Mormons and Native Americans DNA evidence

Any ideas on how Mormons will react to this?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/13/native.american.dna.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText
To sum up, DNA evidence indicates most Native Americans descend from 6 women who lived between 18K and 21K years ago.

ETA:
If there's another thread on this, sorry. Mods please feel free to go ahead with mergers and acquisitions to improve synergies and add value...

Well, this is really nothing new. Nearly all genetic and archaeological studies of North American peoples contradict Mormon teaching in some way, in that they all indicate the lack of a Hebrew population in the Americas.

How will they respond? By ignoring it, most likely.

Since Smith made it all up anyway, makes no difference.

Correa Neto said:

Any ideas on how Mormons will react to this?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/13/native.american.dna.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText
To sum up, DNA evidence indicates most Native Americans descend from 6 women who lived between 18K and 21K years ago.

ETA:
If there's another thread on this, sorry. Mods please feel free to go ahead with mergers and acquisitions to improve synergies and add value...

Click to expand...

They replied by altering the intro to their little blue book -

An introductory paragraph added to the Book of Mormon in the 1981 revision states in part: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." (see lds.org) That addition from 1981 was changed in a 2006 edition, that stated only that "the Lamanites...are among the ancestors of the American Indians." see here for more info.

I know this was discussed in another thread or two also.

Easily explained: When God made their skin red, he changed their DNA.

And destroyed all the archaeological evidence, of course. He was apparently very upset with them.

It is so clearly mad stuff but when has that ever been a disadvantage in religious circles?

This has been addressed here. "As far as I’m aware, there has never been a scientific DNA study done to test the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Reports claiming to use DNA to refute the Book of Mormon are based on studies never designed to answer the question of Book of Mormon historicity."

The introduction to the Book of Mormon mentioned above was written in 1981 for the purpose of giving the modern lay person some context into which the Book of Mormon fits. The word "principal" was determined to be overreaching and was written by the editors of that edition about 150 years after the Book of Mormon was first published. The Book of Mormon itself makes no such claims.

Dismissing something solely on the basis of it seeming unbelievable is arguing from personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

Asserting that "Smith made it up" isn't supported by facts and evidence. In fact, based on wordprinting studies at Berkeley, the Book of Mormon wasn't authored by Smith at all and the separate individuals who authored the book have been proven to be different people, not one author writing the whole thing, which matches what the book claims. There are many other studies that have been done on the content of the Book of Mormon, like finding chiasmus literary formations, for example.

rcronk said:

Asserting that "Smith made it up" isn't supported by facts and evidence. In fact, based on wordprinting studies at Berkeley, the Book of Mormon wasn't authored by Smith at all and the separate individuals who authored the book have been proven to be different people, not one author writing the whole thing, which matches what the book claims. There are many other studies that have been done on the content of the Book of Mormon, like finding chiasmus literary formations, for example.

Click to expand...

What are your feelings on the Strangite Book of the Law of the Lord? Specifically, does your denomination of Mormonism believe it to have been divinely inspired?

Well, I supposed that since this study narrows down the ancestry line, the question could be raised again, perhaps at a new thread.

Aniway, from what I understood, the origin of the ancestors of Native Americans is not the Middle East or Northeastern Africa. Thus a defense based on questioning the precision of the determination of modern Jewish DNA "fingerprints" is a bit weak. Ancient Jews' DNA signature quite possibly would be recognized as belonging to the Middle-East or Northeastern Africa. Since the evidence does not point towards Native Americans originating from these places... A better counter-argument is needed. Or just accepting the text, at least regarding this aspect is not supported by scientific data. Of course, ignoring the evidence is another possibility.

prewitt81 said:

What are your feelings on the Strangite Book of the Law of the Lord? Specifically, does your denomination of Mormonism believe it to have been divinely inspired?

Click to expand...

I seem to remember hearing the word "Strangite" before but I have never heard of that book. I have not seen any mention from the Mormon church of that book being accepted as being divinely inspired, etc. I left the Mormon church and came back several years later and went through its doctrines with a fine tooth comb and have never heard of that book. A search of "strangite" on the www.fairlds.org site returned no results either - of course that site is more of an apologetic site defending against fallacious anti-Mormon attacks, so I wouldn't expect there to be any information there unless some anti-Mormon group had used it for some reason. According to the Strangite wikipedia article, the Strangites have a worldwide membership of about 50-300 members and they split off a long time ago from the 13 million member Mormon church which may be why I've not heard much about them.

