The Critical Edition

Perhaps trying to ride the coattails of Expelled, the Restored Church of God sect — one of many predicting the end of the world in “a few short years” — has begun publishing a series on evolution at its sister site, The Real Truth. In an article entitled “Evolution Exposed: Deconstructing False Science“, Bradford G. Schleifer attempts to explain all the rational faults in the theory of evolution, deconstructing it in one blow. Rather, a series of them, for this is only part one.

We might begin by asking about Schleifer’s scientific creditials, but that would probably be going against the spirit of the article:

Review the evidence with an open mind. Do not allow any existing bias to blind you to this crucial understanding. The implications are much greater than you probably realize.

An open mind means a couple of things. For some readers, it means that Schleifer wants us to set aside any prejudices we might have against creationism. But why should this be the case? I have a prejudice against voodoo, but I think Schleifer would agree with me on that one. I have a prejudice against phrenology. What do voodoo and phrenology have in common, with each other and creationism? They’re not science. But I doubt Schleifer — as most creationists — understands what that means.

“An open mind” also means an empty mind — empty of all understanding of evolution. That way, Schliefer can create an evolutionary straw man (most creationists already have one firmly in place for evolution) that he can then demolish.

Schliefer quickly shows his ignorance, asking “Why is evolution cemented in the minds of many as fact, when it is nothing more than theory?”

Apparently, Schliefer either had awful science teachers in high school or didn’t pay attention in science class. To begin an article asking why it’s called a theory is to expose a depth of ignorance that is simply stunning. Gravity exists, but there is such a thing as gravitational theory, but that doesn’t mean that gravity is not a fact. This is a favorite straw man of creationists, though: create a false dichotomy between “fact” and “theory.”

Schliefer continues in the same, uneducated manner:

Certain aspects of evolution may be confusing and difficult to understand. Do not be surprised! The rationale invented to support evolution is bewildering and complicated. It is tiresome and boring. Certain facts are conveniently left behind, and tedious scholarly language is used to stop most people from examining the subject in detail. Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact.

Each sentence in this short passage is loaded beyond belief. What’s he really saying?

• Certain aspects of evolution may be confusing and difficult to understand. “I’m assuming you’re a complete idiot and can’t understand ‘complicated’ things. Don’t worry — I’ll explain them all.”
• The rationale invented to support evolution is bewildering and complicated. “Your small mind might be unable to understand these deep, convoluted secrets, but don’t worry — it doesn’t mean you’re stupid. It just means you’re stupid.”
• It is tiresome and boring. “I slept through biology.”
• Certain facts are conveniently left behind, and tedious scholarly language is used to stop most people from examining the subject in detail. “When I flipped through a few issues of Scientific American as part of the ‘research’ I did on this article, I didn’t understand much of what I read. Therefore, the authors must be conspiring to deceive me.”
• Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact. “Unless you haven’t taken my advice — you haven’t approached the subject with an openness to be wrong — and you’ve been convinced for any period of time about creationism; then you’ll just assume evolution is wrong.”

Treating the reader with condescension is not the rhetorical technique I’ve ever seen, and usually it makes it difficult to continue reading. However, I read this and I’m hooked, just like the old SNL skit where everyone’s tasting the rancid milk and rubbing Chris Farley’s sweaty belly: just how bad can this get?

Schliefer increases the level of dolt rhetoric in the very next passage:

This series will demystify the subject. You will know if evolution is science fact or science fiction. Convoluted and illogical theories will be simplified in a way never before presented. While some sections are technical, the more detail given, the better you will be able to see through the theory’s “smoke and mirrors.” Clear and simple logic always destroys ill-conceived suppositions.

“Smoke and mirrors” — I’m immediately wondering if they’re going to be dealing with anything of any substance. For example, will he mention chromosomal fusion? Will he deal with comparative biology and embryology and how they provide evidence for evolution?

The old fact/theory “proof” is not the only worn out argument that Schliefer uses. He goes for the obvious: the Law of Entropy disproves evolution argument:

Linking cause and effect with another set of scientific laws—thermodynamics—makes the picture sharper. The word “thermodynamics” comes from the Greek words therme, meaning “heat or energy,” and dunamis, meaning “power.”

What the Greek roots have to do with anything is anyone’s guess. Could it be an attempt to seem erudite? Nah — that’s too blazingly obvious.

