Here, we have a very diverse array of topics from stewardship to Mormonism, from inerrancy to creationism. Check out the posts. As always, let me know what you thought about them! Leave a comment, leave a link to tell me about a post you recommend (and why!). Enjoy the posts, friends!
some thoughts on Stewardship– The question of “stewardship”–what are we to do with the gifts we’ve been given?–is one of the toughest questions, I think, for the Christian to tackle. Here, Beth Wartick tackles the question in a thought-provoking way which also may serve as a call to action. Check it out.
Evidence from science, philosophy, and history against Mormonism– The Mormon faith makes a number of claims which may be investigated scientifically, historically, and/or philosophically. I have explored some of these issues myself, and here Wintery Knight provides a number of evidences against the claims of Mormonism.
Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index– A quick list of young earth creationist arguments explained alongside rebuttals? Sign me up! Check this out. I think it’s a great resource.
Review: History Channel’s Bible Secrets Revealed (Episode I: Lost in Translation)– The History Channel has gone way downhill from when it first launched, in my opinion. I remember when they had–wonder of wonders–historians and archaeologists on every show to talk about major findings and/or various moments in history. Now it seems they continually release shows that sensationalize everything and veer far off-course from the interesting study of history they used to provide. Anyway, “Bible Secrets Revealed” is yet another example of this sensationalist turn for the History Channel. Check out this look at the first episode and the errors it spreads. [H/T Tim McGrew].
Is this the Best of All Possible Worlds? (Alvin Plantinga) [VIDEO]– Here, the analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga tackles the question of whether this is the best of all possible worlds. I agree very much with his assessment of the topic.
5 Views on Biblical Inerrancy (A Live Discussion from ETS)– A pretty interesting blog article summarizing 5 positions on biblical inerrancy as discussed at the recent Evangelical Theological Society conference. Read it from bottom to top, because it was really written live!
The Book of Mormon’s veracity hinges on the claim that the lost tribes of Israel came to America, settled there, and wrote their history on gold plates which Joseph Smith later translated. Such claims at the time of Joseph Smith seemed irrefutable; they simply couldn’t conceive of technology which could test these propositions. Today, however, such technology is available. Unfortunately for Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church, the evidence runs contrary to what the Book of Mormon claims.
Archaeological evidence has long favored the hypothesis that Native Americans crossed into the Americas during the Ice Age from Siberia across a frozen Bering Strait. The Book of Mormon, by contrast, asserts that “…Israelites accomplished at least two marathon oceanic voyages to the New World in approximately 600 B.C… By about AD 400, the descendants of these lost Israelites had multiplied into million-strong civilizations and spawned other migratory groups that went on to colonize additional territory in the Americas…” The Latter Day Saints’ introduction to the Book of Mormon states that:
[t]he record [in the Book of Mormon] gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.
These claims can now be analyzed utilizing DNA evidence. Contrary to the claims of the Book of Mormon, this evidence has shown that there are four major genetic lineages for the peoples of the Americas which are of Eastern Asiatic origin, along with a fifth that is possibly Caucasian.
In order to support the claim that Israelites came to America, the DNA evidence would have to reflect their Israeli genetic lineage, which “resemble[s that] of Europeans.” The only European genetic heritage in America, however, came with Columbus and the European settlers who followed him. Furthermore, Mormons frequently assert that it was the Mayans and Olmecs who parallel the civilizations of Nephi and the Jaredites. This evidence simply doesn’t match the genetic history, which demonstrates that traces of European (and therefore possibly Israelite) origins have been found in the North American peoples and not with the Mesoamerican Olmecs and Mayans—as would be necessary to support this Mormon theory. The assertion that Native Americans descended from the lost tribes of Israel is groundless. The Smithsonian Institute wrote that “The physical type of the Native Americans is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central and northeastern Asia.” This evidence leads Simon Southerton to conclude that “The ancestors of Native Americans were Asians who unknowingly became the first Americans as they walked across Beringia over 14,000 years ago… Regardless of coincidental cultural, linguistic, or morphological parallels with the Old World, the peoples of the Pacific Rim who met Columbus and Cook were not Israelites.” Native Americans descend from Asia, not Israel. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is strongly undercut by prevailing scientific evidence and genetic data.
