DNA, the flood, and the scientific method
jeff
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
> 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
> 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
>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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
>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
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021213110842...@mb-fu.aol.com...
> >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
> >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
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
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
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
That's the understatement of the year from Lindsay.
alienward
> 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
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
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
> 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
>> 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
>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
>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
> "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
<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
> 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
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...