The entropy argument goes like this: all things are in a state of decay, based on the law of entropy. Therefore, if life had been evolving for billions of years, eventually entropy would have taken over and wound down everything that evolution wound up.

But it’s not so simple:

it is only the over-all entropy of a complete, or closed system that must increase when spontaneous change occurs. In the case of spontaneously interacting sub-systems of a closed system, some may gain entropy, while others may lose entropy. For example, it is a fundamental axiom of thermodynamics that when heat flows from subsystem A to subsystem B, the entropy of A decreases and the entropy of B increases. The statement that an increase in order can only occur as the result of a directional mechanism, program, or code is misleading. Any process that can be demonstrated to take place with an increase in order/decrease in entropy is arbitrarily deemed to be the consequence of an undefined “directional mechanism.” (TalkOrigins.org)

But that’s science. Schliefer is only interested in science insofar as it seems to back up creationism, such as a non-creationist expressing doubts about evolution, which proves that even the scientists themselves don’t believe it but go on with the great conspiracy of evolution.

I can’t wait to see what “Part 2″ includes.

Evolution Exposed: Deconstructing False Science–Part 1

We ended the last installment with Smith passed out in a field, which leads to obvious questions: Was Smith mentally ill? Did he have hallucinations?

A quick search shows suggests several possibilities.

That he was bipolar:

Joseph Smith’s life reads like the DSM IV-TR criteria for manic episodes of bipolar disorder.

1. Risk Taking - he took so many risks that he was killed in jail by a mob
2. Hypersexuality - 51 wives
3. Hyperreligiousity - founded a new religion
4. Delusions of Granduer
5. Flight of ideas / racing thoughts
6. Prolific production of work in a short period - Book of Mormon
7. Calls friends in the middle of the night - 116 pages
8. Audible hallucinations - revelations
9. Anger management issues
10. Talkativeness / pressured speech

This would indicate that “god” did not reveal anything to Joseph Smith, he was experiencing manic and mixed bipolar episodes. If this is true, the Book of Mormon and the First Vision are simply delusions of someone with bipolar in a manic episode. (Source)

That he had temporal lobe epilepsy:

I cannot find anything in your website about the idea that Joseph Smith suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy. The symptoms of such attacks include visions of strange beings, an apparent loss of time, a feeling of insight into profound matters, and an urge to spread the word. His revelations seem to me to be classic examples of such attacks, and thus it would be unscientific to resort to claims of the supernatural, violating the principle of Occam’s razor. I would be interested to hear your thought on this theory.

One might even make an argument for other disorders.

This does not deter Mormons, though. A Mormon apologist replies to accusations of mental illness thusly:

Joseph Smith had real spiritual experiences and the things he claimed happened really did occur. It’s obvious that you do not believe that God exists and communicates with man. However, I know of absolute surety that he does. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“This principle ought (in its proper place) to be taught, for God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them, for the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, Know ye that Lord; for all shall know Him (who remain) from the least to the greatest.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three 1838–39, p.149)

I have had many spiritual experiences that are very similar to those of Joseph Smith and no doctor in the world would claim I suffered from “temporal lobe epilepsy.” It is possible for every man to know for himself that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. (Source)

In the end, it comes down to interpretation of one’s own experience, this apologist argues. He’s wrong, though. We could, though, observe this apologist to determine if he exhibits any symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy, and we could even do a brain scan to determine whether or not he suffers from the condition.

We, however, are only left with Smith’s written testimony.

I don’t know what the use of historical diagnosis is, and that’s really not the point of my comment.

Smith continues his testimony by describing what happens while unconscious. A voice from above reveals “the same messenger” from earlier, who commands Smith to go tell his father what’s been going on.

“I obeyed; I returned to my father in the field, and rehearsed the whole matter to him. He replied to me that it was of God, and told me to go and do as commanded by the messenger.”

I wonder how that conversation sounded.

“Dad, I’m hearing voices and seeing bright, white beings.”

Smith, Senior stands, scratching his head for a moment, the responds: “Oh — that must be from God. Better do what the voices say.”

Smith then follows the messenger’s instructions and goes to the location of the plates

Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

The Book of Mormon invites — practically begs — for archeology to take a look at its claims, and here’s one that even armchair archaeologists could take on: the mysterious location of the plates.

