No.
You can't prove scripture true or false with a genetic test. Or the bible would be out too.
The DNA argument seems to have been reignited recently, but it hasn't shaken any faith that I am aware of. Perhaps a few opponents have decided to rest their objections on it, but it is an inexact science that cannot 'prove' veracity of a prophetic text.
Yes, I've read the arguments. But I've also read the counterarguments. And there are plenty, and they are convincing.
I'm not a geneticist, so I won't take on the task of a detailed refutation. You can find that elsewhere. Suffice it to say I still accept the Book of Mormon to be exactly what it claims to be. Science's arguments have done little to dissuade Christianity in general from our belief in the flood or the creation as told in Genesis. And science's 'proofs' have failed before.
My question is, how do these scientists explain the things in the book that 'prove' my faith? Historical, linguistic, and so on? It can't possibly be the product of a boy's mind.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
What's with the sign on the plaza in Salt Lake City?
A coworker e-mailed me a link to this news story this week - the church has put up a sign on the plaza next to Temple Square warning that we have the right to ask people to leave.
The action has a lot of people in a tizzy. It was taken after a male couple was asked to leave. According to the security people involved, the couple was drunk, loudly profane, and kissing on the property.
Of course, it's private property adjacent to a place of worship. But that hasn't stopped the activist mormon-hater community from firing off thousands of articles and web posts about the evil mormon church.
Many of them argue that since the church doesn't pay taxes, and the property is owned by the church, it's technically (or should be) public property. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like an argument that would stand up in court.
The real reason for the outpouring of anger is tied to a bigger issue: The church has lent heavy support against pro-gay measures and for measures that protect the traditional family. And many people feel this is a 'political' issue, so the church should be banned from commenting on it.
The church has not endorsed a platform or candidate, but it has given its specific opinion with regards to laws and amendments being offered on the topic. The opinion is this: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage was instituted by God, not the Government.
The so-called 'separation of church and state', which I've not found yet explicitly stated in the constitution, is at least based in some constitutional ideas that are supposed to protect the people from the abuses of a state-sponsored religion. But it is not designed to muzzle speech rights, which actually do exist in the first amendment to the Constitution.
The debate is not going away any time soon. The church is not softening its stance - political pressure simply forces us to define it even more clearly and sharply.
Regarding our stance on the deeper issue:
Our intention is not to be hateful or fear-mongering; it is simply to advocate for the path that we believe (and experience has proven) will bring the most happiness to individuals and families.
People are being misled to believe that there are not consequences for their choices, especially those related to emotional and physical intimacy, and the use of the powers of procreation.
Much of the social misinformation is being propagated institutionally, lending it academic or even governmental credibility. And people are being trapped in behaviors and lifestyles because there is very little support for the other position.
Someone's got to be the champion for truth and values.
The action has a lot of people in a tizzy. It was taken after a male couple was asked to leave. According to the security people involved, the couple was drunk, loudly profane, and kissing on the property.
Of course, it's private property adjacent to a place of worship. But that hasn't stopped the activist mormon-hater community from firing off thousands of articles and web posts about the evil mormon church.
Many of them argue that since the church doesn't pay taxes, and the property is owned by the church, it's technically (or should be) public property. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like an argument that would stand up in court.
The real reason for the outpouring of anger is tied to a bigger issue: The church has lent heavy support against pro-gay measures and for measures that protect the traditional family. And many people feel this is a 'political' issue, so the church should be banned from commenting on it.
The church has not endorsed a platform or candidate, but it has given its specific opinion with regards to laws and amendments being offered on the topic. The opinion is this: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage was instituted by God, not the Government.
The so-called 'separation of church and state', which I've not found yet explicitly stated in the constitution, is at least based in some constitutional ideas that are supposed to protect the people from the abuses of a state-sponsored religion. But it is not designed to muzzle speech rights, which actually do exist in the first amendment to the Constitution.
The debate is not going away any time soon. The church is not softening its stance - political pressure simply forces us to define it even more clearly and sharply.
Regarding our stance on the deeper issue:
Our intention is not to be hateful or fear-mongering; it is simply to advocate for the path that we believe (and experience has proven) will bring the most happiness to individuals and families.
People are being misled to believe that there are not consequences for their choices, especially those related to emotional and physical intimacy, and the use of the powers of procreation.
Much of the social misinformation is being propagated institutionally, lending it academic or even governmental credibility. And people are being trapped in behaviors and lifestyles because there is very little support for the other position.
Someone's got to be the champion for truth and values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)