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

[Jose Fly]

Of course it is. If it was considered an authoritative statement in the first place, then it would probably matter a great deal that it was changed. If it wasn't authoritative, it's a minor issue.

Well, I suppose if Mormons want to say the preface of the Book of Mormon is non-authoritative, we can go there.

There are different types of "support". Does the text of the Book of Mormon (i.e. the part that Mormons considered authoritative all along) only allow the one interpretation?

All texts allow for different interpretations, but not all interpretations are equally valid.

False dichotomy. There are many gradations between it been an absolutely authoritative statement and being "just flippant commentary".

Then perhaps we need some clarification from our LDS members. What is the status of the statements in the preface to the Book of Mormon? On what are they based?

From what I gather, the idea that all (or most) Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites was widely believed by Mormons at one time, but this doesn't mean that Mormon doctrine is dependent on this position being unchanging.

It's not a question of importance to doctrine; it's a question of the accuracy of something claimed to be the "true word of god".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not a question of importance to doctrine; it's a question of the accuracy of something claimed to be the "true word of god".

And that's what I'm trying to get at. I don't think you'd ever find a Mormon who would say that the modern-day preface to the Book of Mormon is the "true word of God". Same for the little chapter summaries, the cross-references, and the page numbers.

The Mormon members here are free to chime in, but when they say that they consider the Book of Mormon to be authoritative, I'd be dollars to donuts that they're only talking about the material that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated from gold plates, not every single thing that's between the covers of the modern-day book.

 

[Autodidact]

What is its most basic meaning? Does the BoM actually say that the Lamanites became the Native Americans, or is it just something that was inferred from the text?

Well, it's a long, bloated, tedious slog, but there is a plot to the BoM, and it concerns a group of immigrants who come from Israel and populate the New World and have wars and get wiped out etc. At some points there are battles with thousands of casualties. Also chariots, horses, swords, and lots of other stuff that isn't.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. They traditionally had one interpretation, and then replaced it with another interpretation that (apparently) agrees with the text. This doesn't mean that they consider themselves free to disregard the text altogether. Words have actual meanings; if we're talking about revising the way they "read between the lines", or which specific definition they use out of a range of valid definitions, I don't see why this is a problem. It doesn't mean that tomorrow they're going to start saying that where it says "down" in the BoM, it really means "up".

Well, some apologists do argue that the words have different meanings, that "sword" means "atlatl," and something, I can't remember, means tapir, and so forth. I could look for it if you like. That's one of the arguments they use.

 

[Autodidact]

And that's what I'm trying to get at. I don't think you'd ever find a Mormon who would say that the modern-day preface to the Book of Mormon is the "true word of God". Same for the little chapter summaries, the cross-references, and the page numbers.

The Mormon members here are free to chime in, but when they say that they consider the Book of Mormon to be authoritative, I'd be dollars to donuts that they're only talking about the material that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated from gold plates, not every single thing that's between the covers of the modern-day book.

Except that an important tenet of their faith is that the current President of the Church is a living prophet of God. So, apparently, those prophets can be dead wrong. Kind of throws cold water on that idea.

 

[Autodidact]

In any case, there is not a shred of DNA or other scientific evidence, including cultural evidence, that there is any Hebrew ancestry for any American Indians.

 

[Sententia]

it's not because it's an open and shut case on either side.

I think my position is well known. The book of mormon has been considered an obvious forgery by many since it was introduced. That doesn't detract from its power to influence many people into believing it to be a work of scientific truth.

But to put it simply, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so perhaps evidence will be uncovered. Based on the evidence we have today though there was no such civilization. (FAIR makes the exact opposite conclusion: "Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon.") I feel a more accurate scientific conclusion would be that this story is either an allegory or just an odd work of fiction.

There is no harm in continuing to look for evidence to validate this story but it seems all we keep finding are clever or not so clever fakes. Who keeps attempting to plant fake evidence and why?

Wikipedia sums up the Lamanite story succinctly if people are not familiar.

According to the Book of Mormon, a Lamanite is a member of a dark-skinned nation of indigenous Americans that battled with the light-skinned Nephite nation. Although mainstream archaeologists, geneticists, and historians do not recognize the existence of Lamanites, adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement typically believe that the Lamanites comprise some part, if not the primary origin, of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, as well as the Polynesian people.

