• 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!

The Book of Mormon vs. The King James Version of the Bible

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Your non-answer is an answer, thank you very much. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about re the evidence of where Native Americans descended from.
It is clear that you keep running away from any questions about this "evidence" you keep mentioning.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I know and understand exactly what type of reference I shared. I know it is your MO to tell people that disagree with you that they do not understand or that they are ignorant in an attempt to derail them, but it is not going to work here.

My one reference is still one more reference than you have shared because you have shared none.

Since you seem to be claiming that the reference I shared is somehow lacking, would you mind sharing a reference that claims that our study of the ancient Americas is not continually evolving?

Or that there is not a theory about possible ancient European migration to the Americas?
I can link you to dozens if not hundreds of sites that talk about the early human migration. I already articulated exactly why the frindge theory is not accepted. After searching for anything else about alternative migrations all I have found is earlier shifts prior to the now accepted 15,000 years ago. The problem, as explained earlier, is that there is zero evidence that anyone else came to North America until the Vikings. There is zero evidence that any middle eastern tribe roughly 4-8 thousand years ago (or at any time in antiquity actually) made it to North America. Not only is there zero evidence there is massive evidence against it. Firstly being that the treck is almost impossible by any normal means and especially so by boat. Secondly there is zero genetic impact on the population of North America as there isn't even the slightest hint of any other genetics other than the migrants from Siberia. Thirdly the language has not been affected in any way. There was no written word or carvings left by these people. THE ONLY way that you can argue that they migrated to North Ameriaca is that they made it via miracle that cannot be explained by normal physical means AND they died off extremely quickly without having left ANY marks on North America that would even signify that they got here. And that zero of the Native Americans that any white man had ever met had never ever been part of the ancient Hebrew tribes.

But if you would like some links. Here ya go.

Ancient Migration Patterns to North America Are Hidden in Languages Spoken Today | Science | Smithsonian

Settlement of the Americas - Wikipedia

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png
What Y chromosomal DNA? From whom have the samples been taken? How many samples?

Mind sharing a source?
DNA of the gaps is it? You seem to like links. Here ya go.

Human Genome Project - Wikipedia

Interactive map of human genetic history revealed

IBM100 - The Mapping of Humanity's Family Tree

An Overview of the Human Genome Project

Who is to say that there isn’t?

Are you unaware of the many parallels in lore, religion, architecture and language between ancient Mesoamerica and the ancient Middle East?

So much similarity that many of those “ancient alien” theorists often try to use those same parallels to show an extraterrestrial connection between the two regions and peoples.
And they are bunk for the same reason. They are distinctive in both techniques and actual artifiacts. The big similarities is that there were pryamids in both sites.
How?

I know people came across the Siberian Land Bridge anciently. The Book of Mormon records people being in the Americas before the Lehites arrived.

It is important to always keep in mind that our current theories change as we find and understand more and more.
Indeed. And if there was evidence I am fairly confident we would have found it. But there is no evidence for such a thing. The only people claiming to have evidence is people who were looking to prove something that wasn't there. There have been zero cases of evidence being presented where someone has drawn the conclusion that it was from the middle east.

If evidence surfaces I am willing to change my mind. But I am not willing to subvert my view beyond what is currently evident because people believe that there is the possibility of their belief system being verified. There are people right now who think that the smoking gun against biological evolution is round the corner or already found. The evidence doesn't support them and I don't plan on changing my views because of thier beliefs.
There is also no evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ lived, died and was Resurrected, but I still believe He did.

Only a handful of Israelites came to the Americas and they quickly assimilated into the local population.

Humor me for a moment, imagine that the events in the Book of Mormon actually took place, and then tell me what evidence you would expect to find today?
And I don't believe in Jesus Christ as written in the bible. For exactly the same reason.

Hypothetical? Sure. I would expect there to be Native American tales of such an event. We would see evidence of their travel. You say its by boat then we would have record of incredible ship building capabilities of whoever built the boat. We would see a disruption in their DNA, especially the Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA. We would see an affect on the language and belief systems of the tribes in which they assymilated. The Hebrews had access to metalcraft which would have revolutionized North America far before the Europeans got there. We would have seen plague like effects just as we did when the Spanish first came to North America.

Any of these. Any shred of evidence. A lost book or scrap of language carved into a wall or painted for example. A Y chromosome found in a native American tribe that linked with the Jews despite stating that he is pure Native American.
Are you claiming that all Amerindians of North, Central and South America have been sampled?

If all Amerindians have been sampled, would there be any sign of this little group of Israelites if you take into account what the Book of Mormon records?
They have been sampled so much that it is within 1% variation of the genome of any given population.

We would see the Y chromosome or Mitochondrial DNA show up in the tests.
If everyone does agree that all Amerindians came from Siberia then it should be easy to share a source that makes that claim?

