The Book of Mormon: A Divine Conspiracy Theory

[Archaea]

I remember these discussions.

I wish we had a geneticist to seek explanations from.

"Further, they have overlooked the entire concept of hypothesis testing in science and believe that just because they label their results as "based on DNA," they have somehow proved that the results are accurate or that they have designed the experiment correctly. At best, they have demonstrated that the global colonization hypothesis is an oversimplified interpretation of the Book of Mormon. At worst, they have misrepresented themselves and the evidence in the pursuit of other agendas." Additionally, although he admits the usefulness of population genetics and of DNA in inferring historical events, he contests that, "given the complexities of genetic drift, founder effect, and introgression, the observation that Native Americans have a preponderance of Asian genes does not conclusively demonstrate that they are therefore not descendants of the Lamanite lineage, because we do not know what genetic signature that Lamanite lineage possessed at the conclusion of the Book of Mormon record." Lastly, he concludes, "[There is] a strong possibility that there was substantial introgression of genes from other human populations into the genetic heritage of the Nephites and Lamanites, such that a unique genetic marker to identify someone unambiguously as a Lamanite, if it ever existed, was quickly lost." and that, "There are some very good scientific reasons for why the Book of Mormon is neither easily corroborated nor refuted by DNA evidence, and current attempts to do so are based on dubious science."[

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

Frankly, I'm largely in agreement with Rocky on this one.

The Book of Mormon claims throughout, from cover to cover, that it is what it is. Our understanding of those claims may change, and our understanding of its composition and transmission may change, but if it doesn't attempt to document ACTUAL events, I'm out of here.

Does it agree completely with our understanding of history and science? Of course it doesn't-- why should it, incomplete as it is? I believe that when all things are fully known and revealed, we won't have any problem reconciling scripture and history.

lol...be careful dude..if you agree with me you might no longer be viewed as an "intellectual" amongst our peers here. Totally TIC of course.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

lol...be careful dude..if you agree with me you might no longer be viewed as an "intellectual" amongst our peers here. Totally TIC of course.

They'd be right. I can only bluff for so long.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm good at confusing stuff, but the addition was the result of a tradition, not a prophetic interpretation.

Mmm....I can buy that it started as a tradition. I can buy the idea that there are many traditions in the church that are not really doctrinal. What I have difficulty accepting is that anything that makes its way into what we all agree is canon is non-doctrinal.

Does that mean I think the footnotes are doctrine? Sheesh, I don't know. But I do know they are in there because chruch leadership intends for us to rely on them.