When a religion's core belief is contradicted by scientific evidence...

Uiler

Emperor
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
1,849
An interesting case. I think this article shows how nothing can really shake religious' people's beliefs, even conclusive scientific evidence which disproves a central tenant of their faith. The most interesting part is how the heads of the Mormon church react.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story?page=3

Now, one of the Mormon's central beliefs is:

According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an angel named Moroni led Joseph Smith in 1827 to a divine set of golden plates buried in a hillside near his New York home.

God provided the 22-year-old Smith with a pair of glasses and seer stones that allowed him to translate the "Reformed Egyptian" writings on the golden plates into the "Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

Mormons believe these scriptures restored the church to God's original vision and left the rest of Christianity in a state of apostasy.

The book's narrative focuses on a tribe of Jews who sailed from Jerusalem to the New World in 600 BC and split into two main warring factions.

The God-fearing Nephites were "pure" (the word was officially changed from "white" in 1981) and "delightsome." The idol-worshiping Lamanites received the "curse of blackness," turning their skin dark.

According to the Book of Mormon, by 385 AD the dark-skinned Lamanites had wiped out other Hebrews. The Mormon church called the victors "the principal ancestors of the American Indians." If the Lamanites returned to the church, their skin could once again become white.

Over the years, church prophets — believed by Mormons to receive revelations from God — and missionaries have used the supposed ancestral link between the ancient Hebrews and Native Americans and later Polynesians as a prime conversion tool in Central and South America and the South Pacific.

"As I look into your faces, I think of Father Lehi [patriarch of the Lamanites], whose sons and daughters you are," church president and prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said in 1997 during a Mormon conference in Lima, Peru. "I think he must be shedding tears today, tears of love and gratitude…. This is but the beginning of the work in Peru."

In recent decades, Mormonism has flourished in those regions, which now have nearly 4 million members — about a third of Mormon membership worldwide, according to church figures.

"That was the big sell," said Damon Kali, an attorney who practices law in Sunnyvale, Calif., and is descended from Pacific Islanders. "And quite frankly, that was the big sell for me. I was a Lamanite. I was told the day of the Lamanite will come."

However, DNA evidence has conclusively shown this belief to be false:

In the 1990s, DNA studies gave Mormon detractors further ammunition and new allies such as Simon G. Southerton, a molecular biologist and former bishop in the church.

Southerton, a senior research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, said genetic research allowed him to test his religious views against his scientific training.

Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world had already shown that they shared common strains of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America. One mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300 Native Americans from 175 tribes.

Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA in the genetic strands of today's American Indians and Pacific Islanders.

In "Losing a Lost Tribe," published in 2004, he concluded that Mormonism — his faith for 30 years — needed to be reevaluated in the face of these facts, even though it would shake the foundations of the faith.

For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.

For those outside the faith, the depth of the church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.

Now, here's the interesting part. The Mormon church's reaction:

Officially, the Mormon Church says that nothing in the Mormon scriptures is incompatible with DNA evidence, and that the genetic studies are being twisted to attack the church.

"We would hope that church members would not simply buy into the latest DNA arguments being promulgated by those who oppose the church for some reason or other," said Michael Otterson, a Salt Lake City-based spokesman for the Mormon church.

"The truth is, the Book of Mormon will never be proved or disproved by science," he said.

Unofficially, church leaders have tacitly approved an alternative interpretation of the Book of Mormon by church apologists — a term used for scholars who defend the faith.

The apologists say Southerton and others are relying on a traditional reading of the Book of Mormon — that the Hebrews were the first and sole inhabitants of the New World and eventually populated the North and South American continents.

The latest scholarship, they argue, shows that the text should be interpreted differently. They say the events described in the Book of Mormon were confined to a small section of Central America, and that the Hebrew tribe was small enough that its DNA was swallowed up by the existing Native Americans.

"It would be a virtual certainly that their DNA would be swamped," said Daniel Peterson, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, part of the worldwide Mormon educational system, and editor of a magazine devoted to Mormon apologetics. "And if that is the case, you couldn't tell who was a Lamanite descendant."

Southerton said the new interpretation was counter to both a plain reading of the text and the words of Mormon leaders.

"The apologists feel that they are almost above the prophets," Southerton said. "They have completely reinvented the narrative in a way that would be completely alien to members of the church and most of the prophets."

The church has not formally endorsed the apologists' views, but the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — http://www.lds.org — cites their work and provides links to it.

"They haven't made any explicit public declarations," said Armand L. Mauss, a church member and retired Washington State University professor who recently published a book on Mormon race and lineage. "But operationally, that is the current church's position."

