Disproving The Book Of Mormon

[Snow]

"A construction crew in Coalville has uncovered the skeletons of four people and they've found evidence of a fifth. Although the identities of the bodies may never be known, experts believe they know why they were there.

The North Summit Middle School is expanding so construction workers have been digging trenches. Last Friday they uncovered a surprise. A photo shows a nearly complete skeleton, an adult male still partially obscured by dirt. Monday Sheriff's deputies dug up three more sets of bones, an adolescent girl and two infants. A fifth skeleton is believed to be under the dirt still.

Experts believe the bones are quite old, but not Native American.

Steve Carlsen, School Superintendent: “The state forensic anthropologist has actually said they were more of a Scandinavian facial structure, and that type of thing.”

Sheriff Dave Edmunds, Summit County: “She has assured us that they are all Caucasians and that they are older skeletal remains.”

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=139403

[Guest JRodan]

Hardly disproving. From the article this:

"It's believed they're the remains of Mormon pioneers dating to the 1850's or 60's."

[speedomansam]

yeah, how's that disproving?

[john doe]

Typical Anti trick, Snow. Thanks for linking to the complete story.

[Snow]

yeah, how's that disproving?

Hardly disproving. From the article this:

"It's believed they're the remains of Mormon pioneers dating to the 1850's or 60's."

I quote from the title page of the Book of Mormon

"Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; "

Of that title page Joseph Smith said this:

"I wish to mention here that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated; …and that said title-page is not…a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation" (HC 1:71.).

Joseph Smith was certainly under the impression that Native Americans were decendants of the Laminites who he believed to be decendants of the Israelites who migrated to the Americas in 600 BC.

Yet we now find out that Native Americans are Scandanvians who came to America in 1850 AD. I wonder how long it will be until the Church recognizes the truth.

[speedomansam]

i know you're being sarcastic, but the only mention of native americans in that article was stating how the skeletons were not native americans. so, did you just bring this up because an anti who totally misread the article might conceive it deals with native americans being scandinavian? if so, i see your little humor but it seems strange; you might as well start quoting articles that say "horses found in american grave sites" and comment how stupid it would be for an anti to misread and claim that, since no horses have been found, the bom is not true.

i need to go to bed.

[Cal]

Originally posted by speedomansam@Dec 18 2004, 12:39 AM

i know you're being sarcastic, but the only mention of native americans in that article was stating how the skeletons were not native americans. so, did you just bring this up because an anti who totally misread the article might conceive it deals with native americans being scandinavian? if so, i see your little humor but it seems strange; you might as well start quoting articles that say "horses found in american grave sites" and comment how stupid it would be for an anti to misread and claim that, since no horses have been found, the bom is not true.

i need to go to bed.

I have to agree the article adds very little to the origins of native americans. The fact that scandanavians or other small groups may have set foot in the americans over the centuries adds little to the mountain of evidence that the native american tribes are the decendants of asiatic migrants from north west asia and siberia. The mitochondrial DNA evidence points in this direction, with virtually no evidence linking any native american tribe to caucasians, much less middle eastern causcacians. Vitually no anthropologists who know the literature are claiming that there is any evidence that native americans are "jewish". If the truth of the book of mormon has to stand on the origin of native americans--the claim has to be reevaluated.

[Amillia]

There is evidence that the asians came from the americas during the bofm era. Someone pointed me to the books written about this subject.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia@Dec 18 2004, 11:49 AM

There is evidence that the asians came from the americas during the bofm era. Someone pointed me to the books written about this subject.

Nonesense. First, the "book of mormon era" is from 2000 BC to about 400 AD. If the asians had decended from people no older than that we would expect that the oldest asian fossil remains would be no older than 2000BC or so-----to the contrary, asian human fossil remains go back way past 20,000 years. The time line is completely contrary to the Book of Mormon. Secondly, how would you explain the fact that native americans have no semitic or middle eastern genetic markers. If they came from the middle east only 2000 BC (Bro. of Jared) the native americans would and the asians, by your theory, would have genetic markers to indicate that. They don't. Native americans have only asian genetic markers. Third, during the BoM era, the Bering Strait was closed, meaning that the ocean levels had risen to the point of not allowing passage. The last migration occured about 10-12,000 years ago, which marked the end of the last ice age. There is some controversy about how many migrations took place from the Siberia-area, but there is no controversy that it took place well before any book of mormon time line.

Unfortunately, the genetic studies of american indian tribes leave the bom with a lot of explaining to do.

[Amillia]

-to the contrary, asian human fossil remains go back way past 20,000 years. The

Great, they must be the aliens who brought their bones with them.

If we are trying to prove that the world existed and was peopled before the bible teaches,

why didn't you say so in the first place? I thought we were working within the time frame

of written history.

hmmmmm. Why didn't they leave a written record of 20,000 some odd years of living and dying?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 19 2004, 08:24 AM

...native americans have no semitic or middle eastern genetic markers. If they came from the middle east only 2000 BC (Bro. of Jared) the native americans would and the asians, by your theory, would have genetic markers to indicate that.

Ya gotta love a Mormon who takes all his arguments from anti-Mormon websites.

Such an interesting theory. I'd love to hear you prove it.

Okay, Okay, that's just the sarcasmist in me talking. Although I would enjoy seeing you squirm and fabricate to TRY and prove it, I fully understand that you CAN'T prove it so it was just a rhetorical challenge. I apologize in advance if the realization that you have made a fanciful statement offends you.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 19 2004, 10:57 AM

Ya gotta love a Mormon who takes all his arguments from anti-Mormon websites.

