making honest criticisms.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
06/11/2003, 23:49:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
dan,I downloaded and read the file you posted. The question is how did Murphy arrive at his views? Does he have secret agenda to slander the Church, perhaps to gain fame as Wyatt insinuates? Was he paid to draw certain conclusions? I doubt these accusations. My guess is that like many of us Murphy arrived at his conclusions through his own scholarship. Once he arrived at those conclusions, he wanted to make others aware of them. He chose to disseiminate his conclusions through the venues avaiulable to him. Murphy's claims should be refuted on their merits, not on the basis of his method of disseminating his results. I would be interested in how Michael Whiting handles Murphy's points that haplogroups A, B, C, and D are found in American Indians and Northern Asians but not in the Middle East. I would also like to hear how he accounts for the fact that that there are different versions of Haplogroup X, which are found in the Middle Eastern, Northern Asia, and amoxng American Indians, and the American Indian vesion is closest to the Northern Asian version. These are not amateurish or scientifically immature arguments, as you characterize them. Frankly, the evidence regarding human evolution and migrations of human populations is just overwhelming, and it comes from many disciplines. It is a great story but nothing at all like the mythology of the Book of Mormon. If you are interested in the real story that science is unfodling, I would suggest you check out Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 23:50:20
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
06/12/2003, 03:00:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey Craig, I've always admired you and Dan as posters here. I just had a question about that book you recommended. What new issues does it bring to the table which are not already covered in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and American Apocrypha? (That is, if you've read them.)Would it be worth it for me to invest the time in another book like that? I wonder if I am missing anything big.Thanks, -phishhead
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
06/12/2003, 09:41:22
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks phish,"Guns, Germs, and Steel" has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. It is the big picture view of human dispersals out of Africa and around the world. What I like about it is that it gives the unified picture that has emerged from archaeology, linguistics, and genetics, and it provides an enormous amount of supporting data. I highly recommend it. Regards, Craig
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
06/12/2003, 13:13:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
After my previous post, I read the Amazon.com reviews of Guns, Germs, and Steel and realized I had made a bogus assumption. Now I see that while it doesn't address the BOM directly, it does raise serious doubts about the BOM's account of how the Americas were populated, the technologies that ancient Americans had, etc. Thanks for the recommendation, Craig.-phishhead
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
06/14/2003, 16:51:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
I concur with Craig's recommendation of Guns, Germs and Steel. I found it such an enjoyable read I actually went out and bought a copy rather than just checking it out from the Library. As Craig Said, it does not directly address the Book of Mormon's claims. I don't think it even mentions that book.Gunnar
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
06/12/2003, 02:45:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan,I really admire you as a poster, so naturally I am disappointed that you are being so hard on a scholar (Murphy) which I admire so much. It has been a few months since I read American Apocrypha, but I do remember finding Murphy's essay on Lamanite DNA to be quite convincing. However, I am no scientist either. Without pointing me to FARMS (barf!), could you elaborate on what was so poor, amateur, and scientifically immature about Murphy's arguments? I was also surprised when you wrote that your "mind is not yet made up on the BOM". Are you talking about the BOM as an inspired translation of an ancient record in general, or just specifically the claims about native American descent from the Hebrews and the DNA issues surrounding it (which is the focus of Murphy's essay)? I think you meant the latter. I read the article Motivation, Behavior, and Dissention which you provided a link to, and I found it to be much more biased than Murphy's work. Wyatt (the apologist who wrote it) criticizes Murphy for trying to come off as an honest Mormon scholar but at the same time associating with anti-Mormons, even branding Murphy as someone "who would like to see the church destroyed." As is typical of LDS apologetics, they try to portray the church as the innocent victim. I really feel that this is a