Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

DNA, the flood, and the scientific method

204 views
Skip to first unread message

jeff

unread,
Dec 12, 2002, 1:18:31 PM12/12/02
to
I hope no one falls for the trick of dismissing the Book of Mormon based on
the disconnect between modern DNA analysis and the theory of a global flood.
It's true that many Christians and Latter-day Saints have believed or do
believe that the earth is young and that a global flood wiped out all life
all over the world. But the revelations from God do not require such a
belief. The term "all the earth" in the Bible can refer to a local land and
need not have global implications. I believe there was a big flood, perhaps
even several big floods anciently, but I do not feel a need to believe in a
global flood, and many Christians (including LDS Christians) share my view,
while also accepting the divinity of the Bible and Book of Mormon.

Canonized scripture does not teach that every human being in the Americas
was wiped out 5,000 years ago. Many people have assumed that, but the
opinions and interpretations of men, even prophets, are not infallible. It
is only when God speaks that we can be certain, and we do not hold the
unbiblical view that every action and word and view of a prophet if
automatically infallible and direct from God. We accept the human touch as
inevitable in this life.

One verse in the Book of Mormon that has been used to suggest that we must
believe in a global flood wiping out all life on this continent is Ether
13:2:

"For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of
all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded
from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other
lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men
should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;"

I read this as referring to the waters of creation that receded as the land
rose (Gen. 1). But there may have been other waters, maybe even flood
waters. Good grief, myths about an ancient flood are definitely found in the
Americas, so maybe there was some heavy flood action at one time. But it
does not say that all life was wiped out here.

I believe we Christians have had to recalibrate our views on creation and
the flood and many things in light of modern knowledge - not because God is
dead or because there is nothing divine in the scriptures, but because the
human touch has resulted in incorrect understanding. Yes, we are fallible.
Get over it. There is no reason to leave the Church or lose faith in Christ
because we know something better today than Paul or Moses or Joseph Smith
did in the past.

The scientific method requires that we consider alternatives carefully.
Sometimes data need to be examined carefully before we can make a valid
conclusion about a hypothesis. Examine carefully, think, consider
alternatives. Understanding the relationship between science and religion
requires work and thought and patience, not cheap shots to end further
inquiry based on straw man arguments.

You can believe that this world happened by chance and that there is nothing
but myth in the scriptures. As a scientist, I also believe in God and
believe that we all have a lot to learn - including living prophets and
apostles - before we will understand the truth about Creation, life, the
origins of man, and the history of the Americas. But meanwhile, I have solid
personal and intellectual evidence for the authenticity of the scriptures -
not their infallibility - but their authenticity, and the reality of God and
Restoration of His Gospel. Feel free to disagree, but don't expect cheap
shots to replace the work of real investigation.

If the earth was created over billions of years instead of six 24-hour days,
could the Bible still be true? Yes.

If there were many others in the Americas besides the Nephites, could the
Book of Mormon still be true. Absolutely.

The reasons for these views, partially given at
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml, have not been refuted thousands
of times, as some of you claim. They are incomplete and somewhat
speculative, but there is food for thought.

Jeff Lindsay
http://www.jefflindsay.com

Roy Stogner

unread,
Dec 12, 2002, 3:21:33 PM12/12/02
to
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:18:31 +0000, jeff wrote:

> I hope no one falls for the trick of dismissing the Book of Mormon based
> on the disconnect between modern DNA analysis and the theory of a global
> flood. It's true that many Christians and Latter-day Saints have
> believed or do believe that the earth is young and that a global flood
> wiped out all life all over the world. But the revelations from God do
> not require such a belief. The term "all the earth" in the Bible can
> refer to a local land and need not have global implications.

And the terms "the end of all flesh", "everything that is in the earth",
"every living substance that I have made", "Noah only remained alive, and
they that were with him in the ark", etc.? You can't pretend that the
writers of Genesis didn't think that this was a universal event.

> I believe
> there was a big flood, perhaps even several big floods anciently, but I
> do not feel a need to believe in a global flood, and many Christians
> (including LDS Christians) share my view, while also accepting the
> divinity of the Bible and Book of Mormon.

Many Christians believe in a local flood; it's only the LDS ones who have
to believe that this flood was simultaneously "local" to both the Middle
East and Missouri.

It's also worth noting that many of the ones who believe in a local flood
don't believe that Genesis was written or translated (or retranslated as
Joseph Smith was commanded to do) under the direct guidance of God.

This allows them to recognize the stuff about the rainbow as a "just so"
story, without having to try to figure out how the most fundamental laws
of quantum electrodynamics were changed in such a way as to leave only
this single noticeable effect.

It also means that they have to consider God's promise to "never more
cover the Earth" as a morality fable, not an actual event; otherwise the
fact that we still have local floods killing millions of people would seem
to make God a liar.

Simply put, most Christians don't have an Inspired Version of the Bible
translated by the first Prophet of the restoration via the power of the
Holy Spirit and under repeated direct commands from God. They have a
latitude in interpreting it which you do not.
---
Roy Stogner

dan_s

unread,
Dec 12, 2002, 6:26:45 PM12/12/02
to
"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvhko3k...@corp.supernews.com>...

> I hope no one falls for the trick of dismissing the Book of Mormon based on
> the disconnect between modern DNA analysis and the theory of a global flood.
> It's true that many Christians and Latter-day Saints have believed or do
> believe that the earth is young and that a global flood wiped out all life
> all over the world. But the revelations from God do not require such a
> belief. The term "all the earth" in the Bible can refer to a local land and
> need not have global implications. I believe there was a big flood, perhaps
> even several big floods anciently, but I do not feel a need to believe in a
> global flood, and many Christians (including LDS Christians) share my view,
> while also accepting the divinity of the Bible and Book of Mormon.

[snip stuff]

> You can believe that this world happened by chance and that there is nothing
> but myth in the scriptures. As a scientist, I also believe in God and
> believe that we all have a lot to learn - including living prophets and
> apostles - before we will understand the truth about Creation, life, the
> origins of man, and the history of the Americas. But meanwhile, I have solid
> personal and intellectual evidence for the authenticity of the scriptures -
> not their infallibility - but their authenticity, and the reality of God and
> Restoration of His Gospel. Feel free to disagree, but don't expect cheap
> shots to replace the work of real investigation.

Well, you're getting closer, but you're still not willing to shed
myth, I think.

Where do you draw the line in the OT? A local flood? So then, Noah
didn't really put all the animals of the Earth in a wooden ship,
right?

How about the Tower of Babel? Is that the reason we have so many
languages today?

How about Jonah and the Fish? Just a story, or is that one fact?

How about the story of Exodus, where over a million Jews were enslaved
in Egypt? History?

If you have a scientific mind, I think you're in denial about the BoA
and the BoM. The former is an obvious fraud, there's no polite way to
put it. Even Nibley can't deal with defending it any more. The
latter is imaginative, but it has no basis in history whatsoever.
Analyze it by DNA, the animals that were mentioned that weren't there,
the strange animals that were there but aren't mentioned, the tools,
the materials, any kind of responsible archaeology... on and on. To
suppose otherwise for either work is to go through ridiculous
contortions of pseudoscience. Ultimately, JS had it right, one would
have to conclude that God decided to destroy the evidence of Mormon
truth, right down to divinely altering DNA.

How do non-LDS Egyptologists view claims of the BoA? How do non-LDS
mesoamerican specialists view the claims of the BoM? Apply Occam's
Razor, Jeff. The truth will set you free.

TheJordan6

unread,
Dec 12, 2002, 9:25:53 PM12/12/02
to
Jeff Lindsay wrote:

>I hope no one falls for the trick of dismissing the Book of Mormon based on
the disconnect between modern DNA analysis and the theory of a global flood.

Uhhhh....So it's your opinion that the LDS doctrine of the global flood is a
"theory?" Can you cite any statements from any LDS authorities agreeing with
that characterization?


>It's true that many Christians and Latter-day Saints have believed or do
believe that the earth is young and that a global flood wiped out all life
all over the world. But the revelations from God do not require such a
belief.

You are either ignorant or a liar, Mr. Lindsay. Which is it? The works which
LDS canon accept as "revelations from God" make it clear that the Noachic flood
was worldwide, and killed every human except the eight people aboard Noah's
ark.
A few references:

Genesis 7:19-20 (even the highest mountains were covered with water)

Genesis 7:21-23 (every human on earth drowned except for the eight on the ark)

1 Peter 3:18-20 (only eight souls saved by water)

D&C 138:8-9 (ditto)

Moses 8:25, 30 (God vows to "destroy all flesh from off the earth" except for
the eight people on the ark)

Abraham 1:23-24 (Noah's daughter-in-law "Egyptus" discovers the land of Egypt
when "it was under water", obviously referring to the receding flood waters.)

In addition to these canonized scriptural references, many Mormon leaders have
repeated the concept that the flood was worldwide and killed all humans but the
eight aboard the ark. In fact, LDS leaders have stated that the Negro race was
"preserved through the flood" via "Egyptus," the daughter of Ham, who was a
descendant of the "accursed" Cain, who, according to LDS doctrine, was the
first Negro. If the flood had not been worldwide, and had not drowned all
other Negroes on earth, LDS leaders would not have needed to state that the
Negro race was "preserved" through Egyptus.

I can cite numerous other statements from LDS leaders over the years which
teach that all humans living today descended from the eight people who survived
the global flood. If the flood only affected a small area, why would LDS
leaders teach that everyone alive today descended from those eight people?


>The term "all the earth" in the Bible can refer to a local land and
need not have global implications. I believe there was a big flood, perhaps
even several big floods anciently, but I do not feel a need to believe in a
global flood, and many Christians (including LDS Christians) share my view,
while also accepting the divinity of the Bible and Book of Mormon.

To the contrary, if you or any other Mormons do not believe in the literal
global flood exactly as canonized by official LDS scriptures, then you are
every bit as "apostate" as Tom Murphy, whom LDS leaders attempted to
excommunicate because of his stance that the BOM is not literal. The issue
here is NOT what your opinion is, but rather what official LDS doctrine states.
Where are any official statements from any LDS authorities that the flood was
not global or did not kill all humans on earth but the eight?
If the flood was local, rather than global, then please tell us why the Lord
instructed Noah to gather two of every animal onto the ark for preservation.

If you believe that Noah's flood was local, rather than global, please share
your opinion on approximately which areas of the earth were covered by that
flood, citing scholarly references to support your views. Hint: Study
scholarly data which indicates an unbroken chain of civilization in
geographical areas around and in the timeframe of the alleged Noah's flood.
That should tell you how small or large any actual flood would have been.

>Canonized scripture does not teach that every human being in the Americas
was wiped out 5,000 years ago.

Yes, it most certainly does, as the verses I referenced above clearly show.


>Many people have assumed that, but the opinions and interpretations of men,
even prophets, are not infallible.

If the opinions of even prophets are not infallible, meaning that they can
express opinions which are incorrect, then why are LDS leaders attempting to
excommunicate Tom Murphy, a mere rank-and-file Mormon, for merely expressing
his opinions about the BOM? Why is Murphy's opinion that the BOM is not
literal history any more "apostate" than your opinion that the global flood is
not literal history? Does the LDS disciplinary system hold rank-and-file
Mormons like Murphy to a higher standard of correctness in opinions than they
hold their "prophets"? Why shouldn't your stake president charge you with
apostasy, just as Tom Murphy's stake president did?

> It is only when God speaks that we can be certain, and we do not hold the
unbiblical view that every action and word and view of a prophet if
automatically infallible and direct from God. We accept the human touch as
inevitable in this life.

I have cited "God's words" on the flood from official canonized LDS doctrine.
If the Bible (which is official LDS doctrine) is wrong about the flood being
worldwide, then why can't the BOM (which is also official LDS doctrine) be
wrong on a number of items as well? For instance, what evidence is there that
230,000 Christ-worshipping, steel-sword using, horse-and-chariot using
"Nephites" existed in the Americas circa 400 A. D.? Is there any more evidence
for the existence of the "Nephites" than there is for the global flood, which
you claim is a myth? If not, then why do you disbelieve the flood, but believe
in the historicity of the BOM? Why should we accept your layman's opinions on
these matters above those of the "prophets"?

>One verse in the Book of Mormon that has been used to suggest that we must
believe in a global flood wiping out all life on this continent is Ether
13:2:
>"For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of
all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded
from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other
lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men
should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;"
>I read this as referring to the waters of creation that receded as the land
rose (Gen. 1).

That may be true, but can you quote any official LDS sources which agree with
your opinion? And exactly how does your interpretation of that verse negate
all the other verses from official LDS doctrine I've cited which indicate a
worldwide flood which killed all humans on earth except eight?

>But there may have been other waters, maybe even flood
waters. Good grief, myths about an ancient flood are definitely found in the
Americas, so maybe there was some heavy flood action at one time. But it
does not say that all life was wiped out here.

According to Joseph Smith Jr., the first humans lived on what is now the
American continent, specifically Missouri. That means that Noah & Co. built
their ark somewhere in America, to escape floodwaters in America. The ark
reportedly came to rest on Mt. Ararat in Turkey. That means that the
floodwaters extended from Missouri to Turkey, and Noah & Co. saw no land nor
life between those two areas. And that means that the flood had to have been
worldwide. Unless, of course, you wish to simply disbelieve the whole story.
If you do, then you're an apostate Mormon just like Tom Murphy is.


>I believe we Christians have had to recalibrate our views on creation and
the flood and many things in light of modern knowledge - not because God is
dead or because there is nothing divine in the scriptures, but because the
human touch has resulted in incorrect understanding. Yes, we are fallible.

What does official LDS doctrine teach about the creation and the flood? If LDS
doctrine or leaders are fallible in their statements concerning the flood, then
why can't they be wrong about the BOM being a literal history as well?


>Get over it. There is no reason to leave the Church or lose faith in Christ
because we know something better today than Paul or Moses or Joseph Smith
did in the past.

The question is far greater than knowing "something better today." The issue
is that the knowledge we have today directly contradicts what official LDS
doctrine claims is the truth. The reason people should leave the LDS church is
because it teaches things which are not the truth. And yet, the LDS church
claims to be more "true" than any other belief system in existence. IOW, the
LDS church cannot live up to its claims of truth and authority, therefore there
is no need to be a Mormon.


>The scientific method requires that we consider alternatives carefully.

Indeed, the scientific method is requiring LDS leaders and apologists to
reconsider their long-held teachings that the "Book of Mormon people" were the
first settlers in America. And, as evidenced by your statements, the
scientific method is causing Mormons to abandon the concept of the global flood
(although it's clearly mandated by official LDS canon). And, the scientific
method is what caused such Mormons as Dr. Simon Southerton (a former bishop)
and Dr. Tom Murphy to conclude that the BOM's claims are not supported by the
data.
So, if the scientific method can require us to alter beliefs in such things as
the flood, then why can't the scientific method require us to abandon a belief
that the BOM is literal history as well?

>Sometimes data need to be examined carefully before we can make a valid
conclusion about a hypothesis.

You mean sorta like Tom Murphy did with the DNA evidence that shows no Hebrew
ancestry among Amerinds? Is there any data that you could ever examine that
would make you conclude that the BOM is not a literal history? Or do you hold
a pre-determined conclusion which is inalterable in spite of any evidence
whatsoever to the contrary?


>Examine carefully, think, consider
alternatives.

Have you carefully considered the alternative that the BOM is a 19th-century
fraud?

>Understanding the relationship between science and religion
requires work and thought and patience, not cheap shots to end further
inquiry based on straw man arguments.

I agree. So, how does the LDS official doctrine of the global flood relate to
what science indicates? How does the question of the BOM's historicity relate
to what science indicates?


>You can believe that this world happened by chance and that there is nothing
but myth in the scriptures.

Apparently, you're the one who believes that the scriptures contain myths.
Like the global flood which killed all but eight people, for instance. Why do
you believe that the scriptural teaching of a global flood is a myth on one
hand, but criticize others for believing that the scriptures are a myth on the
other hand? Do you not possess the intellectual ability to remain consistent
in any arguments you make?


>As a scientist, I also believe in God and
believe that we all have a lot to learn - including living prophets and
apostles - before we will understand the truth about Creation, life, the
origins of man, and the history of the Americas.

Are you implying that the claims and teachings of Mormon leaders and doctrines
are subject to change as we learn more from science? If so, then what is the
use of relying on them for truth to begin with? If increased scientific
knowledge forces Mormon leaders to alter their beliefs, then why not just rely
on the science and dump the fallible Mormon leaders?


>But meanwhile, I have solid
personal and intellectual evidence for the authenticity of the scriptures -
not their infallibility - but their authenticity, and the reality of God and
Restoration of His Gospel. Feel free to disagree, but don't expect cheap
shots to replace the work of real investigation.

If you have "solid personal and intellectual evidence for the authenticity of
the scriptures," then why do you reject the global flood as an unbelievable
myth? Are you a "cafeteria Mormon," who believes that you can pick and choose
which LDS doctrines you wish to accept, and discard the ones you don't like?
Do you believe the words in D&C 1:14? What distinguishes your attitude towards
LDS doctrines from Tom Murphy's?


>If the earth was created over billions of years instead of six 24-hour days,
could the Bible still be true? Yes.

Why are you defending the truth claims of the Bible, when above, you reject its
words concerning the global flood?

>If there were many others in the Americas besides the Nephites, could the
Book of Mormon still be true. Absolutely.

No, the LDS doctrine of the global flood sinks the idea that there were other
people in the Americas besides the "BOM people." You cannot put the LDS
doctrine of the global flood off in a corner by itself and pretend that it
doesn't affect the claims of the BOM.
Furthermore, there isn't any evidence that any "BOM people" existed in the
Americas, at any time. There is only evidence of Asian-descended peoples. The
BOM cannot even begin to be "true" until you can show some evidence for its
authenticity. You cannot do that until you can show a DNA relationship between
Amerinds and Hebrews from the timeframe the BOM claims it occurred.


>The reasons for these views, partially given at
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml, have not been refuted thousands
of times, as some of you claim. They are incomplete and somewhat
speculative, but there is food for thought.

>Jeff Lindsay
http://www.jefflindsay.com

I wrote that your remarks have been refuted here on ARM a hundred times before,
which is true. Numerous posters, including DuWayne Anderson (a scientist), Lee
Paulson (a scientist), Clovis Lark, Doug Weller, Roy Stogner, RT Baird, myself,
and others have addressed your assertions in literally hundreds of posts. Tom
Murphy's article is one such scholarly work which completely refutes your
assertions.

The possibility that you remain in intellectual denial that your assertions
have been refuted does not mean that your assertions have not in fact been
refuted. It simply means that you are in intellectual denial.

Randy J.


ri...@ridgenet.net

unread,
Dec 12, 2002, 9:54:28 PM12/12/02
to
In article <uvhko3k...@corp.supernews.com>, jeff wrote:
> One verse in the Book of Mormon that has been used to suggest that we must
> believe in a global flood wiping out all life on this continent is Ether
> 13:2:
>
> "For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of
> all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded
> from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other
> lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men
> should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;"
>
> I read this as referring to the waters of creation that receded as the land
> rose (Gen. 1).

