Are there different heavens according to how much money you give to the Mormon church?

Tithing, as in giving ten pecent, was an Old Testament demand, not required in the New BUT in the New, Paul's images wereone's whole life was a spiritual offfering, a sweet-smelling sacrifice, the work of priests, but of all Christians who are a "nation of kings and priests" of Exodus for the OT and of ALL Christians (Peter's letter in the NT) who are then expected to give money and other support as believers as Paul's Church congregations did, BUT NOT NECESSARILY TEN PERCENT (could be more or less obvously, some give ALL by leaving home as missionaries or dying for their faith at the hand of un-believers! It's always good to read the whole Bible and all texts in their context and track it all throughout 2000 years and not gloss over un-acceptable or "tough sayings" or teachings or edit out the bits that suit our ignorance and biases or pick on the other's errors of conduct and thus blame the actual Faith or Church or branch of it OR twist what is taught!

• Report

by barjacob on December 5th, 2006

but Glen you didn't answer the question. She didn't ask, "do you have to pay to get into heaven?" She asked if there were different heavens depending on how much tithing you pay. In that case the answer is not such a straight shot "Absolutely not." Deification cannot occur in the absence of a temple marriage, and a temple marriage is NOT SUPPOSED TO occur in the absence of a full tithe, although I know of stake presidents asking people if they could be temple worthy "for a few days" during recommend interviews (my stepdad's interview). So I guess the question is, do churches get more funding based on the number of temple-worthy members and if so what might be the implications of that on the difficulty of obtaining a recommend? (rhetorical)

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on February 11th, 2008

I did to answer the question. You are just blinded by your own prejudice. The question was whether there is a better reward for those that pay more than for those that pay less. The answer, as I stated above is absolutely not.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on February 12th, 2008

But then you are not being honest, because the BEST and HIGHEST reward one can recieve REQUIRES temple marriage, and temple marriage REQUIRES a full tithe. Therefore, the best and highest reward requires a full tithe. It's basic math, Glen. Logic is our friend.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on February 12th, 2008

Thank you Sean.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on February 13th, 2008

It is truly curious how you manage to use the word paranoia in more than 9 out of 10 postings. Is it really I who am paranoid, then? As far as Glenn's "excellent answer," ...he didn't even answer the question. The question was, in case you forgot, "Are there different heavens according to how much money you give to the Mormon church?" Obviously I think that the answer is yes, and you two are arguing that the answer is either "no," or that answering "yes" is an oversimplification. Great, if those are our points let us argue them, but what Glenn did, and what I have noticed he ALWAYS does on these topics, is to COMPLETELY avoid answering the question. He tries to turn the question into a less threatening question, and then answer that one instead. He did not, at any time in his "excellent answer" address the issue of whether or not there are "different heavens according to how much money you give to the Mormon church?"

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on February 14th, 2008

2nd, of course it is possible that "paying a full tithing may not always require paying anything." That is the very nature of percentages. 10% of nothing is nothing. However if you have ANY increase, then ten percent of that will ALWAYS be greater than nothing, in which case if you have gained ANYTHING then you must have to pay SOMETHING in order to fulfill your 10% tithe, whether we are talking about money or goats, or figs or farthings, ten percent is the "commandment." I don't know why you would try to argue this point.
Having said that, Glenn's scripture quotation isn't in regards to tithing at all.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on February 14th, 2008

Why do you throw out statements without providing any type of verification, either empirical or logical, Sean? Are we to take your word on everything? Maybe YOU should be a prophet.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on February 16th, 2008

Ok sean, you're making progress; it seems that you have attempted to support your claims...now try the same argument COHERENTLY...

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on February 19th, 2008

ROTFL! No offense, TheM, but while there are a few actual truths in this answer, they’re so overwhelmed by the egregious inaccuracies that I actually did LOL when I read it! People in the telestial kingdom don’t have genitalia…. that’s hilarious! Where do you get this stuff?
 
:-)

• Report

by the Otter on March 15th, 2008

Well... besides the fact that this is what was taught at MY ward when I was young, one can also find "Prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith spouting the same teachings on multiple occasions. One example:
"In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be...neither man nor woman."

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 16th, 2008

Huh. Interesting quote. I’d be interested in seeing the context, to see what’s going on there. Unfortunately, you didn’t bother to cite it, but I did manage to find it, myself: “Doctrines of Salvation” 2:287-288.
 
