Archaeological Evidence

Well my 6 months of mourning are over. My predictions for Mitt in California Primary were so off, I have decided to never predict anything dealing with politics again. I have little hope of Mitt becoming the next Vice President. I decided to move on, put my shoulder to the wheel, and begin to Blog. I love to write about Mormonism, and pop culture. So it's time for me to get back to it.

I was listing to one of my favorite mediums of pop culture, Talk Radio the other day. I don't like to argue a point here without a clear quote from what was said. But I was driving the freeway, and I could not write it down, so please forgive me. It was on the Michael Medved program. The conversation was on Obama, and the Rev. Wright controversy. The conversation was something along this line. How could somebody be involved in a church for 10 years, and not know what the pastor was saying.... especially when those words were against your principals.

So a gentleman calls up, and tells Michael Medved that he(Michael Medved) supported Mitt Romney in the primaries( Michael Medved really supported John McCain, One of the few who did. He did not support Mitt. Though He did have very kind words for Romney sometimes! ). He said support for Mitt, was not that much different then support for Obama. The man went on to say, the reason they are similar is because of all the Archaeological Evidence that has been found that contradicts Mormonism. His point, someone that belives that nonsense( LDS faith, in the face of new "archaeological Evidence), should not be taken serious as a candidate. WOW, I was blown away, I really wanted to know what he was thinking. Of course Michael Medved, being a devout Jew... Is not the best person to defend Mormonism. Sadly, Michael did not ask the man for a example of this "Archaeological Evidence". The statement just went as a cheap shot to the doctrine of the Mormon church.

The man did not say Biblical, DNA, Carbon Dating, Astrological, or Geothermal Evidence...... All of which might have given him more credibility. He choose to say modern "Archaeological Evidence" proved Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, and thus the LDS faith wrong.

This is the kind of thing that just strengthens my testimony of Joseph Smith, and the truth fullness of the Book of Mormon. Joseph writes of a vast civilisation in South America and publishes it to the world in 1830. He did NOT write that this civilization was at the North Pole, South Pole. That would have lead in time to "Archaeological Evidence" against his writings. He wrote instead of a vast civilization in South America. An area that in 1830, to a twenty five year old boy in New York, was not much more foreign and extreme as the North Pole is to us today. I know many of his detractors would say, a poor farm boy in New York had plenty of information about the ancient civilizations in South America. I would take issue with that assumption, but lets just say he new EVERYTHING!!! that had been discovered, written, spoken, and known about the ancient civilizations in South America in 1830. The discovery's since 1830 in South America are amazing. They are certainly "Archaeological Evidence" supporting the Book of Mormon, not detracting from it. One of the most popular is Peru's Machu Picchu, found in 1911.

Machu Picchu was found eighty one years after the Book of Mormon was published. I am researching all the discovery's in South America since the year 1830. They are vast, and amazing! I am sure some people are not impressed by Joseph Smiths prophetic vision of ancient civilizations in South America. I do say this, if the discovery's since 1830 where not in his favor, we would hear about it from them everyday. It's bad enough, that when he was prophetic, we still hear "Archaeological Evidence" proves him wrong. All this in the face of such incredible Archaeological Evidence in his favor, makes you only wonder about his detractors motives.

MITT ROMNEY Wins California Primary 2/4/2008

The Mormon Factor predicts Mitt Romney will win California tomorrow, on Super Tuesday. As you can see, I have posted todays Real Clear Politics.com polling average and polls. I am blogging to show that Romney is predicted to lose the California primary tomorrow. However, I think the reason Romney will win tomorrow is because of the "Mormon Factor".

Where being Mormon has hurt Romney in the East Coast Primaries, the "Mormon Factor" has helped him as he has moved toward western states, such as Nevada (which was credited to Romney because of the "Mormon Factor"). On the same side, I would also place Romney in that category when it comes to the votes in Wyoming since it is right next to Utah and Idaho. For many, California, being on the left coast, is not seen as a Mormon strong hold. However, in a Republican Primary, there is definitely a "Mormon Factor" in California. As you can see, I have listed my numbers below with my predictions.

California:

1. 750,000 Mormons in California.

2. 1/3 of them are under 18, so we have 495,000 left over

3. 75% are Conservative, so we have 375,000 left over

4. 75% of the Conservatives will vote for Romney, leaves 278,437 (others for McCain, Ron Paul)

6. 65% of whom will actually turn out to vote, that leaves 180,984 votes for Romney.