But doesn't "it became a choice land" imply it was something else before?
If it was choice when it was created, it didn't need to "become" choice,
because it already was.
--
Roger Ivie
ri...@ridgenet.net

ri...@ridgenet.net

unread,
Dec 12, 2002, 9:56:53 PM12/12/02
to
In article <d4046839.02121...@posting.google.com>, dan_s wrote:
> Where do you draw the line in the OT? A local flood? So then, Noah
> didn't really put all the animals of the Earth in a wooden ship,
> right?

Sure he did. Jeff's just playing with the definition of "Earth". I.e.,
he put all the animals of Earth in a wooden ship, wherein "Earth" means
whatever local place was flooded. Me, I'm voting for a cat, a dog, and
a goat in a dingy escaping the trailer park...
--
Roger Ivie
ri...@ridgenet.net

dangerous1

unread,
Dec 12, 2002, 10:22:22 PM12/12/02
to
jeff wrote:

From http://tinyurl.com/3hpq

Brigham Young's Teachings About Flood. I will give a few quotations from the
teachings of the leading brethren of the Church. President Brigham Young said
of the earth: "It has already been baptized. You who have read the Bible must
know that that is Bible doctrine. What does it matter if it is not in the same
words that I use, it is not the less true that it was baptized for the
remission of sins. The Lord said: 'I will deluge (or immerse) the earth in
water for the remission of the sins of the people'; or if you will allow me to
express myself in a familiar style, to kill all the vermin that were nitting,
and breeding, and polluting its body; it was cleansed of its filthiness; and
soak in the water, as long as some of our people ought to soak. The Lord
baptized the earth for the remission of sins, and it has been once cleansed
from the filthiness that has gone out of it, which was in the inhabitants who
dwelt upon its face." [Journal of Discourses 1:274.]

"Brethren and sisters, I wish you to continue in your ways of well doing; I
desire that your minds may be opened more and more to see and understand things
as they are. This earth, in its present condition and situation, is not a fit
habitation for the sanctified; but it abides the law of its creation, has been
baptized by water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by and by
will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon." [Journal of Discourses 8:83.]

"The earth, the Lord says, abides its creation; it has been baptized with
water, and will, in the future, be baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost, to be
prepared to go into the celestial presence of God, with all things that dwell
upon it which have, like the earth, abided the law of their creation." [Journal
of Discourses 10:252.]


Orson Pratt's Teachings About Flood. Elder Orson Pratt taught: "Another great
change happened nearly 2,000 years after the earth was made. It was baptized by
water. A great flow of water came, the great deep was broken up, the windows of
heaven were opened from on high, and the waters prevailed upon the face of the
earth, sweeping away all wickedness and transgression t a similitude of baptism
for the remission of sins. God requires the children of men to be baptized.
What for? For the remission of sins. So he required our globe to be baptized by
a flow of water, and all of its sins were washed away, not one sin remaining."
[Journal of Discourses 21:323.]


"The heavens and the earth were thus polluted, that is, the material heavens,
and everything connected with our globe all fell when man fell, and became
subject to death when man became subject to it. Both man and the earth are
redeemed from the original sin without ordinances; but soon we find new sins
committed by the fallen sons of Adam, and the earth became corrupted before the
Lord by their transgressions. It needs redeeming ordinances for these second
transgressions. The Lord ordained baptism or immersion of the earth in water as
a justifying ordinance." [Journal of Discourses 1:291.]

Mormons like to rationalize away what was taught as gospel truth when the light
of reality shows the silliness of their beliefs. Mormons taught that the earth
was baptized by emmersion and "cleansed from the filthiness that has gone out
of it, which was in the inhabitants who dwelt upon its face." They said that
the lord told them this.

>
>
> I believe we Christians have had to recalibrate our views on creation and
> the flood and many things in light of modern knowledge - not because God is
> dead or because there is nothing divine in the scriptures, but because the
> human touch has resulted in incorrect understanding. Yes, we are fallible.
> Get over it. There is no reason to leave the Church or lose faith in Christ
> because we know something better today than Paul or Moses or Joseph Smith
> did in the past.

Sure there is. What they said was false. They lied.

--
Best,
Dangerous1

D1 @ Dangerous1.com
Don Marchant

Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
[Ambrose Bierce]


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 10:44:43 AM12/13/02
to
"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvhko3k...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I hope no one falls for the trick of dismissing the Book of Mormon based on
> the disconnect between modern DNA analysis and the theory of a global flood.
> It's true that many Christians and Latter-day Saints have believed or do
> believe that the earth is young and that a global flood wiped out all life
> all over the world. But the revelations from God do not require such a
> belief. The term "all the earth" in the Bible can refer to a local land and
> need not have global implications.

Jeff Lindsay, apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, is lying about what the LDS Church teaches. Why does he feel
the need to do this? For those wanting to see what the LDS Church
teaches, consider the following quotations from official LDS sources
and LDS prophets, seers, and revelators:

"Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story
of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as
a simple myth or fiction. … Still other people accept parts of the
Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local,
charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered
only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris
and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. … There
is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the
Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints
belong to this group. In spite of the world's arguments against the
historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic
evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a
prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning,
built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark,
and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are
assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple
testimonies of God's prophets." [Donald W. Parry, The Flood and the
Tower of Babel, Ensign, Jan. 1998, 35.]


According to Mormon apostle, prophet, and seer McConkie, "In the days
of Noah the Lord sent a universal flood which completely immersed the
whole earth and destroyed all flesh except that preserved on the ark.
(Gen. 6; 7; 8; 9; Moses 7:38-45; 8; Ether 13.2.) "Noah was born to
save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness
by the flood." (Teachings, p. 12) This flood was the baptism of the
earth; before it occurred the land was all in one place, a condition
that will again prevail during the millennial era. (D&C 133:23-24)"
[page 289].

Duwayne Anderson

American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.

TheJordan6

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 11:08:42 AM12/13/02
to
>From: duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson)
>Date: 12/13/2002 10:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a42139e3.02121...@posting.google.com>

>
>"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message
>news:<uvhko3k...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> I hope no one falls for the trick of dismissing the Book of Mormon based on
>> the disconnect between modern DNA analysis and the theory of a global
>flood.
>> It's true that many Christians and Latter-day Saints have believed or do
>> believe that the earth is young and that a global flood wiped out all life
>> all over the world. But the revelations from God do not require such a
>> belief. The term "all the earth" in the Bible can refer to a local land and
>> need not have global implications.
>
>Jeff Lindsay, apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
>Saints, is lying about what the LDS Church teaches.

WHAT??? A Mormon apologist lying about what the LDS Church teaches??? I'm
SHOCKED!!! SHOCKED!!!


Since it's obvious that LDS teachings mandate that the flood was universal and
killed every human on earth except those aboard the ark, then Jeff Lindsay's
open, public rejection of that teaching makes him an apostate from LDS
teachings and leaders. He is in the exact same position as Tom Murphy, the
LDS anthropologist who has published his opinion that the BOM is not literal
history.
So why isn't Jeff Lindsay being called before a church court to answer charges
of apostasy, as Tom Murphy's church leaders attempted to do to him?

Randy J.

Xan Du

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 2:15:17 PM12/13/02
to

"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021213110842...@mb-fu.aol.com...
> >a simple myth or fiction. . Still other people accept parts of the

> >Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local,
> >charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered
> >only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris
> >and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. . There
> >is a third group of people-those who accept the literal message of the

I understand the rhetorical nature of your question, Randy, and I agree with
you. However, the reality of the situation is that Murphy is calling for
the Org to renounce its "racist teachings" that Amerinds are "Lamanites",
and Lindsay is not.

Murphy has directly challenged the "Bretherens'" authority by calling for a
change in policy. Since Lindsay has not directly called the Codgers'
prophetic ability into question by asking for a referendum on the Lamanite
doctrines, they don't feel the same need to save face by booting his ass.

-Xan

"Those who like to eat sausage should not investigate how it is made."

>
> Randy J.


RTBaird

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 3:20:52 PM12/13/02
to

"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021213110842...@mb-fu.aol.com...
>
> Since it's obvious that LDS teachings mandate that the flood was universal
and
> killed every human on earth except those aboard the ark, then Jeff
Lindsay's
> open, public rejection of that teaching makes him an apostate from LDS
> teachings and leaders. He is in the exact same position as Tom Murphy,
the
> LDS anthropologist who has published his opinion that the BOM is not
literal
> history.
> So why isn't Jeff Lindsay being called before a church court to answer
charges
> of apostasy, as Tom Murphy's church leaders attempted to do to him?
>

(begging your pardon for answering a rhetorical question...)

Because mormonism is about "the Church", it's not about "the Truth".

In the LDS culture, people who willfully misrepresent doctrine to protect
the church are admired.
People who cite correct doctrine that damages the church are excommunicated.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, lying is *intrinsic* to
mormonism.

RTBaird


CAM

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 4:07:20 PM12/13/02
to
It's not surprising that Lindsay would resort to such dishonestly....all one
has to do is go read any part of his website and see it is full of this
blatant dishonesty.

cam

"dan_s" <rune...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4046839.02121...@posting.google.com...

CAM

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 4:11:33 PM12/13/02
to

"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021212212553...@mb-fu.aol.com...

Even though that is a good point, it's irrelevant since Lindsay's scriptures
and prophets have clearly stated it was a global flood that killed everyone
on the earth except 8 people. He is constrained to work within those
barriers.

cam

CAM

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 4:24:02 PM12/13/02
to

"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021212212553...@mb-fu.aol.com...

That's the understatement of the year from Lindsay.

alienward

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 10:59:51 PM12/13/02
to
"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvhko3k...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I hope no one falls for the trick of dismissing the Book of Mormon based on
> the disconnect between modern DNA analysis and the theory of a global flood.
> It's true that many Christians and Latter-day Saints have believed or do
> believe that the earth is young and that a global flood wiped out all life
> all over the world. But the revelations from God do not require such a
> belief.

From the Syllabus for Religion 327 – Lesson 12 Noah and the Flood,
being taught this semester at BYU:

begin quote from syllabus -

Was the Flood universal?

Moses 8:30 - "I will destroy all flesh from off the earth."

Genesis 6:13

Genesis 7:21-23

Ether 13:2 - "after the waters has receded from off the face of this
land . . ."

"The earth . . . has been baptized with water, and will, in the future
be baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost, to be prepared to go back
into the celestial presence of God." (Brigham Young, Discourses of
Brigham Young, 603)

"Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which
is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation." They look upon
the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the
impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been
repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an
immersion of the earth in water. (Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and
Reconciliations, 127-28)

"The Lord baptized the earth for the remission of sins and it has been
once cleansed from the filthiness that has gone out of it which was in
the inhabitants who dwelt upon its face." (Brigham Young, JD, 1:274)

"The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was
that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and
all things sinful upon the face of it were washed away. As it came
forth from the ocean flood, like the new-born child, it was innocent,
it arose to newness of life; it was its second birth from the womb of
mighty waters--a new world issuing from the ruins of the old, clothed
with all the innocency of its first creation." (Orson Pratt, JD 1:331)

"Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know
that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more
than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their
willful stubbornness they would not listen to him. (Mark E. Petersen,
Ensign, Nov. 1981, 65)

"The whole family of man was destroyed, except Noah and those seven
souls who received his testimony, a part of his family, and a part
only, for there were children that Noah had who rejected his
testimony, and who also shared in the destruction that came upon the
inhabitants of the earth." (George Q. Cannon, JD, 26:81)

- end quote from syllabus


Jeff, here's an idea for you. Go check with the Mormon church and
it's institutions to see what is believed before you come in here and
make a complete jackass out of your self. You apologists sure know
how to show your incompetence.


Alien

jeff

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 10:03:20 AM12/14/02
to
Lying about what the Church teaches? I clearly stated that many LDS people
believe in the global flood that killed all humans. It's natural given a
straightforward reading of the Old Testament and Moses. But it's possible to
consider alternatives and still be within the scope of canonized LDS
doctrine (the views of Donald Parry and Bruce McConkie are not automatically
canonized, nor are mine - we are not "the Church" and not the ultimate
authority on any issues, and the Ultimate Authority has not yet given
scientific details to help us understand exactly what the reports of the
flood mean). The room for other views is especially open if we realize that
"earth" in the Hebrew scriptures can be synonymous with "land" - a portion
of the earth.

I am hardly an apostate for admitting that there are some things in the Old
Testament that are difficult to accept at face value (the "plain reading"
level) without considering what might really have been meant by the text or
without considering other interpretations or at least the possibility of
human error, but it is nevertheless scripture (but scripture that has
passsed through mortal hands).

Anyway, what are your learned views on the issue of the 1C haplotype in the
Americas and in Middle Easterners? I don't recall seeing that addressed -
just lots of name calling ("liar," "clown," etc.). So much for civil debate!
Anybody out there willing to discuss what the Book of Mormon really requires
of the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans? There is no absolute
requirement that we find MODERN Jewish DNA popping up in the purely maternal
or purely paternal genetic markers of Native Americans, even if they all
share ancient Jewish ancestors.

So let me pose this question: If there were many others in the hemisphere
when Lehi's party landed, and the Lehites intermingled with locals over the
following centuries, what genetic trace would we absolutely expect to find
today?

Jeff Lindsay
http://www.jefflindsay.com

> a simple myth or fiction. . Still other people accept parts of the


> Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local,
> charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered
> only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris

> and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. . There
> is a third group of people-those who accept the literal message of the

John Manning

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 2:08:07 PM12/14/02
to

jeff wrote:

(snip)

> So let me pose this question: If there were many others in the hemisphere
> when Lehi's party landed, and the Lehites intermingled with locals over the
> following centuries, what genetic trace would we absolutely expect to find
> today?

It is my understanding that identifying DNA markers do not disappear
when co-mingling of different groups occurs - even over many centuries
and extensive co-mingling. That is why DNA evidence is so significant.

John Manning

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 3:58:08 PM12/14/02
to
"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvmi2b2...@corp.supernews.com>...

> Lying about what the Church teaches?

Yes. Lying about what the Church teaches.

> I clearly stated that many LDS people
> believe in the global flood that killed all humans.

It's not just "many LDS people," Jeff. It's Mormonism's prophets,
seers and revelators. It's modern-day LDS scripture and revelation.
The Book of Moses and the D&C both describe a world-wide flood.

> It's natural given a
> straightforward reading of the Old Testament and Moses.

The Book of Moses is modern-day revelation. Don't pretend that there
is any latitude for it having mistakes from the LDS point of view.
And don't pretend the D&C does not describe a world-wide flood,
either.

> But it's possible to
> consider alternatives and still be within the scope of canonized LDS
> doctrine

Not according to LDS prophets. Of course, if you are just an
apologist who really knows the Mormon Church is a fraud, and all you
want is some hair-brained reason to stay active so your family won't
disown you, you can dream up any idea you want.

But here is what LDS leaders say on the subject:

: "Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the


story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing

it as a simple myth or fiction. ? Still other people accept parts of


the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local,
charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered
only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris

and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. ? There
is a third group of people?those who accept the literal message of the


Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints
belong to this group. In spite of the world's arguments against the
historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic
evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a
prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning,
built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark,
and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are
assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple
testimonies of God's prophets." [Donald W. Parry, The Flood and the
Tower of Babel, Ensign, Jan. 1998, 35.]

Notice how Elder Parry specifically points out that ideas of a limited
flood are not acceptable in the LDS religion. This is how Jeff
Lindsay lies about LDS doctrine. He pretends that his *personal*
opinion has anything to do with Mormon doctrine.

> (the views of Donald Parry and Bruce McConkie are not automatically
> canonized,

Don't try using strawman arguments about cannon. We are talking about
what is taught by the Church. General Authorities teach LDS doctrine.
They define it.

You, on the other hand, define nothing at all.

<snip to end>

TheJordan6

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 4:34:49 PM12/14/02
to
Randy wrote to Jeff Lindsay:

>> If you believe that Noah's flood was local, rather than global, please
>share
>> your opinion on approximately which areas of the earth were covered by
>that
>> flood, citing scholarly references to support your views. Hint: Study
>> scholarly data which indicates an unbroken chain of civilization in
>> geographical areas around and in the timeframe of the alleged Noah's
>flood.
>> That should tell you how small or large any actual flood would have been.

Cam wrote:

>Even though that is a good point, it's irrelevant since Lindsay's scriptures
>and prophets have clearly stated it was a global flood that killed everyone
>on the earth except 8 people. He is constrained to work within those
>barriers.
>
>cam

Yes, you and I are intelligent enough to understand that, but Jeff Lindsay does
not believe in the teachings of his church's scriptures and prophets.

I invited him to share his views on the size and extent of the alleged flood so
that he could document the historicity of that flood from scholarly sources.
But Jeff will not be able to do that, because there is no evidence that any
such flood which resembles the one spoken of in Genesis, which caused such
notable devastation, ever occurred.
The simple fact is that many ancient cultures lived in the region of the
alleged flood before, during, and after it supposedly occurred, without
disturbing the chain of human progress in the least. That being the case, the
story of Noah and the flood has absolutely no foundation in facts. But since
official LDS doctrine states that the global flood was a literal, historical
event, and that doctrine has been repeated and endorsed by LDS leaders up to
the present time, then that tells us that LDS doctrines and their leaders
cannot be relied upon for any truth.
So, in other words, when Jeff Lindsay tells us that there was no global flood,
contrary to what LDS doctrine and leaders teach, he is just conceding the
obvious. Unfortunately, Jeff does not understand that his position makes him
an apostate, just as Tom Murphy's position that the Book of Mormon is not
historical makes him an apostate. Maybe one day soon we'll read news articles
about Tom Murphy's and Jeff Lindsay's excommunications from the LDS Church.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 4:46:00 PM12/14/02
to
>From: John Manning joh...@terra.com.br
>Date: 12/14/2002 2:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3DFB8197...@terra.com.br>

>
>
>
>jeff wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> So let me pose this question: If there were many others in the hemisphere
>> when Lehi's party landed, and the Lehites intermingled with locals over the
>> following centuries, what genetic trace would we absolutely expect to find
>> today?
>
>It is my understanding that identifying DNA markers do not disappear
>when co-mingling of different groups occurs - even over many centuries
>and extensive co-mingling. That is why DNA evidence is so significant.
>
>John Manning

What these Mormon goobers apparently cannot comprehend is that scientists have
been able to match DNA of Amerinds with that of Mongolians/Siberians to show
common ancestry, even though research shows that the Asians migrated to the
Americas more than 10,000 years ago---in spite of any "intermingling" that may
have occurred over the centuries.

That being the case, if any Amerinds were descended from Middle Eastern Semitic
peoples a mere 2600 years ago as the BOM claims---and there are still many
thousands of full-blooded Amerinds in Mesoamerica whose DNA can be
tested---then that DNA testing should show a close relationship between
Amerinds and Semitic peoples, at least in some instances.