Now that that’s been cleared up, I would like to point out a few things:
 
1. Just because it was taught in your ward doesn’t make it true. I’ve heard plenty of things in my various wards and branches that were in direct contradiction to revealed doctrine.
 
2. Just because it was taught by one of the twelve apostles doesn’t make it true. It’s probably well worth considering, but apostles have opinions just like everybody else, and I can think of several examples of apostles saying things—from their own limited knowledge—that it later turns out weren’t correct.
 
3. Note the words “I take it that” in the statement. Even Elder Smith himself never said it was doctrine; just that he, personally, believed it.
 
4. Finally, even if we ignore all of the above and assume that Elder Smith was 100% correct in his statement, are you understanding it correctly? We know from The Family: a Proclamation to the World that “[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” Elder Smith himself stated that “[w]hen our bodies are restored, they will appear to be in the full vigor of manhood and womanhood” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:185). Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. was a very no-nonsense kind of guy (much like Brigham Young before him or Boyd K. Packer now), and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he would consider the lack of ability to procreate Eternally to render one “neither man nor woman” without actually including the physical removal of genitalia.
 
I think it’s particularly ironic that you’re citing “Doctrines of Salvation” in particular, since Elder Smith’s states elsewhere in the same volume—speaking of certain teachings ascribed to the Prophet Brigham Young—“Unfortunately President Brigham Young is not here to make his meaning in this regard perfectly clear” (DoS 1:96-106; sorry, don’t have the actual book in front of me so not sure which page exactly). Elder cum President Smith is also “not here to make his meaning in this regard perfectly clear,” so I think the good money would probably be on the combined teachings of 180+ years of Latter-day Saint history instead of a single, obscure statement that I’m guessing 99.999% of the membership of the Church has never even heard.
 
Still, genuine kudos for at least having *something* to back up your assertion! :-)

• Report

by the Otter on March 17th, 2008

Sorry...I thought I provided the citation...anyway you did "manage to find it," which could not have been in the least bit difficult; you simply search the quotation in Google. I would like to respond to your specific claims, I will number my responses to the corresponding numbers of your comments.

1. One might assume that what is taught in one's church should be correct. If not, why bother going to the classes? Further, At each level of the church's organization, the people serving positions are "called," not hand-selected. Why would god "call" someone to disseminate false information in his house? Still further, if there is no standard, if one can get conflicting information based on what ward they happen to attend, and based on their own personal interpretations of official doctrine and unofficial teachings, then how can one claim that there is any pure TRUTH to be found in such a highly subjective experience?

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 19th, 2008

2. What criteria might one use to determine when an apostle is positing opinion and separate that from instances where he is giving facts? When that apostle becomes the president f the church, as Smith did in 1970, one might wonder why he was allowed to disseminate false information regarding eternal principles, even to publish those false premises in an official church book, and to issue no retraction. I find this particularly difficult to reconcile with a revelation such as the D&C commandment "Keep your eye on the president of the church, for God will not let him lead you astray."

3. While I admit that "I take it that" does imply opinion, note that this phrase appears only in the final sentence. All previous lines include much more certain verbiage such as "they WILL" and "WILL NOT."

4. I would refer you again to response 1. Also, male and female are biological terms that refer REPRODUCTIVE systems. The only other context in which they have meaning is gender superiority.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 19th, 2008

1. We can assume that people are called to teach the truth, not disseminate false information. If your teacher disseminates false information, it is up to the students to take that to the bishop so said teacher can be instructed and/or reprimanded. And if none of the student realize that the teacher is wrong, there’s probably something wrong with the class as a whole. (You’d have to be pretty naïve to think that just because someone is called to a teaching position, they gain a perfect knowledge of everything they could conceivably be called to teach; and even more so to trust that teacher while ignoring the Spirit that *should* let you know when something’s not quite right.)
  
2. Simple. If the Apostle is teaching revealed truth (as found in the Standard Works), it’s true. If the Apostle is contradicting revealed truth, it’s false, and I’m guessing the Apostle will be reprimanded like any other teacher. If there is no revealed truth on the subject, it’s an opinion and should be treated as such. I respect the opinions of many knowledgeable people, not just those called of God.
 
3. You are exactly correct. The previous lines are as follows:
 
“In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the ‘continuation of the seeds forever.’ They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed.”
 
