How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[Stephen168]

Where does it say they are the only ancestors? All I’ve seen is “ancestors” and “principle ancestors”.

Then I guess you didn’t read the quote from the Pearl Great Price, I have posted twice, where Joseph Smith says the Book of Mormon tells of the source of the American aboriginal people. Here I’ll post it a third time:
"Pearl of Great Price:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Source means where something starts, originates, comes from. Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon tells the story of the origin of the people of America. It is not a story about some of them, but the origin, the source.

All I’ve seen is “ancestors” and “principle ancestors”. Typically I hear that “principle ancestors” easily means main spiritual ancestors.

Typically when I hear ‘principle’ it means: main, primary. When I hear ‘ancestors’ it means people I’m related to who came before me; father, great-grandfather, etc. There is nothing spiritual about it.

 

[Stephen168]

You said,

Secular geneticists say mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA conclusively disprove Adam & Eve……

I asked how that could be

Earlier they said that if all humans came from Noah 5,000 years ago and Adam & Eve 6,000, or less than 10,000 years ago, genetics would at least be consistent with it.

My Church doesn’t claim to know how long ago Adam lived, so I wanted to know who ‘they’ were. After searching the internet it seems the ‘they’ you are talking about is the Mormon Church. So the study you refer to only moves the date of Adam, it does not disprove him, but it does seems to shatter another Mormon belief.

Stephen, keep in mind I’m not trying to bash anyone’s religion or have any intent to make anyone mad.

I’m not worried about my Church being bashed, because it cannot be done with truth and honesty.

I’m just trying to point out that I don’t think it’s fair that the same criticisms used by skeptics of Christianity are then used by non-LDS Christians against Latter-day Saints.

I agree, but there are critical standards that the Bible will pass and the Book of Mormon will not pass. It seems the Book of Mormon will not pass any critical standard.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

In the same regard, many skeptics of the Bible keep on saying that Jesus Christ was plagiarized from the Greek god Dionysus, Egyptian Horus, and Persian Mithras; because of parallels and the pagan gods being around before Christ’s time. They also keep on saying that the oldest scrolls we have of the Torah are after the Babylonian Conquest, and that some cities mentioned in Genesis and the Book of Joshua shouldn’t have existed until the 600’s B.C. (ex. Chaldea, you can look up Chaldea in the encyclopedia), and that there are many parallels between the Babylonian’s Epic of Gilgamesh & Noah’s Ark, and the snakes in the Garden of Eden & some Babylonian snake mythology. They accuse the Hebrews of ripping those stories off of the Babylonians from the Babylonian Conquest, and rewording them. Jerusha, does that disprove the Bible?

Do parallels disprove? The followers of the Greek god Dionysus, before Jesus’ time, drank grape juice to represent his blood, and believed if they had faith in Dionysus they would receive eternal life. The Temple of Dionysus, in one myth, changed water into wine on January 6th, the same date Jesus turned water into wine. Dionysus also was the son of a God (Zeus) and a mortal woman. He raised someone from the dead. He died a violent death, descended to the Underworld, then came back to life and then sat next to his father Zeus on his throne. The Greek Dionysus was also being practiced by some in Judea at the time of Christ. Christian apologists respond that naturally there can be parallels with other religions (why can’t we say the same about the Book of Mormon?). They also say that if prophets were giving prophecies of Jesus since Adam’s time, some parallels could make it into other religions. Likewise, if the Book of Mormon happened, the events could leak out to the Native Americans and still be around at the time of the colonists, and parallels could have then leaked out into others’ literature, since the Gold Plates came before that time even if the Book of Mormon wasn’t translated yet.

So if there are some parallels, how does that prove the Book of Mormon false if it wouldn’t disprove those parts of the Bible that I just talked about?

