Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By 'Original' I mean what Joseph smith actually wrote, compared to what the LDS later claims as doctrine. That is quite separate from doctrinal disagreements with Christian theology.
You're going to have to be more specific if you really want to be able to have a discussion on this.
Quote:
The point was made that Native American languages do not indicate descent from Hebrew.
I'm honestly not sure why you think they would. There are a whole lot of dots between the two you're connecting.
Quote:
The 'genetic drift' argument shouldn't work if X and Y chromosomes are passed down unaltered.
Of course it should. You need to tell me how my example is flawed. Or, alternatively, you could explain how the deCODE project was.
Quote:
Obviously we now need to know just how the trace back to origins works, but the science is, after all, generally accepted. Perhaps those videos I linked might explain more. We may have to risk a foray into science.
You seem to think I'm afraid of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Are you a scientist, by the way? I'm not.
Quote:
I don't think the point about archaeology is valid. It is a familiar suggestion that some day new Scientific evidence will turn up to show that pre Columbian America had the wheel, cattle, horses, Iron, even a system of currency. The Inca didn't even have writing - apart from the Quipu which is Not a written system let alone alphabetic. The written languages (quite different and unlike Hebrew) had pictorial writing quite unlike the Alphabetic writing of the hebrews.
All the evidence indicates that these cultures (never mind the N American ones) owed nothing to the Hebrews and, whatever archaeology might show in the future, a civilisation, language and writing related to the Hebrew is not going to show up all of a sudden.
As I said, I'll address the archeological evidence a bit later on. Meanwhile, perhaps you could just give me this much to work with: What archaeological evidence would you consider to be some fairly conclusive evidence of the authenticity of the Nephite scripture? If the answer is "It would be impossible to prove the Book of Mormon's authenticity," there's no point in my even trying to respond. Otherwise, I will need to know what you would be looking for if you were an archaeologist.
I'm sure this is not Transponder's viewpoint, but I'll respond to this...and it is the same response I would give about the bible and the Tipitaka (our Buddhist scriptures):
You said: "As I said, I'll address the archeological evidence a bit later on. Meanwhile, perhaps you could just give me this much to work with: What archaeological evidence would you consider to be some fairly conclusive evidence of the authenticity of the Nephite scripture? If the answer is "It would be impossible to prove the Book of Mormon's authenticity," there's no point in my even trying to respond. Otherwise, I will need to know what you would be looking for if you were an archaeologist."
My answer, regardless of the religion...or almost any non-religious historical premise: Substantial verification of the premise by NEUTRAL archaeologists and other researchers.
It's sort of like the debate about whether Lincoln was gay or bi. I've seen both sides presented, and I think it's possible he was. But there has been, from what I have read, no definitive answer to the question.
My answer, regardless of the religion...or almost any non-religious historical premise: Substantial verification of the premise by NEUTRAL archaeologists and other researchers.
But what, specifically, is "the premise" and what, specifically, would prove it?
You're going to have to be more specific if you really want to be able to have a discussion on this.
I'm honestly not sure why you think they would. There are a whole lot of dots between the two you're connecting.
Of course it should. You need to tell me how my example is flawed. Or, alternatively, you could explain how the deCODE project was.
You seem to think I'm afraid of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Are you a scientist, by the way? I'm not.
Yes, I will have to do a bit more. The Aztec and Maya languages don't appear to have relations to Hebrew which is related to the Aramean language base which also led to Assyrian. Never been related to Azten or Mayan or indeed Inca (Quechua). We would have heard about it if the LDS experts could do so. I already mentioned the pictographic script; nothing like the Hebrew alphabetic script. Some digging may need to be done but i would be astonished to find anything to overturn these observations.
Again, I'd have to look into how the DNA tracing of ancestry is done. I only passed on the information that i got - that X and Y chromosomes mark the ancestry and do not get absorbed. Few of here are scientists and those who are may be expert in other disciplines. None of us can be experts on everything even if we have to try, so we do rely on what science has to say. I agree that there is no reason to be afraid of science, nor indeed of questioning it. I'd just observe that the only LDS counter -apologetic was to claim that the argument was done by uninformed skeptics cherry - picking Scientific papers. This is not the case, as the video I posted showed. If they had anything better, we'd have heard it. Indeed,rather than 'genetic drift' we had the attempt to scale down the sample to central America. This of course make no difference to the results.
Quote:
As I said, I'll address the archaeological evidence a bit later on. Meanwhile, perhaps you could just give me this much to work with: What archaeological evidence would you consider to be some fairly conclusive evidence of the authenticity of the Nephite scripture? If the answer is "It would be impossible to prove the Book of Mormon's authenticity," there's no point in my even trying to respond. Otherwise, I will need to know what you would be looking for if you were an archaeologist.
Your point about the archaeology is one I've heard before: "What would convince you that the Bible is true?" The problem there is that too much evidence is already against it being true. The evidence would need to be that archaeology and history agrees with the Bible rather than contradict it. It's the same with the LDS version of American history. No wheels, no horses, no cattle, no steel, not before the Europeans arrived. In South America the civilisations all seem to point to a common origin (1) going back to many gods, but with propitiating the sun with blood as a feature. ziggurat -temples and pictograms where there is writing. This goes back to quite early times and not a trace of anything resembling Hebrew culture of writing. The Inca didn't even have a script. It is explaining away too much to ague that the Hebrew culture vanished and had to develop a different culture (as I say, any resemblances would have been made very public by Mormon apologists). There is apparently no evidence for and much evidence against and that all has to be explained away leaving at best no information either way. But no horses or wheels for chariots or wagons is a lot to account for in a supposed culture that had plenty of them.