…and they are 100% accurate and doctrinal. However, I’m not sure how any of them could be construed to deal with whether or not resurrected beings have genitalia. The only part that could possibly be read that way is the very last sentence of the paragraph:
 
“I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be - neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection.”
 
…which, as you yourself agreed, is presented such as implies an opinion.
 
4. I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this one. Could you please explain it further? Thanks!

• Report

by the Otter on March 19th, 2008

1. How is the student to know when the teacher is teaching false information, if the purpose of the teacher is to disseminate information. It all goes back to my original question; on what criteria can one sort facts from opinion in matters of FAITH? Further, I am not so naive to expect that all teachers possess all possible knowledge, however if you assume that God is aware of all possible universes, everything that is, everything that could have been but was not or is not, everything that could be but that will not, and everything that will be, then you must also assume that the same god knew that the prophet or apostle he called would in turn call, through divine inspiration, a Seventy, who would be divinely inspired to call a stake president, who would call the bishop that God selected to serve, who would call the teacher, who would disseminate false information. God therefore ALLOWED false information to be administered at His church.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 19th, 2008

2. What are we to make, then, of conflicting revealed truths? For instance, when we are told not to kill, but are at times has commanded that death be delivered by humans? Or when polygamy was expressly condemned for years by Joseph Smith as "wicked," only to be instituted later by a following prophet?

3. "neither the power or NATURE to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they CANNOT increase." If they CANNOT increase, then something in the reproductive system has been altered, i.e. genitalia is absent or malfunctioning. Why assume that genitalia would exist, if it held no purpose? Also, while "nature" here is ambiguous, I think it reasonable to suspect that at the very least it COULD mean "physical faculty." There is no reason to claim that a genitalia-less body is any more absurd than a "purified" or "perfected" one.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 19th, 2008

4. Gender is a result of REPRODUCTIVE faculty. Without that faculty it ceases to have meaning. There are gender ROLES that are somewhat separate from biological gender, but they are a result of the biological 2-part system of mammalian reproduction. In an organism that does not reproduce sexually, there is no "he" or "she." For instance, we refer to our cats and dogs, our cows and pigs, as male or female based on their sexual ability. When it comes to bacteria, which reproduce asexually by binary fission (self-replication) no HE or SHE distinction is made. Some plants have several genders that occur regularly: male, female, hermaphrodite, sensimilia, etc. Here HE and SHE apply only to the male (the organism that produces spermatazoa) and female (the organism that contains an oocyte or egg), respectively, while the other genders are neither male nor female.
In terms of gender roles, those arose due to child-rearing demands, but are commonly used in sexist philosophy to posit one gender as superior to others (i.e. where one might be worthy of priesthood, and the other unworthy).

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 19th, 2008

Look, man…. You’ve obviously got some major issues that nobody but you is ever going to be able to help you get over, but I’ll respond in short:
 
1) The student is to know when the teacher is teaching false information by the power of the Holy Ghost, just like everybody is to know everything is true or false. Got a problem with that? Guess you’re not a Latter-day Saint, but that’s your problem, not ours.
 
2) The fact that you claim there are conflicting truths in the first place indicates that you haven’t bothered to understand the supposedly contradictory statements. What are we supposed to do if we lack wisdom? (Come on… this is “Mormonism 101.”)
 
3. All statements regarding the resurrection make it perfectly clear that our bodies will be as they are now, only perfected (see, for example, http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/11/44#44). If you want to think that a perfect resurrection involves castration, more power to you; I maintain that that’s ridiculous, and if I’m wrong, I don’t think it’s particularly pertinent to my—our your—salvation.
 
4. Thanks for the biology lesson. Now if you can show me that that’s exactly what Joseph Fielding Smith meant when he used the terms “male” and “female,” you’ve won the debate. Congratulations.
 
Bottom line: I go back to my earlier comment that you’ve taken some obscure statement, interpreted it however you like, and claimed that your interpretation of the statement is the absolute truth. Furthermore, when presented with other, much clearer statements by the same author, you refuse to accept the fact that he obviously wasn’t saying what you think he was. Frankly, I wouldn’t care so much except you’re disseminating this so-called “truth” to others. Seriously… let it go, man. The Church is true, and nothing you can take out of context is going to change that.
 
Peace….

• Report

by the Otter on March 20th, 2008

I have issues? Yes, I rely too heavily on logic, evidence and reason. You seem to lack such issues. How blissful.

1. The experience of the holy ghost is subjective, and is therefore not TRUE, in the literal sense. This is evidenced by the fact that some people come to different conclusions when appealing to the same higher power.

2. Contradictions (extremely short list): Joseph Smith: "Polygamy is a wicked abomination," Brigham Young: "Hey everybody, have some extra wives!" Also, old policy: "no one with even a drop of the blood of "Old Cain" can ever enter a temple, new policy: "All are welcome to pay us tithes, regardless of skin color." Old policy: "Native Americans and Polynesians are ancestors of the Lamanites," new policy: "Lamanites are only PART of the equation...apparently a very small part since no genetic evidence supports the claim." Future policy: "Hey, we never believed that Indians came from Jerusalem. That's absurd."

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 20th, 2008

3. Let's drop this line of argument; it can't go anywhere because your sources make untestable claims. There is no way to prove whether or not a person would have any genitalia in an afterlife, nor a cause to assume that there is an afterlife. This can only be a fruitless conversation, because dogma is the only line of support.

4. Okay...if you can provide me with alternate MEANINGS of male and female, then you can stand a chance with me.

The obscurity of a comment, or the possibility that "99.999% of the membership of the Church has never even heard [it]," says nothing about its truth or untruth. Incidentally, I did find a several forums where LDS members discuss this "obscure" topic: http://faithpromotingrumor.wordpress.com/2006/12/18/the-tk-smoothie-rule/ , http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/the-larry-king-rule/
One person even cited the same Doctrines of Salvation quote. Obscure indeed. There are many such discussions, but I liked these 2 because of the term "TK Smoothie"

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 20th, 2008

I certainly do not disregard OTHER J.F. Smith quotations as you suggest I do. That is a false accusation. How could I disregard your chosen quotes but uphold my own simply because I have preference for one? That would be inconsistent. What I am saying is, there is conflict between the two statements. How, then, are we to distinguish the correct from the false, except by selecting the least cognitively dissonant of the two choices? We choose the one that best matches our own views. It is not that it is revealed to you by a holy spirit and obscured for me by the devil. That is pure, unfounded absurdity. Personally, I base my selection on reason, you seem to base yours on a form of reason that is clouded by dogma. I also questioned why, as a leader who is guaranteed by God to "never lead his people astray," he did not retract his statements regarding the genitalia issue. These are legitimate questions which would bother anyone whose judgment was not clouded by dogmatic sloganeering strategies such as "when the prophet speaks, the discussion is over," and "the church is true."

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 20th, 2008

Actually, TM, you seem to be the one lacking in logic. You’ve still failed to give any reason the quotes you cited are contradictory. Example:
 
Joseph Smith: “Polygamy is a wicked abomination.”
Brigham Young: “Plural marriage is a commandment.”
 
Church leaders have generally distinguished between “polygamy” and “plural marriage.” You can claim that this is just arguing semantics, but semantics are the entire crux of your argument. The law concerning plural marriage is set forth quite simply in Jacob 2:27-30 (http://tinyurl.com/3dxs9x), and is exactly what both Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Sr. taught both unequivocally and non-contradictorily, their entire lives.
 
You also seem to ignore the indisputable fact that the curse of Ham was a temporary restriction and was always seen as such; that Hamites that joined the Church before the 1978 Revelation lived the law of tithing just as much as those thereafter; and that DNA evidence (both from LDS and non-LDS sources) that show a distinct genetic correlation between modern Jews and certain Mesoamerican populations. (It may also be noted that the Book of Mormon effectively discredits the “all Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites” theory without any help from external science. While intermarriage with other groups could *conceivably* have produced a population where all Native Americans are literal descendants of Lehi, it’s pretty unlikely, and I’m frankly surprised that this belief was ever held by so many members of the Church.)
 
I do, however, want to point out that we do agree on two things: first, that 3) is unprovable either way (which is kind of what I said before, so yeah, let’s drop it); and second, that the “TK Smoothie” moniker is hilarious. ;-)

• Report

by the Otter on March 21st, 2008

I didn't think anyone in their right mind would question the teaching's on polygamy. If you want facts, they're easy to come by. But evidence isn't the basis of logic...so how would YOU support the claim that I "seem to be the one lacking in logic," because I haven't provided empirical support on an issue of common knowledge? LOL. You're not very good at this game.
Please tell me, what is the difference between polygamy and plural marriage that would matter to this argument?
"The indisputable fact that the curse of Ham was a temporary restriction?" You have a LOT to learn about what constitutes an indisputable fact.
LOL...LOFL. there is NO genetic relationship between Jews and Native Americans, other than those shared by ALL humans. LOL. Who told you that? LOL. Holy hell, that's funny. Thank You. Do you know that it would be one of the most important scientific discoveries of our time, if it were true? The person who discovered it would win a Nobel Prize, no doubt, because that discovery would turn all of our scientific knowledge on its head. LOL.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on March 22nd, 2008

