• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Flaw in LDS doctrine

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
As many of you know, I'm an advocate for the LDS faith. As a foreward, I find nothing wrong with their beliefs or practices... except for this argument below from the Smithsonian Online Encyclopedia:


"Paleoamerican Origins
Recent discoveries in New World archaeology along with new scientific methods for analyzing data have led to new ideas regarding the origin of the first peoples of the Americas and their time of arrival.

The traditional theory held that the first Americans crossed the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska around 11,500 years ago and followed an "ice-free corridor" between two large Canadian ice sheets (the Laurentide and Cordilleran) to reach unglaciated lands to the south. These first inhabitants, whose archaeological sites are scattered across North and South America, were called the Clovis people, named after the town in New Mexico where their fluted spear points used for hunting mammoth were first found in 1932.

There is now convincing evidence of human habitation sites that date earlier than the Clovis culture including sites located in South America. Monte Verde, a well-studied site located along a river near southern central Chile, dates 12,500 years ago. This site contains the buried remnants of dwellings, stone tools including large bifacial projectile points, and preserved medicinal and edible plants. How did people manage to settle this far south at such an early date? A coastal migration route is now gaining more acceptance, rather than the older view of small bands moving on foot across the middle of the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and into the continents. Emerging evidence suggests that people with boats moved along the Pacific coast into Alaska and northwestern Canada and eventually south to Peru and Chile by 12,500 years ago—and perhaps much earlier. Archaeological evidence in Australia, Melanesia, and Japan indicate boats were in use as far back as 25,000 to 40,000 years ago. Sea routes would have provided abundant food resources and easier and faster movement than land routes. Many coastal areas were unglaciated at this time, providing opportunities for landfall along the way. Several early sites along the coast of Canada, California, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile date between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. Many potential coastal sites are now submerged, making investigation difficult.

If the Clovis people were not here first, then who was? Clovis points are found in many sites in North and Central America with a significant early cluster in the southeastern United States. Points similar to Clovis but without fluting and dating more than 12,000 years ago have been found in stratified archaeological sites in the eastern United States, such the Cactus Hill, Virginia. These finds have occurred because archaeologists are no longer halting their digging at the bottom of the Clovis level.

So far scientists have found no technological affinities to relate Clovis to the Asian Paleolithic. However, Europe may have possible lithic precursors to Clovis. The Solutrean culture of western Europe, dating between 24,000 and 16,500 years ago, shows a similar lithic technology to that used to produce Clovis tools. The two cultures also share bone-shaping techniques, pebble-decorating artistry, the unusual tradition of burying stone tools in caches filled with red ocher, and other traits.
In addition to archaeological research on ancient human sites, ancient skeletal remains show a range of physical attributes suggesting separate migrations of different populations of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) from Asia. The handful of human skeletons dated over 8,000 years ago show some regional variation, but as a group their skulls differ markedly from the broad faces, prominent cheekbones, and round cranial vaults that characterize modern–day American Indians. These ancient specimens have long and narrow cranial vaults with short and relatively gracile faces. Two examples are the 9,400-year-old Spirit Cave Man from Nevada and the most recently discovered 8.900-year-old Kennewick Man found in Washington State in 1996. Physical anthropologists see a greater similarity in these crania to certain Old World populations such as Polynesians, Europeans, and the Ainu of Japan. Only one early specimen, Wizards Beach Man, a Nevada skeleton dated to 9,200 years ago, falls within the range of variability of contemporary American Indians, an exception that requires further scientific validation. Crania with American Indian morphology appears by at least 7,000 years ago.

The similarity of the ancient crania to Polynesians suggests that one early source of migrants to the Americas was Asian circumpacific populations. These populations were succeeded in Asia by the recent expansion of modern Mongoloids (i.e., Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc.), and in America by the ancestors of recent Native Americans. Whether individual skeletons or specific early groups were directly related to later peoples is unknown. Early migrants may have been replaced through competition or changed through gene flow by later arrivals. At this time, scientists are not ruling out the possibility of a migration from Europe.

Evidence for diverse migrations into the New World also comes from Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) research on living American Indian populations. These studies have consistently shown similarities between American Indians and recent populations in Asia and Siberia, but also unique American characteristics, which the very early crania have also shown. Evidence for only four mtDNA lineages, characterizing over 95 percent of all modern American Indian populations, may suggest a limited number of founding groups migrating from Asia into the New World. Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia. Naturally, generations of conflict, intermarriage, disease, and famine would influence the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans. Further work with mtDNA, nuclear DNA (which is more representative of the entire genome), and Y-chromosome data, the male-transmitted complement of mtDNA, will permit better estimates of the genetic similarities between Old and New World groups and help to determine when they would have shared a common ancestor.

