Average Joe

You know what, mdfxdb? You seem like a decent person. I believe you're sincere. For some reason, we just are not communicating. I ask questions that you don't answer, though from your perspective, you've probably answered them several times already. In fact, I agree with you about the limited geography (though I would argue that under 1000 square miles is too restrictive -- I would agree that it's probably under 10,000 square miles). I probably agree with you about a lot of things.
 
The idea that a small group's genes would spread out among a population within relatively few generations, 20 or 30, certainly within the 100+ generations since Lehi arrived in the New World, is similar to saying that the atoms in a drop of ink would spread out through a gallon jug of water, even if you had a maze of wax barriers within the jug. Unless some part of the water is completely sealed off from the rest, the influence of that one drop will eventually be felt. That's not to say that every part of that gallon of water derives solely from the drop, but that every part of that gallon of water contains some part of it.
 
But I've generated lots of heat and very little light in this thread, for which I'm sorry. I'll bow out.

Not to accidentally give fuel to any evil flames...but...I'd be interested to see if this could be backed up beyond wikipedia's say so. In other words, I'd be hard pressed to believe that not a single sealing, of the myriads of crazy ones done back in the early days of the church before they worked it all out, was an "adoption" sealing of women, say as perhaps sisters? Not saying there was...just skeptical that there definitely wasn't. :) Moreover, if the now defunct "gay Mormon church" was willing to take on their own interpretation of how things worked, not only is it possible, but also likely that they would have simply given women the priesthood.

sounds like a similar version of the hullabaloo about some document that was found in early christian times that had a couple guys holding hands.
they are looking for excuses, technical loopholes and etc. with incomplete understanding.
Sealing is not only for husbands and wives, but for bringing the whole family of God together as one, and being returned to God as one whole unity.
Adoption has nothing to do with being granted sexual relation allowance.

Welcome and I look forward to seeing your posts :)

Okay, omegaseamaster75. Time to demonstrate your iron grasp of the subject.
 
Lehi came to the Americas about 2600 years ago. Let us assume his descendants mixed with the local existing aboriginal populations. Please explain what genetic markers, exactly, we should look for and realistically expect to find in order to establish Lehi's existence.
 
Clearly, there are any number of markers that, if they were to show up, might cause us to do a double-take and say, "Wow! Looks like Jewish blood!" But that is not the question. The question is: If a small group of undefined ancestry mixed in with a large existing group 2600 years ago, what markers should we EXPECT to find from said small group?

It's hard to say it is disproven, because lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. You are right in asserting that one need not immediately accept lehi as the principal, and only, ancestor of the american indians, since evidence for that view is scant, if you are basing it on a need for rigorous evidence. I don't think that is what Vort is saying though.

Vort is right in that there is reasonable enough reasons [such as DNA propagation as he mentions] (and maybe preliminary evidence) for the typical faith based view.
 
Oh something I stumbled on quiet awhile ago (non-lds sources, if it makes any difference),
There are genetic markers in, if I remember right, in the Cherokee tribe that would be expected in those of middle eastern decent (The pool of people is actually much more vast than just middle east, but around that area). Cool BOM is True! oh wait, However scientists have been unable to identify if this is the result of interbreeding with old world immigrants. They have gotten pretty far back but not quite far enough for any firm conclusion of this curiosity. And to confound things further, they have found DNA in the ancient ancestors who lived in the Americas (probably before lehi's time) that may have middle eastern decent.

It is also interesting to note many of the tribes traditions state that they came from the east. Lot's of water in the east. lol hehe :)

All I know is that given that humans share something like 96% of their DNA (i.e. "genes") with chimpanzees, it seems sort of odd to argue that Lehi must not share any genes with Native Americans. 
 
And given that, assuming just three generations per century and not adjusting for intermarriage between family lines, a native American (or anyone else) living today would have two to the seventy-eighth power ancestors alive around 600 BC (that's 302,231,454,903,657,293,676,544 ancestors--a number that I believe is actually exponentially higher than the total number of humans who have ever lived on the earth)--why can't Lehi be one of those 302 million trillion theoretical ancestors from whom a Native American is descended?
 
Forgive me, but it's almost like you want the Book of Mormon to be historically flawed.

(Um, omaga?  vort is kind of right here.  You should do more reading...  This stuff has been available for a decade or longer...)
 
DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective - Michael F. Whitinghttp://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1402&index=3 Does DNA Evidence Refute the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon? - Michael F. Whitinghttp://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/video/does-dna-evidence-refute-the-authenticity-of-the-book-of-mormon/ When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There? - John L. Sorensonhttp://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1378&index=2 Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations. - Matthew Roperhttp://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7

I'm happy to see that someone grasps this. JAG, you have restored my faith in humanity.

Hi everyone! 
 
