• Why is it that a prerequisite for acceptance as an intellectual is to conclude that belief in God is silly?
• Why is it important to address each new claim refuting God?
  The most important truths are hard to discover by science alone.
• Mitochondrial DNA: Are Native Americans Israelites or not?

One of the great troubles of our times is the seemingly infallible wisdom of men. Apparently a prerequisite for induction into the Sigma Lambda Rho fraternity (science, logic, rational deduction) is to first use these tools to demonstrate conclusively that there is no God.

True observations are not always accompanied by true explanations
Supposed wise men - the truly learned intellectuals of our time - roam the earth turning over stones, observing what can be seen, and reporting to us all on what their process of research and intellectual inquiry has produced.  Occasionally this process turns up something that appears to challenge or debunk long held religious beliefs.  There is nothing wrong with honest inquiry into any subject.  Truth and light have nothing to hide.  Men fail when they draw conclusions too quickly based on sketchy evidence, scientific leaps of faith, or without full consideration of what are often a myriad of potential explanations for the observations.  As often as not such conclusions are not definitive from the discoverer’s point of view as much as by those with an agenda who simply use new observations to build a house-of-cards claim.  (Example, many who have measured global warming are not ready to concede that man is the sole or even the major cause, but Al Gore types use their research for scare mongering to help gain power).

Average thinkers are closed to many potential explanations - thinking after a handful of sound bites that they know it all
Many fancy themselves learned or with a gifted intellect, and seek to be informed of the happenings of our times so as to participate in the great debates from the sidelines either as fans or biased commentators of the “SLR Brotherhood”.  The Brotherhood and fans long ago concluded that all things are simply mechanical and we are nothing more than lucky byproducts of random evolution, which itself was made possible from a most simple life form.  The lucky life form is said to be a lucky byproduct of a lucky lightning strike in premordial sludge, which sludge was present from a luckier Big Bang. 

The fans are most often left-leaning, and since it is common knowledge that the majority of individuals in the media are observably left when they gather at water coolers, the commentators also subtly highlight news that supports the Brotherhood (or points a mocking, scornful finger at those who question the Brotherhood).

The fans trust in their team of scientists, philosophers, and great thinkers to a fault.  Fan knowledge of massively complex subjects comes in sound bites, and they assemble a bite here and a bite there to proudly proclaim their own infallible, obviously factual conclusions which they hope will convince other “average Joe’s” like themselves that they are not really an average Joe at all. They would have us believe they are capable of the intellectual rigor of an active member of Sigma Lambda Rho, but they have simply chosen to apply their intellect to report on the happenings of SLR rather than be in SLR.

The highest thinkers recognize how little they really know
Let me insert that I believe the highest order of the Science, Logic, and Rational deduction fraternity would not jump to conclusions that there is no God.  In other words, they would have learned enough to not trust their own conclusions on observations.  They would know there may be many potential, rational explanations.  Einstein demonstrated he was of the highest order when he said, “The more I learn, the more I realize I do not know.”  However, many and maybe most of the great thinkers of modern ages, while they remain open to alternative mechanical explanations, are generally closed since childhood to explanations that seem mystical or would involve a God, since such seems more like a convenient excuse for the presently unexplainable.  Why does explaining the previously unexplainable somehow equate with discrediting God?  It may discredit previous understandings of God, but that does not require that God could not know of or make use of the newly discovered insight.

(I contend in another essay that God Himself, with all His seemingly magical powers, in fact operates by means which are mechanically and mathematically explainable.  We incrementally discover those means all the time, but have only an infinite fraction of what we would need to know to truly comprehend science as known to and harnessed by God.  The little I understand of string theory makes me think it could be the “giant leap forward” in helping us comprehend some of the science God may know and use).

I talk as if I am a member of the Sigma Lambda Rho debate team mocking the wanna-be’s and even chastising my fellow members.  In truth, I am an average Joe, and my resume would confirm to anyone in “The Brotherhood” that I’m just a comentator myself.  I am no doubt so, as the nature of my profession in civil engineering allows little time for pursuits that could attract the attention of such elites.  However, as a sideliner watching the spectacle, I can see how the debate works.

The most important truths are hard to discover by scientific approaches alone
Fortunately for this average Joe, my life’s experience has helped me discover alternative methods for obtaining light and knowledge, and approaching subjects that embroil the Sherlock’s.  I find myself shouting “Hey, I think I’ve stumbled upon some clues!”, but they’re all too far from where I am to hear, and even if I could do a song and dance long enough to turn their heads, they’d still say, “Now, what are your credentials that I should turn away from such learned men to consider your untrained, juvenile reasoning?”

To be accepted as a serious intellectual, one must first find some reason to doubt God, then mock or discredit believers.
Actually, the “debate” isn’t really a debate at all.  It is more of a quest to find anything to justify conclusions one must reach to be in the brotherhood.  “Look! I found this reason to doubt God!”  “Here is evidence debunking Mormon doctrine!”  The list is never ending.  One may be tempted to frame things as a debate between Sigma Lambda Rho’s “infallibly factual” religious beliefs, and the traditional religious community’s defense of the seemingly indefensible.  I think that is close to right, but in my eyes it’s not a debate where in good sportsmanship they attempt to respectfully share their interpretations of observations and the religious community likewise responds gentlemanly with introspection in an attempt to reconcile what is truly doctrinal against beliefs that are more traditional than doctrinal.  That would be nice and it’s how I try to do things myself. 

I see it not as the respectful “lay the facts on the table and lets see if we can find some answers” that it should be, and more as an attempt at mockery by those who have already concluded that anything which seems on the surface to be magical, superstitious, silly, or “requiring a God” is patently absurd and not worth an ounce of honest, long, benefit of the doubt inquiry.  The only religious inquiry worthy of time is to hunt through religious beliefs and history for sticks and stones they can beat believers with.

