DNA and the Book of Mormon - Update July 2005

Subject:	HOT NEWS: Another Mormon author facing excommunication! Simon Southerton
Date:	Jul 16 22:21 2005 (updated July 20, 2005)
Author:	Deconstructor (Simon’s comments just below) (FARMS comments near bottom of thread)

An Australian who wrote a book saying DNA evidence contradicts ancestral claims of Mormon belief faces disciplinary action that could get him excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Simon Southerton’s book, “Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church,” was published a year ago by Salt Lake-based Signature Books, a publishing house for Western and Mormon studies. It used established DNA data to refute Book of Mormon teachings that ancient Americans inhabitants were descendants of Israelite patriarch Lehi.

Daniel C. Peterson, editor of the FARMS Review, the journal of Brigham Young University’s Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, says Southerton’s view of DNA evidence is “naïve” and oversimplified.

See the full article here:
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_197205005.html

Also, here's an audio interview with Southerton with LDS Radio "personality" Van Hale:

http://www.i4m.com/think/van_hale.htm

It's interesting to listen to. Southerton explains his position and Hale responds with his "inspired fiction" defense. It's funny and educational.

Subject:	My court of love
Date:	Jul 17, 2005 08:17
Author:	Simon Southerton

Hi Folks,

Some of you may hear reports about my upcoming disciplinary council. I just thought I would clarify a few things that were a little incorrect in the story I saw.

My wife and I left the church 7 years ago in 1998. We separated in 2003 for a period of almost 2 years. Several months after we separated I met a woman and we were close friends for about a year. She was in the process of leaving the church, lives interstate, and was separated from her husband (now divorced). The relationship ended and about 6 months later my wife and I got back together. We have been together for about 9 months and things are going well.

I am proud to be an apostate and deliberately never requested that my name be removed from the records. There are only two ways that my name can be removed. I could request it myself or they must hold a church court. They can’t take my name off the records without my knowledge. I wrote Losing a Lost Tribe because I want to pressure the church to change its teachings and doctrines that are racist and wrong. Native Americans and Polynesians are not descended from Israelites and they are not the descendants of the imaginary cursed Lamanite race. I was looking forward to a court because it would give me an opportunity to admit to the charge of apostasy and defend my integrity.

Like many church leaders in Australia, my Stake President is aware that I have publicly challenged the teachings of the church for several years. Rather than hold a court on the charge of apostasy, he chose to take the sleazy route. He arranged for church leaders in another state to meet with my friend and to get a signed confession that she had had a relationship with me. She admitted she had before she knew what they were up to, and then refused to sign anything. Several weeks ago the Stake President and bishop met with me and my wife. I wasn’t interested in talking about the adultery charge and we spent most of the time discussing my difficulties with the Book of Mormon. It was a very pleasant discussion and both seemed very sincere. Two weeks later I received a letter from the Stake President inviting me to a disciplinary council to answer adultery charges. He made no mention of my apostasy in the letter.

I deserve to be excommunicated. I fully expect to be excommunicated. But I am disappointed that the Stake President has engaged in official backbiting and snooping in order to avoid discussion of the more difficult issues related to Polynesian and Native American ancestry. I suspect he would probably prefer his high council didn’t hear about this.

As a bishop I never snooped into the lives of inactive members to look for opportunities to discipline and the bishops I have known didn't do this either. If they did they would be holding courts all the time. We have not attended church in 7 years and have not had a single home teaching visit during that time. Now I am back with my wife they choose to haul me into a church court to punish me for alleged sexual sins. My wife is looking forward to attending the court and letting them know how she feels about the course of action they have taken. Should be interesting!

Regards
Simon

Subject:	Some things I still don't understand ... altho' it is of course your business
Date:	Jul 20 00:36
Author:	NeverMoDownUnder

I've just read the text of the ABC interview and still don't understand why someone with convincing evidence against one of the tenets of the Church doesn't (a) resign and (b) also go public with the findings.

Why suggest that the Mormon Church change when surely finding that things are a hoax, or at the very least, have a stack of evidence against them leads one to want the whole show to collapse? This is quite distinct from judging the individual people who belong to the Church - I have some in my family and agree that many are fine people.

