Mormons and Native Americans DNA evidence

[Correa Neto]

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...

[Cleon]

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.

[fuelair]

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

[This Guy]

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...

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon) for more info.

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

[aggle-rithm]

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.

[Nogbad]

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

[rcronk]

This has been addressed here (http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html). "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 (http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_wordprint_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 (http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml) literary formations, for example.

[prewitt81]

Asserting that "Smith made it up" isn't supported by facts and evidence. In fact, based on wordprinting studies (http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_wordprint_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 (http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml) literary formations, for example.

What are your feelings on the Strangite Book of the Law of the Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Law_of_the_Lord)? Specifically, does your denomination of Mormonism believe it to have been divinely inspired?

[Correa Neto]

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.

[rcronk]

What are your feelings on the Strangite Book of the Law of the Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Law_of_the_Lord)? Specifically, does your denomination of Mormonism believe it to have been divinely inspired?

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 (http://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.

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.

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.

[sackett]

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?

[aggle-rithm]

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

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.

[rcronk]

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?

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.

[rcronk]

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.

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. ;)

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

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?

[Nogbad]

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.

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.

[rcronk]

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?

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 (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_ABCs_of_the_Book_of_Abraham.html). 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 (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml) as a starting point.

[rcronk]

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.

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.

[sackett]

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.

[prewitt81]

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 (http://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.

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 (http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm)

[ImaginalDisc]

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

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?

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"

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.

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 (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_ABCs_of_the_Book_of_Abraham.html). If you need more information beyond that, I can give you some more links.

I refer specifically to the Kinderhook Plates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml) as a starting point.

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.

[Cleon]

This has been addressed here (http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html). "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."

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.

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

[rcronk]

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.

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 (http://www.lightplanet.com/response/noman.htm) reviews (http://www.lightplanet.com/response/nomaam.htm) 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.

[rcronk]

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 (http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm)

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

[Cleon]

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.

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.

[ImaginalDisc]

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.


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."

[sackett]

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

Figured that.

[rcronk]

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.

[rcronk]

Figured that.

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.

[Cleon]

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.

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.

[rcronk]

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 (http://www.farmsresearch.com/display.php?table=jbms&id=235). For information about other metal plates with writings on them that have been found see here (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1979.htm/ensign%20october%201979%20.htm/ancient%20writing%20on%20metal%20plates.htm?fn=doc ument-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0). For information about "reformed egyptian" and where else it has been found from the same era see here (http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Reformed_Egyptian).

[ImaginalDisc]

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 (http://www.farmsresearch.com/display.php?table=jbms&id=235). For information about other metal plates with writings on them that have been found see here (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1979.htm/ensign%20october%201979%20.htm/ancient%20writing%20on%20metal%20plates.htm?fn=doc ument-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0). For information about "reformed egyptian" and where else it has been found from the same era see here (http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Reformed_Egyptian).

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

*Joseph, not John, again.

[rcronk]

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.

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.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.

[rcronk]

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.

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. ;)

[Cleon]

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

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?

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

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

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.

[Bob Blaylock]

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.


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.

[rcronk]

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.

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.

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

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.

[rcronk]

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.

Thank you for understanding.

[Bob Blaylock]

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


If you were able to get the name right of the person that you were referencing, it would greatly improve your hope of having any credibility on this topic. That you think his name was “John” seems to indicate that you haven't paid attention even to what small amounts of information or misinformation you've received. Anyone who'd paid even the slightest bit of attention to LDS history would know what the man's first name was, and it wasn't “John”.

[ImaginalDisc]

If you were able to get the name right of the person that you were referencing, it would greatly improve your hope of having any credibility on this topic. That you think his name was “John” seems to indicate that you haven't paid attention even to what small amounts of information or misinformation you've received. Anyone who'd paid even the slightest bit of attention to LDS history would know what the man's first name was, and it wasn't “John”.

That you for catching that. I make that particular mistake all the time.

However, if you're done being a pedant, you might try to address the meat of my posts.

See, when you pointed out my mistake, I checked it, and corrected it. Honest people do that.

[rcronk]

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, John Smith's mysterious translation ability's transient nature, and the entirety of genetics and archeology.

You assert that the plates were made of pure gold by your above comment. If I haven't already posted this article (http://www.mormonfortress.com/gweight3.html) about the likely composition and density of the plates based on other plates found in South America, there you have it. It's "Joseph" not John, Pocahontas. ;) (ETA:dang, too late) And you apparently haven't been reading the articles I have linked to. This is one reason I don't want to waste time doing this much longer, ya know?

[ImaginalDisc]

You assert that the plates were made of pure gold by your above comment. If I haven't already posted this article (http://www.mormonfortress.com/gweight3.html) about the likely composition and density of the plates based on other plates found in South America, there you have it. It's "Joseph" not John, Pocahontas. ;) (ETA:dang, too late) And you apparently haven't been reading the articles I have linked to. This is one reason I don't want to waste time doing this much longer, ya know?

I read those articles long before you posted, having discussed Mormon lies before with previous posters, but out of courtesy I read them again when you posted them. They make counter factual claims unsupported by independent scholars or physics.

Yes, I made the John mistake then too. I often do, especially when having the same conversation a dozen times over.

[rcronk]

I read those articles long before you posted, but out of courtesy I read them again when you posted them. They make counter factual claims unsupported by independent scholars or physics.

Hey! What about the gold weight issue you brought up and I corrected (and my clever use of the word Pocahontas)? Honest people correct their mistakes, right? ;)

[ImaginalDisc]

Hey! What about the gold weight issue you brought up and I corrected (and my clever use of the word Pocahontas)? Honest people correct their mistakes, right? ;)

No, this is untrue. The volume of the gold plates and the weight of the gold plates as stated by the witnesses are irreconcilable. Gold's density is such that plates of those dimensions would have weighed one hundred and forty pounds, not sixty. If they were made of some alloy of gold and copper, they would none the less have insufficient space for the entire contents of the Book of Mormon twice.

[rcronk]

No, this is untrue. The volume of the gold plates and the weight of the gold plates as stated by the witnesses are irreconcilable. Gold's density is such that plates of those dimensions would have weighed one hundred and forty pounds, not sixty. If they were made of some alloy of gold and copper, they would none the less have insufficient space for the entire contents of the Book of Mormon twice.

They likely had a similar composition to other similarly described plates found in South America. So you were incorrect in stating that you have learned that the "church is ignorant of the density of gold."

You still haven't told me about how many pages were in the plates and how much English text each page would translate into. Please provide your calculations. (ETA:I'm going to lunch, so type slowly. :))

[Cleon]

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.

I actually couldn't name an anti-LDS web site without googling. Never been to one, not particularly interested.

LDS is not part of my personal experience, pro- or anti-. There weren't any Mormons where I grew up, and being Jewish, my family didn't really have any opinion about LDS beyond it just being another form of Christianity.

This past summer, when Warren Jeffs was in the news, I realized that I didn't know much about Mormonism. I knew LDS used to practice polygamy, and that some fundamentalists still do, but that was it. There was no good reason for me not to educate myself on the subject, so I took the time to actually read the Book of Mormon--and given my education, I found quite a bit of it simply did not jive with what the archaeological and biological evidence points to.

My interest is only in the science. I really have no beef with LDS or any special desire to "debunk" the Mormon religion.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

I wonder how many of you trying to point out the fantasy beliefs of others actually believe in some other fictional writings instead?

Is it really easier to be tricked into believing fiction that tries to pretend it’s real than believing in fiction that doesn’t? (Sticking to a diseased leaf on one branch of a huge healthy tree?)

Is it easier to be tricked with written word than spoken? [Audio (radio) and video (tv, movies) have been available for many years now, and I don’t see any religions based on them (save maybe Space Trek Wars), though in that same period there have been new people tricked by writing (scientology).]

[Cleon]

I wonder how many of you trying to point out the fantasy beliefs of others actually believe in some other fictional writings instead?

Such as?


Is it really easier to be tricked into believing fiction that tries to pretend it’s real than believing in fiction that doesn’t? (Sticking to a diseased leaf on one branch of a huge healthy tree?)

Probably. How many people believed "A Million Little Pieces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Little_Pieces)" was real? Is that comparable to the people who think the Star Wars movies really happened long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away?

[prewitt81]

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

Here (http://members.aol.com/strang7222/01.htm) is an online copy.

[ImaginalDisc]

You still haven't told me about how many pages were in the plates and how much English text each page would translate into. Please provide your calculations. (ETA:I'm going to lunch, so type slowly. :))

John Smith never said how many pages there were, but if you're going to attempt to say that they are similar to metal plates found afterwards, none of them approach the thinness of a sheaf of paper.

[Cleon]

John Smith never said how many pages there were...

JOSEPH!

:D:p

[ImaginalDisc]

JOSEPH!

:D:p



:boxedin:


I'm going to go home and make some coffee.


Mmmmm, delicious forbidden coffee.

[rcronk]

Here (http://members.aol.com/strang7222/01.htm) is an online copy.

Thanks! I'll check it out and see if the LDS church has any opinions on it.

John Smith never said how many pages there were, but if you're going to attempt to say that they are similar to metal plates found afterwards, none of them approach the thinness of a sheaf of paper.

The descriptions of their thinness vary a bit. I guess my point is that I would like you to come up with something to back up your assertion that "it just couldn't fit."

JOSEPH!

:D:p


Indeed. :)

:boxedin: I'm going to go home and make some coffee. Mmmmm, delicious forbidden coffee.

Hey, drink some for me, m'kay, Pocahontas? :) Maybe you could call him "Joe" or something. That's even shorter to type.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Such as?

Clearly if something is made up, it's fiction, why would a label be required?

Is being told something wasn't made up a reason to believe it wasn't?

Only from a perspective where information isn't available to you would something that is real require faith.

From outside time, faith is never real, since the point where you gain information to change it from faith to real can only happen in a timeline perspective.

Basically, you're arguing about whether information is currently available to you to classify fiction as fiction.

It seems trying to do so in cases where the fiction claims to be real is as pointless as doing so in cases where the fiction doesn't make such claims.

How about sticking to history and science backed up by hard facts, though thanks to time/light cones (many dishonest authors are definitely thankful), verifiable history is a tad tricky.

[Cleon]

Clearly if something is made up, it's fiction, why would a label be required?

You asked "I wonder how many of you trying to point out the fantasy beliefs of others actually believe in some other fictional writings instead?"

By asking "such as?" I'm looking for examples of fictional writings that you think people here might believe in.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Still?

[Cleon]

Still?

Would you prefer a more generalized request for clarification? If so, I will gladly supply it:

What the hell are you going on about?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Well, I guess then I’m wondering why you still think it matters which piece of writing is specifically discussed.

[Cleon]

Well, I guess then I’m wondering why you still think it matters which piece of writing is specifically discussed.

Well, it would given an indication as to what, exactly, your point is. 'Cause I'm still rather fuzzy on that score.

[m_huber]

Interestingly, it was a pair of Mormons who started my journey to atheism. I knew that they thought they had God (which seemed unlikely, given the source) and I thought I had God (which came from an older, but similar source), and it made the wheels turn. Took a couple of years to take effect, but that was the start.

[Vic Vega]

Wait... Are these trick questions?

You asked:

I wonder how many of you trying to point out the fantasy beliefs of others actually believe in some other fictional writings instead?

If we believe they are real and not fiction, then how can we possibly answer this question without you giving examples? Give some examples and we will tell you if we believe they are fact. You can then refute at will. Sound good?

[articulett]

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.


Fredcarr, our forum Scientologist says the same thing... only it's regarding a different cult... in fact all the woos think we are anti (insert their woo). Imagine that! I think it's a good sign that we treat all varieties of woo equally. If the only way you can know if something is true is by having faith-- it probably isn't. That is a lesson that has served this skeptic well.

You should read Navigator, our new age skeptic and tell us why we should take you more seriously than him. You seem to think your opinions and sources are so very reliable... but I can't tell them from all the other beliefs people come here to supposedly "discuss".

Maybe, just maybe, you guys are the biased ones, and not those mean old skeptics. Do you have ANY valid facts to support your assertion. Not the spin. We can read all about how Scientology has saved people from drugs and are experts in the mind and are responsible for Tom Cruise's success... we can read all about how speaking in tongues is the real sign from god or the burning in the bosom and magical plates of gold... but what distinguishes you heartfelt beliefs from myth? Why should we care? Why should we be open to your belief system when you are very far from being open to the possibility that you have come to believe something that isn't true? Why would you think faith and "praying to know if something is true" is actually a method to find out anything objectively true?!??

And truth shouldn't need to be debated. There's just one reality--it's not "win" or "lose"-- we can help each other understand it or not. And if your invisible friend exists, he is perfectly capable of defending himself without your input.

[articulett]

If you were able to get the name right of the person that you were referencing, it would greatly improve your hope of having any credibility on this topic. That you think his name was “John” seems to indicate that you haven't paid attention even to what small amounts of information or misinformation you've received. Anyone who'd paid even the slightest bit of attention to LDS history would know what the man's first name was, and it wasn't “John”.

And if there were actual gold plates or any bit of real scientific evidence to go along with any of your arrogance and claims about your having stumbled upon or been born into the right and truly true unprovable magical truth, then it would greatly improve your hope of having any credibility on a skeptics forum.

Truth is usually something that is equally available for all. Scientific facts, especially so. We don't have to have faith for airplanes to fly, now do we? And no magic man told anyone about DNA, now did he? And all known forms of consciousness are the result of physical brain processes as far as we know, aren't they? There is no measurable evidence that any kind of consciousness-- not gods, souls, demons, angels nor thetans --can exist without a material brain being involved.

Your story is ridiculous, and it's insulting to expect skeptics to respect just because you have been brainwashed into thinking that you have some "higher truth". Prove it or hang out with similarly deluded folks who would rather share your delusion than find out the facts that are the same for everyone! Quit insulting people who might actually teach you something. If you were wrong about your faith, would you even want to know? Or waste your life on a delusion that makes you feel special and "chosen" and holier-than-thou?

OH--and just because "Joseph" is a magical prophet to you, doesn't mean that he's not just another "John" (or Mahareshi or Mohummed or L. Ron) to us.

[articulett]

Interestingly, it was a pair of Mormons who started my journey to atheism. I knew that they thought they had God (which seemed unlikely, given the source) and I thought I had God (which came from an older, but similar source), and it made the wheels turn. Took a couple of years to take effect, but that was the start.

Me too... their "read-it-and-pray-to-know-if-it's-true" thing sounded like a scheme I'd heard from other religions. I was raised Catholic and my best friend was Mormon... I realized it didn't bode well that my eternity rested on some infallible guy once I found out there were lots of "infallible guys" and no scientific tests to tell the real ones from the "false prophets". Every guy thought they knew the real ones (or were the real ones) as far as I could tell, and most women seemed afraid to consider they might be wrong.

I couldn't make sense of any of it. The most religious guys all seemed like pretty sexist prigs to me-- I didn't want anything to do with an entity who wanted me to worship him --one who chose such obnoxious spokesmen... --and who didn't have the veracity to even be visible!

My female Mormon friends have all gone through extreme depressions in their adulthood after bearing more children than they should have.

I think it's wrong to tell innocent trusting kids that there are "higher truths" they can access via faith or that they can be punished for not having enought "faith".

[Nogbad]

So why did this John Smith character call himself Joseph?


http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/smilies/whistling.gif

[articulett]

Shame on you... you are not showing proper respect for the really true woo! Now our garment clad members are going to be tsk tsking you for being "anti-mormon".

[Nogbad]

Alas, I can resist everything except temptation.

[Senex]

learn (http://www.i4m.com/think/southpark/) and laugh (http://southpark.comedycentral.com/video_by_episode.jhtml?episodeId=103933)

[m_huber]

learn (http://www.i4m.com/think/southpark/) and laugh (http://southpark.comedycentral.com/video_by_episode.jhtml?episodeId=103933)

That makes my night.

[godless dave]

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.

And there's no such language as "reformed Egyptian".

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Fredcarr, our forum Scientologist says the same thing... only it's regarding a different cult... in fact all the woos think we are anti (insert their woo). Imagine that! I think it's a good sign that we treat all varieties of woo equally. If the only way you can know if something is true is by having faith-- it probably isn't. That is a lesson that has served this skeptic well.

You should read Navigator, our new age skeptic and tell us why we should take you more seriously than him. You seem to think your opinions and sources are so very reliable... but I can't tell them from all the other beliefs people come here to supposedly "discuss".

Maybe, just maybe, you guys are the biased ones, and not those mean old skeptics. Do you have ANY valid facts to support your assertion. Not the spin. We can read all about how Scientology has saved people from drugs and are experts in the mind and are responsible for Tom Cruise's success... we can read all about how speaking in tongues is the real sign from god or the burning in the bosom and magical plates of gold... but what distinguishes you heartfelt beliefs from myth? Why should we care? Why should we be open to your belief system when you are very far from being open to the possibility that you have come to believe something that isn't true? Why would you think faith and "praying to know if something is true" is actually a method to find out anything objectively true?!??

And truth shouldn't need to be debated. There's just one reality--it's not "win" or "lose"-- we can help each other understand it or not. And if your invisible friend exists, he is perfectly capable of defending himself without your input.

Oh noes!! It seems we need a thread in which someone proves that their own curious beliefs are true and all the others are false. :D

Oh. Wait we've tried that and never got an answer. :mad:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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. ;)
OK. I went to one of the links you have given and checked out "Reformed Egyptian".
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#egyptian

I gather that this term is used by linguists to refer to later varients on "un"reformed Egyptian. However, no where does it actually compare samples of the symbols on the Gold Plates to the symbols of this (or any) form of Egyptian.

Do you have an example of something that is verifiable? (This is one question.)

[tsig]

OK. I went to one of the links you have given and checked out "Reformed Egyptian".
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#egyptian

I gather that this term is used by linguists to refer to later varients on "un"reformed Egyptian. However, no where does it actually compare samples of the symbols on the Gold Plates to the symbols of this (or any) form of Egyptian.

Do you have an example of something that is verifiable? (This is one question.)

Did you or anyone try the second link from post 31?


BEWARE
When I tried it my hard drive died and I would like to know if it was a coincidence.
I am now using my wife's laptop. She is not amused.

Thanks.

[prewitt81]

Thanks! I'll check it out and see if the LDS church has any opinions on it.

Respectfully, I'm not interested in the LDS church's opinion. The fact that the Strangites are a branch-off is pretty good evidence they don't buy the story. And yet here is another supposedly ancient work given to man by God, rife with chiasmus.

What is your opinion on it? Is chiasmus evidence of Hebrew origin, or could someone who grew up hearing biblical verses mimic what they've heard to a point where such literary techniques creep in?

[ImaginalDisc]

Wait, in twenty four hours the Mormon apologists have done nothing but mock my clumsiness with names?

What about all the points raised?

[articulett]

It's what faith does to people... faith teaches people to become personally offended when people criticize the faith. It works in making most people back off, after all-- at least people who don't want their own "faith" questioned because they think it's the key to salvation or ennobling or whatever.

I find the "keeping the faith memes" very interesting... the way dissent is discouraged and if you aren't "with them" you are "against them". When people suffer embarrassment for their faith, it often reinforces their faith. When doomsday cults fail in their predictions (as they always do), the believers tend to have more faith not less-- the event was a test of their faith (see how Job's "faith" is tested)... the faith can never be blamed... but everything good is said to come from the faith.... everything bad is either a test of faith or due to lack of faith or not enough faith. The answer to every problem is more faith and the cause of every tragedy is lack of faith or testing faith.

In the mind of the Mormon, we are just "testing their faith"... the same is true with the Scientologists. To the Scientologists, skeptics are "suppressive people". To the Mormons-- they're "anti-mormons"-- the "unenlightened"-- those destined for "lesser" eternities.

It's such an interesting mental manipulation. It makes believers paranoid of those who might help "deprogram" them.

And it's all programmed when kids are young and trusting and susceptible to certain types of manipulation based on fear and ego stroking and supposed "signs". They screw up their thinking and stunt it before it has a chance to bloom... and they feel good about doing so-- saved-- holier than thou-- like they are pleasing the big invisible daddy in the sky.

I get really peeved as a woman, because women are taught to trust and not question these sort of men and fear the skeptics--people like Randi and the many brilliant people on this forum-- people who don't imagine they are "gods in training" with a divine edict to judge others because some god decreed it.

Religions teach trusting people to fear those who dare to point out the obvious--the emperor is wearing no clothes. This sort of snideness must work amongst their own. And yet, they can find problems in the logic of Scientology or Moonies or Islam or Hindus without knowing the correct spelling of the gods or all the apologetic arguments. They'd feel offended if someone intimated that their opinion on the subject shouldn't be taken seriously because they didn't know the prophets names or what the latest Scientologist apologetics were. Believers seem to think that "due unto others" just means those who believe as they do. They wouldn't question Mormon apologetics and so they expect us not to! They'd surely think other woo apologetics were not something worth respecting and be even more offended than we are with the tsk tsking of such apologists.

Religion often seems to be a breeding ground for hypocrisy and arrogance which the believer imagines is humility. They are so often readily offended here, while being blind to the ways they offend. Surely if they saw this behavior from some other believer who believed some different "woo", they'd recognize it for what it was, would they not?

This is a skeptics forum. Why would they expect a skeptic to be more "accepting" of their "extraordinary claims" than other claims of similar "extraordinariness". Reformed Egyptian? Seeing stones? Disappearing gold plates? Huge civilizations that don't leave a trace? Stories that don't jibe with the facts? Men ruling other planets as gods? A conman turned prophet of God? Gods that demand polygamy? Cryptic and convenient revelations? Magical undergarments with mythological stories to go along with them? Scientific claims that are not in accord with scientific facts? Cureloms and cumoms? Outer darkness?

The true religion?! Ur_xV9ztFvg

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Did you or anyone try the second link from post 31?


BEWARE
When I tried it my hard drive died and I would like to know if it was a coincidence.
I am now using my wife's laptop. She is not amused.

Thanks.

When I tried it my browser immediately closed. So there my be some sort of problem with it.

Does it show a comparison between the text on the Golden Plates and a otherwise known version of Reformed Egyptian?

[tsig]

When I tried it my browser immediately closed. So there my be some sort of problem with it.

Does it show a comparison between the text on the Golden Plates and a otherwise known version of Reformed Egyptian?

I haven't tried it with this laptop. I've spent the last few hours troubleshooting. I sent a report but so far no answer.

[articulett]

Thanks for the heads up. That sucks. You are kind enough to go off and explore the nuttiness they want you to use, and it sounds like it hijacks your browser. I think you should let a moderator know so they can get rid of the link or make a warning.

[Terry]

I clicked all three links in that post, and nothing happened to my machine.

[articulett]

Oh sure... you are just trying to suck us in to the cult... first our browsers and then us--

'Kidding.

Maybe someone fixed it. So did show a comparison between what was on the plates and "Reformed Egyption"...?

[tsig]

I clicked all three links in that post, and nothing happened to my machine.

Thanks for the help. Just wanted the info so I can know which way to go.

[articulett]

It's from a Mormon Apologist sight and they are trying to infer that because old writings have been found on gold plates-- Joseph's plates could be "real" even though none of those gold plates magically disappeared to the sky nor were they written in "reformed Egyption" or translated from that which would later be determined to be funerary texts. It's an extrapolation for those who already believe as you might imagine.

Here's how it starts:

An exciting feature of almost any large European museum for Latter-day Saints is the surprisingly large number of metal plates or tablets with writing engraved on them. On a recent four-month tour I, my wife, Millie, and my assistant, Eloise Campbell traveled through Europe and Asia, from the Vatican Library and the Louvre to Seoul; we saw literally hundreds of examples of messages engraved on metal. Not all of these messages have been translated; in some cases, the language is so ancient that translations are still uncertain. In other cases, the language can be read but there are simply so many examples of the same kind of writing that no one has gone to the work to make a translation. Most of the examples seem to be of treaties, laws, or religious texts.
The languages range from Akkadian, dating from about 2450 B.C., to such comparatively “modern” dead languages as Greek and Latin.
But in the New World, examples of writing on metal plates are only now beginning to emerge. Part of the reason is that archaeology in America has been important only since the turn of the century. Since less study has been applied, less is known about the languages of the pre-Columbian Indian. Also, fewer artifacts have been unearthed than in the richly storied lands of Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean, for example.

It's from a 1979 article. http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1979.htm/ensign%20october%201979%20.htm/ancient%20writing%20on%20metal%20plates.htm?fn=doc ument-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

It's clearly not reliable as a source for anything to anyone outside of the Mormon "faith". Yes, people wrote things on gold-- but not gods or angels... nor anything on par with the "Reformed Egyption" that Joseph Smith supposedly translated with seeing stones. And these gold plates are not made of matter that floats off into heaven once "translated" or rather retranslated.... since the first translations was "thrown away". You'd think god would have just "magicked them back" into existence but his powers are very limited and odd it seems.