The name of the hill is Cumorah, known now (and forever, I guess) as Hill Cumorah — gives it a more regal ring, I suppose.

These days, it’s a Mormon holy place, with a monument commemorating the discovery and an elaborate stage area for outdoor events.

Perhaps there’s some way we could test the soil to determine whether or not anything foreign had been buried there, but that would require the site to have been largely undisturbed over the years — not likely for a holy site.

Once Smith finds the site, he digs around a bit and finds a stone container.

Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

Smith wants to take them out, but the messenger forbids him, explaining that he will be allowed to do so in four years. The messenger further explains that Smith is to come to the site several times over the next four years.

Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner His kingdom was to be conducted in the last days.

Once a year, Smith went back to the hill and spoke with the angel. The necessity of conversing at that particular location is odd, for he was not to touch the plates for four years. Why not just keep meeting in Smith’s bedroom? What is the importance of the location?

Finally, “[o]n the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven,” Smith is allowed to dig everything up: “the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate” and he’s instructed that he will be “cut off” if he lets anything happen to them.

The reason for the messenger’s warning soon becomes evident: everyone is eager to get his little hands on the plates:

Every stratagem that could be invented was resorted to for that purpose. The persecution became more bitter and severe than before, and multitudes were on the alert continually to get them from me if possible. But by the wisdom of God, they remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand.

Smith completes his work, and the messenger comes down and takes the plates from him.

Thus ends Smith’s testimony proper. The document in the Book of Mormon concludes,

For the complete record, see Joseph Smith—History, in the Pearl of Great Price, and History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, volume 1, chapters 1 through 6.

The ancient record thus brought forth from the earth as the voice of a people speaking from the dust, and translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested by Divine affirmation, was first published to the world in the year 1830 as The Book of Mormon.

And finally, we might get to the Book of Mormon itself.

Image of Hill Cumorah by Flickr user bbytheway; image of replica by mhwolk

I have no idea how many of my students are on medication, but the number is certainly significant. We live in a medicated society, yet we’ve never heard the stories of those who grew up taking medications.

“I’ve grown up on medication,” my patient Julie told me recently. “I don’t have a sense of who I really am without it.”

At 31, she had been on one antidepressant or another nearly continuously since she was 14. There was little question that she had very serious depression and had survived several suicide attempts. In fact, she credited the medication with saving her life.

But now she was raising an equally fundamental question: how the drugs might have affected her psychological development and core identity. (Coming of Age on Antidepressants)

During my brief stint in graduate school, I had a brief discussion with my adviser about the metaphysical connotations of such medications. These substances change the very core of what we think of as the soul, I said, adding that it brings up once again that old chestnut of the mind-body problem: what exactly is the connection between the “I” that I think of as G. Scott and the brain/body? How can something physical change something we tend to think of as non-physical. If we throw out the idea of a soul, it’s an easy question to answer; if we want to cling to that idea, it’s somewhat more difficult.

Our discussion continued along these lines, moving to a discussion of how these medications tend to change things we used to think were personality traits. “How many Kierkegaards have we destroyed with Prozac?”

Indeed — think of all the creative geniuses in history and it’s almost shocking how many of them displayed characteristics that would now be labeled bipolar, for instance: Mahler, Van Gogh, and Kierkegaard all come to mind.

The possibility of changing personality through medication seems more likely when we think of people taking medication from age fourteen, before a solid “I” has formed. Who would these people have been without medication? In many cases, the answers is no one — they would have ended up as suicide statistics. But tweak the question a bit: who would they been if they had begun medication a few years later?

We’ll never know.

Nor will they.

I certainly don’t agree with it all, and I don’t like the vitriol at the end, but nonetheless, some things worth pondering.

Padre Pio’s body will be displayed in Italy.

Among the stories that surround the monk, who was born Francesco Forgione and died at the age of 81, is one that he wrestled with the devil one night in his monastery cell.

Some believers also say Padre Pio was able to predict future events, was seen in two places at once and could tell people their sins before they confessed them to him.

Pope John Paul II made him a saint in 2002 at a ceremony attended by one of the biggest crowds ever in the Vatican after the Church said it had found evidence that the miraculous cure of a sick woman was the result of intercession by the dead monk.

However, he was dogged during his life and after his death by accusations that he was a fraud.

