It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:37 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:03 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:33 pm
Posts: 1316
Water Dog wrote:
ZelphtheGreat wrote:
I can summarize it for you without reading it.

When you have Faith, Facts don't matter.

This is complete ____. When you have faith, the facts matter more. You do not at all understand faith.


Yep, the fact there is no such thing as a Lamanite really helps one know the Truth, doesn't it?

_________________
“If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing." Ensign/2012/12


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:31 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13087
Water Dog wrote:
ZelphtheGreat wrote:
I can summarize it for you without reading it.

When you have Faith, Facts don't matter.

This is complete b***s***. When you have faith, the facts matter more. You do not at all understand faith.


Apparently you don't.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:32 pm 
CTR B

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:41 pm
Posts: 146
aznative wrote:
Water Dog wrote:
:rolleyes:

The problem Rob identifies is the same problem probably most of you here suffer from, and that is that you were raised in the church and had things passed down to you that simply weren't true. Things became ingrained in the culture, passed down as lore, and the core doctrines of the gospel were taken for granted. Those core doctrines being the concept of personal revelation and truth coming from God not Man. For whatever reason your parents apparently failed to teach you that you shouldn't take things for granted or accept the gospel blindly, perhaps because they didn't understand this themselves. Apparently you did accept it blindly, and because you never actually had a real understanding of the gospel, or a real testimony, you perceive all of this out of context. Joseph Smith himself said he didn't blame anybody for not believing him and didn't expect anyone to take anything he was saying blindly, and that if the roles were reversed, he'd be a skeptic. I really do appreciate Rob's attitude, but it is based on the very sort of blind faith he thinks he's arguing against.


So by having things passed down to us that simply aren't true, the church must have fallen into apostasy then, correct? Because all of these things which you reference as not being true are being taught as true in the classrooms and from over the pulpit today.


Since the worth of one soul is so great, please do me the favor of helping to save mine. Please point out these testimony shattering, faith cancelling heresy's and false doctrines that are being taught from the pulpit and from the classrooms that are not true. Surely, as claiming to be one that has such insight and information, it is your responsibility to declare it here and now, to set matters straight, and to help I and others find the Christ through his one true church.


Last edited by aznative on Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:32 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13087
Ludd wrote:
I don't have a dog in this race in terms of the alleged historcity of the Book of Mormon.


Are you suggesting you are a non-mormon who just has a mild interest in Mormon issues?

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:35 pm 
CTR B

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:41 pm
Posts: 146
Themis wrote:
Ludd wrote:
I don't have a dog in this race in terms of the alleged historcity of the Book of Mormon.


Are you suggesting you are a non-mormon who just has a mild interest in Mormon issues?



He's so ____ when he starts out a response like that. Of course he does, and he proved it plainly in his attempted "non-defense" defense of tscc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:55 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 6234
Location: Arizona
Madison54 wrote:
I just saw this posted on NOM but haven't had a chance to read through it yet:

https://www.LDS.org/topics/book-of-morm ... s?lang=eng


LOL!!! That Essay References John L. Sorenson's, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Essay.
From That Essay:

Quote:
The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.6 At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”7

...

John L. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (Fall 1992), 1–34. These arguments were summarized more recently in John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (2013). Sorenson suggests that indicators in the book’s text makes it “inescapable that there were substantial populations in the ‘promised land’ throughout the period of the Nephite record, and probably in the Jaredite era also” (“When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 34).




From REINVENTING Lamanite IDENTITY:

Quote:
WHERE CAN BOOK of Mormon readers find the throngs of indigenous “others” who revisionist scholars claim intermingled with the Jaredite and Amerisraelite societies? Those who uncover “others” lurking in the narrative often perceive them buried in subtle, or even problematic, rhetorical nuances. Hugh Nibley and John Sorenson, for example, discover non-Israelite “others” in a prayer offered by Alma on behalf of the Zoramites: “O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren” (Alma 31:35, emphasis added). Nibley and Sorenson read “many” (i.e., not all ) as an indication of “other [non-Israelite] things going on”5 and “ethnic variety.”6 Despite its appeal, Nibley and Sorenson’s interpretation is unsound.

A slightly different, yet significant, rendition of this prayer is preserved in the Book of Mormon original manuscript, print-er’s manuscript,7 and 1830 edition: “. . . and many of them are our near brethren.”8 In other words, “many”—but not all—of the Zoramites are close relatives of Alma and some of his com-panions.9 Amulek employs the same usage in his recollection, “As I was journeying to see a very near kindred . . .”10 A rig-orous evaluation of Alma’s supplication provides no evidence for an awareness of non-Israelite “others” in the promised land during the Nephite reign.

...

6. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS , 1985), 242; see also Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (Fall 1992): 8–9.
7. I’m indebted to Van E. Hale for alerting me to this variant in the printer’s manuscript.
8. Alma chapter XVI, p. 313 (1830 edition). Royal Skousen renders the original manuscript, “& many of them are our {r<%e%>|n}ear Breth / -re{r|n}” (Royal Skousen, ed., The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon—Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text [Provo: FARMS, 2001], 297, virgule line break added), and the printer’s manuscript, “& many of them are our near brethren” (Skousen, ed., The Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Part Two, Alma 17–Moroni 10—Typographical Facsimile of the Entire Text in Two Parts
[Provo: FARMS , 2001], 553); “near” is absent for the first time in the 1837 edition Book of Mormon.



See Also: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 36#p380136

_________________
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter


Last edited by Brackite on Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 7146
Location: Terra Nova
Water Dog wrote:
:rolleyes:

The problem Rob identifies is the same problem probably most of you here suffer from, and that is that you were raised in the church and had things passed down to you that simply weren't true. Things became ingrained in the culture, passed down as lore, and the core doctrines of the gospel were taken for granted. Those core doctrines being the concept of personal revelation and truth coming from God not Man. For whatever reason your parents apparently failed to teach you that you shouldn't take things for granted or accept the gospel blindly, perhaps because they didn't understand this themselves. Apparently you did accept it blindly, and because you never actually had a real understanding of the gospel, or a real testimony, you perceive all of this out of context. Joseph Smith himself said he didn't blame anybody for not believing him and didn't expect anyone to take anything he was saying blindly, and that if the roles were reversed, he'd be a skeptic. I really do appreciate Rob's attitude, but it is based on the very sort of blind faith he thinks he's arguing against.

Water Dog,

What you are saying here is that the gospel, as taught at any time before the latest DNA apologetics were required to keep it from appearing fraudulent, was not really the correct gospel.

In other words, you appear to be a proponent of the idea that Mormon doctrines, beliefs and scriptural interpretation can change, at a moments notice, in an attempt to avoid direct conflict with science.

Over the years, Mormons have been forced to change their beliefs when it comes to the age of the Earth, global flood of Noah, evolution, the curse of Cain, and the list goes on and on. To some extent, the faithful have been able to come up with implausible and convoluted explanations to allow their unfounded religious beliefs to comport with the science. BCSpace and his make it up as you go along theories on evolution are a prime example of how ridiculous this kind of self delusion can become.

When it comes to the Book of Mormon/DNA issue, however, there is really no way out. Anyone who wishes to ignore the scientific evidence to maintain belief in the Book of Mormon must be counted among the blatant and full blown science deniers.

You claim to be a student of population genetics, yet I see no evidence whatsoever that you even read Dr. Southerton's posts upthread, let alone understood what he wrote.

So, just to let you know who you are throwing under the bus when you try to hide behind the LGT model, or try to say that Lamanite DNA just somehow disappeared, here are a few reminders from approved LDS sources.

Quote:
"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western Tribes of Indians... By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt…".
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Letter to Rochester, New York, newspaper editor N. C. Saxton, January 4, 1833


Quote:
"In this important and interesting book, the history of America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Official Church Publication Times and Seasons, (March 1, 1842) III:707.


You were apparently not convinced by the conversation that Joseph Smith claimed to have had with Moroni, even though is recorded as scripture in the PoGP. I trust that the above two statements by Joseph Smith himself, as well as the story of Zelph below, will be sufficient evidence as to what Joseph Smith himself believed as to the descendents of the Lamanites and their geographic distribution in Book of Mormon times.

And there is always the saga of Zelph the white Lamanite:
Quote:
In June 1834, the Prophet Joseph Smith recounted the discovery of the skeleton of 'Zelph, the white Lamanite' in a mound in Illinois, referring to "the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this country - Nephites, Lamanites, etc., subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. .. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites."
- Documentary History of the Church, II:79-80; Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1:482-83, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City.)

_________________
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 8589
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
So if we accept the Watered Down Dog defense, that people were merely wrong in what they believed the Book of Mormon said, what exactly was the holy ghost confirming to these people when they put the Book of Mormon to the Moroni test?

Maybe the scripture should read something like this.

"And when ye shall receive these things which may or may not be always true, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true or at least if they are not true now; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it, as it currently is understood, unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."

_________________
What Joseph Smith should have said: "No man knows my hagiography."
What Jane Manning did say: "I am white except for the color of my skin."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:25 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:38 pm
Posts: 5267
The church spends so much time and effort defensing this thing, they would be better off just writing a whole new Book of Mormon. Call it the new and improved Book of Mormon. The old Book of Mormon was written with limited light an knowledge.

_________________
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:48 pm 
Bell Ringer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 11774
Location: Notre-Dame de Paris (bell tower)
DarkHelmet wrote:
The church spends so much time and effort defensing this thing, they would be better off just writing a whole new Book of Mormon. Call it the new and improved Book of Mormon. The old Book of Mormon was written with limited light an knowledge.


Good thought. Why not? It works extremely well for laundry detergent. Every few months all brands of detergent have "New and Improved" on the box. They sell like hot cakes. It does make you wonder how many improvements can be made to a simple detergent formula.

_________________
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:00 pm 
Bell Ringer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 11774
Location: Notre-Dame de Paris (bell tower)
Water Dog wrote:
aznative wrote:
So by having things passed down to us that simply aren't true, the church must have fallen into apostasy then, correct? Because all of these things which you reference as not being true are being taught as true in the classrooms and from over the pulpit today.

Perhaps, but also perhaps not. That is a separate discussion. As far as DNA and the Book of Mormon are concerned though, for the sake of argument, feel free to consider that the church is in apostasy. This actually would be quite appropriate as the discussion should consider the Book of Mormon on its own unmolested by the opinions of anybody who's ever touched a copy.


:lol:

This is the best (or worst) example of tap dancing I've seen on this board. I'm going to remember this the next time I'm asked an uncomfortable question. "Good question, but that is a separate discussion." Or "Please don't clutter this conversation with facts."

This is a discussion board. All topic related statements and questions are valid.

_________________
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:03 pm 
CTR B

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:41 pm
Posts: 146
Water Dog wrote:
aznative wrote:
So by having things passed down to us that simply aren't true, the church must have fallen into apostasy then, correct? Because all of these things which you reference as not being true are being taught as true in the classrooms and from over the pulpit today.

Perhaps, but also perhaps not. That is a separate discussion. As far as DNA and the Book of Mormon are concerned though, for the sake of argument, feel free to consider that the church is in apostasy. This actually would be quite appropriate as the discussion should consider the Book of Mormon on its own unmolested by the opinions of anybody who's ever touched a copy.


It is not a separate discussion. Either the Book of Mormon is what it has been held up to be by the leadership of tscc, the keystone, and it is historically true, or it is not. Either it is a true and correct book which has historical premises, or it does not. It has been stated as doctrine that it is the historical record of the Lamanites remnants, the native americans. So is it or is it not? Because everything else regarding the church relies on it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 8589
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
Water Dog wrote:
Fence Sitter wrote:
So if we accept the Watered Down Dog defense, that people were merely wrong in what they believed the Book of Mormon said, what exactly was the holy ghost confirming to these people when they put the Book of Mormon to the Moroni test?

Two questions:

1) Father, is the Book of Mormon a true book of inspired scripture and does it contain the fullness of your gospel?

2) Father, were the people depicted in the Book of Mormon the literal genetic parents of every single Native American? Were they assimilated into a population of native people that already existed? And Father, did those people have a genetic pattern which matches the pattern genetic scientists in 2014 think that ancient Israelites had? Father, in short, should we expect modern Native Americans to have DNA that matches Israelites?

Tell me, do you maybe see a difference between the two questions? What does receiving a Yes answer to #1 tell us about #2? Nothing whatsoever. So how can you claim they didn't receive a real answer to #1 because of their speculations on #2? And speculations, I'll add, which were engaged in long before people had ever even heard of DNA. Until very recently it would not have even occurred to people to pray and seek an answer to #2. What if the Book of Mormon were about a group of people that lived on a completely different planet, what would you say then?


Seriously, you think these questions are actually what people are praying about?

People are praying to find out if the Book of Mormon is "true". Evidently what "true" means to one generation is completely different from the next.

I really think you don't believe most the nonsense you post, but this approach of blaming past generations for incorrect interpretations simply does not pass the sniff test for a church claiming to be led by guys who have some sort of superior communications with God. Please tell me how past beliefs in the Book of Mormon would have been different if the church were led by ordinary men and the Book of Mormon was a fraud?

What we are seeing in these essays are admission after admission that past beliefs were incorrect, that science may not be always be right, that possibilities still exist that somewhere a piece of evidence may turn up about huge civilizations that disappeared with out a trace, that even though there are 9 versions of a particular event we should believe just one, that we really don't understand how a rock can be used for both treasure hunting and translation purposes, that social pressures can prevent God from talking directly to his prophets over a period of 100 years and telling them how racist they are, or that polygamy is not that bad as long as we don't talk about Nauvoo.

it is pretty clear why they are publishing these essays anonymously and without fanfare to the membership in general. They are embarrassed by them and rightfully so.

_________________
What Joseph Smith should have said: "No man knows my hagiography."
What Jane Manning did say: "I am white except for the color of my skin."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:49 pm 
CTR B

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:41 pm
Posts: 146
Water Dog wrote:
aznative wrote:
It is not a separate discussion. Either the Book of Mormon is what it has been held up to be by the leadership of tscc, the keystone, and it is historically true, or it is not. Either it is a true and correct book which has historical premises, or it does not. It has been stated as doctrine that it is the historical record of the Lamanites remnants, the native americans. So is it or is it not? Because everything else regarding the church relies on it.

It is a totally separate discussion. It is completely possible that the Book of Mormon is true and that the church IS in apostasy. For the sake of argument, what if that's the case? It's not appropriate to illegitimatize the Book of Mormon based on potentially illegitimate sources. If you want to make the argument that some church leader said something that was plainly wrong and uninspired based on modern DNA science, that's fine, but understand that in so doing you're not illegitimizing the Book of Mormon, but just that leader.


So, from the onset, the teachings of the leadership of the church have been false? These claims of the Book of Mormon being a historical record of the Native Americans being the direct descendants of the Lamanites are consistent with the teachings of the first prophets, namely Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

This leaves no other choices except that the claims of the leadership of the church from the onset that the Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites or the church and the Book of Mormon are false.

There are no other choices that would be bona fide. These are not random buss hit stories leaders of late have come up with.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 8589
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
aznative wrote:
So, from the onset, the teachings of the leadership of the church have been false? These claims of the Book of Mormon being a historical record of the Native Americans being the direct descendants of the Lamanites are consistent with the teachings of the first prophets, namely Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

This leaves no other choices except that the claims of the leadership of the church from the onset that the Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites or the church and the Book of Mormon are false.

There are no other choices that would be bona fide. These are not random buss hit stories leaders of late have come up with.



Actually a member has no way of knowing if the current position of the church is any more accurate than past positions, especially since, according to the church, the science is obviously inexact, future DNA scientist may be able to prove the current ones wrong and show that all native Americans have middle eastern DNA. Presto Chango President Newsroom in 2030 will issue a statement about how past leaders and members were just incorrect in their assumptions about a limited geography and once again the introduction to the Book of Mormon will claim that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians

Seriously, what is it a prophet does again?

_________________
What Joseph Smith should have said: "No man knows my hagiography."
What Jane Manning did say: "I am white except for the color of my skin."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 7146
Location: Terra Nova
Matter Unorganized, over on the postmo board, mentioned another very inconvenient passage of scripture relative to the claim in the essay that there was interbreeding with populations already in the New World.

3 Nephi 5:20 wrote:
I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi. I have reason to bless my God and my Savior Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, (and no one knew it save it were himself and those whom he brought out of that land) and that he hath given me and my people so much knowledge unto the salvation of our souls.


It is exceedingly unlikely (some would say not possible) that Mormon would have been a pure descendant of Lehi, after more than 800 years and some 40 generations, if there had been genetic mixing of the small band of Lehites with a much larger population already in the New World.

With this passage, the author was making clear that, in his fantasy story, Moroni was a racially pure individual of Semitic descent.

Yet, as the science shows very clearly, no Semitic DNA entered the genome of the New World in the period between about 20,000 years ago to the arrival of the Spaniards This includes the entire time span of the Book of Mormon (with at least 1,000 years or so tacked on to either end).

_________________
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."


Last edited by DrW on Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:20 pm 
CTR B

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:41 pm
Posts: 146
Fence Sitter wrote:
aznative wrote:
So, from the onset, the teachings of the leadership of the church have been false? These claims of the Book of Mormon being a historical record of the Native Americans being the direct descendants of the Lamanites are consistent with the teachings of the first prophets, namely Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

This leaves no other choices except that the claims of the leadership of the church from the onset that the Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites or the church and the Book of Mormon are false.

There are no other choices that would be bona fide. These are not random buss hit stories leaders of late have come up with.



Actually a member has no way of knowing if the current position of the church is any more accurate than past positions, especially since, according to the church, the science is obviously inexact, future DNA scientist may be able to prove the current ones wrong and show that all native Americans have middle eastern DNA. Presto Chango President Newsroom in 2030 will issue a statement about how past leaders and members were just incorrect in their assumptions about a limited geography and once again the introduction to the Book of Mormon will claim that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians

Seriously, what is it a prophet does again?


Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous? The fluidity with which the Spirit grants the prophets allows them to be mealy mouthed in all things except those things which they have personal affection for or those things which they find icky.

I mean hell. They don't have to do any relevating. Or seeing. Or prophecy. Or any witnessing.

Why the hell do they have to do a damn thing except allow the ministry of truth newsroom make whatever relative announcement is needed so the party members can get their 5 minutes of hate on and feel closer to the leaders because of it?

Fence Sitter, prophets don't do a damn thing anymore except make sure their existences are supported by the masses giving their 10%.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:30 pm 
Bishop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:09 am
Posts: 508
Location: Canberra
Ludd wrote:
I don't have a dog in this race in terms of the alleged historcity of the Book of Mormon. As far as I'm concerned, the most serious "problems" with the Book of Mormon have nothing to do with DNA studies and population genetics. That said, I have been somewhat of a student of the scientific theories concerning the origins of the various populations of the Americas... they are finding that there is evidence of extensive contact between Europe and the Americas, all throughout ancient times. The old theory about the Bering Straits being the only avenue of emigration into the Americas is being shown as entirely inadequate to explain the evidence. The Raghavan study published in Nature in November of last year is just the most recent study to underscore the increasing amount of evidence that the DNA picture of ancient America is not nearly as simple as most of the non-Mormon/ex-Mormon arguments would have one believe.

Ludd wrote:
So argue against the Book of Mormon all you want. ... The picture emerging from the latest studies is one that seems to suggest lots of contact between the "Old World" and the "New World" going clear back to Roman times and earlier.


Where is the evidence for your last claim Mr somewhat of a student? There is currently no genetic evidence of significant pre-Columbian migrations from anywhere other than sub-arctic regions via eskimo migrations.

All the Raghavan study proved is that living Europeans share DNA markers with a 24,000-year-old Siberian. It is largely irrelevant because it predates the Book of Mormon and Israel (and Adam and Eve, and the Flood) by about 20,000 years. Populations in ALL major geographic regions share common sets and subsets of DNA markers. All living Eskimos share some DNA markers with Australian Aboriginals. Does that prove Eskimos came from Australia?

The "old Bering Strait theory" as you put it, is by far the best explanation for an abundance of facts. It is a well established truth that essentially all of the ancestors of the American Indians descend from Asian ancestors.

When Mormons are faced with uncomfortable scientific facts they are invariably told by their leaders that science is changing all the time so they shouldn’t be concerned. In the essay we are told the DNA data is “tentative”. But it is LDS beliefs about Native American ancestry that have been proven to be tentative. Once LDS apologists boldly aligned the Book of Mormon civilizations with the Olmec and Maya. The Lamanite presence has rapidly been contracting to the point that it has now vanished. In contrast to back-flipping prophets there has been a century long scientific consensus about where the ancestors of Native Americans came from and when they arrived in the New World. DNA is just helping to refine our knowledge.

_________________
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:51 pm 
Bishop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 499
Jaybear wrote:
Ludd wrote:
So argue against the Book of Mormon all you want. You have my blessing when it comes to demonstrating the numerous evidences that cast doubt on Joseph Smith's story of where the Book of Mormon came from, but using DNA evidence as a way to "prove" the Book of Mormon is not historical is, in my opinion, a really stupid way to go about things. It makes you look more "anti-science" than otherwise. The picture emerging from the latest studies is one that seems to suggest lots of contact between the "Old World" and the "New World" going clear back to Roman times and earlier.


Anti-science?

The Book of Mormon was written by someone who believed, literally, that God flooded the world about 4,000 years ago, and the only human survivors floated away safely to the Mideast on a ark.

The Book of Mormon offered an explanation to those people who believed in the flood, how and when the native Americans came to the new world.

The reason there is no mention of the others in the Book of Mormon, is because the existence of native Americans is incongruent with the story of the global flood.

I am truly puzzled that anyone who has come to accept the fact that homo sapiens have walked this planet for 200,000 years, and that story of the global flood is a religious myth, can still cling to the possibility that Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon have any basis in fact.


You apparently did not read what I wrote. Or, if you did in fact read it, you grossly misunderstood/misinterpreted my meaning. Re the part of your reply I bolded, and assuming you intended to direct that statement to what I wrote, all I can say is: what the hell caused you to conclude (from what I wrote) that I "cling to the possibility that Smiths' slaims about the origin of the Book of Mormon have any basis in fact?"

The arguments you make above are exactly the kinds of things I was referring to when I wrote "... the most serious "problems" with the Book of Mormon have nothing to do with DNA studies and population genetics."

All I'm trying to say here is that I have become convinced, based on the continuing research into the origins of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, that the old Bering Straits/"they all came from Asia" theories have been all but completely disproven. It has become very clear, at least from the things I have read on the topic, that ancient civilizations were capable of trans-oceanic travel. At least to some degree. And they "got around". From what I have read (and as far as I know, these are not "fringe" theories supported by highly disputed evidences) the Chinese and the Japanese had extensive contact with South America, going back long before Columbus. Way back, like to Roman times and thereabouts. Other studies I recall coming across in the past several years have talked about evidences of Roman, Phoenician, and even possible Egyptian contact with the Americas.

So what I'm trying to say here is that the DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon are never going to be winning arguments for the simple reason that they depend on assumptions about the Americas that are as rigid and unsupportable as the Book of Mormon saying that no one was on the continent after a global flood of Noah until the Jaredites hit the shore in their fancy submarines. The trend in ancient America anthropology/archaeology is towards an understanding that recognizes multiple prongs of contact from the so-called "Old World", both across the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. From Africa to Norway on the one side and from the South Pacific to Siberia on the other. I think we're just beginning to understand how amazingly mobile ancient civilizations really were, and our knowledge of who could possibly be represented in the DNA of "native" Americans is changing from year to year.

Anyway, that's all I'm driving at with my comments. The historicity of the Book of Mormon can be easily brought into question in all kinds of ways. But, in my opinion, the DNA argument is a totally losing proposition in the sense that it is no longer a scientifically valid argument to claim that incursions to the Americas from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, etc. did not occur until after Columbus bumped into the Caribbean on his way to China.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13630
Location: On the imaginary axis
Ludd wrote:
From what I have read (and as far as I know, these are not "fringe" theories supported by highly disputed evidences) the Chinese and the Japanese had extensive contact with South America, going back long before Columbus. Way back, like to Roman times and thereabouts. Other studies I recall coming across in the past several years have talked about evidences of Roman, Phoenician, and even possible Egyptian contact with the Americas.


This paragraph is the thirteenth strike of the clock, so far as Ludd's credibility in my eyes goes: not only incredible in itself, but casting into doubt all that preceded it.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:32 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13087
Ludd wrote:

Anyway, that's all I'm driving at with my comments. The historicity of the Book of Mormon can be easily brought into question in all kinds of ways. But, in my opinion, the DNA argument is a totally losing proposition in the sense that it is no longer a scientifically valid argument to claim that incursions to the Americas from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, etc. did not occur until after Columbus bumped into the Caribbean on his way to China.


DNA evidence is huge when it comes to the Book of Mormon, and it's only getting worse. The advantage for the church is that it is a complicated science few understand well, as can be seen from comments from you, tobin, and Water Dog. The article by the church uses this ignorance in order to try and make it look like it's no big deal. It will work since most are not going to educate themselves and will never listen to any future arguments about it since the church has said it is not a big deal and they don't understand it. Ignorance is the main tool protecting incorrect beliefs.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dr Moore, Flaming Meaux, I have a question, oliblish, Stem and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group