Jeff Lindsay and his band of clowns are merely putting forth their "the DNA has
been diluted, so that's why we can't find any Semitic DNA among the Amerinds"
as an excuse for lack of that evidence. They are merely repeating the
established pattern of ALL Mormon apologists: They cannot show any evidence
for the authenticity of the BOM, so they have to resort to making excuses for
lack of evidence.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 4:59:36 PM12/14/02
to
>From: "RTBaird" rtb...@excite.com
>Date: 12/13/2002 3:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <uvkg9jn...@corp.supernews.com>

>
>
>"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20021213110842...@mb-fu.aol.com...
>>
>> Since it's obvious that LDS teachings mandate that the flood was universal
>and
>> killed every human on earth except those aboard the ark, then Jeff
>Lindsay's
>> open, public rejection of that teaching makes him an apostate from LDS
>> teachings and leaders. He is in the exact same position as Tom Murphy,
>the
>> LDS anthropologist who has published his opinion that the BOM is not
>literal
>> history.
>> So why isn't Jeff Lindsay being called before a church court to answer
>charges
>> of apostasy, as Tom Murphy's church leaders attempted to do to him?
>>
>
>(begging your pardon for answering a rhetorical question...)
>
>Because mormonism is about "the Church", it's not about "the Truth".

Bingo.

>In the LDS culture, people who willfully misrepresent doctrine to protect
>the church are admired.

Exactly, "Lying for the Lord."
Just look at how many Mormon sheep admire Jeff Lindsay's website, and quote him
like gospel, even though Lindsay misrepresents the LDS doctrine of the global
flood. If Mormons on ARM were at all concerned with the truth, they should be
calling for Jeff Lindsay's excommunication, just as they so eagerly wanted to
see Tom Murphy kicked out only a week ago.


>People who cite correct doctrine that damages the church are excommunicated.

Indeed. We saw that last week, when Shane Whelan was excommunicated for merely
writing a book about the correct LDS doctrine of polygamy.


>Of course.

>If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, lying is *intrinsic* to
>mormonism.
>
>RTBaird

Well, as someone once said, "A system gotten up in lies must be sustained by
lies." Jeff Lindsay knows that the LDS doctrine of the global flood cannot be
supported by scientific fact---and the global flood destroys his pet theory
about "other people" living in the Americas before the BOM time period---so he
resorts to lying by telling us that the global flood isn't official LDS
doctrine.

The problem with Mormons like Jeff Lindsay is that they have repeated such lies
over and over for so long in their minds, that they actually believe them. If
you do that to your brain for a long time, you eventually become unable to
distinguish the truth from the lies. And that is where we get the term
"Totally Brainwashed Mormon."

Randy J.

dan_s

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 11:18:12 PM12/14/02
to
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.02121...@posting.google.com>...

> "jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvmi2b2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Lying about what the Church teaches?
>
> Yes. Lying about what the Church teaches.
>
> > I clearly stated that many LDS people
> > believe in the global flood that killed all humans.
>
> It's not just "many LDS people," Jeff. It's Mormonism's prophets,
> seers and revelators. It's modern-day LDS scripture and revelation.
> The Book of Moses and the D&C both describe a world-wide flood.

In Jeff's defense, he seems to be saying that the words of LDS
prophets, even pertaining to scripture, are not necessarily the
highest truth. I guess that goes for the D&C as well.

That's just my own guess based on his past posts. I don't know how
the elders of the church would feel about that view, though.

It seems to me that the current leaders of the church have been
reluctant to embrace inerrancy or a literalist interpretation of the
Bible, though the preference for teaching creationism certainly shows
where their heart is.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 2:10:42 AM12/15/02
to
"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvmi2b2...@corp.supernews.com>...

<snip>


> So let me pose this question: If there were many others in the hemisphere
> when Lehi's party landed, and the Lehites intermingled with locals over the
> following centuries, what genetic trace would we absolutely expect to find
> today?

<snip>

Others have pointed out that your ad hoc argument does not save the
day. I'll simply point out that your assertion that other nations
could have been in the Promised Land when Lehi arrived is false, and
that the Book of Mormon specifically states, in 2 Nephi 1:8, that the
land had been kept from other nations so it could be an inheritance
for Lehi's seed.

Again, we must ask why Mormon apologists are reduced to lying about
what the Book of Mormon says. Is it because they know the Book of
Mormon is nothing more than a clumsy fraud? Why lie about it, if you
really believe it is true?

alienward

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 2:19:14 AM12/15/02
to
"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvmi2b2...@corp.supernews.com>...

> Lying about what the Church teaches? I clearly stated that many LDS people
> believe in the global flood that killed all humans. It's natural given a
> straightforward reading of the Old Testament and Moses. But it's possible to
> consider alternatives and still be within the scope of canonized LDS
> doctrine (the views of Donald Parry and Bruce McConkie are not automatically
> canonized, nor are mine - we are not "the Church" and not the ultimate
> authority on any issues, and the Ultimate Authority has not yet given
> scientific details to help us understand exactly what the reports of the
> flood mean). The room for other views is especially open if we realize that
> "earth" in the Hebrew scriptures can be synonymous with "land" - a portion
> of the earth.

Jeff's not paying attention to his own thread. From the Syllabus for
Religion 327 - Lesson 12 Noah and the Flood, being taught this
semester at BYU:

Was the Flood universal?

Genesis 6:13

Genesis 7:21-23

> Anyway, what are your learned views on the issue of the 1C haplotype in the


> Americas and in Middle Easterners? I don't recall seeing that addressed -
> just lots of name calling ("liar," "clown," etc.). So much for civil debate!

Don't forget jackass and incompetent Jeff. You are also a jackass and
an incompetent apologist. You didn't even know your church teaches
the flood was a literal event. Go deal with this problem before you
try genetics.



> So let me pose this question: If there were many others in the hemisphere
> when Lehi's party landed, and the Lehites intermingled with locals over the
> following centuries, what genetic trace would we absolutely expect to find
> today?

DNA from Middle Easterners, as well as genetic markers that show white
skin and a sudden new black skin marker that shows up when God's
curses some of the Lehites with black skin.


Alien

jeff

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 10:01:59 AM12/15/02
to
The scientific details of the flood have not been revealed and ARE NOT a
core issue for LDS faith. If there were a canonized teaching whose only
possible meaning was that the flood covered every mountain on earth and
wiped out all humans and animals, then we'd have a problem. But the
canonized, official teachings of the Church leave plenty of room for
speculation on issues where we don't know much at all or may need to revise
our old assumptions. In the days of Paul, I bet every prophet and apostle
assumed that the creation comprised six 24-hour days. I bet Joseph Smith and
nearly all early Church leaders maintained that assumption - why not? There
was no need to seek revelation on the scientific details, and those details
don't seem related to our salvation. But now many LDS people can reasonably
believe that the Creation took a long time. It might be that many Sunday
School teachers in the Church and most Church sermons of the past speak of a
young earth, but I would not say that this is what the Church teaches - in
the sense of this being what the Church requires one to believe, or in the
sense that the validity of the Church rises and falls with that issue. (Yes,
I am making a fine distinction, but please try to understand what I'm saying
before launching into the usual vitriolic assaults.) It's the same with the
flood. Most Church leaders probably believe and teach of a global flood - so
you can say that this is what is typically taught in the Church. But it's
based on human assumptions in an area where we do not know yet know enough
to rule out other possibilities. Since it's not a required, canonized,
essential doctrine - our faith can remain intact regardless of who many
square miles the flood covered, and regardless of how long the days of
Creation were, and regardless of what other human-like beings were on the
earth before Adam and Eve. We have much to learn, and there is room for
revising our views without contradicting articles of faith and canonized,
essential teachings. We don't believe that prophets know everything, we
don't even require the scriptures to be infallible and correct in every
detail (the human touch is always there). Until God reveals the details in
more clarity, one can view a variety of issues in several ways.

No one is going to be excommunicated for not being sure about what the flood
was. I'm not sure. I could live with a global flood - if that's what
occurred - or a local flood. I don't think the Church can say for sure what
it was without further revelation. In terms of issues affecting our
salvation, this is minor. People who might lose their membership are the
ones who act like they don't want to be members in the first place, openly
mocking official Church doctrines, attacking official moral stances of the
Church, ridiculing its leaders, denying the divinity of the Restoration and
the role of Joseph Smith as prophet, etc. I have a firm and undying
testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith as a
prophet.

--

Jeff Lindsay
http://www.jefflindsay.com

"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20021214165936...@mb-ml.aol.com...

RTBaird

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 12:07:10 PM12/15/02
to

"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message
news:uvp6blh...@corp.supernews.com...

> The scientific details of the flood have not been revealed and ARE NOT a
> core issue for LDS faith.
<snip ad hoc drivel about flood not being world-wide, none of which was
authoritative>

You're in a position to make this claim for jefflindsayism, but *not* for
mormonism.

If you want to make that claim for with respect to mormonism, you should
provide some basis for making it. Scripture, prophet, Ensign article, etc.
would do nicely. Since your opinion does not reflect mormonism, it's
dishonest to try to represent it that way.

In *real* mormonism, there are many places that it is taught that the flood
was world-wide, and there are zero that teach it was not.

I'm guessing you're a "cafeteria" mormon.

RTBaird


Roy Stogner

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 2:54:33 PM12/15/02
to
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:01:59 +0000, jeff wrote:

> The scientific details of the flood have not been revealed and ARE NOT a
> core issue for LDS faith. If there were a canonized teaching whose only
> possible meaning was that the flood covered every mountain on earth and
> wiped out all humans and animals, then we'd have a problem.

It's canonized in the Book of Genesis, Book of Moses, Matthew, Luke, and 1
Peter in clear, literal terms. It's referred to in the Book of Abraham,
Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, was used as the basis of
several more doctrines (the idea that the flood was the Earth's baptism
and the belief that blacks were descendants of Cain through Ham) in
sermons by Brigham Young, and is still taught specifically as a literal,
global event in official Church lessons. There are fundamental elements
of the story (like gathering and saving at least two of every animal, and
God's promise never to do it again) which would make no sense if it was
talking about a local flood, and of course the text uses phrases like "all
the Earth", "every living substance I have made", "Noah only remained
alive, and they that were with him in the ark", over and over again.

Do we have a problem yet?
---
Roy Stogner

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 1:47:26 PM12/15/02
to
rune...@hotmail.com (dan_s) wrote in message news:<d4046839.02121...@posting.google.com>...

> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> > "jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvmi2b2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Lying about what the Church teaches?
> >
> > Yes. Lying about what the Church teaches.
> >
> > > I clearly stated that many LDS people
> > > believe in the global flood that killed all humans.
> >
> > It's not just "many LDS people," Jeff. It's Mormonism's prophets,
> > seers and revelators. It's modern-day LDS scripture and revelation.
> > The Book of Moses and the D&C both describe a world-wide flood.
>
> In Jeff's defense, he seems to be saying that the words of LDS
> prophets, even pertaining to scripture, are not necessarily the
> highest truth. I guess that goes for the D&C as well.

That certainly seems to be the case with Jeff, all right. I must add
that I feel the same way. In fact, I don't think the leaders of the
LDS Church have ANY uniquely valuable things to tell the world. They
are just a bunch of old guys trying to support the status quo (and
their pay checks, of course).

> That's just my own guess based on his past posts. I don't know how
> the elders of the church would feel about that view, though.

Oh, they would disagree with it veheminently.

> It seems to me that the current leaders of the church have been
> reluctant to embrace inerrancy or a literalist interpretation of the
> Bible, though the preference for teaching creationism certainly shows
> where their heart is.

The are reluctant to do it in public, but they teach it in spades in
private.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 1:54:18 PM12/15/02
to
"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvp6blh...@corp.supernews.com>...

> The scientific details of the flood have not been revealed and ARE NOT a
> core issue for LDS faith.

Don't setup strawmen arguments, Jeff. There is nothing about the
account of the flood that is "scientific." But the account *does*
claim to be true, and it *does* claim that everything with the "breath
of life" was killed, that was not on the ark.

And your prophets, seers, and revelators have SPECIFICALLY affirmed
this account as true.

For you to pretend there is wiggle room, while still accepting them as
prophets, seers, and revelators is simply a lie.

> If there were a canonized teaching whose only
> possible meaning was that the flood covered every mountain on earth and
> wiped out all humans and animals, then we'd have a problem.

That's what it says, and that's exactly how LDS prophets, seers, and
revelators have explained it. Since you are ignoring it, let's look
at that Ensign article again:

"Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story


of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as
a simple myth or fiction. ? Still other people accept parts of the
Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local,
charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered
only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris
and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. ? There
is a third group of people?those who accept the literal message of the
Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints
belong to this group. In spite of the world's arguments against the
historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic
evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a
prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning,
built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark,
and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are
assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple
testimonies of God's prophets." [Donald W. Parry, The Flood and the
Tower of Babel, Ensign, Jan. 1998, 35.]

According to Mormon apostle, prophet, and seer McConkie, "In the days
of Noah the Lord sent a universal flood which completely immersed the
whole earth and destroyed all flesh except that preserved on the ark.
(Gen. 6; 7; 8; 9; Moses 7:38-45; 8; Ether 13.2.) "Noah was born to
save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness
by the flood." (Teachings, p. 12) This flood was the baptism of the
earth; before it occurred the land was all in one place, a condition
that will again prevail during the millennial era. (D&C 133:23-24)"
[page 289].

> But the


> canonized, official teachings of the Church leave plenty of room for
> speculation on issues where we don't know much at all or may need to revise
> our old assumptions.

Only for folks who know that Mormonism is a clumsy fraud, but for
social or other such reasons, are looking for an excuse to remain in
the Church, instead of having the courage to admit how absurd it all
is.

<snip to end>

Mike W

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 4:23:53 PM12/15/02
to
> "TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021214164600...@mb-ml.aol.com...

<snip>

> Jeff Lindsay and his band of clowns are merely putting forth their
> "the DNA has been diluted, so that's why we can't find any Semitic
> DNA among the Amerinds" as an excuse for lack of that evidence.

Can DNA even be diluted?

Nobody even threw up their arms in despair when I suggested it might've been
those few who had Semitic markers, that died in the great plagues of this
land.

Have I missed a point of logic?

Even if they weren't Semitic, it'd be interesting to know why some folks
lived while others died. That certainly has something to do with genetics.

Mike


clif...@netdoor.com

unread,
Dec 16, 2002, 9:36:43 AM12/16/02
to


That's like saying I'm the heavyweight champion of the world.
Hey, I weigh 260#, it COULD happen.........................

Mike W

unread,
Dec 16, 2002, 9:37:58 AM12/16/02
to
> <clif...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
> news:3dfde4b8...@news.netdoor.com...

> > On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 16:23:53 -0500, "Mike W"
> > <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20021214164600...@mb-ml.aol.com...

> ><snip>

> > > Jeff Lindsay and his band of clowns are merely putting forth their
> > > "the DNA has been diluted, so that's why we can't find any Semitic
> > > DNA among the Amerinds" as an excuse for lack of that evidence.

> > Can DNA even be diluted?
> >
> > Nobody even threw up their arms in despair when I suggested it
> > might've been those few who had Semitic markers, that died in
> > the great plagues of this land.
> >
> > Have I missed a point of logic?
> >
> > Even if they weren't Semitic, it'd be interesting to know why some
> > folks lived while others died. That certainly has something to do
> > with genetics.

> That's like saying I'm the heavyweight champion of the world.


> Hey, I weigh 260#, it COULD happen.........................

LOL. It does imply more than I intended.

Now, I guess, it's just a curiousity. Can DNA be diluted or is it the
wonder map that can track our ancestors playings around(?), all the way back
to the sea and the genesis of it all? I think we're going to have to come
to grips with chaos theory before any of that is realized. Then of course,
there are all those folks and creatures who played big parts in our
ancestors lives whose DNA was never passed on. Curious.

Mike


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 16, 2002, 12:25:53 PM12/16/02
to
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message news:<uvkg9jn...@corp.supernews.com>...

<snip>


> (begging your pardon for answering a rhetorical question...)
>
> Because mormonism is about "the Church", it's not about "the Truth".
>
> In the LDS culture, people who willfully misrepresent doctrine to protect
> the church are admired.
> People who cite correct doctrine that damages the church are excommunicated.
>
> If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, lying is *intrinsic* to
> mormonism.

You just hit the nail directly on the head. Lying *IS* intrinsic to
Mormonism. People don't get excommunicated for telling lies about
what the Church teaches, they get excommunicated for telling the
*truth.*

You only have to read Hinckley's dishonest reply about god having once
been a man to see this. Or brush up on history, and how Smith lied
about practicing polygamy, and destroyed a printing operation that
exposed the practice. Jeff Lindsay et. al. are simply following in a
time-honored tradition within Mormonism of publicly lying about what
the Church privately teaches. As long as it saves the LDS Church the
embarrassment of public ridicule, it's not only accepted by the
Church, it's appreciated.

Meanwhile, the LDS Church continues to excommunicate, or threaten with
excommunication, historians and scientists who blow their cover and
spill the beans by telling the *truth.*

Lee Paulson

unread,
Dec 16, 2002, 12:44:48 PM12/16/02
to

"Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvrpjk7...@news.supernews.com...

I'd say something here, Mike, but "diluting DNA" doesn't really make any
sense.

--
Regards,
Lee, The James

Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.
---Rudyard Kipling

alienward

unread,
Dec 16, 2002, 2:37:11 PM12/16/02
to
"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message news:<uvp6blh...@corp.supernews.com>...
> The scientific details of the flood have not been revealed and ARE NOT a
> core issue for LDS faith. If there were a canonized teaching whose only
> possible meaning was that the flood covered every mountain on earth and
> wiped out all humans and animals, then we'd have a problem.

Moses 8:30 - "I will destroy all flesh from off the earth."

You have a problem.

> But the
> canonized, official teachings of the Church leave plenty of room for
> speculation on issues where we don't know much at all or may need to revise
> our old assumptions.

The Flood is taught as a literal event throughout the Mormon church
and it's institutions by everyone from Mormon prophets, seers and
revelators to Primary teachers.

> In the days of Paul, I bet every prophet and apostle
> assumed that the creation comprised six 24-hour days.

In the days of Benny Hinn, many a creationist knows a day in Genesis
means a day.

> It's the same with the
> flood. Most Church leaders probably believe and teach of a global flood - so
> you can say that this is what is typically taught in the Church.

No shit Sherlock. A global flood is taught throughout in the church
as well as in institutions like BYU.

> I'm not sure. I could live with a global flood - if that's what
> occurred - or a local flood. I don't think the Church can say for sure what
> it was without further revelation.

No, you clueless geek. The church claims to have already received
revelation that the global flood the father god created to murder all
but eight humans DID occur:

"Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know
that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more
than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their
willful stubbornness they would not listen to him. (Mark E. Petersen,
Ensign, Nov. 1981, 65)


Alien

Mike W

unread,
Dec 16, 2002, 3:54:21 PM12/16/02
to
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:atl3ej$4nf8$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de...

> > > ><snip>

> I'd say something here, Mike, but "diluting DNA" doesn't
> really make any sense.

OK.

What Jeff said was:

"So let me pose this question: If there were many others in the hemisphere
when Lehi's party landed, and the Lehites intermingled with locals over the
following centuries, what genetic trace would we absolutely expect to find
today?"

I would assume descendants of the intermingled would have to still be
kicking about. Which leaves us with
a) an excuse
b) an explanation

Your faith and belief will decide.