Studies of the native languages of the Americas have shown them to be extremely diverse, representing nearly two hundred distinct families, some consisting of a single isolated language. Further research is expected to reduce this number, but the degree of diversity is thought to have required tens of millennia to develop through a combination of immigration into the New World and diversification through the accumulation of normal linguistic changes through time. Claims that these languages descend from only three (or even fewer) separate linguistic stocks at a time depth of only a dozen millennia are regarded by most specialists as extremely unlikely. Newer proposals have explored deep structural affinities among American Indian languages with circum-Pacific Old World languages. Unraveling the linguistic history of the New World poses a highly complex set of problems that will be under investigation for years to come.

In summary, scientists are examining archaeological, biological, and linguistic evidence to determine who the first Americans were, when they arrived in the New World, and what happened subsequently. New discoveries in one field of study can cause reinterpretations of evidence not only from the same field but also from other fields. There is no doubt that future discoveries and analyses, unbound from the Clovis limit, will shed more light on a changing picture of New World prehistory."

...My arguement is this: The LDS faith states that the Laminites and Niphites were lost tribes of Judah who sailed to the Americas and became the Native Americans we know today.

How is this possible with the evidence stated above for the Native American people being genetically closer to Asian ancestory?


 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Buttons,

We believe that some, not all, of the Native America people descended from the Israelites. This definitely is not my area of expertise, so I'm just going to direct you to three sites I know of that address this issue. I'm sure there are others. I probably won't get all that involved in this discussion, but if you would like to hear another perspective on this topic, you may wish to start here:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom12.html

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Nice freaking title for a thread, buttons. Now let me actually read your post and I'll get back to you.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Okay, I read it and I find nothing in your post that contradicts LDS beliefs. In fact, I think the information supports the concept that the Americas were populated by different groups at different times. Why can't one of these groups be the people the Book of Mormon speaks of?
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
nutshell said:
Okay, I read it and I find nothing in your post that contradicts LDS beliefs. In fact, I think the information supports the concept that the Americas were populated by different groups at different times. Why can't one of these groups be the people the Book of Mormon speaks of?
because these groups came from asia as opposed to the middle east
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
nutshell said:
Nice freaking title for a thread, buttons. Now let me actually read your post and I'll get back to you.
nice response! At least i got your attention :D
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
The human species evolved on the earth. Adam and Eve were much more evolved beings who were sent here to teach the primitive humans about right and wrong and a very basic God theory.

Eve committed adultery and so her evolved genetics was blended in with the humans.

As time went on the children of Adam and Eve slowly blended in more of the evolved Adamic genetics.

There is a reference in the Old Testament to this, Genesis 6:4 "The were Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them".

To various degrees all human races have some of the Adamic genetics in them so no matter who came to the America's their descendants were from the tribes of Isreal that came after Adam and Eve.
 

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
Super Universe said:
Eve committed adultery and so her evolved genetics was blended in with the humans.

What are you talking about??? Eve DID NOT commit adultery. Where did you get that? With whom would she commit adultery w/? Nobody. They ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The fruit wasn't a symbol for some farfetched sin that you think she committed. It was literal fruit. She is the mother of the human race and the wife of the first prophet and patriarch, and should be treated as such. Sorry this is off topic, but I couldn't resist. If you want to discuss this more start another thread.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Use logic to determine what sounds more reasonable.

That God would put a tree (fruit has the knowledge of good and evil?) in the garden of Eden, tell Adam and Eve not to eat from it, and then allow a serpent to talk (serpents talk?) Eve into taking a bite of it's fruit?

If Adam and Eve were the beginning then why was Cain afraid he will be killed, by whom? How did Cain take a wife?

There are only bits and pieces of truth in the Old Testament. After all, it is thousands of years old.

Adam and Eve were immortal beings sent here to help primitive humans evolve and also to teach them a basic theory of God. The fruit tree was something Adam and Eve brought with them and planted in their garden around their home since they knew they were going to be here a very long time.

Doesn't this sound more reasonable?

Oh, it's not reasonable to you because you still believe the Old Testament is absolutely litteral, that God created the universe in 6 days. You believe that God tempts us just like He tempted Adam and Eve? Job was really tortured by God as a test? Jonah was really swallowed by a whale? God really does want us to pay him a ransom and sacrifice our best animals for Him? God created Satan to test us?