Well, there will always be people to try and make us scratch our head and question God & Jesus and everything we have faith in, but you can’t let the devil win. He is on this earth to do just that!! He puts these horrible thoughts into people so we will question our beliefs. Remember, HE HATES US! He hates anything good! People who are not spiritually protected, or who let themselves drift into a delusion about scientific evidence trying to disprove the validity of God, or Christ, are the people the devil loves to do business with. These people may not even realize they are being channeled by the devil, but that’s because they are not asking God for guidance on their quests, or at least asking for protection from anything evil. The devil hates you, me and every other person in this world! Nothing good can come from him! He thinks he can win this world and God’s people in it, so he will always be lurking around and trying his hardest to disprove anything good! Please know this upon doing your research because you could also be very misguided into this evil way of rejecting the validity of God. Remember how many times God and Jesus warned us about this!! There is a reason he warned us so much, he knew and knows that the devil is at work on this earth and he will try and deceive our thoughts with doubt! please know this, no matter what religion you find on your quest, be sure to not fall victim to this way of thinking because when you do, your not feeding your God given soul anymore, your feeding the devils ego!

 

[ricko]

“Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.” Statement by the National Geographic Society 6

“It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon. There is no correspondence whatever between archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations and as recorded in the Book of Mormon, hence the book cannot be regarded as having any historical value from the standpoint of the aboriginal peoples of the New World.” F.H.H. Roberts, Jr, Smithsonian Institution, 1951
“As long as Mormons generally are willing to be fooled by (and pay for) the uninformed, uncritical drivel about archaeology and the scriptures which predominates, the few L.D.S. experts are reluctant even to be identified with the topic.” J.L. Sorenson, Brigham Young University, 1966

The late LDS Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, contributed an introduction to the Book of Mormon in 1981. It includes the statement:

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

A new revised version published by Doubleday has been revised to say:

“After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and **they are among the ancestors **of the American Indians.” 21

religioustolerance.org/lds_migr.htm

Comments such as above and the thousands of changes to the BOM (the most perfect book) show that the Mormons know how to do the crawfish shuffle.

 

[ricko]

Some members of the Mormon church have made fantastic claims about archaeologists using the Book of Mormon. For instance, we are informed that a letter which was written to Earnest L. English on May 3, 1936, was duplicated and “distributed to LDS church members by leaders (local) in Cleveland, Ohio in 1959.” We quote the following from that letter:

The inquiry you made regarding the Book of Mormon is a commendable one and I will be pleased to mention the part which it has played in helping the government to unravel the problem of the aborigines… it was 1920 before the Smithsonian Institute officially recognized the Book of Mormon as a record of any value. All discoveries up to this time were found to fit the Book of Mormon accounts and so the heads of the Archaeological Department decided to make an effort to discover some of the larger cities described in the Book of Mormon records.

Because of many false statements, such as the one cited above, the Smithsonian Institution has been forced to publish a statement concerning these matters (see photograph of this statement in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p.97). In this statement we find the following: “The Smithsonian Institution
has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book.”

 

[ricko]

Below is a statement from a Mormon anthropologist:

“Many times, Mormon missionaries have told their investigators that such late-period ruins as Monte Alban (periods III-V), Yagul, and Mitla were built by the Nephites and that the archaeologists would confirm this. Both claims are untrue. However, the earliest periods of the area, Monte Alban I and II, although as yet little known, are of Preclassic (i.e. Book of Mormon period) date. One may think of these earlier peoples as Jaredites or Nephites, but if so it must be on the basis of faith, not archaeology, for so far there is no explicit evidence that Book of Mormon peoples occupied this area [Oaxaca, in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec area of Mexico]” (Joseph E. Vincent in U.A.S. Newsletter, no. 66, May 7, 1960, p.2).

 

[BartBurk]

How come archeologists cannot find a trace of one single civilization that the Mormon prophet claimed was given to him on the golden [and self destructing] tablets??

Not a single piece of pottery. Not a single dwelling place, not a single burial, not a trace - not a bit of anything that he claimed ever existed.

Care to explain that anyone?

All of the evidence of the Book of Mormon has deteriorated because God wants us to live by faith. If we had evidence we no longer would need to have faith.

At least that’s the argument I have heard from active Mormons. It is as if it doesn’t take any faith to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[ricko]

Article on Thomas Stuart Ferguson, another Mormon archaeologist

At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was ***not a prophet ***and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.