Why not just make the gold plates eternal and readily translatable by all? Why not have them photographed and or painted or copied? Who knows... The Mormon god works in mysterious ways just like the Catholic triune god and the Muslim one that gives out Houris as rewards for those involved in Jihads.

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh sure... you are just trying to suck us in to the cult... first our browsers and then us--

'Kidding.

Maybe someone fixed it. So did show a comparison between what was on the plates and "Reformed Egyption"...?

Well, according to John (JOSEPH, JOSEPH!) Smith, "Reformed Egyptian" looks like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/695847dc579e24eaa.jpg

Some Mormon apologists (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Reformed_Egyptian.htm) allege that the linguistic oddity of the language is irrelevant, oddly enough.

The fact that modern linguists and philologists don't know of a script known as reformed Egyptian is irrelevant, since Mormon tells us that the script was called reformed Egyptian "by us," that is, by the Nephites; they may have been the only people to use that descriptive phrase.

I find this quite curious, given that Hebrews had their own language, and a rich literary tradition. Also, with the exception of ciphers and codes, I don't know of any language emerging whole cloth, without any relationship to the language spoken by the people of the time and place.

[Kopji]

The lindsay site linked earlier can also be accessed here:
http://www.MormonEvidence.com
It might be taking a while to load on a slow connection but otherwise it looked safe.

Back in the 1970's there was a lot of discussion in our church class about something called the 'Spalding Manuscript'. One of the deacons had a copy from somewhere and we were reading some of it (reading it was frowned on by some of the elders, but hey were were kids). My impression of it was that it was sort of a 'word salad' and hard to read or even understand why they thought the BoM was based on it.

Anyway, Spalding has come back into view as a possible 'original source material' for the BoM. A 2005 book 'Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon' sounds pretty dull but covers all the ground.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Wrote-Book-Mormon/dp/0758605277

I know that we (church kids) were always taught that the idea of American Indians being descendants of the Hebrews was unique to Mormonism, but it was popular speculation at the time (early 1800's), as well as popular interest in Mayan / Aztec discoveries.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Rather than having me search around on sites that disappear on me or that load and scroll at the speed of geriatric snails. can someone not just answer my question as to whether there is a comparison somewhere between the text on the Golden Plates and a otherwise known version of Reformed Egyptian?

Thank you.

[articulett]

I think the term "reformed Egyption" was made up after the fact when supposed original copies from the plate were found on papyrus.... but when translated by real scholars the text didn't say what Joe Smith had translated... that is, he appeared to have copied something which later was translated as funerary texts -- but he had translated it into the "book of Mormon"... which was actually based on a book... His "seeing stone" supposedly helped him translate these hieroglyphs that became several books that the Mormons use--not just the B.O.M. which were supposedly written on the disappearing gold plates.

It's convoluted, but the former Mormon scholars on the above links are excellent at describing the history of "reformed Egyption" and Joseph Smith's history as well.

You can hear more here: http://exmormonfoundation.org/2007Conference
http://exmormonfoundation.org/2007ConferenceReport

The audio on the Spalding Enigma is very good. These are all former Mormons who went to great efforts to find out about the teachings of their church and came to the conclusion that the religion is based on a fraud.

I think it's an excellent source for anyone really interested in how the Book of Mormon came to be--

[rcronk]

I was able to get to the second link of post 31 just fine from my PC on Friday and today from my phone. When I get back to work Monday I'll check it again to be sure.My purpose on this thread is not to convince anyone or prove anything, it is to share some information I have found, that's all. I know I'm not going to be able to prove anything objectively to any of you and that's not my purpose anyway. My purpose is to bring some research and information to the table that you might not have seen before, that's all.

[ImaginalDisc]

I was able to get to the second link of post 31 just fine from my PC on Friday and today from my phone. When I get back to work Monday I'll check it again to be sure.My purpose on this thread is not to convince anyone or prove anything, it is to share some information I have found, that's all. I know I'm not going to be able to prove anything objectively to any of you and that's not my purpose anyway. My purpose is to bring some research and information to the table that you might not have seen before, that's all.

The "information" you've found is refuted by linguistics, genetics, and archeology.

[Akhenaten]

Rather than having me search around on sites that disappear on me or that load and scroll at the speed of geriatric snails. can someone not just answer my question as to whether there is a comparison somewhere between the text on the Golden Plates and a otherwise known version of Reformed Egyptian?

Thank you.

Articulett kinda beat me to it, but the short answer is simply, "No".

The text on the plates can't be compared to anything because Joe Smith gave them back to some winged git called Moroni, who seems to have left the building, and nothing can be compared to "Reformed Egyptian" because it doesn't exist.


ETA: If the native Americans, via the Lamanites, had access to the kind of ship-building skills that got them from Jerusalem to North America, why didn't they discover Europe, instead of waiting for Chris Columbus to do it the other way around?

[Kopji]

Articulett kinda beat me to it, but the short answer is simply, "No".

The text on the plates can't be compared to anything because Joe Smith gave them back to some winged git called Moroni, who seems to have left the building, and nothing can be compared to "Reformed Egyptian" because it doesn't exist.


Ok, I generally don't see anthing wrong there. :) I'm sure I mentioned that the notion of a Hebrew heritage of Native Americans did not originate with Mormonism, but Mormonism tapped into some existing speculation of the times.


ETA: If the native Americans, via the Lamanites, had access to the kind of ship-building skills that got them from Jerusalem to North America, why didn't they discover Europe, instead of waiting for Chris Columbus to do it the other way around?
This seems like two different questions. The high cultures of South America are recognized as having some advanced shipbuilding skills:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/thor/kon-tiki.php

(I've read Kon Tiki and honestly, found it almost deadly boring.)

So 'why didn't they use these shipbuilding skills to discover Europe' is unrelated to any Book of Mormon issues.

Maybe they did have the skill and inclination to explore, and were greeted on the shores of Europe by the friendly Spanish Moors or Inquisitional forces with baskets of fruit.

[Pixel42]

My purpose is to bring some research and information to the table that you might not have seen before, that's all.
I've seen it before, both here and other boards, and remain unimpressed. Even creationists - hell, even "the moon landing was a hoax" CTers - make a more convincing case.

[tsig]

I've seen it before, both here and other boards, and remain unimpressed. Even creationists - hell, even "the moon landing was a hoax" CTers - make a more convincing case.

Esp. when Joe's mom says he used to sit a the kitchen table and keep the whole family spellbound telling stories of ancient times describing details of dress and culture as if he had been there.

What's simpler, and angel with golden plates or joe just made it up.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Articulett kinda beat me to it, but the short answer is simply, "No".

The text on the plates can't be compared to anything because Joe Smith gave them back to some winged git called Moroni, who seems to have left the building, and nothing can be compared to "Reformed Egyptian" because it doesn't exist.


ETA: If the native Americans, via the Lamanites, had access to the kind of ship-building skills that got them from Jerusalem to North America, why didn't they discover Europe, instead of waiting for Chris Columbus to do it the other way around?

Will the non-Mormons stop answering for the Mormons, please? :D

I'd like a Mormon to answer this question. We may not have the Golden Plates but we still have the "the Anthon Transcript'". Where has this been authenticated?

Thank you.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Esp. when Joe's mom says he used to sit a the kitchen table and keep the whole family spellbound telling stories of ancient times describing details of dress and culture as if he had been there.

What's simpler, and angel with golden plates or joe just made it up.

Maybe he was channeling from an early age?
:jaw-dropp

[Bob Blaylock]

Will the non-Mormons stop answering for the Mormons, please? :D

I'd like a Mormon to answer this question. We may not have the Golden Plates but we still have the "the Anthon Transcript'". Where has this been authenticated?


Short answer:
What we have may or may not be a small portion of the authentic “Anthon Transcript” that Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon. Or, it may be a forgery.
If it is genuine, the extant portion does not seem to have enough content to produce a usable translation.


Some useful discussion of this may be found at these URLs:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Anthon_transcript
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=329



It seems appropriate, here, to summarize the story behind the Anthon Transcript. Martin Harris was farmer, a shrewd businessman, and a man of significant wealth; when Joseph Smith approached him asking for help in translating and publishing what would become The Book of Mormon. What Joseph Smith asked would involve a considerable amount of sacrifice on Harris' part, in time and wealth.

At some point, Joseph Smith copied some of the characters from one of the plates on to a piece of paper, which he gave to Martin Harris, who took this paper to Charles Anthon, a professor and an expert in ancient languages. What happened then is a matter of considerable dispute.

According to Harris, Anthon examined the paper, declared the language thereon to be genuine, and wrote up and gave Harris a letter to that effect. He then asked where the text had come from, and on being told, took back the letter and destroyed it.

Anthon, of course, thereafter denied this, and claimed that the paper he was shown contained no genuine language; and that that is what he told Harris.

Only these two men were present, and only these two ever knew for certain what really transpired between them. It is, however, very evident from Harris' actions afterward that he was convinced that this text was genuine. He thereafter contributed generously of his time and wealth in helping to translate and publish this work.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Short answer:
What we have may or may not be a small portion of the authentic “Anthon Transcript” that Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon. Or, it may be a forgery.
If it is genuine, the extant portion does not seem to have enough content to produce a usable translation.


Some useful discussion of this may be found at these URLs:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Anthon_transcript
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=329



It seems appropriate, here, to summarize the story behind the Anthon Transcript. Martin Harris was farmer, a shrewd businessman, and a man of significant wealth; when Joseph Smith approached him asking for help in translating and publishing what would become The Book of Mormon. What Joseph Smith asked would involve a considerable amount of sacrifice on Harris' part, in time and wealth.

At some point, Joseph Smith copied some of the characters from one of the plates on to a piece of paper, which he gave to Martin Harris, who took this paper to Charles Anthon, a professor and an expert in ancient languages. What happened then is a matter of considerable dispute.

According to Harris, Anthon examined the paper, declared the language thereon to be genuine, and wrote up and gave Harris a letter to that effect. He then asked where the text had come from, and on being told, took back the letter and destroyed it.

Anthon, of course, thereafter denied this, and claimed that the paper he was shown contained no genuine language; and that that is what he told Harris.

Only these two men were present, and only these two ever knew for certain what really transpired between them. It is, however, very evident from Harris' actions afterward that he was convinced that this text was genuine. He thereafter contributed generously of his time and wealth in helping to translate and publish this work.

OK.

So the question I asked:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3526589#post3526589

And the response I got:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3526603#post3526603

So now we know that the original Gold Plates are no longer available for examination and that the only partial copy has not been truly identified as being an example of "Reformed Egyptian" (if even such a thing exists). And yet this was offered in response to my question.

So, I have a further question -- anyone got a better answer? Anyone?

[Akhenaten]

Ok, I generally don't see anthing wrong there. :) I'm sure I mentioned that the notion of a Hebrew heritage of Native Americans did not originate with Mormonism, but Mormonism tapped into some existing speculation of the times.


This seems like two different questions. The high cultures of South America are recognized as having some advanced shipbuilding skills:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/thor/kon-tiki.php

(I've read Kon Tiki and honestly, found it almost deadly boring.)

So 'why didn't they use these shipbuilding skills to discover Europe' is unrelated to any Book of Mormon issues.

Maybe they did have the skill and inclination to explore, and were greeted on the shores of Europe by the friendly Spanish Moors or Inquisitional forces with baskets of fruit.

Yes. My bad. It was a stupid question and heading towards a derail.

I started a new thread where I can be ignorant on my own time. :)

Soz

[Bob Blaylock]

OK.

So the question I asked:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3526589#post3526589

And the response I got:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3526603#post3526603

So now we know that the original Gold Plates are no longer available for examination and that the only partial copy has not been truly identified as being an example of "Reformed Egyptian" (if even such a thing exists). And yet this was offered in response to my question.

So, I have a further question -- anyone got a better answer? Anyone?


I don't think you're ever going to get an answer that will satisfy you. You're looking for solid, logical, scientific evidence of a religious faith. For whatever reason, it seems not to be God's will to make such proof available.

The best that I can do, is first, to quote that great philosopher Spock, from Star Trek VI (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102975/), where he says, “Logic is the beginning of wisdom…not the end.”; and then to refer you to the passage at Moroni 10:3-5 (http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/3-5#3) where the reader is invited to go to the source of all truth in order to learn whether this book itself is true.

[Pixel42]

For whatever reason, it seems not to be God's will to make such proof available.
Or alternatively it's simply not true.

The best that I can do, is [...] to refer you to the passage at Moroni 10:3-5 (http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/3-5#3) where the reader is invited to go to the source of all truth in order to learn whether this book itself is true.
What's the point when failure to get the promised "burning in the bosom" is dismissed as being due to lack of sincerity/faith/whatever, whilst success could more credilbly be explained by suggestibility?

[Undesired Walrus]

So, just to get this accurate.. Mormons believe that Native Americans are bleached Israeli's?

[aggle-rithm]

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. ;)

Sorry I didn't quote my source -- the statements of the LDS church being anti-intellectual and excommunicating skeptics originated with a PBS documentary I watched recently on the history of the Mormons.

Was the documentary in error? They interviewed a number of Mormon scholars who were kicked out for writing books that examined LDS claims critically. Were these just actors?

ETA: Maybe you quoted the wrong post. My earlier post was much more inflammatory.

[billydkid]

I saw that movie yesterday about the slaughter of the wagon train by the Mormons in the mid 1800's. Obviously it was a dramatization of something that nobody actually knows the details of (as far as I know) except that it happened. To me the Mormons illustrate as succinctly as any religious group the fundamental stupidity and danger of religion in principle. Any thought process that elevates the notion that believing things precisely because there is no good reason to believe them (faith) to an exalted position is fairly terrifying. And the less reason there is for believing them the more faith is required, making the believing of things that are most dangerous and most unbelievable most noble.

[rcronk]

The "information" you've found is refuted by linguistics, genetics, and archeology.

Please cite them.

Respectfully, I'm not interested in the LDS church's opinion. The fact that the Strangites are a branch-off is pretty good evidence they don't buy the story. And yet here is another supposedly ancient work given to man by God, rife with chiasmus.

What is your opinion on it? Is chiasmus evidence of Hebrew origin, or could someone who grew up hearing biblical verses mimic what they've heard to a point where such literary techniques creep in?

I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure my opinion counts. I think it is evidence of Hebrew origin but from what I've seen it depends a lot on the complexity of the chiasmus. For example, if it's just a single verse with a A, B, B, A pattern, for example, then I think that could be done by mistake by copying (knowingly or unknowingly) what a person is used to hearing. However, when it comes to chiasmus that is an entire chapter long with meaning and purpose behind it (like you find in Alma 36, with Christ at the pivot point of the chiasmus, for example) or even multiple chapters long, then I think that would be very unlikely to come about by chance or through repeating patterns that are heard in the bible, for example. I will take a look at it more closely and see what kinds of chiasmus exist within it.

ETA: I checked the link from post 31 again and there was no problem with it. I am using IE 7. Perhaps it was either a coincidence or you're using a different browser?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Can I re-ask my question to rcronk that I asked in Post #34?

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?

You replied the first time I asked by pointing me to "Reformed Egyptian" as an example. I think that other posts in this thread have shown that this is a claim that cannot be substanciated.

Is there another example?

Thank you.

[rcronk]

Can I re-ask my question to rcronk that I asked in Post #34?

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?

You replied the first time I asked by pointing me to "Reformed Egyptian" as an example. I think that other posts in this thread have shown that this is a claim that cannot be substanciated.

Is there another example?

Thank you.

Here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml) is a page that has many things you could pick from. Feel free to pick one that you feel is the strongest evidence and go from there.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Jesus Christ and invite people to come unto Him, not be a record or proof of archaeology or DNA and maybe that's one of the reasons it's difficult to prove or disprove. Of course, one option is that it's a fake and I accept that you by default assume that to be the case. I guess for some reason, God wants people to find Him that actually want to find Him instead of providing absolute proof of His existence and then everyone would feel compelled to come to Him instead of doing it of their own free will.

Again, I'm not here to prove anything, I came here to offer some additional information that, based on the ignorance of some of the posts here, some didn't know about. Next time, I'll just be quiet and let you all find information for yourselves.

[Correa Neto]

Well, I intended only to check the reaction to the new DNA evidence...

Aniway, I finished reading the links on the archeological evidences supposed to back the Book of Mormon. In my personal opinion, they are very weak.

I wonder, for example, where in the Americas are the pre-Columbian examples not only of Hebrew alphabet but also weapons and tools similar to those used by Semitic tribes? These are very usefull technologies which would give the new settlers an edge over any previous populations; no one would just "forget" how to use and make them.

[articulett]

So, for some reason god wants you to find the right mysterious truth, but he gives humans no objective way to distinguish the Mormon truths from all the other truths that other religions claim to be privvy too. So--there's an invisible creator that knows all and has plans for this planet... and he's buried plates and assorted truths knowing exactly who would be born to stumble upon what and who would be convinced and how and how it's all going to end up and somehow because of your magnificent character and desire you were born into the one real truth instead of being fooled like all those Pentacostals, Scientologists, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, and others certain that they've tapped in on mystical wisdom and the word of the invisible undetectable creator of the universe who doesn't want anyone to know him?

Amazing.

How ever did you get so lucky? Wow, this invisible magic creator dude really seems to favor you, eh? He helped you stumble upon the one right and true unbelievable story to have faith in! How special and chosen you must feel.

For myself, I want to know how to tell those with the really true truth from all those guys with equally vague incoherent claims that they really seem to believe... people like Tom Cruise

UFBZ_uAbxS0

and Navigator

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107030

To me, you guys are just believing in the thing that happens to be best for your own ego-- a messiah complex if you will. The same with the Pope. Why should any of us think you are different? Aren't all believers doing that and then pretending it's something noble called "faith" or "inner knowingness" or a "burning in the bosom"... or "testimony". I mean I know you believe all this stuff... just as Tom Cruise believes his stuff and Navigator is convinced he's having out of body experiences... but why in the world should a skeptic take your delusions or "whatever" more seriously than the words of these guys? Don't the family's of the hijackers believe their loved ones are in heaven--some get signs like dreams "proving" it to them. Why would we think you have more access to the real thing you are supposed to have "faith" in than any of these people? Why should anyone need to have faith in anything? Isn't that a creepy thing for a supposedly loving god to ask for? Why is that such a great quality? How can you force yourself to have faith in something that sounds so... crazy? How can you ensure you aren't just confirming your biases as those others are? How do you tell false prophets from real ones when they all seem equally nutty to me. I can't even understand how a god or souls or demons or any form of consciousness can exist without a brain... and believers just accept that they can. How? We need a brain to think, feel, love, learn, experience, see, interpret, believe. There is no magical soul stepping in to do the job when the brain is damaged and cannot do these things.

I just find believers to be so bizarre... they can see a world of people readily fooled and yet they are so certain that such a thing could not happen to them. I look at all of you and you all seem equally deluded to me. I don't understand how you can see those other people and presume you are not "deluded" like they are. I can understand it in children... because you know of no other world other than what you are told... we evolved to assimilate our culture and learn from the authority figures in our lives-- but once you grow up and see the world of different beliefs and faiths and ways that people are fooled and tricked and start asking questions about what is objectively true-- ??? What sort of mental shield makes you so sure of (insert nebulous beliefs) while being equally sure that Tom Cruise et. al. are deluded and wrong about their (nebulous beliefs).

It's the faith meme, isn't it? You have been lead to believe that it's good and ennobling to believe unbelievable things... that you will be rewarded for it....it's a gift... there's nothing god wants more than for you to believe (insert nebulous belief) even when it's challenged and there are no facts. You've been indoctrinated to believe that obedience to the (nebulous belief system) is the highest good-- just like the North Koreans, and Muslims, and Peoples' Temple. And you've been taught to fear threats to your faith. It can lead to eternal torment... it's Satan or something like that. There are "evil others" trying to get rid of your fabulous gift of "faith"?

I just find the whole thing fascinating. It's kind of scary, because while Mormons are fairly harmless... I know that the faith meme is the same with all virulent religions and successful regimes... I don't know how you encourage critical thinking in groups of people brainwashed into believing that faith is more important than reason.

[articulett]

Why can't the believers hear themselves? Why don't they see that they are doing the exact same thing that all the believers of things they don't believe in are doing. They are using semantics and "signs" to prove the truth of what they've come to believe or want to believe. To me it's so obvious.

It reminds of the video clip with Randi passing out horoscopes...

[Correa Neto]

I can understand that someone may try to pass a message about god through a tale; its one of the functions of a myth. I can live with that- an analogy to help you finding your way.

But I really have serious issues when someone states that the tale, the myth is a literal truth.

[articulett]

But all religions do... don't they-- Jesus "really" died and was resurrected for "our sins" (whatever that means)-- God is "real" (though invisible and undetectable by any of the ways we distinguish real things from imaginary things.) Thetans are real to Scientologists... and clearing gets rid of them and this clearing is the reason for Tom Cruise's success. Navigator really believes some part of him left his body. People believe that real aliens probe them. To Mormons "Kolob" is real. And Curmelons. Religions all claim to have truths that they then muddle or change when science proves them to be inaccurate... suddenly there is a new revelation or reinterpretation or it's just a parable. Humans have always explained things using stories and gods and demons and invisible agents until the actual facts are filled in. I think Mormonism just gives us a really good glimpse at how religions evolve... how people come to believe unbelievable things... how stories that were supposed to be "fact" morph into parables or "higher truths" or cryptic prophesies...

Religions promote this fuzzy thinking where people can't tell the difference between objective facts and --everything else... opinion, conjecture, mottos, beliefs, myths, misperceptions, etc. Myth and stories provide a good framework for learning when you are young... but religions seem to keep smart people stunted in this same way of thinking. It makes people afraid to think beyond it... instead it teaches them to reinterpret and apologize for it and to think fuzzy and make excuses so that "truth" doesn't matter-- and "faith" becomes the "be all" and "end all"-- the key to salvation.

I think it's wrong because what it does to minds that can further knowledge... in traps them in circular nothingness and makes them afraid to find out the truth. It's a manipulative meme-- and circular-- here's this special truth that you get to have--it's a gift--so long as you have faith-- and in order to get the rewards, you must keep the faith--not question the giver of the faith and spread the "good news" so others can get the rewards too. Those who don't have the faith are bad or will be punished or are trying to do the unthinkable--question the faith giver. Whatever you do... you must not lose the faith. Spin, play semantic games, or chalk it up to mystery or god's unfathomable greatness that humans can't hope to understand--but whatever you do-- keep the faith alive.

I don't find Mormon "woo" really all that different from other woo. It's just that we can examine it's genesis and spread and supposed claims a little more closely because they've claimed them to be "true"-- not parables etc. and they are recent. But no amount of evidence can disprove anything to the Mormon. They've learned to see lack of proof or scientific dismissal as "tests" of faith. All religions inculcate some variation of this meme. It's god's test... or you "have to have faith"... or it's Satan's trick... etc. Virulent religions all have this meme--along with encouragement to go forth and multiply and indoctrinate from infancy-- spread the good news and "save souls"--(nothing pleases the invisible guy more and you must not question that!)

[rcronk]

articulett - I understand your frustration. I get frustrated too when I feel like I can't explain myself well enough for all of you to understand me clearly. I am stuck with my own experiences - and not being able to prove them to you or anyone else is quite frustrating for me. I also feel a bit frustrated that God didn't just put a big piece of evidence for us to all look at and have absolute proof that He exists. I think, however, that there's a reason for that and I think it may have to do with us finding out our true desires in the absence of undeniable proof one way or the other - but I could be wrong.

I have to be honest and say that I get disappointed when you compare me to Tom Cruise or guess at my motives or psychological status. You don't know me. Doing such things is logically fallacious and it doesn't move the argument along.

Again, I'm not here to prove anything. I saw the thread was about DNA and those who were posting in the thread didn't seem to have heard about anything against their views, so I was offering some opposing viewpoints for balance, that's all. Instead I am accused of coming here to prove Mormonism is true objectively (and failing at that supposed goal) and of being delusional and having a messiah complex - and being like Tom Cruise, of course.

[Correa Neto]

But all religions do... don't they-- Jesus "really" died and was resurrected for "our sins" (whatever that means)-- God is "real" (though invisible and undetectable by any of the ways we distinguish real things from imaginary things.) Thetans are real to Scientologists... and clearing gets rid of them and this clearing is the reason for Tom Cruise's success. ...snip...
Not sure about this. If I understood correctly, some religious Hinduist and Buddhist texts are mostly allegoric. They are not supposed to be factual but inspirational (well, at least for an intellectual elite). They provide a model, or something the person must think, meditate about and use as a starting point or guide to find his/hers way or "truth".

I seem to remember someone telling me the something similar about the Bible, possibly a relative of mine who is a Catholic priest, but I am not sure.

Of course, it seems this line is minoritary...

[articulett]

But you don't ever give us a way to see the difference. Clearly Tom Cruise is a nice guy and he really truly believes his "truth" and he has massive success to show as "proof" that his truth "works"... To me, it's always been like that... all these men... all so sure of different truths... different infallible people... different proofs-- burning bosom, speaking in tongues, all so sure... so sure that their subjective "truth" is "real" and all those others are a delusion.

I always looked for a way to tell one from the other. I thought I could feel the truth at one time-- but it's clear that everyone "feels" the truth-- even those who are wrong. And they cannot all be right. But they CAN all be wrong. There is no good reason to believe there are divine truths that anyone has accessed and lots of good reasons for believing that you are as self deluded as Navigator and Tom Cruise and Christian Skeptic and Maatorc and Fredcarr and all those others who come here angry that we don't see them as standing out or their "truths" as more believable than all those others. To me, you guys just all sound like you have various brands of self delusion, incoherence, and confirmation bias that allow you to believe you've tapped into some divine truth-- which you all really believe in.... which no one could sway you from. But that is not a reason for anyone else to believe... it's not a good reason to believe anything. It's a reason to understand that people are great at fooling themselves either due to fear or ego... and that there are very commonalities between all "true believers" that skeptics should study and be wary of in themselves.

In so many ways, skepticism is the opposite of faith. Faith is believing in something without or despite evidence. I cannot believe that any loving entity would want that of anyone. But I can't even fathom how consciousness can exist without a brain. It doesn't make sense. And even if I were to imagine that it could be so... there would be no reason to believe that you had been in touch with such an entity anymore than any other person or schizophrenic or person with imaginary friends or people who believe others can be possessed. There would be no more reason to believe your "inner knowingness" than Navigator's inner knowingness that he is having undemonstrable out-of-body experiences. I know that you all really truly believe in your assorted claims.... you feel like you KNOW they are true. But to a skeptic they are all the same kind of "non evidence"... they are the same kinds of beliefs that people have been inventing and stoking in various manners for eons until science finally has a better explanation... and then the beliefs fade or morph or are reinterpreted. There is nothing which distinguishes your "faith" in regards to veracity and objective "truth" from all the other claims of faith you do not believe in-- nothing objective, I mean. Nothing a skeptic could examine. Your word is as good as Tom Cruise's in regards to truth... or usefulness to me. He and you would both disagree... but that's because you are both equally convinced of your "truths". That makes it useless objectively for anything except how people come to believe unbelievable things.

Every believer is insulted to be lumped in with the believers of things they don't believe... but from outside the belief systems you are all equally deluded about having tapped into some mystical knowingness. I'm glad it makes you feel good and special and so forth... but it freaks me out... because I know the Muslims feel the same thing about their religion-- and the North Koreans about their "truth"-- and that's a lot of people really sure that they have "the truth" competing for some place in some imaginary afterlife or something... and all equally impervious to examining their faith for veracity.

I'm glad for people to have their faith... I understand it... I know that you really truly believe that you've been given inner knowingness... I know people get strength and community from it... But there is no reason to think any of it's true and lots of reason to imagine that many believers are just as sure of their "faith" as you are of yours. It just doesn't bode well for humans.

I've mentioned before that I think men hold on to these beliefs because it builds their ego and their sense of importance... and women see this confidence as competence... plus they are afraid not to believe-- it addition to social shunning of them and their children... there' the whole eve/apple threat to posterity for disobedience.

I just think it's primitive. I think the fact that we cannot get people in the civilized world to let go of their own faiths makes it very unlikely that we'll get more threatening faiths to let go of theirs. I think it's dangerous that humanity has allowed this notion that "faith is ennobling" to spread to so many. It's made people afraid to think and proud of their ignorance. And with so many people as certain as you that their crazy story represents some real truth that has to do with ETERNITY-- we all have something to fear.

You are playing a game in your head for some Eternity you've been convinced of that you cannot be swayed from... right? So are they... Tom Cruise, Navigator, The Taliban... The Rapture Ready... etc. And we're just extras in their epic where they are messiahs and heros and spreaders of truth-- doing the bidding of the invisible guy in the sky. That's scary to me. Your delusions threaten my reality. I recognize that the way you feel about Mormon truths is the way many men feel about equally unprovable truths. And what wouldn't people do to ensure that they pleased their invisible creator and made their eternity happy? What wouldn't they do to me or skeptics or non believers if they thought their god wanted them to? I know you think that no harm can come from faith or --not your faith... but remember... most believers are as sure of their faith as you are of yours-- but they don't believe the same things. They've had their own "signs" as "proof" that their religions are true.

I know you are a nice guy and not trying to prove anything and just trying to give a different perspective... but the same could be said of Tom Cruise... don't all believers and prophets and popes and messiahs and gurus see themselves as such? You guys can all be comfortable because you know you are not like those "others"-- but to me, you are all the same. You all believe crazy things and are impervious to reason. You all think you have accessed some divine truth because of something special or good about you or because you were chosen or whatever. You all think the world would be better if other people believed like you.

I think the world would be better if reason was valued more and ridiculous beliefs and claims got the ridicule they deserved instead of this nice side stepping we do not to hurt feelings. I think the world would be much better with more skeptics.

[articulett]

Not sure about this. If I understood correctly, some religious Hinduist and Buddhist texts are mostly allegoric. They are not supposed to be factual but inspirational (well, at least for an intellectual elite). They provide a model, or something the person must think, meditate about and use as a starting point or guide to find his/hers way or "truth".

I seem to remember someone telling me the something similar about the Bible, possibly a relative of mine who is a Catholic priest, but I am not sure.

Of course, it seems this line is minoritary...

That's true. I meant the virulent religions. Most believers feel that the world would be better if everyone believed like them... and that there is an eternity filled with those who believe like them...

Which is harmless... unless or until your religion encourages you to make this happen... as the more virulent religions do... they proselytize and encourage "going forth and multiplying"-- indoctrinating from birth-- shunning of apostates. They look at religion that don't do this as weak... or as not really having "faith"... they seek to prove their faith.

I would say that most religions are transmitted "culturally" and that you tend to believe what your parents believe and most believers feel that they have a piece of some "higher truth" or "special knowledge"--and it's religions that promulgate this idea that there "special knowledge" to be had.

Most religions just sound like myths to me... I don't really believe there's "higher knowledge" that can be accessed via faith. Transcendent feelings-- maybe... but I don't trust peoples interpretations or conclusions about those feelings. I guess I disbelieve them all equally. I don't believe there is divine knowledge or invisible immeasurable entities of any sort. And so long as religions claim to "know" about such things, I find them all "useless"-- ways of feeling like you "know" things that you really don't know-- pseudo explanations that explain nothing but make the believer feel good for believing.

Eastern religions had quite an appeal for me as I was thinking my way out of Christianity... but I am much more interested in what I can know for sure--what is objectively true... like all the stuff we are finding out from DNA-- than what to "believe". I'd rather understand how people are fooled than to be the fooled person.

[rcronk]

articulett - I think it's extremely ironic that your entire argument is based on a belief or even a faith in me being deluded. Almost everything you say depends upon me being deluded and you have no proof of that.

So in essence you're doing just what I'm doing - you're having faith in something you can't objectively prove. My faith is based on subjective experience and yours is based on association fallacy (comparing me to Tom Cruise, so I must be wrong), negative proof (rcronk can't prove it true so it must be false), and ad hominem attacks on my character (rcronk is a delusional ego maniac with a savior complex, etc.).

[articulett]

Actually my entire argument depends on you having no more proof or evidence for your beliefs than Tom Cruise, The Pope, Navigator, and the Maharishi have for theirs. You all believe your truths with equal sincerity as far as I can tell. I know that you cannot all be right. I know that deluded people never think they are deluded... but the majority of those listed MUST be deluded if any of them is right... they cannot all be right. They CAN all be wrong.

Moreover, I have no reason to believe that there are divine truths or that anyone can know anything about invisible immeasurable entities... therefore, until there is evidence that consciousness CAN exist outside of a living material brain, I am using critical thinking to conclude that you are all deluded about your beliefs that it can... as well as all the beliefs you've built upon that presumption... whether you call them gods, Xenu, thetans, angels, souls, demons, saints, or something else-- they are all equally likely to be products of the human mind as far as the evidence is concerned.

I don't think I have much faith... whatever that is. I am trying to figure out how I can know what is objectively true... the way DNA is objective. And I am trying to figure out how people come to sincerely believe things that aren't true... and what the remedy is.

I have a reason to believe scientists... they have evidence that I can examine, test, understand, probe, etc. Just like "math"--really. I can believe facts and draw conclusions from facts. But believers in "divine truths" give me no reason to believe there is such things as "divine truths"--much less that they've accessed them.

I can't prove that there are no such thing as body thetans just like I can't prove that lamanites didn't exist... but I have no reason to believe that either is true. When there is no good evidence for something the the default position is non belief. That's not faith. Do you have "faith" that astrology isn't true? Nope... just no reason to think it is. That's what I feel about all supernatural beliefs. I have no evidence that any of them are true and lots of evidence which suggests they are a very common way people fool themselves.

Your belief in your "truth" is no more reason for me to believe than a schizophrenics certainty over their truth or Tom Cruise's assertion that "Scientologists are the experts of the mind"...

You have no more to offer in the way of evidence than they do so what else am I to conclude?

[articulett]

Believers of all sorts have this weird fallacy that goes something like this "if you can't prove that it's false or you can't explain something-- then my woo is true".

Being able to explain away a lack of evidence is not the same as being able to present evidence. I know that you would understand this in regard to beliefs you do not share. You cannot prove that Scientology isn't true or that Tom Cruise's clearing and practicing of Scientology is not responsible for his stellar success...

but that doesn't make you a believer now does it? He clearly believes and he's happy and successful and has happened upon all kinds of accidents seemingly miraculously as though it's a sign--

but it's only a "sign" for those who already believe or want to believe or are looking for signs that Scientology is true. That is the same for Mormonism and most religions, I think. The members are taught to seek these signs and to negate all knowledge which might negate their faith.

Catholics have "stigmata" and miracles from Saints-- that's their proof... and they trace their church back to Paul also I guess. Navigator has out of body experiences or so he believes and that proves to him that he believes in the right "higher truth" or whatever.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml) is a page that has many things you could pick from. Feel free to pick one that you feel is the strongest evidence and go from there.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Jesus Christ and invite people to come unto Him, not be a record or proof of archaeology or DNA and maybe that's one of the reasons it's difficult to prove or disprove. Of course, one option is that it's a fake and I accept that you by default assume that to be the case. I guess for some reason, God wants people to find Him that actually want to find Him instead of providing absolute proof of His existence and then everyone would feel compelled to come to Him instead of doing it of their own free will.

Again, I'm not here to prove anything, I came here to offer some additional information that, based on the ignorance of some of the posts here, some didn't know about. Next time, I'll just be quiet and let you all find information for yourselves.

Well. I'm not going to that site again on this computer. It appears to be one big long page and I have problems both loading and scrolling through it. I'll try it on my Win XP notebook as soon as the security update finishes. :D

A little bit of predictivity in the BoM would certain help me just a little bit on my road to conversion.

[articulett]

You do think that those who believe things as strongly as you believe your things--like the hijackers or Tom Cruise or the Pope-- are wrong or delusional or mistaken right? You don't worry about trying to prove them wrong to reject what they say. You don't have "faith" that they are wrong. Why would you expect a non Mormon to feel different about your beliefs? Why would you label it faith when people don't believe your conclusions about Mormonism. I don't think I feel differently about you and your beliefs than you feel about those people--those people whose beliefs you don't share. Do you think they are "delusional"? If you feel justified in thinking they are "delusional" or mistaken... why would you have a problem with me feeling that way about you? I feel like I dismiss your beliefs for the same reason you dismiss all the beliefs you don't share. And yet you are insulted when someone feels similarly about yours. But why wouldn't they? What is it you imagine that makes you a better authority on the "unknowable", "invisible", "unprovable" and divine? Why are your teachers better authorities than theirs? What makes your indoctrinator less likely to be mistaken then theirs? Why should anyone believe you over them... when there is no positive evidence for any of it?!?

Why wouldn't a nonbeliever find you as delusional as all those religions and beliefs others have that you find delusional... aren't they all a little egotistical... doesn't every believer feel like they've stumbled upon or accessed "the truth"? I think you are upset with the way I feel about your beliefs because you recognize how you feel about others--and you don't like the idea that people feel that way about your beliefs. Most skeptics probably feel that way about all of them. We can't help it. There is no reason or evidence to suggest some real truth out there. We ask for it... beg for it... but it's just the same sort of semantics and nothingness and apologetics... from all believers. None stand out as being worthy of exploring further.

[rcronk]

articulett - you have set up a false dichotomy: "they cannot all be right. They CAN all be wrong." There are other options. They could all be partially right, for example. One could be the actual church of Christ and the rest could be formations of men which have bits and pieces of the truth. There are many more options than your false dichotomy asserts.

I've never claimed that I believe something is true just because nobody can prove that it's false so I don't know where that's coming from.

I actually think that most religions have truth in them - I have attended many of them (Hare Krishna, Buddhist, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, etc.) and have benefited from doing so - not only by learning things they teach and comparing them to things I already know, but also by reducing my own bigotry by understanding where people are coming from instead of just throwing rocks at them as a group because what I think they believe seems different or strange.

Back to the point and to summarize, your belief that all religions are wrong is based on a false dichotomy combined with all of the logical fallacies I listed before. If you desperately want to learn about why these people believe the way they do - as you have hinted many times - then stop throwing rocks and go sit with these people and find out who they are and why they believe what they believe. You might learn something and you might put your rocks down long enough to understand some people better than you currently do. That's what I did and it helped me a lot.

[articulett]

I have, rconk... I have... I spent lots of time trying to figure out what was true... I thought my eternity depended on it... and they are all like you... all equally sure that they have some truth... but none of them have facts... I tried to look at the nicest, the most sincere, the one that felt right, the smartest, the most admirable, the one that seemed to have the most evidence... but it's a shell game. It all rests on this idea that there are divine truths that someone can know about via some subjective means... how could that be? And if so, how could anyone "know". If god is immeasurable what is to distinguish him from a delusion of some god? There is nothing. They all explain their truths by assuming that others have a piece of the truth where their beliefs overlap... and we're talking about "beliefs" (immeasurable things) in other immeasurable poorly defined things... gods, prophets, souls, angels, wisdom, disappearing gold plates, afterlives, demons, etc. etc. The same stuff myths are made of-- archetypes... common ways humans describe feelings and experiences that are hard to convey --

I can't just believe it because they do... or it "feels" true --because others do that and I can see they are wrong. I can see that Tom Cruise is mistaken, but I can understand why and how. I don't want that. I think the same about you. I don't want that. I don't want to have faith in some delusion because I've made myself believe that it's true... I'd rather just not know something than do that. I have listened to a lot of people... and the conclusion I've gathered is that people are very prone to thinking certain kinds of things are true even though there is no evidence or logical reason for them to think so. Yes, they all could have little bits and pieces of the truth... and little bits and pieces of delusion and misunderstanding... but none of them think that they have any delusion and all of them think they have much more than the pieces of the truth... and there is no way to tell the real bits and pieces of truth from the delusions and misperceptions and mistaken notions and confirmation biased notions that have been indoctrinated. There's no way to tell Reformed Egyption from thetan infestation... as such, they are both useless as evidence to anyone except a believer or one looking for "proof" that such is true.

Even if I believed that there could be pieces of truth out there or divine wisdom or whatever... I would have no more reason to think the book of Mormon had it than Dianetics or the Quoran or the Bhagvad Gita... or the Snake Handlers-- I think those that believe in an eminent rapture-- or any rapture are out of their minds... I don't want to believe it... I think believers all sound a bit crazy. I want to find out how to keep people from believing unbelievable things and to break the spell of "faith in faith" as a means of knowledge. I don't want to believe what they believe... I want to keep myself from being like them... from being like you... I want to help others break free of the beliefs they believe as strongly as you believe your beliefs... to free those who are afraid to not believe... to free those who would rather not know something than to believe a lie.

A free and critically thinking brain is an asset to us all. A brain mired in fear and false beliefs and promises of an imagined next life has a hard time furthering understanding in this one. Plus, there is something inherently arrogant about it to me--a fake humility. I wish the clarity of thought for you that you wish for Tom Cruise... I mean I know he's happy and his beliefs are harmless and that his life works... but now he is trapped in a delusion of his own making... it would hurt his ego too much to concede he had fooled himself... and so he will prop his truth up more in his mind... as will all believers-- there doesn't seem to be a way to pierce a delusion once it's that strong...

So I aim never to be deluded as such... to teach my child that there is no evidence that anyone has divine truths or that faith or feelings can be used to know anything. I want to understand belief so I can keep myself from being fooled the way I perceive believers as being fooled.

Yes... I see you and all people of strong faith-- people certain of their "divine truth" as similar to Tom Cruise. But no person of faith sees themselves as being like Tom Cruise or The Pope or the other people of faith on this forum.

[rcronk]

articulett - I know I've been and still am wrong about a lot of things - I've never said I am perfect or that I have all (or even a lot of) truth. I know my weaknesses and failings better than anyone else. I also can see where I have been mistaken and where I have been corrected. I know all people in all religions and all atheists and all scientists and all engineers are wrong in some things and right in others. I know that all people are not just black or white when it comes to truth or delusion, based on the people I've talked to. Me being here is part of me wanting to learn from everyone in every group because I think everyone has truth that they know that I don't know - and I want to find it out. I know from all the conversations we've had here that you have a sincere desire to propogate objective truth and want others too do so as well and I appreciate that. I know we disagree on some pretty major things but I can see past that and look at what I have learned from you regarding delusion and objective evidence, etc. and I know I am a better person for having done so and I thank you for what you've taught me. I have used your arguments against my Mormon friends to get them thinking more rigorously about their own faith and beliefs and I think they've benefitted as well. Your efforts are not in vain.

[articulett]

Wow, rconk... that really made my day. You are a bigger person than I had assumed. I'm glad you understand. You are a good man. I believe there is a single objective reality--a single truth; I want to understand it just as you do-- and I suspect we do all have something to add in understanding it. But I'm fine with not having faith. I never was good at it anyhow.

I feel like I've spent too much of my life trying to figure out the secret rubric of divine knowledge that I was supposed to uncover and "feel" and believe with the right degree of unquestioning reverence. It seems the most logical to me to assume that all people are wrong about these sorts of beliefs, because there is no method for determining which one is right anyhow... and some people are surely very wrong yet very convinced that they are right. I don't want to be one of those people. And I can't "make" myself believe anything any more than you can make yourself not believe what you've become convinced of. I'm not anti-Mormon any more than I'm Anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim or anti-Astrology...

I guess I'm anti-faith. I don't believe that faith is a means of knowing anything objectively true.

[RandFan]

My 2 cents worth.

DNA was one of the big ones for me. I grew being told that the decendants of Native Americans came from Jeruselam. Not "some" of them. On the contrary, it was quite clear what members and leaders of the Church believed and there was no ambiguity about this. This wasn't the subject of debate in Sunday School. Also, much was made of the fact that god changed the color of the skin of ancestors of these Native Americans and that is why the skin color of Native Americans was different from Europeans.

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

-- Nephi 5:21

I've got to say. Looking at that scripture I find it very embarrassing that the church didn't edit this a long time ago. It is such a racist comment. No matter how you spin it, it still paints people with black skin as inferior to whites.

Second LDS President Brigham Young stated in 1859, "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336).

At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).

Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball were ostensibly prophets of god, how did they get it so wrong? Why were Mormons confused about the relationship of Native Americans and Lamanites? Why was the "most correct book" edited in 1981 to change the word "white" to the word "pure"? Why do the explanations of today look like convenient post-hoc rationalization?

In other words, if you say, well, the word "white" was changed to "pure" to correct recent confusion then why didn't god make certain the words were "correct" in the first place? Isn't this a case of "in so far as it is translated correctly"? If so then how can it be said that the BOM is the most correct book? What else is misunderstood?

An earnest individual can formulate arguments in favor of any position but at the end of the day parsimony goes against arguments that would try and put the DNA evidence in a light favorable to the Church. To make such arguments would be to make god incompetent or deceptive by ommission or perhaps make his prophets incompetent. Maybe there is another explanation out there but any would be weak and look more like post-hoc (oops, better come up with something quick) rather than reasonable explanations. God's emissary’s shouldn't need to come up with stuff, right?

[Bob Blaylock]

Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball were ostensibly prophets of god, how did they get it so wrong?

A prophet is one to whom God speaks; and who God instructs to tell others what God has told him. However, a prophet is also a human being, who has exactly the same capacity that all of us have, to form and express his own beliefs and opinions. Not every word spoken by a prophet comes from God.



Why were Mormons confused about the relationship of Native Americans and Lamanites?

I don't concede that we are, or ever were, confused about this relationship. The American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites. For all the fuss that has been made about the various genetic evidence, and what it does or does not allegedly prove, nothing in it disproves this assertion. At most, it fails to prove anything, or else proves that there may have been other people of different origins who may have interbred with the Lamanites.



Why was the "most correct book" edited in 1981 to change the word "white" to the word "pure"? Why do the explanations of today look like convenient post-hoc rationalization?

The 1981 revision came after the church gained access to some manuscripts and notes of Joseph Smith's, which had been in the possession of the RLDS/CoC. As it turns out, the “white”/“pure” revision, as well as many others, were among the changes that Joseph Smith himself had produced, but which had failed to be applied to any publications of The Book of Mormon before this point.

[RandFan]

A prophet is one to whom God speaks; and who God instructs to tell others what God has told him. However, a prophet is also a human being, who has exactly the same capacity that all of us have, to form and express his own beliefs and opinions. Not every word spoken by a prophet comes from God. You are missing the point, this is a very important issue. If god could take time out of his busy day to talk about the evils of drinking hot drinks then why on earth couldn't he correct such a misconception?

I don't concede that we are, or ever were, confused about this relationship. The American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites. Sorry, no. Not possible. Unless god is messing with DNA.

At most, it fails to prove anything, or else proves that there may have been other people of different origins who may have interbred with the Lamanites. It's not possible to prove anything absolutely but the DNA evidence is rather conclusive. According to the BOM there were millions of Lamanites. To have decendants from such a large population and leave no DNA trace in their decendants is simply not plausible.

The 1981 revision came after the church gained access to some manuscripts and notes of Joseph Smith's, which had been in the possession of the RLDS/CoC. As it turns out, the “white”/“pure” revision, as well as many others, were among the changes that Joseph Smith himself had produced, but which had failed to be applied to any publications of The Book of Mormon before this point. You completly ignore the quotes, particularly the one from the BOM that makes it quite clear that it is NOT "pure". Please read again.

...did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

[RandFan]

The 1981 revision came after the church gained access to some manuscripts and notes of Joseph Smith's, which had been in the possession of the RLDS/CoC. As it turns out, the “white”/“pure” revision, as well as many others, were among the changes that Joseph Smith himself had produced, but which had failed to be applied to any publications of The Book of Mormon before this point.BTW, please to provide source for this.

For the sake of argument, would you agree that BOM is only the word of god "so far as it is translated correctly" and that the BOM was certainly not translated correctly before "this point"?

[articulett]

RF! Long time no see...
I've been wondering where you've been--

[Cleon]

On a side note...Good to see you back, RF.

[Correa Neto]

Hey, its RandFan! WB!

It seems the single and only evidence available to back the claim that Native Americans descend from ancient Jewish settlers is the Book of Mormon. DNA, as RF wrote, is pretty conclusive, specially the new data which narrows down Native American ancestry to 6 women. Not to mention that, as far as I know, there are no archeological evidence backing the presence of semitic people in the Americas before they were "discovered" by Columbus. Native American myths and religions also fail to provide any substantial backing to a Semitic ancestry. I am not well-versed in Jewish history, but I can't help but wonder if there are any records that could be attributed to the tribes cited at the Book of Mormon.

I think supposing that the mixing of these Jewish settlers with an earlier population "diluted" the Semitic DNA signature will not provide an explanation. The Book of Mormon describes a large population of people who were (at least culturally) Jewish. Usually, when a small ethinical group is absorved by a larger one, its culture becomes nothing but a minor part of the larger group's culture.

It all really makes me wonder... OK, you may consider religious texts (Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, etc.) as guidelines for reaching some truth (or some ethical paradigm). But seeking or pointing this truth based on things that are not real is very inconsistent, at best. Unless, of course, one acknoweledges the mythical nature of the texts/traditdions. At least, this is how I see it. Yes, it can be even worse, for some refuse to acknoweledge these problems and proclaim the veracity of their holy texts and say they are the only and the single way. At this point, some will look at the people who don't follow their ways and start considering them as lesser people.

[rcronk]

articulett - Thanks. I'm glad that I could finally express myself the way I've wanted to for so long.

randfan - Long time no type!

all - Hmm. So, help me through some of the problems you all have with this page (http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html) about the Book of Mormon and DNA. Can we take each point one at a time and discuss them?