In a national election, 180,984 votes would not normally mean much. However, in a tight Republican Primary, in California, it will make a big difference. In Nevada, the population is 8% Mormon. That eight percent, is actually 20% of the total vote in Nevada. Because of a strong civic duty, preached by the Mormon faith, Mormons vote at a much higher rate than the national average. I believe because of this, The "Mormon Factor" will push Mitt to a 5% win in California.

Devo
info@mormonfactor.com

Book of Mormon and DNA Science

While I listen to Talk Radio, Anti-Mormon's are calling in everyday. There is some belief which Mormons hold, that makes a caller question Mitt Romney's mental ability to be President. “How can I vote for someone that believes such and such”, or “I can't vote for someone that be lives in such illogical mysticism.” Many times they don't even give an example of these beliefs that need "a willing suspension of disbelief" in their mind. When a caller does give an example, the Radio Host, usually not a follower of, or knowledgeable about, Mormonism, is in no position to defend the Mormon position or comment intelligently about the caller’s comment.

This was the case last week when a person called the Hugh Hewitt talk show. The caller said that he could not vote for a man who believes in the Book of Mormon in light of modern DNA evidence. There was a book written about ten years ago where a scientist did some DNA testing on American Indians. They found the DNA of these American Indians was not the same or related to DNA found in modern Israel blood lines.

Now, before shedding some light on the complete misunderstanding of these scientist assumptions, as well as some facts of the Book of Mormon. I want to provide this little side note: I find it very interesting, and Bible believing Trinitarian Christian friends love to bring this point up, that anyone today really thinks modern DNA science would prove that all mankind descend from Adam & Eve through Noah and his family! After all, the same thinking and evidence being used to question the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, is the very same line of evidence used by a secularist to question the Bible. Both views cover the same ground using DNA testing. Yet, anyone that has read the Bible would know there are answers to these questions inside. Likewise, anyone that actually read the Book of Mormon would not have the same issue with modern DNA evidence.

Now, for the "DNA cliff notes" version of the Book of Mormon. Lehi and his family left Israel, and were led across the seas to somewhere in Central or South America 600 years before the birth of Christ. Part of Lehi's family in the new world remained loyal to Lehi's beliefs through his righteous son Nephi, and were called Nephites. Another part of his family became wicked, and did not follow God. Instead, they followed Lehi's wicked son Laman, and were called Lamanites.

There were many wars fought between the Lamanites and Nephites. The Lord, not wanting the Nephites to intermingle and marry these wicked Lamanites, changed the Lamanites’ appearance much as he did in the Bible with Cain. This made them unappealing to the Nephites and, along with the unrighteousness of the Lamanites, the Nephites remained separated from the Lamanites for the entire 1000 year history of the Book of Mormon.

Now, understanding the process that must take place for the Lord to completely change people, including their skin color and appearance, the complex templates of DNA would also have to be changed, especially when such changes were to last among an entire people for over a thousand years. We believe in an ALL POWERFUL God who, having created the DNA of people, could easily change that DNA to alter and change a people. That is, an all powerful God could construct and reconstruct DNA the way my son constructs and reconstructs with his Lego's.

The Book of Mormon recording ends a thousand years of detailed and chronological history. Whatever changes the Lord brought about in the Lamanites’ DNA to alter their skin color and appearance remained throughout that recorded history. Some twenty-five hundred years before man learned about DNA, the two people, though commonly related in the beginning, were completely different during this time, fought a final, devastating war which resulted in the complete annihilation of the Nephites who, themselves, had become completely wicked. From about 400 A.D., only the Lamanites remained—not a single Nephite survived. Thus, the Nephite blood line, that of ancient Isreal, was gone from the Book of Mormon lands forever. Only the Lamanites, with their altered skin color and appearance, remained. Many of our detractors say Mormons changed their history to be more in-line with new DNA science. In answer, The Book of Mormon was translated and written down by Joseph Smith and put in print for the whole world to see in 1830. Obviously DNA was not a known word, or science in the 1830's. With our current understanding though, one has to believe to alter a whole peoples skin color and appearance at exactly the same time, and keep it thus altered for a thousand years and more, God changed that people’s DNA.

Second, there is another issue in the DNA science. Who and what people were tested in the DNA study. What evidence is there beyond assumption that DNA remains constant over thousands of years? What changes since creation has taken place in the DNA of a people? On the other hand, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) has NO OFFICIAL position on where Lehi landed in Central or South America. If in fact the Lehi colony landed along the western coast of South America, as some believe, the American Indians, though descendants of Lehi, would not be as directly related as South American tribes would be. With the Israel bloodline wiped out completely with the complete and total annihilation of the Nephites, the following is just a side note.

