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

[linwood]

I think Mormonism gets a lot of flack, because its claims are rather incredible...

Yes Mormonism is an easy target because it`s claims were made in modern times and we now have the science/tech to test the veracity of those claims.

Traditional Abrahamics are shielded from such direct devastating exposure by time.

 

[MSizer]

...Our claim is that it is entirely possible that a small family from Israel could have arrived in America, to a continent that was already populated, leaving no genetic evidence of their existance 2600 years later.....

That is utterly in disagreement with the book of Mormon.

 

[MSizer]

Out of curiosity, did they leave any other evidence?

No. The boat that Nephi built I would never expect we should find, but the absence of leave behind artifacts from the kingdoms and armies, well, that's just a nail in the coffin of the mythology. Not to mention that there are no traces of hebrew in native languages of north america.

And as to the bottleneck of the human population Kat refers to, yes, I'm very well aware of it. Joseph Smith sure didn't seem to be though.

And I know I'm starting to throw a bunch of things out at once, but while it's on my mind, what about the "many cities" built by the Nephites who migrated north? They were allegedly built of cement and wood, containing synagogues and all of those other buildings. They were supposedly experts in cement, because the trees became scarce. The only problem with this is that trees don't become scarce north of large bodies of water. So not only is the history wrong, but so is the geography.

 

[Smoke]

Most Mormons -- and for all I know, all of them -- used to believe that American Indians were descended from the Lamanites. That is, the Lamanites were thought to be the primary if not the only ancestors of the American Indians. If one believes in the Book of Mormon, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that's a perfectly reasonable belief. Now we have solid evidence that such a belief is untenable.

So, do the Mormons say, "Obviously, our scriptures are false and our religion is disproven"? Of course not. They ask, "How can we reconcile the known facts to the scriptures we know to be true?"

That's what all believers do. It's what other Christians do; it's what Muslims do; it's what Jews do -- unless they just reject the facts completely.

Look at the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. On the face of it, they cannot both be true. Many Christians "resolve" this difficulty by claiming that Luke's genealogy preserves the lineage of Mary, that is, by claiming that both accounts are still "true" because one of them means something entirely different from what it says. Others, more honest but no less determined, cooked up a web of Levirate marriages that contrive to explain how both lines can be what they claim to be -- the paternal lineage of Joseph. Only after many centuries did some of them finally throw up their hands and say, "Oh, well, the important thing is that Joseph was of the tribe of Judah and the house of David, and that's all the gospels are really trying to convey. The details aren't important." But at no point did any significant number of them look at the data and say, "Hey, look at this! Our religion is a bunch of crap!"

Likewise with the creation story -- or rather, stories. Attempts to make sense of them go back much farther than scientific theories about evolution. Now that we know there's no way they can possibly be factual, believers in the scriptures either deny the facts or come up with reasons for appreciating such obviously non-factual accounts; surprising numbers of them even claim that the creation stories were never meant to be considered factual at all.

Likewise with Islam. If all you have to go on is the Qur'an, it's not unreasonable to think that Maryam the mother of Jesus and Maryam the sister of Aaron are the same person. When Muslims learned that that was impossible, they didn't say, "The Qur'an must be false"; they said, "Obviously, the Qur'an doesn't mean she's literally the sister of Aaron. It means she's of the same people and lineage as Aaron."

I think this shows one of the problems with investing too much authority in scriptures, but it certainly doesn't mean the Mormons have a problem that's unique to them. Every group that believes in revelation and authoritative scriptures has this problem.

At least Katzpur has enough respect for the truth to accept the facts and try to understand her faith in the light of them. I talk to believers almost every day who are far less honest.

 

[MSizer]

...
At least Katzpur has enough respect for the truth to accept the facts and try to understand her faith in the light of them. I talk to believers almost every day who are far less honest.