But that is not the point. The suggestion that the Church already has a capacity to change (e.g. re polygamy, rights of black people) only shows that they can bow to political pressure by conveniently having special revelations. It does not show that they have a capacity to just admit that they are wrong.

Why engage them with debate?

Subject:	Re: Some things I still don't understand ... altho' it is of course your business
Date:	Jul 20 04:26
Author:	Simon

I can understand your difficulty understanding what drives me. I have tried to clarify some of my motives below.

NeverMoDownUnder wrote:
> I've just read the text of the ABC interview and still don't understand why someone with convincing evidence against one of the tenets of the Church doesn't (a) resign and (b) also go public with the findings.

It is not that easy to just go public. I'm an ordinary scientist at CSIRO and most journalists aren't interested in talking to you unless you have some credibility. Last year my book was published in the US (which gives some credibility) and there was a lot of media interest in the US. Not a single journalist in Australia picked up the story even though “Australian scientist” featured in the headlines in many newspapers in the US. The Geelong Advertiser ran the AP story with no changes.

I was also a little reluctant at the time to talk to the press and I didn’t have any contacts. I am less reluctant now and I have a growing list of contacts.

> Why suggest that the Mormon Church change when surely finding that things are a hoax, or at the very least, have a stack of evidence against them leads one to want the whole show to collapse? This is quite distinct from judging the individual people who belong to the Church - I have some in my family and agree that many are fine people.

I don’t want the church to collapse. I want it to evolve into a more compassionate and tolerant organization. There are many members of the church in the US who want to find acceptance in the organization. The RLDS (Community of Christ now) accepts people who question the beliefs; even those who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The leaders have faced up to the facts. Some will leave the church but there will also be a flow inwards as people who felt unwelcome at church would come back.

Many people also have family in the church and when you question the teachings it can be very divisive. In many respects the church is not family-centred because there are frequently huge rifts in part member families. This is true with lots of other religions, but it is worse in the Mormon Church. Some families completely cut questioning family members out of the family. It is a sad indictment on the church that its stubborn claim to be absolutely the only true church currently results in untold damage to many thousands of family relationships. Most mainstream Christian churches do not ostracise people if they leave or join another church.

>

> But that is not the point. The suggestion that the Church already has a capacity to change (e.g. re polygamy, rights of black people) only shows that they can bow to political pressure by conveniently having special revelations. It does not show that they have a capacity to just admit that they are wrong.

>

> Why engage them with debate?

Believe it or not, the church does change slightly with every bit of pressure. They now have links on the official website to the DNA debate. They admit there that the Book of Mormon is not about all the ancestors of Native Americans, like most Mormons used to believe. This is small but significant change. One day they may allow their own scholars to really debate the historicity of the Book of Mormon, rather than acting like drones who already know all the answers. Maybe then they will stop vilifying people like me (like they are on FAIRS right now) who are only being honest about the problems. Now I am being outrageously optimistic.

Simon

Subject:	Ah, the things Mormons do.
Date:	Jul 17 08:48
Author:	Stray Mutt

You know someone, somewhere between Oz and SLC, is oh so pleased they can ex you over something other than your book. The last thing the church wants is another round of bad press over punishing intellectual dissidents. Now they can say, "Oh, no, this isn't about his book, it's purely about adultery." And so, they get to look like they're taking the moral high ground while branding you with a big scarlet A, and the faithful get to reject your writings because you are (in their eyes) an unworthy messenger. "Can't believe anything Southerton says, he's an excommunicated adulterer." Kill the messenger, kill the message.

Subject:	What an ugly church...
Date:	Jul 17 08:52
Author:	Eric K

Thanks Simon for posting. I gather you never expected to be so notorious :-)

It was not until I left Mormonism that I discovered the ugliness of Mormonism. Attacking individuals such as yourself for speaking the truth, demonstrates its true character. The effort they are expending to excommunicate you is because you have poked at their soft underbelly - its foundation is fiction. The keystone of this religion is a poorly written book of 19th century frontier fiction.

We may not know if they were given directives from SLC. The news articles have the appearance of implicit approval of the old boys in white shirts of the local leaders' actions.

