Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Sapiens]

They made that change because of the actual DNA evidence several years ago.

But the change is deceitful. Had they based the change on the actual DNA evidence they would could not have said, " “the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.” since there is no DNA support for such a claim. They should have told the truth: “there is no DNA support for the BoM claim that the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

 

[Watchmen]

But the change is deceitful. Had they based the change on the actual DNA evidence they would could not have said, " “the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.” since there is no DNA support for such a claim. They should have told the truth: “there is no DNA support for the BoM claim that the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

Dude, I agree with you. The empirical evidence doesn't support Mormon claims. In fact, it readily demonstrates Mormonism isn't "true." The Book of Mormon. The Book of Abraham. The list goes on and on.

 

[Sapiens]

What needs to be seen is the "Mormon Way." This DNA issue is perfect. They are faced with overwhelming evidence that there is no DNA evidence of Lamanites. instead of owning up to the fraud (e.g., there never were any Lamanites, no Hebrews sailed to the Americans, etc., etc., etc.), they commit a smaller fraud, and hope it gets missed. They say, "the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians" and that's as dishonest as hell, as dishonest and the big fraud they started with.

 

[Prestor John]

Hm ... you claim that, "The list of critiques against the Book of Mormon has shrank significantly since 1830 and it will continue to do so." Might that be because of the 3,000+ changes that were made in that. "most perfect" of revealed books.

You know perfectly well that most of those changes involved grammar and punctuation and that none of those changes affected the doctrines presented.

Also, no one ever said that the Book of Mormon was “perfect” or “most perfect”. What does that even mean? “Most” perfect? Is that like “more than perfect”? Or “mostly perfect”? That makes no sense. Something is either perfect or it isn’t and no one has ever said that the Book of Mormon was perfect.

Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was the “most correct” book, but anyone who knows anything about the Book of Mormon knows that it is not perfect and writers of the Book of Mormon admitted as much within its pages.

I don't know, all I really pay attention to is the scientific evidence which rather than shrinking grows daily.

Thank you for openly admitting that you only focus on the one side of the issue. Which confirms your bias.

Your comment about the list growing is not accurate or honest because you have already been made aware of how the list has been shrinking since 1830.

Your denial will get you nowhere.

We not only have archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, zoological, and geographical evidence, but we know have extensive DNA analysis that, despite LDS hemming and hawing, shows the BoM for what it is ... a fairytale.

If you really have all this evidence, why haven’t you presented any of it yet?

Unless, all the things you brought up earlier in this thread were examples of those “evidences”?

If that is the case then I think you are overdue for one of those, “Aw, bless your little heart!” moments because nothing you presented disproves any of the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

But lets look at the shrinkage for a moment because, as I understand it, it is about to "shrink" again.

That's what she said! Hah! I had to do it. I just had to. Nailed it!

Ooh, this oughta be good. I’m shaking with excitement underneath my magic underwear.

DNA analysis show that there are no "Hebrew" genes in the Amerindian populations.

Would you mind sharing your source and explain how it discredits the claims made in the Book of Mormon?

Then explain how rrosskopf’s explanation about mtDNA was incorrect.

At first the Mormons attempted to argue that such evidence would have been swamped by the local phenotype, but when even their own experts said that was not the case, tad-da! Time for a rewrite!

Would you mind sharing this source from “our expert”?

I thought you were only interested in what non-Mormons had to say because you believe that Mormons are incapable of being honest.

I have it on good authority that the Mormon Church is planning to make a very small change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon with very large ramifications. What has for many years read, “the Lamanites… are the principal ancestors of the American Indians…” will soon read, “the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

That change happened almost ten years ago. Did you really not know that or did you just copy and paste some anti-Mormon comment from ten years ago?

Anyways, the change makes the introduction easier to understand, but it does not really change anything.

First off, the Introduction to the Book of Mormon was never scripture. It was not a part of the Book of Mormon translated by Joseph Smith. It was originally written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie back in 1981 (I think that was the year).