Speaking of which, I thought you'd addressed the other points in his post
when I was tracking back. But, I think my eyes are playing tricks... now I
can't find it.

Mike

Yes, I got a Black Magic Woman,
She's got me so blind I can't see;
But she's a Black Magic Woman and
she's trying to make a devil out of me...
(http://www.geocities.com/mysongbook/blackmagicwoman.html)

;-)


John Manning

unread,
Dec 16, 2002, 4:15:37 PM12/16/02
to

No Mike. The truth is the truth. DNA doesn't get *diluted* - even if you
have "faith and believe" that it does.

Conclusion: 'Lamanites' (Amerindians) did NOT descend from Jewish people
like the BOM claims. Like it or not - thems the facts! Not to mention
the totally missing evidence of elephants, etc., etc., etc., etc.

But you could always claim, like Rich Measures suggests, that satan
*changed* the DNA of the 'Lamanites' (Amerindians) to "test your faith".
(Guffaw!)

Your BOM is a clumsy fraud. And your continued support of its claims
explain and demonstrate your ineptitude and collusion in a lie - where
you have set lesser standards for yourself than actual truth.

John Manning

Mike W

unread,
Dec 16, 2002, 4:55:14 PM12/16/02
to
> "John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:3DFE4279...@terra.com.br...

>>>>>> <snip>

I said... your faith and belief will decide whether it's "an excuse" or "an
explanation". I didn't mean to imply that my faith and belief would have
any effect on historic DNA in any way.

The excuse or explanation being, the Amerindians aren't all here to tell the
tale with their DNA. Something better must be found to prove that all those
who ever set foot here and ever married a native here, before the Vikings,
were in fact descended from that 10,000+ year-old Asian stock.

> Conclusion: 'Lamanites' (Amerindians) did NOT descend from Jewish people
> like the BOM claims. Like it or not - thems the facts! Not to mention
> the totally missing evidence of elephants, etc., etc., etc., etc.

LOL. Don't forget cement and the correct interpretation of Numbers 31 (or
was that CNN's "War with Iraq"?)

> But you could always claim, like Rich Measures suggests, that satan
> *changed* the DNA of the 'Lamanites' (Amerindians) to "test your faith".
> (Guffaw!)

Hey!!! You didn't see Lee's post disappear in front of your eyes. Sometimes
I wonder :-)

> Your BOM is a clumsy fraud. And your continued support of its claims
> explain and demonstrate your ineptitude and collusion in a lie - where
> you have set lesser standards for yourself than actual truth.

I see you're in the "excuse" camp (to say the least).

Mike


John Manning

unread,
Dec 16, 2002, 6:32:55 PM12/16/02
to

It isn't just the DNA evidence Mike [although it speaks for itself]..
Check this out:

There are four major crops mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:

Barley (Mos 7:22, 9:9, Alma 11:7, 15)
Figs (3 Ne 14:16)
Grapes (2 Ne 15:2, 4, 3 Ne 14:16)
Wheat (Mos 9:9, 3 Ne 18:18)

Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:

Barley NONE {an new world variety was found in Arizona and totally
unrelated}
Figs NONE
Grapes NONE
Wheat NONE

This negative score on the plant-life test should not be treated too
lightly. An abundance of evidence
supporting the existence of these plants has been found in other parts
of the world of antiquity. The
existence of numerous non-Book-of-Mormon plants (maize, lima beans,
tomatoes, squash, etc.) has
been supported by abundant archeological findings. Quoting from Tom
Ferguson: "I (Tom Ferguson)
participated in excavating a trench a the edge of the Grijalva river in
which we found a ceramic vessel
is a stratum dating to about 200 BC. The vessel contained lima beans
that had been burned anciently
and discarded--pot and beans--as too badly burned to be edible. And yet
they were still in their
pristine and perfect form. The beans were carbon-14 dated helping to
place the whole stratum on a
true time scale. Art portrayals in ceramics, murals, and sculptured
works--of ancient plant life--are
fairly commonplace. Thousands of archeological holes in the area
proposed have given us not a
fragment of evidence of the presence of the plants mentioned in the Book
of Mormon. The holes
include the great one dug by Edwin Shook at Tehuacan, Puebla, Mexico. He
excavated a cave --
going back to 5000 BC., finding most of the major plants of the area.
But no wheat, barley, figs or
grapes."

I would like to note that wheat is very durable. Wheat in near perfect
condition has been frequently
found in the Egyptian pyramids dating back thousands of years. There is
absolutely no evidence from
any source that wheat was ever used in the ancient Americas. This alone
brings the Book of Mormon
into serious doubt.

Animal Life

This section is fun and Mormons are derided here for claiming horses and
elephants were used by the
ancients in America. This derision is for good reason, for they have
never been found! There are
more animals mentioned which reinforces the fictional nature of the Book
of Mormon.

There are many animals mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:

Ass
Bull
Calf
Cattle
Cow
Butter
Milk
Flocks
Goat {the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat no
less!}
Herds
Horse {the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite
societies}
Ox
Sheep {this was a major animal in the Book of Mormon}
Sow
Swine
Elephants

Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:

Ass..... NONE
Bull.... NONE
Calf.... NONE
Cattle.. NONE
Cow..... NONE
Butter.. NONE
Milk.... NONE
Flocks.. NONE
Goat.... NONE
Herds... NONE
Horse... NONE
Ox...... NONE
Sheep... NONE
Sow..... NONE
Swine... NONE
Elephants (NONE contemporary with the Book of Mormon)

Again from Tom Ferguson: "Evidence of the foregoing animals has not
appeared in any form --
ceramic representations, bones or skeletal remains, mural art,
sculptured art or any other form.
However... evidence has been found in several forms of the presence in
the Book-of-Mormon times
of other animals--deer, jaguars, dogs, turkeys etc. The zero score
presents a problem that will not go
away with the ignoring of it. Non-LDS scholars of first magnitude, some
who want to be our friends,
think we have real trouble here. That evidence of the ancient existence
of these animals is not elusive
is found in the fact that proof of their existence in the ancient
old-world is abundant. The absence of
such evidence...is distressing and significant, in my view."

Metals

I will be briefer on the metals, but this is fascinating to me as I have
both a BS and MS in
metallurgical engineering.

Evidence supporting the existence of these metals, skills and
products...at this time as follows:

Bellows....... NONE
Brass......... NONE
Breast Plates. NONE
Chains........ NONE
Copper........ NONE
Iron.......... NONE
Ore (mining).. NONE (this is very significant, no evidence of
mining
activities)
Plows......... NONE
Silver........ NONE
Swords........ NONE (none that are metal)
Steel......... NONE

Again from Tom Ferguson: "Metallurgy does not appear in the region until
about the 9th century A.D.
...I regard this as a major weakness in the armor of our proponents and
friends". ...Art does not
portray the existence of metallurgical products or metallurgical
activity. Again, the score is zero.

There are so many items archeologically, historically and using textual
criticism to show the Book of
Mormon to be fictional, that anyone willing to do a little study will
reach the same conclusion.

There is a lot of Mormon mythology that states that the Book of Mormon
has been "proven" by such
and such a find or the uncovering of a city. When investigated ALL of
these claims have been shown
to be false. The myths are circulated in the Mormon culture by Sacrament
meeting talks, Priesthood
meeting discussions and in LDS social circles so much, that Mormons who
do not investigate the
source of the information, believe the stories to be true. They use
these false stories to "strengthen
their testimonies".

SOURCE: http://www.exmormon.org/whyileft.htm

John

>
> Mike

Mike W

unread,
Dec 17, 2002, 1:07:34 AM12/17/02
to
> John Manning wrote:
>> Mike W wrote:
>>> John Manning wrote:

>>> Your BOM is a clumsy fraud. And your continued support of its claims
>>> explain and demonstrate your ineptitude and collusion in a lie - where
>>> you have set lesser standards for yourself than actual truth.

>> I see you're in the "excuse" camp (to say the least).

> It isn't just the DNA evidence Mike [although it speaks for itself]..
> Check this out:

<snip so many items>

> There are so many items archeologically, historically and using textual
> criticism to show the Book of Mormon to be fictional,

Now that's more ethical. More Christian perhaps. "Clumsy fraud" had me
wondering about your cold and calcuating approach.

> that anyone willing to do a little study will reach the same conclusion.
>
> There is a lot of Mormon mythology that states that the Book of Mormon
> has been "proven" by such and such a find or the uncovering of a city.

Reminds me of the latest "scientific" way to lose weight or prolong life.

> When investigated ALL of these claims have been shown to be false. The
> myths are circulated in the Mormon culture by Sacrament meeting talks,
> Priesthood meeting discussions and in LDS social circles so much,

It's amazing what it takes to have a place to hang on a Sunday morning. How
about you? Me? I hang at the club of one. I don't think it takes a genius
to see which is more unhealthy.

So unhealthy in fact the RCs consider it a sin not to go to church. LDS
aren't far behind.

> that Mormons who do not investigate the source of the information,
> believe the stories to be true. They use these false stories to
> "strengthen their testimonies".
>
> SOURCE: http://www.exmormon.org/whyileft.htm

Or in the case of diets, perhaps make themselves sick.

Mike

Who's still wondering where the DNA map may lead us, assuming we all throw
our chips into the pool. Wondering like he wonders where the Basque
language came from. Scientific anomalies they call them... will we find any
in our DNA? Hopefully. What's life without a bit of mystery?


Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 17, 2002, 5:24:59 PM12/17/02
to
TheJordan6 wrote:

> So, in other words, when Jeff Lindsay tells us that there was no global flood,
> contrary to what LDS doctrine and leaders teach, he is just conceding the
> obvious. Unfortunately, Jeff does not understand that his position makes him
> an apostate, just as Tom Murphy's position that the Book of Mormon is not
> historical makes him an apostate. Maybe one day soon we'll read news articles
> about Tom Murphy's and Jeff Lindsay's excommunications from the LDS Church.
>

I doubt that will happen. Lindsay is not the first nor the last person
in the LDS church to say the Flood didn't happen as indicated. His
views hardly make him an apostate.

--
Timothy A. Griffy
T.A.G...@cox.net

Someday people will want peace so badly that governments had better get
out of their way and let them have it. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

RTBaird

unread,
Dec 17, 2002, 7:48:54 PM12/17/02
to

"Timothy Griffy" <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3DFFA4AF...@cox.net...

> TheJordan6 wrote:
>
> > So, in other words, when Jeff Lindsay tells us that there was no global
flood,
> > contrary to what LDS doctrine and leaders teach, he is just conceding
the
> > obvious. Unfortunately, Jeff does not understand that his position
makes him
> > an apostate, just as Tom Murphy's position that the Book of Mormon is
not
> > historical makes him an apostate. Maybe one day soon we'll read news
articles
> > about Tom Murphy's and Jeff Lindsay's excommunications from the LDS
Church.
> >
>
> I doubt that will happen. Lindsay is not the first nor the last person
> in the LDS church to say the Flood didn't happen as indicated. His
> views hardly make him an apostate.
>

Okay, so once the SLC easement is gone, do you think your church is going to
allow anyone to even walk across the plaza wearing a t-shirt that says "The
LDS Church is WRONG about the flood"? I doubt it!

It's very, very telling that the determining factor in deciding who and who
is not an "apostate" is not what a person's beliefs actually are but rather
whether or not they express them in a way that causes the church public
embarrassment. *Obviously*, the LDS church places a higher priority on its
own image than on the truth. It's a con game, folks.

RTBaird


Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 2:14:57 AM12/18/02
to
Duwayne Anderson wrote:

>>It seems to me that the current leaders of the church have been
>>reluctant to embrace inerrancy or a literalist interpretation of the
>>Bible, though the preference for teaching creationism certainly shows
>>where their heart is.
>
>
> The are reluctant to do it in public, but they teach it in spades in
> private.

But here is the question: does that make it "official?"

--
Timothy A. Griffy
T.A.G...@cox.net

Forgiving the unforgivable is hard. So was the cross: hard words, hard
wood, hard nails -- William S. Stoddard

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 2:25:54 AM12/18/02
to
RTBaird wrote:

>
> Okay, so once the SLC easement is gone, do you think your church is going to
> allow anyone to even walk across the plaza wearing a t-shirt that says "The
> LDS Church is WRONG about the flood"? I doubt it!
>

I doubt it as well. But neither are they likely to take a person's name
and ward for further action.

> It's very, very telling that the determining factor in deciding who and who
> is not an "apostate" is not what a person's beliefs actually are but rather
> whether or not they express them in a way that causes the church public
> embarrassment. *Obviously*, the LDS church places a higher priority on its
> own image than on the truth. It's a con game, folks.
>

I don't find that it says much at all. The bad publicity surrounding
Church excommunications of its intellectuals for saying certain things
rather argues they aren't placing first priority on its image. Indeed,
it usually produces a banned in Boston effect. How many people do you
think even heard of Tom Murphy before this episode, for example? If
they had left him alone, Murphy would be known to the relatively few
people who have taken an interest in Mormon studies. As it is, it is
the Church that has received the black eye in this episode.


--
Timothy A. Griffy
T.A.G...@cox.net

Forgiving the unforgivable is hard. So was the cross: hard words, hard

CAM

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 2:43:07 AM12/18/02
to

"Timothy Griffy" <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3E00237E...@cox.net...

> RTBaird wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay, so once the SLC easement is gone, do you think your church is
going to
> > allow anyone to even walk across the plaza wearing a t-shirt that says
"The
> > LDS Church is WRONG about the flood"? I doubt it!
> >
>
> I doubt it as well. But neither are they likely to take a person's name
> and ward for further action.
>
> > It's very, very telling that the determining factor in deciding who and
who
> > is not an "apostate" is not what a person's beliefs actually are but
rather
> > whether or not they express them in a way that causes the church public
> > embarrassment. *Obviously*, the LDS church places a higher priority on
its
> > own image than on the truth. It's a con game, folks.
> >
>
> I don't find that it says much at all. The bad publicity surrounding
> Church excommunications of its intellectuals for saying certain things
> rather argues they aren't placing first priority on its image. Indeed,
> it usually produces a banned in Boston effect. How many people do you
> think even heard of Tom Murphy before this episode, for example? If
> they had left him alone, Murphy would be known to the relatively few
> people who have taken an interest in Mormon studies.

Many had heard of him before this episode, but it is true, more have heard
of him now. Obviously, the church was hopeful this wasn't going to turn into
a media frenzy that it did and the fact they backed down only shows that
once they realized they were backed against a wall, they figured backing
down was going to minimize the media attention from then on...which is
exactly what it did.

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 2:55:56 AM12/18/02
to

But also in "*real* mormonism," one can can say what Jeff is saying
without risking excommunication, without having his temple recommend
taken away or denied (there aren't any questions regarding the Flood in
the interview) and otherwise facing no consequences other than finding
himself in some heated arguments and having to publish it outside
"official" channels. "*Real* mormonism" encompasses much more than what
is found in official publications or the writings of its General
Authorities. You fail to take that into account at your own risk. As
it is, the conclusion that one's stance on the Flood isn't a core issue
for the LDS faith is well supported.

> I'm guessing you're a "cafeteria" mormon.
>

That is normal with any religion.

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 3:04:10 AM12/18/02
to
CAM wrote:
> "Timothy Griffy" <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3E00237E...@cox.net...
>>I don't find that it says much at all. The bad publicity surrounding
>>Church excommunications of its intellectuals for saying certain things
>>rather argues they aren't placing first priority on its image. Indeed,
>>it usually produces a banned in Boston effect. How many people do you
>>think even heard of Tom Murphy before this episode, for example? If
>>they had left him alone, Murphy would be known to the relatively few
>>people who have taken an interest in Mormon studies.
>
>
> Many had heard of him before this episode, but it is true, more have heard
> of him now. Obviously, the church was hopeful this wasn't going to turn into
> a media frenzy that it did and the fact they backed down only shows that
> once they realized they were backed against a wall, they figured backing
> down was going to minimize the media attention from then on...which is
> exactly what it did.
>

That is a valid way of looking at it. However, it doesn't take history
into full account. The Church may not have anticipated this case would
generate such publicity, but this isn't the first time the Church has
excommunicated intellectuals that resulted in bad publicity. Especially
after the September Six, anytime the Church starts an inquisition
against intellectuals it has the potential of generating a media frenzy.
As media savvy as the Church is, you'd think they would have taken the
hint if publicity is first and foremost on their minds.

Nevertheless, whether the publicity is responsible or not, it is a good
thing the Church backed down in this case. Perhaps they are learning
after all.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 10:30:44 AM12/18/02
to
Timothy Griffy <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3E0020F1...@cox.net>...

> Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>
> >>It seems to me that the current leaders of the church have been
> >>reluctant to embrace inerrancy or a literalist interpretation of the
> >>Bible, though the preference for teaching creationism certainly shows
> >>where their heart is.
> >
> >
> > The are reluctant to do it in public, but they teach it in spades in
> > private.
>
> But here is the question: does that make it "official?"

There is no such thing in Mormonism as "official" doctrine. This is a
strawman argument raised by apologists for denying what the Church
teaches.

Go ahead, Timothy. We've had this debate before. I challenge you to
provide a reference that states the official way that any doctrine in
the LDS Church becomes official. Make sure that statement is, itself,
from an official source.

I've made this challenge before on ARM. Nobody could provide the
reference. That's because it does not exist.

Mormon doctrine is what Mormon prophets teach.

Lee Paulson

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 12:22:44 PM12/18/02
to

"Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:uvsfm41...@news.supernews.com...

I have addressed them bunches of times in arm history. I am not sure where
these weird pseudoscience arguments come from, but I find them pretty
telling.

Mike W

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 12:56:32 PM12/18/02
to
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:atqatb$1k8ua$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de...

> > > > > ><snip>

> I have addressed them bunches of times in arm history. I am not sure


> where these weird pseudoscience arguments come from, but I find them
> pretty telling.

That probably it. My eyes were playing tricks because the number of times
you've countered pseudo-science with science, are too numerable to mention.

Mike


Xan Du

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 11:00:05 PM12/18/02
to

"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.02121...@posting.google.com...

You forgot a clause. Mormon doctrine is what Mormon prophets teach, until
some other prophet later teaches something else.

Or on ARM: until FARMS or FAIR publishes something totally contradictory to
doctrine and the Correlation Department doesn't catch it.

-Xan

jeff

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 1:53:19 AM12/19/02
to
While you're all waiting for me to be excommunicated for not agreeing with
anti-Mormon views on what Mormons must believe about the ancient inhabitants
of this continent, you may wish to bone up on what significant figures in
the Church have taught long before the present DNA controversy. I've already
quoted from Anthony Ivins of the First Presidency in 1929 about the
possibility of other peoples having come to the Americas before the
Jaredites. Here's a 1952 passage by Hugh Nibley:
Long after the Book of Mormon appeared Joseph Smith quoted with approval
from the pulpit reports of certain Toltec legends which would make it appear
that those people had come originally from the Near East in the time of
Moses [see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 267]; whether such a
migration ever took place or not, it is significant that the Prophet was not
reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those

mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
The argument of silence bears some weight in considering the possibility
of "other sheep." When the Jaredites journey into a land "where there never
had man been," [Ether 2:5, referring to a portion of their journey in the
Old World] our history finds the fact worthy of note, even though the part
was only passing through. Now there is a great deal said in the Book of
Mormon about the past and future of the promised land, but never is it
described as an empty land. The descendents of Lehi were never the only
people on the continent, and the Jaredites never claimed to be."