I find this sort of weasel-wording quite amusing. I'm pretty sure that the official dogma of the Mormon church was that the Hebrews did spread out throughout S. America. This is what they've been saying the whole tiem. It's quite amusing to see the cognitive dissonance in action. In order to "keep" their faith in the face of scientific evidence disproving it, they are willing to contradict their faith. This sort of mental mind-twisting and contradictions is quite interesting to see in action.

However the church needn't be worried. Most Mormons aren't interested in the debate:

The DNA debate is largely limited to church leaders, academics and a relatively small circle of church critics. Most Mormons, taught that obedience is a key value, take the Book of Mormon as God's unerring word.

"It's not that Mormons are not curious," Mauss said. "They just don't see the need to reconsider what has already been decided."

As for the American Indians and Polynesian converts who thought they were Hebrew:

For others, living with ambiguity has been more difficult. Phil Ormsby, a Polynesian who lives in Brisbane, Australia, grew up believing he was a Hebrew.

"I visualized myself among the fighting Lamanites and lived out the fantasies of the [Book of Mormon] as I read it," Ormsby said. "It gave me great mana [prestige] to know that these were my true ancestors."

The DNA studies have altered his feelings completely.

"Some days I am angry, and some days I feel pity," he said. "I feel pity for my people who have become obsessed with something that is nothing but a hoax."
 
I've already discussed this on another forum, believe me this is a blip on the average religious nuts radar it wont stop them believeing whatever they want to believe like you say.
 
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/intrdctn

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

This is the introduction to the scriptures of the LDS own homepage.
 
Yes, for instance the crops it mentions.
 
I don't think we can call this a "core belief", though. In my mind*, organized religion is more the acts involved within the religion rather than the beliefs of the religion, especially origin beliefs. Undermining the beliefs without eliminating the acts will not destroy an organized religion. It's only when the acts are shown to be wrongful or purposefully misguided that a religion is threatened. In other words, it wasn't really the concept of Purgatory (belief) that cheesed off the Protestants during the Reformation, it was the paid indulgences (act).
 
the whole mormon religion cracks me up! :lol:

Even if someone proved god didnt exist no matter how unlikely. People would still disbelieve it and beileve in god.
 
Actually there's no way to prove God doesn't exist. You might be able to discredit the Garden of Eden story, or even that God specifically caused the Big Bang (if we're able to prove the string theory/membrane collision hypothesis). But the construct of God can always be applied no matter what science determines.
 
ChrTh said:
Actually there's no way to prove God doesn't exist. You might be able to discredit the Garden of Eden story, or even that God specifically caused the Big Bang (if we're able to prove the string theory/membrane collision hypothesis). But the construct of God can always be applied no matter what science determines.

I know that. I was just stating a really big if. ;)
 
This question has been discussed in detail on Matt's Mormonism thread, but maybe the perspective of an actual Mormon would be valuable, as I am likely to have a better idea than any of you what Mormons actually believe.

It has never been official doctrine that the Lamanites were the only ancestors of the inhabitants of the New World. Many early church leaders who didn't have access to DNA evidence thought so, but the Book of Mormon itself implies that the inhabitants of the New World are a mixture of the Lamanites and others, and that even the Lamanites are not pure-blooded Israelites. The Church has never tought officially that the Book of Mormon is without error (though many have believed it) and the Book of Mormon itself mentions that it may contain the 'faults of men'. Any history written hundreds of years after the events it describes (as the Book of Mormon purports to do) will end up with mistakes. That doesn't mean that it is completely false or that the doctrine it contains is wrong. It does explain the anachronistic lists of crops and animals.

And as for this guy:

For others, living with ambiguity has been more difficult. Phil Ormsby, a Polynesian who lives in Brisbane, Australia, grew up believing he was a Hebrew.

"I visualized myself among the fighting Lamanites and lived out the fantasies of the [Book of Mormon] as I read it," Ormsby said. "It gave me great mana [prestige] to know that these were my true ancestors."

The DNA studies have altered his feelings completely.

"Some days I am angry, and some days I feel pity," he said. "I feel pity for my people who have become obsessed with something that is nothing but a hoax."
I guarantee you his real problem is with something else in the Church. Many have no problem with not being completely the ancestors of the Hebrews.

In fact, this is an old argument that depends on a false preposition that it is actual Church doctrine (rather than just widespread belief within the Church) that the Hebrews are entirely the ancestors of all New World people.
 
Here is a thread where we talk about it.

Again, the idea that the people of the New World are entirely descendants of Israelites is neither our core belief nor even official doctrine. I am a devout Mormon, but science has changed the way I view many things related to my faith. I accept the ideas of evolution by natural selection and the 'Big Bang', even though I also believe God created the earth. I believe the Bible even though scientific evidence makes it about impossible to interpret it literally. And I believe that the Book of Mormon is true and is what it claims to be, even though archeological evidence indicates that it is not a 100% true, historical error-free work.
 