Good luck to you and your wife. Again, thanks for all you have done to help folks leave this corporation posing as a church.

Eric

Now that I've *read* the article, they are dragging Simon down for adultery rather than addressing the issues raised in his book.. Those nit picky cowardly, bastards. Just like them to focus on the NON-ISSUE here.

Also, this comment from Daniel Peterson is interesting [and no wonder he left the F-boards; he is too busy helping the persecution of Simon Southerton - -

“[Southeron's] contention is that the DNA research thus far doesn’t support the Book of Mormon,” Peterson said. “Our contention would be that we would be surprised if it did.”

Yeah, asshole. The whole world would be surprised if it did.
Ohhh. puleez!

Subject:	Yes, Quantifiable.. but the rank and file Morgbot....
Date:	Jul 16 22:38
Author:	Skunk Puppet

will only focus on the fact that Southerton was excomm'd for adultery and never know that his book was the real catalyst.

Subject:	Re: HOT NEWS: Another Mormon author facing excommunication!
Date:	Jul 16 22:29
Author:	Britishboy

This type of thing makes me so angry. I bet most of the guys on the court panel won't even have read the book. Most Mormons in my experience think that if it is not from Deseret or Bookcraft then it is "Anti" what a stupid ignorant thing to think and also the dumbest terms ever invented.

I tried giving my companions a basic first day of school history lesson on objectivity of sources - oh you can apply that to lots of things but apparently not the church.

Is it a co-incidence that arts and social science education is so poor in Utah or is it meant to be that way so kids don't learn to question things too much, the way I do?

Subject:	Britishboy is right. Justice requires reading the evidence. n/t
Date:	Jul 16 22:31
Author:	Fred

Subject:	Too bad he technically committed adultery......
Date:	Jul 16 22:33
Author:	Quantifiable

It gives them a way to excommunicate him without tying it too the real reason.

That sucks.

Cowards.

Subject:	I think most people will see what they're up to
Date:	Jul 16 22:40
Author:	AKexmo

This is already working against them, anyway. By going public he is going to get more attention directed towards his book and the article mentioned this web site.

His book was the second book I read on my way out - I loved it!

Subject:	Yes, non members and exmos will, but not members. The believe what their leaders
Date:	Jul 17 00:08
Author:	Polygamy Porter

tell them.

Their leaders will tell them that Southernton wrote this book in an effort to hide his sin.

Remember, we are dealing with people that are very close in nature to the fundamentalist Mormons.

Subject:	How often do they publicly announce the reason for excommunication?
Date:	Jul 17 01:46
Author:	Zandor

Seems they go out of their way to do this when they're trying to silence someone.

Subject:	I think Southerton is the one that went public
Date:	Jul 17 01:59
Author:	AKexmo

and I think it was a good move on his part. While the TBMs will think him a monster the rest of the world will think the Mormon church is playing dirty - it can't help their PR.

Subject:	Wow! I thought he already resigned too!
Date:	Jul 16 22:47
Author:	Simon Fan

This is a major mis-step by Southerton if indeed true. He clearly should have resigned prior to being brought before a church court on adultery charges.

This is a victory for the church. The focus will now be on the adultery not the DNA and apostasy. TBMs will completely dismiss his work due to his prior unresolved "sin".

At this point, even if he were to resign it will be viewed as a move to avoid being exed for adultery. I think the CHI says you can't resign to avoid being exed. I'm not sure if this is the case or even if it's legal, but either way this is not good!

Subject:	my favorite quote from the article
Date:	Jul 16 22:47
Author:	scarecrowfromoz

Church officials in Salt Lake City said they were unaware of any disciplinary action being taken against Southerton. “We wouldn’t, because those decisions are local,” spokeswoman Kim Farah said.

Subject:	Re: HOT NEWS: Another Mormon author facing excommunication!
Date:	Jul 16 22:55
Author:	Britishboy

Here is a link to a better quality sound file though from a different radio station.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/Losing.htm

click the link at the bottom of the page.

Subject:	Southerton takes on Oaks
Date:	Jul 16 23:05
Author:	AKexmo

Yeah right nobody in SLC had anything to do with his excommunication.

