Mormons... a few questions...?

Fly on the wall

2010-02-22 19:27:41 UTC

1. DNA. There are world famous LDS geneticists in Provo - Sorenson and friends. They publish extensively in reputable science journals about DNA. They have never published a single word about Hebrews in America in those journals. They'd be laughed out of their profession. They do write articles for Mormons in books and newspapers saying how it can all be explained, but they never say that to their peers in science.

2. Scrolls. No one single non LDS egyptologist thinks the scrolls could possibly be anything but the Book of Breathings. If they were indeed a record of Abraham and Moses, Jewish scholars would be all over them. There is no such language as reformed egyptian. Not one other shred of it has been found. Why would Hebrews write in egyptian when they have their own language? Those scrolls were bought for $3500 from a traveling show. It that how God would deliver such an important message?

3. Polygamy. Men like more sex. End of story.

4. The entire Book of Mormon describes 1920s New England's culture, religious climate, farming, animals, war history, technology level. It has nothing to do with what we now know about pre Columbian America. The first edition reads like it was written by a barely literate farm boy with a vivid imagination but no real experience in war.

Honestly

2010-02-23 08:44:34 UTC

1. Science is ever changing. The idea that the ancient Americans are only Asian is no longer accepted. It is now accepted that the Ancient America's was a huge melting pot. There is evidence for Asian's, European's, Hebrew's and even Africans being here. Some of the DNA cannot even be found in Asians. By the way, it is believed that the Jaredites in the Book of Mormon were Asiatic. These people lived before Abraham was born so they cannot be Hebrew.

Also, the theory that all ancient American's came accross the Bering Strait is no longer accepted. The Smithsonian instiutute had to eat crow on this one, It is now accepted that there were definitely trans oceanic crossings.

Wirh only 2 percent of the Meso American ruins investigated, there is tons of cultural and physical supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon.

2. Witnesses that saw the papyri said that when rolled out, it covered 2 rooms. Also they mentioned different colors such as red. Almost all of the papyri was burned in the Chicago fire leaving only a couple of scraps as evidence. These scraps did not have any color. I read an article on this some time ago. Apparently, it was common to tie together different records such as the Book of the Dead and other stuff. The ancients even sometimes used one record to talk about something else. Joseph Smith tranlated the payri by revelation and was able to get the true intent.

3. I do not have a problem with polygamy if that is what God wants. I do not understand a society that can accept gay marriage but not polygamy. If consenting adults want to practice polygamy, I have no problem with it. At least children will have a mother and father. It sure beats gay marriage. Beware of people trying to add false rumors to this as it was practiced by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. I believe that they practiced polygamy with faith in God. It is not something most people back then thought was fun.

4. When we receive revelation, we receive it in our own language and understanding. If you look at the writings of Isaiah for instance you will see that his style of writing is much different than some of the other prophets. The Book of Mormon is written in simple language such that a kid could understand it. Do not be fooled back the lack of sophistication. Do not be so prideful that you overlook the amazing content. Critics have all kinds of things to say about where the Book came from, the language used, the wording, the science behind it, how it compares to their interpretation of the bible, the honesty of Joseph Smith, etc. You never hear anyone criticizing it's teachings.

venus_smrf

2010-02-23 08:53:04 UTC

1. I've come across plenty of studies which go against that. Some say Native Americans came from Asia. Some say they don't. People are only human and have to interpret information as best they can. They don't always get it right. They don't always agree. The way I see it, when that information becomes important to my salvation, I'll worry about it. Until then, I can wait for God to provide the answers in His own time.

2. See above answer.

3. They lived during a time when polygamy was practiced. I may not be a fan of polygamy, but they weren't doing anything illegal or morally incorrect.

4. This one has been answered many times in this forum. Still...

The writers of the Bible tended to use a slightly more formal version of the language when writing of spiritual matters. It was their way of showing respect to God, probably, but that was just the way it was done (which is why, no matter how many thousands of years are covered in the Bible, the writers all used the same phrases and words. If this wasn't intentional, there's no way that would be the case. The language would have changed too much over the centuries, but the language of the Bible is fairly uniform). Since those who wrote the Book of Mormon initially came from Israel, they would also have learned to use this formal language. It wouldn't have occurred to them to change it, and it wouldn't have occurred to Joseph Smith to change it. He had no reason to do so, and after all, he'd grown up reading the Bible as his primary text. That type of language would have seemed normal to him...and he was a translator, not an interpreter. His job was to translate the plates, not to change them into the vernacular. It would be more strange if the BoM DIDN'T use the same language as the Bible.

