Mormons: DNA Shows that Native North Americans were Never Jewish. What is your Response to This?

[Caladan]

Can you tell me. how is your point related to the quote by MSizer? or to my points?
And do you believe. that archaeological evidence showing the long duration of Native presence in the Americas, or Northern America is related to a very specific point in the time line. the Iron Age in the Levant and the Orient.

 

[Vendetta]

Can you tell me. how is your point related to the quote by MSizer? or to my points?
And do you believe. that archaeological evidence showing the long duration of Native presence in the Americas, or Northern America is related to a very specific point in the time line. the Iron Age in the Levant and the Orient.

My point as I already mentioned, is suggestive, and supplimental to the OP. I am in actuality agreeing with the OP, however, I am merely saying (and suggesting) that we don't need to disprove that the early Native Americans were migrating Israelites as Joseph Smith in the book of Mormon suggests.

I am merely posting those links to show that there were much older inhabitants than the suggested migrating Israelites. In other words, not only is there no DNA proof, but no archeological evidence to support Joseph Smith's book of mormon.

 

[Autodidact]

2Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men.

This is what I mean about the BoM being so badly written it's almost impossible to slog through it. Try turning that sentence in to a writing teacher and see what she says. It's just so...bad. Not to mention the circular logic: Because I did not build it after the manner of men, I did not build it after the manner of men.

Oh, was it because you did not build it after the manner of men?

Yes, it was because I did not build it after the manner of men.

Thanks, because I was thinking maybe you built if after the manner of men.

No, I did not build it after the manner of men.

Oh shut up for heaven's sake.

 

[diosangpastol]

Do you accept the DNA evidence as refuting the traditional doctrine of the LDS church, or do you think somehow that science is mistaken? If you admit that the DNA evidence must be correct, then how do you uphold any prophetic claims of Joseph Smith?

There is absolutely no DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon... :sarcastic

 

[waitasec]

There is absolutely no DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon... :sarcastic

just as there are no fossils that disprove evolution

 

[Autodidact]

There is absolutely no DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon... :sarcastic

Could you tell us what you think the BoM says about the ancestry of American Indians?

 

[FluentYank3825]

This is going to sound weird to you, but even if the BoM was written by a liar, if it leads one person to true spirituality, it's still worth something. I can't just offhand dismiss a religion because parts of it are proven inaccurate. Not when it has changed the lives of people for the better.

Being a lapsed Mormon myself, I can attest to the truthfulness of this statement. I have known many individuals whose lives were positively changed because of the spiritual messages presented in the Book of Mormon and not because of any desire to understand it from a historical perspective.

I am quite bothered however, by some LDS member's assertions of knowing the exact geographic locations of Book of Mormon events. As I live in Utah, I often pass by businesses kiosks in local malls advertising what are called "Book of Mormon" tours, which are essentially cruises that take you to places in Mesoamerica where they say events in the Book of Mormon occurred. I've even seen maps made by scholars of the Southern Mexico/North Central America area with specific geographic landmarks they link to landmarks mentioned in the Book of Mormon . I ask myself two things when I see these ads and maps: 1) How can you possibly know if those are really the sites mentioned in the BoM, and 2) Why go though all that work to link these real places to places in the BoM if really doesn't contribute to its overall spiritual message, the message many LDS authorities try to convey as the real purpose of the Book of Mormon, that "Jesus is the Christ" (Title Page)?

2. Blacks and the Priesthood. While membership in the Church has always been open to anyone, for a number of years, men of African American ancestory were prohibited from holding the Church's lay priesthood. The Church was under considerable pressure to change this policy (which I do not personally believe to have been divinely instituted in the first place)...

I have this same belief about the LDS Church's attitudes towards auto-eroticism. From what research I've done on this topic, there is no justification I think to allow the censure of such an activity in the church, as it often contributes to maladaptive psychosexual shame.

 

[Katzpur]

I am quite bothered however, by some LDS member's assertions of knowing the exact geographic locations of Book of Mormon events. As I live in Utah, I often pass by businesses kiosks in local malls advertising what are called "Book of Mormon" tours, which are essentially cruises that take you to places in Mesoamerica where they say events in the Book of Mormon occurred. I've even seen maps made by scholars of the Southern Mexico/North Central America area with specific geographic landmarks they link to landmarks mentioned in the Book of Mormon . I ask myself two things when I see these ads and maps: 1) How can you possibly know if those are really the sites mentioned in the BoM, and 2) Why go though all that work to link these real places to places in the BoM if really doesn't contribute to its overall spiritual message, the message many LDS authorities try to convey as the real purpose of the Book of Mormon, that "Jesus is the Christ" (Title Page)?