(1) (off the 'net - bit it's in my archaeology books. "The Olmec civilization emerged around 1200 BCE in Mesoamerica and ended around 400 BCE. Olmec art and concepts influenced surrounding cultures after their downfall. This civilisation was thought to be the first in America to develop a writing system." The basic features of the civilisation that led to the Maya and Toltecs was there before Israel even appeared in Mid. Easter history. North America shows no archaeology of a similar ancient civilisation. It looks to me like the problem with Genesis - trying to shoehorn a story into a scientific picture that has no room for it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2018 at 02:06 PM..
But what, specifically, is "the premise" and what, specifically, would prove it?
I wasn't speaking of one particular premise. But the whole Western Indian thing is something that specifically interests me.
When I have talked with Mormon missionaries, that's a question I always bring up, and so far they all seem baffled about it.
Obviously, there are things that cannot be verified. We cannot verify what Joseph said happened in the Sacred Grove. We cannot verify what happened at Hill Cumorah (although you can't have a cave in a drumlin...trust this geology student on that). But lots of other stuff ought to be able to be verified.
An aside: When I was a little boy and we would come back to Palmyra from visiting relatives in Naples and Canandaigua, we'd pass Hill Cumorah and I'd always say, "There's Macaroni!"
Katzpur, how do you reconcile the original teachings, and the current phraseology of 2 Nephi 5:21-23?
"5:21 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, that 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.
5:22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
5:23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."
First of all, a segment of human beings, that previously delighted your god because the were white, are now cursed by that god by "causing a skin of blackness" to them. He then further denigrates these people by not allowing intermarriage.
That goes against any viewpoint a rational humanist could possibly take, and is repulsive to the vast majority of citizens today.
Now, the LDS church changed its teachings on this back in 1978. What does that tell us?
It tells us that just like the bible writings were written by humans describing the culture at the time, the same thing with Smith, and perpetuated by Young. This was no "divine revelation", but forces in society that changed the LDS teaching. Regardless, 2 Nephi has not changed (a how can any "holy" book change), and it is clear in printed text what the actual teachings were. Soft pedalling it now only reflects on the need to adjust to societal pressures, not the basic teachings.
Now, the LDS church changed its teachings on this back in 1978. What does that tell us?
It tells us that just like the bible writings were written by humans describing the culture at the time, the same thing with Smith, and perpetuated by Young. This was no "divine revelation", but forces in society that changed the LDS teaching. Regardless, 2 Nephi has not changed (a how can any "holy" book change), and it is clear in printed text what the actual teachings were. Soft pedalling it now only reflects on the need to adjust to societal pressures, not the basic teachings.
Are you asking me or telling me? It appears you are already convinced that you've got the right answer.
I could (I will if anyone wants) post a video talk or two on how this use of DNA pointers to an area of origin using many, many and repeated DNA tests. It is a bit to watch.
There was another video arguing that Other peoples in America were not ruled out by the Book of Mormon (in fact I believe they are by a BoM claim that the Nephites came to an empty land) but that's not the point; given that the Nephites and Lamanites came to have an extensive and developed (and warring) pair of cultures, Hebrew DNA should be readily identifiable in Native Americans. The results seem to indicate that this had not been found.
But I wanted to mention a (Video) claim that 5 haploid markers were found in Native Americans that were found (only - it was implied) in Jewish populations. I looked for confirmation of this and could find nothing more about it. There was only this perhaps related passage:
"Murphy has responded to Whiting's comments as follows: "While Whiting, in his presentation for FARMS at BYU, exclaimed delight at the prospect of evolutionary biology coming to the defense of the Book of Mormon, he offered no scientific data to substantiate an Israelite origin of indigenous peoples anywhere in the Americas. In fact, he conceded, 'current genetic evidence suggests that Native Americans have a genetic history representative of Asia and not the Middle East"
The quote goes on to show the writer expressing surprise at an accusation that he was evading peer review as he had in fact published.
Are you asking me or telling me? It appears you are already convinced that you've got the right answer.
Telling you what we have and asking what counters the LDS apologists have. We can of course go to their (many) apologetics videos rather than bother you, my dear Katz. if you have had your fill of it. We can do that ourselves. I have already looked at some Apologist videos and seen that the counters are pretty basically flawed, or in the case of the 5 Haploid markers, unconfirmed.
As I say - we can do this ourselves for the benefit of any who are in doubt.
Are you asking me or telling me? It appears you are already convinced that you've got the right answer.
How can you reconcile then and now? What's more relevant, scripture or dogma? And why.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
even if we have to try, so we do rely on what science has to say. I agree that there is no reason to be afraid of science, nor indeed of questioning it. I'd just observe that the only LDS counter -apologetic was to claim that the argument was done by uninformed skeptics cherry - picking Scientific papers. This is not the case, as the video I posted showed. If they had anything better, we'd have heard it. Indeed,rather than 'genetic drift' we had the attempt to scale down the sample to central America. This of course make no difference to the results. 
Dna