Second, the word “principal” does not mean “only” or “majority” it means “most important” or “of the most value” or “highest in rank” or “chief”. The Lamanites being the “most important” ancestors of the Native Americans is true because this lineage allows the promises made to Abraham to now be extended to the people who dwelt on the American continent.

Last, the change was made because the word “principal” was misleading both members and non-members alike into thinking that the Book of Mormon claimed that the Lamanites were the sole or only ancestors of the Native Americans, but the Book of Mormon never made that claim.

The change was necessary because of the confusion it caused, but it did not change the claims made by the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church.

Presto chango, one more critique gone, but not on the basis of evidence or argument, solely on the basis of "weaseling" out of the dispute.

It was only a critique for those who did not know the meaning of the word “principal”.

There never was any real dispute.

If I am "biased" it is because I go where the facts lead. Unlike you I am not presuppostionally biased, my bias is completely fact based.

This is a bunch of bologna.

But the change is deceitful. Had they based the change on the actual DNA evidence they would could not have said, " “the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.” since there is no DNA support for such a claim. They should have told the truth: “there is no DNA support for the BoM claim that the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

The Book of Mormon claims that the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the Native Americans. This lineage is the “most important” (principal) one because it allowed the Native Americans to partake of the promises made to Abraham.

It is not deceitful for the Introduction of the Book of Mormon to describe the claims made by the Book of Mormon.

The change to the Introduction was made so that the claim of the Book of Mormon would be easier to understand. Basically, for those people who did not know the definition of the word “principal”.

There does not need to be any DNA evidence today in order for the claims of the Book of Mormon to be true.

What needs to be seen is the "Mormon Way." This DNA issue is perfect. They are faced with overwhelming evidence that there is no DNA evidence of Lamanites. instead of owning up to the fraud (e.g., there never were any Lamanites, no Hebrews sailed to the Americans, etc., etc., etc.), they commit a smaller fraud, and hope it gets missed. They say, "the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians" and that's as dishonest as hell, as dishonest and the big fraud they started with.

It is not dishonest in any way.

rrosskopf explained the issues with relying completely on DNA and how genetic information can be lost over time.

Nothing you have shared disproves or even effectively challenges the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

You should really try to study both sides of the issue. You’d realize how much evidence there is for the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

You can keep your bias, but at least you wouldn’t be as ignorant as you are now.

 

[Sapiens]

You know perfectly well that most of those changes involved grammar and punctuation and that none of those changes affected the doctrines presented.

Also, no one ever said that the Book of Mormon was “perfect” or “most perfect”. What does that even mean? “Most” perfect? Is that like “more than perfect”? Or “mostly perfect”? That makes no sense. Something is either perfect or it isn’t and no one has ever said that the Book of Mormon was perfect.

"Perfect" or "correct," same/same and in either case ... wrong.

Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was the “most correct” book, but anyone who knows anything about the Book of Mormon knows that it is not perfect and writers of the Book of Mormon admitted as much within its pages.

Smith is rather low on the veracity scale, his demonstrable lies are legend.

Thank you for openly admitting that you only focus on the one side of the issue. Which confirms your bias.

Science is not one side of the issue, it is one topic area. I just deal with science because it is clean and clear without any other confusions. Science demonstrates that the BoM is full of untruths. I only have to show that the BoM is inaccurate on the grounds I know best, science. I do not have to prove the BoM inaccurate on any other ground to thoroughly impeach and falsify the whole ball of wax.

Your comment about the list growing is not accurate or honest because you have already been made aware of how the list has been shrinking since 1830.

As science grows (DNA was only discovered in the 1950s) and is applied to the claims of the BoM the list of falsehoods grows and the number of apologists employed in useless endeavors and their creativity grows.

