Mormon church and DNA?

[Batjacboy]

Amgid,

Unfortunately, I haven’t found any websites which go into enough detail on the Galileo incident to do justice to the subject, but an excellent book is Galileo’s Mistake, by Wade Rowland (who, by the way, is not a Catholic). It’s a great book to read, and very entertaining. Also good is Galileo in Rome, by Shea and Artigas, but I’d start with Rowland’s book first.

Hope that helps.

 

[Paul_G]

The debate over the differing theories of the origins of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, which are not homogeneous by any means with in the scientific community, will have the various religious denominations, in terms of the religious debate, seek out those studies that support their partisan views. However, there appears to be at least one verifiable archaeological source of evidence that supports the existence of Hebrew scripture, written with the appropriate script from the time before the captivity by the Babylonians, in the new world. Take for instance, the inscription on a rock face near the town of Los Lunas in New Mexico. The following is some commentary regarding it.
“There is a fascinating old site some few miles west of a little town called Los Lunas in New Mexico. The site has been known as “Mystery Mountain” by the locals for many years. At the foot of this hill there is an ancient rock inscription. Many scholars now believe that it contains the Ten Commandments, including 3 instances of the Tetragrammaton, inscribed in old Hebrew letters. (Photo 1997 J.Neuhoff)

However, conventional history teaches that the Americas were discovered by the Europeans either in 1492 by Columbus, or maybe a few hundred years earlier by the Vikings. There still seems to be an aversion among the establishment historians to even consider the idea that ancient Mediterranean peoples from the Middle East might have traveled to the Americas in the centuries before Christ. Only so-called diffusionists (14) would have accepted a different view. And yet, there it is, this inscription in New Mexico, an undeniable witness from an ancient past telling its history …

…Some background information on the history of the Inscription Rock
People were already aware of the inscription when New Mexico became a territory in 1850, but no one could read it back then, mainly because the old-Hebrew or Phoenician alphabet in which this rock is inscribed was mostly unknown among scholars or archaeologists at that time. (1) The site is located some few miles west of the small New Mexican town of Los Lunas, about an hour’s car drive south of Albuquerque. The inscription is carved into the flat face of a large boulder resting on the north-eastern side of the so-called Hidden Mountain. Local Indians told the then landowner Franz Huning in 1871 that the monument predated their tribes coming to the area

About one century later, in 1949, Robert H. Pfeiffer of the Harvard University, made a first known translation of the strange writing. Being an authority on the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible) he concluded that the inscription was a copy of the Ten Commandments. He thought that the inscription was written in the Phoenician, the Moabite, and the Greek languages. Indeed, some local native American Indians, as a result of his work, have been refering to this rock as the Phoenician Inscription Rock. Professor Pfeiffer never stated at that time whom he thought carved the message. Many locals have been calling this site the “Ten Commandments Rock” ever since….

… The first step in deciphering the Los Lunas Inscription was to identify the letters. Native American Indians in the New Mexico area never developed a character-based alphabet. They were mainly carving petroglyphs on rock surfaces. These are quite different and are more like little pictographic drawings than writings. The inscription itself was done in old-Hebrew or Phoenician letters, as can be seen from the following (to the right) character chart:

 The approach taken for identifying the letters was to look elsewhere for comparable character-based known inscriptions. The closest matching writing samples are Phoenician, Moabite and old-Hebrew monumental inscriptions from the far away Mediterranean Middle East. The modern western Latin-based character set alphabets are ultimately derived from the ancient Phoenician alphabet. The old Hebrew alphabet was virtually identical with the mid-Phoenician alphabet from the tenth to sixth century B.C.E.. It was only after the Jewish return from the Babylonian exile in 539 B.C.E. that their scribes started to develop their own script known as square-Hebrew, even though some old-Hebrew writings continued to be produced till the early Roman era.”

 

[Joe_Monahan]

IAMLDS:

Why do you come here to the Non-Catholic Religions Forum? Was this meant only as a place for Catholics to discuss Non-Catholic Religions? If so then I’ll beg your pardon and be on my way. Do you think discussions have benefited from multiple faith perspectives? Don’t you think it would get boring with you, Mike, Robert, Todd and Paul slapping eachother on the back, and congragulating eachother about how right you are? If LDS are allowed to participate in the discussion then everything I say is going to have LDS color, and that doesn’t mean I’m prosyletizing.

majick275:

Why are you here?

majick275:

It’s not “my” forum BUT it IS CATHOLIC ANSWERS. So one wold exepct everything t have a Catholic perspective.