Correa Neto said:

Well, I supposed that since this study narrows down the ancestry line, the question could be raised again, perhaps at a new thread.

Aniway, from what I understood, the origin of the ancestors of Native Americans is not the Middle East or Northeastern Africa. Thus a defense based on questioning the precision of the determination of modern Jewish DNA "fingerprints" is a bit weak. Ancient Jews' DNA signature quite possibly would be recognized as belonging to the Middle-East or Northeastern Africa. Since the evidence does not point towards Native Americans originating from these places... A better counter-argument is needed. Or just accepting the text, at least regarding this aspect is not supported by scientific data. Of course, ignoring the evidence is another possibility.

Click to expand...

I'll ask the fairlds people if they've heard of this new study or not and see what impact, if any, it may have on their findings thus far.

rcronk, the site you link to regarding wordprint* includes this:

"Readers are cautioned that the results of wordprint analysis of the Book of Mormon are only as reliable as they would be for other written works, and that "the jury is still out" as to whether wordprints can actually do what their advocates hope. The statistical analyses are not generally disputed; the points of contention revolve around the assumptions which undergird the statistics."

As for the literary device of chiasmus: Don't you think it at least possible that J. Smith had read, or read at, the Old Testament? Can't you suppose that a man setting out to write his own bible might, intentionally or otherwise, be influenced by the only holy book his society possessed? Some critics have remarked (too sourly, in my opinion) that the B. of Mormon reads like nothing so much as a bad imitation of the King James Bible.

Other critics have observed that whoever wrote the B. of M. had read Spencer and Shakespear.

* I'd dearly love to see a wordrint analysis of my various posts to this forum. I affect a variety of styles and vocabularies just for fun. Would it turn out that I was several different guys? Could such an analysis be arranged?

Nogbad said:

It is so clearly mad stuff but when has that ever been a disadvantage in religious circles?

Click to expand...

Only insofar as it effectively disenfranchises all the smart people from the religion. That's apparently a problem with the Mormon church these days -- anti-intellectualism is causing a lot of valuable members of the church to be excommunicated.

sackett said:

rcronk, the site you link to regarding wordprint* includes this:

"Readers are cautioned that the results of wordprint analysis of the Book of Mormon are only as reliable as they would be for other written works, and that "the jury is still out" as to whether wordprints can actually do what their advocates hope. The statistical analyses are not generally disputed; the points of contention revolve around the assumptions which undergird the statistics."

As for the literary device of chiasmus: Don't you think it at least possible that J. Smith had read, or read at, the Old Testament? Can't you suppose that a man setting out to write his own bible might, intentionally or otherwise, be influenced by the only holy book his society possessed? Some critics have remarked (too sourly, in my opinion) that the B. of Mormon reads like nothing so much as a bad imitation of the King James Bible.

Other critics have observed that whoever wrote the B. of M. had read Spencer and Shakespear.

* I'd dearly love to see a wordrint analysis of my various posts to this forum. I affect a variety of styles and vocabularies just for fun. Would it turn out that I was several different guys? Could such an analysis be arranged?

Click to expand...

Thanks for actually visiting the links and reading them. Though I love JREF and have learned a lot here, I am tired of the bias based in ignorance of certain topics. And then once someone says something baseless in one of these biased subjects, nobody calls them on it. When theists come here and make baseless claims, everyone in the forum is down their throat calling them on it. Can we inject a little neutral bias please and call each other on our junk even if we don't agree with the topic? That would be refreshing. So my point is that there are studies, no science is perfect, but at least there are studies being done, can we look at those instead of just blabbering ignorant assertions and all nodding at them?

From my understanding, the wordprinting process isn't based on vocabulary as much as it is based on patterns and usage of the most common words in the language. They even studied wordprinting across translated works and found the wordprints to remain intact.