Your redefinition to cover "principal" proves my point. Anytime you have to tie yourself in such knots, you're likely wrong. As to all the scientific evidence against the BoM ... it's all here in the forum, you just have to spend a few minutes searching.

rrosskopf explained the issues with relying completely on DNA and how genetic information can be lost over time.

Even if you grant rrosskopf's misunderstanding of genetics, you must admit that mitochondrial DNA is not the only possible evidednce, there are other tests [see: ABU EL-HAJ, supra note 13, at 2; Doron M. Behar, et al., The Genome-wide Structure of the Jewish People, 466 NATURE 238, 242 (2010)], that do not support the claim that is made: “the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

 

[Prestor John]

"Perfect" or "correct," same/same and in either case ... wrong.

Claiming that a book is “most correct” is clearly not the “same/same” as claiming that it is “perfect”.

Why won’t you just admit that you got the quote wrong and let it die?

Is it the same reason why you keep claiming that anything you have shared somehow disproves the Book of Mormon?

Smith is rather low on the veracity scale, his demonstrable lies are legend.

I have yet to see anything that proves this assertion.

You’d need a bias to jump to this conclusion.

Science is not one side of the issue, it is one topic area.

In regards to spiritual matters it is only one side of the issue.

I just deal with science because it is clean and clear without any other confusions.

I agree that science is clean and clear, however, people often become confused by the findings of science due to “tunnel vision” caused by their biases.

They tend to jump to conclusions, as you have in regards to this topic.

Science demonstrates that the BoM is full of untruths.

No it does not. You have jumped to a conclusion based on what can be determined without considering other relevant factors and plausible possibilities.

I only have to show that the BoM is inaccurate on the grounds I know best, science.

We are still waiting for this demonstration.

I do not have to prove the BoM inaccurate on any other ground to thoroughly impeach and falsify the whole ball of wax.

Sure you do.

Because with every supposed “inaccuracy” you can come up with there are dozens of things that Joseph Smith got right about both the Old and New World that defy reason.

As science grows (DNA was only discovered in the 1950s) and is applied to the claims of the BoM the list of falsehoods grows and the number of apologists employed in useless endeavors and their creativity grows.

How can you stand so firm in your conviction that science disproves anything while also admitting that it continues to grow?

Just because you claim that DNA evidence disproves the Book of Mormon today, can you be so sure that that won’t change tomorrow as science continues to grow?

The issues you are having is that 1.) You have faith in science, without considering its limitations and potential to change and 2.) You rely on the assumptions made about the Book of Mormon and not what the Book of Mormon actually claims.

Science is not perfect. The Book of Mormon is not perfect. Both are true.

Your redefinition to cover "principal" proves my point.

I did not “redefine” anything. That has always been the definition of the word “principal”.

You can’t claim that I changed anything just because you assumed something about the definition of the word “principal” that was incorrect.

Your pride won’t let you admit when you are wrong. Either it is you inaccurately trying to quote Joseph Smith or applying an incorrect definition to a word – You cannot admit when you are wrong.

Anytime you have to tie yourself in such knots, you're likely wrong.

I suppose this rule only applies to me and others that believe the Book of Mormon is true, right?

This rule obviously can’t apply to a guy who based his arguments on an inaccurate quote and an incorrect definition of the word “principal”. (note sarcasm)

You tie yourself up with excuses or outright denial.

As to all the scientific evidence against the BoM ... it's all here in the forum, you just have to spend a few minutes searching.

Yeah. I read this thread in its entirety already and I didn’t see anything that disproves the Book of Mormon.

Does science raise more questions about the claims made in the Book of Mormon? Of course and they are pretty good ones, but those questions aren’t damning.

We are patient and will wait for the ever-growing science to catch up to the Book of Mormon.