The history of religion is full of men refusing to evolve and getting angry because of it. But you can't burn anyone at the stake anymore and no matter how badly you want it to be the earth is not the center of the universe.

God created the universe for us. He does not tempt us, we do that on our own. He does not drown us. He does not punish us. God does not have petty human faults.

But you have free will so you certainly do not have to accept it.

This is NOT off topic. It answers her question.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Super Universe said:
Use logic to determine what sounds more reasonable.

That God would put a tree (fruit has the knowledge of good and evil?) in the garden of Eden, tell Adam and Eve not to eat from it, and then allow a serpent to talk (serpents talk?) Eve into taking a bite of it's fruit?

If Adam and Eve were the beginning then why was Cain afraid he will be killed, by whom? How did Cain take a wife?

There are only bits and pieces of truth in the Old Testament. After all, it is thousands of years old.

Adam and Eve were immortal beings sent here to help primitive humans evolve and also to teach them a basic theory of God. The fruit tree was something Adam and Eve brought with them and planted in their garden around their home since they knew they were going to be here a very long time.

Doesn't this sound more reasonable?

Oh, it's not reasonable to you because you still believe the Old Testament is absolutely litteral, that God created the universe in 6 days. You believe that God tempts us just like He tempted Adam and Eve? Job was really tortured by God as a test? Jonah was really swallowed by a whale? God really does want us to pay him a ransom and sacrifice our best animals for Him? God created Satan to test us?

The history of religion is full of men refusing to evolve and getting angry because of it. But you can't burn anyone at the stake anymore and no matter how badly you want it to be the earth is not the center of the universe.

God created the universe for us. He does not tempt us, we do that on our own. He does not drown us. He does not punish us. God does not have petty human faults.

But you have free will so you certainly do not have to accept it.

This is NOT off topic. It answers her question.
Interesting theory. Where do you propose they came from, and who sent them?

Alot of your questions can be answered by noting that Genesis doesn't give all that many details. Cain may not have been Adam and Eve's first child - heck, he could have had neices and nephews older than him. It's not too hard to come up with people that could have killed him, or that he could have been married to.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
SoyLeche said:
Interesting theory. Where do you propose they came from, and who sent them?

Alot of your questions can be answered by noting that Genesis doesn't give all that many details. Cain may not have been Adam and Eve's first child - heck, he could have had neices and nephews older than him. It's not too hard to come up with people that could have killed him, or that he could have been married to.
One more thing -- it doesn't really answer her question, because we aren't talking about the people in America being descended from Adam and Eve, we are talking about them being descended from Israel (remember Jacob, the guy with the 12 sons).
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Super Universe said:
This is NOT off topic. It answers her question.
I'm sorry, but this is totally off-topic. I don't object to your beliefs, but if I were to interject a post on LDS teachings into a thread dealing questioning a point of doctrine in the Urantia Book, I believe you'd see it as out of line.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
This is one of those cases where LDS and non-LDS will never agree.

We can find no evidence that anyone from the middle east ever migrated to the Americas. No archeological, genetic, anthropological or any other evidence.

The plants spoken of in the BoM did not grow in the Americas until European occupation, neither did many of the animals mentioned live there.

None of this lack of evidence will disuade a Mormon from believing the BoM is truth.

Why? Because the BoM is the cornerstone of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If it is wrong then the whole Church is built on lies and so cannot be true.
Believers will never accept this. Its a matter of faith.

Perhaps one of our LDS members could answer this question thats been bugging me though;

If you read the directions that Lehi and his group followed to reach Bountiful, it leads to the south and east, away from the mediterranean and the fastest route to the Americas.
This means God led them either around the cape, or across the Pacific. Both courses would have added months to their journey when compared to a simple transatlantic crossing.

Why do you think this is? Why did God take them the long way around?
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Well... my topic was more about what Halcyon is stating, and i like his question, so lets focus on that:

If you read the directions that Lehi and his group followed to reach Bountiful, it leads to the south and east, away from the mediterranean and the fastest route to the Americas.
This means God led them either around the cape, or across the Pacific. Both courses would have added months to their journey when compared to a simple transatlantic crossing.

Why do you think this is? Why did God take them the long way around?"
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Halcyon said:
This is one of those cases where LDS and non-LDS will never agree.

We can find no evidence that anyone from the middle east ever migrated to the Americas. No archeological, genetic, anthropological or any other evidence.