I know what the article mentions. Have all the remains of the people who made and used those tools been sampled?
What of the opposite? What evidence do you have that it exists at all? A convicted conman tells a story and we must unearth every spect of dust on two contenents despite not seeing any evidence at all just to be sure?
Yes, I read the article.

The theories of the Earth revolving around the sun and it being round were also considered “radical” at some point and it took time for them to gain support.

The idea that those theories are radical is not enough to dismiss them and it shows that “everyone” does not agree that all Amerindians came from Siberia.

Did those who crossed the Siberian Land Bridge have a written word, advanced architecture and art?

I never claimed that this article proved the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

It only proves that "everyone” does not agree on the origins of all the Amerindians.
Not everyone agrees that climate change is real or that Evolution is correct. It doesn't make the facts any less clear.
Can you provide any sources that can answer all the questions I have asked and you have ignored?
Some of your questions are unresonable. Those I ignored. I attempted to explain the rest to the best of my ability. I also linked several links this time round so sort through those some.
Is that what you think I am claiming?
Its what I know you are doing. If you didn't have a religious belief about it you wouldn't even consider it based on the evidence. Its why no other religion gives it any thought. Not Catholics, Baptist, Hindus, Buddhists or atheists. Only Mormons.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It is clear that you keep running away from any questions about this "evidence" you keep mentioning.
Nope. There's plenty of evidence on my side re where Native Americans originated from. There's none on your side to support the BoM explanation.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Nope. There's plenty of evidence on my side re where Native Americans originated from. There's none on your side to support the BoM explanation.
The Book of Mormon never made any claim about the origins of all Native Americans.

Again you are trying to contest false assumptions about the claims made in the Book of Mormon.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The Book of Mormon never made any claim about the origins of all Native Americans.

Again you are trying to contest false assumptions about the claims made in the Book of Mormon.
Well the Church went from "principal" to "among." Regardless, there is NO evidence that any portion of Native Americans came from the Middle East.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Well the Church went from "principal" to "among."
If we use the actual definition of the word "principal" we realize that this change in wording is insignificant.
Regardless, there is NO evidence that any portion of Native Americans came from the Middle East.
Yeah, I've been asking you to provide the sources of your "studies" for a long time now, but you don't supply them.

I've been looking over the Monk's sources and so far all I can tell is that he and I seem to be talking about two different things because his sources aren't relevant to the claims made in the Book of Mormon.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
Well the Church went from "principal" to "among." Regardless, there is NO evidence that any portion of Native Americans came from the Middle East.

I can't speak for other church members. I've always known the Book of Mormon speaks of people besides descendants of Lehi as inhabiting the land. But I've always believed, based on several sources, be it the interpretations of leaders, modern LDS culture, etc., that the American Indians are for the most part descendants of the House of Israel. Since recent DNA research and the change in wording in the Preface from "principal" to "among", I've concluded that there has been a shift in thought for many in the church. I can live with a shift in thought.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If we use the actual definition of the word "principal" we realize that this change in wording is insignificant.

Yeah, I've been asking you to provide the sources of your "studies" for a long time now, but you don't supply them.

I've been looking over the Monk's sources and so far all I can tell is that he and I seem to be talking about two different things because his sources aren't relevant to the claims made in the Book of Mormon.
Wrong. You have no evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon re where some of the Native American ancestors come from.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I can't speak for other church members. I've always known the Book of Mormon speaks of people besides descendants of Lehi as inhabiting the land. But I've always believed, based on several sources, be it the interpretations of leaders, modern LDS culture, etc., that the American Indians are for the most part descendants of the House of Israel. Since recent DNA research and the change in wording in the Preface from "principal" to "among", I've concluded that there has been a shift in thought for many in the church. I can live with a shift in thought.
So, "principal" means for the most part," right? You might want to educate Prestor John on that. He doesn't know what the word "principal" means.

Thanks for your honesty. Some people can live with the shift, others cannot.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
I can't speak for other church members. I've always known the Book of Mormon speaks of people besides descendants of Lehi as inhabiting the land. But I've always believed, based on several sources, be it the interpretations of leaders, modern LDS culture, etc., that the American Indians are for the most part descendants of the House of Israel. Since recent DNA research and the change in wording in the Preface from "principal" to "among", I've concluded that there has been a shift in thought for many in the church. I can live with a shift in thought.
Hey Scott.

You have reason to take this position because I grew up hearing those assumptions too.

However, there has never been an official statement made by the Brethren to confirm those assumptions and the Book of Mormon also does not make those claims.

Also when the actual definition of the word "principal" is applied, we realize that the original Introduction was also not making those claims.