Even if you grant rrosskopf's misunderstanding of genetics, you must admit that mitochondrial DNA is not the only possible [evidence], there are other tests [see: ABU EL-HAJ, supra note 13, at 2; Doron M. Behar, et al., The Genome-wide Structure of the Jewish People, 466 NATURE 238, 242 (2010)], that do not support the claim that is made: “the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

I don’t know how accurate that test would be considering that the Lamanites weren’t Jewish.

 

[Sapiens]

Wiki : "The Book of Mormon portrays the Lamanites as usually dark-skinned, wicked rivals to the usually lighter-skinned, righteous Nephites, both of whom are portrayed as descendants of Israelites who traveled to the New World by boat circa 600 BC."

 

[Prestor John]

Wiki : "The Book of Mormon portrays the Lamanites as usually dark-skinned, wicked rivals to the usually lighter-skinned, righteous Nephites, both of whom are portrayed as descendants of Israelites who traveled to the New World by boat circa 600 BC."

The Lamanites are descendants of Israel, but being a descendant of Israel does not make a person a Jew. Jews descend from the tribe of Judah while Lehi and his family descended from the tribe of Manasseh.

I would also like to point out that the Book of Mormon claims that there were many periods of time when the Lamanites were generally more righteous than the Nephites.

 

[Sapiens]

The Lamanites are descendants of Israel, but being a descendant of Israel does not make a person a Jew. Jews descend from the tribe of Judah while Lehi and his family descended from the tribe of Manasseh.

I would also like to point out that the Book of Mormon claims that there were many periods of time when the Lamanites were generally more righteous than the Nephites.

Utter fairy-tale, there is no evidence that either Lamanites nor Nephites ever existed. But the real point is that none of the genetic markers found in those of Hebrew descent are found in Amerindians.

 

[Prestor John]

Utter fairy-tale, there is no evidence that either Lamanites nor Nephites ever existed.

I already understand that you do not believe that the events accounted in the Book of Mormon happened. You don’t need to keep mentioning it. Especially when all I’m doing is correcting you about what is or is not claimed in the Book of Mormon.

But the real point is that none of the genetic markers found in those of Hebrew descent are found in Amerindians.

Would you mind quoting and supplying your source for this conclusion?

Considering all that has happened to the Natives since the Book of Mormon times, I wouldn’t be surprised if we could not find any genetic evidence.

I don’t consider it as damning as you do.

 

[Sapiens]

I already understand that you do not believe that the events accounted in the Book of Mormon happened. You don’t need to keep mentioning it. Especially when all I’m doing is correcting you about what is or is not claimed in the Book of Mormon.

Would you mind quoting and supplying your source for this conclusion?

Considering all that has happened to the Natives since the Book of Mormon times, I wouldn’t be surprised if we could not find any genetic evidence.

I don’t consider it as damning as you do.

That might be because you don't understand enough about genetics to permit the truth to shine through the shards of your belief system.

 

[Prestor John]

That might be because you don't understand enough about genetics to permit the truth to shine through the shards of your belief system.

No, that is not it.

You are reminding me of so many of the run-o-the-mill "Christians" who pick one verse in the Bible that they like and then build a little fort around it. They claim that that verse says whatever they want it to say without considering mistranslations, misinterpretations or other Biblical verses that may conflict with it.

You have a blind belief that these genetics studies somehow disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon without considering the actual claims made by the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church and other very relevant factors like genetic drift and bottlenecking.

Am I to understand (since you have not brought them up again) that you are no longer contesting that "most perfect" does not equal "most correct" or that you had applied a false definition to the word "principal"?

Also, where is that quote and source that I had requested?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

There was a study done a few years ago which was picked up by National Geographic that revealed that roughly a third of the Native American genome had traces to Western Eurasian populations. It suggests the Beringian land bridge was not the only way that Native & First Nations ancestors got to the Americas though it does raise questions about how and where these populations met & mingled.

 

[Prestor John]

There was a study done a few years ago which was picked up by National Geographic that revealed that roughly a third of the Native American genome had traces to Western Eurasian populations. It suggests the Beringian land bridge was not the only way that Native & First Nations ancestors got to the Americas though it does raise questions about how and where these populations met & mingled.

