Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[Starfish]

It's very unlikely that every last Nephite was slain. Their civilization was destroyed. But a few could have survived. It was a big continent.

 

[DeepShadow]

It's very unlikely that every last Nephite was slain. Their civilization was destroyed. But a few could have survived. It was a big continent.

Exactly. And what's even more unlikely than every Nephite being slain is Moroni going around and checking pulses to confirm that everyone was slain.

 

[Sola'lor]

Exactly. And what's even more unlikely than every Nephite being slain is Moroni going around and checking pulses to confirm that everyone was slain.

I read somewhere that Colombus or one of those explorers found an island in the americas populated by very white skinned people. It was in some BoM study guide.

Also I think it's very important to understand that the Book of Mormon is a translation of a summary. The Book of Mormon as written by Mormon/Moroni was a summary of the important points of the records he had in his posession. So EVERYTHING in the Book of Mormon is a summary of the records. It is written in the words of Mormon and Moroni. Then Joseph Smith was only allowed to translate about one third or so of Mormon/moroni's summary(which only included significant things). It's not really that hard to image that there's ALOT about the ancient America's that aren't mentioned in the Book of Mormon. To me, it seems that to think of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide to the ancient Americas is ridiculous.

I'm not really surprised that the Book of Mormon doesn't agree with most of our current scientific understanding of the ancient Americas.

 

[Autodidact]

DeepShadow:

The genetic research you presented is new to me, so hope to reply when I have time to learn more about it.

 

[rocka21]

DeepShadow:

The genetic research you presented is new to me, so hope to reply when I have time to learn more about it.

I have been reading this thread awhile. Has there been an answer to the swords , chariots, and other instruments these BOM people had in the Americas, but none have been found. I would like to know the Mormon stance on that issue.

 

[Melissa G]

It's quite obvious my your unknowledgable statement that you have no background in this research and that you refuse to even consider (or read by the words of your comment) what Deepshadow has written.

Never mind the flim-flam, are these Muleketites, Jaradelites , Lammentites mentioned anywhere outside of the BOM ? Yes or No ?

Melissa G

 

[Bishka]

Never mind the flim-flam,

You mean your "flim-flam," of refusing to do some actual research? They may very well be mentioned and known outside the Book of Mormon, by another name.

For example, my name is Becky, some people know me as Campbell, some people know me as her, others know me as Rebecca and a variety of other nicknames, etc. This doesn't mean I'm different people, I'm just known by a different name.

Have you even looked or read anything that Deepshadow has posted? Anything at all?

 

[Melissa G]

That's plainly nonsense. If there is no corrobative evidence anywhere else for these lost tribes, esp in the OT, then there is no basis for a discussion. Obviously Moroni, didn't understand Hebrew then ? It follows that any discusion of their DNA is plainly a waste of time. Another words, it's a discussion involving non-existent peoples. DS might as well write about the DNA of fairies for all that means. The analogy is exactly the same.

Melissa G

 

[Katzpur]

It follows that any discusion of their DNA is plainly a waste of time.

So why are you still here discussing it?

 

[Melissa G]

Just making the point, I take it you get the point now !

Melissa G

 

[Bishka]

Just making the point, I take it you get the point now !

Melissa G

That you will not back anything up nor read what anybody else has presented?

Yes, we get the point.

 

[DeepShadow]

I have been reading this thread awhile. Has there been an answer to the swords , chariots, and other instruments these BOM people had in the Americas, but none have been found. I would like to know the Mormon stance on that issue.

Great points, but this thread is specifically about DNA, according to the OP. If you start a thread about those other things, please send me a PM; I don't always know when such threads are started, because I'm not on the forums as much as I wish to be.

 

[DeepShadow]

That's plainly nonsense. If there is no corrobative evidence anywhere else for these lost tribes, esp in the OT, then there is no basis for a discussion.

Actually, there is. An Aztec prince named Ixtlilxochitl wrote out the history of his people, and his records corroborate the divisions of the people in the Book of Mormon. Namely:

--Three groups of migrants from across the water (consistent with the Book of Mormon account of Jaredites, Nephites, and Mulekites).

--The first group were called Ancient Ones, or Giants, or First Toltecs ("giants" is consistent with Book of Mormon accounts of Jaredites being extremely large).

--The second group, called the Toltecs, split into two groups (Nephites and Lamanites) who had wars between them, with dates that correspond to the accounts in the Book of Mormon.

--The third group, called the Olmecs, slew the last survivors of the Giants, and afterwards joined with the Toltecs, who became the dominant culture. Compare with the Book of Mormon, where the third group (the Mulekites) took in the last survivor of the Jaredites (Coriantumr) who died a few months later. Later the Olmecs united with the Toltecs, who became the dominant culture. This is consistent with the Mulekites being absorbed into the Nephites.