Sure, it's remotely possible that Joseph Smith knew of the little known idea of chaismus back in the 1820's. It's also remotely possible that WTC 7 was blown up by Larry Silverstein - but it's incredibly unlikely. I invite you and others to read and study the Book of Mormon and find out for yourself if someone of Smith's limited understanding could create such a work given the witnesses of the translation process and the wordprinting studies that compared people who might have been sources of the book at the time. I have read and studied every word of the Book of Mormon about 12 times, it's only similarity to the Bible is that it talks about Christ and Jews but the people are different, are in the Americas, and are having a completely different experience - except for a few chapters quoted from Isaiah that are documented as being Isaiah in the text of the Book of Mormon.

I really just wanted to add some facts, studies, information, and balance to a thread that was starting to become entirely bereft of these things.

aggle-rithm said:

Only insofar as it effectively disenfranchises all the smart people from the religion. That's apparently a problem with the Mormon church these days -- anti-intellectualism is causing a lot of valuable members of the church to be excommunicated.

Click to expand...

Only idiots use ad hominem attacks. Seriously though, if a theist said the same of atheists here, the whole forum would be on their back. But you'll get a pass here since you're just beating up theists with ad hominem attacks and arguments from personal incredulity. I guess I should just let your statement go, I'm just feeling a bit annoyed today. Maybe I need to go get something to eat. Or maybe I'm just a dumb Mormon.

rcronk said:

Thanks for actually visiting the links and reading them. Though I love JREF and have learned a lot here, I am tired of the bias based in ignorance of certain topics. And then once someone says something baseless in one of these biased subjects, nobody calls them on it. When theists come here and make baseless claims, everyone in the forum is down their throat calling them on it. Can we inject a little neutral bias please and call each other on our junk even if we don't agree with the topic? That would be refreshing. So my point is that there are studies, no science is perfect, but at least there are studies being done, can we look at those instead of just blabbering ignorant assertions and all nodding at them?

From my understanding, the wordprinting process isn't based on vocabulary as much as it is based on patterns and usage of the most common words in the language. They even studied wordprinting across translated works and found the wordprints to remain intact.

Sure, it's remotely possible that Joseph Smith knew of the little known idea of chaismus back in the 1820's. It's also remotely possible that WTC 7 was blown up by Larry Silverstein - but it's incredibly unlikely. I invite you and others to read and study the Book of Mormon and find out for yourself if someone of Smith's limited understanding could create such a work given the witnesses of the translation process and the wordprinting studies that compared people who might have been sources of the book at the time. I have read and studied every word of the Book of Mormon about 12 times, it's only similarity to the Bible is that it talks about Christ and Jews but the people are different, are in the Americas, and are having a completely different experience - except for a few chapters quoted from Isaiah that are documented as being Isaiah in the text of the Book of Mormon.

I really just wanted to add some facts, studies, information, and balance to a thread that was starting to become entirely bereft of these things.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence for the golden plates. There is no evidence golden plates of those dimensions could hold twice as much text as the Book of Mormon contains, and yet have characters discernable to the human eye. There is no evidence for seer stones. Smith's other attempts to translate ancient inscriptions were all failures. Smith's claims are genetically and archeologically highly improbable.

In spite of all these glaring inconsistences between reality and Mormonism, you cling to an unsubstantiated literary analysis technique and claim that it validates Mormonism?

rcronk said:

Thanks for actually visiting the links and reading them. Though I love JREF and have learned a lot here, I am tired of the bias based in ignorance of certain topics. And then once someone says something baseless in one of these biased subjects, nobody calls them on it. When theists come here and make baseless claims, everyone in the forum is down their throat calling them on it. Can we inject a little neutral bias please and call each other on our junk even if we don't agree with the topic? That would be refreshing. So my point is that there are studies, no science is perfect, but at least there are studies being done, can we look at those instead of just blabbering ignorant assertions and all nodding at them?

From my understanding, the wordprinting process isn't based on vocabulary as much as it is based on patterns and usage of the most common words in the language. They even studied wordprinting across translated works and found the wordprints to remain intact.

Sure, it's remotely possible that Joseph Smith knew of the little known idea of chaismus back in the 1820's. It's also remotely possible that WTC 7 was blown up by Larry Silverstein - but it's incredibly unlikely. I invite you and others to read and study the Book of Mormon and find out for yourself if someone of Smith's limited understanding could create such a work given the witnesses of the translation process and the wordprinting studies that compared people who might have been sources of the book at the time. I have read and studied every word of the Book of Mormon about 12 times, it's only similarity to the Bible is that it talks about Christ and Jews but the people are different, are in the Americas, and are having a completely different experience - except for a few chapters quoted from Isaiah that are documented as being Isaiah in the text of the Book of Mormon.

