So I’m reading Atlas of a Lost World: Travels in Ice Age America (Pantheon Books, 2018) by Craig Childs, sort of an outdoor adventure science journalist. It’s a very readable but surprisingly detailed account of the peopling of the Americas, starting 25,000 years ago with Siberia and Beringia, moving along the “land bridge” across to Alaska, over or around mountainous glaciers, through the eventual ice-free corridor south to the heartland of North America, or alternatively down an earlier route south along the Pacific coast or, under the Solutrean hypothesis, across the Atlantic. It winds up roughly 10,000 years ago at the close of the Ice Age, as these immigrants continued to spread out south, east, and west across the Americas. Along the way the author reviews a lot of the early archeological sites that provide the data points for the current scientific view. Thanks to DNA evidence, we know the definitive answer to the biggest question: They came from Siberia. [Trigger warning: If you read this book, you will end up wanting to spend a month or two touring Alaska.]
Why am I reading this book? I’m not really into archeology. The reason I got the book was as a corrective to the Mormon misinformation about the peopling of the Americas that seeps into the head of any active Mormon. Sure, I am reading the book to get the current scientific story of where the First Americans came from, how they managed to get around, over, or through the glaciers covering Canada and part of North America, and how they then fairly rapidly spread out north and south across two continents. But I am also, in a sense, reading as an act of penance, somehow making up for previously entertaining the idea that, less than three thousand years ago, a handful of Jewish exiles with no previous seafaring experience crossed ten thousand miles of open ocean, survived the journey, made landfall somewhere on the Pacific shore of Central or South America, then gave rise to substantial nations of Christian Nephites and Lamanites that left archeological remains all over the place (the Mormon story) or nowhere at all (the alternate story). I came up with a word for this type of targeted reading: bibliorepentance.
There are certainly other opportunities to replace Mormon misinformation with more current and accurate scientific information. From astronomy to food and nutrition to theology and biblical interpretation, there are dozens of candidate topics ripe for bibliorepentance, with many books to choose from on each topic. I once read about half of a book on Egyptian hieroglyphics, enough to understand the origin and development of the script, enough to conclusively understand that you don’t look at an Egyptian character and dictate a translated paragraph or even a sentence. Same deal, bibliorepentance. I could offer other examples, but you get the idea.
I’m guessing that some readers have done something like the same thing, perhaps not quite understanding why or what they are doing. So I invite you to share in the comments a book or two you have read, perhaps outside your normal range of reading interests, but linked to an LDS belief or doctrine that you felt inspired to re-examine from something like an informed secular perspective.
But I need to tie this post to another recent W&T post that posted a document summarizing a recent presentation by President Oaks and his thoughts on “patterns of personal apostasy.” I don’t know about patterns. My sense is that every individual who exits the Church, whether formally or informally, has their own story with its own unique events, details, and perspective. But here is one pattern identified in that document that I find troubling: “Contending that current religious leaders are not in harmony with the latest discoveries of science or other scholarship or political correctness.” So apparently Pres. Oaks believes that reading a science book and calmly accepting the author’s evidence and conclusions — as opposed to say reacting with pious offense and chucking said book in the dust bin — is tantamount to walking along the road to apostasy, at least if the book touches on LDS doctrine, belief, or practice (as practically every science book will). The book I cited in the first sentence of this post certainly fits the description.
Tell me, how did LDS leadership move so quickly from the earlier position of accepting all truth, from whatever source (because all truth is in theory susceptible to being gathered into one broad, overarching account of the world and cosmos) to the current anti-science outlook? This is especially surprising coming from Pres. Oaks, who several decades ago as president of BYU headed off an attempt by the religious faculty and a few sympathetic senior leaders to squelch the teaching of evolution at BYU. His position then, as I recall from subsequent accounts that I have read, was that if you are going to have a bona fide university, then you have to have real science taught in the science departments. He carried the day, and that was that. He has apparently changed his view of things, as President Nelson, the current LDS religious leader, has on several occasions voiced his disagreement with evolution. So, taking Pres. Oaks’ statement at face value, if you affirm evolution, either explicitly or implicitly disagreeing with Pres. Nelson, you are on the road to apostasy or maybe already there. It almost amounts to an LDS version of the Big Lie: to show loyalty to the religious leader, you must publicly disavow scientific truths like evolution if you want to get a temple recommend or remain in good standing. We’re not there yet, but we’re headed in that direction.
And what are impressionable and obedient local leaders supposed to do with this kind of counsel? Avoid extending callings to those with science degrees or, worse, to those with academic appointments doing actual science? Quiz potential teachers in the ward to make sure they aren’t reading any science books, or at least that they don’t take “the latest discoveries of science” seriously? Encourage ward members to bear anti-science testimonies on Fast Sundays? Recall that the First Presidency once upon a time released a statement that reads, “Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy . . .” It seems like an updated First Presidency statement would now read, “Our religion is hostile to science. That which is demonstrated, we reject with alacrity …”
Let’s hope the recent directive by Pres. Oaks is an aberration, not the beginning of a new LDS anti-science initiative. It’s too bad we don’t have a transcript of Pres. Oaks’ remarks so we can know exactly what he said to assembled LDS leaders (reportedly in a closed leadership session before General Conference) a couple of months ago.
So what do you think?
- Have you performed any acts of bibliorepentance lately? What book fueled your devotions?
- Have you ever been to Alaska? When are you going back?
- Do you share my sense that LDS leadership is moving from a relatively friendly attitude towards science into a more anti-science position?
- Have you seen any indication at the local level, in your little corner of the world, that signals a move toward an anti-science position?
Wheat & Tares 
I listened to the audiobook “Why Gender Matters” in part as a quasi-penance/fact check because I was leaning heavily into the “Gender does not Matter” stance. It’s a book written from a more conservative point of view (but mostly evenly balanced I think) on specific points where the genetic biology of “gender” the XX and the XY differences matter in the development of boys and girls focused on the educational and parental side. No regrets though.
The anti-science position has always existed in some Church leadership, just depends on which leadership is loudest/in charge at the moment.
From what I can tell, the common trait for the anti-science crowd in the Church, and in other anti-science religious people seems to be an extreme literalist interpretation of the scriptures
Thanks for the recommendation! Just checked it out from the local library. Can’t wait.
It’s an older book, but The Eternal Frontier is an ecological history of North America and is so, so good. Timothy Flannery, I think. It sounds like a similar type of corrective, but it starts in the deep, deep past. Highly recommend.
Your Inner Fish was another book I found fascinating. The long arc of human evolution really does shed light on some of the quirks and eccentricities of our bodies.
Classical Mythology (Harris and Platzner) has some really great chapters on the anthropological history of the emergence of religion in humans and, later, a fascinating article about the ways the writer of the Gospel of John consciously co-opted and adapted the Dionysus myths to write about Jesus.