The Book of Mormon describes the Lamanites as descendants of Laman and Lemuel, two rebellious brothers of a family of Israelites who crossed the ocean in a boat around 600 BCE. Their brother Nephi founded the Nephite nation. The Lamanites reputedly gained their dark skin as a sign of the curse for their rebelliousness (the curse itself being the withdrawal of the Spirit of God), and warred with the Nephites over a period of centuries. The book says that Jesus appeared and converted all the Lamanites to Christianity; however, after a couple hundred years, they fell away and eventually exterminated all the Nephites. By the end of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were defined less by their skin color than by their lack of Christianity. Many Mormons believe that the Polynesian people originated from the descendents of Hagoth who led his people off on a ship and was never heard from again. Although Hagoth was a Nephite, these Mormons regard Polynesians as Lamanites.

The existence of a Lamanite nation has received no support within mainstream science or archaeology. Genetic studies indicate that the indigenous Americans are primarily from northeast Asia, and the Polynesians are from southeast Asia. This has led many Mormon apologetic scholars to hypothesize that the Lamanites were a small nation that merged with the indigenous population of northeast Asian origin and left no clear traces surviving into the modern world. Within the culture of Mormonism, indigenous Americans and Polynesians are still often called "Lamanites", but the practice is waning.

I would also recommend reading the Book of Mormon if you are really interested. If you find and replace "And it came to pass" with nothing you will get through it a bit faster as it appears a little more then 1100 times. The Book of Mormon is also shorter then the bible. "And it came to pass" comprises nearly 20% of the book of mormon.

If you want a source of the BoM online, here is one: Book of Mormon

If you are interested in many of the arguments and evidence put forth for the book of mormon then this a fun read: Evidence of the Book of Mormon

Other common arguments you are likely to encounter can be found here: Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

And a link to Fair: Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon

 

[Jose Fly]

And that's what I'm trying to get at. I don't think you'd ever find a Mormon who would say that the modern-day preface to the Book of Mormon is the "true word of God". Same for the little chapter summaries, the cross-references, and the page numbers.

*sigh*

Same point I'm making to Katzpur...The claims in the preface, written and approved by LDS leaders, were based on scripture, were they not? If so, then clearly LDS leaders understood scripture to describe Israelites as the "principal ancestors of the American Indians". If not, what exactly were they basing that statement on?

The other part of the equation that no one has touched on yet is that Joseph Smith referred to the Native Americans of his time a "Lamanites"....many, many times. Brigham Young did as well.

Add this in and it starts to become pretty clear that the ancestors of Native Americans were Israelites was exactly what the BoM and Joseph Smith meant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, it's a long, bloated, tedious slog, but there is a plot to the BoM, and it concerns a group of immigrants who come from Israel and populate the New World and have wars and get wiped out etc. At some points there are battles with thousands of casualties. Also chariots, horses, swords, and lots of other stuff that isn't.

Yes, but what specifically does it say that actually predicts we should find that Jewish DNA is widespread (or present at all) among modern-day Native Americans?

Well, some apologists do argue that the words have different meanings, that "sword" means "atlatl," and something, I can't remember, means tapir, and so forth. I could look for it if you like. That's one of the arguments they use.

But they at least make an attempt to relate the things to the text. For instance, a macuahuitl (am I right in thinking you meant this and not an atlatl, or spear-thrower?) is a long-bladed cutting weapon that's used like a sword. OTOH, there's been no attempt I know of to try to re-write the Book of Abraham to get it to agree with modern Egyptology, despite it having horribly missed the mark. I don't think that Mormons are playing a game of "anything goes" when it comes to their textual interpretation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*sigh*

Same point I'm making to Katzpur...The claims in the preface, written and approved by LDS leaders, were based on scripture, were they not? If so, then clearly LDS leaders understood scripture to describe Israelites as the "principal ancestors of the American Indians". If not, what exactly were they basing that statement on?

Their own assumptions, maybe? What they thought were reasonable inferences? They wouldn't have been the first people to engage in eisegesis.

The other part of the equation that no one has touched on yet is that Joseph Smith referred to the Native Americans of his time a "Lamanites"....many, many times. Brigham Young did as well.

Add this in and it starts to become pretty clear that the ancestors of Native Americans were Israelites was exactly what the BoM and Joseph Smith meant.

But there's the thing: if you're basing your interpretation on "what Joseph Smith meant", then you're taking it as given that the Book of Mormon was made up. If your intent is to discredit the BoM, then you're begging the question: you're assuming that the book is false in order to reach your conclusion that the book is false.