My turn to introduce myself :) 
 
My name is Swart. I live, together with my lovely wife, in the city of Amersfoort in the Netherlands. 
I'm 26 years old. My wife is 25. We are both serving in the church in several callings. We are both temple workers in The Hague Temple. We've been born in the church and both served a mission. 
 
I already love this forum. I leave judgement to the Lord in almost all cases. I will try to invite people (everywhere, including this forum) to come unto Christ. 
 
With brotherly kindness, 
 
Swart 

Yes, politicians declare war. But not the President. That is a subversion of the Constitution. Congress declares war, something they have not done since 1941.

What's really unsettling to me is that so many "constitutional conservatives" are ready and willing to ignore the document in order to "insure" our safety and security. 
I'm more afraid of do-gooders in my own government than I am of evil-doers outside of it.

Yes, of course. That is exactly what I'm saying. Except I would not use the definite article "the", but the indefinite article "an".

I did initially do a quick google search, failing to find any sources I deem with the up most credibility, is why I asked.

My view on faiths has always been that if your going to be a mormon, catholic, baptist, methodist, evangelical, Buddhist, hindu, whatever, you need to be the best (most righteous) you can be according to the light your given...and if you are you'll be lead to greater light. 

Over the last few years my view has changed on what it means to be valiant.  I feel that an individual will make it to the celestial kingdom if they do not "give up."  What that means, is that we strive to do our best to live the Gospel and magnify it.  Our best will vary, and for some may simply be demonstrated by an addicted and destroyed life that makes a passing thought to God which snowballs with many ups and many downs to a state of continuing to push for following God regardless of how many times he/she slips up and fails.  Valiance as I see it is throwing in the towel once one has received the testimony of Jesus.
 
The testimony of Jesus also, at least to me, seems to be more than a simple testimony of knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God.  The testimony that seems to be indicated in D&C 76 is one that entrenches itself deeply into the soul and governs how one acts so that it is the guiding principle of that persons life.  It allows for the drive that I indicated in the above paragraph so one does not give up, because the inherent nature of the individual is changed to not give up. 

This is true. However, I was going by D&C 76:103 [which I had not included in my original post] which referred to those of the telestial kingdom as:
 
"These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie".

I like Vort's answer.  Even though I only believe in one heavenly kingdom (though with varying degrees of reward/responsibility), the basic concept that where we end up in eternity will never be a close call, is crucial.  When judgment is rendered there will be no objections, no cries of foul, no appeals.  All we see and know that God was good, just and merciful. 

Close but not exactly. 
 
We believe that all children who died under 8 years old are automatically saved in the Celestial Kingdom, and we believe that all who died without accountability [the mental capacity of an 8 year old] are automatically saved in the Celestial Kingdom.
 
We also believed that all [regardless of religion or lack thereof] who would have accepted the gospel with all their heart if they had been able to hear it will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. 
 
We believe that after death all who have lived on earth will be taught the principles of the gospel and have the ordinances preformed for them by proxy - for them to accept or reject, their choice - after which they will be assigned the kingdom their lives merit. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed on their behalf (having not rejected the gospel in life) and have lived a life worthy of the Celestial Kingdom shall enter into it.  
 
Therefore the celestial kingdom may not be as small as we tend to think,

You forget about all the children who died before the age of 8.

Outsider observation:  The Celestial Kingdom is going to be really small, and those in the exaltation even fewer.  The Terrestial Kingdom, with its mix of lax LDS, many/most Catholics and Protestants, and probably a good many other religious folks, is going to be quite large.  The Telestial Kingdom will be well populated, but probably smaller than the Terrestial one.  And the outer darkness, may be like the Celestial Kingdom, or even smaller.  Sorta like an eternal bell curve.  Do I have this right?

in layman terms
terrestrial - those who are willing to do some but not all that God asks.
Telestial - those who reject both god and Christ until the end.
outer darkness - for those who will still prefer evils over any acceptance of Christ and God whatsoever, even after all torment and anguish they should suffer.
fornication and adultery can stick you into any of those three. - it really depends on how repentant and honest you are.

My prayers are with his family and the prophet right now...
 
I wonder if he's challenged Gordon B. Hinckley and David Haight to a race yet? :). 

I'll spring for the dessert and the non-alcoholic beverage of his choice.

The term new and everlasting covenant is used frequently throughout the Doctrine and Covenants. President Joseph Fielding Smith gave the following definition of it:

 

“The new and everlasting covenant is the fulness of the gospel. It is composed of ‘All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations’ that are sealed upon members of the Church by the Holy Spirit of promise, or the Holy Ghost, by the authority of the President of the Church who holds the keys. The President of the Church holds the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He delegates authority to others and authorizes them to perform the sacred ordinances of the priesthood.

 

“Marriage for eternity is a new and everlasting covenant. Baptism is also a new and everlasting covenant, and likewise ordination to the priesthood, and every other covenant is everlasting and a part of the new and everlasting covenant which embraces all things.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:65.)