Thomas Murphy and some other critics suggest that the plausibility of claims of Israelite ancestry by non-Jewish groups can be assessed by measuring their DNA affinity with modern Jewish groups. To test any scientific hypothesis, we must first evaluate whether our "controls" are valid. If we are to use modern Jewish genetics as the "control" against which Native American DNA is to be evaluated for possible ancient Israelite origins, we must first determine whether modern Jewish DNA data adequately represents ancient Israelite DNA. If the collective DNA of modern Jewish groups does not reflect all or at least a large majority of the DNA sequences and haplotypes present in ancient Israel, modern Jewish DNA data cannot be considered a valid control against which claims of Israelite ancestry of other groups can be accurately evaluated.

Ok, so we need to validate the controls. Here are some problems they see with the controls:

History and genetic evidence suggest that modern Jewish DNA is neither an inclusive nor exclusive indicator of the genetics of ancient Israel. Throughout history, the Jewish population was reconstituted from only a fraction of its former people on at least several occasions. Only a fraction of the Jews returned from Babylon; only a portion of the Palestine Jews survived the Roman counterattacks following the Jewish uprising which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD; many others perished in European pogroms. Dr. Robert Pollack notes that Ashkenazi Jews, which constitute most of the present Jewish population, "descend from a rather small number of families who survived the pogroms of the mid-1600s."3 (http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html#en3) All of these occasions would have resulted in the loss of some "Israelite" genes from the Jewish gene pool. Dr. Robert Pollack further notes: "Though there are many deleterious versions of genes shared within the Ashkenazic community, there are no DNA sequences common to all Jews and absent from all non-Jews. There is nothing in the human genome that makes or diagnoses a person as a Jew."4 (http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html#en4) When we consider the skew introduced by multiple "founder effects" of small group of survivors that represented only a fraction of the prior Jewish population on at least several occasions, together with scriptural and ethnohistorical evidence of Jewish intermixing with a variety of people-groups throughout their history and project it 2700 years into the past, one finds no rational basis for the assumption of critics that DNA from modern Jewish populations presents a full or accurate representation of Israelite genetics of pre-dispersion Israel. To the contrary, the observation is virtually inescapable that today's world Jewish population does not contain all of the genetic data present in pre-dispersion Israel.
Genetic data presents considerable evidence of intermixing of Jewish and non-Jewish populations. Among Jewish populations, we presently have no way to reliably determine which DNA sequences represent genuine ancient Israelite genetic markers. However, there is strong evidence that some of the markers found in many modern Jews, such as the "Levite" marker, were introduced long after the Israelite dispersion by intermixing with non-Israelite populations.

From what I understand, what they are saying here is that we are taking modern Jewish DNA to what ancient Jewish might have been and many significant things have happened to the Jewish population over the last couple of thousand years that would affect its composition. This is all under the title "Modern Jewish vs. Ancient Israelite DNA" at that link.

ETA: I think they're getting at trying to figure out if there's a valid provable way to get to what Lehi's (One of the Book of Mormon prophets who came from Jerusalem to the Americas) DNA (and Ishmael's DNA for that matter - another of the families who came with Lehi, and any others that came with them, including Laban's servant Zoram, etc.) so we can compare the Native American's DNA with it.

Comments?

[Correa Neto]

Ancient Jewish lived at certains places (Middle-East and if we are to trust the Bible, Egypt). Their DNA fingerprint quite likely would fall within a broader "semitic" DNA signature, right?

Now, Native Americans' DNA fingerprint points towards Asia as the most likely origin. This, in my opinion, is enough to render the "ancient Israelite x recent Jewish DNA" argument useless.

[rcronk]

Well, I think what we're really trying to determine here is what Lehi and his family, Ishmael and his family, and Zoram's DNA looked like. Do we know what their DNA looked like? Was is pure Jewish from that time period or not? If not, what did it look like? If so, what could happen to Jewish DNA since that time? This is the first step in the process. The next step deals with figuring out what might have happened to that DNA as it went through time here in the Americas, but we'll get to that later.

Does anyone here know what Lehi et al.'s DNA looked like?

[Cleon]

From what I understand, what they are saying here is that we are taking modern Jewish DNA to what ancient Jewish might have been and many significant things have happened to the Jewish population over the last couple of thousand years that would affect its composition. This is all under the title "Modern Jewish vs. Ancient Israelite DNA" at that link. Comments?

My comments are simple; the authors are searching for excuses, not looking at science. They are assuming, completely without foundation, that since gene pools change over time, that this means that there is no way to get an indication of what the gene pool of ancient Israelites would look like.

This assumption is completely wrong.

It's true that 100% of Jews do not share 100% of said markers, but that's how population genetics works; it's not static, not by a long shot. In any given gene pool, there's going to be variation, especially over the course of 2600 years.

Haplotypes identifies as ethnically Jewish are well-known; you can find common markers between Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim, which are often closely related to other peoples from the Levant, such as Arabs.

But in a long-lost population of ancient Hebrews, we would see certain Haplotypes that are identifiable, if not as Jewish, then certainly as related to Jews, as well as related to other peoples from the Levant (Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, etc). It's not as simple as "marker X is present, therefore origination is Y; if marker X is absent, origination is somewhere else."

What we do is look at markers A, B, C, D, E, F, and so on, and look at what we know about the development of those haplotypes, and determine population migration through a composite profile.

It's also worth noting that the authors are so busy trying to show what population genetics can't show, that they are forgetting what it does show--namely, that Native American DNA shows all the evidence of originating in Tibet, China, and Siberia. It's all well and good to say "we don't know what the gene pool of ancient Palestine looked like," but that excuse completely fails when you realize that the studies do show a common origination--just not where the BoM apologists want it to be.

[Cleon]

Well, I think what we're really trying to determine here is what Lehi and his family, Ishmael and his family, and Zoram's DNA looked like. Do we know what their DNA looked like? Was is pure Jewish from that time period or not?

First, asking if it was "pure Jewish" is simply an indication that you really know very little about the subject. There's no such thing as "pure" anything when it comes to genetics.

Second, assuming that Lehi was a real person, yes, we can compose a profile of certain markers we'd expect to see in the DNA of his descendants.

[rcronk]

That's fine, but beside my point. Do we know what we're trying to compare modern Native American DNA to? Do we know what Lehi's family and Ishmael's family and Zoram's DNA looked like? If not, then how can we say that the Native American DNA doesn't match that unknown? If you know what Lehi's and Ismael's and Zoram's DNA looks like, please post what you think it looks like and how you came to that conclusion.

[Correa Neto]

For the purpose in question, you don't need to know the exact DNA profile of an individual. All you need to know is to which broad ethinical group the individual belongs to.

People from the Middle-East (OK, Levant) have a certain number of characteristics; people from Central Asia another set, Africans another, and so on. Now, all you need to do is to compare these sets and see the matches. In Native Americans' case, the matches are with people from Asia.

I hope I managed to make myself clear without entering too much in to the specifics...

[RandFan]

Well, I think what we're really trying to determine here is what Lehi and his family, Ishmael and his family, and Zoram's DNA looked like. Do we know what their DNA looked like? Was is pure Jewish from that time period or not? If not, what did it look like? If so, what could happen to Jewish DNA since that time? This is the first step in the process. The next step deals with figuring out what might have happened to that DNA as it went through time here in the Americas, but we'll get to that later.

Does anyone here know what Lehi et al.'s DNA looked like?
Post hoc.

If you decide first that the BOM is correct and you look hard enough you can come up with interesting perspectives and seemingly contradictions from disparate data. However, if you decide first to let the chips fall where they may then the picture is quite clear. There is no controversy among scientists. It was understood long before DNA that the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North and South America were descendants of Asia. All evidence supported this fact. Predictions were then made that, given what the scientists already knew, the DNA evidence would confirm this. It did.

The case is closed. There were not millions of individuals who were descendants of Hebrews living in America, unless god deceptively altered all of the gene sequences when he changed the skin color alleles (please excuse my presumption of knowing how to communicate what the hell I'm talking about).

This is true regardless of what Lehi's genes "looked like" (it was very unlikely that his genes looked like Asian genes).

[RandFan]

That's fine, but beside my point. Do we know what we're trying to compare modern Native American DNA to? Do we know what Lehi's family and Ishmael's family and Zoram's DNA looked like? If not, then how can we say that the Native American DNA doesn't match that unknown? If you know what Lehi's and Ismael's and Zoram's DNA looks like, please post what you think it looks like and how you came to that conclusion. The ostensible geneology of Lehi's family is made quite clear. He is a direct decendant of Abraham. Using logical inference we can infer that his DNA did not match that of Asian (it's far more complicated than that but that's fine. I think we can speak at this level).

You say that Cleon's post is beside your point but it isn't. It really, really isn't.

[rcronk]

Thanks. The Book of Mormon claims that Lehi was a descendant of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. The index of the Book of Mormon says that Ishmael was "An Ephraimite from Jerusalem" but I don't know where that information comes from. I didn't find any information about Zoram. Can we assume a "broad ethnical group" for each of these three families? With how much certainty can we assume this? I'm not an expert here, you all presumably know more than I do about these things, so help me understand what broad ethnical group these three families would belong to and with what percentage certainty you know this and how.

[Cleon]

That's fine, but beside my point.

No, it's perfectly in line with your point.


Do we know what we're trying to compare modern Native American DNA to? Do we know what Lehi's family and Ishmael's family and Zoram's DNA looked like? If not, then how can we say that the Native American DNA doesn't match that unknown? If you know what Lehi's and Ismael's and Zoram's DNA looks like, please post what you think it looks like and how you came to that conclusion.

I've answered this in my past two posts.

Yes, we know what we'd expect to find; markers indicating haplotypes originating in the Levant. (i.e., genetic markers that are common to peoples originating in the Middle East.)

We can say that NA DNA doesn't match "that unknown" because what NA DNA does tell us is not an unknown. The markers we do see indicate origin from Northeast Asia.

Unless Lehi was from Tibet, the evidence is overwhelmingly against any sort of connection with ancient Palestine.

[rcronk]

My beside the point comment was to a different post, I think. Sometimes it's hard to keep track when multiple people are replying.

Ok, I'll accept, with ignorance, that you all know what you're talking about with regard to what needs to be known about Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram and that we know enough about them to be sure that we have a good control to compare against.

Ok, so According to David Stewart, who wrote the article, what has happened to Jewish DNA since 600 B.C. is significant to this discussion. Do you all disagree with that?

[RandFan]

Lehi & His Wife.
Joseph, Laman, Lemuel, Sam (and sisters?).
Ishmael's five daughters and two sons.

Ok, based on my limited knowledge, unless all of these individuals have DNA that is largely Asian then it is unlikely that Asian markers are going to increase over time regardless of what it "looked like".

Let's not forget an important point that is being missed here. The BOM makes much ado about skin color. Dark skin color is bad and Laman and Lemuel's decendants had dark skin color because god marked them with dark skin. Coincidently so did the Asian descendants.

If this was god's plan it was very likely to cause confusion and it was racially insensitive.

Why is it that god's actions in this instance caused controversy? It seems to me that the best light that one can cast on this is that it is unintentionally deceptive and disparaging to an entire group of individuals.

God ought to be able to do better than that.

[RandFan]

My beside the point comment was to a different post, I think. Sometimes it's hard to keep track when multiple people are replying.

Ok, I'll accept, with ignorance, that you all know what you're talking about with regard to what needs to be known about Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram and that we know enough about them to be sure that we have a good control to compare against.

Ok, so According to David Stewart, who wrote the article, what has happened to Jewish DNA since 600 B.C. is significant to this discussion. Do you all disagree with that?
This is mischaracterizing the facts as it relates to the science that is being discussed. There is no reason to assume that DNA in question has changed in any way that would have any bearing on this discussion. Please read Cleon's post again. His point is quite clear.

[rcronk]

You forgot Zoram, but that's probably not a hugely relevant piece of the puzzle since he hung out with the Nephites who were eventually killed off.

Now, I guess we'll move on. If there were people already here and the Lamanites mixed with them, would that affect this study? The Book of Mormon is a record mainly of the Nephites, not the Lamanites. We don't know how much Lamanites interacted with people who were already here on the American continent. We don't know how many of the original lamanites were not killed off during the wars with the Nephites. I think that's one problem with the Book of Mormon is that it's job is to invite people to Christ, not provide a good scientific DNA record of a people. With so many unknowns about the lamanites, it's not "conclusive" to me. I'm ignorant of this topic, but it seems to me that with so many unknowns it's hard to call things conclusive, especially since none of these studies dealt with the Book of Mormon at all and didn't try to prove anything with regard to the Book of Mormon. Can you or anyone else fill in the blanks with regards to what happened to the Lamanites during the past 2600 years that might have affected their DNA?

As for racial issues, if I were black or had some other shade of dark skin, and I read the Book of Mormon, I would probably struggle with it a bit but I would realize that my own dark skin is a product of genetics, not a curse on me. If people's skin color was changed because of rebellion or sin in the past, it has nothing to do with me today. It also doesn't mean that all people with dark skin are "bad" or that their ancestors were "bad". I think perhaps a racist could derive all kinds of things from all this, but a decent person would not and would love and serve all people regardless of skin color. It's people who are sometimes racist and hateful. If people want to use the scriptures to justify hate and racism, that's their own sin. I'm not doing it, so it's a choice that each of us make.

[Cleon]

Now, I guess we'll move on. If there were people already here and the Lamanites mixed with them, would that affect this study?

Were this the case, we would see both haplotypes originating from NE Asia and ones from the Levant.

I think that's one problem with the Book of Mormon is that it's job is to invite people to Christ, not provide a good scientific DNA record of a people.

Nobody's said otherwise. However, it is supposed to be a record of these people, and that record is contradicted (to put it mildly) by the genetic, archaeological, and historical record.


it's hard to call things conclusive, especially since none of these studies dealt with the Book of Mormon at all and didn't try to prove anything with regard to the Book of Mormon.

As I've explained to you before, it does not matter if the studies were set up specifically around the Book of Mormon or not. If the DNA doesn't show it, it ain't there.

Can you or anyone else fill in the blanks with regards to what happened to the Lamanites during the past 2600 years that might have affected their DNA?

Lots of things, I'm sure. Populations migrate, reproduce, die off. Gene pools, as I've said, are not static things. They change and evolve.

However--it is not biologically possible for the Native Americans to be the complete or partial descendants of Lehi without leaving evidence of this in their DNA. If the Lamanites existed and interbred with the Natives, as you (and the new BoM intro suggest), then all of the Lamanite descendants have died off and nobody's done a DNA test on their remains.

[rcronk]

Cleon, what is your expertise on this subject? The author of the article I've linked to (along with other articles and authors) disagree with you and I'm wondering where the disconnect is and what your credentials are for discussing these things is. I have no credentials, which leaves me in an unfortunate position of having to trust you or the people who are writing these articles. I want to know who I'm trusting. Does this article have ANY valid points? If so, which points are valid?

[Correa Neto]

Please rcronk, lets try to avoid arguments from authority here, shall we? Cleon's, Stewart's, mines, yours and everyone elses credentials fade in importance when confronted with data.

Consider this: A group of ancient Hebrews arriving at the Americas would have had a technological edge over any previous settler (Mayas and Incas included). Weaponry, for example. Chances are they would also bring some diseases the natives would not be immune to. Even if eventually they managed to somehow reach terms and blend with the natives, their technology and culture would certainly not be lost. Their DNA signature would also not be lost. The only way of loosing these Semitic DNA fingerprints would be eliminating for all practical purposes the people who had them. Something very hard hard to accomplish if the Americas were populated by so many people whose antecessors were Hebrews, as stated in the Book of Mormon.

Note that even then, their anthropologic signature would still be present in terms of archeologic evidence and cultural traces in current Native American lore.

[rcronk]

This isn't an argument from authority. I'm really just trying to sort through the data and am finding myself unable to discern between the arguments here and the arguments in the articles I've found. Everyone here is disagreeing with the articles I've found and so I want to know what experience you all have in these areas. I know the people in these articles are biased - duh. I also know from my own experience that the people on this forum are biased. I'm not going to blindly believe the "best" expert's opinion, I just want to put things in context. Don't we give more weight to a structural engineer's findingings over a truther who is claiming to know what they're talking about?

Does anyone here have expertise in these areas at all or are you all just like me - just someone reading other people's papers? Here is another paper (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Children_of_Lehi_DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.h tml) by D. Jeffrey Meldrum (http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/). He says:

At least three major hypotheses can (and have) been advanced concerning Native American origins:

All Native Americans are of Asian origin. (This has been the predominant hypothesis of mainstream science since the late 16th century.)
All Native Americans are of Middle Eastern origin. (This hypothesis is that advocated by some people who accept the Book of Mormon account.)
Most Native Americans are of Asian origin, whereas some small subset is of Middle Eastern origin. This latter hypothesis has two subservient hypotheses:
No genetic evidence of the Middle Eastern subset has been found, but will eventually
No genetic evidence of the Middle Eastern subset has been found, and probably never will be found.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 are testable by direct, scientific methods. The genetic constitution of the extant Native American population has been extensively tested. The data support hypothesis number 1 and refute hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 is more problematic and may not be testable. Why? Because a very small population introduced into a larger population may or may not be identifiable, depending on whether any specific genetic markers for that population were transferred to the main population. The X haplotype is an example of such a potential genetic marker. Because haplotype X had not been found in Asian populations prior to 2001, it remained as a possible marker brought into the population from Europe or the Middle East. The discovery that haplotype X existed in south Siberia ended most inquires into its source. This observation was consistent with the hypothesis that all Native Americans originated in Asia. The X haplotype, however, was present in only 3.5 percent of the south Siberian population, an area from which the other four haplotypes were not proposed to have originated. Although the observation was consistent with the hypothesis, the prospect that the Native American X haplotype was actually derived from the Siberian X haplotype, and not from the European X haplotype, has never been, and probably never can be, established.

Is he wrong too?

[RandFan]

If there were people already here and the Lamanites mixed with them, would that affect this study? There is no DNA evidence that Native Americans are descendants of Abraham. There is no controversy, anthropologically, as to the origins of Native Americans. The BOM purportedly answered the question as to the origins of Native Americans and that answer was Jerusalem. That is simply not the case.

If people's skin color was changed because of rebellion or sin in the past, it has nothing to do with me today. You fail to address the question. Why would god use such a confusing and racially insensitive means to denote and differentiate "good" and "bad" people? Why didn't the prophets explain from the beginning the differences? Why are all of these explanations post-hoc?


If people want to use the scriptures to justify hate and racism, that's their own sin.

You want to simply place all of the blame on individuals but that is not at all fair. It was god who called light skin people "delightsome" and used "dark skin" to represent evil. A common misconception in Joseph Smith time BTW. It was believed that Europeans were superior to others because they were more technologically advanced. Not true. Please see Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/).

So, if we accept your thesis, then god played into those racist stereotypes using the BOM. Why? Why did he not make it clear in "the most correct book of scripture", that skin color does not necessarily denote wickedness? Again and again, the explanations are always post-hoc. An ominipotent god should have seen this coming. Perhaps he wanted to test people's faith so he made things unclear and confusing?

[articulett]

I've gone over this with you before...
I have a Masters in Genetic Counseling and am a Biology Teacher.

Your article is an apologetic for why we don't see the DNA we'd expect to see if Native Americans and Hebrew ancestry from the time indicated in the Book of Mormon. When we look at DNA, we are seeing a history of a person's ancestry-- only half of it... the half since we only get half of each parents DNA... giving us a 1/4 of each grand parents DNA etc. But not so with mitochondrial DNA. Everyone gets that from their mother. We know the various markers of various DNA and can tell with a high degree of certainty where maternal ancestors lineage have passed through. We can also look at other markers and since we've understood where and and when they arose, we can understand ancestry by looking at such markers. These markers have been used to show that the origins of Native Americans is Asia... specific places in Asia-- bone analysis had already given us that clue, and DNA has confirmed it. They came over the Bering Straight and populated the west coast of the Americas and spread out from there many years before Europeans came over. We can trace the origins of ancestry by looking at markers and we can say, you had an ancestor from the middle East in this Era... because we know that certain mutations arose there and indicate ancestry there. For example, this is what we've discovered about blue eyes recently: http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2008/02/06/the-family-tree-of-blue-eyed-individuals/
http://haplogroup-i.com/2008/02/01/blue-and-green-eyes-are-mutation/

Blue eyed Mormons show ancestry in the middle east from 6000-10,000 years ago. Even today. This isn't true of Native Americans. There is nothing even remotely similar that indicates that they had any ancestry in common with Middle Easterns in the times mentioned in the BOM... and that is just absurdly unlikely that they descend from peoples there and left no trace when we have such obvious signs that Blue Eyed people have ancestry that lived in the region.

We have nothing in Native American DNA --no markers that shows they had any ancestry in common with the known markers of people and populations in that area and tons of markers associated with the aforementioned Asian regions of that time period.

Yes, it's possible that people from Israel could have had aberrant because they migrated and were not representative of the population as a whole... and/or they could have left no trace of their ancestry in their DNA nor any corpses with identifiable DNA nor any traces of their culture etc. That is what your article is saying.

But what is more likely. A complete erasure of evidence for a pretty far fetched story... or that the story was made up and people are back pedaling and making excuses for why we don't see what we'd expect to see if there was any varacity in the history of the book of Mormon.

Moreover... gods can't just change skin color... skin color is a result of genes that make melanin... so unless god is dicking around with people on a genetic level-- it makes no sense. Of course Joseph Smith couldn't have known this. He might have believed his story or really believed that someone was helping his "see" this history or whatever. But no person without a vested interest in believing that it's true would give it a second thought... no more than stories about Xenu and Volcanos... I'm sure we can hear all kinds of excuses as to why the evidence doesn't match the story... but the the most parsimonious explanation is because the story is fiction.

Your scholars are correct... nobody can prove that it isn't true... not to a person of faith anyhow... just as no one can prove to Tom Cruise that thetans are a figment of human imagination. You are in the same boat as him regarding serious scholars taking the book of Mormon as anything more than a work of fiction. You have to want to believe the book of Mormon is true to buy into the reasoning that we can explain away the complete lack of evidence for it's claims. Is your god hiding evidence? If he's hiding evidence from you, then how do you know you aren't having evidence hidden from other mystical truths that might be more true or real. A lack of evidence is not a reason to keep the faith. It's a hard thing to accept. But if the book of Mormon, was not true-- would you want to know? What would suffice as evidence if you did. Or do you just want to keep believing that it's some inspired truth from beyond?

[Cleon]

Meldrum is essentially correct. (And let me tell you, that's something you will never hear someone say in the General Skepticism forum. :D )

If the population of Israelites was extremely small, and married into a much larger Native population, the genetic sequences showing their origin may simply be lost among the larger population. However, as this sort of testing is able to dig deeper, this possibility becomes less and less likely.

However, the Book of Mormon says there were millions of Lamanites--and the population of North America was fairly small. For the above scenario to be correct, the Book of Mormon would still wind up giving an incorrect view of history.

[RandFan]

Does anyone here have expertise in these areas at all or are you all just like me - just someone reading other people's papers? Here is another paper (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Children_of_Lehi_DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.h tml) by D. Jeffrey Meldrum (http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/). He says:

Is he wrong too? From Simon Southerton responding to his critics point by point.

Answers to Apologetic Claims about DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.irr.org/mit/southerton-response.html)


1. The Book of Mormon does not present a testable hypothesis.

Some LDS scientists argue that the Book of Mormon does not present a testable hypothesis and that, since other scientists are not testing the Book of Mormon directly, the data collected by non-Mormon scientists is irrelevant to the origin of Book of Mormon people. The question scientists are asking is: "Who are the ancestors of the American Indians?" In fact, about 7,300 American Indians have been DNA tested in scientific experiments aimed at discovering where their founding ancestors came from. The Book of Mormon claims in its introduction that the Book of Mormon people (the Lamanites) "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." Most LDS adherents believe, and all the LDS prophets have taught, that Israelites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. It is therefore absurd to claim that what the scientists are discovering about Indian heritage is irrelevant. Scientists are inadvertently asking the same question posed by the Book of Mormon, and LDS beliefs about Indian ancestry fall squarely into the scientific field of anthropology. Molecular anthropologists are uncovering evidence that is directly relevant to LDS beliefs in this area.