I sincerely don't mean this as a personal attack on Katz, honestly, I have no reason to make her feel bad, and I don't want her to feel bad. But, the fact is she is trying to resist the increasingly obvious reality that is being exposed as modern science melts away her god of the gaps and shows the truth beneath it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Absolutely. I don't think it would make an alleged god too proud for one of his latter day saints to turn a smug shoulder on a chance to explain "the truth" as it were.

To me, IMO, it's more productive to ask a question in a civilized manner if you really want an answer. Or at least a good one.

 

[Apex]

I sincerely don't mean this as a personal attack on Katz, honestly, I have no reason to make her feel bad, and I don't want her to feel bad. But, the fact is she is trying to resist the increasingly obvious reality that is being exposed as modern science melts away her god of the gaps and shows the truth beneath it.

Seriously, now you just being dishonest and an ***.

 

[MSizer]

Seriously, now you just being dishonest and an ***.

No, I'm not being dishonest, what in the heck would be the point of that? Seriously, I honestly mean that. How is it you accuse me of dishonesty? I take offence to it. Especially since I pointed out that it's not a personal attack on Katz, since she is in fact a nice person from what I can tell. Keep your derrogatory names to yourself.

 

[MSizer]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're making claims that are allegedly from some Divine being, but they don't even stand up to common sense, you should be happy to show where the misunderstanding is. If all you can do is get angry, I must say, it doesn't do much for establishing any credibility for your beliefs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, I'm not being dishonest, what in the heck would be the point of that? Seriously, I honestly mean that. How is it you accuse me of dishonesty? I take offence to it. Especially since I pointed out that it's not a personal attack on Katz, since she is in fact a nice person from what I can tell. Keep your derrogatory names to yourself.

On the other hand, we can actually see that the book of mormon was made up by a liar.

But, the fact is she is trying to resist the increasingly obvious reality that is being exposed as modern science melts away her god of the gaps and shows the truth beneath it.

Your own words. :foot:

 

[MSizer]

Your own words. :foot:

I'm sorry, where is the dishonesty here?

We know Joseph Smith was a deceptive individual (more so than the average).

I'm not trying to hurt Katz's feelings.

Nobody has explained how the contradictions brought up are fallacious.

 

[Smoke]

I sincerely don't mean this as a personal attack on Katz, honestly, I have no reason to make her feel bad, and I don't want her to feel bad. But, the fact is she is trying to resist the increasingly obvious reality that is being exposed as modern science melts away her god of the gaps and shows the truth beneath it.

Obviously, I don't personally believe in the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, or the Qur'an, or any other scriptures -- including Buddhist and Taoist scriptures. I appreciate the Tao Te Ching, the Dhammapada, the Heart Sutra, and other writings, but I don't believe in them. I share your incredulity fully.

I'm just a little uncomfortable when Mormons, who are maybe one or two percent of the U.S. population, are singled out for characteristics that permeate Western religion -- and even, to a lesser extent, religion generally. It's too easy to say, "Ha ha! Those crazy Mormons."

I do think the Mormon Church should be thoroughly and unceasingly savaged for its militant homophobia, along with the Evangelicals and the Roman Catholics -- not because those are the most homophobic religions in the U.S. but because they're the ones most active and most effective in promoting it. If they want to fight, then fine. Let's fight.

But when it comes to their religious beliefs, I couldn't care less. I think a lot of what Mormons believe is nonsense, but have you taken a good look at the Catholics and the Evangelicals? Or Buddhism, for that matter. I've come across so much absolute crap from Buddhists that at times I regret ever telling anybody I was a Buddhist. But life goes on. Take what you need and leave the rest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So why then was the introduction to the BoM changed from stating that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to stating that they are "among the ancestors of the American Indians"?

Do you think the text itself allows for either interpretation? I'm only partway through the Book of Mormon myself, but my sense is that either would work without creating inconsistencies.

IMO, this issue is minor compared to the problems with the Book of Abraham. The evidence we have in that case strongly suggests to me that Joseph Smith had no problem with just making stuff up, which I think casts major doubts on all the other Mormon "standard works" that Smith had a hand in.