“Catholic Answers” is the name of the website, and the forum naturally assumes the name of the website it is attached to. But that does not mean that the forum is exclusively devoted to Catholics members, or that its sole purpose it to provide “Catholic Answers”. The forum is open to everyone who whishes to join, and speak and debate from whatever religious perspective they happen to adhere to. The name of this particular board is called “Non-Catholic Religions”. I should have thought that that title did not require any explanation.

amgid:

Should everyone who comes here preach Catholicism, regardless of whatever religious persuasion they may already be?

Since the above series of questions has become a subject of public debate in this thread, let me provide the definitive answers to them.

There is a significant difference between prosletyzing or posting scurrilous commentary about the Church, the Pope, Catholics, or Catholic dogma for the sake of doing so, as is commonly the case at anti-Catholic websites, and posting “this is what I believe, …; this is the reason why I believe it, …; and, this is how I defend that belief, …”.

If we elect to censor the beliefs of others because we don’t like them or disagree with them, we cannot claim to be operating a discussion forum that educates Catholics as to the belief systems of others. Instead, we run the risk of creating a very insular, parochial site in which Catholics speak only with Catholics and that, eventually, will be better labeled “Catholics Liking Catholics”, since we will have no answers for anyone.

Attempting to answer or dialogue with others without taking the time and making the effort to know and understand their beliefs produces a dogmatic, pedantic product on our part that, if accepted by a reader, risks producing a poorly catechized Catholic convert who won’t really understand why he left his origins, only that he did. Converts forged in that mold often eventually move on, generally resentful of what they rightly perceive to have been manipulation that afforded answers, not to their questions, but to the questions that others decided they should have.

There is no issue to be had with posters who state their beliefs, are asked questions, answer and explain those answers, dialogue or even debate, provided all transpires in a respectful tone. If we perceive arrogance because a poster believes differently than us, the poster will perceive arrogance because he was punished for expressing his beliefs. Dialogue and the open expression of beliefs that differ from those of Catholicism is one of the reasons why there is a Non-Catholic Forum.

I trust that these points are clear; the matter is closed to further debate. Resumption of posting on this thread needs to assume a considerably more accepting attitude toward others and posts on both sides need to be tempered with charity. Anyone having issues with the tone or tenor of another’s post is best advised to use the report feature http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/report.gif rather than engage in public argumentation of the matter.

Joe Monahan

 

[majick275]

Paul G:

The debate over the differing theories of the origins of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, which are not homogeneous by any means with in the scientific community, will have the various religious denominations, in terms of the religious debate, seek out those studies that support their partisan views. However, there appears to be at least one verifiable archaeological source of evidence that supports the existence of Hebrew scripture, written with the appropriate script from the time before the captivity by the Babylonians, in the new world. Take for instance, the inscription on a rock face near the town of Los Lunas in New Mexico. The following is some commentary regarding it./snip

I have yet to see any denomination other than LDS seeking out partisan studies. I do see you doing exactly that right here, yet claiming it to be the one “objective” source. My FIL lives in Las Lunes, I’ve seen the pictograph in question. I’m sure many folks will debate over ot for years. The markings certainly aren’t clear enough to be proclaimed anything. It’s kind of like the fish that supposedly had arabic writing on it. Some will claim it says what they want it to but otheres will look at it and not see that. In any case this is hardly a “verifiable” archeological source. It is speculation. Go look at photos of it for yourself.

 

[majick275]

Paul G:

The debate over the differing theories of the origins of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, which are not homogeneous by any means with in the scientific community, will have the various religious denominations, in terms of the religious debate, seek out those studies that support their partisan views. However, there appears to be at least one verifiable archaeological source of evidence that supports the existence of Hebrew scripture, written with the appropriate script from the time before the captivity by the Babylonians, in the new world. Take for instance, the inscription on a rock face near the town of Los Lunas in New Mexico. The following is some commentary regarding it. /SNIP

Please give examples of any denomination other than LDS seeking out partisan studies on pre-columbian peoples. My FIL lives in Las Lunas, I’ve seen this rock. This isn’t considered verifiable arcehologocal evidence. You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of. Cherry picking your source. Here is the link, look at it yourself:

economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.html

as you can see, it’s age and origin are very debatable. It is no more clear than the fish with the alleged arabic inscriptions. Yes, someone wrote an inscription in greek and hebrew letters from the ten commandments on the rock. Who and when is hardly a fact and certainly doesn’t appear to support the LDS case.