The difference between “polygamy” and “plural marriage,” as those terms have generally been used by the Church, is the difference between an unrestricted and/or immoral excuse for marriage and the Lord’s revealed word that, if and when He so desired, he would command righteous men to take additional wives, generally on a very limited basis. (In the 1800s, for example, only between 2-5% of the membership of the Church were ever commanded to—and thus practiced—plural marriage.)
 
I’m not sure where you get the idea that the Hamitic restriction wasn’t intended to be temporary; even Brigham Young said as much, on several occasions.
 
Finally, regarding the genetic link, I suppose, then, that you have a well-formulated argument for why we should believe the people that started the whole “DNA vs. the Book of Mormon” controversy, despite the fact that those people were not (and never claimed to be) reproductive biologists? Furthermore, that you have an intelligent reason to dispute the findings of multiple reproductive biologists that have offered evidence to the contrary? And finally, I suppose you have done extensive research and concluded that the X haplotype, shown by several researchers to be shared by modern Jews and certain Mesoamerican groups, does not exist (or at least doesn’t mean what these researchers think)? Geez, TM…. Your arguments are so one-sided it’s ridiculous.
 
(And frankly, while these genetic discoveries certainly don’t warrant anything like unto a Nobel Prize, I think that this year’s winner destroys any credibility the award committee may have had, anyway.)

• Report

by the Otter on March 23rd, 2008

The people who started the DNA vs. The Book of Mormon CONTROVERSY were not scientists-they were RELIGIOUS people. They're the one's who care. Scientists don't do work to prove or disprove religious claims, they just do work, and the results may or may not happen to invalidate certain religious claims. So yes, I do have a neat argument here.
I assume you are referring to the MOVIE, "DNA vs. The Book of Mormon" but I am talking about science, not a movie. I don't need to have done the research personally to have access to the findings, just as I don't need to have done the R&D on combustion engines to understand how they work. Do you, sir, have an inkling as to how gravity operates, or is that strictly for Newton and Einstein to understand?
As to the biologists you touted, NAME THEM.
As to X haplogroups, you'll have to be more specific about WHICH X haplotypes, and while you're at it search some PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE JOURNALS, not BYU propaganda.
<YOU ARE CLEARLY OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT>

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on August 2nd, 2008

TM, I’d be curious to know who you think started this controversy, if not the guy that published the paper on it—who, as mentioned, was *not* a reproductive biologist.
 
Secondly, no, I’m not talking about any movie; I’ve actually never heard of such a thing. I was talking about the discussion given by phylogeneticist Dr. Michael F. Whiting, entitled “DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective.” This and many other sources are linked to from http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html . (There’s your biologists, etc.; and for the record, FAIR is in no way affiliated with either BYU nor the Church itself.)
 
Third, no, I don’t claim to have done first-generation research, but I have read the findings of those that *have* studied this—those that support a genetic link, those that deny one, and those that ultimately don’t take a position on the subject. Have you done the same?
 
And finally, yes, I am out of my element. I am not a phylogeneticist, nor do I claim to be (just as the purveyors of the “DNA disproves the Book of Mormon theory do not). I suppose you are, then?

• Report

by the Otter on August 2nd, 2008

Okay Otter, I'll play down at your level for a minute.

1 -So, who is this "guy that published the paper on [the DNA vs. the Book of Mormon controversy]?" I am heretofore unaware of any such paper. If it is part of the controversy, I've never heard of it. Please afford citations. The only studies I have really looked at on this topic are studies that use DNA and mtDNA analysis to investigate the growth of civilization. While such findings are contradictory to the Mormon account, they were not intended to do so, as the beliefs of an obscure cult don't typically play a role in scientific research.