I know what you mean, and I've never had any real interest in taking one of those tours. I think most LDS scholars today lean towards Central America as the most likely setting for the Book of Mormon, but it's more often the general public that is drawn into feeling a need to zero in on a specific location. On the other hand, a think that most of the tours of the Holy Land fall into this same trap. The Church of the Nativity, for instance, is supposedly built over the site where Christ was born -- "supposedly" being the operative word here. The Garden Tomb is another site that people want to see because it "might have been" the tomb where Christ's body was laid after His death. People feel a need to connect with real places to make events of the past more meaningful to them. The idea that they "may be walking the same streets Jesus walked" has appeal to people. With the Book of Mormon, there is even less certainty as to where the events took place, but for some reason these tours seem to fill a need.

 

[Zardoz]

Hmmm by "New world" I assume you are referring to the colonies? Earliest settlement if Jews were approx 350 years ago see: Coming to America: Fleeing religious persecution, the first Jews arrived in the Colonies 350 years ago - US News and World Report

That's North America, nothing to do with Spanish colonies in South America.

Spanish inquistion started in mid 1470's which was hundreds of years prior to first recorded settlement of the first Jews in the colonies.

Actually, inquisitions started much earlier, but I'm referring to the one 1492-1530 that was specifically targeted at 'conversos' , Jews who converted.

 

[Vendetta]

That's North America, nothing to do with Spanish colonies in South America.

Actually, inquisitions started much earlier, but I'm referring to the one 1492-1530 that was specifically targeted at 'conversos' , Jews who converted.

Sorry when you mentioned New world I assumed you meant the North American colonies

 

[silvermoon383]

What I find hilarious about all the BoM geography that's being done (especially with those aforementioned tours), is that as far as I've been able to tell, all of the information we have about where cities were come from before the death of Christ. Most if not all of those directions become meaningless when you want to make a modern map because 3 Nephi talks about how at the death of Christ the ensuing geologic catastrophe changed the face of the land, destroying numerous cities, and rearranging the landscape (mountains are said to have moved, rivers changing direction, things like that.)

Now does that mean there wouldn't be ruins? Maybe, maybe not. After all, the jungles would have 400 extra years to work on anything left over, so there may not be much left.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

What I find hilarious about all the BoM geography that's being done (especially with those aforementioned tours), is that as far as I've been able to tell, all of the information we have about where cities were come from before the death of Christ. Most if not all of those directions become meaningless when you want to make a modern map because 3 Nephi talks about how at the death of Christ the ensuing geologic catastrophe changed the face of the land, destroying numerous cities, and rearranging the landscape (mountains are said to have moved, rivers changing direction, things like that.)

Now does that mean there wouldn't be ruins? Maybe, maybe not. After all, the jungles would have 400 extra years to work on anything left over, so there may not be much left.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

There is absolutely no DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon... :sarcastic

There's also no DNA evidence that corroborates it. :slap:

 

[Autodidact]

I know what you mean, and I've never had any real interest in taking one of those tours. I think most LDS scholars today lean towards Central America as the most likely setting for the Book of Mormon, but it's more often the general public that is drawn into feeling a need to zero in on a specific location. On the other hand, a think that most of the tours of the Holy Land fall into this same trap. The Church of the Nativity, for instance, is supposedly built over the site where Christ was born -- "supposedly" being the operative word here. The Garden Tomb is another site that people want to see because it "might have been" the tomb where Christ's body was laid after His death. People feel a need to connect with real places to make events of the past more meaningful to them. The idea that they "may be walking the same streets Jesus walked" has appeal to people. With the Book of Mormon, there is even less certainty as to where the events took place, but for some reason these tours seem to fill a need.

It's not that there's uncertainty about where they happened. What is certain is that they did not happen.

 

[Autodidact]

What I find hilarious about all the BoM geography that's being done (especially with those aforementioned tours), is that as far as I've been able to tell, all of the information we have about where cities were come from before the death of Christ. Most if not all of those directions become meaningless when you want to make a modern map because 3 Nephi talks about how at the death of Christ the ensuing geologic catastrophe changed the face of the land, destroying numerous cities, and rearranging the landscape (mountains are said to have moved, rivers changing direction, things like that.)

Now does that mean there wouldn't be ruins? Maybe, maybe not. After all, the jungles would have 400 extra years to work on anything left over, so there may not be much left.

But there are ruins, lots of them. It's just that none of them match the descriptions in the BoM, nor does the DNA of the descendants of the people who built them, or their language, or their archeological artifacts, or anything else about them.