 

[Katzpur]

I understand that completely. What you seem to be glossing over (or not appreciating) is that the statement in question in the preface was based on something. Now, unless I've missed something important, it's a reasonable conclusion that the statement that Israelites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" was based on a plain reading of the text of the Book of Mormon. If not, what was it based on?

It was based on an assumption that had not been clearly thought through.

And why would Mormon Church leaders allow something like that in, if it had no basis in scripture?

It's commentary! Give it a break already.

But that brings up a larger issue. Suddenly the "true word of god" isn't so plain and true after all, is it? Apparently for centuries, leaders and believers can all agree on one fact that stems from a direct reading of scripture, but have all that turned on its head via a finding of science.

What on earth makes you think that the word of God has anything remotely to do with the archeology of the Book of Mormon?

That begs the question: What was wrong with the leaders before? Did they not know how to read their own scriptures? They were completely oblivious to the now-fact that the scriptures in question actually meant something totally different?

The scriptures mean exactly the same thing regardless of whether 100% of the Native Americans or .1% of the Native Americans are descended from a group of Israelites.

If so, what does that say about the "true word of god"? Apparently this god isn't very good about conveying his true message. One also has to wonder: What's next? Just looking at Mormonism, for much of its history, "celestial marriage" was seen as fundamental tenet and extremely important to the faith (even to the point where it was practiced and advocated strongly by its founders). But when it's politically expedient, suddenly that changes (and to the exact opposite, where it's now forbidden).

You are so far off-topic it's not even funny. If you have something to add to the OP, have at it. Otherwise, don't expect an answer from me. This is not the place for you to voice every conceivable issue you have with Mormonism.

It looks more like "We just made all this up and we can change any of it as we please".

That's BS.

So what the heck were the people who wrote the original introduction going by? They just made stuff up? And no one from the Mormon congregation called them on it?

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I have already answered this question several times. I am not going to answer it again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except that an important tenet of their faith is that the current President of the Church is a living prophet of God. So, apparently, those prophets can be dead wrong. Kind of throws cold water on that idea.

Do you think that being a prophet means that every word out of your mouth is necessarily prophecy or infallible?

In any case, there is not a shred of DNA or other scientific evidence, including cultural evidence, that there is any Hebrew ancestry for any American Indians.

I entirely agree. The question, then, is what implications this should have for Mormon belief and doctrine.

 

[Sententia]

Yes, but what specifically does it say that actually predicts we should find that Jewish DNA is widespread (or present at all) among modern-day Native Americans?


But they at least make an attempt to relate the things to the text. For instance, a macuahuitl (am I right in thinking you meant this and not an atlatl, or spear-thrower?) is a long-bladed cutting weapon that's used like a sword. OTOH, there's been no attempt I know of to try to re-write the Book of Abraham to get it to agree with modern Egyptology, despite it having horribly missed the mark. I don't think that Mormons are playing a game of "anything goes" when it comes to their textual interpretation.

Lots of people make these again... you can even buy them. (Everyone has to have a hobby hehe)

 

[Katzpur]

Why has nobody responded to my post #10? Have all you brilliant minds absolutely nothing to say to it? I am not going to waste my time exploring any further tangents. Msizer made a claim. I asked him to substantiate it. He has not done so and neither has anyone else. If you have nothing to say pertaining to the OP, don't expect a response from me.

And to the Head A*****e (you know who you are): I don't know if you are addressing your posts to me or to the world in general, or if you just like to see your words on the screen, but in the event that you are specifically addressing me, I would like to remind you that I have you on ignore. That means you are wasting you time. (If it's any consolation, you are one truly unique A*****e. You are the only one of the hundreds of posters on RF who has earned the right to never have me read another one of your posts.)

 

[Jose Fly]

Their own assumptions, maybe?

If our LDS members here want to agree that the claims in the preface to the Book of Mormon are based on mere assumptions, sure.

What they thought were reasonable inferences?

That's entirely different, isn't it? If a reasonable inference from the Book of Mormon is that Lamanites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians", that's significant.

They wouldn't have been the first people to engage in eisegesis.

Of course not, and that's one of my points to Katzpur: You're no different than most other religions.

But there's the thing: if you're basing your interpretation on "what Joseph Smith meant", then you're taking it as given that the Book of Mormon was made up

Actually, the accounts as I understand them depict Joseph Smith speaking/channeling/being inspired...whatever...by god. IOW, when Joseph Smith told his followers to go "into the wilderness among the Lamanites", that was god talking.

If your intent is to discredit the BoM, then you're begging the question: you're assuming that the book is false in order to reach your conclusion that the book is false.

