Simon Southerton, geneticist and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church, has taken up a crusade to "[examine] church teachings that American Indians and Polynesians have a historic bond with ancient Israelites." He does so by using DNA research and applying it to current popular opinion of members of the Church and writings of some scholars with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
This seems to be a thorny issue for Southerton. He left the Church because there seemed to be no conclusive evidence that supported the widely held notion among Latter-day Saints that Pacific Islanders and indigenous people of the Americas were descended from the Lamanites.
First, I find it unbelievable—actually, I can believe it, but it still is dumbfounding—that someone's conviction to the Church can be swayed by scientific evidence. The Book of Mormon is not a scientific journal. It does not establish scientific fact and does not even heavily support scientific theories. It is nothing more than a spiritual record—interspersed with select historical information—of a distinct, isolated group of people.
Second, there is no indication whatsoever in the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites and Nephites were completely alone in the Americas. To say otherwise is nothing more than speculation. It is entirely plausible and even likely that the Lamanites and Nephites encountered—and even mingled with—other peoples already present in the Americas. This alone would reduce any existence of Israelite DNA. As well, it is entirely plausible that the Lamanite population died off or were exterminated; after all, the record of their history is incomplete.
Third, popular belief among Latter-day Saints does not equal doctrine. Just because many Latter-day Saints hold on to the archaic notion that all people indigenous to the Americas are descended solely from Lehi, does not make it church doctrine. I wish more people would understand this one principle. Tradition is not doctrine.
The Book of Mormon is primarily a religious book containing teachings and doctrine about God and Jesus Christ. To treat it primarily as anything else is to treat it as a very shaky foundation.
That being said, it only take a smidgen of logic to see that DNA research does not disprove the Book of Mormon. One would think a scientist like Southerton would understand that.
July 30, 2004
June 23, 2004
Mormons Can't Have Beards
I have a beard.
Well, ok. It is a goatee. However, this past winter, I let all my facial hair free to grow, as it desired. With all the talk in the Bloggernacle about beard growing, I thought I'd chime in with an experience.
In my stake, there is an unwritten, vague, widely interpreted rule regarding beards. Some bishops have interpreted it to mean a man cannot hold a calling if he has a beard. Some has have interpreted into to mean a man cannot hold a priesthood leadership position (e.g. elders quorum president, high priest group leader) if he has a beard.
Nevertheless, at the beginning of the year, the ward clerk in one of the wards asked about my beard in the context of this non-specific rule. I told him no one has asked me to shave it, so I see no reason to. He then asked me if I would shave upon being requested to do so.
I sit here thinking now about the whole issue. I can understand how drinking coffee, having casual extra-marital sex, stealing a car or promoting the pleasantries of plural marriage might bring to mind disobedience to God’s laws. However, how does not shaving a beard when a local policy suggests to amounts to the same thing?
One might suggest that not doing so is not being obedient to the words of the leaders. Supposedly, this is the same thing as God’s laws since that is how church members interpret D&C 1:38. I have to wonder then if the brethren asked me to pick my nose regularly and I did not, if I would be considered a heretic. If the brethren asked me to exchange my black, wingtip oxfords for a pair of oxblood, cap-toes and I did not—yeah, right, of course I would—would I be considered disobedient?
Honestly, what is the big deal? How did having a beard come to be so controversial as to be outlawed in the temple and the cause of dismissal from callings?
Well, ok. It is a goatee. However, this past winter, I let all my facial hair free to grow, as it desired. With all the talk in the Bloggernacle about beard growing, I thought I'd chime in with an experience.
In my stake, there is an unwritten, vague, widely interpreted rule regarding beards. Some bishops have interpreted it to mean a man cannot hold a calling if he has a beard. Some has have interpreted into to mean a man cannot hold a priesthood leadership position (e.g. elders quorum president, high priest group leader) if he has a beard.
Nevertheless, at the beginning of the year, the ward clerk in one of the wards asked about my beard in the context of this non-specific rule. I told him no one has asked me to shave it, so I see no reason to. He then asked me if I would shave upon being requested to do so.
I sit here thinking now about the whole issue. I can understand how drinking coffee, having casual extra-marital sex, stealing a car or promoting the pleasantries of plural marriage might bring to mind disobedience to God’s laws. However, how does not shaving a beard when a local policy suggests to amounts to the same thing?