 

[Paul_G]

majick275:

Please give examples of any denomination other than LDS seeking out partisan studies on pre-columbian peoples. My FIL lives in Las Lunas, I’ve seen this rock. This isn’t considered verifiable arcehologocal evidence. You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of. Cherry picking your source. Here is the link, look at it yourself:

I don’t think I referred to “partisan studies” but studies that support a partisan view whether it be Evangelical, fundamental, Baptist, Catholic, etc. All these denominations are apposed to the Book of Mormon. I’m sure the Catholic Church as an organisation does not go out of it’s why to argue the point, however individuals with in it do. I should have said “individuals” within denominations. Anyone who uses DNA evidence to support their criticism of the Book of Mormon will choose those theories and studies that best supports their opinions.

economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.html

as you can see, it’s age and origin are very debatable. It is no more clear than the fish with the alleged arabic inscriptions. Yes, someone wrote an inscription in greek and hebrew letters from the ten commandments on the rock. Who and when is hardly a fact and certainly doesn’t appear to support the LDS case.

Of course there will be debate. The reason for offering this information was not to present evidence in support of the Book of Mormon, but to show that no matter what is discovered in the scientific world there will be differing opinions by equally qualified individuals. As in this case, some have it as of ancient origin others say it is not. A person will decide which view they believe by what information best fits their personal theories, just as they do with the theories in DNA research, just as they do with believes about the origins of the aboriginal people of the Americas.

 

[majick275]

Paul G:

I don’t think I referred to “partisan studies” but studies that support a partisan view whether it be Evangelical, fundamental, Baptist, Catholic, etc. All these denominations are apposed to the Book of Mormon. I’m sure the Catholic Church as an organisation does not go out of it’s why to argue the point, however individuals with in it do. I should have said “individuals” within denominations. Anyone who uses DNA evidence to support their criticism of the Book of Mormon will choose those theories and studies that best supports their opinions.

I agree with your clarification on individuals. I am unawarre of anyt DNA studies that support the LDS view. If you know of any please post a link. I’ve already seen FARMS/FAIR response and found it lacking. I would like to see studies, not responses that you think support the BoM historicity.
Paul G:

Of course there will be debate. The reason for offering this information was not to present evidence in support of the Book of Mormon, but to show that no matter what is discovered in the scientific world there will be differing opinions by equally qualified individuals. As in this case, some have it as of ancient origin others say it is not. A person will decide which view they believe by what information best fits their personal theories, just as they do with the theories in DNA research, just as they do with believes about the origins of the aboriginal people of the Americas.

But you said :
Paul G:

However, there appears to be at least one verifiable archaeological source of evidence that supports the existence of Hebrew scripture, written with the appropriate script from the time before the captivity by the Babylonians, in the new world.

Which seemed like you were claiming fact. In any case NONE of the commentaries that I read on this appeared to me to support the BoM. Those who felt it was of authentic “ancient” origin seemed more inclined to date it circa 6th Century AD and made by a native Greek speaking person knowledgeable of Hebrew. So I don’t see any scenario in which any verifiable archeological evidence found supports a historical BoM. On the other hand there seems to be a number of agreed upon finds that appear disprove it’s historical authenticity. I think you make the point that many people will believe what they want and look for others who validate their beliefs. Unfortunately I have to agree with you on that. Even in the face of proven fact there are many who strongly believe in false teachings. We see this in people willing to do die for their faith even though we see their beliefs as having already been proven false. (examples are numerous in cultures throughout the world today)

 

[Tmaque]

I must agree with Majick. To claim that this stone is a “verifiable archaeological source of evidence that supports the existence of Hebrew scripture, written with the appropriate script from the time before the captivity by the Babylonians, in the new world”, is stretching the fact quite a bit.

First of all, the only “verifiable” thing about the stone is that the script is at least a few hundred years old. Secondly, it appears that the script is not really “appropriate” at all for a Hebrew writer from the seventh century B.C. Finally, it seems that everyone agrees that the inscription is no more than 2000 years old.

Even if we discount the language problem, another issue I can see is this:
Assuming you are correct, and it was a Nephite or a Lamanite that made the inscription 2000 years ago, then that would prove that the old world written language had survived for 600 years. To turn around then, and suggest that every last vestige of it had been lost among the surviving native Americans, is really stretching credibility to the breaking point. This coupled with the lack of any other physical evidence of written language, would make the claim very implausible.