mischaracterization of Tom Murphy. To me he seems like just an honest seeker of truth trying to understand the BOM for what it really is. I doubt he wants to tear down the church. Rather, he probably just wants them to tell the truth. If he has erred in some of his research, I'm sure he would revise some of his thinking if presented with proper evidence. It is the apologists at FARMS and FAIR who are the most biased, for they are the ones who won't budge in their views no matter what the evidence says. For them, truth is predetermined, and any research they do is only intended to confirm what they already believe. But DNA issues aside, there are many problems with BOM historicity, which I am sure you're well aware. DNA is just a small piece of the puzzle, and it is not what convinced me that the BOM is a piece of 19th century fiction. Well, Dan, regardless of whether or not we agree on the academic integrity of Tom Murphy, it is a pleasure to read your posts here. Now that I am done with school (and now that people are actually discussing Mormonism again) I will probably be participating here a lot more, and looking forward to future dialogue with you. -phishhead (aka Jake)
Modified by phishhead at Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 02:48:07
|
Posted by: dan ®
06/13/2003, 14:38:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
I had written a long reply to you but somehow it got lost when I tried to post it. Instead it posted a (no text) message with subject line saying re:ditto what craig said. Please disregard that one.I don't have enough breath left to post such a long-winded reply as I had previously tried to post. So I'm going to make it short. I think you are confusing me with another Dan. I just started posting at this forum about a week ago.
As a student of the law, I have learned that very rarely is there a piece of evidence that proves something conclusively. It bothers me, therefore, that Murphy speaks in such a conclusory fashion. To say that DNA evidence "proves" that the BOM is not what it claims to be seems to be jumping the gun. I am no scientist, but I know that there are all sorts of variables that go into the mix when it comes to DNA research. Murphy may have found strong evidence, but he certainly hasn't found proof. Regarding those links to FARMS and FAIR. Should I disregard an argument because of the identity of the author?
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
06/14/2003, 00:46:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
dan,You say, As a student of the law, I have learned that very rarely is there a piece of evidence that proves something conclusively. In this case, we do not have just a single piece of evidence. The linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence all fail to support the story of Book of Mormon. In fact, this evidence supports an entirely different story. The genetic evidence that Murphy cites is quite compelling. He points that haplogroups A, B, C, and D are found in American Indians and Northern Asians but not in the Middle East. What does that say about the origins of Native Americans? He points out that there are different versions of Haplogroup X, which are found in the Middle East, Northern Asia, and among American Indians. The American Indian version is closest to the Northern Asian version. What does that say about the origins of Native Americans? These genetic facts are consistent with the story that comes from archaelogy and linguistics. What is the most probable explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon? An analysis of religious doctrines and ideas within the Book of Mormon clearly establishes that these ideas were typical of early 19th century America (see Grant Palmer's book An Insider's View of the Origins of Mormonism), but these ideas are nowhere to be found in ancient America. Regarding those links to FARMS and FAIR. Should I disregard an argument because of the identity of the author? Forget about the identity of the author. Let's focus on the evidence. Imagine that this is a dot-to-dot puzzle. Each dot is a piece of evidence. What do you see when you connect the dots? Which story does the best job of connecting the dots? Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Sat, Jun 14, 2003, 18:58:07
|
Posted by: dan ®
06/16/2003, 14:43:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
