Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[Katzpur]

I know that the verse quoted was from Helman, which apprently doest matter if you are compairing apples to oranges. However the verses may apply to whatever other event was taking place, it dosent change whats in Helman, where the verse we were discussing takes place.

Ah, yes. We were talking about Heleman 4:7, where you jumped to the conclusion that the verse had to be referring to the distance from the West Coast of the United States to the East Coast. And that's where you threw in the bit about it being scientifically unverifiable for someone to have walked the distance in a day. That was where you started backpedaling for all you were worth.

 

[mudge991]

Oh and can you explain how Nephi named a "continually running" river that flowed from Arabia to the Red Sea after his son Laman. But there are no permament rivers in Arabia, and there hasn't been since the Pleistocene.

1 Nephi 2
2:9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!

For fun check out YouTube - Where is the River Laman? to watch a video of people living there that have never heard of any river flowing to the red sea. Its really funny.

 

[mudge991]

Ah, yes. We were talking about Heleman 4:7, where you jumped to the conclusion that the verse had to be referring to the distance from the West Coast of the United States to the East Coast. And that's where you threw in the bit about it being scientifically unverifiable for someone to have walked the distance in a day. That was where you started backpedaling for all you were worth.

not at all, it still is a ridiculous statement that is scientifically untrue at any level.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh and can you explain how Nephi named a "continually running" river that flowed from Arabia to the Red Sea after his son Laman. But there are no permament rivers in Arabia, and there hasn't been since the Pleistocene.

Sorry, Charlie. Once again, you're dead wrong.

There is, in fact, such a river in the exact area described in the Book of Mormon. Although it is quite narrow and shallow today, there is evidence that it used to have a much greater flow. It sustains the nearby vegetation even when there has been no rain for months. It flows continuously, and descends into rocky rubble as it empties into the Red Sea. According to Dr. Wes Garner, a retired geologist from King Fahad University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia, the one point at which the stream briefly disappears was previously submerged. At the time of the events described in the Book of Mormon, it would have visibly flowed into the Red Sea. I'll save you a few minutes of research here: This was a bit after the Pleistocene era.

Jeesh! I would think you'd be getting embarrassed by now. Do you seriously think you're going to be able to come up with a single example that hasn't been addressed a million times already? Oh yeah... you already did. The Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans are several thousands of miles apart at all points.

 

[DeepShadow]

not at all, it still is a ridiculous statement that is scientifically untrue at any level.

If you cherry pick it, sure. The rest of us like to get context:

Alma 22
29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful.
30 And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing.
31 And they came from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.
32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.
33 And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea, and thus the Nephites in their wisdom, with their guards and their armies, had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward.
34 Therefore the Lamanites could have no more possessions only in the land of Nephi, and the wilderness round about. Now this was wisdom in the Nephites—as the Lamanites were an enemy to them, they would not suffer their afflictions on every hand, and also that they might have a country whither they might flee, according to their desires.

Now, please provide support for your arbitrary claim that this is all taking place in North America.

 

[DeepShadow]

Oh and can you explain how Nephi named a "continually running" river that flowed from Arabia to the Red Sea after his son Laman. But there are no permament rivers in Arabia, and there hasn't been since the Pleistocene.

1 Nephi 2
2:9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!

For fun check out YouTube - Where is the River Laman? to watch a video of people living there that have never heard of any river flowing to the red sea. Its really funny.

Wow, talk about missing the point! Are you aware that the passage you quote is one half of a Bedoin quellenlieder? How do you suppose a 19th century farm boy managed to write a form of poetry that wasn't known outside of Arabia until the middle of the 20th century?

 

[Autodidact]

Christ's death and resurrection actually happened.

Really? How do you know?
btw, is this one of those things that is true for you but not for me?

What does that have to do with whether the events in the Book of Mormon actually happened or not? Whether the events actually happened or not have nothing to do with whether Mormonism is a false religion or not. What's important is the truth the stories teach - not whether they actually happened.

I never get this about Mormonism. I mean, what on earth are these stories supposed to teach, to slaughter our enemies by the thousands? What is the purported spiritual message of a book that is filled with accounts of battles?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Okay, let's take stock. A claim was made in the OP that DNA evidence has proven the BoM to be false. I've posted data from peer-reviewed sources that states that there is still room for a BoM group. While this evidence does not corroborate BoM claims per se, it DOES demolish the claim made in the OP. So far the only rebuttals have been off-topic, begging the question, and/or claims to not understand the data.

Does anyone have anything to add to the topic being discussed?

First I must except the claims made by the BoM that these people mentioned in the book actually did exist......And I'm sorry but so far I'm not convinced given the archeology (or lack thereof). Then the BoA (book of abraham) and its validity raises some concerns with me.