I really just wanted to add some facts, studies, information, and balance to a thread that was starting to become entirely bereft of these things.

Click to expand...

Apologies if I was a little rude - I have read chunks of the Book of Mormon (I have an oldish one with the pictures of people looking like Mighty Thor and with biceps the size of small cows). I thought it bizarre that it should sound like the KJV when that was a product very much of its time (early 17th century). I think best categorise me as a bit sceptical.

ImaginalDisc said:

There is no evidence for the golden plates. There is no evidence golden plates of those dimensions could hold twice as much text as the Book of Mormon contains, and yet have character discernable to the human eye. There is no evidence for seer stones. Smith's other attempts to translate ancient inscriptions were all failures. Smith's claims are genetically and archeologically highly improbable.

In spite of all these glaring inconsistences between reality and Mormonism, you cling to an unsubstantiated literary analysis technique and claim that it validates Mormonism?

Click to expand...

No evidence for the golden plates - true. There are 11 witnesses other than Joseph Smith, but that's just testimony, not evidence. Fair enough.

(Without going to look it up...) What are the dimensions of the plates, how many pages were there, what language were they written in, and how much English text would that translate into?

Fair enough on the seer stones, multiple witnesses, but no evidence.

I think you need to do some more research on the "other translations" of which you speak. If you're referring to the Book of Abraham, then you really need to do some research. You can start here. If you need more information beyond that, I can give you some more links.

Genetically are archeologically improbable? I refer you to the links I posted above for the genetic issues. For archaeological evidence, please look here as a starting point.

Nogbad said:

Apologies if I was a little rude - I have read chunks of the Book of Mormon (I have an oldish one with the pictures of people looking like Mighty Thor and with biceps the size of small cows). I thought it bizarre that it should sound like the KJV when that was a product very much of its time (early 17th century). I think best categorise me as a bit sceptical.

Click to expand...

Apology accepted. I also didn't like the paintings in the oldish versions - their heads were a bit too small for their bodies too. Older and newer versions than the ones of which you speak don't have paintings depicting the various stories and characters. The paintings were done by third parties and I think were probably put in there for missionaries to be able to show people a painting while they talked about a certain part of the book. I can live without them just fine. I do think some of the confusion deals with some of the "thee"'s and "thou"'s in it - I don't know why Smith decided to use that scriptural form of writing, but I think that may be why some compare it to the bible though the stories, time-lines, and locations are completely different. Well, it is a skeptic forum, right? I'm fine with skepticism, but not fallacious argument from ignorance, which sometimes creeps up on both sides of the discussion.

rconck, I didn't mean that J. Smith, with what you correctly call his limited understanding, might know a five-dollar word like "chiasmus." I measnt simply that that stylistic device (used badly, it makes great stretches of both the Old Testament and the B. of M. a trial to read) would be easy to imitate, even while dictating into your hat behind a curtain, as a pack of poor yokels scratches away to take your words down. Though I have but little reading in the Testaments, my tongue can even essay their manner, and my hand can flex herself upon the keys, save only if the wind bear it away. Selah.

You must pardon me for saying that you aren't really bringing any "facts, studies, information, and balance" to this thread. Facts? I think you mean unsupported assertions. Studies? Do you mean that naive-sounding stuff with wordprint? Information? See above re facts. Balance? Pardon me again: Any point of view that asserts the validity of J. Smith's cornball cult is unbalanced, and deserving of our pity and compassion.

Yes: Pity and compassion. In another thread, I contended that there isn't really much genuine anti-Mormonism in the world. Despairing exasperation? Plenty of that; but not for yours truly, because I believe* that patient debunking will eventually make the LDS wither away. This thread is about facts -- facts, not bald assertions -- that demolish Smith's unoriginal linking of American Indians with Biblical tribes.

I wonder: Have you read Nobody Knows My History by Fawn Brodie? It's a biography of Smith written by someone who, like you, was brought up LDS, but then turned real scholarship on the prophet. I dare ya to dismiss it!