2010-02-23 00:10:35 UTC

1. The Jaredites were the first people mentioned in the Book of Mormon. They could have been Asian for all we know. It makes sense that the majority of DNA would reflect the oldest population.

2. The descriptions given of the Book of Abraham by members and nonmembers alike don't match any existing document. The facsimiles were used for illustration, but were not part of the Book of Abraham proper. There are other examples where Egyptian facsimilies have been hijacked to illustrate Hebrew writing.

3. There are more marriage minded women than there are marriage minded men. Every women who wants to be married should have the option. Our modern rules create a permanent underclass of women who have little hope of ever being married or bearing children; the system of monogamy descriminates agaist them and deprives them from their main sources of joy.

4. That's a rumor that has persisted, but is an exageration at best. Translations are always made in the language of the translator. Joseph Smith had little formal schooling, but his family did study the Bible. The Bible was the predominant schoolbook of the day. Much of the correspondance from the 1830's seem to reflect the formal language of the Bible.

?

2010-02-22 21:46:14 UTC

1. You should read up http://www.mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/research_discoveries/?id=3123

This mentions a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," generally found in Hebrew populations being found in South America. No, it doesn't prove the Book of Mormon, for all we know it could have popped up later on. But it doesn't rule out that Hebrew DNA doesn't exist.

2. You mean the supposed controversy over the facsimiles? *shrugs* We only have a small remnant of what's left. The facsimiles came from scrolls and they were cut up and sold. Accounts tell that the scrolls rolled out to a very great length as well as the fact that some of the accounts mention that the scrolls had a sort of red or black ink on them. Something that doesn't appear on the remnants that are left. There was a fire, the church isn't to blame for that, are they? And fire took a lot of the source material away. There are many arguments that support that Joseph Smith translated them in a correct fashion, others state that he didn't. But I can't judge an account when there isn't enough source material to go on. The church is hardly hiding anything about it. They published the Book of Breathings, that was along with the other scrolls. Anti's claim this Book of Breathings is the Book of Abraham but as with any text that was found with a mummy, the Book of Breathings was probably a tag along book that was always put in as a funerary text. Or it could be that Joseph Smith just had a different perspective on the interpretation of the scrolls and went with one that he believed to be divinely inspired.

3. Don't put your 19th to 20th century mentality on a practice that is obviously older than that. Yea, I think Polygamy is kind of gross, but it's found in the Bible and God didn't discourage the practice with Moses, Jacob, or Abraham either.

4. KJV English was the scriptural text that Joseph Smith was familiar with as scriptural tone. I don't think the people of Bible days spoke that way either. But it's a higher lingual tone, that elevates a text to a more reverent, more spiritual position. Sort of the reason why Mormons will say, thee and thou when they pray. It makes the language more refined when we pray and makes us a bit more reverent, instead of saying: Hey Jesus dude, what's up?

Eliza

2010-02-22 19:26:53 UTC

1) We don't know how many Lamanite descendants there are today. Also, sixteen hundred years is a long time for a group of people to vanish or go somewhere else.

2) Only a small portion was ever found. The Book of Abraham was just a portion of the scrolls, so to assume it is false just because the portion found is a funerary document wouldn't make sense.

3) At the time, women couldn't take care of themselves. They needed a husband, and Brigham Young was a prime choice. And as part of the society they lived in, they were okay with having babies with the man they married.

4) When the Book of Mormon was translated, it wasn't translated into the nineteenth century English, it was translated into equivalent English. The people in the Book of Mormon just used the equivalent of seventeenth century English.

mormon_4_jesus

2010-02-22 19:23:16 UTC

1. I'd say a) DNA doesn't prove or disprove anything about anything. and b) there is no way anyone CAN prove anything using DNA, when it comes to the Book of Mormon.

2. The papyri that the church now has is not a PATCH on what Joseph Smith had, and used. There were, what, five scrolls! Some of it had "rubric" (red) writing, which is not in the papyri we have now, and there are three facsimiles in the Book of Abraham, but the papyri we have has only one. So, again, nothing can be proved or disproved by what we have.