The plants spoken of in the BoM did not grow in the Americas until European occupation, neither did many of the animals mentioned live there.

None of this lack of evidence will disuade a Mormon from believing the BoM is truth.

Why? Because the BoM is the cornerstone of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If it is wrong then the whole Church is built on lies and so cannot be true.
Believers will never accept this. Its a matter of faith.

Perhaps one of our LDS members could answer this question thats been bugging me though;

If you read the directions that Lehi and his group followed to reach Bountiful, it leads to the south and east, away from the mediterranean and the fastest route to the Americas.
This means God led them either around the cape, or across the Pacific. Both courses would have added months to their journey when compared to a simple transatlantic crossing.

Why do you think this is? Why did God take them the long way around?
Dan has mentioned this in many threads, and maybe he'll show up. I don't really know. I don't try and figure out why God decides to do the things he does. Maybe he wanted to keep them in less populated areas. Maybe there was going to be a big storm in the Atlantic and it was easier to take the other route. Your guess is as good as mine.

However, given that it is more logical to go a different route, why would Joseph Smith have made such a large error. He would have had to do a lot of research to get so much right, did this one just slip through?
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
SoyLeche said:
Dan has mentioned this in many threads, and maybe he'll show up. I don't really know. I don't try and figure out why God decides to do the things he does. Maybe he wanted to keep them in less populated areas. Maybe there was going to be a big storm in the Atlantic and it was easier to take the other route. Your guess is as good as mine.
well as long as Dan doesnt call me a man again, i'd be happy to have him contribute to this thread :D

However, given that it is more logical to go a different route, why would Joseph Smith have made such a large error. He would have had to do a lot of research to get so much right, did this one just slip through?
Isnt that what we're asking? :confused:
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Buttons* said:
Well... my topic was more about what Halcyon is stating, and i like his question, so lets focus on that:
Okay, I'm on my lunch hour right how and definitely don't have the time to delve into this. Even if I did, though, I hope that both of you can appreciate the fact that it would take any of us LDS posters ten times the effort to provide a comprehensive response to this question than it took you to ask it. I don't know whether any other LDS posters feel like spending that much time, particularly when it really wouldn't do any good anyway (after all, your minds are made up, aren't they?). The best I can do it to provide you with some good links which, if you want to take the time to read them, should address most of these issues (or at least closely related issued) fairly well. I'll start with a couple that I know of. They may not be exactly what you're looking for, but will at least prove that LDS scholars are not simply ignoring what everybody else seems to see as a lack of evidence.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme17.shtml

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme15.shtml

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=185&table=jbms
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Squirt said:
Okay, I'm on my lunch hour right how and definitely don't have the time to delve into this. Even if I did, though, I hope that both of you can appreciate the fact that it would take any of us LDS posters ten times the effort to provid a comprehensive response to this question than it took you to ask it.
well, i'm not here to attack anyone for their beliefs, i'm just asking if it makes any rational sense. To me, this aspect of the LDS faith doesnt. :( But this is why i'm asking for opinions, links, and ideas on the subject so maybe i can see where you're coming from better even if I do have my mind made up already.

I don't know whether any other LDS posters feel like spending that much time, particularly when it really wouldn't do any good anyway (after all, your minds are made up, aren't they?). The best I can do it to provide you with some good links which, if you want to take the time to read them, should address most of these issues fairly well. I'll start with a couple that I know of. They may not be exactly what you're looking for, but will at least prove that LDS scholars are not simply ignoring what everybody else seems to see as a lack of evidence.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme17.shtml

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme15.shtml

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=185&table=jbms
I'm sorry that i havent looked into these just yet, but i will, and then i'll have a better understanding of what to ask.... sorry about any confusion before...
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Squirt said:
I don't know whether any other LDS posters feel like spending that much time, particularly when it really wouldn't do any good anyway (after all, your minds are made up, aren't they?).
Well, of course. I'm as certain that the BoM is a work of fiction as you are sure of its authenticity.
I was just hoping there might be a logical explaination, since its something that bugged me while i was reading it.

Squirt said:
They may not be exactly what you're looking for, but will at least prove that LDS scholars are not simply ignoring what everybody else seems to see as a lack of evidence.
I never thought they were ignoring anything, i imagine LDS scholars are as enthusiastic to prove the BoM as others are to disprove it.

Of course, a simple excavation of the Hill Cumorah area would give us a pretty conclusive answer, i mean 2,000,000 bodies and weapons of war don't just vanish.
 
Top