I just don't feel that the assumptions made by members of the Church should be confused with the actual claims made by the Church and the Book of Mormon.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
So, "principal" means for the most part," right? You might want to educate Prestor John on that. He doesn't know what the word "principal" means.

Thanks for your honesty. Some people can live with the shift, others cannot.
Look up the word "principal" in any dictionary and it will mean "most important", or "of most value" or "first in rank".

It does not matter what you or other people ASSUME about the meaning of the word "principal".

The ACTUAL definition disagrees with your ASSUMPTION.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
Hey Scott.

You have reason to take this position because I grew up hearing those assumptions too.

However, there has never been an official statement made by the Brethren to confirm those assumptions and the Book of Mormon also does not make those claims.

Also when the actual definition of the word "principal" is applied, we realize that the original Introduction was also not making those claims.

I just don't feel that the assumptions made by members of the Church should be confused with the actual claims made by the Church and the Book of Mormon.

I agree the Book of Mormon does not make the claim and there were never any "official" statements. However, as a young lad, if something was said in a Preface or Introduction to our Scriptures, I assumed it was approved by the highest levels of the church and authorized, and therefore believed. I therefore took it as doctrine. I'm not alone in that approach. I can't say for certain if an Apostle of today is more likely to believe that American Indians are "among", but not "principal" descendants, than would have believed an Apostle in 1940. But, I suspect that is the case. That's only a suspicion based on personal observation. I think the original word "principal" implied that while non-Israelites lived anciently in America, the dominate ancestors of the American Indians were Lamanites. Perhaps, I'm mistaken, but that is how I understood the old word in the Preface. I've come to the conclusion over more recent years that at times certain "teachings" may be widespread in the church, forwarded by leaders, and believed to be doctrine by most members. Over time, these notions may disappear and later be seen as simply old "opinions" no longer discussed. I don't expect non-Mormons to be able to tell the difference between a belief that is widely held and taught by many Mormons vs an official doctrine. After all, in some cases, the most devout of Mormons may disagree on the subject. I don't know if I should accept recent DNA research and modify my view of "principal" or if I should doubt the research and continue to believe in "principal". I've seen LDS apologists take both approaches. I respect you, your knowledge, and your approach to defending the faith. I firmly believe in the Book of Mormon, that it is indeed from God and a powerful witness of the Savior.
 
Last edited:

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
I agree the Book of Mormon does not make the claim and there were never any "official" statements. However, as a young lad, if something was said in a Preface or Introduction to our Scriptures, I assumed it was approved by the highest levels of the church and authorized, and therefore believed. I therefore took it as doctrine. I'm not alone in that approach. I can't say for certain if an Apostle of today is more likely to believe that American Indians are "among", but not "principal" descendants, than would have believed an Apostle in 1940. But, I suspect that is the case. That's only a suspicion based on personal observation. I've come to the conclusion over more recent years that at times certain "teachings" may be wide spread in the church, forwarded by leaders, and believed to be doctrine by most members. Over time, these notions may disappear and later be seen as simply old "opinions" no longer discussed. I don't expect non-Mormons to be able to tell the difference between a belief that is widely held and taught by many Mormons vs an official doctrine. After all, in some cases, the most devout of Mormons may disagree on the subject. I don't know if I should accept recent DNA research and modify my view of "principal" or if I should doubt the research and continue to believe in "principal". I've seen LDS apologists take both approaches. I respect you, your knowledge, and your approach to defending the faith. I firmly believe in the Book of Mormon, that it is indeed from God and a powerful witness of the Savior.
You reply makes me glad and it was well spoken.

However, I still need to ask - Don't you think we should evaluate the true meaning of the original Introduction to the Book of Mormon by the actual definition of the word "principal" rather than what leaders and members of the Church inferred or assumed about its meaning?

Shouldn't the fact that the word "principal" does not mean "most" or "most of" help us determine the true interpretation of the original Introduction?
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
You reply makes me glad and it was well spoken.

However, I still need to ask - Don't you think we should evaluate the true meaning of the original Introduction to the Book of Mormon by the actual definition of the word "principal" rather than what leaders and members of the Church inferred or assumed about its meaning?

Shouldn't the fact that the word "principal" does not mean "most" or "most of" help us determine the true interpretation of the original Introduction?

Yes I agree. I would like to know who chose the word, who approved it, and what did they mean by the word. What the author(s) meant is more important than the actual definition, IMO. I don't know how we would determine this.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hey Scott.

You have reason to take this position because I grew up hearing those assumptions too.

However, there has never been an official statement made by the Brethren to confirm those assumptions and the Book of Mormon also does not make those claims.

Also when the actual definition of the word "principal" is applied, we realize that the original Introduction was also not making those claims.

I just don't feel that the assumptions made by members of the Church should be confused with the actual claims made by the Church and the Book of Mormon.
You're the only member I've I've met that believes this.
 
Top