Saturday, October 6, 2007

DNA and the Book of Mormon (and the Bible)

I don't want this blog to be full of my questions about Mormonism that would make me almost appear to be a dissident. So I'm going to bring up a few points about DNA and the Book of Mormon. There's a lot that can be said on this subject, but I really want to focus on how hypocritical it is when other Christians criticize the Book of Mormon for "failing" the DNA test. That is because the exact same DNA tests that they use to "prove" that the Book of Mormon is false would also prove the Bible false with pretty much the same logic.

Their arguments against the Book of Mormon go something like this:
1. The Book of Mormon teaches that the ancestors of Native Americans are completely/mostly/primarily Israelite (or Jewish in modern times.) Or rather, Jews and Native Americans share a common ancestor.
2. Jewish DNA and Native American DNA are not alike enough to indicate that they share a common ancestor.
3. Therefore the Book of Mormon is not true.

A lot can be written about the flaws in their logic, but I just want to point out how this logic stands up with the Bible:
1. The Bible teaches that ALL humans share a common ancestor (First Adam and Eve, then Noah and his wife.) By ALL humans, that must include Jews and Native Americans.
2. Jewish DNA and Native American DNA are not alike enough to indicate that they share a common ancestor.
3. Therefore the Bible is not true.

I should note that there was only 11 generations between Noah and Abraham, so if they believe #1, there isn't enough time between Noah and Abraham for them to conclude that #2 applies to the first example, but not the second example.

So, it is hypocritical of a non-Mormon Christian to say that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, but not the Bible.

Priesthood Session of General Conference

I really don't want to come off as caustic, but there is something about the way General Conference is presented that I've never understood. Why isn't the Priesthood Session of General Conference broadcast in the same way that ALL the other sessions are? It's not like there's anything secret said. Transcripts and DVDs of everything are published soon after conference. Whenever a big announcement has been made it has been reported in all the major Utah newspapers and TV stations. So why is it made less convenient for people to watch or listen to?

I used to think that it was because if it was broadcast normally, the Priesthood wouldn't go. But that's a stupid argument. If somebody didn't want to go, he just wouldn't go.

Imagine this:
Suppose you had some information and you felt it was really important for the whole world to know it. So you publish the information in a video conference that the whole world can see on the Internet. Sounds good so far. Now suppose that some of this information you decide to publish, but not in video form on the Internet. People can read transcripts about a week later. Or if they really want to watch the video broadcast can find a nearby meetinghouse where it is broadcast (which might not be all that close depending on where they live.) It kind of makes it sound like that information isn't as important to you -- that it's more of a footnote or something technical.

My point is that if Priesthood session information is as important the other session information, then why would they make one much easier to access than the others? Or when they made the decision to do things that way, did they just not think about that?

Again, I apologise if I sound caustic, but I really want to know why Priesthood session is broadcast the way that it is?