A new book last year suggested he was a self-harming man who might have used carbolic acid to cause wounds in his hands mimicking those of Jesus when he was nailed to the cross.

Church officials have denied that he was a fake. (Faithful await display of Catholic mystic’s body)

It’s odd how people so want to see the earthly remains of those regarded as saints, from Lenin to Pio.

Many Muslim women have claimed that the wearing of the hijab — head-covering scarf — is not oppressive and that they do it voluntarily.

Could it be worn voluntarily and still be oppressive?

The answer lies in why it is commanded. Verses 30 and 31 surah 24 (The Light) read:

Say to the believing men that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts; that is purer for them; surely Allah is Aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful.

The list of who might see an uncovered woman can be distilled thusly:

There are two things that immediately stand out.

1. Almost everyone mentioned here is a man.
2. The only men who can see a woman are family members.

Additionally, notice that the instructions given to the men are much less demanding than those given the women. Men are to cast their eyes down and to protect their private parts; women get a whole shopping list of requirements.

The Koran also addresses hijab in Sura 33 (The Clans), verse 59:

O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

It all tends to smack of women being the possession of men, doesn’t it?

Yet it’s also a bit demeaning to men: it suggests that men have no self control, that men will automatically turn any and all women in to sexual objects, and that the only way men can notice a woman’s mind is if the women are covered.

Caveats

Caveat one: The New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 11, commands women to cover their heads when in prayer. A couple of caveats to this caveat: first, this is only in limited circumstances, specifically in prayer and when prophesying. Secondly, most Christians have philosophized that away.

Caveat two: Not all Muslim women wear headscarfs. There is a caveat to this, though: to do so in many Muslim countries is to risk condemnation or worse.

Notice: it’s a woman delivering the correctives, but a male police officer is close at hand, showing who the real authority is. Notice also that when the woman is discussing a poor stranger’s clothes, discussing her “sarafan,” a man walks by in a tight-fitting Western shirt, looking must un-Islamic. Nothing is said to him.

Caveat three: Nuns cover themselves. This is, however, an unequal comparison. Becoming a nun is a voluntary addition (or modification) to being a Christian. One can move into and out of a position that requires the head covering. Muslim women cannot do this.

After an asterisked break, Smith’s testimony continues:

Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it.

I must be missing something. We just read the Testimony of the Three, followed by the Testimony of the Eight — both reported seeing the plates. yet here we have Moroni saying, “Don’t show them to anyone.” Of course, I haven’t finished Smith’s testimony, so perhaps Moroni changes his mind.

That in itself would be problematic. Is Moroni speaking for himself, or for God? Certainly for God. No angel would presume to make a decision that would alter the course of human history — at least to some degree — without first consulting the Boss. Would he?

Either way, we have a problem.

If he’s speaking for God, then this is a discrepancy with one of Christianity’s most basic tenants about God: he changes not. In this scenario, God says, “Moroni, go tell Smith not to show anyone those plates” and then later, “Oh, on second though, he might get a lot of flack about the plates. Better let him show people”?

The other option is equally unappealing: Moroni is acting on his own accord. Wasn’t that what Lucifer was doing?

There are two more options, though: Smith could have just disregard it all. Or — and this is the most damning of all — Smith could have invented the Book of Mormon and simply noticed the discrepancy.

Continuing, Smith testifies:

After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around the person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to do so, until the room was again left dark, except just around him, when instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven, and he ascended until he entirely disappeared, and the room was left as it had been before this heavenly light had made its appearance.

I lay musing on the singularity of the scene, and marveling greatly at what had been told to me by this extraordinary messenger; when, in the midst of my meditation, I suddenly discovered that my room was again beginning to get lighted, and in an instant, as it were, the same heavenly messenger was again by my bedside.

Well, maybe Moroni has changed his mind. He certainly seems fairly indecisive here. It brings to mind the Clash classic.

“Should I stay or should I go?”

He commenced, and again related the very same things which he had done at his first visit, without the least variation; which having done, he informed me of great judgments which were coming upon the earth, with great desolations by famine, sword, and pestilence; and that these grievous judgments would come on the earth in this generation. Having related these things, he again ascended as he had done before.

Why the repetition? Why come back and simply repeat the same information, only to add a bit at the end about the awful things that will happen? Who cares, because there’s a bigger issue here: Moroni says that these things will happen “in this generation.” Humans get end-of-the-world prophecies wrong all the time, but angels, with their unfettered access to omniscient God?