 

[ricko]

More evidence that the LDS and the BOM are based on falsehoods from the mouths of Mormons themselves:

Roberts was a prominent Mormon scholar, who was originally one of the most ardent writers and speakers in defence of the Book of Mormon. However, near the end of his life he too stated that his many years of research had led him to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon ***was a work of fiction created by Joseph Smith: ***
“… the evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator.” ("Studies in the Book of Mormon, B. H. Roberts, University of Illinois Press, 1985, page 243)

 

[ricko]

More Mormon testimonies that there is NO archeological evidence for the BOM tales:

In the mid 1970s President Spencer W. Kimball (BYU) made a statement that was published in The Church News, to the effect that people should stop looking for archeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, ***as there were none. ***And the following is a statement issued by LDS Professor Dee Green:

The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles of books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettante on peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists… no Book of Mormon location is known … (Dialogue, Summer, 1969, pages 74 to 78.)

 

[ricko]

Since the BOM is a fake, the cities and people of the book never existed, hence no archeological evidence.

Joseph Smith declared that: “There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon.” His statement is reiterated in History of the Church, Volume 5, page 399.

The word “Bible” is used in 2 Nephi 29:3, 4, 6 and 10 in the same way as it was used in Joseph Smith’s time, i.e. to denote the completed canon of scriptures, including both Old and New Testaments. But the word “Bible” is not of Hebrew or even Egyptian derivation. It is an anglicization of the Greek word “bibilia,”

 

[ReligiousQuest]

I’m not worried about my Church being bashed, because it cannot be done with truth and honesty.
I agree, but there are critical standards that the Bible will pass and the Book of Mormon will not pass. It seems the Book of Mormon will not pass any critical standard.

Show me evidence that the Bible passes the critical standard? If there’s a rule saying “If A is true, X will occur”, does not mean that if X occurs A is true? If we also say “If A is true, B will occur,” we find X occurs but B does not occur, that means A is not true and does not pass! Aristotle’s theory of gravity passed experiments during his time, but now Aristotle’s theory is considered very false because later they found problems and now Einstein’s theory is considered the current theory of gravity. In order for the Bible to pass as a historical document, the Babylonian Captivity and Assyrians have to be true. These two are a requirement for it to be a historical document. However, it is also a requirement for at least some of the events before King David’s time to pass, for the Bible to be considered a historical document, rather than historical fiction mixed with some real events (Indiana Jones and Shakespeare’s Hamlet for example). Virtually everything before King David’s time is not considered passed by archaeologists, and is a bunch of anachronisms, with the exception of religious conservatives. The Bible says Abraham happened before Joshua’s Conquest and does not say Abraham happened in the 600’s B.C. The Bible says Abraham saw the Chaldeans (didn’t exist until 600’s B.C.) and Philistines (didn’t exist until the 1100’s B.C.). The Book of Joshua says they conquered Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and 30 cities within Joshua’s lifetime, and after Abraham’s time. The city of Ai was carbon dated to 2200 B.C. (much earlier than Chaldeans or Philistines came into existence), Jericho 1500 B.C. (still much earlier than Abraham and not within a human lifetime of Ai), and Hazor 1250 B.C. (still the same). If you say that at least these cities existed, well at least horses and elephants existed in the Americas before Columbus’ time even if they can’t carbon date any to within a few thousand years within the correct Book of Mormon time (which could change later). And at least we can find pyramids in ancient America, even if archaeologists claim they don’t seem to be Middle Eastern type pyramids. Do you see why I’m saying the Bible does not pass using the same standard?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

EVERYONE READ THE POST ABOVE before you say the Bible passes the archaeological test while the Book of Mormon does not!

 

[Stephen168]

If you say that at least these cities existed, well at least horses and elephants existed in the Americas before Columbus’ time even if they can’t carbon date any to within a few thousand years within the correct Book of Mormon time (which could change later). And at least we can find pyramids in ancient America, even if archaeologists claim they don’t seem to be Middle Eastern type pyramids. Do you see why I’m saying the Bible does not pass using the same standard?

So the standard for the Book of Mormon is that animals contained in the document must have existed within 10,000 years of the time and place described.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The thing is,is that the B.O.M. is not based on history at all. This should be obvious to even the seriously deluded. Therefore, the Mormons are in it for the worship,the rituals,the congregations,which is o.k…They know this…

On the other hand Christians are regularly duped into thinking that ,just because a real setting,or a real person is mentioned THAT IT MUST BE obvious the ENTIRE bible is true.This is absurd. It is the common writing style of the time. It is neither original or unique.It is not even hard to distinguish,unless of course you have been blinded by faith.

