A Mormon confronts his myths: faces expulsion for refuting link between Indians and Israelites

National Post ^ | December 03, 2002 | Jan Cienski

[Polycarp]

hmmmm

[Romulus]

This should be edifying. Care to bet how long it'll be before he's dubbed "the Mormon Galileo"?

[drstevej]

***The Church has tried to meet such criticism by amending some teachings, now holding that perhaps not all Indians descend from Biblical peoples and amending Smith's geography. ***

Gotta love that Injun Israelism, all smoke and no teepee!

***"My aspiration is to create a space within Mormonism for the discussion of the Book of Mormon as fiction but still as scripture," he said.***

To dream the impossible dream...

[gcruse]

Yes, Mormonism is founded on fiction. However, virgin birth, walking on water, and bodily ascensions are fact. Hmmm. Be careful of the stones you throw.

[Wrigley]

"My aspiration is to create a space within Mormonism for the discussion of the Book of Mormon as fiction but still as scripture," he said.

Uh, okay. Talk about the ultimate in suspending disbelief.

[CCWoody]

This thread had steve written all over it and now I find out that it isn't steve at all.

[CCWoody]

For Mormons such as Mr. Murphy, denying the literal truth of the Book of Mormon while treating it as useful mythology in much the same way most Christians treat the creation story in Genesis is the only way to hang on to their faith. ~ Article

The problem is that if you take Genesis as just a mythology, then Eden is fiction, the fall is fiction, spiritual death is fiction, and the need for Christ, non-existent. Such people have no faith at all.

Of course, Mormonism is no better.

Woody.

[freedom9]

There is a hill called Cumorah in New York State that was the site of a massive battle between the "lamanites" and the "nephites"

The Book of Mormon states that there were in excess of 220,000 nephites that were slain. Surely there was a comparable number of lamanites that fell there too. The book claims the people of that time were acquainted with metalergy.
Surely there must be some remnant to substantiate the Mormon claims.


"Mormon 6:11": 11 And when they had gone through and hewn down all my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.

"Mormon 6:12": 12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.

"Mormon 6:13": 13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.

"Mormon 6:14": 14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh,
had fallen with their ten thousand each.

"Mormon 6:15": 15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

[fishtank]

Interesting post.

However, have former Mormons found that bringing up the scientific innaccuracies to be effective?

How many Mormons were brought into the truth of the gospel by the understanding of God's grace (a true free gift) compared to the amount of Mormons who found truth after reading a tract like this?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Don't get me wrong: I think the study into the discrepancies is important, but I was saved by finally understanding that God was offering me salvation for free - by grace through faith.

A true understanding of grace was necessary for my salvation - a grace that is a free gift, that is, God's unmerited favor.

Unfortunatley, I've since found that there are some evangalicals, Catholics, and the Mormons who deny this definition of grace.

I firmly believe God's love is best defined and expressed in this manifestation of grace, not by the definition that adds a burden of works to the meaning of grace.

Think about God's love. Is it greater if grace is free, or is it lesser if we have to pay Him for it?

[fishtank]

I have a parapraph on this new thread that I'd like you all to read.

My note talks about God's love and the best way to understnad His grace.

[drstevej]

Yes. There is a huge distinction between a gift and a reward. And salvation is a gift!

[fishtank]

Among the evangelicals who are denying the true definition of grace is Bill Gothard. I know many people who are being deceived by this man, and it's strange, because they operate in much the same circles as many of the conservative evangelical Christians who are active on FR.

[fishtank]

I know there is a "Grace and Works" or "Grace and Faith" thread on FR, but I thought since this is a new thread that I'd write down some of the thoughts I've been having in the last 3-4 days.

[drstevej]

No problem, I doubt the LDS want to discuss this article anyway.

[xzins]

I find the archeological and genetic data here significant in proving the factual bankruptcy of mormonism.

However, using those same criteria, the New Testament and Old Testament are firmly established day by day as new finds in the Middle East come to light.

I do not believe that the creation account of Adam and Eve is mythical. Nor do I believe that the intelligent design movement in any way parallel the problems that mormonism has is establishing it's validity.

Genetic studies have suggested that there was a SINGLE MOTHER from which all of us came. The fact of creation is substantially strengthened by MATHEMATICS saying this order and complexity we see in life could NOT have happened randomly in 10 to the 3.5 billion (million?) power.

Either way, That's the same as saying it couldn't have happened randomly. Don't buy a lottery ticket...you wont' win. Definitely don't buy one at those odds.....NO ONE will ever win.

[WriteOn]

"For example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics."

"In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 10^10^123 (Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent."

Quote from: The Real Issue: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God Part II By Dr. Fritz Schaefer III Professor of Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia

The Anthropic Principle

I must say something here about the anthropic principle: there are a number of scientific parameters or constants, any one of which, if changed just a little bit would make the earth uninhabitable by human beings. A book that I strongly recommend is by Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos. He has a substantial discussion of the anthropic principle and demonstrates why many physicists and astronomers have considered the possibility that the universe not only was divinely caused, but in fact divinely designed.

One such person is the pantheistic astronomer, George Greenstein, who makes this statement: "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially created the cosmos for our benefit?"

I think Greenstein has gone a little too far in the other direction. I do not think we have proof of the existence of God but I think we do have, in the big bang understanding, some good evidence for the existence of God.

Others have commented on this evidence. A book I recommend is Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg. He doesn't have God in the title, but God is discussed in the book. He tells the story about a poem by the Venerable Bede, a religious person of the Middle Ages. In the poem, Bede talks about the banqueting hall being our ordinary existence and Weinberg's comment on this is, "It is an almost irresistible temptation to believe with the Venerable Bede that there must be something for us outside the banqueting hall." There must be something beyond materialism.

Of course this view is echoed in the New Testament. For example, Paul the Apostle wrote, "Ever since the creation of the world, God's eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made"(Romans 1:20). This is exactly what Weinberg is talking about-that almost irresistible temptation.

[WriteOn]

1040,000 to one = 10^40,000 to one

[Polycarp]

This thread had steve written all over it and now I find out that it isn't steve at all.

But the moment I saw it I thought of Steve. Common ground.

[drstevej]

CCW ***This thread had steve written all over it and now I find out that it isn't steve at all.***

POLY ***But the moment I saw it I thought of Steve. Common ground.***


I am indeed a uniter.