[rcronk]

articulett - Thank you. Do you know which Native Americans were DNA tested and how many were tested? ETA:It looks like it was "American Indians" and about 7,300 based on RandFan's quote. So it doesn't look like it includes South Americans, for example.

cleon - Thanks. The lamanites split off from their group very early on after they arrived in the Americas and we have no record of their interactions with people who were already here. When it said they were in the millions, this was after years of being split - where they could have been mixing with other people who were already there. When they split, they were only a handful of people.

randfan - It says they have tested 7,300 American Indians. Did they test anyone from South America, who would have also been American Indians mixed with Europeans, right? The Book of Mormon itself makes no mention of American Indians and "all the LDS prophets" have not taught that Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans - that phrase is from 1981 from a non-prophet. The statement was changed to "among the ancestors" about a year ago in the newest printing of the Book of Mormon introduction (which is not part of the Book of Mormon proper) I assume because it was based on human knowledge at the time and was overreaching and based in opinion rather than revelation. Humans are imperfect and even prophets are imperfect - look at Moses. There has never been a claim that prophets were perfect nor that a group of people in 1981 trying to find a way to help people place the Book of Mormon in context are perfect. ETA:I don't know why God does some of the things He does. I do think that He doesn't seem to be a codependent being - making sure that everything is set up perfectly so that nobody makes mistakes or jumps to conclusions.

[Correa Neto]

Well, when you ask someone's credentials as part of an argument, it at least looks quite like an argument from authority. On a slightly OT note, I am pretty aware of Meldrum's background. Its not the first time I am presented to one of his ideas and its not the first time I am not impresented with one of them.

Now, regarding Meldrum's reasonings...
His argument, if I understood it propperly (something I am not sure of), is centered in two main pillars:
1. The Hebrew population was small and represented by the Nephites.
2. An interpretation of the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites are the antecessors of modern Native Americans and had little if any blending with Nephites (the Hebrew immigrants).
Hence there would be little if any Semitic DNA traces in modern Native American population.
Well, it seems to me like an attempt to justify the fact that DNA evidence is in disagreement with the Book of Mormom based in nothing but suppositions and reinterpretation of the original text. Is it possible that a small population of Hebrews lived in North America during pre Columbian times? Well, yes. But is it plausible? No. Not to mention that the Book of Mormom dos not seem to describe such a small population.

Not to mention that the absence of archeological and "cultural" evidence also leave the idea of Native Americans having Hebrew ancestors with nothing but the Book of Mormom to support it. OK, it may be enough for some. But not for me.

In sum, I think that when he writes:
These concepts of kinship bear directly on the Book of Mormon account of a branch of Israel "run[ning] over the wall." The data suggest that a small colony under the leadership of Nephi established a kinship within the fabric of a larger resident population. In effect, it was a situation of "them and us"--Lamanites and Nephites. The Nephites were the believers, while the Lamanites were everyone else (see, for example, Jacob 1:14; Alma 3:11). This perception differs little from the concept of "Jew and Gentile," the latter term encompassing all non-Jews. With final destruction of the Nephite kinship, all who remained in the Americas were "Lamanites." If this interpretation is correct, then the statement from the introduction to the Book of Mormon, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" is fully justified. All Native Americans are in fact descended from these "Lamanites"--these "Gentiles" of the record of Nephi's people. Lehi's prophecy to Laman and Lemuel was realized: their heritage of dissension continued, and their legacy never died out--in the Abrahamic sense or in the Buchanan context, even if their genetic markers may have.
He is wrong, for the reasons stated before.

[rcronk]

correa - a small correction. Lehi's family consisted of Laman, Lemuel, Nephi, Sam, Joseph, Jacob, and some sisters. This family married the children of Ishmael. Zoram got thrown in the mix somewhere too. Laman and Lemuel and a few others are the beginnings of the Lamanites. The rest of the people are the Nephites. The lamanites hated the nephites and split from them just after arriving in the Americas. The Book of Mormon was written by the Nephites and therefore the only record of the Lamanites is when they would come to battle with them periodically. So both the nephites and lamanites came from the same parents. The point made above is that since the nephites were eventually destroyed and the lamanites (a very small group initially) may have mixed with people already there, it's possible that their DNA footprint isn't as large as previously assumed. Since only 7,300 American Indians were DNA tested and apparently no latin americans were tested, it's possible that the lamanite DNA is still to be found or was lost because of the small footprint they originally started with, if mingled with people who were already here.

P.S. It may be an appeal to authority, but I want to know if you all are as clueless as me when it comes to DNA science - probably not, but I'm just curious as to how much you really know and what you're just repeating from papers, etc. Articulett stated qualifications - thanks.

[RandFan]

randfan - It says they have tested 7,300 American Indians. Did they test anyone from South America, who would have also been American Indians mixed with Europeans, right? I don't understand your point but you can write Southerton and I think it likely he will answer you. He has answered me in the past. I'll say it again, you are still missing a very important point. The "most correct book of scripture" clouds the issue.

...that phrase is from 1981 from a non-prophet. The statement was changed to "among the ancestors" about a year ago in the newest printing of the Book of Mormon introduction (which is not part of the Book of Mormon proper) I assume because it was based on human knowledge at the time and was overreaching and based in opinion rather than revelation.No, that is not the only source for the confusion. See Spencer W. Kimball's remarks above. See Brigham Young's. That was my understanding when I was a child. It was what led my father to investigate the church. He believed the BOM answered the question of where Native Americans came from.

But why does the "most correct book of scripture" not resolve the controversy? Why does it not make plain what you are now saying post-hoc?

Humans are imperfect and even prophets are imperfect - look at Moses."Imperfect"? Moses was one of the most evil men to walk the face of the earth. He ordered the slaughter of innocent people. He ordered the slaughter of women and children. Moses would be on a par with Hitler but I give him credit for being a product of his times. However, once you suggest that he spoke to god who gave him moral instructions then I have to take back any such justification.

There has never been a claim that prophets were perfect nor that a group of people in 1981 trying to find a way to help people place the Book of Mormon in context are perfect. ETA:I don't know why God does some of the things He does. I do think that He doesn't seem to be a codependent being - making sure that everything is set up perfectly so that nobody makes mistakes or jumps to conclusions. The BOM is supposed to be the most correct book of scripture but here it is with a glaring controversy. It suggests that people of dark skin are somehow inferior to light skin people. A racist and anachronistic concept popular in Joseph Smith's time.

Let me throw in parsimony here. If the BOM engages in racist ideas that were prevalent at the time of its release then what is more likely, god used a racist method of denoting good and bad or that Joseph Smith bought into the silly concept that white skin people were superior to dark skin people?

[RandFan]

P.S. It may be an appeal to authority, but I want to know if you all are as clueless as me when it comes to DNA science - probably not, but I'm just curious as to how much you really know and what you're just repeating from papers, etc. Articulett stated qualifications - thanks. I have no expertise whatsoever. That is why I have written Southerton when I've had questions.

Let me point out that Southerton was a Mormon bishop in good standing who set out to demonstrate that Native Americans were decendants of Abraham.

[rcronk]

randfan - the "most correct book of scripture" doesn't mention "Native Americans" once. It makes no claims about any of this. This is all about an introduction that was written in 1981. This introduction could have been based on some of the comments or beliefs that were present in the church. Heck (now you know I'm from Utah) even the Book of Mormon itself says that it may contain errors and that if it does, they are the errors of men. I'm not sure where you're getting the "everyone's perfect" idea from, nobody has ever claimed that. These issues are not relevant to salvation, they are just something that people could make mistakes in and get tripped up over if their faith is based on them. Certainly it would make things easier if every prophet and book of scripture were free from any error. I'm not going to derail to a discussion of Moses.

Please cite where the Book of Mormon says that "people of dark skin are somehow inferior to light skin people." I think I missed that quote last time I read it.

Parsimony is a good way to flip a coin and pick a simpler choice in the absence of proof, but that's all it is. You're really stuck on this racist thing. I never got anything like that out of the book of Mormon all the times I've read it. For all of the many references in it that explain that all people are equally precious to God and that the nephite prophets prayed and begged for the lamanites to be saved and stop warring with them and that they might enjoy the blessings of God - it's strange that you'd pick one or two references to a mark placed on them and deriving that they are inferior - that sounds like your own idea, because it's not from the Book of Mormon from my reading of it. Maybe I missed that part.

[Bob Blaylock]

You are missing the point, this is a very important issue. If god could take time out of his busy day to talk about the evils of drinking hot drinks then why on earth couldn't he correct such a misconception?


Why does God allow any false belief or misinformation to ever exist and propagate? Whenever any human being comes up with an idea that is false, and starts spreading this idea around, why doesn't God provide clear correction? Why was Mankind ever allowed to believe that the Earth was flat, that all matter was composed of four elements, or whatever?


Sorry, no. Not possible. Unless god is messing with DNA.


Within a generation, God altered the Lamanites, to make them visually distinct from the Nephites. This change was hereditary, such that through the entire history covered in the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites remained visually distinct. To make such a change, and to have that change be hereditary would surely involve, to use your words, “messing with DNA.”. And without knowing the exact details of just what God did to the Lamanites' DNA, we have no way of knowing what effect this might have on later attempts, by analyzing the DNA of their distant descendants, to establish any genetic connection to another group from which this first one has been separated for about 2,600 years.


For the sake of argument, would you agree that BOM is only the word of god "so far as it is translated correctly" and that the BOM was certainly not translated correctly before "this point"?


The Book of Mormon itself contains passages which acknowledge the possibility of man-made errors creeping into it. We don't believe, as many fundamentalists do, that any body of scripture can be regarded as perfect, inerrant, and infallible. God's word is perfect when he speaks it, but a prophet who records it is a fallible human being, as are all the many people involved in typesetting and otherwise publishing it.

As far as the “white”/“pure” distinction, it really doesn't alter the meaning that was expressed. Apparently, Joseph Smith saw the possibility that in some contexts, the use of the word “white” would be misunderstood, and that the word “pure” would be more reliably understood correctly. Getting back to the point in my previous paragraph, about imperfect, fallible men being involved in recording and publishing God's word, it is also imperfect, fallible people who will read it and try to understand it. even if The Book of Mormon were itself perfect, and free from any error, people who read it would still, from time to time, make errors in their understanding of it.

[RandFan]

randfan - the "most correct book of scripture" doesn't mention "Native Americans" once.?

I never said it did. That's a silly point. The people living in North and South American are correctly known as "Native Americans". I use this term because it is correct. That's all. If the BOM is correct then the people it discusses are "Native Americans" whether it uses that term or not.

This introduction could have been based on some of the comments or beliefs that were present in the church. One more time. I'm not simply talking about the introduction. I'm talking about the understanding of Mormon's, both leaders and followers.

Heck (now you know I'm from Utah) even the Book of Mormon itself says that it may contain errors and that if it does, they are the errors of men. Again, you miss my point. Why did god allow this controversy? He went out of his way to tell Joesph Smith not to drink hot drinks. Couldn't he take a moment to set the record straight about something far more important than the drinking of tea and coffee (ostensibly) and also Coke (caffeine? Coke didn't exist at the time).


I'm not sure where you're getting the "everyone's perfect" idea from, nobody has ever claimed that. I'm not sure where you are getting your straw man from. I never claimed that.

Look, it's really simple. It was believed by the Church (leaders and members) that Native Americans were the descendants of Abraham. Much has been said by prophets to reinforce this idea. This was an important concept of the Church. It's not true.

Please cite where the Book of Mormon says that "people of dark skin are somehow inferior to light skin people." I think I missed that quote last time I read it. I keep posting it.

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

-- Nephi 5:21

Parsimony is a good way to flip a coin and pick a simpler choice in the absence of proof, but that's all it is. No, not at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony) It's not a physical law that governs the universe but it is a very good way to find the truth. If you see a guy up on a stage appear to saw a woman in half you can use parsimony to arrive at the truth. Its a very effective tool and your dismissal of it is simply wrong.

You're really stuck on this racist thing. I never got anything like that out of the book of Mormon all the times I've read it. I didn't either. It's an embarrassing relic of days past.


For all of the many references in it that explain that all people are equally precious to God and that the nephite prophets prayed and begged for the lamanites to be saved and stop warring with them and that they might enjoy the blessings of God - it's strange that you'd pick one or two references to a mark placed on them and deriving that they are inferior - that sounds like your own idea, because it's not from the Book of Mormon from my reading of it. Maybe I missed that part. Yes, I guess you did. And you missed what Brigham Young said also.

Second LDS President Brigham Young stated in 1859, "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336).

I ask for your honesty here Rcronk, don't you find that racist and ignorant? "... dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation..."

I'll tell you with all honesty that I'm embarrassed that I ever held such a person in high self esteem. Again, I would be willing to give him some credit for being the product of his times but he was supposedly talking to god at that time. You say not everyone is perfect, ok, god is perfect, right? Why couldn't god, on his next visit to brother Brigham, correct such an ugly and evil idea?

That's not simply making a mistake. That's perpetuating one of the most pernicious evils of mankind. That doesn't at all fit with the love of Christ or the story of the Good Samaritan.

[RandFan]

Why does God allow any false belief or misinformation to ever exist and propagate? Whenever any human being comes up with an idea that is false, and starts spreading this idea around, why doesn't God provide clear correction? Why was Mankind ever allowed to believe that the Earth was flat, that all matter was composed of four elements, or whatever? That's a great question. Do you have an answer? You seem to think this is an argument on your side. I don't. I think when god is talking to his prophets he ought to correct some things. If he doesn't then I've got to wonder if he is actually talking to anyone at all. That's a reasonable query.

Within a generation, God altered the Lamanites, to make them visually distinct from the Nephites. This change was hereditary, such that through the entire history covered in the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites remained visually distinct. To make such a change, and to have that change be hereditary would surely involve, to use your words, “messing with DNA.”. And without knowing the exact details of just what God did to the Lamanites' DNA, we have no way of knowing what effect this might have on later attempts, by analyzing the DNA of their distant descendants, to establish any genetic connection to another group from which this first one has been separated for about 2,600 years. See Answers to Apologetic Claims about DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.irr.org/mit/southerton-response.html).

...why would God change the DNA so it matched Asian DNA? As Latter-day Saints, we have already offended Blacks and the Indians. Are we going to offend Asians now, as well?

The Book of Mormon itself contains passages which acknowledge the possibility of man-made errors creeping into it. We don't believe, as many fundamentalists do, that any body of scripture can be regarded as perfect, inerrant, and infallible. God's word is perfect when he speaks it, but a prophet who records it is a fallible human being, as are all the many people involved in typesetting and otherwise publishing it.


God is omnipotent.
God speaks to prophets.
God had ample opportunity to make corrections before the controversyWhy does it look like your explanation is post-hoc rationalization?

As far as the “white”/“pure” distinction, it really doesn't alter the meaning that was expressed. ?

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

-- Nephi 5:21 That simply doesn't wash.

[rcronk]

I never said it did. That's a silly point. The people living in North and South American are correctly known as "Native Americans". I use this term because it is correct. That's all. If the BOM is correct then the people it discusses are "Native Americans" whether it uses that term or not.

One more time. I'm not simply talking about the introduction. I'm talking about the understanding of Mormon's, both leaders and followers.

People can be wrong. It's not God's M.O. to go around fixing everyone's problems. He leaves that up to us so we can learn from our mistakes. Fixing people's problems for them makes them weaker. Helping them find out on their own how to go ask for correction and more truth is how you make people stronger and more self sufficient. That's just been my experience in life and it works better to let people learn from their mistakes and so I would suppose that since it's God's objective to help us progress, He would not go around coddling us and fixing all of our problems for us.

No, not at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony) It's not a physical law that governs the universe but it is a very good way to find the truth. If you see a guy up on a stage appear to saw a woman in half you can use parsimony to arrive at the truth. Its a very effective tool and your dismissal of it is simply wrong.

"This is generally regarded as good when judging hypotheses." That's fine and I agree. I accept that God exists and you don't. I think that's where we disagree on parsimony - you have to assume God exists to accept one point of view and I'm not counting His existence as an assumption when I evaluate the hypotheses. That's a good point.

I ask for your honesty here Rcronk, don't you find that racist and ignorant? "... dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation..."

Yes, it does seem racist and ignorant. I don't excuse him and I am also willing to give him the benefit of the doubt given how people generally thought in those times and given the fact that in so many other instances, he did not express such ignorance. And especially since the members of the LDS church as a whole were generally strongly against slavery, etc.

You say not everyone is perfect, ok, god is perfect, right? Why couldn't god, on his next visit to brother Brigham, correct such an ugly and evil idea?

That's not simply making a mistake. That's perpetuating one of the most pernicious evils of mankind. That doesn't at all fit with the love of Christ or the story of the Good Samaritan.

I think you're going a bit overboard there. Sure it's not something I would say or agree with, in fact I would argue that such is not the case, however I wouldn't classify it as one of the most pernicious evils of mankind. We're pretty far derailed here, but I think the underlying point here is that people make mistakes. There are several times in the Doctrine and Covenants where Joseph Smith published accounts of God reprimanding him for his follies and errors and sins. Even Nephi, who many regard as a great prophet, at times thought of himself as a "wretched man" beset with temptations, but he knew in who he had trusted - the Lord.

A prophet is a man with weakness and error. I think that may be why any new church pronouncements come from the prophet in unison with the first presidency at least and usually in unity with the quorum of the twelve apostles to smooth out some human error that can creep in. Rejecting the restored gospel because of the frailties of men who are members or leaders of the LDS church is something I've seen many times.

Again, God corrects some things but from what I've seen, He leaves it up to us to find and correct our own errors so that we can progress and become better people instead of people who are coddled, taken care of, and never allowed to falter or propagate errors. My faith is in Christ and not in every word that comes out of every mortal imperfect prophet who He has called. As members of the church, we are to pray and gain a testimony of what the prophet says as well as yet another point of checking what the prophet says.

Uh, and the DNA evidence is not conclusive based on so many unknowns regarding the lamanites' interactions with people already on the American continent. "Stay on target. Stay on target."

[Correa Neto]

correa - a small correction. Lehi's family consisted of Laman, Lemuel, Nephi, Sam, Joseph, Jacob, and some sisters. This family married the children of Ishmael. Zoram got thrown in the mix somewhere too. Laman and Lemuel and a few others are the beginnings of the Lamanites. The rest of the people are the Nephites. The lamanites hated the nephites and split from them just after arriving in the Americas. The Book of Mormon was written by the Nephites and therefore the only record of the Lamanites is when they would come to battle with them periodically. So both the nephites and lamanites came from the same parents. The point made above is that since the nephites were eventually destroyed and the lamanites (a very small group initially) may have mixed with people already there, it's possible that their DNA footprint isn't as large as previously assumed.
Well, according to Meldrum, if I understood the text correctly, the word "Lamanite" also can be understood as earlier settlers:
These concepts of kinship bear directly on the Book of Mormon account of a branch of Israel "run[ning] over the wall." The data suggest that a small colony under the leadership of Nephi established a kinship within the fabric of a larger resident population. In effect, it was a situation of "them and us"--Lamanites and Nephites. The Nephites were the believers, while the Lamanites were everyone else (see, for example, Jacob 1:14; Alma 3:11). This perception differs little from the concept of "Jew and Gentile," the latter term encompassing all non-Jews.
The bolding is mine.
So, to me it seems Meldrum makes a diferent interpretation when it comes to this aspect.
These early settlers, of course, descended from Lehi, as he previously states:
From the children of Lehi arose two principal cultures, the Nephites and the Lamanites, who play out a drama fraught with wars and contentions. Notice we have said two cultures, not lineages.
Perhaps they were more "mixed" and surely they no longer followed the Jewish religion. The way I understood the text (which may not be correct) is that they may have arrived before the Nephites or blended more with the locals.

Aniway, my main point is that he is making (baseless) supositions to explain why the evidence does not fit with the hypothesis. The propper methodology would be to change the hypothesis according to the evidence and not the other way. Its my personal opinion that his beliefs are inducing heavy bias on his analysis.

Note the core of his proposition:
We propose that the Book of Mormon is the account of a small group of people who lived on the American continent, interacting to some degree with the indigenous population but relatively isolated from the general historical events occurring elsewhere in the Americas.
The Book of Mormon does not seem to talk about a small number of people...


Since only 7,300 American Indians were DNA tested and apparently no latin americans were tested, it's possible that the lamanite DNA is still to be found or was lost because of the small footprint they originally started with, if mingled with people who were already here.
First of all, its quite common to hear "only [add number here] were tested". As long as the sample has statistical significance - its representative of the whole group- (and these tests are carried out with this in mind) this is not an issue.

Regarding South American tribes, I will have to make a more detailed search, since most links I found pointed towards articles in Portuguese. So far, I found articles pointing towards an origin which is not unlike that of Native North Americans. There are also articles on the influence of European settlers and, at a few tribes, hints of the presence of a DNA signature which may be inherited from a population which predated the people who were the ancestors of most of the present-day tribes (these would be "pre-Clovis" people).

But once again, the important point is that you are using a baseless supposition to explain the lack of evidence favorable to your idea. If the evidence does not match the supposition, I thing the right thing to do is to change the supposition instead trying to find why it does not fit... You are seeking a gap where the evidence for these Hebrew ancestors may be hidden; but this gaps gets smaller and smaller...

P.S. It may be an appeal to authority, but I want to know if you all are as clueless as me when it comes to DNA science - probably not, but I'm just curious as to how much you really know and what you're just repeating from papers, etc. Articulett stated qualifications - thanks.
I'm a geologist; I have an MsC and a PhD in structural geology. I am not completely ignorant on genetics but I am not also clueless on it. I am not "repeating" what I read in papers; I am writing my conclusions, conclusions built from what I read at various sources- papers and Mormon texts included.

If you -or anyone else- want to dismiss my opinion based on the fact that I know more about rocks than about DNA, so be it. Its not the first time I disagree with one of Meldrum's conclusions, despite our different backgrounds. In both cases, I stand by my positions- all it takes for me to change them is evidence, good evidence.

[rcronk]

correa - I think the "small number of people" refers to the starting point of the lamanites being just a handful of people who may have mixed with already present people in the Americas. In fact, it may be that they grew in number more quickly in some cases than the nephites was because of that mixing - I really don't know because the record is silent on that.

I know that 7,300 is a good sample size but only if the sample is random across all candidates. If they only tested what we usually think of as "American Indians" then they probably didn't include South American people who should also be a part of the sample. In that case, the sample was not random - it depended upon a traditional definition of what an American Indian is.

I don't dismiss anyone's information, I just want to know who I'm talking to, that's all.

[RandFan]

People can be wrong. It's not God's M.O. to go around fixing everyone's problems. He leaves that up to us so we can learn from our mistakes. Fixing people's problems for them makes them weaker. Helping them find out on their own how to go ask for correction and more truth is how you make people stronger and more self sufficient. That's just been my experience in life and it works better to let people learn from their mistakes and so I would suppose that since it's God's objective to help us progress, He would not go around coddling us and fixing all of our problems for us. He went out of his way to tell us not to drink hot drinks but he couldn't take the time to tell us something that is right now keeping people from even hearing about Mormonism. See, I have a real problem with those priorities. It looks like the explanations are made up as events transpire (post-hoc). It doesn't look planed. The "prophets" have egg on their faces and it simply didn't need to be that way.

"This is generally regarded as good when judging hypotheses." That's fine and I agree. I accept that God exists and you don't. I think that's where we disagree on parsimony - you have to assume God exists to accept one point of view and I'm not counting His existence as an assumption when I evaluate the hypotheses. That's a good point. I would say that you first hold your world view as correct so everything else must then somehow be forced to fit with your world view. As articulett is fond of repeating this is what all people of faith do. They first figure out what is true then they find the explanations to justify their beliefs. Having debated with Scientologists I can attest that she is correct. It is very similar.

Yes, it does seem racist and ignorant. I don't excuse him and I am also willing to give him the benefit of the doubt given how people generally thought in those times and given the fact that in so many other instances, he did not express such ignorance. And especially since the members of the LDS church as a whole were generally strongly against slavery, etc. I can't agree with your last statement. The members were never so monolithic on their views of slavery. I've had some knock down drag our arguments with Varwoche on this subject and I took the side of the Church. I think many were against slavery but many were not.


I think you're going a bit overboard there. Sure it's not something I would say or agree with, in fact I would argue that such is not the case, however I wouldn't classify it as one of the most pernicious evils of mankind. We're pretty far derailed here, but I think the underlying point here is that people make mistakes. There are several times in the Doctrine and Covenants where Joseph Smith published accounts of God reprimanding him for his follies and errors and sins. Even Nephi, who many regard as a great prophet, at times thought of himself as a "wretched man" beset with temptations, but he knew in who he had trusted - the Lord.

A prophet is a man with weakness and error. I think that may be why any new church pronouncements come from the prophet in unison with the first presidency at least and usually in unity with the quorum of the twelve apostles to smooth out some human error that can creep in. Rejecting the restored gospel because of the frailties of men who are members or leaders of the LDS church is something I've seen many times.
I'm willing to avoid the derail. I'll say that I disagree with you. And it most certainly was a most pernicious evil. I think you would agree if you were slave or if you had been oppressed. The desire of many of most humans is to be free and to be treated as equal. It was that kind of thinking that led to segregation and lynchings. I couldn't call it anything other than pernicious.


Again, God corrects some things but from what I've seen, He leaves it up to us to find and correct our own errors so that we can progress and become better people instead of people who are coddled, taken care of, and never allowed to falter or propagate errors. Then he is guilty of deception by omission. To put such scripture in the BOM and to allow it continue uncorrected would be nothing less than a sin. Putting the blame on the people for taking the BOM at its word when it is marketed as "the most correct book of scripture" couldn't be anything else, IMO.