 

[MSizer]

... I think a lot of what Mormons believe is nonsense, but have you taken a good look at the Catholics and the Evangelicals? Or Buddhism, for that matter...

Of course I have, and yes, those beliefs are just as unfounded. I'm not trying to single out Mormons - I've challenged Catholics, Muslims and Jews many times before in the forum. Mormons are no different. I'm getting teh feeling here that people think I'm trying to be a Mormon basher, but I'm just asking a perfectly logical question, and the only response I seem to get is anger. I honestly did hope for something better.

 

[Baydwin]

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?

Ok, I'm playing devil's advocate here since I'm not Mormon and so don't believe in the BoM.

Firstly, the traditional doctrine did change, from the Lamanites being the principle ancestor to being among the ancestors. So, that's one dealt with.

Secondly, and I'm not speaking for Mormons because I imagine they'd disagree with me.
But the BoM story ends with Moroni burying the plates, nothing else is recorded, so perhaps when the people from Siberia (or Mongolia, can't remember) entered the America's across the land bridge, maybe the Lamanites had already gone extinct. Or perhaps the new arrivals warred with the Lamanites and slaughtered them all, maybe they then took over their structures and re carved them removing any evidence of the original builders.
Or, and we know it happened with writers of ancient history all the time, perhaps the writers of the BoM exaggerated. One battle has the fallen numbered in the millions, maybe there were only thousands. Perhaps the monuments and temples built weren't as grand as the writers made out, maybe they were only wooden.

Anyway, there's a lot people can say to counter outright dismissal of the BoM account but really it's beside the point. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't primarily an archaeological or anthropological society, it's a faith based tradition and that's why the followers of Joseph Smith Jr. will believe in his Prophethood regardless of apparent evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you think the text itself allows for either interpretation? I'm only partway through the Book of Mormon myself, but my sense is that either would work without creating inconsistencies.

IMO, this issue is minor compared to the problems with the Book of Abraham. The evidence we have in that case strongly suggests to me that Joseph Smith had no problem with just making stuff up, which I think casts major doubts on all the other Mormon "standard works" that Smith had a hand in.

Well, I think similar to the Biblical depictions of a flat earth that doesn't move, it's interesting that before, Mormons seemed fairly unified in their understanding that Israelites are the ancestors of Native Americans, and it wasn't until the DNA studies showed otherwise that the "interpretations" of texts changed.

In both cases, the interpretation of the texts seemed pretty unambiguous...until science pointed out otherwise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In both cases, the interpretation of the texts seemed pretty unambiguous...until science pointed out otherwise.

Fortunately, religions have never had an issue with rewriting history. They're just not so good at recording their rewrites as part of history.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I think similar to the Biblical depictions of a flat earth that doesn't move, it's interesting that before, Mormons seemed fairly unified in their understanding that Israelites are the ancestors of Native Americans, and it wasn't until the DNA studies showed otherwise that the "interpretations" of texts changed.

In both cases, the interpretation of the texts seemed pretty unambiguous...until science pointed out otherwise.

I'm not that familiar with the Book of Mormon. What's the actual wording of the text that unambiguously implies that Israelites are the ancestors of the Native Americans living today?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not that familiar with the Book of Mormon. What's the actual wording of the text that unambiguously implies that Israelites are the ancestors of the Native Americans living today?

I suppose that would be a good question for the folks who wrote the previous preface to the BoM. Obviously they collectively felt that saying the Israelites were the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" was justified. Otherwise, they would have written something else.

 

[linwood]

I'm not that familiar with the Book of Mormon. What's the actual wording of the text that unambiguously implies that Israelites are the ancestors of the Native Americans living today?

The introduction of the BOM stated in the second paragraph....
(I have a copy printed in 1981 with this introduction)

“The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of the two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites.
After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

The same paragraph now reads....

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they were among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

According to the internet.
I don`t have a physical copy of the newer version in my possession.

I have never read beyond Nephi 2 in the book but it is riddled with heavy implication of Hebrew ancestry for the native Americans.