Since I'm not a scientist and understand DNA probably as much as the next person I tend to scout around to see what I down't know. I am under the impression that everyone on the planet, DNA wise, bares some relation to each other.

Are indians related to israelites?, well I like the info provided here;
Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church

"Native Americans possess the least-diverse genomes"
African DNA has more genetic diversity - Telegraph

But as I said, I first must find out if the "MULTITUDE" of people, the tools and armory actually existed as the BoM claimed. So far my research has yielded NOTHING to suggest that these people existed. And if the people didn't exist then who cares who Native Americans are related to......?

 

[Starfish]

Really? How do you know?
btw, is this one of those things that is true for you but not for me?



I never get this about Mormonism. I mean, what on earth are these stories supposed to teach, to slaughter our enemies by the thousands? What is the purported spiritual message of a book that is filled with accounts of battles?

A thorough reading of the book teaches so much more than battles. Possibly you're missing the forest because of the trees.

 

[Melissa G]

Well, that's true. There is no archeological evidence of the people described in the BoM. I get what you're saying--it wouldn't matter if there were some DNA evidence, if it doesn't match up and isn't supported by the archeological evidence, and vice versa. Like every once in a while a Mormon will say that such and such a people have a legend that could be interpreted as consistent with the BoM, but those people never ALSO have archeology that indicates that they could possibly be those people, so it doesn't matter.

Exactly, they (LDS) might as well be comparing Native American DNA to the faires DNA at the bottom of my garden

Melissa G

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Exactly, they (LDS) might as well be comparing Native American DNA to the faires DNA at the bottom of my garden

Melissa G

I said something like this a post or two ago.

The problem for me is the lack of archeology as well as the blunder in translation of the Egyptian papyri (Book of Abraham).

It doesn't make a bit of difference who Native Americans are related to if the claims in the BoM can not be verified.

In the BoM we are told of a great battle where millions were slain. The battle took place in New York at the Hill Cumorah. I'm often told that Hill Cumorah mentioned is in reference to Hill Cumorah in Central America. However, Hill Cumorah (New York) is very much where this battle took place regardless what you may hear from other mormons. The reason why I conclude this is because it is straight from their scripture

Ether 15:11
And it came to pass that the army of Coriantumr did pitch their tents by the hill Ramah; and it was that same hill where my father Mormon did hide up the records unto the Lord, which were sacred.

Now before people start trying to say I'm taking this out of context, here's the context right here given by their own scholars;

Ether 15: 11

As you click the link you will see that "their" scholars reference Mormon 6:6. So we must contend that the notion of Hill Cumorah being anywhere else than in New York is false and it is not in keeping with their own scripture. So now we must know if there really was a battle and death of Millions at the Hill Cumora (New York). What archaeological evidence is there to support this claim?

So far, from my research, no archaeologist outside of mormons have verified that any of what they purport actually occurred in central or south America. No archaeological finds of metals, coinage animals plants/grains etc.

IMO the history and archeology of the people mentioned in the BoM are very important. Their flight from the old world to the new world sets the stage and begs the question. So we first must come to grips with the authenticity of their existence before we can even care as to who was related to who DNA aside. The DNA of the native American is moot......TOTALLY......if the people and culture described in the BoM didn't exist.....

 

[DeepShadow]

DreGod, please look at Mormon 6:6 again: it says that Mormon buried all the plates in the hill Cumorah EXCEPT the ones that were taken by Moroni. This is the same Moroni who appeared to Joseph as an angel and told Joseph where he (Moroni) had buried the plates. So all the records were buried in the hill Rama/Cumorah EXCEPT the ones that would become the Book of Mormon. According to the verse you just cited, Moroni took THOSE plates elsewhere, and eventually buried them in upstate New York.

Thank you so much for providing the EXACT misreading that I was speaking of. I couldn't have done it better myself!

 

[Melissa G]

" It doesn't make a bit of difference who Native Americans are related to if the claims in the BoM can not be verified. "

That's it in a nutshell, and as they cannot verify them, then the discussion is worthless.

Melissa

 

[Dirty Penguin]

DreGod, please look at Mormon 6:6 again: it says that Mormon buried all the plates in the hill Cumorah EXCEPT the ones that were taken by Moroni. This is the same Moroni who appeared to Joseph as an angel and told Joseph where he (Moroni) had buried the plates. So all the records were buried in the hill Rama/Cumorah EXCEPT the ones that would become the Book of Mormon. According to the verse you just cited, Moroni took THOSE plates elsewhere, and eventually buried them in upstate New York.

Thank you so much for providing the EXACT misreading that I was speaking of. I couldn't have done it better myself!

So what you're saying is that The Hill Cumorah (New York) is not the Hill Cumorah Where the great battle took place.....?

The problem with the Central America theory is that no outside scholar has confirmed such a battle, metals, animals, plants etc. The scholars and people of these areas have never heard of the names and places or people the BoM speak of nor, from my research, did any of the ancient people record such events.

