Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[Francine]

Let me make sure I understand this statistic: You're saying that 2/3 of today's Mormons were not born to Mormon families? Is that right?

That makes sense, because the bulk of the Church's growth is from overseas.

 

[Katzpur]

Let me make sure I understand this statistic: You're saying that 2/3 of today's Mormons were not born to Mormon families? Is that right?

That is correct.

 

[Sola'lor]

I believe you're incorrect here. For example, archeologists know that the implements, metals, plants, animals and other artifacts described in the BoM did not exist in America prior to the European migration here. The BoM describes millions of people doing very specific things, and there is no trace of them anywhere in America. The BoM describes enormous battles with thousands of soldiers using swords, bows and arrows, armor, etc., but there is no trace of them. The only possible Mormon response to this is that just because we haven't found a scintilla of archeological evidence to support the BoM doesn't mean we won't someday, so let's just keep faith. The problem, of course, is that by now, 150 years later, we've explored most of the Americas, and we know who lived here, where, how many of them, and how they lived. And they just plain aren't the BoM people, period. They don't match the agricultural, pastoral, metallurgy, etc. etc. of the people described there. For example, they didn't have wheels. Period. No wheels. What happened to the populous BoM people with their wheeled chariots? Did they evaporate?

So you are saying two things here:
1. Scientists know absolutly everything about the ancient Americas.
2. They know exactly what the people writing the Book of Mormon were describing that was then translated to English.

So until science knows absolutly 100% of the Ancient Americas and find no supporting evidnce opposing the Book of Mormon. There is always a chance for evidence to support the Book of Mormon.

Actually I've heard of lots of evidence that supports the Book of Mormon. I've heard of horses being discovered that were from before Columbus' time.
The only evidence I've seen here that opposes the Book of Mormon is the DNA thing. But as we've discussed there are a wide variety of explainations as to how it is possible that this evidence doesn't oppose the Book of Mormon. So instead of making universal claims would you mind posting some of the other opposing evidence.

The only way you can say that science doesn't dispute the BoM is to close your eyes, plug your ears, hum loudly and claim that all of the evidence we've found so far is just inconclusive. However, in doing so, you disagree with all of the experts in many different fields, such as genetics, linguistics, archeology, anthropology and so forth.

I'm not closing my eyes and plug my ears. I just haven't seen anything that opposes the Book of Mormon yet. Well, aside from posts from people claiming to know that there is no evidence in support of the Book of Mormon but fail to provide evidence to support their claims.

Any evidence so far is inconclusive until we know absolutely everything about the ancient Americas.

You last sentence reminds me of a group of experts from many different fields a few hundred years ago that claimed all evidence said the Earth was flat.

 

[Autodidact]

So you are saying two things here:
1. Scientists know absolutly everything about the ancient Americas.

No, I'm saying that they know a lot. An awful lot. At what point do you admit that they know enough to rule out the factual nature of the BoM. (assuming that what they find out continues not to support it.

2. They know exactly what the people writing the Book of Mormon were describing that was then translated to English.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Could you try again? Thanks.

So until science knows absolutly 100% of the Ancient Americas and find no supporting evidnce opposing the Book of Mormon. There is always a chance for evidence to support the Book of Mormon.

That's my question. Because science never knows 100% of anything. To ask for that is to discredit science itself, which is what all advocates of revealed knowledge end up doing. What we have is this: We've excavated many sites, in many locations, of many cities. We have a basic picture of who lived where, how they lived, what they grew, used, and ate. In a few cases we know what they wrote or recorded. And none of them. Zip. Zero. Look anything like what the BoM describes. Meanwhile we have never found a single artifact described there, which we would expect to do. If you have an epic battle, with thousands of soldiers riding chariots, clashing swords, wearing armor, it's going to leave artifacts. But there aren't any.

It's not like we have a vast, empty land that has not been explored. Basically, other than some Amazon jungles and Andean highlands, it's all been settled, dug, excavated and explored. And no matter where we go we find two things:
Lots of evidence of peoples who do not resemble BoM people.
No evidence of peoples who do.
All the evidence so far, including the DNA evidence, is inconsistent with the narrative in the BoM.

So, how long can you continue to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and pray loudly?

Actually I've heard of lots of evidence that supports the Book of Mormon. I've heard of horses being discovered that were from before Columbus' time.