Mormonism’s response to this DNA evidence has been threefold. The Mormon apologist counters by arguing that Christianity is undercut by scientific evidence, that science can’t disprove the Book of Mormon anyway, or that the conclusions drawn from the DNA evidence are stronger than such studies warrant. There is little need to argue against the first rebuttal, as it amounts to little more than a tu quoque. It serves only to try to push the burden of proof off the Mormon apologist. Furthermore, it seems very strange, considering the lengths to which many have gone to argue that Mormons are Christians. The second response also has little to recommend it. In an article curiously titled “BYU professor refutes Book of Mormon DNA Claims,” Mark Nolte writes “[Michael] Whiting [a BYU scientist] said the Book of Mormon was not written as a scientific book, and therefore cannot be wholly proved or disproved using scientific methods… it is no surprise that DNA analysis could not find a genetic marker that links American Indians to a Middle-Eastern population. [Whiting said,]‘I would be skeptical of someone standing up and saying, ‘I have DNA evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.’” The assertion seems to be that the Book of Mormon is theology, not science, and therefore cannot be evaluated scientifically. Examining such claims fully is beyond the scope of this work, but it seems like this whole response is glaringly dismissive. The Book of Mormon does claim that the Native Americans are descendants of the Israelites, as Whiting acknowledges, so evidence which demonstrates they are not disconfirms the Book of Mormon.
The third claim warrants further examination. Essentially, Mormon apologists argue that we simply can’t know enough to determine whether or not Israelite DNA is present in Native Americans. The problem with this claim is that the evidence is not at all inconclusive. In fact, the evidence demonstrates that 99.6% of Native Americans are of Asian descent. The .4% of non-Asian Native American lineage is found in those genetic pools which interacted with the early colonizers. Not only that, but even if the .4% of non-Asian genetic lineage could be Israelite (which it is not), the Book of Mormon claims that the Israelites in America were huge civilizations. Why, then, would their genetic footprint be so small? Furthermore, the claims that such methodology is problematic or that we have limited data is also demonstrably false. The genetic data is conclusive, and studies which utilize other methods for determining heritage (such as dental, osteological [study of bones], and molecular studies) confirm that the descent of the Native American is Asian, not Israelite. According to Stephen Whittington, “Archaeologists and physical anthropologists have not found any evidence of Hebrew origins for the people of North, South and Central America.” Genetic evidence therefore provides a strong defeater for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
We have seen that the Book of Mormon is integral to the faith of Mormonism. If this book is factually incorrect, then there is no reason to suppose its theological message is true. Joseph Smith once said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” I hope that Mormons will indeed receive the truths found in genetic and archaeological evidence.
 Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church, (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature, 2004), 73.
 Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, 117-118.
 The Mormon Church, “Introduction to the Book of Mormon”, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng (accessed February 1, 2011).
 Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, 89-90.
 Ibid, 129.
 Ibid, 129.
 Ibid, 83.
 Ibid, 129.
 Quoted in Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, 215 and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? 97.
 Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, 130.
 David Stewart, “DNA and the Book of Mormon.” The Latter-Day Saints Foundation for Apologetics Information and Research. http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html (accessed October 29, 2010.
 Stewart, “DNA and the Book of Mormon”; see also, Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, 184f.
 A simple search on google for “Are Mormons Christians” turns up 610,000 results (at the time of this writing), many of which argue the affirmative, from a Mormon perspective.
 Emphasis mine.
 Nolte, “BYU Professor…”
 Stewart, “DNA and the Book of Mormon”; see also Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, 188.
 Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, 187, 192.
 Ibid, 117-118. For just one example within the Book of Mormon itself, see the Book of Alma [one of the books in the Book of Mormon] 51:27, which states “And thus had the Lamanites obtained, by the cunning of Amalickiah, so many cities, by their numberless hosts, all of which were strongly fortified after the manner of the fortifications of Moroni; all of which afforded strongholds for the Lamanites.” The language suggests huge civilizations: “many cities”; “numberless hosts”.
 Stewart, “DNA and the Book of Mormon.”
 Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, 191.
 Quoted in Ibid, 191.
This post was derived from an essay I wrote for my graduate studies at Biola University.
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.