-- Hugh Nibley, The World of the Jaredites, originally published 1952, in
The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.5 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
1988), p. 250.

I regret to inform you that the Church failed to excommunicate Anthony Ivins
or Hugh Nibley for their high-profile statements that would seem to
contradict what our esteemed critics claim the Church officially teaches.
The Church also failed to excommunicate Joseph Smith for the same crime. But
the problem is not a contradiction between the Church and these brethren
whom I have quoted, but between these brethren and an overly simplistic
reading of the scriptural account.

Now face this fact: if Nephi's group was a minute portion of the ancient
inhabitants of the Americas, how much genetic evidence should we expect to
find for them today? Their DNA may be spread all over the Americas, but it
would be unlikely to have been preserved as mtDNA or Y chromosomes given the
large gene pool of founders. Can you at least recognize that if we allow for
large populations to have already been present, that the modern genetic
evidence of a boatload of people in 600 B.C. might be very difficult to
detect?

--

Jeff Lindsay
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message

news:uvvhm2a...@corp.supernews.com...

Mike W

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 3:39:40 AM12/19/02
to
> "jeff" wrote:
> > "RTBaird" wrote:
> > > "Timothy Griffy" wrote:
> > > > "TheJordan6" wrote:
> > > > > "CAM" wrote:
> > > > > > "The Jordan6" wrote:
> > > > > > > "dan_s" wrote:
> > > > > > > > "jeff" wrote:

<various snippages etc.>

> > > > So, in other words, when Jeff Lindsay tells us that there
> > > > was no global flood, contrary to what LDS doctrine and
> > > > leaders teach, he is just conceding the obvious.
> > > > Unfortunately, Jeff does not understand that his position
> > > > makes him an apostate, just as Tom Murphy's position that
> > > > the Book of Mormon is not historical makes him an apostate.
> > > > Maybe one day soon we'll read news articles about Tom
> > > > Murphy's and Jeff Lindsay's excommunications from the LDS
> > > > Church.

> > > I doubt that will happen. Lindsay is not the first nor the
> > > last person in the LDS church to say the Flood didn't happen
> > > as indicated. His views hardly make him an apostate.

> > Okay, so once the SLC easement is gone, do you think your church
> > is going to allow anyone to even walk across the plaza wearing a
> > t-shirt that says "The LDS Church is WRONG about the flood"?
> > I doubt it!
> >
> > It's very, very telling that the determining factor in deciding
> > who and who is not an "apostate" is not what a person's beliefs
> > actually are but rather whether or not they express them in a way
> > that causes the church public embarrassment. *Obviously*, the LDS
> > church places a higher priority on its own image than on the truth.
> > It's a con game, folks.

> While you're all waiting for me to be excommunicated for not agreeing


> with anti-Mormon views on what Mormons must believe about the ancient
> inhabitants of this continent,

I love this line :-) It gives me hope.

> you may wish to bone up on what significant figures in the Church
> have taught long before the present DNA controversy. I've already
> quoted from Anthony Ivins of the First Presidency in 1929 about the
> possibility of other peoples having come to the Americas before the
> Jaredites. Here's a 1952 passage by Hugh Nibley:
>
> Long after the Book of Mormon appeared Joseph Smith quoted with
> approval from the pulpit reports of certain Toltec legends which
> would make it appear that those people had come originally from
> the Near East in the time of Moses
> [see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 267];

That's a new one.

As I understand it, mtDNA or Y chromosome polymorphisms don't get lost
through the genetic generations. The only way I can see them hiding is:

1. We haven't found a genetic descendant to sample.
2. There are no genetic descendants left extant. Only adopted descendants.
or
3. There were no genetic ancestors to speak of.

I like the first two options better. Much more intriguing.

Mike

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 4:18:19 AM12/19/02
to
Duwayne Anderson wrote:

>
> There is no such thing in Mormonism as "official" doctrine. This is a
> strawman argument raised by apologists for denying what the Church
> teaches.
>

But how can one assert "what the Church teaches" if there is no
"official" doctrine? If there is no official doctrine, your assertions
about "what the Church teaches" are meaningless. Yet such statements
are common among the ravening wolves in order to tell Mormons what they
believe. (Sorry. Hopefully now that the tit-for-tat ad hominems are
out of the way, we can get serious in our discussion.)

> Go ahead, Timothy. We've had this debate before. I challenge you to
> provide a reference that states the official way that any doctrine in
> the LDS Church becomes official. Make sure that statement is, itself,
> from an official source.
>
> I've made this challenge before on ARM. Nobody could provide the
> reference. That's because it does not exist.
>

Having already noted the irony of trying to establish the Church's
"official" teaching
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0830819916/customer-reviews/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-4946771-5526246),
I'm afraid that is a challenge I shan't take up. The closest one will
get to such a statement is D&C 28:11ff., but that also involves some
interpretation.

> Mormon doctrine is what Mormon prophets teach.
>

And, um, where can you find a reference that states in an official way
that this is so? Make sure that statement is, itself, from an official
source.


--
Timothy A. Griffy
T.A.G...@cox.net

Someday people will want peace so badly that governments had better get

CAM

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 4:19:46 AM12/19/02
to

"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message
news:v02r7k1...@corp.supernews.com...

> While you're all waiting for me to be excommunicated for not agreeing with
> anti-Mormon views on what Mormons must believe about the ancient
inhabitants
> of this continent, you may wish to bone up on what significant figures in
> the Church have taught long before the present DNA controversy. I've
already
> quoted from Anthony Ivins of the First Presidency in 1929 about the
> possibility of other peoples having come to the Americas before the
> Jaredites. Here's a 1952 passage by Hugh Nibley:

The doubt of an Israelite relationship is not a new concern for the church.
It has been ongoing for a long time, but has been shoved to the top with DNA
evidence. There has long been concerns due to lack of language
relationships, bone structure of Amerinds, facial structure, lack of
cultural simularities, etc. For Nibley and Ivins to start the spin back then
was not surprising then and is not surprising now. These few passages do not
make a dent in the overwhelming amount of scriptorial, church publications,
prophet and apostle statements that teach otherwise.

I do like how everytime you post, you come up with a new theory after your
old one was blown away....thanks for quickly destroying this one
mike...altho I hate to see ya do it to one of your compadres tho :)

cam

dangerous1

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 4:38:00 AM12/19/02
to
jeff wrote:

I can give you quotes older than that. How about one from Lehi?
""Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever;
and also all they
which should be led out of other countries, by the hand of the Lord."

Lehi should be damn near as old as Nibley.

>
>
> I regret to inform you that the Church failed to excommunicate Anthony Ivins
> or Hugh Nibley for their high-profile statements that would seem to
> contradict what our esteemed critics claim the Church officially teaches.

They might have been better off today if they had.

>
> The Church also failed to excommunicate Joseph Smith for the same crime.

Ditto.


> But
> the problem is not a contradiction between the Church and these brethren
> whom I have quoted, but between these brethren and an overly simplistic
> reading of the scriptural account.

"Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as they which the
Lord God
shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they
shall prosper upon
the face of this land; and they shall be KEPT FROM ALL OTHER NATIONS, that they
may POSSESS THIS LAND UNTO THEMSELVES."

God promised them that they would be kept from all other nations and possess
the land unto themselves. Yet, He had already placed so many people here that
the "nephites" would be a minuscule minority? And he did it before waiting to
see if they were going to keep the commandments or not? I don't think the
problem is with non-mormons overly simplistic reading. The problem is that the
book is an inconsistent, simplistic fraud.

It appears that your argument here about other peoples on the land is with
god. I'm quite sure that most non-mormons know that there were people here
before your imaginary friend "Lehi".


>
>
> Now face this fact: if Nephi's group was a minute portion of the ancient
> inhabitants of the Americas, how much genetic evidence should we expect to
> find for them today?

Fact? LOL.


> Their DNA may be spread all over the Americas, but it
> would be unlikely to have been preserved as mtDNA or Y chromosomes given the
> large gene pool of founders. Can you at least recognize that if we allow for
> large populations to have already been present, that the modern genetic
> evidence of a boatload of people in 600 B.C. might be very difficult to
> detect?

Especially if they were a boatload of imaginary people.

Two problems.
1. That pesky flood makes a nice genetic bottleneck for your population.
2. "[The angel] said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham ..."
Joseph Smith, Jr.

Now, if YOU want to find some genetic evidence for this boatload of pilgrims,
the Hill Cumorah might be a good place to look. I hear there are hundreds of
thousands of nephites buried there. Go do some DNA testing on the gigantic
bone pile there and report back with your findings. Shouldn't that be a gold
mine of Hebrew-Lamanite evidence?

Why look for a needle in a haystack when you have a genetic treasure like that
sitting there?

--
Best,
Dangerous1

D1 @ Dangerous1.com
Don Marchant


You step in the stream,
but the water has moved on.
This page is not here.

Haiku error message


dangerous1

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 4:59:58 AM12/19/02
to
Timothy Griffy wrote:

> Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> > There is no such thing in Mormonism as "official" doctrine. This is a
> > strawman argument raised by apologists for denying what the Church
> > teaches.
> >
>
> But how can one assert "what the Church teaches" if there is no
> "official" doctrine? If there is no official doctrine, your assertions
> about "what the Church teaches" are meaningless.

Because what the church teaches is not official doctrine. One can observe what they teach by listening and reading. One can not
assume that what is taught is official. And one can not determine how doctrine /becomes/ "official".

Like Duwayne said,


>"I challenge you to
> provide a reference that states the official way that any doctrine in
> the LDS Church becomes official. Make sure that statement is, itself,
> from an official source.


> Yet such statements
> are common among the ravening wolves in order to tell Mormons what they
> believe. (Sorry. Hopefully now that the tit-for-tat ad hominems are
> out of the way, we can get serious in our discussion.)
>
> > Go ahead, Timothy. We've had this debate before. I challenge you to
> > provide a reference that states the official way that any doctrine in
> > the LDS Church becomes official. Make sure that statement is, itself,
> > from an official source.
> >
> > I've made this challenge before on ARM. Nobody could provide the
> > reference. That's because it does not exist.
> >
>
> Having already noted the irony of trying to establish the Church's
> "official" teaching
> (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0830819916/customer-reviews/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-4946771-5526246),
> I'm afraid that is a challenge I shan't take up. The closest one will
> get to such a statement is D&C 28:11ff., but that also involves some
> interpretation.
>
> > Mormon doctrine is what Mormon prophets teach.
> >
>
> And, um, where can you find a reference that states in an official way
> that this is so? Make sure that statement is, itself, from an official
> source.
>

It's just mormon doctrine. It's not official mormon doctrine. They always retain the right of deniability.

Mike W

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 7:18:39 AM12/19/02
to
> "CAM" <comp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:v033q2f...@corp.supernews.com...

> > "jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message
> > news:v02r7k1...@corp.supernews.com...

> > Now face this fact: if Nephi's group was a minute portion of the


> > ancient inhabitants of the Americas, how much genetic evidence
> > should we expect to find for them today? Their DNA may be spread
> > all over the Americas, but it would be unlikely to have been
> > preserved as mtDNA or Y chromosomes given the large gene pool of
> > founders. Can you at least recognize that if we allow for large
> > populations to have already been present, that the modern genetic
> > evidence of a boatload of people in 600 B.C. might be very difficult
> > to detect?

> I do like how everytime you post, you come up with a new theory after your
> old one was blown away....thanks for quickly destroying this one
> mike...altho I hate to see ya do it to one of your compadres tho :)

In a side post I put:

*****


As I understand it, mtDNA or Y chromosome polymorphisms don't get lost
through the genetic generations. The only way I can see them hiding is:

1. We haven't found a genetic descendant to sample.
2. There are no genetic descendants left extant. Only adopted descendants.
or
3. There were no genetic ancestors to speak of.

I like the first two options better. Much more intriguing.

*****

Is that the generic "mike" or me "mike"? Far be it from me to consider this
the destruction of his faith. Don't be blue!

There are too many angles to play for me to consider myself anywhere near
capable of destruction. Science and rational thought is a wonderful little
tool for examining that relatively static part of the universe. It's
useless at the fringes, where ideas are born and faith rules. The static
universe is finite, the fringes go on forever. One could lose oneself out
there but, we have to go, the static finite realm is a prison.

Somehow, someway it will all make sense in the end and everything will be
good for the TBM. That's my faith.

Mike

Who wonders who even thinks like this, let alone knows where compadre fits
in :-)


Lee Paulson

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 7:46:34 AM12/19/02
to


"Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:atrg7j$219h9$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...

You know, the Correlation Department is by far and away my favorite entity
name in the entire church.

Regards,
Lee, The James


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 10:12:21 AM12/19/02
to
Timothy Griffy <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3E018F51...@cox.net>...

> Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> > There is no such thing in Mormonism as "official" doctrine. This is a
> > strawman argument raised by apologists for denying what the Church
> > teaches.
> >
>
> But how can one assert "what the Church teaches" if there is no
> "official" doctrine?

The Church teaches stuff all the time. They do it in General
Conference. They do it in the Ensign. They do it at Church, etc.,

One need not have "official doctrine" to teach. Like I said, this
whold "official doctrine" thing is just a smokescreen for avoiding
responsibility for what they teach.

> If there is no official doctrine, your assertions
> about "what the Church teaches" are meaningless.

Now that's about the dumbest thing I've ever read. The Church is a
corporation. They do all sorts of things. Not having an official
mechanism does not prevent that.

> Yet such statements
> are common among the ravening wolves in order to tell Mormons what they
> believe.

Get a clue. The "ravening wolves" are on ARM to prevent Mormons from
lying about what the Church teaches.

> (Sorry. Hopefully now that the tit-for-tat ad hominems are
> out of the way, we can get serious in our discussion.)

Do you know what an ad hominem is? It's trying to change the subject,
by focusing on the other guy instead of the issues.

See if you can focus on the issues.

For starters, I notice you have ignored my question/challenge. Let me
repeat it for you, and see if you can deal with it this time:

Provide a reference for the official method of defining what is
official doctrine.

> > Go ahead, Timothy. We've had this debate before. I challenge you to
> > provide a reference that states the official way that any doctrine in
> > the LDS Church becomes official. Make sure that statement is, itself,
> > from an official source.
> >
> > I've made this challenge before on ARM. Nobody could provide the
> > reference. That's because it does not exist.
> >
>
> Having already noted the irony of trying to establish the Church's
> "official" teaching

Are you, or are you not, saying there is such a thing as official
doctrine? If so, stop dancing around the issue and simply post the
reference.

Dodging the issue will only make you look like an idiot.

> (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0830819916/customer-reviews/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-4946771-5526246),
> I'm afraid that is a challenge I shan't take up. The closest one will
> get to such a statement is D&C 28:11ff., but that also involves some
> interpretation.

Here is what D&C 28:11 says:

"And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, abetween• him and
thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from
that bstone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;"

This says nothing about official doctrine. And there is no verse
11ff.

Like I said, the longer you dance around the question, the more it
simply makes you look bad.

> > Mormon doctrine is what Mormon prophets teach.
> >
>
> And, um, where can you find a reference that states in an official way
> that this is so?

Did I say "official?" Nooooo. I said Mormon doctrine is what Mormon
prophets teach. Look up the definition of "doctrine." It's "what is
taught."

Get a clue. When you try and win arguments by inventing your private
definition of words its called masturbating with semantics.

> Make sure that statement is, itself, from an official
> source.

It's called using the English language.

Duwayne Anderson

American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.

CAM

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 3:17:56 PM12/19/02
to

"Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v03e93i...@news.supernews.com...

Noone said anything about his faith, I said you destroyed his argument,
which you did. I do find it funny that you relate the DNA evidence and
destruction of faith together though. I'd tend to agree there should be a
relationship there :)

jeff said: Their DNA may be spread all over the Americas, but it


would be unlikely to have been preserved as mtDNA or Y chromosomes given the
large gene pool of founders.

mike said: As I understand it, mtDNA or Y chromosome polymorphisms don't get


lost
through the genetic generations.

That's a pretty clear dismissal of his whole premise.

cam

Mike W

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 3:54:23 PM12/19/02
to
> "CAM" <comp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:v04ac5m...@corp.supernews.com...

Strange how fact and faith coexist, eh? I know there's actually something
going on over here called "thought". I can't really prove its existence,
let alone prove its merit, but somehow I believe/have faith/know it's there.

> jeff said: Their DNA may be spread all over the Americas, but it
> would be unlikely to have been preserved as mtDNA or Y chromosomes
> given the large gene pool of founders.
>
> mike said: As I understand it, mtDNA or Y chromosome polymorphisms
> don't get lost through the genetic generations.
>
> That's a pretty clear dismissal of his whole premise.
>
> cam

I guess I'm jumping to conclusions. I did throw an olive branch, an
alternate approach. In that I don't feel so guilty, so thoughtless. To be
true, I haven't done any experiments myself. I'm taking alot of other
people on faith. People who make it their business to learn these things.

Mike

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 6:30:17 PM12/19/02
to
dangerous1 wrote:
> Timothy Griffy wrote:
>
>
>>Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is no such thing in Mormonism as "official" doctrine. This is a
>>>strawman argument raised by apologists for denying what the Church
>>>teaches.
>>>
>>
>>But how can one assert "what the Church teaches" if there is no
>>"official" doctrine? If there is no official doctrine, your assertions
>>about "what the Church teaches" are meaningless.
>
>
> Because what the church teaches is not official doctrine. One can observe what they teach by listening and reading. One can not
> assume that what is taught is official. And one can not determine how doctrine /becomes/ "official".
>

This will lead me to my overall point. We both seem to agree that what
the Church teaches cannot be assumed to be official. At best, all we
have is what individuals in the Church teaches.

So, where can we get off criticizing what another individual in the
Church believes and/or teaches based on "what the Church teaches?" It
may be fair for a Catholic, where there is an "official" body of
doctrine that is well defined, but why attempt to hold an individual
Mormon to things where there is no "official" standard to hold them?

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 7:10:28 PM12/19/02
to
Duwayne Anderson wrote:

> The Church teaches stuff all the time. They do it in General
> Conference. They do it in the Ensign. They do it at Church, etc.,
>
> One need not have "official doctrine" to teach. Like I said, this
> whold "official doctrine" thing is just a smokescreen for avoiding
> responsibility for what they teach.
>
>

This is something we can work with. I agree with your point one need
not have official doctrine in order to teach. What I disagree with is
that anyone other than the teacher has to take responsibility for it, as
such. In this thread, repeated assertions made that Jeff Lindsay must
in fact do this. But if there is no official doctrine, there is nothing
in any statement produced that provides a basis for insisting that he
hold to those teachings or take responsibility for them. Once he has
granted that common understanding among Mormons is different than what
he is proposing, he has done all that needs to be done.

<snip>

>
>>(Sorry. Hopefully now that the tit-for-tat ad hominems are
>>out of the way, we can get serious in our discussion.)
>
>
> Do you know what an ad hominem is? It's trying to change the subject,
> by focusing on the other guy instead of the issues.
>

You mean statements like, "Yet such statements are common among the
ravening wolves in order to tell Mormons what they believe"?