* See? I'm not afraid to believe something. Hey, even an atheist needs faith.

rcronk said:

I seem to remember hearing the word "Strangite" before but I have never heard of that book. I have not seen any mention from the Mormon church of that book being accepted as being divinely inspired, etc. I left the Mormon church and came back several years later and went through its doctrines with a fine tooth comb and have never heard of that book. A search of "strangite" on the www.fairlds.org site returned no results either - of course that site is more of an apologetic site defending against fallacious anti-Mormon attacks, so I wouldn't expect there to be any information there unless some anti-Mormon group had used it for some reason. According to the Strangite wikipedia article, the Strangites have a worldwide membership of about 50-300 members and they split off a long time ago from the 13 million member Mormon church which may be why I've not heard much about them.

Click to expand...

The reason I ask, is that the Strangites also give examples of chiasmus in the Book of the Law of the Lord. Does this indicate to you that it may be divinely inspired? Why or why not?

ETA: Source

rcronk said:

No evidence for the golden plates - true. There are 11 witnesses other than Joseph Smith, but that's just testimony, not evidence. Fair enough.

Click to expand...

Testimony is worse than worthless. It has the effect of convincing someone something is true, especially in the case of something as miraculously improbable as magical golden plates buried by pre-Columbian Hebrew Indians, when evidence is utterly absent. It is facts which should concern a sober minded person, not heartfelt statements.

What are the dimensions of the plates, how many pages were there, what language were they written in, and how much English text would that translate into?

Click to expand...

According to Martin Harris, these were the dimensions of the plates.

were seven inches [18 cm] wide by eight inches [20 cm] in length, and were of the thickness of plates of tin; and when piled one above the other, they were altogether about four inches [10 cm] thick; and they were put together on the back by three silver rings, so that they would open like a book"

Click to expand...

I happen to own a copy of the book of Mormon that's about six inches along the spine, two inches thick, and three and half or so inches wide. It contains roughly six hundred pages of dense text on paper thinner than Joseph* Smith's honesty. The claim of John Smith is that not only did these plates contain all that information, but that they contained it all twice.

Fair enough on the seer stones, multiple witnesses, but no evidence.

Click to expand...

You're forgetting that they magically translated "reformed Egyptian" which contains characters from languages that date well after the alleged pilgrimage to the new world, and which has never been seen anywhere else by anyone.

I think you need to do some more research on the "other translations" of which you speak. If you're referring to the Book of Abraham, then you really need to do some research. You can start here. If you need more information beyond that, I can give you some more links.

Click to expand...

I refer specifically to the Kinderhook Plates, which in failing to translate at all, Joseph* Smith demonstrated that he was a charlatan.

You see, real biblical scholars and real linguists and real archaeologists demonstrate the accuracy of their translations by translating other documents of the same language, letting other scholars examine their work, and are validated in the crucible of peer review. Mountebanks make wild claims about magic plates and magic translations with magical seer stones and then are unable to produce the originals they translated from and are unable to translate independently verifiable documents even when they boldly claim that they can.

As for your Books of Abraham, the original texts were rediscovered in 1966 and are funerary texts. They do not contain the information Joseph* Smith claims they did. Joseph* Smith lied about that document, too.

Genetically are archaeologically improbable? I refer you to the links I posted above for the genetic issues. For archaeological evidence, please look here as a starting point.

Click to expand...

There is not a shred of archaeological evidence that Hebrews dwelled in North America in Pre-Columbian times.

There is not a single elephant bone, donkey tooth, tarnished coin, rent scrap of sailcloth, fragment of steel, or even a cart wheel* in any archaeological site anywhere in on either the North of South American continents in Pre-Columbian times, and yet the Book of Mormon claims that not only did these artifacts exist, they were in wide use by civilizations capable of fielding armies of tens of thousands. Ether 5:2 claims there were millions of Nephites, and yet this vast population has left no archaeological traces - not even the tens of thousands of corpses from the epic battles described.

*"Wheel" changed to "cart wheel." Thanks for catching that, Cleon.

*Joseph Smith, not John Smith. I make that mistake all the time.

rcronk said:

This has been addressed here. "As far as I’m aware, there has never been a scientific DNA study done to test the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Reports claiming to use DNA to refute the Book of Mormon are based on studies never designed to answer the question of Book of Mormon historicity."