I think Religion and Politics are much more prone to the Cult of Personality where one person dictates what’s right and wrong regardless of the “truth.” Also both religion and political organizations seem to line up in support of anything the “Leader” says regardless of the “truth.” Of course talking to someone that is involved in either the religion or political movement is almost pointless becauses since they have lined up behind the leader, they will believe and say anything to support that person in spite of any evidence presented to them. Ancient and present history has many examples of both religious and political leaders saying and doing things directly in opposition to known truth and reality. It doesn’t matter if it’s about evolution or Covid-19 or any other topic they’ve taken an interest. They present things, because of their position, as absolute and disagreeing causes you problems not only with them but with their followers, which is where the majority of opposition will come from. In other words, whatever I say about evolution or Covid-19 isn’t going to be challenged by the leader but by a neighbor or family member who has bought into the leader. For me it’s all a bit frustrating but I’m not going to let it stop me from believing in evolution and science and testing all hypothesizes with study, prayer, and seeking out peer testing not follower sustaining.
I really enjoyed David Reich’s book Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. He looks at studies of patterns of finds of ancient DNA to think about patterns of human migration, especially in ancient history and pre-history. So it sounds kind of like the one you’re reading, only with a broader focus.
Also, I like your idea of Oaks’s idea getting implemented by having members encouraged to bear their anti-science testimonies. It hasn’t much been a thing in the ward I’m in, but I’ve definitely known people in past wards who were more than happy to do this, at the drop of a hat (stone included or not), no invitation required. I think it would be sad if such people were emboldened.
I am embarrassed to admit that I believed the Church’s statements on LGBTQ people up until the late 90s/early 00s (can’t exactly remember the year I changed): people choose to be gay, people can change their sexuality if they have the desire to repent, being gay is a sin, the Family Proclamation (big sigh, yes, there was a time that I actually thought the Family Proclamation’s stance on LGBTQ people was pretty great), etc. I finally had some close personal relationships with a few openly gay people (or, in a few cases, I’d had these relationships for a long time, but because the person wasn’t openly gay, I didn’t realize I already had longstanding relationships with gay people). As a result of these personal relationships, it became pretty clear to me that what the Church had taught me about gay people couldn’t possibly be correct. That caused me to read some books about what mankind actually knew about LGBTQ people. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the books I read, but reading them did have a profound impact on me. Combined with my personal relationships, my reading caused me to do a complete 180 on my views of LGBTQ people in a very short amount of time. I guess that’s a form of bibliorepentance. However, sitting in the benches each Sunday makes me wonder if I’ve truly repented of my sinful LGBTQ views. After all, I am still sitting there in the pews supporting this bigoted organization, while all my LGBTQ friends–many of which were raised LDS and would likely still be participating if they weren’t gay–have chosen to step away for all-too-obvious reasons.
“if you affirm evolution, either explicitly or implicitly disagreeing with Pres. Nelson, you are on the road to apostasy or maybe already there.”
I think this statement by Oaks isolates the key issue Pete Enns discusses in his book “The Sin of Certainty”, that religion ought not to be about “What” I believe, but instead about “How” to live and thrive in community and society at large (admittedly the “how” is not without problems as well). Oaks equates apostasy with cognitive agreement, making religious faith about what one believes, instead of the deeper trust in the whole uncertain project. Science wouldn’t pose such a threat to religion if religion didn’t try and provide answers to the endlessly provisional nature of factual knowledge.
I also love Brian McLaren’s book “Faith after doubt”, which makes another bold attempt to diffuse the idea that doubt is an enemy to faith. Brian, as many others have done, provides a useful “stages of faith” model that allows faith development to follow the arch of human development. Doubt is not the enemy of faith, certainty is. And certainty is the enemy of humility.
Expanding on Instereo’s (above) thoughts a bit…many (most?) consumers of media tend to be drawn to sources that confirm their biases. I am constantly amazed at how two networks like CNN and Fox News can see the country so differently. It’s as if we are supposed to choose which version of reality we want to reinforce. But that’s exactly why I look at both.
And the Church has fallen into the “us vs. them” trap when it comes to sources of information. We are told to avoid certain kinds of books whose sources are questionable. Translation: If it isn’t from Deseret Books and it’s about religion you shouldn’t read it.
I find it very regrettable that some very smart LDS people who I know simply refuse to look at certain news sources because it threatens their world view. But this is how they were trained when they were told to avoid religious themed books that also challenge their religious views. Mormons are trained to embrace confirmation bias.
mountainclimber479: I think many of us have had similar experiences. I was at a retirement event yesterday and actually had a member of my ward come up to me and ask why my wife and I don’t come anymore. She was worried it was something she had done. I said that it was just hard to go and sit in church and hear so much negativity about people I love and being tired of having to defend how we need to treat all people with respect and quit the “yes/buts” of our relationships. My daughter came out gay in the early 2000s and I chose to love her with no yes/buts. Because of that, I’ve met some absolutely wonderful people including her wife who I love dearly. I also have two grandsons they are raising. Anyway, there wasn’t much she could say except she could see how it gets tiring because she knew as well as I did how members can be and how they don’t let up until they “convert” you to their way of thinking. I think the saddest thing of it all is if you do quit going, they also very quickly forget you, just writing you off as one of the unwashed, unclean, sinners. Why, because they blindly follow and don’t really think for themselves. If they did think for themselves they’d realize it’s not really a choice. I mean who would choose to be singled out, put down, and shunned and to walk away from everything you were raised with because you don’t “love” they way they do.
Two things:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353514627_Parsons_Island_Maryland_Synthesis_of_Geoarchaeological_Investigations_2013-2020_Darrin_Lowery_FINAL_7-2-2021_low_resolution_version
Gosh, Atlas of a Lost World, was a fun read. If Childs wrote it today, I wonder what he would say about White Sands. Hopefully go beyond his “Mammoth Hunt”. Never been to Alaska, been meaning to go the past 40 years.
When it comes to looking at differing viewpoints, I like peer-reviewed criticism of “Guns, Germ, and Steel”. As to what I think of geographical determinism, I really like Barry Cunliffe book, “Europe Between The Oceans 9000 BC-AD 1000” A title that can launch a thousand ships.
Margie
Anything by Timothy Flannery is good.
Ziff
Have you read The Gene: An intimate History by Sid Mukherjee? Ken Burns made a documentary of it, which i never have got around to watching. Perhaps I should repent of that
As for the leadership moving from a anti-science position– I’ll believe it when an engineer, chemist, and geologist are in quorum of 12 apostles instead of lawyers and businessmen.
I haven’t read The Gene, Suzanne. Thanks for the recommendation! It sounds interesting!