One might suggest that not doing so is not being obedient to the words of the leaders. Supposedly, this is the same thing as God’s laws since that is how church members interpret D&C 1:38. I have to wonder then if the brethren asked me to pick my nose regularly and I did not, if I would be considered a heretic. If the brethren asked me to exchange my black, wingtip oxfords for a pair of oxblood, cap-toes and I did not—yeah, right, of course I would—would I be considered disobedient?
Honestly, what is the big deal? How did having a beard come to be so controversial as to be outlawed in the temple and the cause of dismissal from callings?
Pre-Existence is False
There is a post over at T&S discussing a newly found tablet. I have no problems with that, but I do have a question regarding the use of the term "pre-existence" in the post title. Since I don't want to detract from the nature of the conversation over there, I thought I'd post here.
I don't want to come across as a nitpicker, but doesn't "pre-existence" imply "before existence". Since we existed as spirits before coming to earth and as intelligences before being created as spirits, to what does the term "pre-existence" refer?
I don't want to come across as a nitpicker, but doesn't "pre-existence" imply "before existence". Since we existed as spirits before coming to earth and as intelligences before being created as spirits, to what does the term "pre-existence" refer?
Are Mormons Christian?
Many Christians outside of Mormonism claim we, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not Christian. It is a convenient way for them to dismiss what we believe and to avoid having to admit the possibility of any truth in our message or beliefs.
Despite the fact that we proscribe to the logical definition of “Christian”, they insist that we follow a different Christ and thus are not Christian.
The Jesus I follow was born to Mary in Bethlehem. He is the Son of God. He performed countless miracles during his ministry. He taught that we should avoid acts of retribution and replace them with acts of generosity and forgiveness. He died on the cross at Calvary. He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane. He rose from the dead on the third day.
Do other Christians believe something different from this? Does that mentioned above not suggest to the sane, intelligent reader that one who believes in such is indeed Christian? Even is s/he is a Mormon?
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Despite the fact that we proscribe to the logical definition of “Christian”, they insist that we follow a different Christ and thus are not Christian.
The Jesus I follow was born to Mary in Bethlehem. He is the Son of God. He performed countless miracles during his ministry. He taught that we should avoid acts of retribution and replace them with acts of generosity and forgiveness. He died on the cross at Calvary. He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane. He rose from the dead on the third day.
Do other Christians believe something different from this? Does that mentioned above not suggest to the sane, intelligent reader that one who believes in such is indeed Christian? Even is s/he is a Mormon?
June 22, 2004
Dangerous Infant Car Seats
It seems carrying babies in infant car seats interferes with their ability to breathe. Now the car seat (outside of travel in the car) is more than a barrier between vital baby-parent bonding. I’ve always found it a little disheartening to see helpless, little babies been toted around like luggage, but now there is even more of a cause for concern.
June 21, 2004
Sweaty Garments
Since I am going to be riding to work every day starting in two weeks, I decided to exchange my swim schedule for a stationary bike workout this morning. I will be gone to Vancouver all next week, so I am going to try fitting in a bike workout each day this week. I am also pushing myself hard to make sure my legs are in somewhat good enough shape for the commute.
Anyhow, while I was getting ready for the shower and taking off my sweaty garments, I was reminded of something. Some people say that garments are too sacred to wear while doing a sweaty workout. Others say that they are too sacred to leave them off for the hour you are working out.
What does everyone else think?
Anyhow, while I was getting ready for the shower and taking off my sweaty garments, I was reminded of something. Some people say that garments are too sacred to wear while doing a sweaty workout. Others say that they are too sacred to leave them off for the hour you are working out.
What does everyone else think?
Jesus Can't Be School Head
A private school in Norway has listed Jesus as the executive manager on the school’s organisational chart.
I understand their reasoning, but at the same time, how is the government supposed to approach Jesus if they have a problem with how the mostly state-funded school is run? After all, he does not have an office downtown.
I understand their reasoning, but at the same time, how is the government supposed to approach Jesus if they have a problem with how the mostly state-funded school is run? After all, he does not have an office downtown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)