 

[amgid]

Batjacboy:

Unfortunately, I haven’t found any websites which go into enough detail on the Galileo incident to do justice to the subject, but an excellent book is Galileo’s Mistake, by Wade Rowland (who, by the way, is not a Catholic). It’s a great book to read, and very entertaining. Also good is Galileo in Rome, by Shea and Artigas, but I’d start with Rowland’s book first.

Hope that helps.

Yes it does. Thanks. I will put those books on my future reading list.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Paul G:

The debate over the differing theories of the origins of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, which are not homogeneous by any means within the scientific community, will have the various religious denominations, in terms of the religious debate, seek out those studies that support their partisan views. However, there appears to be at least one verifiable archaeological source of evidence that supports the existence of Hebrew scripture, written with the appropriate script from the time before the captivity by the Babylonians, in the new world. Take for instance, the inscription on a rock face near the town of Los Lunas in New Mexico. The following is some commentary regarding it.

---

Thank you. I heard about that on a radio broadcast quite a while ago, but never followed up much on it. It certainly agrees with the Book of Mormon assertion that “. . . the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; . . .” (Mormon 9:33). I would like to know the source of your quote. It would have been nice if you had included the images in your post as well.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

Thank you. I heard about that on a radio broadcast quite a while ago, but never followed up much on it. It certainly agrees with the Book of Mormon assertion that “. . . the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; . . .” (Mormon 9:33). I would like to know the source of your quote. It would have been nice if you had included the images in your post as well.

amgid

Please explain how the nephites “altered” hebrew would have such a strong GREEK influence. This CANNOT agree with Mormon 9:33.
The link I posted has an excellent photograph.

 

[mormon_fool]

MJE asks:

What is this about? Hugh Hewitt refers to it and I have not had time to research it? Is there a 25 word explanation?

Here goes my 25 word explanation. No doubt LDS and critics alike will find it an inadequate summary for a complex issue.

Recent DNA studies confirm what LDS scholars have long believed (contra popular LDS belief), that the Book of Mormon took place over a limited region.

Hugh Hewitt had a follow up show for LDS to respond to the LA Times article.

Special thanks for Joe Monahan’s moderation and CA for allowing LDS participants to help educate Catholics about LDS beliefs and vice versa.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

With respects to Paul G., I think the Los Lunas stone amounts to being a forgery. Two FARMS writers, John L. Sorenson and Hugh W. Nibley have suspected as much. Nevertheless FARMS doesn’t have a lot of credibility around these parts so I suspect the debate will go on.

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

MJE asks:

Here goes my 25 word explanation. No doubt LDS and critics alike will find it an inadequate summary for a complex issue.

Recent DNA studies confirm what LDS scholars have long believed (contra popular LDS belief), that the Book of Mormon took place over a limited region.

Now surely you didn’t expect that sweeping generality to pass unchallenged. Which LDS scholars and how long? LDS prophets seem to have stated otherwise for 175 years. Incidents such as “Zelph”, direct statements by Joseph Smith Jr. (and other LDS prophets) as well as the BoM itself sure seem to indicate a hemispherical rather than limited geography. Further, the DNA studies do NOT “confirm” the BoM. (limited geography or otherwise) FARMS attempts to show how LGT “could” still allow BoM historicity in light of DNA studies don’t show any proof that it IS accurate. (the BoM) LDS scholar Thomas Murphy (chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, Washington) tells us : “dna research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans.” in an essay based on his doctoral dissertation.

Look, just about everyone in the world comes from one of 25 mitochondrial “families” and the indigenous peoples of the Americas are from 5 of those. This simplifies the game alot. WE can tell by the minicule degree of variation that the native americans have been here for about 15,000 years. further the peoples of mesoamerica specifically show no israelite genetic markers. The BoM gives no examples of what we now know to be pre-columbian culture, industry, economy, agriculture, etc.

The BoM tells us the nephites/lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians and that the land was kept hidden from others just for them. It would have us believe that they had a massive civilization with vast cities and armies of size similar to those in the height of the Roman Empire. It tells us of every people that they come into contact with. Anthropology makes it impossible for what LDS prophets have claimed to be true.

*“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 remnent are the Indians that now inhabit this country.”
(Joseph Smith Jr., published in Times and Seasons March 1, 1842 and in
History of the Church, Vol 4).
Now if you want to say that Joseph Smith Jr. was wrong about the BoM then I’m right there with you.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Now surely you didn’t expect that sweeping generality to pass unchallenged.

I prophesied as much .

Which LDS scholars and how long?

