Although I'm not Tom's judge, I do feel that his statements show what's really going on here. I know I'm preaching to the choir on this list, but I hope you all will humor me...

I did not desire nor invite the church disciplinary council.
This is absolutely not true. Tom is inviting the council by his actions. He is directly and publicly opposing the work of God. This invites a council.


I do not desire excommunication
This is questionable. A person who does not desire excommunication does not behave in the way that Tom has behaved. I do not understand the need for some "intellectuals" to grub in the mud for publicity. Tom is trying his case before the high council in the media, and pronouncing himself guilty before anything has actually occurred. Perhaps he knows something...

and believe that it would be in the best interest of the church to halt the council.
Who is Tom to determine what the best interests of the church are? Why do these Sigs always attempt to tell us what is best for us? Why do they insist that they are always right? Is it because they are somehow smarter than we are? Perhaps they are just more arrogant.

I believe that the LDS Church could provide a great service for critically thinking members of the Church
This is a sweeping generalization. Many critically thinking members of the Church are patient, humble, and willing to wait for the Lord.

if it would permit open discussion of the Book of Mormon as fiction, perhaps even inspired fiction.
This would totally undermine the role of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. Doing so would destroy the Church.

The scientific and historical evidence is so overwhelmingly arrayed against traditional hemispheric and limited geographic interpretations that an open and honest discussion of an allegorical reading of the Book of Mormon is warranted.
This is only in his own mind. I wonder what he means by "historical evidence?" Who is interpreting that evidence? In his case, it is most likely those who derisively call a sacred text the "BoMor". As for the scientific evidence, he has shown a remarkable lack of understanding of the subject. Data doesn't mean science. Seizing upon one theory and riding it to the bitter end is one of the best ways to be consigned to the ash heap of history.

My desire is to help create such a space for Mormons.
Another great intellectual descends from his tower on high, here to help me. Oh, please. If this were politics, we would call him a flaming liberal.

Ultimately, it is up to my stake high council to decide if that view is out-of-bounds.
No, it is up to the Lord.

I am not going to change my view or sweeten it to please the stake president or anyone else.
This apparently includes anyone who might have data or theories to the contrary.

The matter of fact is that of the thousands of Native American individuals and hundreds of tribal groups studied to date,
These are limited studies that cannot possibly take into account all of the things that have happened to the ancestors of these people. The Nephites were totally wiped out, and the Lamanites suffered terrible losses. This would alter the gene pool, considerably. Although it is a reasonable conjecture, the Book of Mormon does not identify the Native Americans as the descendants of these people. He does not take this into account, either.

not a single one of them has any evidence of a genetic tie to
ancient Israel
There is a major fallacy in this argument which he is missing. His precious "Jewish" gene pool has been heavily polluted by the fact that Jews allow converts, and that they intermarry with them. It would seem to me that you could not state with 100% certainty that any piece of a genome is "Jewish", or for that matter, even "middle-eastern." All you could say is that statistically some traits would be more common in some groups of peoples, given certain assumptions, than others.

within the time frame required by the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps someone with better knowledge of genetics could help me here. Is it possible to date pieces of a genome? Can you say, for example, that a particular mutation happened on or reasonably near a specific date, solely from examining DNA?

Not even Scott Woodward of BYU anticipates that future data will change that scenario.
Woodward doesn't know either. He isn't touting that fact in the media, however, or writing books declaring that his lack of knowledge must mean that he knows something.

Notice, by the way, the use of BYU in his statement? The fact that Woodward works for BYU is irrelevant, but makes it look as though BYU is tacitly supporting Tom's point.

The high council cannot change the science by excommunicating me
Perhaps he wouldn't be in so much trouble if he actually applied the principles of science. Observe:

1: Tom has a theory, that his actions are sufficient to cause excommunication.
2: Instead of waiting for the process by which this theory can be proven, he has already decided that his theory is fact, and is proclaiming it to the world.

Using the principles of science here would show that he has understanding, rather than knowledge, of the subject.

I refuse to misrepresent the evidence to please them.
Tom seems to understand misrepresentation of evidence very well.

I fear that many of these people are going to find out the hard way that the devil abandons his servants and leaves them to twist in the wind.

Harold Stuart

/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to