So the biggest difference here is names; Ixtlilxochitl even managed to get most of the dates right when it came to wars and stuff like that.

Keeping this on the topic of DNA, all of this remains consistent with the rest of the data I've presented: DNA evidence supports a predominantly Asian genotype with a small but significant ANE population.

 

[DeepShadow]

Just making the point, I take it you get the point now !

Melissa G

The only point that I've caught from your comments is that you really like begging the original question. A lot.

BTW, what was the name of that professor who said the characters from the plates could not form an alphabet? I've been hoping to check your source on that one.

 

[Muffled]

I don't think I've ever denied that there are large amounts of evidence against the Book of Mormon. But to me it is irrelevant. I have had a personal witness of the turth of the Book of Mormon. Thus there is a conflict. How can the Book of Mormon be true but not supported by archeological evidence? In short I don't really know. I've never claimed to know. I've offered theories about how it could be possible. So what I have determined to do is simply wait until a time when all knowledge will become available. Eventually everything will make sense. My belief in the church isn't based on our current level archeologiucal understanding but on my personal interpretation of the witness I recieve from the Holy Spirit. If you think that makes me ignorant then so be it. I firmly believe that eventually everything will make perfect sense. I am waiting for that time and when we reach that time and it a positivly known that my Religion is wrong then I will accept that. But until that time there is no valid reason for doubting the personal experiences I've had and continue to have.

I have heard many Mormons say the same thing but what I hear from the Holy Spirit is contrary. Since the scientific evidence supports what I hear, it is more likely that I have heard from God than it is that Mormos have heard from God. There are two other possibilities that can occur when a person claims to have heard from God: 1. They are hearing their own thoughts which fulfill their wishes 2. They are hearing from false speaking spirits.

This is a similar issue as to whether a person is really speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit or faking it. I don't see any problem with a Mormon admitting that he has a bogus book because the presupposition upon which Mormonism exists, is that a person can still hear from God. What is requisite is a realization that not every claim of hearing from God is a valid one. My guess is that a source of much of the silliness in mormonism is due to people making claims that they heard from God when they really didn't.

 

[Katzpur]

I have heard many Mormons say the same thing but what I hear from the Holy Spirit is contrary. Since the scientific evidence supports what I hear, it is more likely that I have heard from God than it is that Mormos have heard from God.

Since you have heard something different than we have heard, go with what you have heard, but don't be so presumptuous as to think that means you're right and we're wrong. Spiritual experiences are very personal. There is no way on earth that any of us can say with any certainly that someone else's spiritual experiences are in some way flawed.

I don't see any problem with a Mormon admitting that he has a bogus book because the presupposition upon which Mormonism exists, is that a person can still hear from God.

Can you see a problem in our claiming the book to be true if that's what we sincerely believe? I can see a much bigger problem in our lying about what we believe to be true.

My guess is that a source of much of the silliness in mormonism is due to people making claims that they heard from God when they really didn't.

As a Christian, you ought to know better than to say something like this. What in my religion is any "sillier" than your claim that a Virgin gave birth to the Son of God? You and I have that belief in common, but I can assure you that to any non-Christian in the world, that's about as "silly" as it gets. Is there any scientific to support that belief, or do you accept it on faith and on what you believe the Holy Ghost has confirmed to you? Give that one some thought before you start passing judgment.

 

[Melissa G]

That you will not back anything up nor read what anybody else has presented?

Yes, we get the point.

You do ? amazing !

 

[DeepShadow]

Since the scientific evidence supports what I hear, it is more likely that I have heard from God than it is that Mormos have heard from God.

Like Katzpur, I would encourage you to follow whatever promptings you get from the Holy Spirit, wherever they lead you. However, in the spirit of this thread, I've presented DNA evidence that supports what I believe. Do you have anything to say about that? Does the confirmation of my beliefs via DNA evidence mean the same for me as it does for you?

 

[Bishka]

You do ? amazing !

You agreed with what I posted?

 

[Melissa G]

Like Katzpur, I would encourage you to follow whatever promptings you get from the Holy Spirit, wherever they lead you. However, in the spirit of this thread, I've presented DNA evidence that supports what I believe. Do you have anything to say about that? Does the confirmation of my beliefs via DNA evidence mean the same for me as it does for you?

It is entirely pointless posting so-called evidence about people whose very exsistance is highly dubious. I think you ought to provide proof that these so-called tribes existed in the first place. And by proof, I mean sources outside of the BOM.

Melissa G