Click to expand...

They don't need to be designed to question the Book of Mormon's authenticity to disprove it. If the genetic studies show that the Native Americans are, in fact, descended from peoples of northeastern Asia (as they do), dating to before the Hebrews even existed (as they do), then it doesn't matter if the purpose is to discern who's a Lamanite and who isn't.

If an archaeological study shows no presence whatsoever of any Hebrew cultural or material contact, then it doesn't matter if the study was aimed specifically at the Book of Mormon or analyzing the daily life of the residents of Teotihuacan. And if none of the archaeological studies of North American peoples show any signs of cultural, material, or communicative contact with Hebrew peoples, it's not going too far out on a limb to say that in all likelihood, there were no Hebrew peoples present in the Americas.

Dismissing something solely on the basis of it seeming unbelievable is arguing from personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, I don't do that. I dismiss the claims based on the fact that the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

sackett said:

rconck, I didn't mean that J. Smith, with what you correctly call his limited understanding, might know a five-dollar word like "chaismus." I measnt simply that that stylistic device (used badly, it makes great stretches of both the Old Testament and the B. of M. a trial to read) would be easy to imitate, even while dictating into your hat behind a curtain, as a pack of poor yokels scratches away to take your words down. Though I have but little reading in the Testaments, my tongue can even essay their manner, and my hand can flex herself upon the keys, save only if the wind bear it away. Selah.

You must pardon me for saying that you aren't really bringing any "facts, studies, information, and balance" to this thread. Facts? I think you mean unsupported assertions. Studies? Do you mean that naive-sounding stuff with wordprint? Information? See above re facts. Balance? Pardon me again: Any point of view that asserts the validity of J. Smith's cornball cult is unbalanced, and deserving of our pity and compassion.

Yes: Pity and compassion. In another thread, I contended that there isn't really much genuine anti-Mormonism in the world. Despairing exasperation? Plenty of that; but not for yours truly, because I believe* that patient debunking will eventually make the LDS wither away. This thread is about facts -- facts, not bald assertions -- that demolish Smith's unoriginal linking of American Indians with Biblical tribes.

I wonder: Have you read Nobody Knows My History by Fawn Brodie? It's a biography of Smith written by someone who, like you, was brought up LDS, but then turned real scholarship on the prophet. I dare ya to dismiss it!

* See? I'm not afraid to believe something. Hey, even an atheist needs faith.

Click to expand...

Right, if we dismiss the wordprinting, perhaps Joseph Smith could have accidentally faked multi-chapter chiasmus but it doesn't seem likely to me after having studied it for years. Poor yokels? Drop the ad hominem please. You can call things you don't believe "cornball" but that's not an argument. You're not a Mormon and haven't seen the fallacious anti-Mormon materials I have seen and seen debunked so I don't understand why you would speak as if you know these things. The anti-Mormon material I have seen is not truth seekers debunking Mormons, it's usually other religious groups trying to save the Mormons from hell at any cost, even at the cost of lies. Please read some of the articles I have linked to.

I have not read "Nobody Knows My History" but I did find some detailed reviews of it. I have talked to, read about, and know people who have left the Mormon church and the ones I have talked to seem to become quite disgruntled for a variety of reasons, many times from personal offense or from not wanting to follow the teachings of Christ and that's fine, but they seem to need to defend their choice and in doing so, they resort to all kinds of logically fallacious arguments. It sounds, based on the reviews I've read that this could be the case with the author of this book, but not having read it, I don't know for sure.

I'm OK with people not believing that it's true or even arguing against it, just do it without ad hominem, argument from personal incredulity, association fallacy, and plain ignorance of the subject matter. Is that too much to ask?

I'm also glad you acknowledge your own faith.

prewitt81 said:

The reason I ask, is that the Strangites also give examples of chiasmus in the Book of the Law of the Lord. Does this indicate to you that it may be divinely inspired? Why or why not?

ETA: Source

Click to expand...

It could be. I haven't read it. Do you know where I can get a copy?

ImaginalDisc said:

There is not a shred of archeological evidence that Hebrews dwelled in North America in Pre-Columbian times.