> See if you can focus on the issues.
>
> For starters, I notice you have ignored my question/challenge. Let me
> repeat it for you, and see if you can deal with it this time:
>
> Provide a reference for the official method of defining what is
> official doctrine.
>
>

The problem so far is not whether I can focus on the issues, but whether
you can read. So I will say it again: I have already noted the irony of
establishing what is official doctrine, it would be foolish to try to do
it myself. So far as I know, there is no official method of defining
what is official doctrine.

<snip>

> Are you, or are you not, saying there is such a thing as official
> doctrine? If so, stop dancing around the issue and simply post the
> reference.
>
> Dodging the issue will only make you look like an idiot.
>

See above.

>
>>(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0830819916/customer-reviews/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-4946771-5526246),
>>I'm afraid that is a challenge I shan't take up. The closest one will
>>get to such a statement is D&C 28:11ff., but that also involves some
>>interpretation.
>
>
> Here is what D&C 28:11 says:
>
> "And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, abetween• him and
> thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from
> that bstone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;"
>
> This says nothing about official doctrine. And there is no verse
> 11ff.
>
> Like I said, the longer you dance around the question, the more it
> simply makes you look bad.
>

Did you even notice the disclaimer I made when I provided the reference?
I never said the passage did. If you actually read what I said, you
might notice two things about the sentence about D&C 28:11ff.:

a) "The closest one will get to such a statement" Reading that alone
should have been sufficient for you to realize that I was not making the
assertion the passage provided an answer to the question. Rather, it is
an admission that there is no known official mechanism for determining
official doctrine. I was therefore providing the reference in the
interest of not leaving out something that *might* be relevant.

b) "but that also involves some interpretation" If there were any doubt
I was not asserting the cited passage established a mechanism for
determining official doctrine, this disclaimer should have laid it to
rest. Recognizing something requires interpretation to get from point A
to B inherently admits it does not do the task asked of it directly.

BTW, "ff." is an abbreviation meaning "and the following (pages, verses,
etc)." The intent was that you start at verse 11 and also read the
following verses. I apologize for any confusion caused.

>
>>>Mormon doctrine is what Mormon prophets teach.
>>>
>>
>>And, um, where can you find a reference that states in an official way
>>that this is so?
>
>
> Did I say "official?" Nooooo. I said Mormon doctrine is what Mormon
> prophets teach. Look up the definition of "doctrine." It's "what is
> taught."
>
> Get a clue. When you try and win arguments by inventing your private
> definition of words its called masturbating with semantics.
>

I was not trying to win an argument. I was trying to get you to prove
your assertion.

<snip to end>

RTBaird

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 8:43:43 PM12/19/02
to

"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message
news:v02r7k1...@corp.supernews.com...

Unless you're totally unfamiliar with mormonism, you know goddamn well
that's what it teaches. Your pretense is obvious.

> The Church also failed to excommunicate Joseph Smith for the same crime.

The mormon culture shows respect to those who lie to defend your church.
Your church is, however, disingenuous enough to excommunicate people who
speak a *truth* that embarrasses it.

The LDS church is about *image*, not *truth*.

> But
> the problem is not a contradiction between the Church and these brethren
> whom I have quoted, but between these brethren and an overly simplistic
> reading of the scriptural account.
>

But of course, you yourself are not capable of an "overly simplistic
reading" of Anthony Ivins. LOL.

That obvious dodge is almost Clintonesque: "You're using an overly
simplistic definition of 'is'." -or- "I didn't lie -- you have an overly
simplistic definition of 'sex'" (rolling eyes).

> Now face this fact: if Nephi's group was a minute portion of the ancient
> inhabitants of the Americas, how much genetic evidence should we expect to
> find for them today? Their DNA may be spread all over the Americas, but it
> would be unlikely to have been preserved as mtDNA or Y chromosomes given
the
> large gene pool of founders. Can you at least recognize that if we allow
for
> large populations to have already been present, that the modern genetic
> evidence of a boatload of people in 600 B.C. might be very difficult to
> detect?
>

Well, that proposition flatly contradicts the BOM, so either way the BOM is
wrong.

What good does it do you to lie about what the book says in order to defend
it? By doing so, you're serving a fraud, not the truth.

RTBaird


dangerous1

unread,
Dec 19, 2002, 11:11:58 PM12/19/02
to
Timothy Griffy wrote:

> dangerous1 wrote:
> > Timothy Griffy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Duwayne Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>There is no such thing in Mormonism as "official" doctrine. This is a
> >>>strawman argument raised by apologists for denying what the Church
> >>>teaches.
> >>>
> >>
> >>But how can one assert "what the Church teaches" if there is no
> >>"official" doctrine? If there is no official doctrine, your assertions
> >>about "what the Church teaches" are meaningless.
> >
> >
> > Because what the church teaches is not official doctrine. One can observe what they teach by listening and reading. One can not
> > assume that what is taught is official. And one can not determine how doctrine /becomes/ "official".
> >
>
> This will lead me to my overall point. We both seem to agree that what
> the Church teaches cannot be assumed to be official.

It should be.


> At best, all we
> have is what individuals in the Church teaches.

What is taught is "doctrine". By definition. Doctrine taught by those those in leadership, should certainly be expected to be
official, especially coming from a leadership that claims to regularly receive divine direction. What would be interesting to discuss
is WHY no one can step up to the plate and put the "official" stamp on the doctrine that is taught.

What is the point in having unofficial doctrine? If it doesn't mean anything, why teach it?


>
>
> So, where can we get off criticizing what another individual in the
> Church believes and/or teaches based on "what the Church teaches?" It
> may be fair for a Catholic, where there is an "official" body of
> doctrine that is well defined, but why attempt to hold an individual
> Mormon to things where there is no "official" standard to hold them?

You can believe anything you want if you keep your mouth shut. If what an individual member teaches is contrary to what the church
teaches, the individual can be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. So "criticizing" by an anti seems rather harmless compared to how
your own church reacts. Do you criticize your church when they excommunicate a member who teaches contrary doctrine? Why not?

Lee Paulson

unread,
Dec 20, 2002, 9:34:36 AM12/20/02
to


"Timothy Griffy" <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:3E02606...@cox.net...


> Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>
> > The Church teaches stuff all the time. They do it in General
> > Conference. They do it in the Ensign. They do it at Church, etc.,
> >
> > One need not have "official doctrine" to teach. Like I said, this
> > whold "official doctrine" thing is just a smokescreen for avoiding
> > responsibility for what they teach.
> >
> >
>
> This is something we can work with. I agree with your point one need
> not have official doctrine in order to teach. What I disagree with is
> that anyone other than the teacher has to take responsibility for it, as
> such. In this thread, repeated assertions made that Jeff Lindsay must
> in fact do this. But if there is no official doctrine, there is nothing
> in any statement produced that provides a basis for insisting that he
> hold to those teachings or take responsibility for them. Once he has
> granted that common understanding among Mormons is different than what
> he is proposing, he has done all that needs to be done.
>
> <snip>
>

snkip

Let us assume for the moment that nothing taught in church or published in a
church publication can be assumed to be anything other than the speaker's
opinion or viewpoint. It might or might not be doctrine, it might or might
not be true, it might or might not be anything other than the speaker's
dream.

Why bother going?

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 20, 2002, 10:18:19 AM12/20/02
to
Timothy Griffy <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3E02606...@cox.net>...

> Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>
> > The Church teaches stuff all the time. They do it in General
> > Conference. They do it in the Ensign. They do it at Church, etc.,
> >
> > One need not have "official doctrine" to teach. Like I said, this
> > whold "official doctrine" thing is just a smokescreen for avoiding
> > responsibility for what they teach.
> >
> >
>
> This is something we can work with.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm still waiting for you to give us
the official reference stating what is official doctrine. Shall I
assume that your failure to do so indicates that no such reference
exists?

Sure. That's a good assumption.

> I agree with your point one need
> not have official doctrine in order to teach.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm still waiting for you to give us
the official reference stating what is official doctrine. Shall I
assume that your failure to do so indicates that no such reference
exists?

Sure. That's a good assumption.

> What I disagree with is
> that anyone other than the teacher has to take responsibility for it, as
> such.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Sure you do. It's when you
invent something and say the other guy said it, when he didn't.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm still waiting for you to give us
the official reference stating what is official doctrine. Shall I
assume that your failure to do so indicates that no such reference
exists?

Sure. That's a good assumption.

> In this thread, repeated assertions made that Jeff Lindsay must
> in fact do this.

I took exception to claims about official LDS doctrine. That's what
this part of the discussion is about.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm still waiting for you to give us
the official reference stating what is official doctrine. Shall I
assume that your failure to do so indicates that no such reference
exists?

Sure. That's a good assumption.

> But if there is no official doctrine, there is nothing
> in any statement produced that provides a basis for insisting that he
> hold to those teachings or take responsibility for them.

Sure there is. There is the body and majority of what the Church
teaches. Jeff's problem is that he just makes assertions about what
the Church teaches. But his assertions are lies. He lies about what
the Church teaches. He pretends that what he says is what the Church
teaches.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm still waiting for you to give us
the official reference stating what is official doctrine. Shall I
assume that your failure to do so indicates that no such reference
exists?

Sure. That's a good assumption.

> Once he has
> granted that common understanding among Mormons is different than what
> he is proposing, he has done all that needs to be done.

Jeff has a tendency to simply quote himself, and then misrepresent his
personal opinion as that of the Church.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm still waiting for you to give us
the official reference stating what is official doctrine. Shall I
assume that your failure to do so indicates that no such reference
exists?

Sure. That's a good assumption.

>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >>(Sorry. Hopefully now that the tit-for-tat ad hominems are
> >>out of the way, we can get serious in our discussion.)
> >
> >
> > Do you know what an ad hominem is? It's trying to change the subject,
> > by focusing on the other guy instead of the issues.
> >
>
> You mean statements like, "Yet such statements are common among the
> ravening wolves in order to tell Mormons what they believe"?

What on earth are you talking about? You apparently still don't know
what an ad hominem argument is.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm still waiting for you to give us
the official reference stating what is official doctrine. Shall I
assume that your failure to do so indicates that no such reference
exists?

Sure. That's a good assumption.



> > See if you can focus on the issues.
> >
> > For starters, I notice you have ignored my question/challenge. Let me
> > repeat it for you, and see if you can deal with it this time:
> >
> > Provide a reference for the official method of defining what is
> > official doctrine.
> >
> >
>
> The problem so far is not whether I can focus on the issues,

Sure it is.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm still waiting for you to give us
the official reference stating what is official doctrine. Shall I
assume that your failure to do so indicates that no such reference
exists?

Sure. That's a good assumption.

> but whether
> you can read.

Don't try using ad hominem arguments.

> So I will say it again: I have already noted the irony of
> establishing what is official doctrine, it would be foolish to try to do
> it myself.

Then you admit there is no such thing as official doctrine? That's a
good thing. Because there isn't. In all of Church literature, there
is no official mechanism ever described for determining what is
official LDS doctrine.

There is only the body of what the LDS Church teaches, and it is
*DIFFERENT* than what Jeff Lindsay asserts is taught or allowed by the
LDS Church. This has been illustrated with *MANY* references quoted
from LDS leaders and scriptures.

> So far as I know, there is no official method of defining
> what is official doctrine.

That's right. So let's have no more strawman arguments about
"official doctrine." There's no such thing.

Deal with the issues by dealing with what the Church teaches.

<snip to end>

dangerous1

unread,
Dec 20, 2002, 10:26:29 AM12/20/02
to
Lee Paulson wrote:

Exactly.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 20, 2002, 12:09:02 PM12/20/02
to
Timothy Griffy <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3E025703...@cox.net>...

<snip>


> This will lead me to my overall point. We both seem to agree that what
> the Church teaches cannot be assumed to be official.

Timothy, this "official" stuff is a strawman. You cannot even define
it in an offical way. That's the point. You are using an *undefined*
term.

You might just as well say "what the Church teaches cannot be assumed
to be bla bla." That's what undefined words mean. They mean "bla
bla.'

Now, we all KNOW why apologists use this argument about "not
official." It's their way of helping the Church wiggle out of
responsibility for what the Church teaches. So, when the Church
teaches racism, for example, the apologist just tells the investigator
to ignore it, because it's not "official."

That argument, however, is a deliberate deception. It's also
disingenuous because even *IF* there was such a thing as "official"
doctrine in the Church, the Church should STILL be held accountable
for what they teach. There should be no getting off the hotplate by
saying, in effect, "no fair, I had my fingers crossed."

See what I mean? These arguments used in the Church to dodge
responsibility are the stuff of childhood pranks. As parents, we
teach our kids to tell the truth ALL the time, and not play games by
telling lies with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

It's high time the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did the
same. They need to come clean about what they teach, and apologists
need to stop pretending that every time the Church teaches something
THEY don't like, it's not "official doctrine."

> At best, all we
> have is what individuals in the Church teaches.

Don't pretend that all individuals in the Church are equal. Do you
think nobody on ARM knows what the Church teaches? You think the
people here are stupid enough to believe the Church is a democracy?

No. YOU don't give sermons in General Conference. YOU don't get
sustained as a "prophet, seer, and revelator" twice each year. YOU
don't write articles for the Ensign (do you?)

So folks like YOU are NOT equal to the leaders of the Church. The
leaders of the Church, by virtue of the fact they have the WHOLE
CHURCH as their audience are responsible for setting Church doctrine.
*Individuals* in the Church don't do that. They don't even come
close.

> So, where can we get off criticizing what another individual in the
> Church believes and/or teaches based on "what the Church teaches?"

Nobody's getting off on anything. The point of this discussion is to
put cold water on the oft-used apologetic lie that there is such a
thing as "official" doctrine. There is no such thing. Only what is
taught. And the reason many of us critics are on ARM is to keep the
LDS apologists from lying about what is taught.

Lying about what is taught has a long tradition in the LDS Church,
beginning with Smith's destruction of the printing press that spilled
the beans on him and how he was using little Smith with his plural
wives.

> It
> may be fair for a Catholic, where there is an "official" body of
> doctrine that is well defined, but why attempt to hold an individual
> Mormon to things where there is no "official" standard to hold them?

Mormons are being held accountable for what they teach, while
apologetic nitwits who try getting them off the hook by claiming junk
about "official doctrine" are making asses of themselves.

Duwayne Anderson

American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.

RTBaird

unread,
Dec 20, 2002, 8:20:54 PM12/20/02
to

"Timothy Griffy" <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3E00237E...@cox.net...

> RTBaird wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay, so once the SLC easement is gone, do you think your church is
going to
> > allow anyone to even walk across the plaza wearing a t-shirt that says
"The
> > LDS Church is WRONG about the flood"? I doubt it!
> >
>
> I doubt it as well. But neither are they likely to take a person's name
> and ward for further action.

>
> > It's very, very telling that the determining factor in deciding who and
who
> > is not an "apostate" is not what a person's beliefs actually are but
rather
> > whether or not they express them in a way that causes the church public
> > embarrassment. *Obviously*, the LDS church places a higher priority on
its
> > own image than on the truth. It's a con game, folks.
> >
>
> I don't find that it says much at all. The bad publicity surrounding
> Church excommunications of its intellectuals for saying certain things
> rather argues they aren't placing first priority on its image. Indeed,
> it usually produces a banned in Boston effect. How many people do you
> think even heard of Tom Murphy before this episode, for example? If
> they had left him alone, Murphy would be known to the relatively few
> people who have taken an interest in Mormon studies. As it is, it is
> the Church that has received the black eye in this episode.
>

What? They're merely giving their image to members priority over their
image to the general public.

There's nothing special about that case. Any time a dissenting member
receives publicity, they get ex'ed. The church does that to protect its
image, i.e. they can allow members to think that public dissent is okay, now
can they? If the church becomes a marketplace for ideas, they lose their
image (to members) as the sole source of "truth". Things such as tithing or
whether endowments are important might start becoming widely considered
simply a matter of opinion. That's what has happened to the RCC, it's not
hard to find a Catholic that will give you a laundy list of things the RCC
is "wrong" about. But the LDS church very much does NOT want to allow that
kind of free agency among the membership.

Remember Sonja Johnson? They ex'ed her for publicly expressing her
political views about the Equal Rights Amendment, which church leadership
was vehemently fighting. Is there anything doctrinal about opposing the
ERA? No. But they ex'ed her anyway.

Then there's this latest man that they ex'ed for publishing his opinion that
polygamy as a historical fact is a part of mormon heritage. That was the
truth. They ex'ed him anyway. Why? Image.

RTBaird


RTBaird

unread,
Dec 20, 2002, 8:32:33 PM12/20/02
to

"Timothy Griffy" <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3E002A8C...@cox.net...

> RTBaird wrote:
> > "jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message
> > news:uvp6blh...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>The scientific details of the flood have not been revealed and ARE NOT a
> >>core issue for LDS faith.
> >
> > <snip ad hoc drivel about flood not being world-wide, none of which was
> > authoritative>
> >
> > You're in a position to make this claim for jefflindsayism, but *not*
for
> > mormonism.
> >
> > If you want to make that claim for with respect to mormonism, you should
> > provide some basis for making it. Scripture, prophet, Ensign article,
etc.
> > would do nicely. Since your opinion does not reflect mormonism, it's
> > dishonest to try to represent it that way.
> >
> > In *real* mormonism, there are many places that it is taught that the
flood
> > was world-wide, and there are zero that teach it was not.
> >
>
> But also in "*real* mormonism," one can can say what Jeff is saying
> without risking excommunication, without having his temple recommend
> taken away or denied (there aren't any questions regarding the Flood in
> the interview) and otherwise facing no consequences other than finding
> himself in some heated arguments and having to publish it outside
> "official" channels. "*Real* mormonism" encompasses much more than what
> is found in official publications or the writings of its General
> Authorities. You fail to take that into account at your own risk. As
> it is, the conclusion that one's stance on the Flood isn't a core issue
> for the LDS faith is well supported.
>

You're equivocating. You've essentially admitted that the man's opinion
doesn't represent all of mormonism. That being the case, his presentation
of an opinion that doesn' t represent all of mormonism is a straw man
argument. I haven't the slightest interest in debating jefflindsayism, and
it would be dishonest for you or he to portray it as though it were
mormonism.

The things I mentioned (scripture, prophet, Ensign articles) DO represent
all of mormonism. That's a very important distinction since it's is the
very subject of this forum.

> > I'm guessing you're a "cafeteria" mormon.
> >
>
> That is normal with any religion.
>

Funny, That's not at all what mormons are thinking when they criticize
people for being "cafeteria" christians (that's where I learned the phrase.)

RTBaird


Xan Du

unread,
Dec 23, 2002, 12:45:43 PM12/23/02
to

"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:atsf3o$28a2r$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de...

Absolutely. The irony is so thick, one could cut it like a knife like one
would with a hunk of bologna.

-Xan

> Regards,
> Lee, The James
>
>


Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 24, 2002, 2:21:12 AM12/24/02
to
dangerous1 wrote:

>>This will lead me to my overall point. We both seem to agree that what
>>the Church teaches cannot be assumed to be official.
>
>
> It should be.
>

I agree, but as we say around here, "should be" and "are" are two
different things.