3. They believed that women must be sealed to certain men, like apostles. Plus, while there might ahve been enough men for the women, there were not enough WORTHY men. Brigham Young was very generous to his wives. He encouraged them to further their educations, even sending some of them back east to train as doctors. He encouraged them to start businesses. Etc.

4. I think it's because most people used the King James Version of the Bible, and so the same sort of language was used in the Book of Mormon to give it that "scriptural" feeling.

tjsgigante

2010-02-22 19:07:17 UTC

1. I've seen studies that suggest otherwise--therefore I reserve judgment on this one. There's still a lot we don't know.

2. Much of what Joseph Smith had was lost when the Chicago Museum burned down. We have very little, currently, that Smith had. It seems a little far-fetched to claim the whole book of Abraham or Moses is false, without having even half of the original documents that Smith had.

3. I think it was hard for them, and that it would be hard for normal people to live now a days as well. I think God has a better sense of what is morally wrong or right, and that Smith and Young, and their wives, were obeying a commandment they believed came from God.

4. I speak a foreign language, and have done translations before. Believe it or not, a lot of the translating process is subject to interpretation and the make-up of the translator. Words and their meanings usually don't line up exactly. Therefore I don't think it unreasonable at all for Smith to use his literary background in the translation process.

Michael

2010-02-23 04:39:12 UTC

1) What do scientists say about the resurrection of a physical body thousands of years in decay?

2) These scrolls were lost for over 100 years and all of a sudden we have the exact scrolls translated by Joseph Smith?

3) Do you believe that the practice of polygamy is sin? If you claim it is I would like a reference or is it in the book of Joe1:4

4) Why are there hundreds of different translations of the Bible?

Conclusion:

What will you do with all the information you have been given? I would guess it goes in one ear and out the other, and you will try to come up with 4 more dismal, needless questions.

Kerry

2010-02-23 09:08:36 UTC

1. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do NOT believe that the ONLY people that lived in ancient America were those that were described in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon itself states that the land was numbers with peoples that were not connected with the book.

But I have a question for you regarding DNA? How do you answer the issue, since you are bringing up the DNA claim, that DNA cannot account for deterning lineage of people more that a few genearation? In other words, you could not prove your connection to your own great great grandfather based on DNA alone.

2. "Ordinary funerary documents" describe the facsmiles, but not the text of the Book of Abraham. One would think, that Abraham would be familiar with those types and descriptions, and use similar drawings that he and his people were familiar with.

3. LDS believe that celestial marriage is part of the works required to enter the highest degree of heaven. Many women of the era, since the church was young, did not or would not have the opportunity to be sealed together in a Celestial marraige. Righteous women outnumbered the men. Just like in ancient Old Testament times, polygamy was instituted to equal out the disproprotion of men and women. It allowed women to be sealed to a husband and enjoy the blessings and covenants promised to those who had a Celestial marriage solemniazed in a temple.

4. That is probably the easiest of all your questions. It is quite simple. People were/are accustmoned to that kind of language being used for religious texts. So, the language or phrases used would be those that were familiar. Joseph Smith could have translated it in any langauage or use any vernacular. He could have translated it into the future hip hop slang of today. Why didn't he? Becuase we would not associate that with a religious work. Hey, you question suggests that some people have issues with it being translated in common King James bible language. In other words, would language could he have used other than common scriptural language and vernacular of his time?

2.

Jenster

2010-02-22 19:34:14 UTC

First, I think it is interesting that these kind of questions are asked of the Mormon faith. Why? Because the rest of Christianity is not held to this level of "proof". All religious individuals should know that evidence is only an added bonus to faith. That said,

1) such science is subjective and no non-mormon is going to publish anything that supports the Mormons, not intentionally anyway. There is counter-evidence as well.

"It is important to realize that critics of the Book of Mormon base their arguments on DNA data that has never been shown to be even relevant to the issue of Book of Mormon genetics, let alone conclusive. Such critics have cobbled together DNA data gathered from unrelated studies to produce arguments with the appearance of scientific weight but having no real significance. No genetic studies have been designed and performed to test the hypothesis that Native Americans were of Lehite descent and that this inheritance is detectable today."

More:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence

2) He said, they said. There is only 13% of the original text owned by Joseph Smith left. No one studied but the fragments. It is easy to say he is wrong, and easier to say that the Book of Ambraham was among the 87% lost (in the Chicago fire of 1871)

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri

3) In our culture polygamy seems wrong, but it was practiced in Biblical times, and is still practiced in other cultures in the world. Kind David, Beloved of the Lord, had many wives and concubines (while still in favor) and Jacob had at least 4 wives. I could go on and on, but the point I am trying to make is that God clearly has no issue with polygamy. We do. Gods ways are not our ways. This commandment given in the early days, we can only speculate as to the whys but we can know through the Bible itself that it is not against God.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html

4) IMHO Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon so that it sounded like the scripture he knew, the KJV Bible.

Note all the links come from www.fairlds.org

This website has a counter arguement or rebuttle to every one of the anti-mormon claims and "evidence" you wont see anywhere else because it supports the LDS church, or at least breaks apart the anti-"evidence". Check it out next time you run across such questions.

Peachy Perfect

2010-02-22 18:54:03 UTC

1. There is no official church doctrine stating that the people that are today called Native Americans came from any specific place. Our scriptures do not document that. People have only speculated concerning the matter. As far as I am concerned, sure, Asia. Why not?

2. I have no idea what you're talking about... I'll leave that to someone else. Sorry.

3. They did what they were supposed to do. God commanded polygamy at that time. I've heard speculation (not official doctrine) that He did so because there were way more women than men at the time (due to persecution and battles and having just traveled across the plains) and if every man only had one wife, they would have only been able to reproduce so fast and the church would have died out. Once the threat of dying out was removed, He removed the commandment for polygamy.

4. Maybe he thought that kind of language sounded more appropriate for the subject matter. Maybe God told him to write it that way. I don't know. Only Joseph Smith and the Lord know that. And Joseph Smith is dead, so we can't ask him. We will never know.

Gideon

2010-02-22 21:49:35 UTC

I will respond to 1 & 3.

1) Have you personally looked at the DNA studies? I have. Here is a quote from an abstract of one of them: "The data reveal continuity from a common Eurasian ancestry between Europeans, Siberians, and Native Americans." Isn't that interesting?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425105?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=8

One of the studies actually stated that there was a group in the Northeast USA whose DNA was completely wiped out.

Another one states that they are all "hotly debated", which may be the most important statement in any of them.

In short, there is no compelling DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon.

3) "plain moral logic", what is that? Is that a branch of logic that is taught somewhere, or does it refer to modern Western cultural norms? The only reason that members of the LDS church practiced polygamy is that God commanded it, just like He has at different times throughout history.

Brother G

2010-02-23 00:43:28 UTC

1. The Book of Mormon and DNA

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Children_of_Lehi_DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

2. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri

3. Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had many wives, so what. They took good care of them.

4. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=3&num=1&id=46

Heart of the Matter

2010-02-22 21:49:35 UTC

As a general statement with regards to all 4 of your questions I would answer with an acronym.

"NETS"

Not Essential To Salvation

Those are not the important questions....those could/ would be what Brigham Young called "decoys". (the adversary is doing some hunting)

Once a person knows that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon is real....by having God reveal that to them...it is pretty easy to ignore the philosophies of men.

but here is a little bit more detail I guess:

1. DNA - First of all it is in the intro...therefore it really doesn't fall into the same category as the Book of Mormon...the intro was not on the golden plates...

In any case I did read something that satisfied me on the subject long ago, I really don't even know where I read it or what it was...it really matters that little to me....I mean when God revealed to me that the Book of Mormon is true and that it is the word of God by having the words on the page practically glowing as the Spirit came over me and testified to me that it is true....I simply can weigh my evidence and witness from God vs. some men who are most likely trying to discredit the church...for me it isn't even a contest.

2. Book of Abraham - I've read a tiny bit from Hugh Nibley on the subject - I don't know enough to say too much about it. But again...since God showed me which Church to join (by a vision) and other powerful spiritual experiences and the Pearl of Great Price is one of the Standard works of the Church ...and that I feel the spirit when I read the Book of Abraham...I judge that it is a holy book and the word of God.