There is not a single elephant bone, donkey tooth, tarnished coin, rent scrap of sailcloth, fragment of steel, or even a wheel in any archeological site anywhere in on either the North of South American continents in Pre-Columbian times, and yet the Book of Mormon claims that not only did these artifacts exist, they were in wide use by civilizations capable of fielding armies of tens of thousands. Ether 5:2 claims there were millions of Nephites, and yet this vast population has left no archeological traces - not even the tens of thousands of corpses from the epic battles described.

Click to expand...

The only nit I would pick is about the wheel; primitive wheels have been discovered in the Americas, chiefly from the Olmecs (IIRC); they had wheel-like gizmos on children's toys.

More to the point, though, all the above not only means there's "not a shred of evidence," but more that the evidence is against a civilization such as the Nephites or Lamanites. People don't just go to a place and hang out; they trade, they move around, they intermarry with the locals, and breed.

If an as-yet undiscovered Hebrew civilization of that size existed in the Americas, we would (not "could," not "might", but would) see evidence of Hebrew influence or artifacts in sites that we have discovered. We would see some sign of haplotypes originating from the Levant among the Native American population.

Instead, we see none of this. This indicates that if there was an as-yet undiscovered Hebrew population in the Americas, it was small, didn't influence its neighbors or environment in the slightest, and died out without leaving a trace of its existence. Which is completely at odds with the descriptions in the Book of Mormon.

Cleon said:

The only nit I would pick is about the wheel; primitive wheels have been discovered in the Americas, chiefly from the Olmecs (IIRC); they had wheel-like gizmos on children's toys.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I should have been more clear. Almost every society with thread has wheels, in the form of drop spindles. What I should have said was "cart wheels."

rcronk said:

...I have not read "Nobody Knows My History" ....

Click to expand...

Figured that.

I can't keep up with everyone's posts at this point especially since a lot of what is being said in the last few posts is addressed in the links I posted. By the time I write a 10-item reply, I have another 15 (already covered) items to cover. Please go actually read the information at those links if you really want to know more about your concerns. If you're really interested in knowing more or understanding more about a particular topic, PM me and I'll be glad to take things one item at a time with you.

sackett said:

Figured that.

Click to expand...

I've read lots of ex-mormon and anti-mormon literature and stories, etc. From the reviews of this book, it sounds just like the other stories I've read. If you really think it's different and can find a free copy of it, I'll consider reading it.

rcronk said:

I can't keep up with everyone's posts at this point especially since a lot of what is being said in the last few posts is addressed in the links I posted. By the time I write a 10-item reply, I have another 15 (already covered) items to cover. Please go actually read the information at those links if you really want to know more about your concerns. If you're really interested in knowing more or understanding more about a particular topic, PM me and I'll be glad to take things one item at a time with you.

Click to expand...

I have a degree in anthropology, specializing in North American archaeology and bioanthropology, which included participating in the research of Native American population genetics.

To suggest that I need to PM you to become more informed about the subject requires a considerable amount of chutzpah.

Just one other item, since I already have the link. For more detail and more sources of the size and shape and thickness of the pages of the plates, see here. For information about other metal plates with writings on them that have been found see here. For information about "reformed egyptian" and where else it has been found from the same era see here.

rcronk said:

Just one other item, since I already have the link. For more detail and more sources of the size and shape and thickness of the pages of the plates, see here. For information about other metal plates with writings on them that have been found see here. For information about "reformed egyptian" and where else it has been found from the same era see here.

Click to expand...

Feel free to try to find information about anything Joseph* Smith accurately translated.

*Joseph, not John, again.

Cleon said:

I have a degree in anthropology, specializing in North American archaeology and bioanthropology, which included participating in the research of Native American population genetics.

To suggest that I need to PM you to become more informed about the subject requires a considerable amount of chutzpah.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't remember personally telling you to come to me to learn more about the subject of all of your degrees. Is that a reverse ad hominem strawman combination you just pulled?

I'm not pretending to teach anyone anything. I am willing to discuss things and talk about what I've found and what others have found, that's all. Many of the comments I have seen have shown a good amount of ignorance of various subjects and this after I posted links that could have filled in the missing parts, that's all. I just don't want to waste my time with anyone who really only wants to beat up a Mormon and isn't interested in looking into what I'm posting. And my fingers are getting tired.