> What is taught is "doctrine". By definition. Doctrine taught by those those in leadership, should certainly be expected to be
> official, especially coming from a leadership that claims to regularly receive divine direction. What would be interesting to discuss
> is WHY no one can step up to the plate and put the "official" stamp on the doctrine that is taught.
>
> What is the point in having unofficial doctrine? If it doesn't mean anything, why teach it?
>

I agree this would be an interesting discussion to have. I have my
suspicions, but I'm in no position to prove them. It is possible that a
belief in continuing revelation itself makes the Church unwilling to
define "official" doctrine. Like polygamy, what is official doctrine
today may be gone with the wind tomorrow. Mormons have also been very
reluctant to declare a creed from the beginning of the movement (cf.
JS-H 19, "the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were
an abomination in his sight. . ."). Having unofficial doctrine may thus
be seen as a way to preserve flexibility or to avoid God's condemnation.

>
>
>>
>>So, where can we get off criticizing what another individual in the
>>Church believes and/or teaches based on "what the Church teaches?" It
>>may be fair for a Catholic, where there is an "official" body of
>>doctrine that is well defined, but why attempt to hold an individual
>>Mormon to things where there is no "official" standard to hold them?
>
>
> You can believe anything you want if you keep your mouth shut. If what an individual member teaches is contrary to what the church
> teaches, the individual can be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. So "criticizing" by an anti seems rather harmless compared to how
> your own church reacts. Do you criticize your church when they excommunicate a member who teaches contrary doctrine? Why not?
>
>

I can, do, and have criticized the Church for excommunicating who
teaches "contrary doctrine," though I am not sure if I've done so in
this forum. In fact, give me a day or two and I'll let loose such a
condemnation based on the same argument I made about criticizing Jeff.
Lack of an official doctrine is a sword that cuts both ways.

--
Timothy A. Griffy
T.A.G...@cox.net

I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 25, 2002, 10:33:24 AM12/25/02
to
Lee Paulson wrote:
> Let us assume for the moment that nothing taught in church or published in a
> church publication can be assumed to be anything other than the speaker's
> opinion or viewpoint. It might or might not be doctrine, it might or might
> not be true, it might or might not be anything other than the speaker's
> dream.
>
> Why bother going?
>

Why, to argue about doctrine, of course! :P


--
Timothy A. Griffy
T.A.G...@cox.net

I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 25, 2002, 5:16:02 PM12/25/02
to
Duwayne Anderson wrote:

<snip>

>
>>What I disagree with is
>>that anyone other than the teacher has to take responsibility for it, as
>>such.
>
>
> Do you know what a strawman argument is? Sure you do. It's when you
> invent something and say the other guy said it, when he didn't.
>

Don't confuse strawmen with misunderstanding, then. It certainly seems
like you were making someone other than the teacher to take
responsibility for what the teacher said. If that is an incorrect
perception, then please explain what you are doing.

<snip>

>>In this thread, repeated assertions made that Jeff Lindsay must
>>in fact do this.
>
>
> I took exception to claims about official LDS doctrine. That's what
> this part of the discussion is about.
>

I had not yet made any claims about official LDS doctrine before you
took exception to it. Yes, it is part of what this discussion is about.
I had hoped, and still hope, we could move into a discussion about what,
exactly, the Church teaches. In making such determinations, what may or
may not be official is a natural and logical place to start. If I
caused any misunderstanding on this point, I apologize.

<snip>

>>But if there is no official doctrine, there is nothing
>>in any statement produced that provides a basis for insisting that he
>>hold to those teachings or take responsibility for them.
>
>
> Sure there is. There is the body and majority of what the Church
> teaches. Jeff's problem is that he just makes assertions about what
> the Church teaches. But his assertions are lies. He lies about what
> the Church teaches. He pretends that what he says is what the Church
> teaches.
>

Now we are getting somewhere. Jeff can speak for himself about whether
his assertions are lies. I would like to look at your point about what
the body and majority of the Church teaches. How are you making that
determination? Is it simply what is said by leaders or positions taken
in the /Ensign/? Are we taking polls about what the Church actually
believes, regardless of what may be found in Church publications? Both?
If there is a difference between what individual teachers are teaching
and what the majority of believers actually believe, which should hold
priority in determining "what the Church teaches"? Why?

> Jeff has a tendency to simply quote himself, and then misrepresent his
> personal opinion as that of the Church.
>

Jeff will have to answer that for himself. May I take it this means
you'd have no problem when someone makes it clear their opinion does not
necessarily represent that of the Church?

<snip>

> Then you admit there is no such thing as official doctrine? That's a
> good thing. Because there isn't. In all of Church literature, there
> is no official mechanism ever described for determining what is
> official LDS doctrine.
>

I admitted that from the beginning. We could have already moved on to
another point.

> There is only the body of what the LDS Church teaches, and it is
> *DIFFERENT* than what Jeff Lindsay asserts is taught or allowed by the
> LDS Church. This has been illustrated with *MANY* references quoted
> from LDS leaders and scriptures.
>

So, again, I ask how is that determined, absent an official body of
teachings? Ought not both sides in a given debate know clearly what is
being argued about?

>
>>So far as I know, there is no official method of defining
>>what is official doctrine.
>
>
> That's right. So let's have no more strawman arguments about
> "official doctrine." There's no such thing.
>
> Deal with the issues by dealing with what the Church teaches.
>

Again, that is where I have been leading all along. As I mentioned
earlier, the lack of "official doctrine" is a sword that cuts both ways.
Without a clearly defined body of doctrines, look at the
consequences from the other side of the coin.

The AAUP was correct in its condemnation of BYU. As you may remember,
the censure did not come because it limits academic freedom, but because
there was no clearly defined limits in writing.

One of the things one could be excommunicated for is apostasy, a
definition of which is teaching as church doctrine something that isn't
church doctrine. But unlike the Catholic Church, which does have well
defined definitions of orthodoxy, the Mormon Church does not. That
means when it excommunicates /anyone/ under that definition of apostasy,
the Church is acting no better than the worst despot. If the Church
were a nation, it could be accused of human rights violations.

--
Timothy A. Griffy
T.A.G...@cox.net

I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 25, 2002, 8:47:07 PM12/25/02
to
Duwayne Anderson wrote:
> Timothy Griffy <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3E025703...@cox.net>...
>
> <snip>
>
>>This will lead me to my overall point. We both seem to agree that what
>>the Church teaches cannot be assumed to be official.
>
>
> Timothy, this "official" stuff is a strawman. You cannot even define
> it in an offical way. That's the point. You are using an *undefined*
> term.
>

Having already addressed many of the topics discussed in you post, I see
relatively little here that adds to the discussion that I haven't tried
to clarify. Do you wish an answer of some sort for this, or are we
ready to move on to other things?

--
Timothy A. Griffy
T.A.G...@cox.net

I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.

Timothy Griffy

unread,
Dec 25, 2002, 10:18:43 PM12/25/02
to
RTBaird wrote:
>
>>But also in "*real* mormonism," one can can say what Jeff is saying
>>without risking excommunication, without having his temple recommend
>>taken away or denied (there aren't any questions regarding the Flood in
>>the interview) and otherwise facing no consequences other than finding
>>himself in some heated arguments and having to publish it outside
>>"official" channels. "*Real* mormonism" encompasses much more than what
>>is found in official publications or the writings of its General
>>Authorities. You fail to take that into account at your own risk. As
>>it is, the conclusion that one's stance on the Flood isn't a core issue
>>for the LDS faith is well supported.
>>
>
>
> You're equivocating.

Perhaps. As should be clear by now, I did have a purpose in mind.
Nonetheless, if as Duwayne argued and I agreed in another thread,
actions count for something, and we are going to argue about *real*
Mormonism, then what the Church does or doesn't do has a role in
determining exactly what *real* Mormonism is.

> You've essentially admitted that the man's opinion doesn't represent all of mormonism.

As near as I can tell in this case, the man himself admitted his opinion
doesn't represent all of Mormonism.

> That being the case, his presentation of an opinion that doesn' t represent all of mormonism is a straw man
> argument.

If you say so. For my part, I just take such opinions for what they are.

> I haven't the slightest interest in debating jefflindsayism, and
> it would be dishonest for you or he to portray it as though it were
> mormonism.
>

Since I haven't portrayed what he said as though it were Mormonism, I
haven't been dishonest then. To be as clear as possible, none of Jeff's
specific arguments are at issue here. I agree with him occasionally,
and specifically that the Flood was not universal. I disagree with him
more often than not, though, judging by what is available at his site.

In essence, I am concerned with the same thing as you are. If it is
dishonest to portray one's opinion as though it were Mormonism, it would
follow there is some way of knowing what Mormonism is, and there is a
means of discovering it that all parties can agree on. Failing that,
then we could at least agree on what we are debating about. Failing
that, all we have is, say, jefflindsayism vs. RTBairdism.

If I may engage in a side issue and you will forgive me an axiomatic
statement, you are not arguing with Mormonism. You are arguing with
Mormons. Like it or not, Mormons have individual takes on Mormonism,
and you will never be able to argue anything other than jefflindsayisms
or timothygriffyisms or whatever. Perhaps *real* Mormonism, whatever
that may happen to be, is simply irrelevant.

> The things I mentioned (scripture, prophet, Ensign articles) DO represent
> all of mormonism. That's a very important distinction since it's is the
> very subject of this forum.
>

This is probably a good start, at least in determining terms of debate.
Does everything said in scripture, by any prophet, or in any Ensign
article have the force of representing all of Mormonism? Hypothetically
speaking, I could find all kinds of weird shit with my hypertext CDs,
quote it, say it is what the church teaches, and sweep aside any denials
that it is official. What kind of controls can or should be placed on
that sort of activity?

NB: I am not accusing anyone in particular of doing this. Usually,
several sources are quoted in making an argument about what the church
teaches. I have no complaint about quoting scripture, prophet, or
Ensign article in establishing what the Church teaches, as such,
especially when several sources are cited.

>
>>>I'm guessing you're a "cafeteria" mormon.
>>>
>>
>>That is normal with any religion.
>>
>
>
> Funny, That's not at all what mormons are thinking when they criticize
> people for being "cafeteria" christians (that's where I learned the phrase.)
>

I don't criticize people for being "cafeteria" Christians. Even if you
are right generally about Mormons making the criticism, when applied to
me it is a gross stereotype. I am a student of comparative religion,
and one of the constants I have found of every religion I've studied in
any detail is that the phenomenon is common with all of them. I regard
it neither as something to be praised nor criticized, merely a fact to
be accepted.

RTBaird

unread,
Dec 26, 2002, 11:38:56 AM12/26/02
to

"Timothy Griffy" <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3E0A759C...@cox.net...

> RTBaird wrote:
> > I haven't the slightest interest in debating jefflindsayism, and
> > it would be dishonest for you or he to portray it as though it were
> > mormonism.
> >
>
> Since I haven't portrayed what he said as though it were Mormonism, I
> haven't been dishonest then. To be as clear as possible, none of Jeff's
> specific arguments are at issue here. I agree with him occasionally,
> and specifically that the Flood was not universal. I disagree with him
> more often than not, though, judging by what is available at his site.
>
> In essence, I am concerned with the same thing as you are. If it is
> dishonest to portray one's opinion as though it were Mormonism, it would
> follow there is some way of knowing what Mormonism is, and there is a
> means of discovering it that all parties can agree on. Failing that,
> then we could at least agree on what we are debating about. Failing
> that, all we have is, say, jefflindsayism vs. RTBairdism.
>
There is a vast difference, and that is that *I* have evidence, and Jeff
doesn't.

> If I may engage in a side issue and you will forgive me an axiomatic
> statement, you are not arguing with Mormonism. You are arguing with
> Mormons. Like it or not, Mormons have individual takes on Mormonism,
> and you will never be able to argue anything other than jefflindsayisms
> or timothygriffyisms or whatever. Perhaps *real* Mormonism, whatever
> that may happen to be, is simply irrelevant.

I entirely disagree.

LDS Mormonism possesses a set of intrinsic beliefs as evidenced by their
tendency to excommunicate people with alternative beliefs in some cases.

How are those beliefs communicated? By teaching. They are defined in
scripture, lesson manuals, conference talks, and other official church
publications. Are they *all* "doctrinal"? No. But that's a straw man,
we're not discussing "doctrine" per se, we're discussing what the church
*teaches*, and the beliefs that consequently arise.

I'm claiming that if I open an official lesson manual and find a teaching in
it, that's an official church teaching, by definition.

Because of the fact that I can produce *evidence* for my claims about the
mormon belief system, and Jeff cannot produce *anything* about his claims,
it is irrational to assume that Jeff and I are on equal footing.

>
> > The things I mentioned (scripture, prophet, Ensign articles) DO
represent
> > all of mormonism. That's a very important distinction since it's is the
> > very subject of this forum.
> >
>
> This is probably a good start, at least in determining terms of debate.
> Does everything said in scripture, by any prophet, or in any Ensign
> article have the force of representing all of Mormonism? Hypothetically
> speaking, I could find all kinds of weird shit with my hypertext CDs,
> quote it, say it is what the church teaches, and sweep aside any denials
> that it is official. What kind of controls can or should be placed on
> that sort of activity?
>

Obviously, there will be contradiction. That's not a new thing, and it's
certainly no reason to rule things out as a source of "mormon belief".
Unless you're claiming that mormonism is logically consistent, that is,
which is a whole 'nother can o' worms.

There's another problem here, and that is the Jeff cannot produce anything
from any official source that denies the great flood, while there's a *vast*
body of official sources, scriptural and otherwise, that affirm it.
Hypothetically, if he *could* produce such evidence, your above paragraph
would then become relevant, and Jeff and I would be more or less on equal
footing in this argument. But as it sits right now, Jeff is espousing
private beliefs that may in fact exist among the LDS membership as "folk
mormonism", but are in no way taught by the LDS church, and therefore do not
represent LDS mormonism.

> NB: I am not accusing anyone in particular of doing this. Usually,
> several sources are quoted in making an argument about what the church
> teaches. I have no complaint about quoting scripture, prophet, or
> Ensign article in establishing what the Church teaches, as such,
> especially when several sources are cited.
>

I think that makes sense.

RTBaird


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 26, 2002, 1:26:26 PM12/26/02
to
Timothy Griffy <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3E0A759C...@cox.net>...

<snip>


> Since I haven't portrayed what he said as though it were Mormonism, I
> haven't been dishonest then. To be as clear as possible, none of Jeff's
> specific arguments are at issue here. I agree with him occasionally,
> and specifically that the Flood was not universal.

If you are not talking about a universal flood, then there was no
"the" flood. They come by the thousands, every year.

<snip to end>

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 26, 2002, 1:30:35 PM12/26/02
to
Timothy Griffy <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3E0A2EA...@cox.net>...

<snip>


> > I took exception to claims about official LDS doctrine. That's what
> > this part of the discussion is about.
> >
>
> I had not yet made any claims about official LDS doctrine before you
> took exception to it.

I took exception to it because it is a strawman argument used by LDS
apologist as they try to deny what the Church teaches.

> Yes, it is part of what this discussion is about.

Then you know the LDS Church has no official definition of what is
official doctrine. When apologists argue "that's not official..."
they are being dishonest. They are using it as a strawman argument as
they try to deny what the Church teaches.

> I had hoped, and still hope, we could move into a discussion about what,
> exactly, the Church teaches.

Don't be silly. There is no difficulty in understanding what the
Church teaches. They teach using lesson manuals, books, sermons, etc.
But these are exactly the sorts of references that Mormon
intellectuals and apologists try to ignore with their "that's not
official" strawman arguments.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 26, 2002, 3:05:40 PM12/26/02
to
Timothy Griffy <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3E0A2EA...@cox.net>...

> Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >>What I disagree with is
> >>that anyone other than the teacher has to take responsibility for it, as
> >>such.
> >
> >
> > Do you know what a strawman argument is? Sure you do. It's when you
> > invent something and say the other guy said it, when he didn't.
> >
>
> Don't confuse strawmen with misunderstanding, then. It certainly seems
> like you were making someone other than the teacher to take
> responsibility for what the teacher said. If that is an incorrect
> perception, then please explain what you are doing.

It should be clear, but let's go over it again:

1) The LDS Church does not have an official policy for defining
official doctrine. As such, arguments to the effect that "that's not
official" are dishonest. They are used primarily, it seems, to help
the Church dodge responsibility for the information it spreads.

2) The Church, like any institution or individual, should be held
accountable for, and judged on the basis of, what it teaches. The
information it spreads. This information is spread through books,
articles, and sermons by Church officials, as well as LDS scriptures.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 26, 2002, 3:08:11 PM12/26/02
to
Timothy Griffy <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3E0A6020...@cox.net>...

<snip>


> Having already addressed many of the topics discussed in you post, I see
> relatively little here that adds to the discussion that I haven't tried
> to clarify. Do you wish an answer of some sort for this, or are we
> ready to move on to other things?

You are not the reason I'm on ARM, Tim. I pick up on discussions when
someone says something stupid, or when some apologist tries lying
about what the Church teaches. Whether we have any more discussions
is up to you.

Meanwhile, just to be clear about this "that's not official doctrine"
crap, let me restate my position:

It should be clear, but let's go over it again:

1) The LDS Church does not have an official policy for defining
official doctrine. As such, arguments to the effect that "that's not
official" are dishonest. They are used primarily, it seems, to help
the Church dodge responsibility for the information it spreads.

2) The Church, like any institution or individual, should be held
accountable for, and judged on the basis of, what it teaches. The
information it spreads. This information is spread through books,
articles, and sermons by Church officials, as well as LDS scriptures.

<snip to end>

Duwayne Anderson

Xan Du

unread,
Dec 26, 2002, 5:55:59 PM12/26/02
to
> > > TheJordan6 wrote:
> > >
> > "Timothy Griffy" <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:3DFFA4AF...@cox.net...
>
> "RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:uvvhm2a...@corp.supernews.com...

>
"jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message
news:v02r7k1...@corp.supernews.com...

> While you're all waiting for me to be excommunicated for not agreeing with
> anti-Mormon views on what Mormons must believe about the ancient
inhabitants
> of this continent,

Strawman. We "anti-Mormons" are quoting what the Book of Mormon plainly
says.

> you may wish to bone up on what significant figures in
> the Church have taught long before the present DNA controversy. I've
already
> quoted from Anthony Ivins of the First Presidency in 1929 about the
> possibility of other peoples having come to the Americas before the
> Jaredites.

And we've already pointed out that the Book of Mormon plainly says that no
other "nations" were present on the land when Lehi arrived.

> Here's a 1952 passage by Hugh Nibley:

Hugh Nibley is not an ecclesiastical authority, Jeff. He is a scholar and a
scientist. What do prophets of God have to say on this subject? Where is
your faith?

> Long after the Book of Mormon appeared Joseph Smith quoted with approval
> from the pulpit reports of certain Toltec legends which would make it
appear
> that those people had come originally from the Near East in the time of
> Moses [see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 267]; whether such a
> migration ever took place or not, it is significant that the Prophet was
not
> reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those
> mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Conspicuously absent is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s actual text. All we are reading
here is Nibley's ad hoc interpretation of what Smith wrote.