3. multiple wives - pretty much this comes down to living by the spirit...living by modern revelation...Abraham also had mulitple wives...Abraham also was commanded to offer his son as a sacrifice...the thing is, is that the things that God commands will ONLY be able to be discerned if a person receives revelation from Him. In fact one of the definitions of an "Abrahamic sacrifice" is that it will NOT make sense.

4. wording in the Book of Mormon - For the most part the Book of Mormon is NOT written in that type of language. But Joseph was actually very familiar with the Bible and its language wasn't he? I think it is great that parts of the Book of Mormon are similar in that style of writing to the Bible. In fact it is almost as if it is the 2nd witness spoken of in the New Testament....(In the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established)...the subtitle of the Book of Mormon btw is called "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". (So to be plain actually what I mean by that is that it IS another testament of Jesus Christ! it is a 2nd witness....)

There will also be another witness when the lost tribes bring their records and they are also identical....will you believe then?...on what basis would you think you would believe a 3rd witness if you don't believe the 2nd witness?)

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

There are already plenty of witnesses if a person desires to know...There are living prophets and apostles (if a person desires to be spoken to). There is the Book of Mormon (if a person wants to read it). There is prayer (if a person wants to feel a personal witness from the spirit from God)...there are the missionaries (if a person has sincere questions and wants a personal touch....to have a special invitation to join God's kingdom)....

So even if one rose from the dead...who would believe? If records came from the lost tribes...who will believe?...

Luke 16 makes it pretty clear that the problem isn't that true information is not being GIVEN! the problem is that the information is not being RECEIVED! ....

but Jesus says...His sheep hear His voice...so ...let him who hath ears to hear, hear.

Maid Mesmera

2010-02-22 19:00:49 UTC

The answer to questions 1, 2, & 4 is never summarized better than this quote by M. Russell Ballard:

"I remember an experience that I had as mission president some years ago when I presided over the affairs of the Church in Eastern Canada. I met with about 30 different ministers of different religions and then I let them ask me questions and the very first question I was asked was by a fine minister who said, “Mr. Ballard, if you just give us the gold plates and let us see that they exist, then we would know that the Book of Mormon is true.” And I looked at him and I said, “Father, you know better than that. You’re a man of the cloth. You know that God has never revealed religious truth to the heart and soul of a man or a woman except by the power of the spirit. Now you could have those plates, you could turn the pages, you could look at it, you could hold it, and you wouldn’t know any more after that experience whether or not the book is true than you would have before. My question to you; have you ever read the Book of Mormon?” And he said, “No, I haven’t.” That’s how people will come to know whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. You will not get to know it by trying to prove it archeologically or by DNA or by anything else in my judgment. Just pick it up and read it and pray about it and you will come to know religious truth is always confirmed by what you feel and that’s the way Heavenly Father answers prayers."

As for the answer to question 3, I've always had a firm opposition to polygamy and I've always been utterly repulsed by it. By am I going to let ONE PERPLEXING ISSUE that's not even relevant to my exaltation affect my testimony of this Church? ABSOLUTELY NOT! My testimony of the truthfulness of this Gospel and of Joseph Smith's calling as a true Prophet is STRONGER than my hatred of polygamy.

"Sorrowfully, on occasion, some are willing to set aside the precious gospel truths restored by Joseph Smith because they get diverted on some HISTORICAL ISSUE or some scientific hypothesis NOT CENTRAL TO THEIR EXALTATION, and in so doing they trade their spiritual birthright for a mess of pottage. They exchange the absolute certainty of the Restoration for a doubt, and in that process they fall into the trap of losing faith in the many things they do know because of a few things they do not know. There will always be some seemingly intellectual crisis looming on the horizon as long as faith is required and our minds are finite, but likewise there will always be the sure and solid doctrines of the Restoration to cling to, which will provide the rock foundation upon which our testimonies may be built."

-Tad R. Callister

2010-02-22 18:58:05 UTC

1) And it came to pass that Enoch continued his speech, saying: Behold, our father Adam taught these things, and many have believed and become the sons of God, and many have believed not, and have perished in their sins, and are looking forth with fear, in torment, for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God to be poured out upon them.

2) And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations.

3) It wouldn't have been easy, planets like this don't yeild ease in such matters.

4) Aleister Crowley did the same sort of thing further on down the line. The mind of man is weak.

2010-02-22 18:53:32 UTC

We just tards.