Uh, and the DNA evidence is not conclusive based on so many unknowns regarding the lamanites' interactions with people already on the American continent. "Stay on target. Stay on target." The force is with me.

There is no controversy as to the origins of Native Americans.
There is no controversy as to the beliefs of the Church as to the origins of the Native Americans before the advent of DNA.Those two points cannot be reconciled.

[Correa Neto]

correa - I think the "small number of people" refers to the starting point of the lamanites being just a handful of people who may have mixed with already present people in the Americas. In fact, it may be that they grew in number more quickly in some cases than the nephites was because of that mixing - I really don't know because the record is silent on that.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, lies on "filling the gaps" in an attempt to explain why the evidences are not compatible with a religious text. This includes several (re)interpretations of the texts. Eventually, one will find that the text can be interpreted in several ways. At this point, its mythical status becomes evident.

But please allow me to point, once again, that you are making an assumption, a speculation, to explain why the evidence does not fit with the account. Perhaps you should consider accepting the possibility that the text is a myth an that it is not backed by evidence. Its a myth, something that can some people can use as a template for ethical behavior and as a path for spirituality; its at least part of some people's cultural heritage. This mythical status, in principle, should not be a problem or decrease its value under this perspective.

I know that 7,300 is a good sample size but only if the sample is random across all candidates. If they only tested what we usually think of as "American Indians" then they probably didn't include South American people who should also be a part of the sample. In that case, the sample was not random - it depended upon a traditional definition of what an American Indian is.
See below regarding data from South American tribes. The methodology used in DNA studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals take in to account issues such as randomness, sampling bias, etc.

Honestly, I think its much easier to find methodological problems in articles defending the veracity of religious texts (such as Meldrum's) than in published scientific papers. I think the propper thing to do is to accept the mythical nature of religious texts, instead looking for flaws in the scientific works whose conclusions deny their accuracy or veracity.

Its true that some religious text can be reports of real events modified to fit a certain view, to support a claim. Some cases are not unlike press releases and propaganda material from modern politicians and executives.

I don't dismiss anyone's information, I just want to know who I'm talking to, that's all.
Well, moving ahead.

Here are a few links towards DNA studies of South American tribes, as I promissed:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/10/1682
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msg188v1.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7872649
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu407nxy48p3bdnl/
No evidence for Semitic ancestry. It was a quick search; I will try a more detailed one later.

Here's a link to the article which originated the thread:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001764
There are links there pointing towards the database they used; the samples were not restricted to North American tribes.

At this point, I think we must remember that the datings for the human colonizations (obtained by a number of methods- isotopes included) of the Americas also do not match with the Book of Mormon's account.

[articulett]

The peopling of South America came from North America... Native Americans came from
http://anthropology.net/2008/02/14/peopling-of-the-americas-three-step-model-for-colonizing-the-americas/

the founding haplotypes are uniformly distributed across North and South America. They do not show a nested structure from north to south. That means that after what the authors are terming the Beringian standstill and what I’m calling the Beringian chillout, the initial North to South migration was very swift. It was not a gradual diffusion.

http://anthropology.net/2007/10/31/people-of-the-americas-mtdna-tells-us-of-the-beringian-standstill/

The genetics show that all native American populations came from Asia... and populated the West Coast down from Alaska... there is no evidence of any middle Eastern DNA from the time period mentioned in the bible nor any plausible means for such people to migrate... The DNA came across the Bering Straight. Nobody but Mormon have any reason to think or hope or wish that there could be Ancestry from the Middle East at the time mentioned in he BoM. There is no more reason to suspect a band of Middle Eastern DNA from that time didn't leave their DNA behind than to suspect a band of pygmys from that time were here but didn't leave heir DNA behind. Sure, we can't prove that Pygmys weren't here, but no on has any evidence whatsoever to suggest that they were. That's the boat you are in with Middle Eastern DNA. You can believe any people were here but left no traces... sure it's possible... but this wasn't supposed to be any small group of people, now was it. You must ask yourself WHY there is no more evidence for the claims in the Book of Mormon and the conjecture of whether a band of Pygmies could have been responsible for "dark skin" and peopling of the Americas. Really. That is the position the book of Mormon is in if it accepts this tale as having some basis in truth.

And I know that sucks rconk... but if the BoM isn't based on the truth-- you'd want to know wouldn't you? If you were wrong or somehow had been deceived or deceived yourself... congratulations, you are human. And you have a good brain and the opportunity to find out what can and can't be substantiated about human history.

Wanting to believe something because your whole world view rests on it is not a good way to discover what is actually true. There is one truth about the peopling of the Americas and the facts don't look good for your version of it.

[Foster Zygote]

That's a great question. Do you have an answer? You seem to think this is an argument on your side. I don't. I think when god is talking to his prophets he ought to correct some things. If he doesn't then I've got to wonder if he is actually talking to anyone at all. That's a reasonable query.

The fact that God never tells his prophets anything true that they could not have known on their own certainly warrants suspicion that the prophet himself is the source of the "word of God" whether he knows it or not.

[Foster Zygote]

The peopling of South America came from North America... Native Americans came from
http://anthropology.net/2008/02/14/peopling-of-the-americas-three-step-model-for-colonizing-the-americas/

the founding haplotypes are uniformly distributed across North and South America. They do not show a nested structure from north to south. That means that after what the authors are terming the Beringian standstill and what I’m calling the Beringian chillout, the initial North to South migration was very swift. It was not a gradual diffusion.

http://anthropology.net/2007/10/31/people-of-the-americas-mtdna-tells-us-of-the-beringian-standstill/

The genetics show that all native American populations came from Asia... and populated the West Coast down from Alaska... there is no evidence of any middle Eastern DNA from the time period mentioned in the bible nor any plausible means for such people to migrate... The DNA came across the Bering Straight. Nobody but Mormon have any reason to think or hope or wish that there could be Ancestry from the Middle East at the time mentioned in he BoM. There is no more reason to suspect a band of Middle Eastern DNA from that time didn't leave their DNA behind than to suspect a band of pygmys from that time were here but didn't leave heir DNA behind. Sure, we can't prove that Pygmys weren't here, but no on has any evidence whatsoever to suggest that they were. That's the boat you are in with Middle Eastern DNA. You can believe any people were here but left no traces... sure it's possible... but this wasn't supposed to be any small group of people, now was it. You must ask yourself WHY there is no more evidence for the claims in the Book of Mormon and the conjecture of whether a band of Pygmies could have been responsible for "dark skin" and peopling of the Americas. Really. That is the position the book of Mormon is in if it accepts this tale as having some basis in truth.

And I know that sucks rconk... but if the BoM isn't based on the truth-- you'd want to know wouldn't you? If you were wrong or somehow had been deceived or deceived yourself... congratulations, you are human. And you have a good brain and the opportunity to find out what can and can't be substantiated about human history.

Wanting to believe something because your whole world view rests on it is not a good way to discover what is actually true. There is one truth about the peopling of the Americas and the facts don't look good for your version of it.

There's some interesting evidence that people may have arrived from Europe as well during the last ice age and settled along the east coast of North America. Tantalizing remains of their Clovis point technology have been found. But it seems that they died off during a severe climate change associated with the melting of an ice dam that caused vast quantities of fresh water to spill down the St. Lawrence into the Atlantic, interrupting the equatorial current cycle. There is no evidence of their presence after this sudden climate change and it seems they went extinct (along with many other species).

At any rate, they didn't come from the Middle East either and the surviving migration came from Asia.

[godless dave]

Consider this: A group of ancient Hebrews arriving at the Americas would have had a technological edge over any previous settler (Mayas and Incas included). Weaponry, for example. Chances are they would also bring some diseases the natives would not be immune to. Even if eventually they managed to somehow reach terms and blend with the natives, their technology and culture would certainly not be lost.

...

Note that even then, their anthropologic signature would still be present in terms of archeologic evidence and cultural traces in current Native American lore.

On the other hand, Scandinavian people had weaponry, metallurgy, and shipbuilding skills that were superior to that of native Americans of the Newfoundland area. None of that technology was adopted by the natives. It did, however, leave archeological evidence.

[Cleon]

On the other hand, Scandinavian people had weaponry, metallurgy, and shipbuilding skills that were superior to that of native Americans of the Newfoundland area. None of that technology was adopted by the natives. It did, however, leave archeological evidence.

The difference is that the Viking settlements were not only extremely tiny, but the colonization was very short-lived. When I said earlier in the thread that people don't just go somewhere and hang out, but trade, breed, and reproduce, the exception to the rule is the Viking settlements. They traded what they could, but there weren't many of them, they didn't have much, and the colonization attempt ended before there was much (if any) cross-breeding with the locals. (They did hang out in Greenland for a good long time, but there really weren't many Native people there to have an influence on.)

In contrast, according to the BoM, the Lehi clan founded entire civilizations. That would not only entail the propagation of that technology by the Lehites into the Nephites and Lamanites, but the influence that technology and culture would have on other peoples in the Americas.

[articulett]

What this adds up to is this. Although we cannot disprove the history of the BoM... there is NO evidence that supports it. There is no more evidence for serious scholars to consider it or try to prove it or disprove it than there is for them to do so with my on the spot theory that it was actually the Pygmies who were responsible for the dark skin of the Indians and who had settlements and mingled with the peoples at the time mentioned in the BoM.

There was a time when Galileo had a hard time teaching what he was learning about the earth because it conflicted with that which the church was teaching. Science has never found answers in any sort of scriptures. Religions tell people what the truth is, and send you off in search of evidence. But archeologists, geneticists, astronomers, etc. who really what to understand the truth-- follow the facts where they lead... they don't search for signs of biblical floods or Xenu's gave or Kolob -- it doesn't further our understanding of anything when we do such. What it ends up doing is making people question their faith, so if you want the truth, it's best to not have it given to you in prepackaged form beforehand... it's better to follow the evidence and let it guide your next step in understanding. If you prefer to just believe-- don't hang out at a skeptics forum.

If there is no more evidence for the Book of Mormons truth than for my made up Pygmy truth-- does that matter to you? You cannot disprove either. Why do you believe one more than the other and is it a good reason to believe? Would you rather know what is true or continue believing you already do?

We have lots of evidence about the peopling of America-- none of it supports the BoM version. None of it. We can't prove it didn't happen--but that just puts your story in the same boat as my pygmy story... as Tom Cruise's volcano story... as the Biblical Flood...

Really. That is what the evidence says. These are all "tales"-- "myths"-- stories that are not supported by the evidence we are continually uncovering as we piece together the real truth of our universe, planet, and humanity.

[articulett]

We can get DNA from skeletons of the time and read the histories of the people... we don't have skeletons for the time period showing middle eastern DNA in the Americas. We have Viking skeletons... we have remains and evidence which allows us to fill in the pieces of the story. We have no such thing with the BoM. We have no evidence of any sort that can substantiate any of the history in purports.

[Zygar]

There is no controversy as to the origins of Native Americans.
There is no controversy as to the beliefs of the Church as to the origins of the Native Americans before the advent of DNA.Those two points cannot be reconciled.

As far as I am concerned, RandFan won the thread with this.

[RandFan]

For those interested Simon Southerton provides some background as to how he came to leave the Mormon Church based in large part his research into the DNA issue. Southerton is a plant geneticist and holds a PHD. I found it very compelling. His story parallels mine in a number of ways.

DNA Genealogies of American Indians and the Book of Mormon. (http://www.exmormon.org/whylft125.htm)

[Zygar]

For those interested Simon Southerton provides some background as to how he came to leave the Mormon Church based in large part his research into the DNA issue. Southerton is a plant geneticist and holds a PHD. I found it very compelling. His story parallels mine in a number of ways.

DNA Genealogies of American Indians and the Book of Mormon. (http://www.exmormon.org/whylft125.htm)

Agreed. As it does mine. Although I came to my resolution much earlier in life thanks mostly to having been born later.

[RandFan]

Agreed. As it does mine. Although I came to my resolution much earlier in life thanks mostly to having been born later.I think it is going to get harder and harder for the Church to find converts. It's hard to keep secrets with the Internet.

[Bob Blaylock]

What this adds up to is this. Although we cannot disprove the history of the BoM... there is NO evidence that supports it.


That the evidence is in a form that you refuse to acknowledge or believe does not mean that it does not exist, nor does it make it any less real or any less valid to those of us who have received an undeniable confirmation via the Holy Ghost (http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/3-5#3) of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

You may dismiss me as a deceived kook, if you will, but that doesn't make it so.

[RandFan]

That the evidence is in a form that you refuse to acknowledge or believe does not mean that it does not exist, nor does it make it any less real or any less valid to those of us who have received an undeniable confirmation via the Holy Ghost (http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/3-5#3) of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

You may dismiss me as a deceived kook, if you will, but that doesn't make it so. I don't think you are a kook. We understand from a neurological basis why you have what you think is an undeniable confirmation. People in other religions have confirmations also. They are just as earnest and sincere. Many give their lives because they know that they are right.

The problem is why did I never get such a confirmation? I asked for it. I wanted to wait to go on my mission for it but my bishop assured me that I would get such a confirmation after I left so I went with out it. Eventually I convinced myself that I had an answer because I felt good and spiritual when I was in church and teaching the gospel. Then one day I felt the same when visiting a church that wasn't Mormon.

Having read Ramachandran's Brief Tour of Consciousness and other sources I would have to be very skeptical of any internal revelation. Human minds can be deceived.

[articulett]

It's a weird schism when you earnestly seek to prove your beliefs true, and you find out you have to decide between beliefs or "the truth".

It's something that has lead a lot of people to skepticism I think. Many religions are having their "secrets" and dirty laundry exposed. I know it is painful... but I think it's a good thing, though people having faith crises don't think so. People have an option to think and explore and ask questions in a way they never could before. And get answers.

I don't think truths need to be "felt", "believed in", "hidden" or have excuses made for them. (It's not good for kids to believe in Santa for too long.)

[articulett]

RandFan-- the Southerton article was fantastic. I'm glad he has a place to tell his story and found the "statement" he was advised to give and the impression that was promulgated regarding his leaving-- heartbreakingly manipulative. I can imagine the jarring he felt when he read this:

Without doubt the article that had the most impact on me was a statement published by the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. concerning the Book of Mormon. In very strong language this statement spoke of a complete lack of evidence for any connection between the Old World and the New World. The strength of this statement jolted me. Scientists rarely make such dogmatic statements unless they have plenty of evidence (or none in this case) to back them up. I had been told in seminary that the Smithsonian had been known to use the Book of Mormon in their research. The statement utterly refuted this claim. In fact the Smithsonian has grown tired of responding to Mormons who regularly contact them to see how the Book of Mormon is helping them out.

It's hard not to empathize with his story, and I think that it's great how he's helping others in sharing his story. I guess it clarifies what is going on with Bob Blaylock and Rconk. Thanks for the link.

[articulett]

That the evidence is in a form that you refuse to acknowledge or believe does not mean that it does not exist, nor does it make it any less real or any less valid to those of us who have received an undeniable confirmation via the Holy Ghost (http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/3-5#3) of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

You may dismiss me as a deceived kook, if you will, but that doesn't make it so.

Do you dismiss Tom Cruise as a deceived kook? How about those who speak in tongues? Me?

Yes, my opinion of you doesn't change anything nor does my opinion make anything "true". Opinions can't change facts. But your opinion of what you call "undeniable confirmation" doesn't make your beliefs true either.

On this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107030 , Navigator feels he has "undeniable proof" that he's had an out of body experience. That doesn't mean he left his body in reality does it? If something is true, reality should reflect it in some way, don't you think?

Does he sound profound and deep like your holy book? I suspect he thinks he does.

[Pixel42]

A Mormon I argue with on another board is fond of saying how humble he is, how fallible humans are (including Mormon prophets) and so on, but there is one issue on which he is adamant that he and all other Mormons are utterly infallible, and that is their interpretation of certain physiological experiences as "undeniable confirmation from God that the BoM is true". No alternative interpretation (and there are several) will be considered. It's interesting to see that the Mormons here have the same blind spot.

[articulett]

Yes they are so "humble" that they believe that they stumbled into the one true religion and the creator of the universe is taking time to give them special signs. Sure, there are tsunamis and dying kids and such--but he chose the Mormons as special-- because of they are the ones who truly wanted to know "the truth" more earnestly than all those others... --those "wrong believers" get smatterings of "truth" and their "inner knowingness" or "signs" are delusions.

It's creepy, but I think it's true of most religions... at least the more virulent ones. Read Randfan's link above and you can see what they're doing to these guys' minds.

I think all religions have this notion that their woo is true and everyone else is fooled... Mormons think other believers are wrong or mistaken or fooled-- they just don't imagine they could be. They get defensive when others feel towards their religion the way they feel towards everyone else's. That's not humble; that's arrogant. It's really damn arrogant to think you, not only know that there is an invisible creator of the universe--but you know what he WANTS. Unfortunately he often seems to want his minions to inflict their beliefs on others and shun those who can no longer believe because the evidence doesn't warrant belief.

"God told me this is the really true religion".

Yeah, well Allah told the hijackers their religion was the really true one too... if you don't mind, I shan't take your word on it. Until there's a way to distinguish a real god from a delusion of god-- I think I'll pass. I think the Mormons are as deluded as the Scientologists... but I find them both very interesting belief systems and their "faith promoting" tactics are very fascinating indeed.

[articulett]

I think it is going to get harder and harder for the Church to find converts. It's hard to keep secrets with the Internet.

But after reading about all the time commitments in Simon's article--I'm surprised that many have time to go on the internet... kids, meetings, home visits, church, seminary, conferences, make sure the "sisters" are keeping the home and the faith, family home meeting, a slew of kids, etc. etc. etc.

They sure make it hard to think. It's like they are saying... "relax... let FARMS and BYU do the thinking for you... we've got it all under control--we'll let you know if there's anything important to know.

I wonder for how many people the Lamanite thing is the "lynchpin" so to speak.

[shadron]

The peopling of South America came from North America... Native Americans came from
http://anthropology.net/2008/02/14/peopling-of-the-americas-three-step-model-for-colonizing-the-americas/


I would make two comments on this, though I don't think they will change the conclusions that Articulett comes to. First, there has historically been much controversy about whether homo sap. made it into central North America before the Beringian freeze or not. There is still considerable arguments surrounding the Clovis point people and the archeology of the newer sites on the eastern coast of North America, as well as datable remains from caves in California and other places that seem to extend beyond 12,000 years ago. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture .

The second is that Thor Heyerdahl, along with his Kon-Tiki thesis about cultural interaction between Pacific islanders and South American Indians, also proposed the possibility of Egyptian interaction with South America through use of reed rafts (see "Voyage of the Ra II") in Egyptian Middle Kingdom times. Heyerdahl has shown it's possible, but actual evidence of it happening has been only faintly cultural up to this point, and his ideas are not seriously pursued at this time, to the best of my knowledge. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl#Heyerdahl.27s_theory_of_Polynesian_ origins

[rcronk]

Thanks all for your posts. I have read every one of them. I have been busy at work the past day or two so I haven't been posting. I appreciate the arguments that have been put forth.

I guess what you all are seeing in me at least (I can only speak for myself) is conflicting evidence that I'm looking to resolve. I have mentioned this before, but I have had many subjective and objective (non-repeatable, of course) experiences throughout my life as a member of the LDS church AND as an agnostic atheist that conflict with the evidence being put forth here. So I am left with judging between the two types of evidence. I have DNA evidence that shows Native Americans coming from Asia. I have the possibility of the Lamanite DNA being overwhelmed by the Asian DNA that they might have mixed with but we just don't know. I have statements from imperfect people about the ancestors of Native Americans. I have some uncertainty in these scientific evidences but not a whole lot.

On the other hand, I have specific testimony given to me near Washington D.C. in the home of Sylvia D. and her baptist preacher roommate. That testimony was like pure knowledge given to me - not only knowing that "the Book of Mormon is the word of God", but knowing that that statement is actually true. And the Baptist preacher looked at me at the same moment and said "This is the word of God" and I knew that she knew it also and that both testimonies had come from the same source. I know that there have been people, myself included, who have been deceived by their emotions and feelings and religious experiences but I cannot deny the experience I had. I know that it was real and was not from my own self in any way. I know from that experience and others (which I'm not as sure of as that one), that the Book of Mormon is indeed the word of God. So there's that subjective evidence.

I have one more piece of evidence that has been very powerful to me as well. As I have read and studied the Book of Mormon and followed the teachings of Christ therein, I have gone through profound changes in my life for the better caused specifically by living those teachings. I have found for myself through my own objective experiences that the doctrines contained within that book are true. My experiences through this progress match the experiences that the people in the Book of Mormon had. I even had several experiences before I had read the Book of Mormon completely that ended up matching what I would later read.

So I have all of the above objective and subjective evidence and firsthand experiences and progress and I'm stuck sifting through it all and trying to get it all to match up.

I know that some here, without any evidence whatsoever, relying solely upon association fallacy, gambler's fallacy, negative proof fallacy, etc. have tried to dismiss experiences such as the ones I have described above, but those are not true arguments, they are just your personal beliefs that are based on logical fallacies. The personal evidence I have in favor of the Book of Mormon being true, to me is overwhelmingly in favor of it. I know that will drive you all crazy, but there you have it. To summarize, your arguments against my subjective evidence are "others have been wrong, therefore..." and "you sound like Tom Cruise, therefore..." and "given the fact (I mean, my belief) that you're deceived, you are being arrogant...", etc.

You may choose to call me delusional because of my stance, but you have nothing to stand on but logical fallacies and guesses as to what might have caused my experiences. You may also use ad hominem attacks on my being arrogant in not admitting that I may be deceived like others (myself included on many occasions but very different circumstances) have been, but that supposed arrogance is also based on your belief that my experiences are false so that claim is also unsupported.

We'll have to agree to disagree at this point and we'll all find out eventually what the truth is, that is guaranteed - well, unless I'm dead and rotting in the ground and there is no afterlife, then I really won't know because I'm just dead. :)

At this point, please don't re-post all of your arguments against these things - I've heard them over and over. It's not that I don't understand your arguments and where you're all coming from, I get it, I promise, I get it. It's just that we disagree, and that's OK.

[Zygar]

The second is that Thor Heyerdahl, along with his Kon-Tiki thesis about cultural interaction between Pacific islanders and South American Indians, also proposed the possibility of Egyptian interaction with South America through use of reed rafts (see "Voyage of the Ra II") in Egyptian Middle Kingdom times. Heyerdahl has shown it's possible, but actual evidence of it happening has been only faintly cultural up to this point, and his ideas are not seriously pursued at this time, to the best of my knowledge. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl#Heyerdahl.27s_theory_of_Polynesian_ origins

I found Thor's research to be quite interesting. And I am glad he did it. But there is a major reason that his research is no longer pursued. There is no archealogical or cultural evidence of any tie between the nations of the Old World and the New World. Like articulett's quote says.

If there were any reason at all to think that the peoples had any contact such as described in the BoM, then it would be worth pursuing. But there is none. And not for a lack of searching.

I think that the important thing to remember is that there are probably hundreds of ways in which communication between the two worlds could have been achieved. But possibility is not evidence. It is speculation. It proves nothing whatsoever.

[Zygar]

I have one more piece of evidence that has been very powerful to me as well. As I have read and studied the Book of Mormon and followed the teachings of Christ therein, I have gone through profound changes in my life for the better caused specifically by living those teachings. I have found for myself through my own objective experiences that the doctrines contained within that book are true. My experiences through this progress match the experiences that the people in the Book of Mormon had. I even had several experiences before I had read the Book of Mormon completely that ended up matching what I would later read.

rcronk, I just want to state that I agree with you on this. The overall philosophy of the Mormons is quite appealing, and I think that's a big reason for the growth of the religion.

[rcronk]

rcronk, I just want to state that I agree with you on this. The overall philosophy of the Mormons is quite appealing, and I think that's a big reason for the growth of the religion.


we t9p8hy5bne56hl;uionbp6890p97hb6pou4n62 l;yu 694n804h693uibilwli54whp98bpo5ul;y;ss;l/f


Whoops - sorry, I just fell off my chair. I can't believe the first reply I got was in agreement with something I said in that post! :) I was setting up my bunker in defense of what I was expecting. I may still need the bunker, but I do very much appreciate the honesty of your post. Thank you.

[RandFan]

I know that there have been people, myself included, who have been deceived by their emotions and feelings and religious experiences but I cannot deny the experience I had. I know that it was real and was not from my own self in any way. So what you are saying is you know the difference between being deceived and believing something being true and knowing the truth. We've been over this ground before but I have no idea how one would distinguish the difference.

I know from that experience and others (which I'm not as sure of as that one), that the Book of Mormon is indeed the word of God. And others know from different experience that different and contradictory metaphysical concepts are true.