I highly recommend the book Indigenous Continent: The Epic Contest for North America by Pekka Hämäläinen. This book documents a fascinating (and new to me) history of the “agency, resilience, diversity and kinship of Indigenous peoples”.
Hämäläinen points out the land bridge in the Bering Strait was a 600-mile-wide landmass (Beringia) that was “scored by rivers, speckled with small lakes, and covered with grasses and shrubs that supported thriving animal communities, drawing people into America from the west”. It is refreshing to read such a detailed and well researched chronology of the remarkable “Indigenous power” that existed in North America from 10000 BCE until the end of the 19th century.
Comparing such a well-researched book with the outlandish and racist descriptions of a so-called lamanite culture in the BoM is eye opening. Mormons are well versed in how to engage in circular arguments lacking either logic or evidence. Such arguments include naïve claims regarding evolution, DNA, race, LGBTQ, etc. Makes it very difficult to even consider the Mormonism as truth narrative.
I agree that Oaks’ definition of apostasy could be read that way (as requiring us to affirm all of the anti-science views of the current person in charge), but I doubt that was his intention. He’s concerned about loyalty to present-day leadership and about people who cherry pick quotes from dead apostles to support whatever particular agenda they have. In some sense I’m sympathetic with that view, but I don’t like the idea that disagreements with present day leaders must be kept private. That kind of wrongheaded enforcement of (public) conformity does the church no favors.
I have to be honest, I’m not sure Nelson’s literalist young-earth-creationist views are particularly widely known. I don’t ever remember him talking about it over the pulpit in general conference, I only know from places like this that he’s apparently made statements in the past in support of that view. I would certainly call that an anti-science view, but we don’t know whether Nelson’s successors in waiting hold the same views. My general sense is that there are mixed views on questions such as evolution among the GAs to this day, and that there likely is no movement going on one way or the other. The church will continue to avoid taking a position on questions like evolution.
In terms of the whole church, I’ll just say that in the US, one major political party, preferred by a significant number of church members, has turned against science in the last few decades, and that cultural influence on the church membership is therefore probably inescapable. Fortunately I don’t really hear it talked about in my ward.
We should remember that at the time when those (now outdated) ideas of Book of Mormon peoples arose in the church the science having to do with the study of human migration in the Americas was barely getting started. They’ve both come a long way since then. Latter-day saint scholarship gives us a completely different picture nowadays vis-a-vis questions having to do with migration and mixture of peoples and cultures and so forth relative to the claims of the Book of Mormon.
I think the premise of this post is a little bit spurious because, as Jack demonstrates, I think the majority of TBM’s don’t believe that the entire Indigenous population of the Americas came from people described in the BoM.
I think basically all TBM’s under 70 go with the “there were already people here when the Jaredites and then Nephi showed up” line of thinking. And, thus, I don’t think just describing the actual migration of humans into the Americas provides a “corrective” for BoM misinformation anymore.
This book would’ve been considered apostasy maybe 30-40+ years ago, but I really don’t think that’s case anymore.
“He has apparently changed his view of things, as President Nelson, the current LDS religious leader, has on several occasions voiced his disagreement with evolution. So, taking Pres. Oaks’ statement at face value, if you affirm evolution, either explicitly or implicitly disagreeing with Pres. Nelson, you are on the road to apostasy or maybe already there.”
I don’t think that even the Q15 would think that affirming evolution is apostasy anymore. BYU still has its geology and paleontology departments. And, at present there are 10 faculty members in the biology department whose specific field is “evolutionary biology”. In fact, on the biology department’s web page it has a whole section of videos and whatnot specifically addressing evolution and religion. I clicked through some of them, and honestly it looks to be very much pro-evolution, the pages seem to exist to calm down and cajole anti-evolution types. The overall message is “evolution is cool, don’t worry about it”.
I think if they were more serious about evolution = apostasy, they would axe those programs.
Also, in terms of orthodoxy and apostasy, topics about the peopling of the Americas and evolution are probably the LEAST of the Q15’s apostasy concerns right now, if at all. It’s mostly about LGBTQ issues now, whistleblowing cases where the church covers up sexual abuse, and whether or not you can call any current or former LDS apostle/prophet besides Brigham Young a racist.
@Jack, it sounds like you have participated in some form of bibliorepenting yourself. You read some books by Mormon apologists that changed your view of the origins of Book of Mormon peoples from the old view (all indigenous people in the Americas are descendents of the Book of Mormon peoples) to your new view that acknowledges the land bridge mentioned in the OP while still allowing for Israelites arriving in the Americas before the birth of Christ.
Let’s pretend that we were to take a time machine back to the 1970s (and for many preceding decades) when President Kimball and the rest of the apostles were teaching that all indigenous people of the Americas were Lamanites (and please don’t argue that they weren’t teaching this–they were!). Then let’s progress through the time (and I’m not sure when it started, but I was certainly taught this in high school in the 1980s) where science produced more and more evidence that indigenous people largely migrated over the land bridge mentioned in the OP. As the evidence mounted for the land bridge migration, Mormon apologists, as you mentioned, had to produce new explanations for the origins of the indigenous people of the Americas that acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for migration over the land bridge but that don’t also exclude the possibility that there could have been some ancient Israelites in the Americas as well. Questions for you:
1. At what point in time did you choose to follow the research, whether it be that of most scientists who researched the land bridge migration or the new Mormon scholars who produced the explanations that attempt to be compatible with the land bridge theory that allow for Israelites arriving in the Americas around 600 BC, and reject President Kimball’s and the rest of the apostles’ teachings from the 70s and before?
2. Why were you open to bibliorepenting (to a degree, at least) on this particular issue while you seem so resistent to bibliorepenting on many other issues? After all, you do seem to reject a number of President Kimball’s teachings.
3. Why are you not chiding the Mormon apologists for looking for new and very different explanations for Israelites in the Americas when President Kimball and leaders of his generation already provided quite definitive explanations?
4. It feels to me like almost any time a W&T blogger or commenter writes something that doesn’t align with what the Q15 are teaching right now, you provide a dissenting opinion in the defense of Church leaders’ statements. Suppose that Wheat and Tares existed back in the 1970s, and the bloggers and commenters back then were similar to today’s W&T bloggers and commenters in that they are open to new scientific discoveries and exploring how new discoveries match up with what their religious leaders teach. I suspect that there would have been a number of W&T articles back in the 1970s about these scientific discoveries and how they didn’t really line up with what President Kimball was currently teaching. If you were commenting on these articles in the 70s, would you have reacted by posting comments stating your support for Church leaders’ statements and opposition to the blogger’s/commenter’s ideas? Given what I’ve observed, I personally suspect that that is exactly what you would have done back then. If so, how do you reconcile your change in position of the origin of Book of Mormon peoples today?