I wanted to give this information, but it would cut into my word count. This info is found more extensively on the Sites That Can’t be Mentioned. To answer your questions briefly: ~50 years ago the LGT (Limited Geographic Theory) was all the rave on BYU campus. The periods marks the LDS church’s first generation of trained archaeologists including H. Wells Jakeman and the founding of the New World Archaeologist Foundation. As Dallin H. Oaks pointed out in 1993:
For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took in the Book of Mormon at BYU. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the “Archaeology of the Book of Mormon.” In retrospect, I think it should have been labelled something like “An Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of Mormon.” Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

LDS prophets seem to have stated otherwise for 175 years.

I agree that a hemispheric geography has been a a near consensus among general authorities and prophets. The history is too long to point out notable exceptions that have appeared in LDS publications since and during Joseph Smith’s time. Again this has been done elsewhere.

I don’t mean to minimize the disapointment that some LDS feel their leaders, including Joseph Smith, were fallible in their interpretations of the Book of Mormon with respect to geography. Clearly some former LDS have left the LDS church over this issue. I am not going to follow suit anytime soon, because an analysis of distances presented in the Book of Mormon itself show a small scale geography.

From what I understand, the debate is not over the science. A famous quote by an ex-LDS Bishop, Dr. Southerton (please check the context, much of his stance disagrees with mine), admits that science can not disprove the LGT.
In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.
The main arguments are over what the best read of the Book of Mormon is, LGT or H(emispheric)GT and how to deal with mistaken interpretations of the past (critics have LDS on the defensive here.) Beyond a few remarks, I am not interested in replaying these arguments as they are already hashed out in readily available literature.

From my perspective, the “science” of the day became a common assumption, even cropping up in the language revelations were recorded in. This doesn’t bother me because I see “propositional revelation” in the Bible make the same types of erroneous assumptions. Catholics do a good job allowing these types of discrepancies, limiting infallibility to matters of “faith and morals” and accepting the progress of science. The LDS church is young, but will weather the current growing pains and hopefully practice will morph to what the belief in theory has been about the errancy of leaders all along.

[cont]

 

[mormon_fool]

The BoM tells us the nephites/lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians

This isn’t something the BoM tells us, rather it is in an introduction probably written by Bruce R. McConkie. I continue to believe this, if “principal” refers to the American Indians’ most religiously significant (from an LDS perspective) ancestors, until proven otherwise. For some LDS that wrestle with belief that the Book of Mormon was historically authentic, the disappointment that “principal” might mean something besides “the numerical majority” lessens its impact. My main response to the quote above is that the distinction about what the BoM actually says is an important one to make.

and that the land was kept hidden from others just for them.

Two points should be made about this text which I assume you refer to 2 Nephi 1. 1) The promise was conditional. 2) The land of inheritance spoken of covers a very limited area, conditionally hidden from more powerful nations. This reading doesn’t preclude the predominance of others in the larger continental landmasses or the Lehites from assimilating with other peoples not part of any politically unified “nation”.

The BoM gives no examples of what we now know to be pre-columbian culture, industry, economy, agriculture, etc.

An overstatement to be sure. While there are some anachronisms that reflect an attempt to make the Book of Mormon more readable by a KJV familiar audience, at least some examples of the above can be found. See for example, pro-LDS archaeologist John L. Clark’s 20 min Library of Congress address. If Dr. Clark says item X has been found in mesoAmerica, I am confident that there is a non-LDS peer reviewed journal somewhere that attests to item X being found. How well item X correlates to the BoM text is a longer story, as is the notion that X could also fit in with the 19th century origin theory. The significance of item Y that hasn’t been found (yet) --contrary to expectations-- is another. From the LDS side such a list of Y has been whittled down over time, yet is still imposing. Note that I am trying to frame the issues and not debate them.

Now if you want to say that Joseph Smith Jr. was wrong about the BoM then I’m right there with you.

I actually don’t have a problem with this. Joseph Smith misreading the book he supposedly authored. It makes me question the latter proposition.

I like my 25 word answer better. Besides you, majick, I think I lose any possible :yawn: audience after that length. I probably won’t look at this thread until the end of the week, so don’t expect any immediate response.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

Actually, I enjoyed your post and will “digest” it for a bit before posting since you said you will be busy till later in the week. I think you point out some key elements regarding the effects of this issue on members.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

The link I posted has an excellent photograph.

Yes, thanks. I had replied to Paul’s post too quickly, and had overlooked your post.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Your welcome.