God told me you're wrong. He wrote it on golden plates which, unfortunately, got conveniently lost.

Uiler said:
It's quite amusing to see the cognitive dissonance in action.

On a more serious note -

I don't see myself as much of a "believer" in any particular creed, but I see cognitive dissonance in action in my own mind often enough. And it ain't so amusing then.
 
The plates weren't lost, God sent an angel to take them back. Don't you know anything?

Seriously though, it makes more sense than you realize that God would do that. That would be a lot of gold, and a big temptation to use for money. And if Joseph Smith was faking the whole thing, he probably wouldn't have made up something like gold plates anyways.

On a more general note, nothing in that article is new. People whave been criticizing the Book of Mormon since before it was published, and people have been talking about DNA evidence since it was first analyzed. But the fact remains that the Book of Mormon does not make the claim here attributed to it.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
That would be a lot of gold, and a big temptation to use for money. And if Joseph Smith was faking the whole thing, he probably wouldn't have made up something like gold plates anyways.
Whyever not? The plates being made of gold and the temptation you just mentioned provide an excellent reason for the plates to have disappeared.
 
Yes, but why come up with the story in the first place?

Actually, I will consider all the possibilities:

Joseph Smith faked the whole thing. Then he decided that rather than say that he just received it directly from God (as Mohammad did, although I am not saying here whether I think the Qur'an was faked, it's just an analogy) he would make up a story about some plates, but never produce them - expcept to 11 people who, even if they later broke with him, would say to their deathbeds that they saw the plates. It seems a little complicated to me. Granted, it's plausible.

The other possibility is that the plates were real, but that God considered them too sacred to be kept and since many believe the Bible without the existence of any of it in the original, why not the Book of Mormon? It seems a little unlikely for some, but it's also plausible.

Ultimately, the existence or nonexistence of the plates is irrelevant - the Book of Mormon can and should be judged on what we have of it, and many rational people have decided that they believe it.
 
I admit I know very little about the Mormon faith, so take the following comment appropriately:

How does Joseph Smith stand up to the criteria of CS Lewis' Trilemma?

For those who don't know, CS Lewis argued against the notion of a philosophical Jesus, i.e. a non-Divine Jesus. Since Jesus claimed he was the Son of God, then his statements then have to be evaluated through the Trilemma:
1) He was crazy
2) He was lying
3) He was the Son of God

(we'll ignore number 0--as I call it--Jesus never actually claimed he was the Son of God, the writers put those words in his mouth, because they don't apply to Joseph Smith afaik)

CS Lewis arrives at the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God (this isn't the only way he gets there, by the way) because it can be disproved that Jesus is either lying or crazy based on the reactions of those around him (I believe this is covered in Mere Christianity, there's probably a Wiki article as well--but never trust Wiki on religious things outside of mythology).

Long story short (too late), what happens when Joseph Smith is subjected to the trilemma ... is there enough evidence that Joseph Smith wasn't lying or crazy?

(On a side note, L. Ron Hubbard fails the trilemma because it can't be disproven that he was lying because he willfully composed Science Fiction while alive)
 
Just to play the supernatural card to the hilt, can anyone prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God did not alter the DNA of the newcomers to the new world as a test of faith? Knowing that DNA evidence would someday make it possible to check things out? Is there any way anyone can say that it couldn't have happened? God is all powerful, after all. He could do it if he wanted to, yes?

Mind you, I'm not Mormon, RLDS, Restoration Branch (dated a lovely young lady who was once, though), or any other branch of the LDS church and don't actually believe the Book of Mormon. I'm just throwing that out as a possibility to defend their doctrine.

Please any Mormons, do not take my above statement of not believing as an insult. I have nothing but the highest respect for Mormons. I also don't believe in Priests hearing confessions and forgiving sins, but I also hold Catholics in high esteem.
 
VRWCAgent said:
Just to play the supernatural card to the hilt, can anyone prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God did not alter the DNA of the newcomers to the new world as a test of faith? Knowing that DNA evidence would someday make it possible to check things out? Is there any way anyone can say that it couldn't have happened? God is all powerful, after all. He could do it if he wanted to, yes?

I've always had a problem with the "God is testing us" line of thinking. I hear it frequently from Creationists re: the dinosaurs and radioactive decay. I personally like to think of God as being above such modifications--it seems like something a human would do. And basically, anytime someone tries to assign a task to God that a human would typically do, I tend to ignore it.

To answer your question, though, no: you can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's God, I would presume God wouldn't make a mistake that could be uncovered by a lesser being.

Although I'm now intrigued by the idea of CSI: Heaven.
 
Back
Top Bottom