That's awesome. I believe that we will find more and more evidence of a variety of peoples that came to the Americas. We just need to be patient.

 

[Shad]

That's awesome. I believe that we will find more and more evidence of a variety of peoples that came to the Americas. We just need to be patient.

Keep in mind this predated the BoM claimed by 21000 years. You are grasping at straws

 

[Prestor John]

Keep in mind this predated the BoM claimed by 21000 years. You are grasping at straws

How am I "grasping" anything when all I said was that this discovery was awesome and that I believed that we will find more evidences like this in the future?

I did not make the claim that this supported the Book of Mormon narrative at all, so why are you reacting as if I had?

Finding it difficult to argue through conventional means so you start making up imaginary comments to squash?

You needed that big ego boost?

Don't worry. The list of supposed anacharisms in the Book of Mormon has been shrinking considerably since it was published.

Be patient. We will find more and more evidence with time.

 

[Watchmen]

How am I "grasping" anything when all I said was that this discovery was awesome and that I believed that we will find more evidences like this in the future?

I did not make the claim that this supported the Book of Mormon narrative at all, so why are you reacting as if I had?

Finding it difficult to argue through conventional means so you start making up imaginary comments to squash?

You needed that big ego boost?

Don't worry. The list of supposed anacharisms in the Book of Mormon has been shrinking considerably since it was published.

Be patient. We will find more and more evidence with time.

Actually, as time goes on, more and more evidence disproving th church comes to light.

 

[Shad]

How am I "grasping" anything when all I said was that this discovery was awesome and that I believed that we will find more evidences like this in the future?

You are hedging your bet that actually evidence will be discovered to confirm the BoM. This is apparent.

I did not make the claim that this supported the Book of Mormon narrative at all, so why are you reacting as if I had?

It's called "reading between the lines"

Finding it difficult to argue through conventional means so you start making up imaginary comments to squash?

No, again its called "reading between the lines"

You needed that big ego boost?

Nope.

Don't worry. The list of supposed anacharisms in the Book of Mormon has been shrinking considerably since it was published.

When "reformed Egyptian" becomes a real language let me know

Be patient. We will find more and more evidence with time.

An example of hedging your bet

 

[Prestor John]

Actually, as time goes on, more and more evidence disproving th church comes to light.

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS faith so it is upon the Book of Mormon that we should focus our attentions.

Science is slowly catching up to the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Prestor John]

You are hedging your bet that actually evidence will be discovered to confirm the BoM. This is apparent.

Even though I do believe that that will eventually happen that is not the same as claiming that the Scotsman's comment was evidence for the Book of Mormon.

You assumed, because of my affiliation, that I had said something that I did not.

I am only responsible for what I say, not what you assume I am thinking but did not say.

It's called "reading between the lines".

AKA "making stuff up"

No, again its called "reading between the lines".

Again that is "making stuff up"

Nope.

Are you sure?

Because even when you have been caught flat-footed putting words in my mouth you still cannot admit you were wrong to do so.

You look like an ego-junkie to me.

When "reformed Egyptian" becomes a real language let me know.

Examples of the Reformed Egyptian characters can be found on the Anthon Transcript which remarkably resemble the Hieratic and Demotic (which was derived from the Hieratic) Egyptian.

The Demotic Egyptian was widely used during Lehi's time in the Old World.

The Book of Mormon claims that the language used to inscribe the record was unique to the Nephites and would not be found elsewhere, however, the Coptic Egyptian is an example of an Egyptian/Greek hybrid, or in other words, a reformed Egyptian.

An example of hedging your bet

Admittedly, yes.

But it was an example given after you had assumed that I had interpreted the Scotman's comment as evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Even though I believe that more evidence to support the Book of Mormon will eventually be found, I did not claim that the Scotman's comment was such.