Here is a little gem from Southerton's book:

"The continual contracting of the Lehite influence in the Americas is not all bad news for LDS scholars and for the church, as noted recently by apostle Dallin H. Oaks, who reasoned that such a retreat will prohibit opponents of the Book of Mormon's historicity from proving it false. Oaks is a former Utah Supreme Court justice and well aware of the futility of trying to prove a negative. According to Oaks, critics must now prove that Book of Mormon peoples did not live anywhere in the Americas (Oaks 1993). It is, of course, impossible to prove conclusively that Jews never migrated to ancient America, just as it is impossible to prove that giants never lived on the moon. The most that can be said from the evidence is that there is no credible evidence that ancient Jews ever migrated to the Americas."

If you have not already go to amazon.com and order Simon's book. You will not only be showing your support for him but you will be getting a VERY good read.

Subject:	Grant Palmer told me about this when I visited with him two weeks ago..
Date:	Jul 16 23:08
Author:	Polygamy Porter

And believe me, there will be even more news in the next few weeks!

Subject:

Why would morons care about his adultery? Lets call it a celestrial marriage just like joe's! N/T

Subject:	One thing is certain: the LDS Church has got Southerton...
Date:	Jul 16 23:44
Author:	dead-to-rights

dead to rights !

In other words, that article quoted Simon as admitting to an adulterous affair!

Oops! That, alone, will have his ass on the chopping block!

Subject:	I have been in church leadership in Australia for years and...
Date:	Jul 17 06:19
Author:	ausgaz

I can assure you that there are 100's of people in Australia, like anywhere most likely, who have committed adultery who have not had any action taken. It is absolutely abnormal for the church to take this action. I will let Simon tell the full story when he feels the time is right but let me assure you that extremely abnormal procedures were followed to avoid doing this on the grounds of apostasy. It more than borders on dishonesty in my opinion. Simon is a nice guy so he is unlikely to be vindictive in any way but let me tell you I am hopping mad!

It is important to note that Simon was separated when this happened and had been out of the church for some time! Do you know anyone who has been separated from their spouse, not set foot in a church building for many years and lived with someone else, have church action taken out of the blue? I don't. I know that action is almost never taken unless the person wants to clear things up and come back. Can you imagine the damage to church numbers if every unfaithful member was excommunicated? You would need a second stake presidency just to handle the work!

Enough ranting.

STUPID, DISHONEST, INGENUOUS CULT!!!

Subject:	Is it possible Southerton decided NOT to resign?
Date:	Jul 17 00:38
Author:	PhantomShadow

I've never met him, but perhaps he hopes to prod the church into a confrontation. Publicity and controversy will focus more attention on the DNA-BOM debate. Perhaps a few more TBM's will start asking questions, looking at the evidence, etc. Of course, the hard-core TBM's never will, but an excommunication trial is not going to help the church's popularity with future investigators.

Subject:	Re: Is it possible Southerton decided NOT to resign?
Date:	Jul 17 01:23
Author:	bona dea

I met him at his book signing and asked him if the church had made any moves toward excommunication. He said that he really didn't care what they did. I assumed from that comment that he had not resigned.

Subject:	What a joke! The "adultery" happened FIVE years ago, AFTER Simon had
Date:	Jul 17 02:07
Author:	Francoise

Separated from his wife.

For the Church to dig that up NOW, is so transparent as to be ridiculous.

The LDS leaders are a bunch of stupid, cynical politicians masquerading as God's representatives on earth. What nonsense!

BTW, Einstein committed adultery quite flagrantly, and maybe even fragrantly. I've never heard of anyone thinking that they could dismiss Einstein's physics on the basis of his adultery. If they think that Simon's adultery is a legitimate basis for dismissing his research and analysis, they're a bunch of ignorant fools!

Subject:	I agree, completely. HOWEVER, Mormons are little children and sin scares them
Date:	Jul 17 03:31
Author:	Polygamy Porter

Most members will never see any of Simon's work.

Why? The exposed SIN will keep them away.

Simon is a sinner.

Adultery is a sin that the members will use to block DNA from their minds.

Sad, I know, but true.