Mountainclimber479, what I see in Jack is what I’d like to see in many more people: an ability to change his opinions over time. I’m not fond poking-people-in-the-eye questions and challenges. Many (but not all) of my opinions have changed over time, both as I have been exposed to more and as I have aged. As an Earl of Rochester (I think) noted some centuries ago: when he had no children, he had six theories on raising children; when he had six children, he had no theories. Jack, like most people, have evolved on this issue, and as has been noted, almost no one under 70 thinks that the BoM peoples were the original and sole settlers of America. I don’t see any reason to be throwing stones at Jack on this issue. After all, you and he agree!
Reading Sapiens and Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari are my latest examples of bibliorepentance. The “great questions of the soul” as defined by missionary manuals—where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going—get a much better answer in these books than in the labyrinthine theological harmonizing of the scriptures or the correlated platitudes of present-day Sunday school.
The state of the world and my own habits and impulses make so much more sense in this context: I am an ape whose ancestors’ brains got unusually big. And deep down my body thinks I’m still living in wild grasslands looking for maximum calories. And my greatest asset is my ability to tell stories and understand others’ stories so that I can cooperate with my tribe. Throw a little farming, printing press, antibiotics and Facebook in there and voila! (gestures to everything)
Georgis, I appreciate and agree with your comment. I agree that everyone changes their viewpoints on things over time. I appreciate that Jack has changed his position. Sorry for what you referred to as “poking-people-in-the-eye questions and challenges”, but I’ve found Jack to be rather slippery in his responses to sticky questions in the past, so unless I’m really specific and direct, I’m not sure I’m going to get a very helpful reply. I think my comment history here shows that I’ve been consistently respectful to all here in general.
My comment wasn’t just a snide comment made in passing. I’m sincerely interested in Jack’s response:
1. Does he acknowledge the shift in the Church’s teachings on this subject over time?
2. Does he recognize that he may have had opinions on this issue that once deviated from the official Church position?
3. What does Church leaders’ changing position on this issue potentially imply about their correctness on other issues facing the Church today?
Jack has repeatedly (literally probably at least over a hundred times now) responded to posts and comments here that can be fairly summed up as “Your post or comment is wrong because Church leaders are teaching differently.” Well, here we finally have a case where Jack seems to have acknowledged a situation where Church leaders were wrong, and the Church was forced by science to change its official position. I’m honestly interested in understanding how he reconciles this case with his persistent claims that the Q15 is always right on so many other posts on this blog.
I have been to Alaska but don’t expect to go back.
Have not heard about other people’s being in America except jaredites. At church.
My favourite books are the earth children series by Jean Auel. They are set in a similar time but in Europe. The church challenging part is that the patriarchal lot are Neanderthals. The equality people are the humans.
All this talk about unquestioning obedience, sounds like preparing people to vote for Trump no matter what.
I first visited Alaska in 2006 and I’m going back this summer with my kids!
I also devoured Sapiens and resonate with Kirkstall’s comment.
re: Oaks
Your scenario is one potential logical extension of his remarks, and I don’t want to give the Church undue credit, but I really doubt this will be a common occurrence. The Church can’t afford to hemorrhage even more members.
@Instereo, your situation is exactly the one I keep going back to in my mind when I think about my participation in a church that excludes LGBTQ people. I’m pretty sure that I would have have stepped away myself long ago if I had a gay child. However, I didn’t end up having a gay child, so I continue to participate in the Church. It sure seems to me like the right thing to do would be to step away if I feel that’s the right thing to do whether it’s my own child or other people’s children that are being excluded for being gay. It’s definitely not a comfortable feeling.
Georgis,
Thank you. I appreciate and agree with your comment as well.
mountainclimber479,
I do sense a genuine earnest in your questions for me–and even if you were trying to poke me in the eye I’ve learned how to block it a la Curly (nyuk, nyuk).
The 70s takes me back to my teens–and that was a question that I didn’t worry too much about in those days. The one I *did* worry about was the question of organic evolution. In fact, my first vocal (personal) prayer was about that question. I didn’t get an immediate answer–and over the years the whole argument has become a nonstarter for me. I see no problem with evolution and the creation narrative.
But as to the real question having to do with my loyalty to the apostles vs science: if I were to find myself back in the 70s with the experience that I have now (I’m in my 60s) I would automatically seek to qualify the question in a couple of different ways. First, I’d want to know if there had been any official pronouncement on it by the apostles. Second, I’d prioritize the question (in my own mind) according to its relevance in salvific terms. And third, I’d try to get as much good information as can be found relative to said question.
And so as it relates to the specific question of how leaders used to view all Native Americans as descendants of Book of Mormon peoples: knowing what I know now I’d say that that idea was wrong headed–but not so theologically important as to cause the church to go off the rails. In fact, I think one could make an argument that that particular paradigm–though wrong–may have yielded some good fruit, however counterintuitively. That said, if I went back to the 70s with everything I’ve learned *except* what has come to light through recent scholarship on the subject then I’d probably be agnostic about the seeming dichotomy between the science and the assumptions of church leaders. Of course, if it had more salvific importance then I might try harder to come to terms with it. But there it is.
Now let me ask you a question, my friend: knowing what we know now are you willing to rethink your position? Can you give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt as the translator of the Book of Mormon? And likewise, would you be willing to consider the notion that leaders of the church can be wrong–especially with regard to logistical issues–without being harmful or destructive?
Thanks for the comments, everyone. This is the most enjoyable comment thread I have read on one of my posts in a long time. Quick responses:
Zwingli, I think with more centralizing control and more “follow the leader” thinking, there is more of a shift in LDS doctrine and thinking when a new President is installed than in previous years. The most blatant example is the term “Mormon” being shunted aside.
todd smithson, I have read a couple by Peter Enns but not The Sin of Certainty. It’s now on my list.
josh h: “Mormons are trained to embrace confirmation bias.” Wow, that really hits the nail on the head.
Quentin, yes I suspect Pres. Oaks is thinking of LGBT issues and a couple of other narrow issues. But he used a shotgun approach, not a rifle shot. He shot at science in the large. That’s just a real step backwards. Plus who knows what mid- and local leaders will do with that overbroad anti-science counsel.
Kirkstall, I really like Sapiens but couldn’t quite squeeze a blog post out of it. Maybe I’ll do a re-read.
mountainclimber479, I like your thinking.
Jack, yes LDS thinking has changed on this topic. First by apologists trying to accommodate the LDS view with established science results, then leadership as they slowly realized the prior view no longer tenable, then bit by bit some of the membership as well. A lot of members never update — they pick up their Mormon ideas as a teenager and young adult, and never change them. Good for you for updating.
About Jack and a few others — I realize that about 75% of active LDS think more or less like Jack does. That’s why his comments and others with similar comments are welcome here. This isn’t a gripe site, it’s a discussion site, and conservative/orthodox comments are as welcome as progressive/dissenting comments. If Jack is reading and commenting on LDS blogs like W&T, that alone suggests he is not the average conservative Mormon in the pews. I’ll bet a lot of us sounded like Jack 20 or 30 years ago!