??????? So you're arguing that anyone who enters a debate with a position is begging the question?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If our LDS members here want to agree that the claims in the preface to the Book of Mormon are based on mere assumptions, sure.

And they have, or at least one has. See Katzpur's post above.

That's entirely different, isn't it? If a reasonable inference from the Book of Mormon is that Lamanites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians", that's significant.

Maybe it is significant, but there a difference between "a reasonable inference" and "the only reasonable inference".

Actually, the accounts as I understand them depict Joseph Smith speaking/channeling/being inspired...whatever...by god. IOW, when Joseph Smith told his followers to go "into the wilderness among the Lamanites", that was god talking.

Well, that sounds like that might be something. Do you have a source?

??????? So you're arguing that anyone who enters a debate with a position is begging the question?

No, not anyone. Only those who rely on the assumption that their position is correct to support their argument that their position is correct.

 

[Jose Fly]

It was based on an assumption that had not been clearly thought through.

Ah, so the authors who wrote the original preface to the Book of Mormon were guilty of lazy thinking and poor scholarship. Exactly who were these people?

It's commentary! Give it a break already.

Right...the preface to the Book of Mormon is mere commentary based on assumption. Understood.

What on earth makes you think that the word of God has anything remotely to do with the archeology of the Book of Mormon?

Apparently there's not much relation between the two.

The scriptures mean exactly the same thing regardless of whether 100% of the Native Americans or .1% of the Native Americans are descended from a group of Israelites.

It's just that the earlier LDS leaders were too lazy and ill-informed to realize it. And Joseph Smith and Brigham Young when they used "Lamanites" and "Indians" interchangeably.

You are so far off-topic it's not even funny. If you have something to add to the OP, have at it. Otherwise, don't expect an answer from me. This is not the place for you to voice every conceivable issue you have with Mormonism.

It's part of the bigger picture. Just like other religions, Mormonism changes its tenets and claims to fit within the culture.

That's BS.

You said yourself that the claims made in the preface to the Book of Mormon were based on mere assumption and unclear thinking.

 

[Katzpur]

Ah, so the authors who wrote the original preface to the Book of Mormon were guilty of lazy thinking and poor scholarship. Exactly who were these people?

Right...the preface to the Book of Mormon is mere commentary based on assumption. Understood.

Apparently there's not much relation between the two.

It's just that the earlier LDS leaders were too lazy and ill-informed to realize it. And Joseph Smith and Brigham Young when they used "Lamanites" and "Indians" interchangeably.

It's part of the bigger picture. Just like other religions, Mormonism changes its tenets and claims to fit within the culture.

You said yourself that the claims made in the preface to the Book of Mormon were based on mere assumption and unclear thinking.

For the second time: If you have nothing to say pertaining to the OP, don't expect a response from me.

 

[Jose Fly]

And they have, or at least one has. See Katzpur's post above.

And that is interesting, given who wrote that preface.

Maybe it is significant, but there a difference between "a reasonable inference" and "the only reasonable inference".

Sure. Funny though how other reasonable inferences didn't appear until later though.

Well, that sounds like that might be something. Do you have a source?

Tomorrow. I have to go soon.

No, not anyone. Only those who rely on the assumption that their position is correct to support their argument that their position is correct.

Ah, I see. Your problem is you're assuming that my position is merely an assumption rather than a conclusion reached after examining the arguments on both sides of the issue.

Oops.

 

[Jose Fly]

For the second time: If you have nothing to say pertaining to the OP, don't expect a response from me.

And that's what I've come to expect in these discussions with LDS members. It only takes a few questions before they either become irrational or make up an excuse to ignore things (even their own answers).

That's what I was referring to in post #2.

 

[Sententia]

Why has nobody responded to my post #10? Have all you brilliant minds absolutely nothing to say to it? I am not going to waste my time exploring any further tangents. Msizer made a claim. I asked him to substantiate it. He has not done so and neither has anyone else. If you have nothing to say pertaining to the OP, don't expect a response from me.

And to the Head ******* (you know who you are): I don't know if you are addressing your posts to me or to the world in general, or if you just like to see your words on the screen, but in the event that you are specifically addressing me, I would like to remind you that I have you on ignore. That means you are wasting you time. (If it's any consolation, you are one truly unique *******. You are the only one of the hundreds of posters on RF who has earned the right to never have me read another one of your posts.)

Katz, if you are looking for an alternative point of view to post #10 there are some counterpoints here: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church

Might give you an idea of what many people will say as counterpoints.