You said: "In this case, we do not have just a single piece of evidence. The linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence all fail to support the story of Book of Mormon. In fact, this evidence supports an entirely different story." This was said in response to my assertion that rarely is there a piece of evidence that proves something conclusively. And in fact, your statement illustrates my point. I still maintain that no single piece of evidence, standing alone, can prove or disprove the BOM. Taken together, all of the different types of evidence in the aggregate may defeat the BOM's claims to authenticity, but what single piece of evidence, standing alone, can do it? Can Murphy's DNA evidence, by itself, "prove" that the BOM is false? I am not arguing that convincing evidence against the BOM, from all kinds of disciplines, does not exist. I am merely stating that it is incorrect to say that the DNA evidence proves the BOM is false. There can be rational explanations for why no traces of Hebrew DNA appear in American Indians besides the explanation that no Hebrews migrated to America. For example, there is the restricted area theory. But because of all the evidence coming from other fields of study, these alternative explanations are highly implausible. Thus, DNA evidence depends on other types of evidence to make its case. In and of itself, it proves nothing. Since we are talking about the BOM, I would like to hear some opinions on another issue. First, let me give you some context: I am a member, BIC, went on a mission to Brazil, am 27 years old, and have been questioning for about 2 years now. I am fairly new to the research on the BOM. But I do know enough about the issues and the key players on either side of the debate to realize that you will probably scoff at the mention of Hugh Nibley. Well, I borrowed some of Hugh Nibley's writing about the BOM from a friend recently, to give the apologists an opportunity to make their case. In his book, Nibley touched on an idea that I had already thought of, although he didn't actually call it by name: Occam's Razor. I will assume you are familiar with this concept. In my mind, Occam's Razor is a concept that always seemed to be working against the claims of the LDS church. But Nibely actually used it in defense of the BOM by asserting that Joseph Smith's explanation about the origin of the BOM is the simplest one--the one requiring the least number of inferences and assumptions. Supposedly, any alternative explanation would be even more complicated and unbelievable than the idea of an angelic visitation, translating by the gift and power of God, etc.
I would like to hear responses to this argument and to the frequently made argument that nobody could have written so many pages in so few days, could have come up with so many authentic Hebrew and Egyptian names, nor could have so well known Saudi Arabian geography. Thanks.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
06/17/2003, 01:35:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello dan,You say I still maintain that no single piece of evidence, standing alone, can prove or disprove the BOM. Taken together, all of the different types of evidence in the aggregate may defeat the BOM's claims to authenticity, but what single piece of evidence, standing alone, can do it? Can Murphy's DNA evidence, by itself, "prove" that the BOM is false? Murphy's reasoning disproves the notion that the primary ancestors of Native American Indians were of Middle East origin, and instead supports the view that the primary ancestors were of Central Asian extraction. Whether this evidence alone is sufficient to disprove the BoM depends on your standards for proof and evidence and on your willingness to accept apologist conjecture that contradicts what Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets and apostles said about the ancestors of the Native Americans. Modern apologists realized that science was backing them into a corner, so they invented a story that is more difficult to refute: that the Lamanites were a small population that interbred with the native inhabitants. Of course, this revisionist version of the BoM is not what has traditionally been stated, and it is inconsistent with the BoM itself: How plausible is it that the Lamanites/Nephites would have come into contact with large non- Israelite populations, interbred with them, but that sucha momentous culture clash would receive nary a word in the BoM? I am not arguing that convincing evidence against the BOM, from all kinds of disciplines, does not exist. I am merely stating that it is incorrect to say that the DNA evidence proves the BOM is false. That depends on what you are willing to believe. The genetic evidence in itself is sufficient to disprove past claims regarding the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. There can be rational explanations for why no traces of Hebrew DNA appear in American Indians besides the explanation that no Hebrews migrated to America. For example, there is the restricted area theory. Yes, that is what I was alluding to above. But that is a recent innovation in Mormon apologetics, and belies previous assertions and is inconsistent with the BoM itself. But because of all the evidence coming from other fields of study, these alternative explanations are highly implausible. Thus, DNA evidence depends on other types of evidence to make its case. In and of itself, it proves nothing. I disagree: the genetic evidence clearly demonstrates that the principal ancestors of the native American Indians were not of Middle Eastern origin. This contradicts the BoM, prophet assertions, and is incongruent with the book itself. Since we are talking about the BOM, I would like to hear some opinions on another issue. First, let me give you some