Jack
I am also in my 60’s, so I remember the 70’s. I use to argue in my seminary class about evolution. Me against the class and teacher. I am just as confident now as I was then, that I was right and they were wrong. Nothing like humility.
Use to also go at it with them on the Book of Mormon. But I am far less confident now about what I was spouting then. Conventional secular wisdom was Clovis first. But being in California, I was also aware of the speculation that people paddled down the coast. With evidence underwater, some archaeologists were looking at coastal islands.
This all leads me to recommend a recent book, “Origin A Genetic History of the Americas” by Jennifer Raff. Not only does it look at paleogenomics, but also previous archeological beliefs.
Bon Appetit
Has there ever been anyone, any student, any professor, any serious researcher, who has done a deep-dive into the history of the ancient Americas, anywhere in the Americas, who has come away with the impression after hundreds and hundreds of hours of reading, researching, writing, etc. that the early populations of the Americas came from Israelites who practiced some form of Judaism and proto-Christianity? I’ve never heard of anyone who has arrived at such an impression independently who is not already Mormon. There are a couple of authors who have claimed that the Phoenicians and ancient Greeks visited and populated the Americas to some degree. But these researchers’ propositions have not gained widespread acceptance among the larger scholarly community of ancient American researchers. Ancient cultures leave all sorts of clues behind that tell us about their religion. I’ve never heard any researcher independently arrive at the idea that ancient American religions were informed by ancient Israelite religion. And yet the apologists claim that emerging evidence keeps confirming Mormon beliefs. Truly bizarre. They just keep pounding that square peg hard into that circular hole and saying, “see, it fits.”
The facts of the Earth’s geology and the history of life on it are far more fascinating than what the “experts” will admit. Why is that? Why do the “experts” teach a linear “evolution” of species and geology when the evidence points to a much more disruptive and chaotic past?
Concerning evolution, the math / probabilities don’t work to support the theory of the origin of species. Adaption of animals within a species is a real phenomenon. But this does not and cannot explain the origin of species. You can have many types of cats and birds and there may be a logical explanation how the varieties came about. But there is no logic to explain how the first cat came about. On the fundamental questions of life the “science” is just as speculative and grasping as is religious belief.
As for geological questions the evidence points to the massive disruptions occuring far more recently than what the “science” will admit. For example , the evidence points to the ancient pyramids being eroded by salt water. This implies Egypt was covered by oceans AFTER the pyramids were built. We also have indications that the Earths magnetic poles shift on the order of tens of thousands of years. This shifting yields tremendous geological and climatic disruption.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Science is always skeptical of what experts claim, and why? Because to be in the pursuit of truth means to be willing to accept that new evidence may appear that nullifies the popular narrative. The long history of human civilization is for priests and politicians to control “science” in order to protect their authority to prescribe acceptable beliefs. True science is always a threat to authority. True science demands not only the priest admit error but also that prevailing “experts” and political leaders acknowledge their ignorance of what they thought to be true.
@Jack,
I feel like I’m always willing to rethink my position on pretty much anything. That’s a lofty goal that I’m sure I’ll never fully achieve, but I like to believe I try pretty hard at that. One proof of my ability to rethink my positions on things is that I was once a very orthodox believer who put a very, very, very high priority on any statement from an LDS prophet or apostle. Now, as you well know, many of my own previous positions have changed so that they no longer align with the Church’s position at all. Trust me when I say that changing those positions away from the Church’s stance was not an easy and fast process. Most of these positions, for me, at least, did not change all at once. It was an ongoing process over a number of years, as I thoughtfully, and yes, prayerfully, considered each one.
I’m no longer willing to sign over my sense of morality to the “arm of flesh”, including the Q15, so I’ve actually had to do a lot of work to get to the spot I’m at now, and that work is ongoing. I think there is a stong case to be made that people have to work a lot harder on working out their own positions when they aren’t relying on Church leaders to tell them what to think on everything. There are a lot of lazy Mormons who just let the Q15 spoon feed them their positions on so many things, but I don’t think this is what God expects of us at all. That was once me, so I get it, but I’m not going back to that.
As far as giving Joseph the “benefit of the doubt”, I don’t think you meant to use the phrase “benefit of the doubt”? If you did mean that, then my answer is definitely a big no. I don’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt in the sense that I just take their word for something. I’m looking for answers that I personally find satisfying and fulfulling and true, so if something someone else, including a prophet, says or does isn’t ringing true for me, then no, I’m no longer giving them the benefit of the doubt, as I might have as an orthodox member. That said, I suspect what you meant to say is “Can I overlook Joseph’s human faults and frailties” so that I can have faith that he translated the Book of Mormon. Yes, I can overlook a lot of Joseph’s and/or other Church leader’s faults. However, it makes it a lot easier to do so when they acknowledge and, even better, apologize for them. Joseph does have some pretty amazingly huge faults that are hard to look past and that raise serious questions about whether at least some of his actions were prophetic.
I’m still open to the idea that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph. I’ve not completely closed the door on that idea. That said, I think it’s highly unlikely that the Church’s traditional narrative, which largely came from Joseph, is anywhere near true. These days, if we have to go with a theory that the Book of Mormon really was inspired in some way, then perhaps we should go with the catalyst theory that has become in vogue for the Book of Abraham. Like the Book of Abraham, we can bypass a lot of pretty convincing evidence that the Book of Mormon is not a translation, including the issue of Israelites in the Americas, if we go with something like the catalyst theory. That said, I don’t really need the Book of Mormon to be a translation or even inspired. Honestly, since my focus is now on discovering for myself what I feel is true and good, it’s not that important to my own spirituality or choices whether the Book of Mormon is a real translation, Joseph was a real prophet, Joseph’s successors were prophets, etc. I try to take in truth and goodness from wherever I find it. The Church has some good things in it, and I try to keep hold of those things. On the other hand, there are a lot of things Church leaders have done over the years and continue to do today that I simply do not believe are true or good. I reject those things. I also find a lot of good and truth from sources outside the Church as well.