If dirt=truth
and
water=fiction and you add them together you get mud. Just because a little dirt is in your glass does not mean your entire glass is filled to the rim with truth.

…HELLO, it is called exaggeration.

Pilate was a real person,yet he is found in other fictional works.WOW

I like this post! You are so

 

[ReligiousQuest]

ANYONE HERE WHO BELIEVES “GENETICS” DOES NOT DISPROVE THE BIBLE BUT CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVES THE BOOK OF MORMON, READ THIS BEFORE SAYING ANYTHING ELSE!

Then I guess you didn’t read the quote from the Pearl Great Price, I have posted twice, where Joseph Smith says the Book of Mormon tells of the source of the American aboriginal people.

You said,

I asked how that could be
My Church doesn’t claim to know how long ago Adam lived, so I wanted to know who ‘they’ were. After searching the internet it seems the ‘they’ you are talking about is the Mormon Church. So the study you refer to only moves the date of Adam, it does not disprove him, but it does seems to shatter another Mormon belief.
I’m not worried about my Church being bashed, because it cannot be done with truth and honesty.

That doesn’t sound like a fair way to compare, or critical standard. Genesis chapter 5 gives a specific genealogy from Adam to Noah, with the amount of years for each specific one. Genesis chapter 11, starting in verse 10, says Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the flood. It then gives the genealogy of Shem, son of Noah, to Abraham, with a specific time in years for each person. How is this more vague than your quote from the Pearl of Great Price?

Genesis 5: biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=5&version=9

Genesis 11: biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=11&version=9

Every source I can find on DNA genealogy says our most “recent common” female ancestor through all our “direct mother’s lines” was 140,000 years ago; many even believe she was older than that. Our most “recent common” male ancestor through all mens’ “direct father’s lines” was 60,000 years ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosome_Adam
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2006/03/human-journey/shreeve-text

How does this fit the genealogy stated in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 (from Adam to Abraham), in any shape or form? Adam was the first man, and the Flood wiped everyone out and so we all came from Noah! That doesn’t sound like a fair standard to then quote from the Pearl of Great Price; when the Book of Genesis chapters 5 & 11 are much much more specific in their details than the Pearl of Great Price. If your Church can say it’s a metaphor, although the Bible gives specific genealogy with names and amounts of years, why wouldn’t it be any less fair to allow a Mormon to believe “principal ancestors” is a metaphor, not literal but rather still true in a metaphor way? The Bible is much much more specific in those details. Most of those I hear pushing for DNA contradicting the Book of Mormon are Evangelical Protestants who say the Bible is absolutely literal! The secular geneticists don’t seem to care all that much about spreading the word, and say genetics contradicts both the Bible and the book of Mormon. The Evangelical Protestant pastors then leave out the details of what DNA says about the Bible to their congregations. Why are they bullies?

If genetics don’t completely blow the Bible out of the water being the Word of God, why do genetics do that to the Book of Mormon? I don’t understand?

 

[Stephen168]

If genetics don’t completely blow the Bible out of the water being the Word of God, why do genetics do that to the Book of Mormon? I don’t understand?

If the Book of Genesis contained a phrase “raining cats and dogs,” some Christians and Mormons would think the author meant cats and dogs were falling from the sky. Some other Christians would think the author meant that it raining real hard.

What did the authors of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Genesis mean by their writings?

We don’t claim to know if the author of Genesis meant it to be a factual history in every detail. We do know that God made everything from nothing, and man was disobedient. When it happened doesn’t matter.

Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was a history of the source if the American Aborigines, so I would approach the Book of Mormon that way.

When we apply DNA evidence it may change when God made Adam but the American Aborigines are not Semites.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

So the standard for the Book of Mormon is that animals contained in the document must have existed within 10,000 years of the time and place described.

