We ALL find what we are looking for ...
 

why are the opinions of a software developer opining on molecular genetics news?

Let me be the devils advocate: what he is saying is that the BoM has been put into a smaller box now than it was in 10 years ago.

I guess I am not sure how much values FARMS has for the church, esp. when they trot out non-experts claiming evidence of non-evidence, and conflating that with increased truth.

Some of us don't even need to go there.

The only thing I found fascinating is the truth espoused in the article; we find what we are looking for.

It is interesting though that people are willing to jump to conclusions based upon inclonclusive and extremely limited evidence; conclusions that serve as a cataliyst (rational excuse) and not implicit evidence.

This whole debate, between Simonton/Murphy and Gardner is fairly amateurish.

I didn't like how Gardner stated, "Murphy never believed." How would he know? That's mighty presumptuous unless he's found writings to substantiate that.

So let me guess ... the prevailing CG attitude is: Murphy and Southerton were dealt with too harshly, and it's high time Mormons come to terms with the dubious beginnings of their most cherished book of scripture.

I'm really not familiar with the particulars of their cases. But I like the idea that one of them wasn't excommunicated. he must not have attacked the church in a direct way. He must have just said "there is no DNA evidence that buttresses the BoM" or something like that. I like the idea that one could say that, still want to be in the church community, and not be kicked out. However if one went further in one's conclusions "the church is a fraud, the BoM was made up, Hinckley is a magician, etc." then you are shaky ground and likely to be ex-ed. I'm ok with that.

I'm not as familiar with Southerton's case but am a little familiar with Murphy's case. There was to be a hearing or some council on him, but the stake president eventually decided against excommunicating him.

It may be likely that Southerton received harsher treatment because he conducted the study and came out fairly harshly.

What it all really shows is that both sides relied and continue to rely upon incomplete science making outlandish claims, and all looking like charlatans.

Southerton's mitochondrial DNA study was not the end-all be-all he seemed to trumpet it as, and the FARMERS don't have anything much better.

This is what I remember reading as well. It was some years ago.