And Nibley or Smith (or both) seem to be forgetting that, "[The angel] said
the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham ..."

A common behavior of liars is that they get their stories confused.

> The argument of silence bears some weight in considering the possibility
> of "other sheep."

"Other sheep" could refer to anyone.

It could refer to the inhabitants of the moon, mentioned with approval from
the pulpit by none other than Brigham Young. But every time we
"anti-Mormons" bring up this little tidbit, the teaching is soundly
dismissed as "just his opinion," or questions about the "accuracy" of the
transcription of speeches into the JoD are brought up, etc.

So tell me this, Jeff: why are Joseph Smith, Jr.'s statement about the
Toltec reliable (even though they're inconsistent with his revelations from
angels), but Brigham Young's teachings about "other sheep" on the moon not
reliable?

> When the Jaredites journey into a land "where there never
> had man been," [Ether 2:5, referring to a portion of their journey in the
> Old World]

The statement in Ether 2:5 does not refer to any specific land, either in
the Old or New World.

> our history finds the fact worthy of note, even though the part
> was only passing through. Now there is a great deal said in the Book of
> Mormon about the past and future of the promised land, but never is it
> described as an empty land. The descendents of Lehi were never the only
> people on the continent, and the Jaredites never claimed to be."

For the purposes of this discussion, the Jaredites are irrelevant -- their
DNA was snuffed out at the end of the book of Ether.

As for Lehi, I'm really having trouble understanding how you can read a
statement that says that the Promised Land would be kept from the knowledge
of other nations, and conclude that Lehi and his party lived with thousands
of people who were already there.

> -- Hugh Nibley, The World of the Jaredites, originally published 1952,
in
> The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.5 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
> 1988), p. 250.
>
> I regret to inform you that the Church failed to excommunicate Anthony
Ivins
> or Hugh Nibley for their high-profile statements that would seem to
> contradict what our esteemed critics claim the Church officially teaches.

Let's examine what the LDS church teaches, and then let readers decide for
themselves whether it is official or not?

"8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the
knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land,
that there would be no place for an inheritance."
-Book of Mormon, 2 Ne. 1: 8

"[The angel] said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham
..." -Joseph Smith, Jr.

"The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from
Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as
the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord
confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the
Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the
Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American
Indians." -Introduction to the Book of Mormon

"With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a
descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ
and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi
and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes
in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in
the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of
their making and went to the islands of the sea.

"Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of
Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now
the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty
million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all
the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the
sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand" -Spencer W. Kimball, "Of
Royal Blood," Ensign, July 1971, 7

> The Church also failed to excommunicate Joseph Smith for the same crime.

But
> the problem is not a contradiction between the Church and these brethren
> whom I have quoted, but between these brethren and an overly simplistic
> reading of the scriptural account.

Actually, what is going on here is that lying in defense of the LDS church
is recognized as something to be rewarded, whereas telling truth which
contradicts LDS belief is something to be punished.

> Now face this fact: if Nephi's group was a minute portion of the ancient
> inhabitants of the Americas, how much genetic evidence should we expect to
> find for them today?

Face this fact, Jeff -- the BoM does not record a single instance of any of
Lehi's party mingling with any foreign cultures. It doesn't do this for
good reason: it is consistent with the BoM's statement that no "other
nations" were present for Lehi's party to mingle with, or be a minute part
of.

> Their DNA may be spread all over the Americas, but it
> would be unlikely to have been preserved as mtDNA or Y chromosomes given
the
> large gene pool of founders. Can you at least recognize that if we allow
for
> large populations to have already been present, that the modern genetic
> evidence of a boatload of people in 600 B.C. might be very difficult to
> detect?

You can allow for whatever populations to be present upon the land that you
want. What you cannot change is what the book itself says, nor what the
people who claim the authority to speak on this matter have said.

-Xan


Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 26, 2002, 7:34:05 PM12/26/02
to

Hugh Nibley is not a scientist. His scholarship has also proven so
problematic, he disavowed everything written before his senility set in.
His most recent pronouncement, "scholars aren't even sure that Abraham
existed", is very likely something Jeff would rather live without...

>> Long after the Book of Mormon appeared Joseph Smith quoted with approval
>> from the pulpit reports of certain Toltec legends which would make it
> appear
>> that those people had come originally from the Near East in the time of
>> Moses [see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 267]; whether such a
>> migration ever took place or not, it is significant that the Prophet was
> not
>> reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those
>> mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

> Conspicuously absent is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s actual text. All we are reading
> here is Nibley's ad hoc interpretation of what Smith wrote.

And he disavowed everything written by him prior to 1967.

> And Nibley or Smith (or both) seem to be forgetting that, "[The angel] said
> the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham ..."

> A common behavior of liars is that they get their stories confused.

Smith had the advantage of dying young and thus only being a liar. Nibley
had to hang on until he could hide behind the holy veil of senility as
well...

>> The argument of silence bears some weight in considering the possibility
>> of "other sheep."

> "Other sheep" could refer to anyone.

Except sheep, since none existed in the americas...

> It could refer to the inhabitants of the moon, mentioned with approval from
> the pulpit by none other than Brigham Young. But every time we
> "anti-Mormons" bring up this little tidbit, the teaching is soundly
> dismissed as "just his opinion," or questions about the "accuracy" of the
> transcription of speeches into the JoD are brought up, etc.

> So tell me this, Jeff: why are Joseph Smith, Jr.'s statement about the
> Toltec reliable (even though they're inconsistent with his revelations from
> angels), but Brigham Young's teachings about "other sheep" on the moon not
> reliable?

>> When the Jaredites journey into a land "where there never
>> had man been," [Ether 2:5, referring to a portion of their journey in the
>> Old World]

> The statement in Ether 2:5 does not refer to any specific land, either in
> the Old or New World.

Neither does any other statement anywhere in the bom... Indeed, it is the
baseless assertion of every prophet from 1830 to the present that America
is the place in question. Well, not exactly baseless, since the names and
terrain correspond to names, peoples and places in the greater Lake
Ontario environs...

>> our history finds the fact worthy of note, even though the part
>> was only passing through. Now there is a great deal said in the Book of
>> Mormon about the past and future of the promised land, but never is it
>> described as an empty land. The descendents of Lehi were never the only
>> people on the continent, and the Jaredites never claimed to be."

> For the purposes of this discussion, the Jaredites are irrelevant -- their
> DNA was snuffed out at the end of the book of Ether.

Lest sane people forget, DNA from jaredites would conform to DNA of
similar peoples from the region they originated and thus this DNA would
persist in other lines...

> As for Lehi, I'm really having trouble understanding how you can read a
> statement that says that the Promised Land would be kept from the knowledge
> of other nations, and conclude that Lehi and his party lived with thousands
> of people who were already there.

Because perhaps the bom is the first book to confirm parallel but separate
existences?

>> -- Hugh Nibley, The World of the Jaredites, originally published 1952,
> in
>> The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.5 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
>> 1988), p. 250.
>>
>> I regret to inform you that the Church failed to excommunicate Anthony
> Ivins
>> or Hugh Nibley for their high-profile statements that would seem to
>> contradict what our esteemed critics claim the Church officially teaches.

> Let's examine what the LDS church teaches, and then let readers decide for
> themselves whether it is official or not?

> "8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the
> knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land,
> that there would be no place for an inheritance."
> -Book of Mormon, 2 Ne. 1: 8

Perhaps this is a typographical error not yet corrected?

> "[The angel] said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham
> ..." -Joseph Smith, Jr.

Aw shucks, surely this was only him talking thrrough his hat...

> "The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from
> Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as
> the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord
> confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the
> Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the
> Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American
> Indians." -Introduction to the Book of Mormon

Aunty mormon lies!!!

> "With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a
> descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ
> and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi
> and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes
> in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in
> the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of
> their making and went to the islands of the sea.

> "Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of
> Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now
> the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty
> million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all
> the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the
> sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand" -Spencer W. Kimball, "Of
> Royal Blood," Ensign, July 1971, 7

You win! Anyone quoting Spence "Past Tense" Kimball is white and
delightsome in mine eyes!

>> The Church also failed to excommunicate Joseph Smith for the same crime.
> But
>> the problem is not a contradiction between the Church and these brethren
>> whom I have quoted, but between these brethren and an overly simplistic
>> reading of the scriptural account.

> Actually, what is going on here is that lying in defense of the LDS church
> is recognized as something to be rewarded, whereas telling truth which
> contradicts LDS belief is something to be punished.

Indeed, it was considered de rigeur in the early daze of the church.
Doctrine, in fact!

>> Now face this fact: if Nephi's group was a minute portion of the ancient
>> inhabitants of the Americas, how much genetic evidence should we expect to
>> find for them today?

> Face this fact, Jeff -- the BoM does not record a single instance of any of
> Lehi's party mingling with any foreign cultures. It doesn't do this for
> good reason: it is consistent with the BoM's statement that no "other
> nations" were present for Lehi's party to mingle with, or be a minute part
> of.

Indeed, Jeff is an apostate and his lies sully those made for the lord...

>> Their DNA may be spread all over the Americas, but it
>> would be unlikely to have been preserved as mtDNA or Y chromosomes given
> the
>> large gene pool of founders. Can you at least recognize that if we allow
> for
>> large populations to have already been present, that the modern genetic
>> evidence of a boatload of people in 600 B.C. might be very difficult to
>> detect?

> You can allow for whatever populations to be present upon the land that you
> want. What you cannot change is what the book itself says, nor what the
> people who claim the authority to speak on this matter have said.

Indeed, and this, Jeff Shirton, is how books can be used as evidence!

> -Xan


Xan Du

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 1:44:22 PM12/30/02
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:aug75t$5m9$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

The key thing I was trying to distinguish is that he's not a prophet, and
doesn't have authority to contradict the statment of several prophets who
have spoken authoritatively on this subject.

> His scholarship has also proven so
> problematic, he disavowed everything written before his senility set in.

Interesting. Where did he do that?

> His most recent pronouncement, "scholars aren't even sure that Abraham
> existed", is very likely something Jeff would rather live without...

Hehe, I'd love some references for that.

> >> Long after the Book of Mormon appeared Joseph Smith quoted with
approval
> >> from the pulpit reports of certain Toltec legends which would make it
> > appear
> >> that those people had come originally from the Near East in the time of
> >> Moses [see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 267]; whether such
a
> >> migration ever took place or not, it is significant that the Prophet
was
> > not
> >> reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those
> >> mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
>
> > Conspicuously absent is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s actual text. All we are
reading
> > here is Nibley's ad hoc interpretation of what Smith wrote.
>
> And he disavowed everything written by him prior to 1967.

Does he stand by anything he's written?

> > And Nibley or Smith (or both) seem to be forgetting that, "[The angel]
said
> > the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham ..."
>
> > A common behavior of liars is that they get their stories confused.
>
> Smith had the advantage of dying young and thus only being a liar. Nibley
> had to hang on until he could hide behind the holy veil of senility as
> well...
>
> >> The argument of silence bears some weight in considering the
possibility
> >> of "other sheep."
>
> > "Other sheep" could refer to anyone.
>
> Except sheep, since none existed in the americas...

He probably meant "llamas".

> > It could refer to the inhabitants of the moon, mentioned with approval
from
> > the pulpit by none other than Brigham Young. But every time we
> > "anti-Mormons" bring up this little tidbit, the teaching is soundly
> > dismissed as "just his opinion," or questions about the "accuracy" of
the
> > transcription of speeches into the JoD are brought up, etc.
>
> > So tell me this, Jeff: why are Joseph Smith, Jr.'s statement about the
> > Toltec reliable (even though they're inconsistent with his revelations
from
> > angels), but Brigham Young's teachings about "other sheep" on the moon
not
> > reliable?
>
> >> When the Jaredites journey into a land "where there never
> >> had man been," [Ether 2:5, referring to a portion of their journey in
the
> >> Old World]
>
> > The statement in Ether 2:5 does not refer to any specific land, either
in
> > the Old or New World.
>
> Neither does any other statement anywhere in the bom... Indeed, it is the
> baseless assertion of every prophet from 1830 to the present that America
> is the place in question.

Excellent.

> Well, not exactly baseless, since the names and
> terrain correspond to names, peoples and places in the greater Lake
> Ontario environs...

Shhh, don't let John Sorenson hear that.

> >> our history finds the fact worthy of note, even though the part
> >> was only passing through. Now there is a great deal said in the Book of
> >> Mormon about the past and future of the promised land, but never is it
> >> described as an empty land. The descendents of Lehi were never the only
> >> people on the continent, and the Jaredites never claimed to be."
>
> > For the purposes of this discussion, the Jaredites are irrelevant --
their
> > DNA was snuffed out at the end of the book of Ether.
>
> Lest sane people forget, DNA from jaredites would conform to DNA of
> similar peoples from the region they originated and thus this DNA would
> persist in other lines...
>
> > As for Lehi, I'm really having trouble understanding how you can read a
> > statement that says that the Promised Land would be kept from the
knowledge
> > of other nations, and conclude that Lehi and his party lived with
thousands
> > of people who were already there.
>
> Because perhaps the bom is the first book to confirm parallel but separate
> existences?

Now, that's some deeeep doctrine, Clovis. Thou truly art an Elder of the
Quorum of the Twelve Apostates.

<snip>

> >> The Church also failed to excommunicate Joseph Smith for the same
crime.
> > But
> >> the problem is not a contradiction between the Church and these
brethren
> >> whom I have quoted, but between these brethren and an overly simplistic
> >> reading of the scriptural account.
>
> > Actually, what is going on here is that lying in defense of the LDS
church
> > is recognized as something to be rewarded, whereas telling truth which
> > contradicts LDS belief is something to be punished.
>
> Indeed, it was considered de rigeur in the early daze of the church.
> Doctrine, in fact!

Don't let Dallin H. hear you say that -- he'll sic the Danites on you.

Jeff has no trouble at all falsifying the BoM. Now, if he could apply the
same logic to the Bible, he'd be in business.

-Xan

> > -Xan


Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 9:23:39 PM12/31/02
to
Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

And he doesn't have the authority to write on 99% of the topics that he
has buried in impenetrible ink...

>> His scholarship has also proven so
>> problematic, he disavowed everything written before his senility set in.

> Interesting. Where did he do that?

1967 is the date. Ashment was the catalyst

>> His most recent pronouncement, "scholars aren't even sure that Abraham
>> existed", is very likely something Jeff would rather live without...

> Hehe, I'd love some references for that.

New Yorker 1/2002...

>> >> Long after the Book of Mormon appeared Joseph Smith quoted with
> approval
>> >> from the pulpit reports of certain Toltec legends which would make it
>> > appear
>> >> that those people had come originally from the Near East in the time of
>> >> Moses [see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 267]; whether such
> a
>> >> migration ever took place or not, it is significant that the Prophet
> was
>> > not
>> >> reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those
>> >> mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
>>
>> > Conspicuously absent is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s actual text. All we are
> reading
>> > here is Nibley's ad hoc interpretation of what Smith wrote.
>>
>> And he disavowed everything written by him prior to 1967.

> Does he stand by anything he's written?

Not when other El Dee Ess thinkers trump him...

> Excellent.

It makes a faith building series of shifting pots...

I plan to run for guhvner of Ootah...

> <snip>

>> >> The Church also failed to excommunicate Joseph Smith for the same
> crime.
>> > But
>> >> the problem is not a contradiction between the Church and these
> brethren
>> >> whom I have quoted, but between these brethren and an overly simplistic
>> >> reading of the scriptural account.
>>
>> > Actually, what is going on here is that lying in defense of the LDS
> church
>> > is recognized as something to be rewarded, whereas telling truth which
>> > contradicts LDS belief is something to be punished.
>>
>> Indeed, it was considered de rigeur in the early daze of the church.
>> Doctrine, in fact!

> Don't let Dallin H. hear you say that -- he'll sic the Danites on you.

Later this week, I hope to have more from an eyewitness who enjoyed mixed
drinks with Dallin at his house after Dallin checked with his wife first
to assure that the housekeeper was gone for the night and couldn't report
to other authorities. I'll try and winnow out the dirty details tonight.

If he could apply it to the software he hocks...

> -Xan

>> > -Xan


dangerous1

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 9:43:42 PM12/31/02
to
Clovis Lark wrote:

>
>

Maybe we could hook up with him at Squatter's for a pint or two.


--
Best,
Dangerous1

D1 @ Dangerous1.com
Don Marchant

Nothing defines humans better than their willingness
to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally
unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries,
dating, and religion.

-- "The Dilbert Principle"


Clovis Lark

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 12:35:26 PM1/2/03
to

>>
>>

Could scare off a bunch of customers...

dangerous 1

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 12:43:08 PM1/2/03
to

Clovis Lark wrote:

LOL. good point.

Probably half his ward is in there on any given day.

D1

Xan Du

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 5:00:02 PM1/3/03
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:autjfb$6un$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

> Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > news:aug75t$5m9$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > TheJordan6 wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > "Timothy Griffy" <T.A.G...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:3DFFA4AF...@cox.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:uvvhm2a...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >>
> >> > "jeff" <je...@jefflindsay.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:v02r7k1...@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>

> >> >> The Church also failed to excommunicate Joseph Smith for the same
> > crime.
> >> > But
> >> >> the problem is not a contradiction between the Church and these
> > brethren
> >> >> whom I have quoted, but between these brethren and an overly
simplistic
> >> >> reading of the scriptural account.
> >>
> >> > Actually, what is going on here is that lying in defense of the LDS
> > church
> >> > is recognized as something to be rewarded, whereas telling truth
which
> >> > contradicts LDS belief is something to be punished.
> >>
> >> Indeed, it was considered de rigeur in the early daze of the church.
> >> Doctrine, in fact!
>
> > Don't let Dallin H. hear you say that -- he'll sic the Danites on you.
>
> Later this week, I hope to have more from an eyewitness who enjoyed mixed
> drinks with Dallin at his house after Dallin checked with his wife first
> to assure that the housekeeper was gone for the night and couldn't report
> to other authorities. I'll try and winnow out the dirty details tonight.

Astounding. Pictures of pitchers would be nice.

-Xan


Clovis Lark

unread,
Jan 5, 2003, 4:45:09 PM1/5/03
to
Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <snip>

The mole is a a cleaning woman who works/worked for both the Oakes and
friends of my fambly. Still awaiting a coherent recollection of her
remarks...

> -Xan


Xan Du

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 2:43:25 PM1/6/03
to

"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ava915$vm7$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...

Screw the recollection. I want videotape.

-Xan

>
> > -Xan
>
>


alquijano

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 4:36:51 PM1/6/03
to
In article <ava915$vm7$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

> The mole is a a cleaning woman who works/worked for both the Oakes and
> friends of my fambly. Still awaiting a coherent recollection of her
> remarks...

I take it the reliability of the account has moved to the realm of
hearsay: both words "coherent" and "recollection" as used above raise
questions in my mind. Was the mole the housekeeper that was supposed to
have left before the alleged event took place, or is this a second
housekeeper who stayed on after the first left? I'm already thinking
that even Xan's request for photos may not be enough to qualify this
claim for even "good gossip" status.

0 new messages