Stephen, if you can believe that Abraham left Ur at the time of the Chaldeans in the 600’s B.C., many years after Joshua and Moses, and just right before the Babylonian Conquest, and was the Patriarch that Moses referred to, although Abraham would happen almost a thousand years after Moses. If you can believe Joshua lived and started conquering the cities of Canaan 2200 B.C. to the 600’s B.C. If you can believe the Israelites were slaves in Egypt after Jericho was conquered by Joshua, and before Hazor was conquered by Joshua. If you can believe the Bible because “at least these places existed”, although archaeologists say the requirements for them are not fulfilled.

The last mammoths found to date in the Americas were not 10,000 years ago. It’s now updated to 3,750 B.C., 5,750 years ago for the Americas, although there weren’t too many of them. They also found that the last mammoths in Siberia were 1,650 B.C., 3,650 years ago. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth#Extinction Since the date of extinction keeps on getting moved to more recent, saying that there were no elephants during the time of the Jaredites 2200 B.C., is just saying we lack of evidence as of this time, but not necessarily disproof. Since most bones are not supposed to be preserved over time, nor even fossilize, how do we know? If all mammal bones stay preserved, why aren’t paths completely obstructed when we go on walks in the wilderness?

When people move into a new area, history shows us that it’s common for them to name some of the new animals names of animals from the old area. The Greeks called the Hippos of Africa “river horses”. The encyclopedia even says Hippopotamus is Greek for “river horse”; if Hippopotamus is translated into straight English, it’s “river horse”. So, just imagine the Book of Mormon having words that are a different language and then being translated into English; it could give us names like “horse”, “elephant”, in the same way! The Romans called elephants “cows”. If these ancient peoples could get away with that, then why would it not be acceptable for the peoples of the Book of Mormon? There were llamas used as pack animals before Columbus’ time. How do we not know those were referred to as “horses”? Why couldn’t the big horn sheep be called “goats”?

Silk? They didn’t have Old World silk as far as archaeologists can find. However, when the Spanish came they said the Native Americans had a fabric which was made from moth larvae. That could have been seen as something similar to silk, so that’s why it was used.

 

[PaulDupre]

When people move into a new area, history shows us that it’s common for them to name some of the new animals names of animals from the old area. The Greeks called the Hippos of Africa “river horses”. The encyclopedia even says Hippopotamus is Greek for “river horse”; if Hippopotamus is translated into straight English, it’s “river horse”.

Yes, but when a translator (a real translator) translates Greek, he says “hippopotamus” not “horse”. A translation is supposed to convert the source language into the current target language, not use arcane and inaccurate words to describe something commonly known to target-language speakers. So if the animal in BOM times was a deer or a tapir, there is no reason for God to translate the word as “horse”.

The Romans called elephants “cows”. If these ancient peoples could get away with that, then why would it not be acceptable for the peoples of the Book of Mormon?

And yet translators do not write that Hannibal crossed the Alps on cows, do they? They correctly call the animals that Hannibal used “elephants”. The Mormon god is apparently a lousy translator.

And the BOM says that the Nephites wore linen clothes, and raised wheat and barley. Linen is made from flax (the species is known as Linum usitatissimum). Flax is native to the Old World, and no flax existed in the Americas until the Spaniards brought it in 1492. Neither was there any wheat or barley.

How do we know that? Plants, especially flowering plants like flax, leave pollen behind. Pollen settles to the bottom of lakes and ponds, and is found in abundance in soil cores. Pollen is among the most indestructable organic substances. It lasts virtually forever. There is absolutely no pollen from any species of flax, wheat or barley in ancient American soil cores.

The crop pollens that are found in ancient American soil cores are maize, squash, beans and, later, amaranth. It is worth noting that (with the exception of Indian corn, which the New Yorkers of 1820 knew about) the BOM never mentions these crops - the crops that the ancient Amerindians really grew and were the staples of their diet for thousands of years.

Paul

P.S.: Amaranth is really delicious and very high in protein. If you can find an amaranth cereal (like Nu-World Amaranth) at your local grocery store, get some and try it. You won’t be disappointed.

 

[Stephen168]

The last mammoths found to date in the Americas were not 10,000 years ago. It’s now updated to 3,750 B.C., 5,750 years ago for the Americas, although there weren’t too many of them.

There were no horses in the Americas in 100BC. But there were sheep and shepards in Jerusalem in 25AD when Christ talked about them. We also know where Jerusalem is located.