Subject:	of course!
Date:	Jul 17 09:52
Author:	Trixie

I hope no one is surprised by this. This is par for the course.

I'm just glad for you that your wife is on your side.

(ps, they did something similar to Sonia Johnson)

Ironically, my still believing/active sister detests my ex-husband so much (who is still a member but totally inactive) that she reported to their bishop that he's been living with his girlfriend without the benefit of marriage for about four years, and no action was taken against him. The church really isn't generally interested in the behavior of those who are totally inactive. But I guarantee if my ex published a book that was critical of the church, or had an active website critical of the church, they'd be all over him like white on rice.

Subject:	Dan Peterson is a Genius, Simon Southerton is "naive"
Date:	Jul 18 13:33
Author:	Scott S

Peterson has driven me nuts for a long time. I actually got him to admit that he knew more about the scriptures than Joseph Fielding Smith on the FAIR boards a while ago. For some reason I'm still surprised at his smugness though. When I read his quote in the Simon Southerton AP article I'm still surprised he gets away with saying stuff like this:

Daniel C. Peterson, editor of the FARMS Review, the journal of Brigham Young University's Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, says Southerton's view of DNA evidence is "naive" and oversimplified.

"His contention is that the DNA research thus far doesn't support the Book of Mormon," Peterson said. "Our contention would be that we would be surprised if it did."

So first he says Southerton is naive and oversimplifying the DNA evidence because Southerton came to the conclusion that it doesn't support the Book of Mormon, and then in the next sentence he basically agrees with the conclusion. When Peterson says he'd be surprised if the DNA evidence supported the BOM he's a genius. Southerton reaches the same conclusion but somehow he's naive???? I think it's because at the end of the day DCP can still say "I know the Church is true" and Simon can't. On what planet does this make any sense?

That’s got to be the clearest example of double-speak I've ever seen. Excuse me while I go and reread Animal Farm and 1984.

Subject:	I think you're misinterpreting Peterson
Date:	Jul 18 14:01
Author:	Mojo Jojo

When Peterson calls Simon naive, he is not referring to his findings (e.g., lack of DNA evidence for Semitic genetic markets) but to Simon's underlying assumption that Mormons teach/believe that Native Americans are necessarily descendents of BofM peoples.

In other words, he is accusing Simon of arguing against a belief Mormons don't hold--that Native Americans are children of Father Lehi.

Of course, as always, Peterson is generalizing his and other apologists ex post rationalizations to represent the beliefs of the rank and file, in which, as typical, he errs.

Not only has the Mormon church and its "inspired" leaders taught for over a century that Native Americans were the descendents of BofM peoples, but the majority of rank and file believe it also.

One wonders if Peterson and his ilk ever associate with the rank and file. They seem to have no clue what they believe, as well as no clue what Mormon leaders have taught over the years.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the former are naive, like Simon, while the latter were only talking as men.

He, Peterson, is the true oracle of God to speak for his children on weighty doctrinal matters. Now I'm being naive.

Subject:	If I understand Peterson's statement...
Date:	Jul 18 14:12
Author:	Stray Mutt

...I think he means Southerton is wrong for saying DNA disproves the BoM because too much is unknown to prove anything. The church's primary defense is that not enough is known about DNA, that the data is incomplete, yadda yadda yadda. It's a typical Mopologist tactic. The data will never be sufficiently complete for them unless it supports the church's position. And they will move the church's position slightly if the facts 100% disprove it. Meanwhile, they offer up as proof the flimsiest of evidence and claim the matter has been settled.

Subject:	In other words Southerton believed what the Book of Mormon said
Date:	Jul 18 15:05
Author:	okgivens

Unlike FARMS, which believes there is, some secret, lost civilization which existed and is taught about in the Book of Mormon, Southerton took the Book of Mormon at face value and believed it to be a history of the Native Americans. Southerton was naive enough to really believe what Joseph Smith taught, but the FARMS people are smarter than to believe what Joseph Smith taught. They know Joseph was an idiot, but they can rescue him!

Subject:	Yes, we were all "naive" or "fundamentalist"
Date:	Jul 18 14:19
Author:	Trixie

To ever believe there was any reason to take teachings of prophets and apostles with anything more than a large grain of salt, just men's opinions, no better or worse than any others.

