Thursday, 28 April 2011

my response to apologist explanations about why "prophets" have been wrong for so long about native american ancestry/dna

here are my and fairlds' comments on Part 3 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
your channel's flagship video (this video) is 2.5 years old. here's a quote from Ugo Perego's most recent conclusion on the subject, from the fairlds website: "the DNA of Lehi and his party has not been detected in modern Native American populations"
nickleus1977 8 months ago

@nickleus1977 And I agree with him. We will never detect Lehi DNA in the Americas, simply because we don't know what Lehis DNA looked like.
fairldsorg 8 months ago

@fairldsorg the issue is not lehi's dna, it's finding mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) in native "americans" today that matches mtDNA in jerusalem.
nickleus1977 8 months ago

@nickleus1977 I am not sure how much Ugo has looked into the SNP data that is mentioned in this video, therefore, cannot comment on his beliefs. I am also curious why you are only interested in mitochondrial DNA?
fairldsorg 8 months ago

@fairldsorg 1) who from fairlds am i conversing with? =) 2), the book of mormon claims, and it has been taught for over 170+ years by church "prophets", that the natives of the americas and even neighboring islands are direct descendants of the house of israel, that the americas were reserved for these peoples, that nobody may be brought there w/o "God"s approval (9/11?). DNA (tangible, physical, testable evidence) tells a completely different story. for the record i'm interested in ydna too =)
nickleus1977 8 months ago

@nickleus1977 " it has been taught for over 170+ years" yes but you have to understand the Gospel, and the purpose of the church, and that the prophets of God are also human.
TheSkepticChristian 4 hours ago

@TheSkepticChristian i was a mormon for 32 years or were you being sarcastic? =) the gospel and the purpose have absolutely nothing to do with this issue. that the "prophets of YHWH/elohim" are human is a weak apologetic argument because they have the problem of then explaining why the "holy ghost" has "confirmed these 'truths'" from the "prophets" to members for 170+ years =)

then i got this message from an apologist TheSkepticChristian (although i think you'll agree that he doesnt seem too skeptic):
Consider the following statement by Elder Dallin H. Oaks:
"[A person may have] a strong desire to be led by the Spirit of the Lord but . . .
unwisely extends that desire to the point of wanting to be led in all things. A
desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an
understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal
choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are
meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to
the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in
which they pray for guidance and don't receive it. For example, this is likely to
occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either
choice is acceptable.
"We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator
has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we
receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.
Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord
has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or
bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of false revelation"
("Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall," Ensign, Oct. 1994, 13--14)

Todd Compton said:
"First, I include problematic events in my faith perspective not by viewing church leaders as infallible,[20] but by recognizing that they can make serious mistakes. I accept inspiration of many sorts coming to church leaders on occasion. But an oversimplified view of revelation and inspiration is that they come to mindless, will-less puppets, receiving revelation passively, like blank containers for inspiration to be poured in from on high. Instead, I believe God allows church leaders complete free will, which means they have to work through decisions, using all of their resources of thought, doing their homework or not doing their homework, being tested in their moral insight. And because they have free will, sometimes they make wrong choices. They learn through trial and error. Some fail in the major challenges of their lives. (And often these are behind-the-scene, rather than melodramatically obvious, failures.) This does not deny that church leaders often make right choices and receive inspiration. "
Todd Compton

"Actually, there are many possible middle grounds. First, God will use the personality of the prophet when giving revelation. Thus, an analysis of a prophet's personality, psychology and character is not by definition atheistic. Second, God can use the prophet's culture to influence him. The prophet interrelates with it. True, he will react firmly against some aspects of it; but he will be nurtured by other aspects of it."

my response:
"For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable."
your oaks quote is completely irrelevant to the issue of a truth that is taught consistently for 170+ years.

"but by recognizing that they can make serious mistakes."

consistently for 170+ years.

No comments:

Post a Comment