Thursday, February 16, 2006

DNA and the Book of Mormon

I, for one, can't wait to read the transcript of Hugh's interview with the author what sounds like the LA Times' latest inability to understand what "Mormon" doctrine actually encompasses. It is, sadly, a surprise to some Mormons who have only given it casual thought to realize that the Book of Mormon does not anywhere claim to be THE history of ALL the Americas. I myself am quite impressed with John L. Sorenson's studies and many defenses of said studies on the subject (he keeps Book of Mormon history limited to a small portion of Central America), and unless something better comes along, I'll subscribe to it quite happily - just not as official doctrine.

It may seem like a weird topic for Hugh to cover, but

[1] Hugh has a sizeable Mormon audience,

[2] Remember that Hugh was a friend of the late, great Elder Maxwell (get a copy of Hewitt's "Searching for God in America" if you can find one), and,

[3] I've always enjoyed Hugh's takedown of mainstream media's snide anti-Mormonism during the Utah Winter Olympics.

Wish I'd heard it, but ah wuz workin'.

Woody's Two Cents:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Truly nothing new under the sun, it seems: Mr. Lobdell trots out the same old tired arguments, clothed in relatively new "controversies." Speaking personally, my faith hasn't been this shaken since I discovered that I had to develop my own testimony instead of relying on Mom's.

Also, the idea that interviewing a few disaffected former members constitutes a major shakeup of our faith is ludricous. As I recall, reports of the demise of the Episcopal church over the election of gay bishops have been premature, too. (Mine among them.)

Oh, and I always enjoy the need to get "expert" opinions from those who study religion in general, but have absolutely no idea what our church really represents. Or why.

Time to get a real job, Mr. Lobdell. You've run out of fresh material.

Final note from CCWBASS:

Eh. Gotta agree with Woody: that was dullsville.

But it was also annoying. Lobdell's whole story depends on this statement being true:

And the traditional interpretation was that they populated the entire North, Central and South American continents.

Oh, what strawmen can be fashioned from the phrase "traditional interpretation" . . .

And this sentence really bugs me:
And so they're slowly, they slowly appear to be shifting from the American...all the natives of the Americas were descendents of this Hebrew tribe to this fresher interpretation.

Slowly? The limited geography theory (John Sorenson's work, essentially) has been king o' the mountain since the early 80's. The shift - however one defines it - happened. It is not happening. It is old news. It was old news 20 years before Lobdell wrote the story.

I demand we get a new shill, as Lobdell has clearly forgotten how to please our masters: The Sacred Council of Four of the Great Alkali Plain! Onward, Merona!

No . . . wait. Sorry 'bout that, folks. I'm kind of reaching a point where I find it more and more difficult to differentiate between sloppy journalism and A. Conan Doyle's "A Study in Scarlet," hence, the confusion.

Won't happen again (this morning), I assure you. ;)

No comments: