DNA Vs Mormonism

[Jerusha]

It is very clear from the text that the Jaredites, and subsequently the Nephites/Lamanites were the only humans on the American continents.Paul

Or, if they weren’t, the “Nephites”, who were responsible for writing much of the text, were so racist that they did not regard the “others” as human.

Why was the early geographical understanding of the primary events of the BOM placed in the area where it was written, while today’s LGT places it in meso-America? Why do LDS scholars so earnestly flee from a US-Canada interpretation???

Yes, majik-- I caught your hint. Only about 10% is legit. The rest is fantastic embroidery and outright plagirism.

 

[majick275]

Quite the contrary. We know of at least one other group because the BoM mentions them… the Mulekites. And it does NOT claim there were no other groups on the continents.

that’s a little misleading since the alleged Mulekites were also jews who came over around the same time and from around the same place.

 

[why_me]

But if these people are the principal ancestors of all Native Americans as the BoM claims, then their DNA would be easily identified, because if they were the principal ancestors their DNA would be everywhere.

The book of mormon does not claim that the native Americans are the principle ancestors of the book of mormon people. The Introduction claims it and the Introduction is not canon. It was written in around 1980 by a group of people who were enlisted to write the introduction. As far as I understand it, there was a disagreement about making such a claim in the introduction. However, those in favor won.

I do believe that it has now been removed from more recent editions of the book of mormon, at least from the new doubleday paperback it has been removed.

 

[why_me]

Or, if they weren’t, the “Nephites”, who were responsible for writing much of the text, were so racist that they did not regard the “others” as human.

This is not exactly true. The book of mormon is extremely pro-lamanite. If it was a 19th century text, it would be exremely revolutionary in its favortism of the lamanite culture and the promises for the future. However, it would also be considered against western culture as found in American society at that time since it gives warnings to the gentile generation to clean up their act or face doom.

 

[ralphinal]

This is not exactly true. The book of mormon is extremely pro-lamanite. If it was a 19th century text, it would be exremely revolutionary in its favortism of the lamanite culture and the promises for the future. However, it would also be considered against western culture as found in American society at that time since it gives warnings to the gentile generation to clean up their act or face doom.

Was it not true that up until the 1970s, blacks were banned from the Mormon Preisthood? Were there not recist comments in the books about the skin color reflecting the soul?

 

[why_me]

Not likely but at least it will give you something to pray for.

But, I guess by your reasoning, when the science proves the whole LDS genetic thing wrong, you’ll just say it’s bad science and stay LDS.

I don’t think that science can ever prove the lds wrong. Likewise it will never disprove the belief in god. It will all be left up to faith. As long as people have faith in the lds church and in the book of mormon, the lds church will survive. And as long as catholics continue to believe in god and in jesus, the catholic church will continue to survive.

If dna was now showing traces of hebrew dna in the american indian, I can safely say, the you may just be a mormon now. Or at least contemplating it. But of course it would be because of evidence and not because of faith.

 

[ibkc]

The book of mormon does not claim that the native Americans are the principle ancestors of the book of mormon people. The Introduction claims it and the Introduction is not canon. It was written in around 1980 by a group of people who were enlisted to write the introduction. As far as I understand it, there was a disagreement about making such a claim in the introduction. However, those in favor won.

I do believe that it has now been removed from more recent editions of the book of mormon, at least from the new doubleday paperback it has been removed.

OK, fair enough. However, the point stands. The BoM describes a huge culture, a culture so big that it would have had to have left its genetic footprint on modern-day Native Americans. There’s no way around that, really.

 

[why_me]

Was it not true that up until the 1970s, blacks were banned from the Mormon Preisthood? Were there not recist comments in the books about the skin color reflecting the soul?

No. The blacks had the priesthood at the time of Joseph Smith. It was Brigham Young who began the denial of the priesthood to blacks but not membership. Blacks were welcome to join the lds faith.

 

[ralphinal]

No. The blacks had the priesthood at the time of Joseph Smith. It was Brigham Young who began the denial of the priesthood to blacks but not membership. Blacks were welcome to join the lds faith.

So was this further revelation? Because it seems to me that it was a revelation that corrected it. What about the part about skin color relating to purity?

President Brigham Young taught: “The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a ‘servant of servants’ to his fellow-creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 184).

In a General Conference address, October 9, 1859, Brigham Young taught: “You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they should be the ‘servant of servants;’ and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 109).

On August 19, 1866, Young declared, “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin [sic] of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272; the context of this statement makes it evident that “skin,” not “sin,” was intended).

I can go on

 

[MelanieAnne]

OK, fair enough. However, the point stands. The BoM describes a huge culture, a culture so big that it would have had to have left its genetic footprint on modern-day Native Americans. There’s no way around that, really.

We didn’t actually need DNA evidence to prove to us that the Book of Mormon is a fabrication, but I appreciate the scientific evidence as further confirmation. There are plenty of reasons, for those who choose to seek them out, that confirm the Book of Mormon is demonstrably a creation of Joseph Smith (with lots of help from plagiarism!) The problem is that people have to set aside their emotions and use their brains.

Given the facts no rational person can accept the Mormon religion. But that’s just the problem, those that they proselytize are not given the facts, indeed the facts are purposely hidden. No “investigator” is told, for example, about the magic rocks. And there are so many other examples… Instead they’re fed this whole “family is forever” thing. So prospective members get all warm and fuzzy and want to be with their family forever and they fall for it hook, line & sinker. (Why is there no smiley for GAG?)

The only way Mormons can explain away the lack of a genetic footprint is to make the claim that God changed the DNA of those that purportedly came to this continent (something that has already been asserted in this thread.) OK, fine, I’ll be happy to trade their example of God’s omnipotence as soon as they concede Real Presence and Transubstantiation. But they say Real Presence via Transubstantiation is preposterous. (Another thread.)

Mormonism is nonsense, dressed up in all the pretty, feel-good “family is forever” thing. That’s it, that’s the beginning and the end of it, at least today. The past is the past & they do as much as they can to conceal and/or forget about the past. It’s sad that people are seduced into this religion, which some would describe just as much of a cult as the more-recently-notorious FLDS.

 

[twopekinguys]

We didn’t actually need DNA evidence to prove to us that the Book of Mormon is a fabrication, but I appreciate the scientific evidence as further confirmation. There are plenty of reasons, for those who choose to seek them out, that confirm the Book of Mormon is demonstrably a creation of Joseph Smith (with lots of help from plagiarism!) The problem is that people have to set aside their emotions and use their brains.

I agree, but as you well know, many people who are involved in cults, false religions, and other flights of fancy wouldn’t believe the truth no matter how it is presented to them.

As we have seen in ths discussion,God can evidentlty change the DNA of an entire race of people, maybe we can pray that God will open their eyes and hearts to the truth.

 

[twopekinguys]

I don’t think that science can ever prove the lds wrong. Likewise it will never disprove the belief in god. It will all be left up to faith. As long as people have faith in the lds church and in the book of mormon, the lds church will survive. And as long as catholics continue to believe in god and in jesus, the catholic church will continue to survive.

If dna was now showing traces of hebrew dna in the american indian, I can safely say, the you may just be a mormon now. Or at least contemplating it. But of course it would be because of evidence and not because of faith.

Notice that you said “If” dna was showing…etc", well, it isn’t.

So, I guess there is no chance of a reasonable Catholic becoming momon.

There is about as much chance of me, becoming mormon as there is a chance that the moon will suddenly turn into the sun.

It ain’t gonna happen, but good try.

 

[MelanieAnne]

As we have seen in ths discussion,God can evidentlty change the DNA of an entire race of people, maybe we can pray that God will open their eyes and hearts to the truth.

Agreed, transubstantiation is childs play compared to altering the genetic history of an entire continent.

While I don’t actually believe that God changed the DNA of the descendants of the Jews on the American continent (those whose story is purportedly told in the Book of Mormon), it is logical that if someone believes in THAT, then Real Presence, which Jesus actually promised, should be very credible. I don’t believe in the migration story told in the Book of Mormon to begin with, so to me, the recent “God changed the DNA” explanation is superfluous. But if someone does believe in that, then transubstantiation should be a fairly easy extension of God’s power.

But Mormons reject Real Presence, but then, in my opinion they also reject Christianity. Their “Holy Spirit” cannot be the same as our “Holy Spirit” because their Holy Spirit tells a different story. Their Jesus is not our Jesus and apparently their God is not our God.

 

[Chris_Barttels]

There was an article by Carrie Moore in the November 9, 2007, Salt Lake Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the LDS church, talking about a change that would be made in future editions of the Book of Mormon by Doubleday Publishing.

This one word change would be in the introduction, and would change this:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

to this:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

Christopher Barttels

 

[teancum79]

Wow I’m amazed at how quickly a thread can get so far off the original issue.

I’ve seen oft repeated something to the effect that their is no evidence of the BOM being right. Frankly that is a lie (or a result of very poor study). The evidence is far from conclusive proof, but there are many cultural traditions to support that it could have happened. The Words of Joseph Smith conference a year or two back addressed a few of them.

Denying that something does not exist at all is an easy route to go, but it lacks the intellectual honesty that we should have. Can the evidence that supports the BOM validity be a result from something else sure. It would be a logical fallacy to assume that the assorted bits and peaces are conclusive, but they do open the door to the possibility.

Back to the original issue if a theory can’t be tested without reliance on the theories assumptions it’s not very scientific.

To prove something there must be more than a lack of evidence. Heck Christ’s life can’t be proven. The Bible could have been faked, the region is full of religious nuts. There is only the word of people who are in on it that it is any more than a bunch of words. The writers probably stole their marital form others and made up the rest. Its internal complexity and historical accuracies are of no relevance it’s just a bunch of words made of to deceive people.

 

[ibkc]

I’ve seen oft repeated something to the effect that their is no evidence of the BOM being right. Frankly that is a lie (or a result of very poor study).

It isn’t, really. None of the events in the BoM can be shown to have actually happened, and there are a multitude of reasons out there to suggests that the events in the BoM couldn’t have happened. The only person in it who is an actual historical person is Jesus, and he is depicted in a place where there is no evidence that He visited, doing things for which there is no evidence than He did. For all practical purposes outside of the LDS church, the BoM is a work of complete and total fiction.

When real researchers and scholars (meaning, not from BYU) begin publishing findings that support the weird alternate history of North America found in the BoM, I will be the first to sit up and take notice. Till then, I’ll stick with the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church: the church that Christ actually founded.

 

[teancum79]

I’m glad you have a strong convection to your faith.

So why not check out the evidence that non LDS scholars are producing that support the validity of the book of Mormon?

Its out there. sparse granted, but its there.

Simply repeating that it does not exist won’t help anyone.

 

[ibkc]

I’m glad you have a strong convection to your faith.

So why not check out the evidence that non LDS scholars are producing that support the validity of the book of Mormon?

Its out there. sparse granted, but its there.

Simply repeating that it does not exist won’t help anyone.

Point me in the direction of these sparse non-LDS scholars and I will read their arguments. Simply saying they exist but not telling us who they are won’t help anyone.

 

[MelanieAnne]

And then there is this mountain of evidence against it, including DNA… (back on topic!)

 

[teancum79]

Worlds of Joseph Smith conference. Both LDS and Non LDS looking into Joseph Smith’s life. (All issues of his validity as a prophet aside he was an interesting historical person).

Anyhow the Book of Mormon was only a portion of the papers and responses but its a start.

I think session two is the one that deals with the book of Mormon (sorry its been while since I listened to it).

Here is a link to recordings

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,510-1-3067-1,00.html

I’ve only found one typed transcript

joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

as I said its sparse, but there.