Mormon Scholar Under Fire

by onacruse 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  onacruse

  The latest issue of Christianity Today has the following article:

  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/003/14.24.html

  A couple of excerpts:

  Thomas W. Murphy is the latest Mormon scholar to challenge key teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Murphy, 35, has likened the Book of Mormon, an essential LDS sacred text, to inspirational fiction.

  Narrowly avoiding a disciplinary meeting, Murphy remains an LDS member of record for the time being.

  He made the "mistake," as some few JWs have done, of confronting his religion with scientific reality:

  The Book of Mormon details migrations of Israelites to the Western Hemisphere more than 4,200 years ago. According to the book, some of the people were Lamanites, cursed with dark skin because of sin. The current introduction to the Book of Mormon claims that Lamanites were ancestors of American Indians.

  In his essay, Murphy reviewed recent human molecular genealogy studies that contradict that claim. "To date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and the indigenous peoples of the Americas," Murphy said.

  He noted that researchers genetically link American Indians with native Siberians. Murphy told The Chronicle of Higher Education that some Mormon intellectuals want to debate the Book of Mormon "as fiction, possibly inspired, but as fiction."

  There's much more in the article about church policy re: disciplinary efforts against Murphy; rather humorous when compared to the WTS.

  Craig
• 

  hillary_step

  Science and religion have always been at war, history clearly shows the evidence of this. When religion has held the reigns of social power it has often abused its authority in order to counteract the effects of science and has been quite happy to keep its adherents ignorant and in brutal emotional subjection in order to protect the status quo and its own interests. Anybody within its own ranks who dared side with science found themselves quickly persecuted or isolated.

  The WTS the YEC, and Mormon church are still wearing the same inquisitorial black hoods that caused so much havoc in ages past and reflect the above attitude in their dealings both with society and their own burdened adherents. Many of their cousins have chosen to compromise with science, bow out gracefully, take the sensible route and focus on spiritual rather than scientific matters. Other do not have this organizational humility and continue making academic fools of themselves rather than admit defeat.

  Though the battle still rages, it is quite clear who is losing it. In twenty years time these anachronistic religious orders will bear little resemblance to the theological horse-and-cart mentality that they adhere to today.

  HS
• 

  hooberus

  hillary_step, while its true that religious leaders have at times gone against science, the fact remains that most fields of science were founded by creationists.
• 

  hillary_step

  Hooberus,

  Religious leaders have not just at times, but more often than not 'gone against' science. They have not published papers to refute the science that challenges their beliefs, they have taken the easier step of destroying the lives of their opponents either by murder, supression or isolation. This is a matter of historical public record and not the inclinations of atheistic thinking.

  Fields of science were and are all founded by scientists. That the majority of scientists until relatively recently may have adhered to creationist dogma means relatively little. You need to ask yourself the question as to whether they would adhere to the same principles today. Science is founded on theory, discovery and evidence. At any stage individuals can falter, but eventually as evidence unfolds science corrects itself. Of course it's enemies cry foul uttering such statements as 'Even scientists cannot agree on this matter', or 'Science once believed this but has now changed its mind, you cannot trust science!'. This is medieval thinking and religious propaganda which ignores that fact that it is actually the very science that they condemn that is self-regulating due to its necessity to feed on fact and not on myth. If religions were put under the same scrutiny how many would survive?

  Religion has a foul record of mistreatment of the scientific community over many generations. It imprisoned even creationists who disagreed with its contemporary agendas.

  HS
• 

  hooberus

  The WTS the YEC, and Mormon church are still wearing the same inquisitorial black hoods that caused so much havoc in ages past and reflect the above attitude in their dealings both with society and their own burdened adherents.

  YEC's want both sides of the creation/evolution issue to be taught, using primarily scientific data. Hardly "inquisitional"
• 

  hooberus

  soory I meant "inquisitorial"
• 

  starScream

  Hillary,

  anyone motivated by power alone will resort to totalitarianism. religion has been a convenient vehicle for it but by no means the only one. In modern times secular socialism in the name of justice has been more successful. Religious totallitarianism is losing its monopoly because the luxuries of modern life can be delivered in the promise of social justice without having to die first. Secular Socialism is the newest form of religious totalitarianism and anyone who seeks power will campaign on Social Justice and the promise of prosperity and only loosely appeal to religiosity.
• 

  hillary_step

  YEC's want both sides of the creation/evolution issue to be taught, using primarily scientific data. Hardly "inquisitional"

  Science has long since, due to a profound lack of evidence discounted a created 'Young Earth'. The YEC create their own brand of 'science' to suit their needs, unproved and evidentially sparse. They eventually end up traversing the gulf between psuedo-science to theology by falling back on arguments that science cannot entertain due to its having to rely on fact, for example, "all things were created with age within them'. 'How old was Adam three days after he was created, not just three days old as he was an adult. How could this come about? Well, because God created age within him'. Such arguments are not scientifically honest as they ignore fact in favor of wishful thinking and devious logic.

  Inquisitorial indeed, you seem to represent the 'cool dude' element of the YEC, look to your right wing and count the black hoods.

  HS
• 

  starScream

  devious logic

  If it uses a prexisting example such as a mature Adam how is it devious? Im not saying I support a Young universe, I find the idea completely preposterous, but I don't see how the arguement was at all devious.
• 

  hillary_step

  devious logic.

  It is devious because its starts with a conclusion and then attempts to bend the facts to suit. It is therefore a deviant argument in the true sense of the word, designed to sidestep fact and mislead its audience.

  Best regards - HS