Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Mormonism encompasses many truth claims.
> If one were to make a list of such claims, the
> early Mormon version of young earth creationism
> might well be on the list, which as you say
> evolution falsifies. The question is whether that
> single falsification is sufficient to falsify
> Mormonism generally? Does one false truth claim
> invalidate an entire religion, belief system, or
> worldview? Maybe--especially when the claim
> continues to be made after it is falsified.
I suppose since the DNA evidence came out right around the time we mapped the human genome at the start of the 21st Century, those that would have been persuaded by the DNA evidence, have been.
The rest just upped their rationalization game or put on even bigger blinders.
I made the mistake of taking my family's Mormon faith seriously, despite the fact I was well educated in science and especially archeology, anthropology and genetics. It was my interest in genealogy that drew me to Mormonism.
When I was Mormon I used to reconcile the two world views by figuring God obviously used Evolution to create us, from other, less evolved creatures and at a certain point in time, we became human and those two first humans we call "Adam and Eve" which I always understood metaphorically, like most of the Bible stories.
I still see it about the same way I always have.
But back then I had no idea about our predecessor, Homo Sapiens Idaltu, (The First Wise Man, Elder, or, Adam)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herto_Manhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nature01669Nor did I know anything about Mitochondrial Eve, our last common ancestor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_EveHad I known about them, I would have used them as evidence that creationism was true! God really did create Adam and Eve and they were real people, but that Adam more than likely had a bunch of Eve's. Homo Sapiens Idaltu probably bred with Neanderthal, Denisovan, Nadelli, Cro Magnon, the list goes on. There were 12 other sub species of humans co-existing with Idaltu in Africa alone. He could have interbred with any or all of them and many more we have never even identified yet.
> "What truth claims of Mormonism are
> doctrinally or historically essential or
> fundamental such that their falsity would
> invalidate the entire religion for all believers?
I don't think there's anything that would convince all believers. You can't convince somebody with evidence that was never convinced by the evidence in the first place.
No amount of evidence is sufficient to convince a fool, or a delusional Mormon.
Mormonism meets the very definition of delusion: Maintaining erroneous beliefs, despite superior evidence to the contrary.
> In other words, what are the necessary and
> sufficient beliefs associated with being a Mormon.
1. The church is true, Therefore....
2. Joseph's Myth was a PRophet.....
3. Jesus Christ leads this church through his Latter day PRophet, Rusty the clown.
> Mormonism has never emphasized young earth
> creationism as a fundamental tenet, and in fact
> apologists and leaders in good standing have
> argued that evolution is compatible with
> Mormonism, notwithstanding scriptural and
> authoritative statements to the contrary. As
> such, this 'doctrine' cannot be deemed essential
> or fundamental.
It seems like the whole Adam and Eve story features pretty significantly in the whole Temple narrative, which is a pretty fundamental meta-narrative.
> Thus, Uchtdorf can make the statement that
> something is true even if no one believes in it;
> i.e. that truth is a property of a statement that
> is independent of belief (a realist) without
> worrying about whether some non-essential
> historical truth claim will be proven false, and
> thus falsify the whole of Mormonism. Religion
> generally, and Mormonism in particular has shown
> adept flexibility in modifying its non-essential
> traditional truth claims to meet the dictates of
> modern society and scientific discovery.
> Personally, I think the falsity of the historicity
> of the Book of Mormon comes close to falsifying
> the entire religion, but even this is arguable.
Right. To a true believer, 'truth' is all relative, relative to who's telling it.
If it's the PRofit, then, by all means, it's "Pure Truth®"
But if it contradicts the "Pure Truth®" of Joseph's Myth, then it's 'anti-Mormon literature'.
I actually had my Bishop (who was also my wife's OB/Gyn who delivered 3/4 of our kids) tell me it sounds like I've been reading 'anti-Mormon literature'. I asked him what he meant by that. He actually said, "Anything that contradicts the official version of Church history".
I said, "So the first 3 versions of the First Vision were anti-Mormon literature?"
He said, "Well, they all agreed with each other fundamentally."
I shook my head no and he said, "they don't?"
I said, "No actually, the fist one, the only one written in Joseph's hand, only makes vague reference to 'the Lord' and made no mention of Jesus or God or anybody but, "the Lord". The 'official version' was actually the 4th version, written 18years after the fact and under great duress, after all the witnesses of the Book of Mormon had either left the church or been excommunicated, like Oliver Cowdery, who got excommunicated for witnessing Joseph Smith having sex with his teenage housemaid, Fanny Alger, who was 16 at the time and refused to quit characterizing that as "that dirty, nasty, filthy affair." I believe Oliver Cowdery. Do you?"
He said he didn't come over to get into a big contentious argument. I told him I wasn't arguing, that he asked why I left and I told him. He just didn't like my answer. So he claimed he felt the 'spirit of contention' and got up and left.
Last I saw of him, other than him dropping off cookies once a year at Christmas for my TBM wife and kids.