I have one more piece of evidence that has been very powerful to me as well. As I have read and studied the Book of Mormon and followed the teachings of Christ therein, I have gone through profound changes in my life for the better caused specifically by living those teachings. This is another very common experience. One of the followers of Jim Jones would never stop believing in Jim Jones because Jones "cured" him of his drug addiction. This is a very typical response.

So I have all of the above objective and subjective evidence and firsthand experiences and progress and I'm stuck sifting through it all and trying to get it all to match up. I sincerely wish you all the best.

I know that some here, without any evidence whatsoever, relying solely upon association fallacy, gambler's fallacy, negative proof fallacy, etc. have tried to dismiss experiences such as the ones I have described above, but those are not true arguments, they are just your personal beliefs that are based on logical fallacies. I'm not familiar with any of these. I think you are seeing what you want to see. I and others have treated you the same as if we were talking to a Scientologist, Hindu or a person who believed that he or she could leave their bodies at will.

You need to keep in mind that to us you are just one more person with an extraordinary claim. There are legions of ideas and superstitions out there and your belief, extraordinary as it is compared to materialism, is in some ways, actually rather pedestrian.

You may choose to call me delusional because of my stance, but you have nothing to stand on but logical fallacies and guesses as to what might have caused my experiences. No, we have the same thing to stand on as we do with Scientology, Homeopathy, belief in UFOs, crystal power and a million other beliefs in the supernatural. We have critical thinking and skepticism.

At this point, please don't re-post all of your arguments against these things - I've heard them over and over. It's not that I don't understand your arguments and where you're all coming from, I get it, I promise, I get it. It's just that we disagree, and that's OK. Based on what you wrote above I really don't think that you do.

I'd like to add one more thing. I'm a sincere a person who cares deeply about the truth. I believed in Mormonism enough to sell my most important possessions to serve a mission including a 1967 Camaro that I purchased when I was 15, tore down to the chassis, rebuilt and restored over the course of 3 years. It was a beautiful thing I assure you and I can say that I was passionate about it. It wasn't the only thing I sacrificed. I gave up two years of my life. When I was out 17 - 18 months the mission was shortened to 18 months and I was given the option to go home. I chose to stay because I believed. Many went home.

According to the Bible, "If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of god who giveth to all men liberally and upraideth not and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith. Nothing wavering". I asked in faith. As much faith as anyone else. If you have to know first before you get an answer then what is the point?

I asked. I got no answer.

It has not been easy to leave the Church. It has come at great cost. At the time I left I would have been happy to have stayed, if it were true. I would have endured anything for the Church. You won't find anyone who was more committed than I. I paid my tithing, went regularly to all meetings, did my home teaching, worked at the church farm, volunteered regularly, went to the temple regularly, prayed daily, read the scriptures daily, listened to cassettes from Church speakers regularly, etc.

My life was the Mormon Church.

I left for one reason and one reason only, it became clear to me that it was not true.

[Pixel42]

I cannot deny the experience I had. I know that it was real and was not from my own self in any way
So you are indeed claiming to be infallible. That you cannot possibly be mistaken about your interpretation of your experience, even though other people who have had identical experiences confirming their own, different, beliefs must by definition be mistaken about theirs.

That is, of course, your perogative. Claim to be infallible all you like. But please don't also claim to be humble, or explain away the backpedalling on beliefs revealed to previous Mormon prophets as being due to their fallibility in interpreting those revelations.

[m_huber]

On the other hand, I have specific testimony given to me near Washington D.C. in the home of Sylvia D. and her baptist preacher roommate. That testimony was like pure knowledge given to me - not only knowing that "the Book of Mormon is the word of God", but knowing that that statement is actually true. And the Baptist preacher looked at me at the same moment and said "This is the word of God" and I knew that she knew it also and that both testimonies had come from the same source. I know that there have been people, myself included, who have been deceived by their emotions and feelings and religious experiences but I cannot deny the experience I had. I know that it was real and was not from my own self in any way. I know from that experience and others (which I'm not as sure of as that one), that the Book of Mormon is indeed the word of God. So there's that subjective evidence.


I mentioned earlier in this thread that it was a pair of Mormons who brought me out of Christianity. You see, the Holy Spirit is a critical element in many denominations. If God is real, and the Trinity true, then there is but one Holy Spirit, a single pure being who will communicate the word of God to the believers.

So I prayed. I felt the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guided me in many of my decisions. I preached in the Spirit. I witnessed in the Spirit. But when I asked if the Book of Mormon was true, the Holy Spirit said "no."

Millions of LDS followers claim that the HS told them that the BOM is true. But, if I felt the HS, and I am not Mormon, and the HS told me Mormonism is not true, and Mormons felt the HS, and the HS told them that Mormonism is true, then something is wrong. I know what I felt, but how is my Holy Spirit distinct from yours?

I am left to conclude that you and I felt the same "spirit," but the spirit was not of God. The deep emotional push that comes from the Holy Spirit can be initiated in other ways, and even by those who are insincere -- I believe this is what you and I felt.


I have one more piece of evidence that has been very powerful to me as well. As I have read and studied the Book of Mormon and followed the teachings of Christ therein, I have gone through profound changes in my life for the better caused specifically by living those teachings. I have found for myself through my own objective experiences that the doctrines contained within that book are true. My experiences through this progress match the experiences that the people in the Book of Mormon had. I even had several experiences before I had read the Book of Mormon completely that ended up matching what I would later read.


People have also had profound changes in their lives by becoming Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, fishermen, astronomers, rock collectors, or you name it. In fact, anything that consumes your entire life and gives you a group to be part of will shape your moral path. If you are part of a group that is not moral, your morals will erode. If you are part of a group that is moral, your morals will improve.

Mormons are generally nice people. I don't think I have ever met a Mormon who was cruel or mean to me. I will give that to the church. But I have also met a lot of mentally handicapped people who are very willing to do for other people and be nice. I am not saying that believers are mentally handicapped, I am simply pointing out that believers do not have a monopoly on being good people. You don't need the church to be a good person. You don't have to believe in the BoM to have a good life.

[rcronk]

randfan - Yes, we've been over this all before so I'm not going to go through it all again. You are resorting to association fallacy when you say things like "There are legions of ideas and superstitions out there..." and "others know from different experience..." and "Scientology, Homeopathy, belief in UFOs, crystal power and a million other beliefs..." Other things that, to you, seem similar in some way to Mormonism are not evidence against the truthfulness of the claim in question. This is one of the most common logical fallacies I see here.

I asked and got no answer too - at the time, I was not being sincere. I had ulterior motives and was just looking for a reason to leave. I was completely unaware of these ulterior motives at the time but I can see them now very clearly. As I have said before, I don't know about you or your experience, I am just sharing mine with you. Later on, I went through a lot of life experiences and I came to a point where I asked again and I actually wanted to know and I got a very distinct answer that I also know is not self deception. I know this and can compare it to other times I was self-deceived. We've been over all of this before so I'll stop now.

[rcronk]

So you are indeed claiming to be infallible. That you cannot possibly be mistaken about your interpretation of your experience, even though other people who have had identical experiences confirming their own, different, beliefs must by definition be mistaken about theirs.

That is, of course, your perogative. Claim to be infallible all you like. But please don't also claim to be humble, or explain away the backpedalling on beliefs revealed to previous Mormon prophets as being due to their fallibility in interpreting those revelations.

I am not claiming to be infallible. I am claiming to have had a small handful of truths given to me that I know are true. You claim that others have had identical experiences and have found contradictory truths. I ask you to cite these. I have not found these. You and others have made this claim and set up some false contradiction that I haven't seen yet.

A person can say "I witnessed this car accident and know what I saw" and still be humble. I witnessed something that I cannot prove to you and that nothing to do with humility.

[rcronk]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that it was a pair of Mormons who brought me out of Christianity. You see, the Holy Spirit is a critical element in many denominations. If God is real, and the Trinity true, then there is but one Holy Spirit, a single pure being who will communicate the word of God to the believers.

So I prayed. I felt the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guided me in many of my decisions. I preached in the Spirit. I witnessed in the Spirit. But when I asked if the Book of Mormon was true, the Holy Spirit said "no."

Millions of LDS followers claim that the HS told them that the BOM is true. But, if I felt the HS, and I am not Mormon, and the HS told me Mormonism is not true, and Mormons felt the HS, and the HS told them that Mormonism is true, then something is wrong. I know what I felt, but how is my Holy Spirit distinct from yours?

I am left to conclude that you and I felt the same "spirit," but the spirit was not of God. The deep emotional push that comes from the Holy Spirit can be initiated in other ways, and even by those who are insincere -- I believe this is what you and I felt.



People have also had profound changes in their lives by becoming Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, fishermen, astronomers, rock collectors, or you name it. In fact, anything that consumes your entire life and gives you a group to be part of will shape your moral path. If you are part of a group that is not moral, your morals will erode. If you are part of a group that is moral, your morals will improve.

Mormons are generally nice people. I don't think I have ever met a Mormon who was cruel or mean to me. I will give that to the church. But I have also met a lot of mentally handicapped people who are very willing to do for other people and be nice. I am not saying that believers are mentally handicapped, I am simply pointing out that believers do not have a monopoly on being good people. You don't need the church to be a good person. You don't have to believe in the BoM to have a good life.

I had similar experiences to you that I have already explained above in my reply to randfan. I know what the differences were in myself between the different answers I got. I don't pretend to know anything about your own experiences.

I have also learned truth in other religions. Truth is not owned by one group - anyone can find it. This isn't just about the truthfulness of doctrines but authority, but that's even more of a derail that we're at now.

[Pixel42]

I am not claiming to be infallible. I am claiming to have had a small handful of truths given to me that I know are true.
You may not claim to be infallible about everything, but you do claim to be infallible about one thing.

You claim that others have had identical experiences and have found contradictory truths. I ask you to cite these
From the post above yours:

So I prayed. I felt the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guided me in many of my decisions. I preached in the Spirit. I witnessed in the Spirit. But when I asked if the Book of Mormon was true, the Holy Spirit said "no."

That's just the most recent one I've come across. ;)

[RandFan]

randfan - Yes, we've been over this all before so I'm not going to go through it all again. You are resorting to association fallacy when you say things like "There are legions of ideas and superstitions out there..." and "others know from different experience..." and "Scientology, Homeopathy, belief in UFOs, crystal power and a million other beliefs..." Other things that, to you, seem similar in some way to Mormonism are not evidence against the truthfulness of the claim in question. This is one of the most common logical fallacies I see here. It's not a fallacy as I don't use any such thing to prove something as true or false. I'm not saying that you are wrong because they are wrong. I'm saying that if they are wrong and believe as passionately as you do then you could also be wrong. I'm showing that there is nothing special about your claim.

If you are going to accuse others of fallacy please take the time and learn what fallacy is and use such accusations appropriately. I'm not immune to fallacy and I don't mind being corrected but get it right.

I asked and got no answer too - at the time, I was not being sincere.I was sincere.

I had ulterior motives...I wasn't searching for ulterior motives.

...and was just looking for a reason to leave. I wasn't. I cared deeply about the Church. I was getting ready to give up two years of my life. I was completely committed and in fact gave up those two years even though I didn't get an answer which I think adequately proves my motives and sincerity. I served an honorable mission. So please don't suggest that I was anything other than a true believer who cared deeply and was sincerely committed.

I was completely unaware of these ulterior motives at the time but I can see them now very clearly. As I have said before, I don't know about you or your experience, I am just sharing mine with you. Later on, I went through a lot of life experiences and I came to a point where I asked again and I actually wanted to know and I got a very distinct answer that I also know is not self deception. I know this and can compare it to other times I was self-deceived. We've been over all of this before so I'll stop now. I was nothing like you. I cared deeply about the Church and believed it very strongly. I never hesitated to give up my material possessions and two years of my life. I only wanted the confirmation before I left. That was all. I think that was a fair request.

[Correa Neto]

I would make two comments on this, though I don't think they will change the conclusions that Articulett comes to. First, there has historically been much controversy about whether homo sap. made it into central North America before the Beringian freeze or not. There is still considerable arguments surrounding the Clovis point people and the archeology of the newer sites on the eastern coast of North America, as well as datable remains from caves in California and other places that seem to extend beyond 12,000 years ago. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture .
Note that the arrival of Clovis people and of the people who preceeced them (Kennewick man and Luzia) predate the alleged arrival of Hebrew settlers by several thousands of years.

The second is that Thor Heyerdahl, along with his Kon-Tiki thesis about cultural interaction between Pacific islanders and South American Indians, also proposed the possibility of Egyptian interaction with South America through use of reed rafts (see "Voyage of the Ra II") in Egyptian Middle Kingdom times. Heyerdahl has shown it's possible, but actual evidence of it happening has been only faintly cultural up to this point, and his ideas are not seriously pursued at this time, to the best of my knowledge. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl#Heyerdahl.27s_theory_of_Polynesian_ origins
Its possible, indeed. But other than his voyage, what else do we have to back this idea? I remember reading about alleged cultural traces shared between the people from Western (South and North) America with Eastern Asia (China and part of Polinesia as well). But Egypt?

Not to mention that the evidence would have quite specific of contact with ancient Hebrews.

[Foster Zygote]

A bit off topic, but I still get the warm fuzzies to see RandFan back.:)

[Cleon]

I guess what you all are seeing in me at least (I can only speak for myself) is conflicting evidence that I'm looking to resolve. I have mentioned this before, but I have had many subjective and objective (non-repeatable, of course) experiences throughout my life as a member of the LDS church AND as an agnostic atheist that conflict with the evidence being put forth here. So I am left with judging between the two types of evidence. I have DNA evidence that shows Native Americans coming from Asia. I have the possibility of the Lamanite DNA being overwhelmed by the Asian DNA that they might have mixed with but we just don't know. I have statements from imperfect people about the ancestors of Native Americans. I have some uncertainty in these scientific evidences but not a whole lot.

I need to point out that this is not "conflicting evidence." The evidence only points one way--towards Asian ancestry.

The argument that Meldrum and others have made, that despite the genetic evidence to the contrary, there is still room for the possibility of the Lamanites to have existed, is not evidence. It is speculation. Given that the Lamanites and Nephites were all supposed to be descended from the Lehites, it is weak speculation at best.


On the other hand, I have specific testimony given to me near Washington D.C. in the home of Sylvia D. and her baptist preacher roommate. That testimony was like pure knowledge given to me - not only knowing that "the Book of Mormon is the word of God", but knowing that that statement is actually true. And the Baptist preacher looked at me at the same moment and said "This is the word of God" and I knew that she knew it also and that both testimonies had come from the same source. I know that there have been people, myself included, who have been deceived by their emotions and feelings and religious experiences but I cannot deny the experience I had. I know that it was real and was not from my own self in any way. I know from that experience and others (which I'm not as sure of as that one), that the Book of Mormon is indeed the word of God. So there's that subjective evidence.

That's anecdotal evidence--and many other people, from many other faiths, claim similar experiences. What makes yours correct, and theirs incorrect?


I have one more piece of evidence that has been very powerful to me as well. As I have read and studied the Book of Mormon and followed the teachings of Christ therein, I have gone through profound changes in my life for the better caused specifically by living those teachings.

Again, the same is said by non-LDS Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Scientologists. Why is your experience "evidence," and theirs is not?


I know that some here, without any evidence whatsoever, relying solely upon association fallacy, gambler's fallacy, negative proof fallacy, etc. have tried to dismiss experiences such as the ones I have described above, but those are not true arguments, they are just your personal beliefs that are based on logical fallacies.

It's not "dismissal," and definitely not based on logical fallacies. It's really very simple--we have no way to verify that your experience was really, truly a divine experience.

Everything you're saying about your personal experience boils down to that one, simple problem.


The personal evidence I have in favor of the Book of Mormon being true, to me is overwhelmingly in favor of it. I know that will drive you all crazy, but there you have it. To summarize, your arguments against my subjective evidence are "others have been wrong, therefore..." and "you sound like Tom Cruise, therefore..." and "given the fact (I mean, my belief) that you're deceived, you are being arrogant...", etc.

Again, at the end of the day there is really only one significant argument against your anecdotal evidence; there is no way to substantiate it.

Whether it can be differentiated from similar experiences from other religious people or whether you "sound like Tom Cruise" are both secondary to that main issue.


At this point, please don't re-post all of your arguments against these things - I've heard them over and over. It's not that I don't understand your arguments and where you're all coming from, I get it, I promise, I get it. It's just that we disagree, and that's OK.

Actually, based on your post, it does appear as though you don't understand them.

[Foster Zygote]

Note that the arrival of Clovis people and of the people who preceeced them (Kennewick man and Luzia) predate the alleged arrival of Hebrew settlers by several thousands of years.


Its possible, indeed. But other than his voyage, what else do we have to back this idea? I remember reading about alleged cultural traces shared between the people from Western (South and North) America with Eastern Asia (China and part of Polinesia as well). But Egypt?

Not to mention that the evidence would have quite specific of contact with ancient Hebrews.

And if any Hebrew tribe did arrive in North America then, like the possible Clovis-point culture, they are most certainly long extinct as indicated by phylogenetic studies, and not the ancestors of Native American peoples.

[rcronk]

It's not a fallacy as I don't use any such thing to prove something as true or false. I'm not saying that you are wrong because they are wrong. I'm saying that if they are wrong and believe as passionately as you do then you could also be wrong. I'm showing that there is nothing special about your claim.

If you are going to accuse others of fallacy please take the time and learn what fallacy is and use such accusations appropriately. I'm not immune to fallacy and I don't mind being corrected but get it right.

Perhaps there is some ambiguity then. I keep hearing from many people, "you're just like the scientologists, etc." and then directly thereafter are statements that are based on the presupposition that I'm wrong, as though the previous statements had proved it. If you weren't doing that, then I apologize. Others have and your argument seemed quite similar. Perhaps I got lazy after hearing it so often.

And you're right. According to you and everyone else, I could be wrong because you don't have access to my subjective experience. If you had access to my subjective experience, you would know without any doubt that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. There's nothing I can do to share my subjective experience with you. Annoying situation, isn't it? And for God to be just, I assume that there must be a reason for the differences between your experience, mine, and others who have posted here. I really don't know what those differences would be - assuming God exists and is just and that I am thinking right - which is assuming a lot, huh?

[Pixel42]

If you had access to my subjective experience, you would know without any doubt that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
The biggest and least justified of all your assumptions.

Not everyone gives their own subjective experiences more credence than contrary objective evidence. Some of us understand just how easily we can be fooled.

[rcronk]

The biggest and least justified of all your assumptions.

Not everyone gives their own subjective experiences more credence than contrary objective evidence. Some of us understand just how easily we can be fooled.

Good call. I thought about that statement when I typed it and if I had proofread the post one more time, I might have yanked it. It was overreaching.

[articulett]

Isn't Pixel using the same avatar as Iamme? Aaack.... at first I thought Iamme was saying something smart. I almost started believing in miracles.

[articulett]

A person can say "I witnessed this car accident and know what I saw" and still be humble. I witnessed something that I cannot prove to you and that nothing to do with humility.

Yes... just as Tom Cruise has witnessed things he cannot prove to us. And Navigator has had out of body experiences that he cannot prove to us. And mhuber's holy spirit told him that the BoM is false, though he can't prove that to us.

And Pygmy's could be responsible for the dark skin of Indians.

[articulett]

How do you feel about Tom Cruise's "testimony"? And why should we feel similarly about yours?

UFBZ_uAbxS0

Do you think he's delusional? Suppose one of you had "the truth" and one of you did not. How would we know? Scientology has a different method to prove it's true to believers. It's all subjective, of course, as is yours. Scientists have an interesting way of explaining away other belief systems that's even more clever than yours.

[rcronk]

How do you feel about Tom Cruise's "testimony"? And why should we feel similarly about yours?

UFBZ_uAbxS0

Do you think he's delusional? Suppose one of you had "the truth" and one of you did not. How would we know? Scientology has a different method to prove it's true to believers. It's all subjective, of course, as is yours. Scientists have an interesting way of explaining away other belief systems that's even more clever than yours.

According to scripture, you know someone by the fruits of their labors combined with confirmation from the Holy Spirit. So I look at the fruits of his labors combined with studying about him and what he's saying and pray to know if what he's saying is true or not. Many times, the matter in question is not important enough to do all of this, but sometimes it is. I can also compare what he's saying to what I already know. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for truth - I would invite them to study it out for themselves, compare it to what they already have found to be true, pray about it, see what changes occur in their own lives as they live the principles, etc.

I think people are not all truth or all error. There could be some things he says that match truth I have learned. There could be other things he says that make no sense to me so I'd have to learn more about them before making a judgement. Then there could be things that he says that go counter to what I know or believe to be true. If it's something that I know for sure or believe strongly because of my own firsthand experience or if it's something I have received by the Spirit, then if I had access to talk to him, I would talk to him about it and find out if I was misunderstanding him or how he came to that knowledge, etc. and go from there, weighing both sides. And if there were a way to find out objectively, I would look into that also, knowing that mistakes can be made in all of this whether objective or subjective.

[Tanstaafl]

The biggest and least justified of all your assumptions.

Not everyone gives their own subjective experiences more credence than contrary objective evidence. Some of us understand just how easily we can be fooled.

Good call. I thought about that statement when I typed it and if I had proofread the post one more time, I might have yanked it. It was overreaching.


This gets to the crux of it for me, and I suspect many others here, rcronk.

It's not that I want to see you lose your faith. I would just like to see you lose your certainty.

I think you have been adequately shown that we are all capable of self-deception. I agree with you that there's little point in just going around and around on the subject. But I hope you'll continue to process what you have learned here. I think you have made a lot of progress here, yet you still have this one stumbling block.

[rcronk]

This gets to the crux of it for me, and I suspect many others here, rcronk.

It's not that I want to see you lose your faith. I would just like to see you lose your certainty.

I think you have been adequately shown that we are all capable of self-deception. I agree with you that there's little point in just going around and around on the subject. But I hope you'll continue to process what you have learned here. I think you have made a lot of progress here, yet you still have this one stumbling block.

I know I can be deceived. I have been deceived many times, just like everyone else, and I admit it. This particular experience I had was different and I cannot deny that it was true and wasn't from myself but was from God.

Wanting me to lose my certainty depends upon the assumption that God can't give knowledge to a person and let them know it's true. I assert that He can and does and has with me. If God can give knowledge to someone and let them know that it is true, then I shouldn't "lose certainty", should I?

ETA: I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. What I would like is for people to understand the assumption they are making about this possibility, that's all.

[skeptical]

Wanting me to lose my certainty depends upon the assumption that God can't give knowledge to a person and let them know it's true. I assert that He can and does and has with me. If God can give knowledge to someone and let them know that it is true, then I shouldn't "lose certainty", should I?


The problem with that logic is the statement "and let them know it is true". There is no mechanism by which this could be done with a subjective experience. Subjective experience alone cannot be objective knowledge because we know that any single person is fallible, and we know that our brains have many ways to fool us.

The most that a person who claims that God is speaking to them could ever possibly claim is that they believe it. They cannot claim certainty, because without validation it is simply an experience like any other and still subject to the same errors as any other experience. Since we _know_ for certain that other experiences can fool us, we _must_ accept the possibility that the person's brain is fooling them in this situation.

In other words, it is not logically possible for the experience to be self-validating, something more would be required that is objectively verifiable such as specific information about a future event or some other information that cannot be obtained through known, natural means.

[Tanstaafl]

I know I can be deceived. I have been deceived many times, just like everyone else, and I admit it. This particular experience I had was different and I cannot deny that it was true and wasn't from myself but was from God.


But you are the one making the conclusion here, not God. You are saying that you cannot be wrong about the nature of this experience.

[rcronk]

skeptical & tanstaafl - I understand where you're coming from. I am saying that God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true. I don't know how, but He did. It was not me interpreting the experience. He just put it in there. That is what happened. You can assert that this is impossible, and that's fine, but it's just your opinion. I know what happened in that one instance. Many other things I just have belief in because I'm not sure and I could be deceived - I get it and I admit it. Hey that rhymed.

[RobRoy]

skeptical & tanstaafl - I understand where you're coming from. I am saying that God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true. I don't know how, but He did. It was not me interpreting the experience. He just put it in there. That is what happened. You can assert that this is impossible, and that's fine, but it's just your opinion. I know what happened in that one instance. Many other things I just have belief in because I'm not sure and I could be deceived - I get it and I admit it. Hey that rhymed.

I think the concern they have is over your the claim of fact. By that, I mean the statement, as if it were fact, that God did something. Many LDS, and fundies in general (not that the two are mutually exclusive or inclusive) make the same kind of mistake. It would be . . . hmmm . . . better (though I admit to the subjective nature of that word) to say "I am saying that I believe God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true."

This is probably the biggest issue I have with LDS testimony meetings. Opening statements of "I know . . ." disqualify the fundamentals of faith and the need for that faith. A statement of "I believe. . ." is based in faith, an addmission that faith is fundamental, and that faith is at core of the religion.