Are you saying the Apostles of your church or Presidents of your church were wrong in stating that Cumorah is in New York and that is where the battle took place?

October 16, 1990
Bishop Darrel L. Brooks
Moore Ward
Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stake
1000 Windemere
Moore, OK 73160

Dear Bishop Brooks:
I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.
The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

If this battle did not take place in New York (Cumorah 2) then what archaeological evidence is there to show that it happened in Central America? Has the church gone there and performed a dig and has some evidence or is it speculation that this is where it happened? Again, the archeology does not support the claim no matter how much we are told it is in Central America. This is why I have said that if we can't even determine whether the people existed or existed the way they have been described to have lived (Large cities, temples, metallurgy, horses, chariots, coinage, great battle and death of millions) then who the Native Americans are related to is a moot conversation.

 

[DeepShadow]

Are you saying the Apostles of your church or Presidents of your church were wrong in stating that Cumorah is in New York and that is where the battle took place?

Some of those leaders were incorrect--the ones you cite. There are plenty of others who disagreed with them.

 

[Scott C.]

" It doesn't make a bit of difference who Native Americans are related to if the claims in the BoM can not be verified. "

That's it in a nutshell, and as they cannot verify them, then the discussion is worthless.

Melissa

There are two things Mormons are asked to prove:

1. Prove the B.ofM. is true.

2. Refute the suppossed evidence that says its false.

Obviously, if we succeed in proving (1), case closed. It's true.

But, if we succeed in proving (2), we've only kept open the possibility that it's true.

I find that many who don't believe the B.ofM., site evidence to prove it can't be true. Then an educated and well informed LDS comes along and explains why the suppossed evidence does not disprove the book. Then, the non-believer says "well, you can't prove it's true" which is asking for argument (1). But they don't ackowledge that argument (2) failed and that we're still in the realm of possibility that it's true.

If someone presents an argument of type (2) they should stay on topic and either continue to argue the point or conceed they were wrong.

From my perspective as an LDS, I can't prove the B.ofM. is true through scientific evidence. Maybe some day we will be able to, but not today. Belief in this book lies in the realm of spirituality and faith. But, if someone comes along and presents scientific evidence that it can't be true, I like to see those arguments refuted. And they are successfully refuted when the person is well informed on the subject.

 

[Starfish]

Mormons only – how do you respond to claims that DNA demonstrates that Native Americans are descended from Asiatic Peoples and are not in any way related to Hebrews?

Do you believe that the evidence is inconclusive?

Is the book of Mormon not to be taken literally?

Here is what I have read. Hope someone can help.

Lamanites No More.

Does DNA evadence refute the book of Mormon?

Just a thought here. I've been studying 2 Nephi. Many things Nephi writes hint that there were other people in America when Lehi & Co. arrived. As he talked about his people, the division between Nephites and Lamanites, the wars, just the way he worded it, it sounds like a much bigger group than the original Lehites. Possibly there were actually very few literal descendants of Lehi, or rather Laman since the Nephites were destroyed, and throughout the centuries they were just absorbed into the masses. How do we know that Laman's literal descendants didn't eventually die out? Leaving Lamanites who didn't actually carry his DNA.

 

[Melissa G]

Again, you making unsubstansiated claims, and lot of assumptions. There remains no proof that Nephi, Nephites et al ever had any life outside the BOM.

Melissa G

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Some of those leaders were incorrect--the ones you cite. There are plenty of others who disagreed with them.

Interesting that many throughout LDS history have taught Hill Cumorah to be in the New York and now this is supposedly not the case. I read online somewhere that the city Bountiful was said to be located in Arabia somewhere.

I've been looking for credible evidence outside of LDS to support the information given in the BoM to suggest that these people existed. weheather it be here is the US or in SA.

So far there is no, from my research, evidence from outside scholars showing that these people existed. I haven't come across any information that such a great battle took place in either NA or SA.

Ofcourse, like others, I haven't found anyone to backup the claim or metal weapons, charriots, armor etc.

If the archeology does not support the existance of the people in the BoM then who they were supposedly related to is not important.

Contrary to Scott C. points I'm simply looking for evidence that the poeple actually exsited. Can LDS show that the people existed?

What evidence is there to show that these massive buildings or temples were built or a battle where hundreds of thousands or millions lost there lives?

The DNA, at this point, is worthless if the people being described didn't exist. I believe that we all on some molecular level are related.

 

[Bishka]

I read online somewhere that the city Bountiful was said to be located in Arabia somewhere.

Is this online source very credible if your read it, "somewhere?"

Contrary to Scott C. points I'm simply looking for evidence that the poeple actually exsited. Can LDS show that the people existed?

Why?

Would it make you convert? What would it do for you to know it?