Nope. You're wrong. The only place you have heard this from is Mormon apologists/liars. There were no horses in America before the Europeans. (There were thousands of years before that, but they became extinct at least 12,000 years ago.)

The only evidence I've seen here that opposes the Book of Mormon is the DNA thing. But as we've discussed there are a wide variety of explainations as to how it is possible that this evidence doesn't oppose the Book of Mormon. So instead of making universal claims would you mind posting some of the other opposing evidence.

Sure, but it's going to be a long thread.
For the most part, what you have is that the BoM names something that has not been found. So the "evidence" for the most part consists of lists of things that archeologists have not found. The rest is basically everything they have found, how the actual people of the Americas lived, their crops, herds and so forth, which in every case are different than the BoM describes. Stay posted for lots of info on this.

However, if your presupposition is that no matter how much the evidence fails to support the BoM, you're going to keep believing it anyway, then it's a bit of a waste of time for me.

I'm not closing my eyes and plug my ears. I just haven't seen anything that opposes the Book of Mormon yet. Well, aside from posts from people claiming to know that there is no evidence in support of the Book of Mormon but fail to provide evidence to support their claims.

Stay tuned.

Any evidence so far is inconclusive until we know absolutely everything about the ancient Americas.

This will never, and can never, happen. About anything. Ever. We don't know absolutely everything about Chicago 50 years ago, but we know that the people who lived there were not Lamanites. As I said, if this is your stance, there is no point in showing you the evidence we do have.

You last sentence reminds me of a group of experts from many different fields a few hundred years ago that claimed all evidence said the Earth was flat.

You're mistaken. We've known the earth was round for around 2000 years, and that is because of what the evidence shows.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., Sola, here's an overall summary of the controversy, from here.
If you take any issue with this summary, please state with what part you disagree, and why. I think it describes the situation pretty well.

According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church), the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired revelation that is complimentary to the Bible.1 First published in 1830, the Book of Mormon tells of the transoceanic migrations of two ancient Near Eastern peoples to the Americas. The first of these peoples, called ''Jaredites," are supposed to have come to the hitherto unpopulated2 New World at the time of the confusing of tongues at the tower of Babel (Genesis 11; Ether 1:3;6:1-18), which the Mormon Church dates at approximately 2,000 B.C.3 The Jaredites are said to have founded a great civilization before battling themselves to extinction about 600-300 B.C.4 A second migration to the pre-Columbian Americas is supposed to have taken place in the early sixth century B.C. (1 Nephi 18:23-25). This migration consisted of two small groups — the Lehites and the Mulekites — both of which are described as Hebrews from Israel. They merged sometime after their separate arrivals in the New World. The Nephite and Lamanite nations whose histories are chronicled in the Book of Mormon are supposed to have derived from these sixth century B.C. Jewish immigrants. Official Mormon missionary literature describes the Book of Mormon as,

. . .the ancient history of this people, telling of their wars, movements, kings, and their religion–which was the religion of Israel, for these people were Israelites and practiced the law of Moses.5​

The LDS Church claims in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites, the last surviving Book of Mormon people, are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians."6 No non-Mormon specialist in New World archaeology supports the premise of a civilization of Hebrew immigrants in the pre-Columbian Americas as described in the Book of Mormon, and even many contemporary Mormon scholars no longer support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Writing in the independent Mormon scholarly journal Dialogue, Mesoamerican archaeologist Michael Coe of Yale University emphasized this point:

. . . as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing [that Hebrew immigrants build a civilization in ancient America as described in the Book of Mormon] to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group.7

​

I will explore the details in later posts.

 

[Autodidact]

Now the LDS leaders are changing doctrine on this point, in the light of the evidence. However, historically, it is clear that what Smith intended to say is that when the "Jaredites" arrived here around 2000 B.C. both continents were uninhabited. At a minimum, if there was anyone else here, the BoM never mentions them.

But we now know that there were thousands of people here, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, before, during, and after this time. There is evidence of settlements of many people, their languages, customs, buildings and so forth, and their descendants. That's where the DNA thing comes in. According to this traditional interpretation, the BoM is factually incorrect. It is simply impossible for the BoM people to be the sole or even the principal ancestors of today's Indians.