2 -If you've never heard of the movie "DNA vs the Book of Mormon," then I am curious as to why you quoted its title so perfectly. As to Dr. Michael F. Whiting, he is a professor at the Neil Maxwell Institute for RELIGIOUS SCHOLARSHIP. Not exactly an unbiased (or respected) school. Science is not proven by a lone wolf, especially not one who works at BYU, which is OWNED BY YOUR CHURCH.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on August 3rd, 2008

3 -You are a curious fellow; you criticise me, saying I couldn't possibly understand genetics because I haven't done the research myself. When I show you how foolish a statement that is by turning it back on you, you tell me you don't NEED to have done the research because you have access to it! LOL. That was MY point all along! If you don't, why do I? That is special pleading, asking for exceptions for your own case that you will absolutely NOT grant to that of your opposition - Double standards!

Let me ask you, and, with your god watching, answer truthfully: How long have you been aware of Dr. Whiting and his research? 2 days? You claim a background in the topic, but you clearly don't grasp the key concepts. If you are also aware of all the studies "that support a genetic link, those that deny one, and those that ultimately don’t take a position," then perhaps you can tell me this: WHAT PEERS HAVE REVIEWED DR. WHITING'S WORK, AND WHAT ARE THEIR CRITICISMS? If you can't answer that, well...you just don't get science.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on August 3rd, 2008

1) The controversy was started by anthropologist Thomas W. Murphy. You can read a (very brief) summary of his work at Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Murphy), but it was specifically targeted at the historicity of the Book of Mormon narrative.
 
2) “DNA vs. the Book of Mormon” is a pretty generic title, TM; anyone could come up with that, and I’m sorry you don’t believe that my use of this phrase to describe the issue at hand is wholly original, albeit identical to what others have obviously done. Also, for the record: Dr. Whiting is not a professor of religious scholarship at any school; he holds a Ph.D. from Cornell University, is director of Brigham Young University’s DNA Sequencing Center, and is currently an associate professor in BYU’s Department of Integrative Biology. (And you’re right: he does work for BYU. So are you suggesting that anyone that works for a Church school is automatically discredited, but anyone that doesn’t is completely credible?)
 
3) …and here we are returning to your “straw men” comment from elsewhere. You claim I said something I didn’t, then criticize me for the imagined hypocrisy of your own erroneous interpretation. I never said you need to do first-generation research but I don’t; what I said is that I have reviewed *both* sides of the argument; you, it would seem, have not. Have you even read/listened to Dr. Whiting’s arguments? If you had, you’d probably have noticed that his argument is basically that Murphy disproved a faulty interpretation of an extrascriptural statement—one which I have questioned myself, since long before I’d ever heard of Thomas W. Murphy or the controversy he produced. The only double standard here is in your assertion that anyone speaking against the Church is credible, but anyone speaking *for* the Church is unworthy of even the most basic consideration.
 
And no, I’m not aware of any peer reviews, and being that Murphy’s argument is primarily based on language (despite the very interesting bit of science it does include), it wouldn’t surprise me if neither I nor anybody else ever will be.

• Report

by the Otter on August 3rd, 2008

You know what, TM? I just got to thinking that these last two responses cost me an entire hour that I could have been spending with my family, and while others that come hereafter may conceivably benefit from this discussion, it doesn’t seem that you will. (Frankly, I doubt that I will, either—at least, not as much as I would have benefited from spending the same time with my wife and kids.)
 
I suppose this will seem to you like a cop-out, that I can’t sufficiently repel your onslaughts and am therefore throwing in the towel. If so, more power to you. As for me, I’m going to read a story to my children and won’t be wasting any more time on this thread. A sincere thanks for the spirited discussion, and if you’d like to have the last word, more power to you.
 
Blessings!

• Report

by the Otter on August 3rd, 2008

you know what's funny...right before I read where you typed "cop-out," I was just thinking it. You throw out a whole bunch of nonsense, so much that it'll take me several posts to correct the garbage you've spouted, and then before I can respond you say, "OK I'm not playing anymore!" I do agree, though, on at least 2 points; 1) my time is also better spent with my family than with you, but I've already read the stories to my child and put her to bed (I don't do this when I could be with her) 2) you really WON'T benefit from this discussion, because to you it is NOT a discussion.

PS...Dr MURPHY that you talked about...well, his church is the church that produced the movie, "DNA vs the Book of Mormon," LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING, which makes it pretty obvious that either you lied, or you are just flying by the seat of your pants, playing pretend as an expert on what you have no clue about.

You didn't have to give me the last word....I had it ten posts ago, and you've just now realized you're drowning.

• Report

by TheicidalManiac on August 4th, 2008