I just can't figure out why these "internet Mormons" (yes, LDS lurkers, Shades is not full of bunk) think that they have any reason to take ANY teachings of a prophet seriously, including those related to comments about the restoration of the church and the "translation" of the BoM.

Subject:	I don't follow the FARM boards........
Date:	Jul 18 18:11
Author:	mamie

...but I reread those sentences a couple of times in the local newspaper. As an inactive member of the church I could only assume that Peterson and his collegues at BYU do NOT believe the Book of Mormon is true. I think most active members would scratch their heads and wonder what Peterson meant. His statements were fuddled and confusing.

Subject:	DCP legacy
Date:	Jul 18 18:29
Author:	mystery guest

In stating that '...they would be surprised if they did find conclusions supporting the BofM' DCP is telling one and all that they know there isn't any evidence to support the book as a true history.

DCP is being coy about the entire DNA problem while Southerton faces it bluntly head on. There is no proof, DCP admits surprise if DNA proved it true, thereby DCP actually supports Southerton's findings.

DCP is not a genius. A genius would actually understand the findings. DCP is a con artist and not willing to admit the truth because his prestige would be at stake.

Frankly, I can't follow DCP logic.....my son uses the letters 'DCP' as an acronym for something that is circular, deceiving, or just plain illogical. As in, that is such a DCP! So, perhaps DCP will have a legacy.

Just not the one he thinks.

Subject:	Let me get this straight....
Date:	Jul 18 18:53
Author:	Mulva

Simon writes a book about how native American DNA is not Hebrew DNA. As a result, the church goes super-secret undercover to dig up Simon's "adultery" to excommunicate him. This transparent ruse is obviously an act of revenge for writing said book.

Dan Peterson, on the other hand, draws the same conclusion--i.e., that modern native Americans do not possess Hebrew DNA--he publishes his conclusion on FARMS and all over the FAIR boards, and what does he get? Fawning admiration.

Simon's biggest mistake was thinking he'd get excommunicated under the charges of apostasy. What he doesn't realize is that there is no actual doctrine to apostatize from. The church couldn't excommunicate him for advocating exactly the same position their precious apologists espouse. Simon's real naiveté is in thinking he'd actually get a fair "love court" hearing to explain his position.

Subject:	Well maybe Dan is a creative genius.
Date:	Jul 18 19:08
Author:	Robert

I never would have thought of explaining the problem of horses in the BoM using tapirs!

Subject:	that's Sorenson's "genius"
Date:	Jul 18 19:26
Author:	Trixie

I am not positive, but fairly certain that Sorenson was the first one to suggest that horses are tapirs. DCP usually just defends the apologetic line, he doesn't really create it.

I actually don't think he would be viewed as one of the top FARMs dogs in terms of actually constructing apologetics. I think he's just their internet attack dog, although he seems to have either been leashed or pulled back of his own volition.

Subject:	What Peterson probably meant by his statement.....
Date:	Jul 18 21:04
Author:	Randy J.

The current popular Mopologetic stance is that millions of Asian-descended Bering Strait-crossers inhabited the Americas when the small groups of "Book of Mormon people" arrived, and that the Lamanites' Middle Eastern DNA has been diluted by "genetic drift" and "founder effect" to the point that no Middle Eastern DNA strains can be identified amongst modern native Americans. So that's why Peterson uses the cop-out "We;d be surprised if DNA research turned up any Hebrew DNA" yada yada.

But as I've pointed out many times (about once a week on this BB), the LDS doctrine of the literal global flood means that any Asian-descended peoples would have been obliterated from the Americas circa 3000 B.C. So, when the alleged "Jaredites" arrived circa 2500 B.C., they would have been the first people to re-populate the Americas after the flood---so, they would have necessarily been "the principal ancestors of the American Indians," just as all LDS prophets and the introduction to the BOM aver they were. And that being the case, ALL native American DNA strains should be closely related to that of modern Middle Easterners, specifically Semites.

Mopologists are only fooling themselves with their "limited geography theory", "founder effect," and "genetic drift" nonsense. Their own church's doctrines negate their silly theories, without even having to bring the DNA research into the argument.