context: I am a member, BIC, went on a mission to Brazil, am 27 years old, and have been questioning for about 2 years now. I was also BIC, went on a mission to South America (actually spent 1 year on the Brazilian border). I began questioning the BoM at about your age. I am fairly new to the research on the BOM. But I do know enough about the issues and the key players on either side of the debate to realize that you will probably scoff at the mention of Hugh Nibley. I have a very low opinion of Hugh Nibley. His name conjurs up feelings of betrayal, deception, and anger for me. Well, I borrowed some of Hugh Nibley's writing about the BOM from a friend recently, to give the apologists an opportunity to make their case. In his book, Nibley touched on an idea that I had already thought of, although he didn't actually call it by name: Occam's Razor. I will assume you are familiar with this concept. In my mind, Occam's Razor is a concept that always seemed to be working against the claims of the LDS church. But Nibely actually used it in defense of the BOM by asserting that Joseph Smith's explanation about the origin of the BOM is the simplest one--the one requiring the least number of inferences and assumptions. Supposedly, any alternative explanation would be even more complicated and unbelievable than the idea of an angelic visitation, translating by the gift and power of God, etc. Step back now, and ask yourself: What is the simplest explanation for the facts? Here we have a story about angelic messengers, vanishing gold plates, urim and thumim (or is it a seer stone in a hat?), a book filled with 19th century theology but purporting to reflect Ancient American civilizations, a complete absence of supporting linguistic, archaelogical, and genetic data. What is the simplest explanation for these facts? That all these wildly improbable evenets actually happened? Or that this is a fiction - a con job? I would like to hear responses to this argument and to the frequently made argument that nobody could have written so many pages in so few days, could have come up with so many authentic Hebrew and Egyptian names, nor could have so well known Saudi Arabian geography. The final dictation of the manuscript took about 90 days, but Joseph had plenty of time to gather material and develop a plotline, and he also had plenty of time to revise the manuscript. In of An Insider’s View of the Origins of Mormonism , Grant Palmer points out that Joseph was able to dictate rapidly because he was well versed in the language and terminology of Evangelical Christianity of his era. He also borrowed heavily from many sources, and especially the King James version of the Bible. Palmer concludes that Joseph “had three years to develop, write, and refine the book – six years from the time he told his family about the project.”
Regarding Book of Mormon names, see this reference: Names in BoM Regarding Saudi Arabian geography, note that Joseph Smith had access to library books. Consider these books available to Joseph Smith: Books owned by Joseph Smith I think it is interesting the Joseph Smith owned this book: Smiley, Thomas T. Sacred Geography or a Description of the Places Mentioned in the Old and New Testament, intended to Promote a Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, accompanied by three maps . . . adapted to the use of schools and Private Families. Philadelphia, Printed for the author by W.P. Bason. Charleston, South Carolina, 1824. 12pp. [Maps: Map of the East as mentioned by Moses; Canaan, Palestine or the Holy Land; Countries mentioned in the New Testament] A plausible theory for the development of the BoM is found here: > Quinn’s theory for development of the BoM Regards, Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Tue, Jun 17, 2003, 01:45:31
|
Posted by: dan ®
06/17/2003, 12:09:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks, Craig, for the links. You said:
"Murphy's reasoning disproves the notion that the primary ancestors of Native American Indians were of Middle East origin, and instead supports the view that the primary ancestors were of Central Asian extraction. Whether this evidence alone is sufficient to disprove the BoM depends on your standards for proof and evidence and on your willingness to accept apologist conjecture that contradicts what Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets and apostles said about the ancestors of the Native Americans." There may be different standards of proof in the legal world (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt), but in the scientific world, it is a different matter. As long as there are still other possibilities, nothing is proven in the scientific world. Cases may be determined by the preponderance of the evidence standard (more likely than not, or 51% vs. 49%) in courtrooms, but much more is at stake here. I think this topic is more deserving of a scientific analysis. The legal standards of proof are applied because the time and discovery constraints in courts of law preclude exhaustive, full-scale inquiries. I wouldn’t want to make the