Does Mormonism want or have a place for someone like me, or must I accept the Book of Mormon as a literal translation of ancient gold plates, written in “reformed Egyptian”, translated by Joseph Smith with a rock in a hat, that contains numerous anachronisms, that contains the very printing errors from the King James version of the Bible available to Joseph, that is full of direct quotations from the New Testament that wouldn’t be written for many centuries later, and that has absolutely no credible archaelogical, DNA, or any other sort of evidence to back it up (please don’t cite me the evidence of Mormon apologists–I’m all too aware of where things stand on that front), despite many decades of searching, to make it to Mormon heaven? Does Mormonism want people who aren’t at all sure whether the Book of Mormon is inspired, but are searching for truth and goodness, and are willing to look for it, in part, from the Book of Mormon (even if they think there’s a decent possibility that it might not be inspired), and who could get behind the idea of building a Zion society, which to me means making the world a better, happier place for all instead of wasting time and money on proselytizing the world in ineffective ways, building and “serving” in temples for dead people who most likely don’t need our help at all, and hoarding billions and billions of dollars of wealth without being transparent with its members who supplied the funds in the first place about how they ever plan to use these “sacred” funds? Is Mormon heaven big enough for someone like me? A lot of statements from leaders and members–and maybe even some of your comments on this blog–make me think that the “highest level of celestial kingdom” is most definitely not for someone like me.
This feels like a softball question? I think Church leaders have been wrong about a ton of things over the years (and continue to be wrong about some things today). Sure, some of those things have been more logistical in nature and have caused much less harm than other things. That said, I do think Church leaders have also made horrible mistakes that are not just logistical and that have been really harmful to members. The race/priesthood ban, polygamy, and the modern Church’s view on gender, sexuality, and families (including the POX and the Family Proclamation) would be three examples of these types of very damaging things that I believe that Church leaders got wrong. There are many others.
If you are suggesting that Church leaders’ old view of the origins of Book of Mormon peoples might be considered more logistical and less damaging than these other three examples, then perhaps you are correct to a certain degree. However, I’ve read and listened to the accounts of a number of Native American and Latin American members (and non-members) who have felt pretty betrayed at the shift in teachings on this topic as it meant something very important to them personally to be Lamanites (or, in some cases, it felt bad for some of these people to be the descendents of the evil Lamanites, so why did they have to think about that so much if they weren’t likely Lamanites to begin with?). Also, don’t discount the anguish that some of these darker skinned members have felt about the curse of the “skin of blackness” contained in the Book of Mormon as a sign of wickedness that the Church is now essentially trying to backpedal away from as quickly as they possibly can while the problematic verses remain intact.
Count me in as another one who’s read Sapiens, and Peter Enns, and I’ll add to that list Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything” and “At Home” and “The Body” and “In A Sunburned Country.” (If you can make me laugh while I learn, all the better.)
I’ve been a big fan of science writing for years, with some of my favorite authors including Oliver Sacks, Mary Roach, and Diane Ackerman. One of the most memorable birthday gifts I ever received was the opportunity to hear Jane Goodall lecture. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about the brain or viruses or the geology of Australia, evolution is a given in science writing. And once you realize evolution is a given, our theology around LGBTQ+ people falls apart, because the argument that they’re an evolutionary dead-end is just dumb when you realize the nuclear family is a modern invention. I’ve been saying for a while that the existence of gay people *proves* how important children and families are.
These days my bibliorepentance is usually of the Mormonism+ flavor, as I’m looking for ways to expand my own spirituality, either from nuanced members in the Church like Thomas McConkie, or thinkers in other faiths. People like Richard Rohr, N.T. Wright, Cynthia Bourgeault, and Pema Chodron.
Oh, and just as an aside. Many First Nations people here in Canada have been disagreeing about the timeline of how long they’ve been here, and my understanding is some new discoveries are proving them right – 10,000 years is not long enough.
Brad D
Asking rhetorical questions you know the answer to?
50 years ago, when the pre-FARMS people claimed Nephites lived in a small patch of Jungle somewhere in Mesoamerica, it was maybe plausible. Nowadays it’s ludicrous. But hey, people believe in lizard people and ancient astronauts building pyramids and natural geologic structures. I’m gonna claim “At the mountains of Madness” is true, all true. And the serious researchers at prestigious Miskatonic University located in beautiful Arkham can verify.
However 50 years ago, the standard model had the peopling of the America’s come from Beringia after the late glacial maximum when a land corridor opened up. The migration from Beringia is now thought to be more complex. What changed? Actual evidence. With Monte Verde in Chile predating Clovis supporting a coastal migration hypothesis. And how do the White Sands footprints from 23,000 years ago fit in? Certainly a long way from the coast.
But still no ancient Israelites
A Disciple
Geology is certainly fascinating. I am enjoying the debate over the formation of the Rocky Mountains. And I find the controversial Baja B.C. hypothesis intriguing. But, but, but your statement regarding evolution and speciation is not scientific. Other people have recommended “Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin. Also made into an excellent documentary.
The evolution of mammals from synapsis is well established. So more than cats evolved.
mountainclimber479,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You ask: “Is Mormon heaven big enough for someone like me?”
I’m a near universalist. And so I believe that the Lord will receive all–including you and I–who will not resist his lovingkindness–even if it takes a little while for us to figure that out. And in the end (IMO) there will be very, very few who will hate the Savior enough to want nothing to do with him.
As to the many questions that you bring up–some questions don’t have easy answers. But many do–and those answers are often found by coming at the question from a different perspective. One that gives the benefit of the doubt (as I mention above) at least for argument’s sake.
For example, you bring up questions that have to do the KJV being used in the Book of Mormon. Now I can understand how that can be a bit tricky to get around. Even so, if we give Joseph Smith’s translation process the benefit of the doubt–just for argument’s sake–then we might open ourselves up to explanations that we hadn’t considered before. Things like:
–The possibilities that open up when God is involved in the process.
–The extent of Joseph Smith’s personal influence on the process.
–How an inspired (scriptural) translation might differ from a scholarly translation.
And just to help you better understand where I’m coming from–though I’ve always been a believer I went through a devastating shock 20+ years ago. I feel into a deathly depression and lost all desire for life. (I’ve been stricken with mental illness to this day–but I’m doing better overall) I had to chop my tree of faith down to the roots and regrow it in a more healthy configuration. And now the gospel is sweeter than it’s ever been.
The reason I share this with you is because I think sometimes there’s a tendency for folks to suppose that TBMs haven’t gone through the kinds of experiences that bring “nuance” or depth to their understanding of the gospel. It’s kinda funny (for me) to hear how folks used to think like I do (in the present) 20-30 years ago. Especially when they go on to describe their past orthodox modus operandi–which invariably sounds pretty-much how I used be 20-30 years ago.
***
Suzanne Neilsen:
“But still no ancient Israelites.”
Come now, my friend. I think you know the old dictum: lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Especially when we’re talking about something as finnicky as archaeological evidence. Plus, there are many other lines of evidence to explore other than DNA.
Concerning random mutation & natural selection to explain the origin of species, I am reminded of the cartoon that shows two scientists working at a chalkboard. The board is filled with formulas and there is a large arrow linking formulas from one side of the board to those on the other side. One scientist explains to the other the meaning of the arrow saying, “and then a miracle occurs.”