Subject:	Oh Garsh. So Now We're Dealing With . . .
Date:	Jul 19 00:26
Author:	SL Cabbie

Daniel C. Peterson as he's translated correctly.

Peterson's a languages man; I'm doubtful he knows an enzyme from a protein. Anybody sees him and hears him give a reasonable explanation, ask him what a polymerase is . . .

How about we take what he says at face value . . .

Simon says . . . "DNA research thus far doesn't support the Book of Mormon . . . Our contention would be that we would be surprised if it did."

There are several ways we could interpret that. Perhaps he gives Satan the credit he feels Ol' Scratch really deserves for being a truly devious adversary, and the Devil obliterated all traces of Hebrew DNA in the New World. As a result, it's important to have faith in all things, especially Joseph Smith and the Restored Gospel . . .

Or perhaps he knows in his heart-of-hearts that God wants us to have faith even in things we know can't possibly be true, but we'll be rewarded for it nevertheless . . .

Perhaps we should label this second one the "BKP School of Apologetics."

Of course there's always the fatalistic interpretation . . . "Nothing else has supported the BOM, either, so why should this be any different? But I'll collect my salary anyway."

Subject:	If taking what the leaders of the Church said seriously makes one naive, then I guess I was also naive.
Date:	Jul 19 02:15
Author:	Scott S

I'll bet you that 99% of the church would fall into Peterson's "naive" category. Naive for actually taking what the leadership of the church said seriously. I guess we were naive for being more trusting than DCP.

I'll bet if you were to ask any of the Prophets 50+ years ago "hey if we were able to test the native American's blood to see if they were descendants of the Jews" what do you think they would have said. Do you really think they would have said "we would be surprised if this test actually supported the BOM."

The only reason that Peterson would be surprised if DNA evidence supported the BOM is because every other science discipline corroborates the DNA evidence. Peterson claims that it was his very careful reading of the BOM that lead him to believe the LGT and that Joseph Fielding Smith didn't really know what he was talking about when he condemned the LGT.

Peterson may think that Simon oversimplified things but isn't it really Peterson and FARMS that has tried to complicate and convolute things so you'll just shut up about it and just difer to them on matters like these.

The church links to a whole bunch of articles about Haplo group X, bottle neck effect, genetic drift, blah blah blah. If they would be surprised if the DNA evidence supported the BOM why are they still trying to find a way for the DNA evidence to support the BOM.

Who do they think they are kidding? Maybe themselves but can you imagine if the DNA evidence did support the BOM? Do you think that for a second any of these guys would be out there saying "wow, we're really surprised with these results." No way. They'd be wetting themselves with excitement and "see I told you so"s.

Sorry for rambling so long but these guys really get under my skin. The FAIR board and the way these guys defend the indefensible was actually a big nail in the coffin for me and Mormonism. Once you are able to contemplate for one second that the church might not be what it claims these kind of arguments end up on the same level as the defenders of Scientology.

Background to the story:

DNA and the Book of Mormon. Read the article in the USA Today. The story that Dr. Simon Southerton submitted to us as to why he left Mormonism due to DNA evidence is at whyleft125.htm Also, a interesting discussion on Mormon apologetics and DNA at Mormon391

Related Topics including the Book of Mormon and DNA

11. Horses - Book of Mormon	27. A Mormon Letter to FARMS
28. Reformed Egyptian	53. Cureloms
51. Horses, FARMS and BofM	86. BofM a Missionary Tool?
67. Lamanites and DNA	111 Dallin H. Oaks and the BofM
175 BofM - Any Value Left to Ex-Mormons?	323 How Boring is the Book of Mormon?
330 Captain Kidd, Joseph Smith and Moroni, Camora Island	333 Is FARMS Credible?
378 Rigdon and the Origin of the Book of Mormon	388 What is Limited Geography Theory?
389 Joseph Smith as Sole Author?	391 Mormon Apologetics and DNA
399 Sorenson, Smelting, Tapirs and Misleading Documentation

Recovery from Mormonism - The Mormon Church www.exmormon.org

Listing of additional short Topics | Main Page

Jul 16 22:21 2005 (updated July 20, 2005)