So the apologists, "scholars" have to make up a new story to account for this. Maybe there actually were a few million people here (that the BoM just happened to fail to mention.) And maybe they didn't really fill the land from sea to sea, maybe they only lived in one small part, and maybe they just er, died off or something, without leaving any descendants...Until at that point you have a story that's quite different from what the BoM says, and from what Smith wrote separately:

In this important and interesting book [i.e., the Book of Mormon] the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel [Jaredites], at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era...
we read in the Book of Mormon that Jared and his brother came on to this continent from the confusion and scattering at the Tower [of Babel], and lived here more than a thousand years, and covered the whole continent from sea to sea, with towns and cities . (same source.)

 

[Autodidact]

Now to get into more specifics, the BoM names many artifacts, animals and plants that are not native to the Americas, and which were not found here prior to European colonization.

Let's start with things made of metal.
In the BoM, the people have iron and metallurgy, swords, gold and silver used as money, and even metal machinery. Archeologists have found no evidence of such industry anywhere in the Americas during this period. And this is not something small. You need mines,smelters (which leave residue that can be detected in surrounding rocks), furnaces, anvils, and finally the metal products themselves, the swords, ploughs and so forth, which do not decay readily, but last for thousands of years. And we've found none. Zip. Nada. Had it been here, we would expect to find it, but we haven't.

And again, we have found lots of cultures, lots of people, with stone-cutting, turquoise and Quetzalcoatl feathers as money, etc. But no metallurgy.

 

[Autodidact]

Next: animals. The BoM mentions the following animals: ***, Bull, Calf, Cattle, Cow, domestic Goat , Horse, Ox, domestic Sheep, Sow, Swine, & Elephants. (And cureloms and cumoms, whatever those may be.) Oh yes, and satyrs and dragons. Also the animal products milk and butter. Horses play a particularly important role in "Nephite" culture, and the BoM names stables, harnessing, chariots, pasturing and so forth.

There is no archaeological or paleontological evidence that any of these animals were found in the Americas between 1 C.E. and 1500 C.E. Scientists in these fields tell us that they were not present, or had become extinct, by this time period.

Meanwhile, here are just a few of the actual animals present in the Americas, that are NOT mentioned in the BoM: Coatimundis, Deer, Jaguars, Tapir, Monkeys, Sloths, Turkeys, bald eagles, polar bears, bison...You almost get the impression that Smith was writing about a different place entirely.

The standard Mormon apologetic on this is that each and every one of these terms is a "tranposition" in which the BoM people found animals and used Old World names for them, because they were unfamiliar with them. I find this hilarious. Just on the animals alone that would be around 15 terms that don't mean what they say. For example, they will say that "cattle" refers to bison, "horse" to deer or tapir (???), and so forth. However, a cursory reading in context blows this to smithereens. The King called for his tapir to be harnessed to his chariot so he could take a journey? Say wha? Further, Smith is supposed to be divinely inspired to translate into English. So if the imaginary language of reformed Egyptian uses the word "hootsidoo" to refer to what we call a bison, although it may also mean cow in non-existent reformed Egyptian, why not translate it as "bison?" After all, it's not as though the BoM was supposedly written in English. The whole thing falls apart on a moment's examination, but seems to be good enough to satisfy some believers.

For your reference, here are some pictures of a tapir, mule deer and horse:

 

[Autodidact]

Sola? Hello, Sola? Because there's lots more, if you really want it. Are you there?

 

[nutshell]

Ahhh...the joys of being a non-literalist.


Auto, one thing I will say is that LDS scholars change the introduction not to change the story, but to have the story reflect our current understanding of the world. The Introduction is not considered doctrine. We believe that "the glory of God is intelligence," and seek to be as accurate as possible. Critics of the church no doubt point to the change as evidence that we were wrong. We point to the change as evidence that we are a living church, one that can adapt to changing times and information. If you show us a red square we're not going to tell you it's a blue circle.

 

[Autodidact]

Ahhh...the joys of being a non-literalist.


Auto, one thing I will say is that LDS scholars change the introduction not to change the story, but to have the story reflect our current understanding of the world. The Introduction is not considered doctrine. We believe that "the glory of God is intelligence," and seek to be as accurate as possible. Critics of the church no doubt point to the change as evidence that we were wrong. We point to the change as evidence that we are a living church, one that can adapt to changing times and information. If you show us a red square we're not going to tell you it's a blue circle.