There is a precedent for this, though. Jesus said, in the Olivet Discourse, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matt. 24:34). There are ways to theologize around this, but Jesus’ words are fairly simple, as are Moroni’s: this generation. And in both cases “this generation” is now “that generation”, several generations removed.

At any rate, Smith continues:

By this time, so deep were the impressions made on my mind, that sleep had fled from my eyes, and I lay overwhelmed in astonishment at what I had both seen and heard. But what was my surprise when again I beheld the same messenger at my bedside, and heard him rehearse or repeat over again to me the same things as before; and added a caution to me, telling me that Satan would try to tempt me (in consequence of the indigent circumstances of my father’s family), to get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. This he forbade me, saying that I must have no other object in view in getting the plates but to glorify God, and must not be influenced by any other motive than that of building His kingdom; otherwise I could not get them.

Three visits. There must be some significance to this.

Smith here seems to be countering twentieth century critics who would say, “You’re just making this up to get rich.” Of course that’s an anachronistic reading, but Smith does seem to be trying to head off certain objections before they arise. “Why, if I had plates like that, I’d get myself rich off them,” might have been the common logic he feared, as some sort of argument against the authenticity of his story. It’s about God, not mammon, in other words.

Will there be a fourth? I’ll wager no, in parallel with Jesus’ three days in the grave.

After this third visit, he again ascended into heaven as before, and I was again left to ponder on the strangeness of what I had just experienced; when almost immediately after the heavenly messenger had ascended from me the third time, the cock crowed, and I found that day was approaching, so that our interviews must have occupied the whole of that night.

I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything.

This could be a clue.

After so many assurances that Joseph Smith did receive revelation from God, we might expect to hear from Smith himself.

The Prophet Joseph Smith’s own words about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon are: “On the evening of the . . . twenty-first of September [1823] . . . I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God . . . . “While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor. “He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrists; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. “Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. “He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; “Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted Seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

At last, a question from the Introduction is answered: Moroni is an angel. Yet none mentioned in the Bible. One would think that, if God were going to reveal something through an angel almost two thousand years after his last revelation, that he would set things up in advance, at least mentioning the angel.

Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer — we get these names. Milton gives us others.

And from Smith, Moroni.

DNA and Descendants

“He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.” Famously, DNA evidence has cast some doubt on Mormonism’s claims. Jeff Lindsay, a Mormon apologist, writes,

The issue of DNA and the Book of Mormon has raised many questions and some inappropriately harsh attacks by critics. Sadly, I even know of one person who claims to have left the Church because the preliminary DNA evidence did not square with his expectations. Still in its infancy, the application of DNA analysis to ancient history has posed tough new questions for those who believe in the Book of Mormon, just as it poses tough new questions for those who believe in the Bible–and for those who “believe” in linguistics, anthropology, and other sciences. DNA evidence is forcing many old assumptions to be reevaluated, but is also causing genuine head-scratching as it sometimes seems at odds with reasonable conclusions drawn from other fields. (Source)

Those “who ‘believe’ in linguistics, anthropology, and other sciences”? My initial reaction: so much for thoughtful apologetics. “Hey, it’s a belief, just like linguistics!” Lindsay continues,

DNA analysis of multiple Native American tribes generally points to Asian origins. Native American DNA does not appear to have distinctly “Jewish” traits. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed only along maternal lines, primarily falls into four groups — haplogroups — that are termed A, B, C, and D — and these same groups are typical of Asian DNA. Initial studies comparing the mtDNA of Native Americans and other peoples of the world pointed to a definite Asian origin. Latter-day Saints pointed out that Lehi’s tiny group might have had negligible impact on the genes that would persist on the continent if the New World already had thousands or millions of people upon his arrival, as it almost certainly did.

So the argument is, “Well, there were too few to have an impact on the Native American gene pool.” Yet the LDS argument might be stronger than that:

Then it was noticed that 3 or 4 percent of northern Native Americans had a fifth haplogroup called the X haplogroup, which was unknown in Asia but common in Europe and especially the Middle East. Some of us Latter-day Saints pointed to the non-Asian X haplogroup as evidence for possible transoceanic contact with Europe or the Middle East, though probably not as evidence for Lehi’s migration since the estimated date of entry into the New World for haplogroup X was thousands of years before Lehi. But we would emphasize the complete absence of haplogroup X in Asia and its relative abundance in Europe and the Middle East, including Israel.