Is there any value in rebutting those who mock and will not see?
We in turn are not really responding to them to convince them - it can’t be done by mortals!  They’ve allowed their eyes to become blind and they’ve shut up their ears.  They point and laugh from the Great and Spacious Building.  Those of us at the Tree are trying to pull aside those who are buying into their claims and their scorn.  We wisper,  “Don’t be ashamed at having come to the Tree.  Here are some reasons why they are wrong and it’s worth staying - not the least of which is that their building will fall!” 

Likewise there are hosts of people who are lost or wandering, having not fully determined to seek out the Tree, the Building, or some other way.  Voices calling elsewhere are loud.  Those of us at the Tree also need to be loud enough that the undecided can at least consider that there may be something better at the Tree.  Possibly most at the Building have never strained to see or hear spiritually.  Thus in their mockery I find myself saying “Forgive them, for they know not what they mock.” 

My heart bleeds when I see so many not come to the tree.  I shout in whatever way I can.  I realize that my style of describing the particular fruits I’ve tasted will not appeal to all, but I also know that my style will appeal to some - particularly those whom the Spirit touches through rational argument and explanation, and who are intellectually honest enough with themselves to allow for the possibility of a God and to give half a chance to all the other connected possibilities.

Example of research that seems to challenge LDS doctrine: mitochondrial DNA
Here is a recent example of excellent research coming from the Science, Logic, and Rational Deduction fraternity.  Apparently they’ve studied mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans and determined that this DNA is not linked to the Israelites.  Others then pick this up and use it as “irrefutable proof” that the Book of Mormon is a fabrication. 

What does it mean when scientific observations challenge a doctrine or long held assumption?  Obviously it is quite fine to conduct legitimate research, and attempt to draw conclusions.  In this case, naysayer’s are quick to condemn Joseph Smith as a false prophet, and Saints would do well to consider various angles of the new research.
What is mitochondrial DNA?  Is there a chance the research is flawed, or that conclusions drawn from observations are flawed?  How many reasonable explanations could lead to the observations?  Is there a chance of potential explanations that are compatible with what is accepted as scriptural?

As I understand this DNA, it is a link back to “your mother’s, mother’s, mother” on back with seemingly no end.  We hear the word “DNA” and want to automatically conclude that it is flawless.  Let me just say it is one thing to have a guy’s hair at a crime scene, and then link that hair later to a living individual via DNA; but it is entirely something else to think you can use DNA to determine conclusively who married who over the last 2,600 years! 

Potential Explanations
Other LDS apologists and scientists have far more knowledge on this than I do, but there are many potential explanations:
1. Maybe Lehi’s wife was adopted into the house of Israel?  He knew Egyptian.  Could be he met Sariah in Egypt - and could be she was not a pure Isrealite.
2. I’ve heard recently that you don’t even have to go back very many years to determine that practically everyone has numerous ancestors in common.  Could be the gene pool is getting fairly well mixed, and such a trace is too diluted to be reliable.
3. The Book of Mormon is a record of one group of people in America, but does not preclude the possibility that others were here.  These are BIG continents, after all, and with travel by foot it is possible that hundreds of years could pass without groups crossing paths.  It is possible that after the Nephites were destroyed, that a cosmopolitan society emerged and perhaps the Israelite Central Americans mixed with larger populations of non-Israelite North or South Americans.
4. The Prophet was also a man without omniscient, perfect knowledge.  When he spoke in the Name of the Lord he made it quite evident.  In day to day living there were surely many things he did not know perfectly and probably speculated on as we all do.  Maybe there were truths that had been revealed to him, but he unwittingly extrapolated other conclusions that seemed to be obvious extensions of what had been revealed when in fact the truth was not so obvious.  For example, God said Native Americans were descendants of Israelites.  The Prophet may have inadvertently assumed this meant 100% of their ancestors were Israelite and never delved much further.  However, perhaps you could say that if only 10% of ancestors were Israelites, that it is still true to say they are descendents of Israel.
5. It is possible that the research method is flawed in some way, or could be open to alternative explanations.

Ok, this is enough to demonstrate that DNA, which can rightfully condemn a man to die, is not sufficient in this case to condemn the Book of Mormon.  I’m sure many will scoff at my obvious lack of knowledge in this area and condemn nonetheless.

We know that many doctrines and philosophies will be put forth in our times that “will deceive the very elect”.  I am confident that there will yet be many discoveries or accusations that will be very difficult to explain or reconcile.  But I am also very confident that my faith is well placed.  I believe that my own journey of spiritual discoveries, which includes temporal research into the amazing story of the Latter Day Saint doctrine and history, are simply to weighty to toss out on a handful of claims that rest on less than solid foundations.

In many ways even the most knowledgable among us still wander as lost sheep.   That “smartest person” can only know a fraction, perhaps .001%, of the accumulated knowledge of the 6.5 billion now living, combined with the knowledge of billions who have past.  And even with all we’ve ever learned, there is an infinite amount that we as mortals can never know. 

Moses, as a prince of Egypt, had reason to believe that man was truly something.  After being privilaged to see in vision the works and knowledge of God, he responded, “Now I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed”. 

Perhaps rather than using the mockery of God by the SLR brotherhood and their fans as an excuse to endulge in “eating, drinking, and being merry for tomorrow we die”, we should instead have faith that true earthly and eternal happiness comes from trusting the Prophets.  Perhaps we should ask the Lord to “forgive us, for we know not how much we do not know”.

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 27th, 2006 at and is filed under One Hit Wonders!. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.