Darwinism requires a miracle. The honest proponents of Evolution will admit this. The odds of advanced life coming about from random biological events are simply unreal. They defy common sense. It requires a miracle. And yet to admit this requirement is taboo. To recognize that life as we know it on Earth is an “Act of God” is to be “anti-science”. And yet the math cannot be denied. To be a human on Earth is to be the luckiest sun of the gun in the universe.
Except science isn’t lucky! So what explains human life if luck is inadequate? Darwin fails to provide an answer. Or, put otherwise, Darwin explains the existence of human life as well as does the Book of Genesis. A miracle occurred.
The dogma defending Darwin demonstrates how aspects of science invite religious fervor just as much as religion does. Darwin is a sacred cow. Despite the incredible biological discoveries of the past 50 years – discoveries that show the inadequacies of Darwin’s ideas – the powers that be refuse to let Darwin go. Observe that Physicists have no problem putting the theories of Newton in their proper place. Newton’s laws explain very well the world of machines and observable motion. But we know and accept that Newton fails to explain the motions of things tiny or fast, such as atoms and photons.
Darwinism fails to explain the origin of species. The archeological evidence disproves Darwin – fossil records reveal that too many new species are shown to have appeared too quickly for “random mutation” and “natural selection” to explain. If something is not mathematically possible, then it is either a miracle or the understanding of what happened is incomplete. And if the understanding is incomplete then dogmatic demands the theory still be embraced become a religious test, and the quest is no longer a scientific endeavor.
Responding to the comments re queer allyship, my oldest is a rainbow baby and we also stepped away as a result. A lot of people have mentioned that they understand why we stepped away and they would also do so if they had a queer child.
There have been times I’ve wanted to ask them why my child isn’t enough for them to also step away. And then I remember that while I always considered myself an ally, I only stepped away once it was my child. I’m in no position to tell anyone what to do. Sometimes I wish we had taken that leap to step away for the sake of supporting others before we were aware of our own family situation.
mountainclimber’s thoughts are exactly my own on these issues. Thanks, it’s nice to feel there are others like me.
What I am struck by is how someone with such legal sophistication as President Oaks could write a memo as clumsy and unexamined as this. Is this aging, or overconfidence, or no editing required because who could possibly be qualified to edit a prophet/seer/revelator/legal expert?
Religious teaching adjacent:
I don’t remember the over all discussion, but race came up. I think it was about why God gave different peoples different skin colors.
When I mentioned that skin tone gradients were darkest at the equator, and progressively lightened going towards the poles, the other person countered that the Inuit have dark skin.
while I didn’t find a book about it, I did look it up to find out more.
There are many contributing factors (other than God’s desires) to varying skin colors across the world. What I found, in a nutshell:
UV radiation is highest at the equator, because it is direct. The sun’s angle decreases away from the equator, decreasing the intensity of the radiation.
Radiation inhibits folic acid synthesis, a contributor to skin cancer. Darker skin protects from radiation.
The sun produces UVB (ultraviolet B) light, which interacts with a cholesterol protein in the skin to make vitamin D3, the active form of vitamin D.
Vitamin D is one of the 4 fat-soluble vitamins.
Few foods naturally contain vitamin D. The diet available to the Inuit people is rich in vitamin D. Like whale blubber.
Skin color is complex. There have been variations over millions of years through migrations, environmental situations, gene mutations, genetic outcrossing, etc.
Tidbits:The 4 fat-soluble vitamins are A,D, K, & E. (We don’t pee them out.)Taking vitamin D with a full meal provides better absorption.Taking vitamin D with a fatty meal is even better.
It is thought that early humans had little melanin, because they were covered with thick hair. As the hair was shed, the skin developed melanin to protect from radiation.
A mutation in a gene in Africa a million years ago allowed the skin of people who inherited the gene to lighten in those who travelled north.
A Disciple
How life came to be is different than species changing over time. Evolution is the best explanation to to explain the fossil record and diversity of life on Earth. Due to speciation populations evolve into new species. For instance look at Islands where species are geographically isolated. There are several mechanism involved including Natural Selection.
I find coevoution interesting. For instance, mutualistic species such as plants and their pollinators, are examples. Much nicer than predator/prey relationships.
Then there is plain luck,. You never know when a asteroid will fall on your head. The mammals and birds, 66 million years later, say thank you.
You have genetic drift. You have gene flow. Hey, I have neanderthal genes. My favorite is sexual selection. My point being populations change over time into new species.
I would like your “mathematics” to explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Why is it recurrent? It leaves the larynx and the wraps around the heart before going back up. Here’s the thing, Natural Selection and evolution have an explanation.
Sasso
I got a big kick, when they started sequencing the DNA of Northern European Mesolithic individuals, such as Cheddar Man and turns out they have dark skin (and blue eyes) Got plenty of Vitamin D from the sea.
Suzanne,
Can you appreciate that the argument in favor of “Natural Selection and evolution” is not explanatory? It is a statement allowing for the appearance of greater complexity of life without offering any explanation other than luck happens. We do not do this with real scientific inquiry. To explain how airplanes fly we do not say they get lucky. To explain how computers works we do not say they get lucky. Yet biologists seem ok with prescribing luck to the origination of greater and more complex forms of life.
And this begs the question? How is “good luck” any different from Intelligent Design? How could anyone tell the difference?
A Disciple, the antinomian stance you express has long fascinated me. If there are no experts in science we can trust, then who should I trust? And why should I trust you? The conspiracy mindset is one that expresses paranoia in about everything that comes from the mainstream. And then in the same breath demands that we blindly accept the conspiracy websites, conspiracy researchers, conspiracy narrative and then call it doing our own research. Only we’re not supposed to disclose how we arrived at our conspiratorial opinions. We weren’t reading these conspiracy websites. Instead we were finding all these anomalies in the mainstream explanations just from our own research of primary sources. No one on a conspiracy website pointed this out to us. No. We’re just good at reading between the lines on our own. We manage to outwit mainstream thinkers, academes, researchers, spokespeople, and others who have been doing their own actual research for years on the subjects. Not that we would have a debate with them or test our ideas against them. No we just like to prey on the naive and gullible lay folks, foist extraordinary idea on them, and then when asked about the source of such ideas, tell them to do their own research. In essence the conspiracy crowd wants us to treat them as, well, the experts. Except, knowing that they can’t withstand real scrutiny, they pop out of the shadows and then retreat. Once one conspiracy is debunked, then just invent another.
The age of information is a mighty paradox isn’t it.
Dave B: “It almost amounts to an LDS version of the Big Lie” From where I’m sitting, you’re being too generous. Oaks absolutely promoted a Mormon version of the Big Lie. If you think he’s wrong about anything, you’re an apostate, full stop. Nuts to that authoritarian nonsense.