Yes, LDS is interesting that way. They can change their policy to reflect the facts, if they want. However, now they have a dilemma, because the facts seem to indicate that the BoM is fundamentally incorrect: There has never been a migration of people from the Ancient Near East to the Americas, they did not settle any part of America, they are not the ancestors of today's Indians, and, in brief, it never happened. I don't think they can stretch that far but maybe with enough time.

Smith, however, clearly believed that American Indians are Lammanites: [FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.
Letter to Joseph Wentworth, 1842.
[/FONT]

 

[nutshell]

Yes, LDS is interesting that way. They can change their policy to reflect the facts, if they want. However, now they have a dilemma, because the facts seem to indicate that the BoM is fundamentally incorrect: There has never been a migration of people from the Ancient Near East to the Americas, they did not settle any part of America, they are not the ancestors of today's Indians, and, in brief, it never happened. I don't think they can stretch that far but maybe with enough time.

Smith, however, clearly believed that American Indians are Lammanites: [FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]Letter to Joseph Wentworth, 1842.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco][/FONT]

Yes. That was Joseph Smith's belief and it's been proven wrong.

However, I think you're claim that there has "never" been a migration from the Ancient Near East is a bit extreme. While I'm a non-literalist, I acknowledge the possibility that the DNA markers for such a migration are out there. While the people of the BoM are not the principle ancestors of the American Indians, it's possible they might be among the ancestors. "Among" would include even 0.001% of the ancestors.

 

[Autodidact]

Many things are possible. It does not, however, appear to be actual. That is, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the hypothesis, and a lot of evidence that contradicts it.

Further, your claim: .001%, contradicts the BoM. Simply, the BoM is not factual.

 

[nutshell]

Many things are possible. It does not, however, appear to be actual. That is, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the hypothesis, and a lot of evidence that contradicts it.

Further, your claim: .001%, contradicts the BoM. Simply, the BoM is not factual.

There is evidence to support it. Ask DeepShadow.
There is also (more) evidence that contradicts it.

As for .001% - I pulled that number out of my arse. The point was that there may be a group like the one described in the BoM that is "among" the ancestors of the Native Nations.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes. That was Joseph Smith's belief and it's been proven wrong.

More than that, it was Joseph Smith's belief about what the Book of Mormon said. The letter quoted is his description of The Book of Mormon. That is, what you are saying is that what the "translator" of the Book of Mormon believed the Book that he "translated" says was wrong. I think that leaves you with a useless, meaningless book, if its "translator" couldn't even understand it right.

 

[Francine]

Smith, however, clearly believed that American Indians are Lammanites[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco][/FONT]

In the same way that Frank Herbert clearly believed there was a relationship between the worms and the spice.

 

[Autodidact]

In the same way that Frank Herbert clearly believed there was a relationship between the worms and the spice.

Are you alleging that Smith knew he was writing fiction?

 

[nutshell]

More than that, it was Joseph Smith's belief about what the Book of Mormon said. The letter quoted is his description of The Book of Mormon. That is, what you are saying is that what the "translator" of the Book of Mormon believed the Book that he "translated" says was wrong. I think that leaves you with a useless, meaningless book, if its "translator" couldn't even understand it right.

Why does it make it useless?

I can read it and find much meaning within it's pages. Why does my understanding have to be qualified by the translator?

As an English major, author's intent was the last thing on my mind when analyzing a text for meaning.

 

[Francine]

Are you alleging that Smith knew he was writing fiction?

The alternative is to allege Smith knew he was translating actual golden plates written in Reformed Egyptian. If I alleged that, I'd be Mormon and stuff.

 

[Autodidact]

The alternative is to allege Smith knew he was translating actual golden plates written in Reformed Egyptian. If I alleged that, I'd be Mormon and stuff.

I think there's another alternative, which is that Smith believed he was, but was mistaken. I think the reality with this type of individual is actually more complicated. I think they start out with a con, but once it catches on and they find themselves the head of a genuine religious movement, they start to actually believe it, and in time decide that they were right all along.

However, in general I prefer not to delve into Smith's motives or psychology, and just point out the facts that he was completely and utterly incorrect.