determination concerning the BOM on a standard like that. I would still say that the DNA evidence does not disprove the BOM. I agree that it disproves the traditional assumption that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indian as stated in the Introduction to the BOM (not written until mid-twentieth century) and in the words of of LDS GAs and as assumed in the D&C. That is pretty obvious. But it does not disprove the apologists' revised understanding of the origins of the American Indians. That is because, however implausible, the restricted area theory is still conceivable. It is possible that the BOM is what it claims to be, while the traditional assumptions about the origins of the American Indians are wrong. Human error. But I agree that, even when there is still a scientific possibility, there are times when the evidence is so overwhelming that one can safely reject a theory. An aside:
It is frustrating for someone like me who is still undecided to grapple with the apologists' explanations for things. It seems like their case is always based on a possible, yet unlikely hypothesis. They seize on a possibility and then exploit it, all the while ridiculing those who do not agree. If you watched the FARMS video by Michael Whiting, you'll notice that he barely mentioned the debates centering around the topic of whether one can believe in the BOM while also rejecting the traditional assumptions about the origins of the American Indians. It seems to me that this is the major issue. That is, how much a part of the church's core doctrine is the idea of the Lamanites being the principal ancestors? Can it be rejected and the church's claims to divine revelation stay intact? But Whiting did not talk about this (as he is a scientist, not a theologian). He did however, conclusively reject the traditional understandings so that there is no choice but to face squarely the theological question.
Modified by dan at Tue, Jun 17, 2003, 12:11:36
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
06/17/2003, 13:17:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello again dan,You say, There may be different standards of proof in the legal world (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt), but in the scientific world, it is a different matter. As long as there are still other possibilities, nothing is proven in the scientific world. I have spent my whole career in the scientific world, and I have to respectfully disagree. In science, we make guesses (hypotheses), then test our guesses to see if they are correct. If tests fail to support the hypothesis then we are obliged to formulate a new hypothesis that better fits the evidence. We have a saying: "There goes another beautiful theory murdered by a brutal gang of facts." In the case of the BoM, we have a hypothesis about the principal origins of the Native Americans. This hypothesis has been tested by several disciplines, and it has received no supporting evidence. We also have an alternative hypothesis ( the origin of the Native Americans was in central Asia) that passes every test. We can conclude with confidence that the first hypothesis is likely incorrect (it has been murdered by a brutal gang of facts), and the second hypothesis is likely correct. it is like a murder case where the Butler testifies that the maid commited the crime. The Butler is a good friend, and we really want to believe his story, but we can find no evidence to support it . The facts do not match. In fact, blood at the crime scene, DNA evidence, fibers, and other evidence all point to a friend of the Butler. Interestingly, when confronted with this evidence, the Butler still insists he was correct - he continues to blame the maid - but he now has to revise his story in a desperate effort to accomodate the evidence, he now argues that his friend was framed. You say It is frustrating for someone like me who is still undecided to grapple with the apologists' explanations for things. It seems like their case is always based on a possible, yet unlikely hypothesis. They seize on a possibility and then exploit it, all the while ridiculing those who do not agree. I could not agree more. Good luck, dan. Sincerely, Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Tue, Jun 17, 2003, 17:27:31
|
Posted by: phishhead ®
06/14/2003, 02:04:10
Author Profile Mail author
|
You're right, I did confuse you with another Dan! The "other" Dan is a long time poster under the handle "nofaith". Please accept my apologies, and welcome to the forum. I hope you will stick around. I'm sorry that you lost your original reply, but don't sweat it too much, I think Craig is the only person who reads the second page anyways. ;)As for your question about FARMS, even when I was an active, believing Mormon, I found their scholarship disappointing. It just seems like they already have their minds made up, regardless of their findings. I'm not going to get into it on this thread, since we're on the second page, but I will try to start a new thread sometime in the near future about why I feel FARMS cannot be trusted. -phishhead
|
|
|