I’m currently reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. It’s free on Kindle Unlimited. Something new I learned about was the Lion Man statue found in a cave in Germany one week before WW2 started. It was carved 40,000 years ago and represents something unprecedented in the development of humankind: an imagined human form with a lion head. Creating an artistic representation of something that did not exist in reality points to the human capacity to create a shared idea or mythology that had social binding power. They say that truth is stranger than fiction, but I guess if you compare the archaeological record to something like the Bible (or the BOM), they are both symptoms of human development, not explanations. They provide artifacts only. To understand it, you can’t take them literally (which is Nelson’s favorite way to read scripture). You have to inquire and be open-minded, and see (as the literary deconstructionalists taught us) what’s behind the scene, how it fits together, what’s not on stage. You have to break the fourth wall.
I’ve blogged about quite a few other books that show that the nuclear family is a rather modern invention (not a “timeless” arrangement), and many articles that I found interesting as well. Basically, the problem is that threadbare advice and empty platitudes based on mid-20th century stereotypes and norms are pretty transparent if you actually read books and stuff.
A Disciple, this is not a comment thread about evolution, so I apologize to everyone else for following up your threadjack.
Do a web search for “evolution and entropy.” That should answer most of your questions about how simple life can evolve to complex life by chance without requiring a Designer, and without contradicting the second law of thermodynamics (as often claimed by creationists/Design folk).
The difference between “good luck” and Intelligent Design is that an Intelligent Designer is a God. Chance is just life. Do you believe that every disaster is an Act of God, and every time you find your lost keys that is also an Act of God?
“Real scientific inquiry” refers to probability all the time. Look up any physics text since the late nineteenth century. You point to modern machines made by engineers to say that we do not say they “get lucky” when they work. In fact, while many design decisions in modern machinery are driven by understanding how things work and designing in accordance with them, an even greater number are driven by lack of understanding how things work and designing healthy margins of safety to account for chance. I say this as a man with a masters degree in mechanical engineering, and several years of graduate school in celestial mechanics. There is so much we do not understand, and we can only express it in terms of probability.
You say that “the odds of advanced life coming about from random biological events are simply unreal” and “the math cannot be denied” and that “too many new species are shown to have appeared too quickly for random mutation and natural selection to explain.”
On the third claim, how about some citations?
On the first and second claims, I’ve probably read about the same things you have, regarding how finely tuned the universe seems to be to support human life, the odds of random molecules combining into something self-replicating, etc. Please understand that I don’t claim to be an expert in any of this – I’m not trying to be the arrogant scientist claiming expertise well outside their field – but this is my perspective as someone whose graduate studies have had an awful lot to do with probability and statistics.
We don’t know enough to compute those probabilities. We have a sample size of one planet with life on it, and times and distances are far too great for us to go out and collect in-situ data from around the galaxy about how and when life does or does not arise. We have a sample size of one universe to observe, and no way of journeying to alternate universes with different physical laws to see if life arises in them. Faced with a sample size of one, we can construct mathematical theories in which the probability of life arising and sapient technological animals evolving is nearly zero (in which case a Designer is wanted), or nearly unity (in which case it’s no surprise), or anywhere in between. We just don’t know.
Assuming we can boil down the probability of human evolution to a single number between zero and one, at what level of “luck” do you feel like a Designer is needed? Is a Designer needed if the probability of human evolution is 0.00000000001%? What about 0.1%, 1%, or 10%? Is a Designer needed to explain our existence if we had a 20% chance of evolving? What about 90%, or 99.9999999%? In any case, it’s “good luck” we made it!
You say that “evidence points to the ancient pyramids being eroded by salt water. This implies Egypt was covered by oceans AFTER the pyramids were built.” I challenge you to provide a reputable source for this claim. Are you trying to suggest that science points to the pyramids pre-dating the Flood in a biblical young-Earth framework? I am highly skeptical.
Hawkgrrrl
They have also found flutes in the area, Geissenklosterle cave, from 43,000 years old.
Have you seen Herzogs documentary “Cave of Forgotten Dreams”? about paintings in Chauvet Cave in France dating back over 30,000 years.
Also in Northern Germany, a chevron carved onto a deer bone 51,000 years ago by a Neanderthal.
I find somewhat moving that people living in a difficult time devoted so much time and resources to creating art and music.
I suppose l never really felt restricted by Mormon orthodoxy and always felt I could read widely without putting those views in peril. Of course, before my “faith expansion” (as I call it) I always held both sides in balance with mental apologetics. I was something of an intelligent design advocate for awhile there while fully committed to theory of evolution. While I am still a theist, I have come to accept the fact that evolution doesn’t require a grand designer. Of course, no one has satisfactorily explained why there is something rather than nothing, or the “why” of the Big Bang. I am much more comfortable in uncertainty than I used to be.
I could name a lot of of books, but since I brought up evolution, I highly recommend Masters of the Planet, by Ian Tattersall. And one small quibble about the OP: if we are going to bibliorepent about the origins of the indigenous people of the Americas, maybe we should listen to fewer white men (whether they be 19th century religious figures or 21st century anthropologists), and actually listen to indigenous people. First of all, there are N.A. Mormons who understand themselves as being descended from BoM peoples. They do exist. Second, if you look at just about any N.A. origin story or creation myth (and they are all different), one thing in common is that they basically see themselves as always being here – rarely coming from somewhere else, unless it was from underground or the sky ect. I find most U.S. anthropologists to people highly dismissive of indigenous perspectives. I also think the land bridge only hypothesis has a lot of holes, and find myself very sympathetic to the pre-clovis renegade anthropologists. If that makes me “anti-science,” fine.
Suzanne, the art in the caves at Rouffignac is incomparable. I too find it very moving that our oldest ancestors wanted both bread and roses.
<blockquote>
I think it was about why God gave different peoples different skin colors
</blockquote>
I always thought Morgan Freeman’s response in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was the best.
“Did God paint you?”
“For certain.”
“Why?”
“Because Allah loves wondrous variety.”
I have not seen anything antiscience in my corner of the church.
Adding to the probability discussion, creation has 2 very important elements on its side: time and effort.
The natural process took millions and billions of years for atmospheric, elemental, and evolving environmental conditions advantageous for creation to occur. By comparison, a 6-day creation is an incomprehensible big bang creation.
The process is more easily understood when looking at a virus strain evolve into a deadly disease. Those billions of viruses are replicating and misreplicating at breakneck speed. Millions of mutated replications don’t go anywhere. Almost all fail. But as the process continues, from time to time, something like coronavirus disease 2019 occurs.
It happens continually with influenza. Right now, northern hemisphere researchers are collaborating with southern hemisphere scientists, using findings to develop a vaccine to administer in November that can probably protect from the latest evolved virus.
Suzanne,
You have your “neanderthal genes”, well so do I. Raising the stakes higher, I’m happy to embrace my anaerobic bacteria origins ; )