You see, there is another haplogroups in Native American genes, but even though it would have been present long before Lehi (still not sure who that is — could Google it, but I’ll just keep reading the Book of Mormon and find out like a good, patient reader) migrated. It shows it’s possible, though.

The bottom line, though, is that these criticism of Mormonism are based on a misunderstanding of what the Book of Mormon actually claims: “The Book of Mormon does not claim to explain the primary genetic origins of all Native Americans.”

It explains their geographic origins, but not their genetic origins.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

The drama at the Yearning for Zion compound has a familiar ring to anyone raised in any kind of sect that preaches seclusion from the world. Different definitions of reality; different morality; different everything. The outside world is not to be trusted; the outside world is evil; our protective group is heaven.

ABC was recently allowed into the compound and interviewed some of the women, who have now been separated from their children.

Neil Karlinsky, the correspondent, asks a group of mothers who insist that children are not abused in the compound whether or not young girls are forced into marriage.

“We’re talking about our children,” is the reply to Karlinsky’s repeated questioning.

That’s the point — so is Karlinsky, and so is the state. “We can’t understand why the state took the children away from us,” say the mothers. “Because we don’t know what you’re doing to your children,” comes the reply.

Another woman, when asked if she shares a husband with other wives, says she cannot answer the question at this time.

“Why not?” Karlinsky presses.

“Because it’s sacred to me,” she replies.

“I take that to mean a yes,” Karlinsky responds, reading viewers’ minds.

Yet as a parent now, I cannot imagine what the parents of these children must be going through. Not only has Child Protective Services taken these children, but they’ve taken them into the wild of the world. For the parents, these children are at risk in every sense of the word. I imagine the opposite: my child taken from me and plopped down in Yearning for Zion, where everyone holds beliefs diametrically opposed to my own: I would fear for my daughter’s safety in more ways than one.

Jeff Lindsay, at Mormanity, writes,

This case is not about the children. It’s about the power of the State. No apologies. No backing down. No care for the children who are being traumatized and abused as they are torn from their mothers. It’s all for their own good and protection, just like the Cultural Revolution. (Source)

It’s abusive to rip them away from their mothers that way; it’s abusive if young girls are being forced into marriages. Which abuse is worse?

The whole interview is available here.

A colleague once bemoaned the lack of solidarity concerning the war in Iraq compared to that in World War II.

There are a lot of differences, cultural and otherwise, and the cultural differences have a lot to do with what happened in Vietnam. Even without Vietnam, though, there are enough differences between the US of 1941 and the US of 2008 to explain compellingly why we were more united in the effort 60+ years ago than we are now — and none of these reasons has anything to do directly with the war itself.

Certainly there are important differences regarding the nature of the wars: Hitler was not hiding his ambition to conquer Europe; Iraq was, at the very least, not being blatantly aggressive. But that is not the fundamental difference.

The main difference is economic.

The economic reason people were so united was that we had to pay for the war somehow — then and there. We bought war bonds; we conserved; we preserved; women took men’s jobs; we skipped vacations.

The Second World War was an expensive proposition. It was even more expensive considering the fact that America had just suffered the Great Depression. It was still more expensive considering the fact that America the dollar was still based on the gold standard, and all that money had to back by something other than loans and good intentions, as it is today. So when we built a plane or manufactured a round of ammunition, it ultimately had to be backed with gold. The government could not just print off money or get a loan. It had to pay for all the materials outright.

James McGovern explained it thusly in The Boston Globe

Currently, we are paying for the war in Iraq not through the normal budget process but by borrowing and increasing the national debt - by putting the costs onto the national credit card. Every morning, countries like China and India buy up this debt, further weakening our economy and our national security. (Globe)

Not so in 1941. If we went to war, we paid for it.

That’s why World War II stimulated the American economy — because real money, backed by gold — was changing hands. The current war does nothing to stimulate the economy because we’re only getting loans to pay for it.

The only way to change this is to get America back on the gold standard. However, this is all but impossible: most American’s don’t even know that we’re no longer on the gold standard, and even if they did, most wouldn’t want to return. “Why, we have enough to pay for with gas at $3.30 a gallon!”