Can I ask a question of rcronk?

Can you point me to something in the BoM that was not known at the time it was translated but has been later confirmed by scientific evidence?

Thank you.

Gord_in_Toronto said:

Can I ask a question of rcronk?

Can you point me to something in the BoM that was not known at the time it was translated but has been later confirmed by scientific evidence?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

One thing would be that "Reformed Egyptian" was used by people during the same era of the people in the Book of Mormon. See above links.

P.S. That was two questions.

rcronk said:

Hmm, I don't remember personally telling you to come to me to learn more about the subject of all of your degrees.

Click to expand...

I only have the one.

And it was an open invitation, and seeing as how the discussion has largely been about the lack of genetic or archaeological evidence for the claims of the Book of Mormon, if you didn't direct it at me, you probably should have been more specific.

Is that a reverse ad hominem strawman combination you just pulled?

Click to expand...

No.

I'm not pretending to teach anyone anything. I am willing to discuss things and talk about what I've found and what others have found, that's all. Many of the comments I have seen have shown a good amount of ignorance of various subjects

Click to expand...

From what I've seen, "ignorance of various subjects" is just your way of saying "I don't agree with you."

that's all. I just don't want to waste my time with anyone who really only wants to beat up a Mormon

Click to expand...

The martyr routine? Lame.

I have no interest in "beating up a Mormon" or anybody else for that matter. My only interest is the science - which, at this point, seems to indicate that the Book of Mormon is far from reliable.

rcronk said:

I can't keep up with everyone's posts at this point especially since a lot of what is being said in the last few posts is addressed in the links I posted. By the time I write a 10-item reply, I have another 15 (already covered) items to cover.

Click to expand...

That's something I've noticed in other discussions on this subject, that I've had in other forums. It is very, very, very easy to go out on the Internet and find all sorts of anti-LDS materials to cite. The vast majority of such material is very easy to refute, but doing so takes considerably more time and effort than it takes to find that material in the first place. It is therefore impossible to “win” such a discussion by refuting all the arguments from the other side, because it's simply not possible to keep up with all of them. It's similarly very easy for the other side to “win” any such debate simply by overwhelming our side with misinformation much faster than we can respond to it.

Cleon said:

I only have the one.

And it was an open invitation, and seeing as how the discussion has largely been about the lack of genetic or archaeological evidence for the claims of the Book of Mormon, if you didn't direct it at me, you probably should have been more specific.

No.

From what I've seen, "ignorance of various subjects" is just your way of saying "I don't agree with you."

The martyr routine? Lame.

I have no interest in "beating up a Mormon" or anybody else for that matter. My only interest is the science - which, at this point, seems to indicate that the Book of Mormon is far from reliable.

Click to expand...

One degree, fair enough. I should have been more specific, fair enough. I disagree on your "no". No, ignorance means a lack of knowledge - knowledge that was just a click away. I'm not trying to be a martyr and I'm not directing that at you so I should have been more clear, fair enough.

rcronk said:

I'm not pretending to teach anyone anything. I am willing to discuss things and talk about what I've found and what others have found, that's all. Many of the comments I have seen have shown a good amount of ignorance of various subjects and this after I posted links that could have filled in the missing parts, that's all. I just don't want to waste my time with anyone who really only wants to beat up a Mormon and isn't interested in looking into what I'm posting. And my fingers are getting tired.

Click to expand...

I'm always happy to learn. So far what I have learned of Mormonism is that the church is ignorant of the density of gold, Joseph* Smith's mysterious translation ability's transient nature, and the entirety of genetics and archeology.

Joseph, not John. I obviously should get more sleep.

Bob Blaylock said:

That's something I've noticed in other discussions on this subject, that I've had in other forums. It is very, very, very easy to go out on the Internet and find all sorts of anti-LDS materials to cite. The vast majority of such material is very easy to refute, but doing so takes considerably more time and effort than it takes to find that material in the first place. It is therefore impossible to “win” such a discussion by refuting all the arguments from the other side, because it's simply not possible to keep up with all of them. It's similarly very easy for the other side to “win” any such debate simply by overwhelming our side with misinformation much faster than we can respond to it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for understanding.