Even if you tested the correct tribes of people, Lehi’s directly DNA bloodline died with Moroni, the last living son of the last Nephite prophet, Mormon, as illustrated in the Book of Mormon history of the people who first settled the American continent. The DNA study only tested the American Indian along with current inhabitants of Central America (Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, ect), who would be for the most part, distant relatives of Lehi's family.Then, too, far to many Mormon's wrongfully believe the Book of Mormon takes place in, and Lehi landed in, Central America. Actually, the book of Mormon takes place in western South America, from central Chili to Ecuador. LDS Author, Del DowDell wrote a very detailed and accurate book about this very subject, titled: The Nephi Code: Lehi Never Saw MesoAmerica.

Devo

Devo@mormonfactor.com

ARE MORMON'S CHRISTIANS (Mormon's are Christians, just not Trinitarians)

By and large any controversy in this matter has swirled around the God Head. First, Mormons believe in Christ, this makes them Christian's. A Dictionary definition of Christian is as follows.

Christian:
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
3. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
4. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

Mormon's are definitely 1, 2, 3, & 4 of this Christian definition. If you don't believe so, you don't understand Mormon Doctrine. The two New Testament uses of the word Christian (Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16), refers to the public identity of those who follow Jesus, as Christians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints ( i.e. Mormon Church), follows and believes in Jesus Christ. Many of our fellow Christians have Hijacked the term Christian, to mean ONLY one who believes in a Trinitarian notion of Jesus Christ. I submit that this modern hijacking of the meaning of Christianity, to only include a Trinitarian's view of Christ, is a very un-christian act. It certainly doesnt follow the New Testament understanding of Christianity. Please click here to read: Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles talk. This talk puts the Mormon position on Christianity and the God Head, in a very condensed and easy to read talk.

Devo
Devo@mormonfactor.com

Mitt Romneys "The Mormon Factor" Speech

I never thought a Mormon could win the Presidency, but after reading Hugh Hewitt's book "A Mormon in the White House?" I started to believe there was a chance. Mitt Romney was a clear choice to run the country.

Listening to Talk Radio, many prominent thinkers believed that Romney can, and may, win. While Romney was placing fifth in national polls, he was leading early polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Still, many asked Romney if he was worried about Giuliani's national polling numbers, and why he has spent so much money in Iowa. Mitt answered, "I have a plan to win."

The point is, Romney understands a concept that many in Politics seem to have lost -- you don't win by losing. Running his campaign like one of his successful companies, Mitt understands you don't win the War onTerror with a strategy of defeat. And you don't win the Presidency by losing early primaries. Using a football analogy, Giuliani keeps gaining yardage, but Mitt is focused on touchdowns and field goals, that actually lead to winning games. Watching Mitt work his magic on his campaign, I believe he would win the Republican nomination for the Presidency.

That is when the ABAM (Anyone But A Mormon) candidate Mike Huckabee surged. Many might have a problem with my characterization of Huckabee as an ABAM candidate. I believe if Mitt Romney was a former Baptist Minister, and not a former Mormon Bishop and Stake President, MittRomney would be leading the National polls, and not just many early primaries. I would point to the term "Huckabee Surge" as proof. Where was the "Romney Surge"? Somehow Mitt has been leading many early primaries without a popular surge in the media. Where was the "Romney Surge"? When Romney moved past Giuliani, with very little national poll ranking, it was ignored. Instead Mitt kept getting questions about his Mormon faith. Where was the "Romney Surge"? If Huck had to answer questions about the Nicene Creed, Who was Christ speaking to while on the cross? and what was the Baptist Church's role with the south supporting slavery? Huck would not be in a "Surge". Like Mitt, I am sureHuckabee would have great answers to all these questions. My point is this, if Huckabee was asked these questions daily, there would have been no"Huckabee Surge".
Now with the news media loving the ABAM surge, Romney gave the speech of his life. It was the greatest speech I have heard in politics on religion. I had thought Romney should not give this speech. If the issue is always his Mormon religion, he loses! Romney said in his speech " I am a American running for President, not a Mormon running for President". Now that "The Mormon Factor" speech is over, will the news media focus on the issues of this American's Candidacy, or will this speech focus the discussion on this Mormon's run for the Presidency. The news media had asked for "The Speech". I hope they can understand the words and meaning of it, and begin to interview this Candidate as an American.

Devo
Devo@mormonfactor.com