[godless dave]

I know I can be deceived. I have been deceived many times, just like everyone else, and I admit it. This particular experience I had was different and I cannot deny that it was true and wasn't from myself but was from God.

You can't deny it? Can you doubt it? If not, why not? What makes an experience so different from all others that you are absolutely sure your interpretation of it is correct?

I am saying that God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true. I don't know how, but He did. It was not me interpreting the experience.

But you saying "God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true." is you interpreting the experience. This isn't my belief; it's the defintion of the word "interpret".

[rcronk]

I think the concern they have is over your the claim of fact. By that, I mean the statement, as if it were fact, that God did something. Many LDS, and fundies in general (not that the two are mutually exclusive or inclusive) make the same kind of mistake. It would be . . . hmmm . . . better (though I admit to the subjective nature of that word) to say "I am saying that I believe God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true."

This is probably the biggest issue I have with LDS testimony meetings. Opening statements of "I know . . ." disqualify the fundamentals of faith and the need for that faith. A statement of "I believe. . ." is based in faith, an addmission that faith is fundamental, and that faith is at core of the religion.

I can agree with you here. I was saying "I know" out of habit earlier on in life. If I don't know for sure (and that covers a lot), then I'll say "I believe". I think it's more habitual but I think it can definitely give the person speaking a false sense of knowledge when they might really only just believe it.

I'm sorry but I can't think of any other way to explain the experience such that you can understand that this transfer of knowledge was verified. The closest I can get, being a computer geek, would be that the knowledge was encrypted with a digital signature on it so that I know who it came from and that the contents were valid. And according to scripture, everyone is entitled to this kind of an experience.

You can't deny it? Can you doubt it? If not, why not? What makes an experience so different from all others that you are absolutely sure your interpretation of it is correct?

But you saying "God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true." is you interpreting the experience. This isn't my belief; it's the defintion of the word "interpret".

See above. The knowledge was just there as if I had experienced the knowledge firsthand. That's the only way I can explain it.

all - I do appreciate your civility. I think many of you are looking at me a bit strangely and could easily throw some ad hominem my way, but you aren't and I appreciate it. If I had not had this experience myself, I would be asking the same questions you all are.

[RobRoy]

I can agree with you here. I was saying "I know" out of habit earlier on in life. If I don't know for sure (and that covers a lot), then I'll say "I believe". I think it's more habitual but I think it can definitely give the person speaking a false sense of knowledge when they might really only just believe it.

See, I wouldn't have said "just believe" since that more than suggests that belief isn't as powerful or as strong. That's simply not true. To draw from Kevin Smith's Dogma, "A belief's a dangerous thing. . . People die for it. People kill for it." Belief has done some damned impressive, and some damned terrible things, and it could be argued that belief, in a person, in an idea, in a religion, in a cause, is the impetus for almost every great event, whether for good or ill.

I understand that people want to convey a deeper sense of . . . well, of belief. Saying "I really, really, really, really, really believe" doesn't carry quite the same weight as "I know." But belief is the premise on which faith is based. When it comes to religion, knowing just isn't part of the equation. Knowing there's a God requires far less effort. Belief requires work.

[rcronk]

That's a good point. Now that I think of it, it seems like belief can have a more powerful effect than knowledge since it has a piece of doubt or fear in it that someone can be motivated by. Interesting.

[RobRoy]

That's a good point. Now that I think of it, it seems like belief can have a more powerful effect than knowledge since it has a piece of doubt or fear in it that someone can be motivated by. Interesting.

I've actually had this argument with my wife, who is LDS. :D

[m_huber]

Something that crosses my mind as I read this:
Assume that an all-knowing entity exists who interacts with humanity. This being tells people about the deep truths of the universe. Now a question arises: how do we know that this being is honest?

Humans in superior positions of knowledge will often deceive others for pleasure or protection. God (presumably) would not need protection (ignoring the Tower of Babel story), but may have a desire for pleasure.

You say God spoke to you. Perhaps. How do you know he told the truth?

[rcronk]

I've actually had this argument with my wife, who is LDS. :D

That's pretty funny. Of course, I don't know what other people "know" or "believe" so I can only speak for myself as far as what I have experienced and what I say to others. Anyway, I think the thread is sufficiently derailed now. Sorry. ;)

[rcronk]

Something that crosses my mind as I read this:
Assume that an all-knowing entity exists who interacts with humanity. This being tells people about the deep truths of the universe. Now a question arises: how do we know that this being is honest?

Humans in superior positions of knowledge will often deceive others for pleasure or protection. God (presumably) would not need protection (ignoring the Tower of Babel story), but may have a desire for pleasure.

You say God spoke to you. Perhaps. How do you know he told the truth?

That's a good question. I knew it was true independent from myself or God. It's hard to explain - it wasn't like a Monty Python and the Holy Grail skit where God was yelling from the clouds, "Hey! the Book of Mormon is true!" at me. It was independent truth that was just handed to me and the truth seemed to be independently self validating.

I'm starting to feel like a lab rat. :)

[articulett]

skeptical & tanstaafl - I understand where you're coming from. I am saying that God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true. I don't know how, but He did. It was not me interpreting the experience. He just put it in there. That is what happened. You can assert that this is impossible, and that's fine, but it's just your opinion. I know what happened in that one instance. Many other things I just have belief in because I'm not sure and I could be deceived - I get it and I admit it. Hey that rhymed.

No, what you don't get is that this belief of yours that is certain and true for you is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion that is certain and true for the deluded from our perspective.

"Subjective truths" are on par with opinions, interpretations, inferences, anecdote, and beliefs. They are NOT truths. You had an experience... you concluded that these experiences meant god was talking to you. This is not different (objectively) from forum member, Navigator's belief that he had an "out of body" experience or Tom Cruise using his success as proof that "Scientologists are the experts of the mind". He's a nice guy... his "fruits" seem decent... he stumbles upon accidents and helps out... he feels that he's "called" to do so... that these are signs or proof. You can play this game all you want in your head...

I want you to see that we have no choice but to see you doing exactly what Tom Cruise is doing or a Schizophrenic or any believer with experiences they cannot convey in words or via evidence.

Did you read the Simon Southerton link posted by Randfan? He explains your "belief as knowledge" very well to this non-believer. I know you believe that god really told you something or other... that does not make me believe in god--much less that he told you that the book of Mormon is true. Just like Tom Cruise's success and inner knowingness doesn't make me believe in body thetans.

[rcronk]

No, what you don't get is that this belief of yours that is certain and true for you is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion that is certain and true for the deluded from our perspective.

"Subjective truths" are on par with opinions, interpretations, inferences, anecdote, and beliefs. They are NOT truths. You had an experience... you concluded that these experiences meant god was talking to you. This is not different (objectively) from forum member, Navigator's belief that he had an "out of body" experience or Tom Cruise using his success as proof that "Scientologists are the experts of the mind". He's a nice guy... his "fruits" seem decent... he stumbles upon accidents and helps out... he feels that he's "called" to do so... that these are signs or proof. You can play this game all you want in your head...

I want you to see that we have no choice but to see you doing exactly what Tom Cruise is doing or a Schizophrenic or any believer with experiences they cannot convey in words or via evidence.

Did you read the Simon Southerton link posted by Randfan? He explains your "belief as knowledge" very well to this non-believer. I know you believe that god really told you something or other... that does not make me believe in god--much less that he told you that the book of Mormon is true. Just like Tom Cruise's success and inner knowingness doesn't make me believe in body thetans.

Right. To you all, it is the same because you can't pull it out and experiment on it to find out what it is. I do understand that completely.

ETA: Hey we agreed! :)

[RandFan]

skeptical & tanstaafl - I understand where you're coming from. I am saying that God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true. I don't know how, but He did. It was not me interpreting the experience. He just put it in there. That is what happened. You can assert that this is impossible, and that's fine, but it's just your opinion. I know what happened in that one instance. Many other things I just have belief in because I'm not sure and I could be deceived - I get it and I admit it. Hey that rhymed."Impossible"? Hmmmm.....

I would not be so absolute and I think such language misses the point. It's an epistemological problem. How does one know what is truth? I don't know anything absolutely. I don't know absolutely that I didn't come into being 5 minutes ago with all of my memories simply part of computer sub-routine.

I can't prove solipsism wrong. It doesn't make much sense for me to live as though it is. To be frank I don't think it is. The bottom line is that I don't absolutely know that anything is true other than I'm thinking and therefore, I think.

The problem isn't one of impossibility. Anything not logically impossible (square circles) is possible. The problem has to do with the limitations of knowledge. It's as if you are telling us you can fly by flapping your arms. Perhaps you can but the limitations of the human body cause me to be skeptical. The limits of human knowledge also causes me to be skeptical of your claim of absolute certainty. And how you know the difference between being deceived and believing that you know the truth and knowing the truth are beyond me. You've never answered that question only to assert you would know. Let me tell you, I wouldn't know. I have no basis to know how I would know. Deceived is deceived.

Since so many people are certain of so many different and contradictory things then I'm left with no choice but to be skeptical of all of them that are not supported by objective evidence. This I think is a good strategy. You yourself are automatically skeptical of any and all beliefs that directly contradict your's, right? Furthermore, when I look at the evidence that directly contradicts your subjective experience then there is even more reason for my skepticism.

Ok, so sou believe it. That's fine but it's not at all compelling to me.

[articulett]

Right. To you all, it is the same because you can't pull it out and experiment on it to find out what it is. I do understand that completely.

ETA: Hey we agreed! :)
Yay!

To us, our feelings about your claims are probably on par with your feelings about Tom Cruise's claims or Navigator's claims. It cannot be anything more... for the same reasons their claims can be nothing more to you. From an objective perspective (assuming one single truth and one single reality)--you're all on equal footing.

[m_huber]

That's a good question. I knew it was true independent from myself or God. It's hard to explain - it wasn't like a Monty Python and the Holy Grail skit where God was yelling from the clouds, "Hey! the Book of Mormon is true!" at me. It was independent truth that was just handed to me and the truth seemed to be independently self validating.

I'm starting to feel like a lab rat. :)

I don't think we intend to turn you into a specimen for experimentation. That said, turn over so we can give you your shots ;).



You might think for a bit about what constitutes truth. Is truth based on observable reality, or is truth based on something that is invisible and indiscernible?

When we have looked at observable reality, we have found that it is extremely consistent. The gravitational constant does not change. Different lines of evidence lead us to the same conclusions. Examination of the physical universe is extremely powerful. It is entirely self-consistent.

When we consider the invisible, however, we are faced with a much greater challenge. Since experimentation is not really applicable, we have to simply analyze each version of the imperceptible truth on its own merits. We find many religions to be self-contradictory, and even the ones that are not have difficult points that the leaders call on people to have faith in. Thousands of religions each believe that they have found the true God (or gods, or goddess). They are clearly not all right. How, then, can we possibly determine which religion is correct? (This was Joseph Smith's question, no?) Do we ask God? Millions of people have done just that, and they have been convinced that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Muslims, Scientologists, Buddhists, Heaven's Gates, or any other cult/religion you can think of is "true."

We must conclude from this that one of two possibilities is correct:
1) God likes to trick people.
2) People trick themselves.


So, with truth based on the physical world, we have no contradictions; with truth based on the invisible world, we have numerous contradictions. With the latter, we have to decide if God or people are doing the tricking. Give a bit of thought to where your truth comes from.

[articulett]

I'm curious as to what you think of Simon Southerton's experiences in comparison to your, rconk? Do you think that he wasn't as earnest as you? How about Randfan? How could they come to "unknow" that which they thought they "knew"? How do you explain to yourself that they now feel they were fooling themselves? Is that a trick of Satan's? Did they "bite from the tree of knowledge"? Which of your responses should we treat as "beliefs" and which as "knowledge"? In your belief system are these fine men consigned to outer darkness? Do you feel compelled like Southerton did to bring people back into "the fold".

How is that different from Scientology again?

[Zygar]

I've avoided getting too involved in this because I hate discussing my experiences with religion in any depth.

rcronk, I am afraid you are decieving yourself. The Holy Ghost "revealed" to me as well. But the truth of the matter is that this is an entirely internal emotional reaction. I realized this while watching Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth for about the 4th time. The Holy Ghost is not an external power granting this feeling. It is in your head. A sort of religious placebo effect.

For me the ultimate proof was that I could reproduce the effect in myself whenever I tried hard enough. It was rather an odd sensation without the religious context, but it was definitely the same feeling, and it was definitely not in connection with the Holy Ghost. At least, not any LDS or even Christian one.

[skeptical]

skeptical & tanstaafl - I understand where you're coming from. I am saying that God put this knowledge into me and validated that it was true. I don't know how, but He did. It was not me interpreting the experience. He just put it in there. That is what happened. You can assert that this is impossible, and that's fine, but it's just your opinion. I know what happened in that one instance. Many other things I just have belief in because I'm not sure and I could be deceived - I get it and I admit it. Hey that rhymed.

So let me ask you: Would you say that every person who thinks that God is talking to them and is "certain" of it is correct? If not, by what criteria would you judge them to be correct or incorrect? Because it sounds like you are saying that if a person is certain that God is talking to them, then it must be true because God must have "validated it".

[articulett]

So let me ask you: Would you say that every person who thinks that God is talking to them and is "certain" of it is correct? If not, by what criteria would you judge them to be correct or incorrect? Because it sounds like you are saying that if a person is certain that God is talking to them, then it must be true because God must have "validated it".

No silly... only if the god tells them The Book of Mormon is True. All those other gods telling other people other things are delusions.

And the religion has lots-o-memes so that you feel extra special for "having faith" and shameful when you lose it. Faith can do bad things to good people with good brains. It's almost "addictively" manipulative it seems. I don't think Mormonism is particularly bad... but it does seem to tie up the minds of people who could further real knowledge.

Interesting what you can do to people once they've bought into the meme that faith is a means of knowledge... coupled with the absolute necessity of obeying the faith giver.

[HghrSymmetry]

The Holy Ghost "revealed" to me as well. But the truth of the matter is that this is an entirely internal emotional reaction.

That, and some scholars have put forth the notion that is was derived from "holy breath." The act of respiration being an almost mystical action, the "life force" so to write.

[Pixel42]

It is in your head. A sort of religious placebo effect.

For me the ultimate proof was that I could reproduce the effect in myself whenever I tried hard enough. It was rather an odd sensation without the religious context, but it was definitely the same feeling, and it was definitely not in connection with the Holy Ghost. At least, not any LDS or even Christian one.
That's really interesting. The Mormon I argue with on another board seems to be able to self-generate the feeling whenever he wants to as well - i.e. whenever he asks God a question he wants the answer "yes" to.

Someone here posted a link to an article about neurotheology which I found fascinating:

http://www.clinicallypsyched.com/neurotheologywithgodinmind.htm

Persinger’s work leads to the question of why such reactions occur when these specific areas of the brain are stimulated? Persinger argues that over stimulation and unsyncopated reaction in one area of the temporal cortex can cause a misinterpretation of ‘the self’. During moments of neuronal imbalance in the left hemisphere of the temporal cortex (an area concerned with the sense of self), the brain interprets the presence of the right hemisphere as a personified ’other entity’, or God (Ford 2002).

Does this sound plausible as an explanation of your experiences?

[RobRoy]

That's pretty funny. Of course, I don't know what other people "know" or "believe" so I can only speak for myself as far as what I have experienced and what I say to others. Anyway, I think the thread is sufficiently derailed now. Sorry. ;)

My wife agrees with me, but the problem lies with the LDS culture at this point. If you were to get up at a testimony meeting and give yours by saying, "I believe Joseph Smith is a prophet of God . . ." everyone would look at you funny. You might even get a fun chat with the bishop, all because the culture has made this choice and it's now a part of the religion.

And the religion has lots-o-memes so that you feel extra special for "having faith" and shameful when you lose it. Faith can do bad things to good people with good brains. It's almost "addictively" manipulative it seems. I don't think Mormonism is particularly bad... but it does seem to tie up the minds of people who could further real knowledge.

Not almost addictively manipulative. It is addictively manipulative. I grew up in Utah, and if you were a "proper" LDS lad, and wanted to be considered a good, upstanding member of the community, with any hope of getting a "proper" LDS bride, at 18, you put in your papers and went on your mission, irregardless of the fact that you're supposed to be "called", and specifically "called by the Spirit" to go. There are any number of friends and acquaintances that I'm relatively certain had no calling whatsoever. They went as much to satisfy culturally and socially established paradigms as any other reason.

[tsig]

I don't think you're ever going to get an answer that will satisfy you. You're looking for solid, logical, scientific evidence of a religious faith. For whatever reason, it seems not to be God's will to make such proof available.

The best that I can do, is first, to quote that great philosopher Spock, from Star Trek VI (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102975/), where he says, “Logic is the beginning of wisdom…not the end.”; and then to refer you to the passage at Moroni 10:3-5 (http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/3-5#3) where the reader is invited to go to the source of all truth in order to learn whether this book itself is true.


Read the book studied the culture Joe just made it up as he went along.

[tsig]

A prophet is one to whom God speaks; and who God instructs to tell others what God has told him. However, a prophet is also a human being, who has exactly the same capacity that all of us have, to form and express his own beliefs and opinions. Not every word spoken by a prophet comes from God.





I don't concede that we are, or ever were, confused about this relationship. The American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites. For all the fuss that has been made about the various genetic evidence, and what it does or does not allegedly prove, nothing in it disproves this assertion. At most, it fails to prove anything, or else proves that there may have been other people of different origins who may have interbred with the Lamanites.





The 1981 revision came after the church gained access to some manuscripts and notes of Joseph Smith's, which had been in the possession of the RLDS/CoC. As it turns out, the “white”/“pure” revision, as well as many others, were among the changes that Joseph Smith himself had produced, but which had failed to be applied to any publications of The Book of Mormon before this point.

I am a prophet I speak for god. You are wrong.

[tsig]

You forgot Zoram, but that's probably not a hugely relevant piece of the puzzle since he hung out with the Nephites who were eventually killed off.

Now, I guess we'll move on. If there were people already here and the Lamanites mixed with them, would that affect this study? The Book of Mormon is a record mainly of the Nephites, not the Lamanites. We don't know how much Lamanites interacted with people who were already here on the American continent. We don't know how many of the original lamanites were not killed off during the wars with the Nephites. I think that's one problem with the Book of Mormon is that it's job is to invite people to Christ, not provide a good scientific DNA record of a people. With so many unknowns about the lamanites, it's not "conclusive" to me. I'm ignorant of this topic, but it seems to me that with so many unknowns it's hard to call things conclusive, especially since none of these studies dealt with the Book of Mormon at all and didn't try to prove anything with regard to the Book of Mormon. Can you or anyone else fill in the blanks with regards to what happened to the Lamanites during the past 2600 years that might have affected their DNA?

As for racial issues, if I were black or had some other shade of dark skin, and I read the Book of Mormon, I would probably struggle with it a bit but I would realize that my own dark skin is a product of genetics, not a curse on me. If people's skin color was changed because of rebellion or sin in the past, it has nothing to do with me today. It also doesn't mean that all people with dark skin are "bad" or that their ancestors were "bad". I think perhaps a racist could derive all kinds of things from all this, but a decent person would not and would love and serve all people regardless of skin color. It's people who are sometimes racist and hateful. If people want to use the scriptures to justify hate and racism, that's their own sin. I'm not doing it, so it's a choice that each of us make.

How many wives do you have?

Keep your posts on topic and avoid baiting other members.

[tsig]

People can be wrong. It's not God's M.O. to go around fixing everyone's problems. He leaves that up to us so we can learn from our mistakes. Fixing people's problems for them makes them weaker. Helping them find out on their own how to go ask for correction and more truth is how you make people stronger and more self sufficient. That's just been my experience in life and it works better to let people learn from their mistakes and so I would suppose that since it's God's objective to help us progress, He would not go around coddling us and fixing all of our problems for us.



"This is generally regarded as good when judging hypotheses." That's fine and I agree. I accept that God exists and you don't. I think that's where we disagree on parsimony - you have to assume God exists to accept one point of view and I'm not counting His existence as an assumption when I evaluate the hypotheses. That's a good point.



Yes, it does seem racist and ignorant. I don't excuse him and I am also willing to give him the benefit of the doubt given how people generally thought in those times and given the fact that in so many other instances, he did not express such ignorance. And especially since the members of the LDS church as a whole were generally strongly against slavery, etc.



I think you're going a bit overboard there. Sure it's not something I would say or agree with, in fact I would argue that such is not the case, however I wouldn't classify it as one of the most pernicious evils of mankind. We're pretty far derailed here, but I think the underlying point here is that people make mistakes. There are several times in the Doctrine and Covenants where Joseph Smith published accounts of God reprimanding him for his follies and errors and sins. Even Nephi, who many regard as a great prophet, at times thought of himself as a "wretched man" beset with temptations, but he knew in who he had trusted - the Lord.

A prophet is a man with weakness and error. I think that may be why any new church pronouncements come from the prophet in unison with the first presidency at least and usually in unity with the quorum of the twelve apostles to smooth out some human error that can creep in. Rejecting the restored gospel because of the frailties of men who are members or leaders of the LDS church is something I've seen many times.

Again, God corrects some things but from what I've seen, He leaves it up to us to find and correct our own errors so that we can progress and become better people instead of people who are coddled, taken care of, and never allowed to falter or propagate errors. My faith is in Christ and not in every word that comes out of every mortal imperfect prophet who He has called. As members of the church, we are to pray and gain a testimony of what the prophet says as well as yet another point of checking what the prophet says.

Uh, and the DNA evidence is not conclusive based on so many unknowns regarding the lamanites' interactions with people already on the American continent. "Stay on target. Stay on target."

What good is a prophet who can't tell the truth? We call them liars.

[money]

Not almost addictively manipulative. It is addictively manipulative. I grew up in Utah, and if you were a "proper" LDS lad, and wanted to be considered a good, upstanding member of the community, with any hope of getting a "proper" LDS bride, at 18, you put in your papers and went on your mission, irregardless of the fact that you're supposed to be "called", and specifically "called by the Spirit" to go. There are any number of friends and acquaintances that I'm relatively certain had no calling whatsoever. They went as much to satisfy culturally and socially established paradigms as any other reason.

I knew one guy from my hometown who went on a mission as his parents promised him 1/5th of the family farm if he returned with honor. Of course, though, many LDS young men and women really do feel this calling...

[tsig]

That the evidence is in a form that you refuse to acknowledge or believe does not mean that it does not exist, nor does it make it any less real or any less valid to those of us who have received an undeniable confirmation via the Holy Ghost (http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/3-5#3) of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

You may dismiss me as a deceived kook, if you will, but that doesn't make it so.

WOW god talked to you! Did she use English or Reformed Egyptian.

[tsig]

How many wives do you have?

Keep your posts on topic and avoid baiting other members.

How many wives did Joe have? I am not baiting just asking questions.

[m_huber]

tsig, I think we were having a civil conversation here. Making joking remarks about the voice and nature of God, means of communication of God, and antiquated Mormon beliefs do nothing to further this conversation. rcronk seems like a nice guy -- we have been having a nice conversation. Don't degrade it.

[manofthesea]

Note that the arrival of Clovis people and of the people who preceeced them (Kennewick man and Luzia) predate the alleged arrival of Hebrew settlers by several thousands of years.

.

CN, dear friend. What makes you believe that Kennewick Man and Luzia predate the Clovis people?

And also, what makes you question the fact that South and North American indians are the same genetically?

As far as Mormons, I always offer them a glass of ice water. Sadly, the young Mormons who conduct their missions in my neighborhood are not allowed to travel by bicycle anymore. Too many ruffians.

*You can answer me in the bigfoot thread about Native Americans if you desire.

[Correa Neto]

CN, dear friend. What makes you believe that Kennewick Man and Luzia predate the Clovis people?
Care to answer what's the relevance of these questions to the topic?
Aniway, the reasons for my "belief" are pretty simple and have to do with the ages of the remains. Some quick googling will point to towards the papers who deal with this issue.

And also, what makes you question the fact that South and North American indians are the same genetically?
Have I questioned this? Care to tell me where and how?
Or you misread something I wrote on miscigenation with European settlers? If this is the case, then I think the differences are pretty obvious for anyone who knows a bit of History of the Americas.

As far as Mormons, I always offer them a glass of ice water. Sadly, the young Mormons who conduct their missions in my neighborhood are not allowed to travel by bicycle anymore. Too many ruffians.

*You can answer me in the bigfoot thread about Native Americans if you desire.
Relevance to the topic?
If you want to discuss this and other off-topic issues, please do it at the propper threads.

[manofthesea]

Regarding South American tribes,
at a few tribes, hints of the presence of a DNA signature which may be inherited from a population which predated the people who were the ancestors of most of the present-day tribes (these would be "pre-Clovis" people).

.

It appeared as if you were differentiating North and South American indians here.