Such an interesting theory. I'd love to hear you prove it.

Is the Center for Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta an anti Mormon website? I don't think there is ANY doubt that the primary ancestors of North, Central and South American natives were Northeast Asians. There is convincing evidence of other migrations. One was an Australian aboriginal population in South America. I don't doubt that evidence of other migrations will pop up in time. Science doesn't rule out a migration from Jerusalem in 600 BC and a population that intermarried with an existing Asian population. But they were not the primary ancestors of living Native Americans.

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette@Dec 19 2004, 01:56 PM

Is the Center for Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta an anti Mormon website?

I don't think so. First it is not a website. Second, I don't think that is where Cal gets his anti-Mormon bias from. Third, you made my point, a point Cal doesn't understand, namely:

" Science doesn't rule out a migration from Jerusalem in 600 BC and a population that intermarried with an existing Asian population. "

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Amillia@Dec 19 2004, 10:08 AM

hmmmmm. Why didn't they leave a written record of 20,000 some odd years of living and dying?

um -- because writing hadn't been invented yet?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia@Dec 19 2004, 10:08 AM

-to the contrary, asian human fossil remains go back way past 20,000 years. The

Great, they must be the aliens who brought their bones with them.

If we are trying to prove that the world existed and was peopled before the bible teaches,

why didn't you say so in the first place? I thought we were working within the time frame

of written history.

hmmmmm. Why didn't they leave a written record of 20,000 some odd years of living and dying?

they don't have to have left a WRITTEN history--their history (at least their age) is left in their bones. Read up on radio nuclide dating.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 19 2004, 10:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 19 2004, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 19 2004, 08:24 AM

...native americans have no semitic or middle eastern genetic markers. If they came from the middle east only 2000 BC (Bro. of Jared)  the native americans would and the asians, by your theory, would have genetic markers to indicate that.

Ya gotta love a Mormon who takes all his arguments from anti-Mormon websites.

Such an interesting theory. I'd love to hear you prove it.

Okay, Okay, that's just the sarcasmist in me talking. Although I would enjoy seeing you squirm and fabricate to TRY and prove it, I fully understand that you CAN'T prove it so it was just a rhetorical challenge. I apologize in advance if the realization that you have made a fanciful statement offends you.

Snow--read up on the plethora of genetic studies done on the DNA of native american tribes, then we will have something to discuss. BTW--they are hardly anti-mormon--just because the results of scientific inquiry yield results different than you might like, hardly makes them anti-mormon. Silly me, I thought mormons were in search of truth too. :)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 19 2004, 08:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 19 2004, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Dec 19 2004, 01:56 PM

Is the Center for Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta an anti Mormon website?

I don't think so. First it is not a website. Second, I don't think that is where Cal gets his anti-Mormon bias from. Third, you made my point, a point Cal doesn't understand, namely:

" Science doesn't rule out a migration from Jerusalem in 600 BC and a population that intermarried with an existing Asian population. "

No, it doesn't rule it out, there is just no good evidence FOR it. Lack of evidence to the contrary is hardly evidence for a proposition. BTW--I never claimed this information was ANTI-Mormon. How can a scientific fact be ANTI? It only becomes ANTI if you chose it to be. As far as I am concerned, the mormon church could acknowledge the truth of the primary source of native american tribes without doing itself any harm---what is harmful is staring the truth in the face, and denying it--now THAT would be anti-mormon since mormonism is supposed to stand for the truth

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Dec 20 2004, 02:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Dec 20 2004, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Dec 19 2004, 10:57 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 19 2004, 08:24 AM

...native americans have no semitic or middle eastern genetic markers. If they came from the middle east only 2000 BC (Bro. of Jared)  the native americans would and the asians, by your theory, would have genetic markers to indicate that.

Ya gotta love a Mormon who takes all his arguments from anti-Mormon websites.

Such an interesting theory. I'd love to hear you prove it.

Okay, Okay, that's just the sarcasmist in me talking. Although I would enjoy seeing you squirm and fabricate to TRY and prove it, I fully understand that you CAN'T prove it so it was just a rhetorical challenge. I apologize in advance if the realization that you have made a fanciful statement offends you.

Snow--read up on the plethora of genetic studies done on the DNA of native american tribes, then we will have something to discuss. BTW--they are hardly anti-mormon--just because the results of scientific inquiry yield results different than you might like, hardly makes them anti-mormon. Silly me, I thought mormons were in search of truth too. :)

Here's the thing teacher boy.... you're not bright enough or educated enough to condescend to me. It is not that you aint bright (and busy tailed) or that I can't be condescended to - just that you don't possess the requite bonfides to make it work.

It is precisely because I have read up on it, obviously much more so than you, as has Curvette for that matter, that I know that science is incapable, at least for now, or proving that there wasn't semetic diffussion to the New World and that Native American forebearers may have mingled with BoM types and swallowed up their DNA. It is more than abundantly clear that you, teacher boy, are not educated on the matter else you would have addressed it rather than resorting to your typical, as of late, and unsuccessful tactic of blowing smoke when you possess no fire.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 20 2004, 04:11 PM

Lack of evidence to the contrary is hardly evidence for a proposition.

Just as lack of evidence for something is not evidence against it.

[Guest JRodan]

The DNA evidence supports the Church, contrary to what others believe. My proof can be found in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. If you have red the Book of Mormon, then you may see why. Look for migrations and invasions in the books. In the Book of Mormon the heritage of the Nephites are seen over and over. The Bible tells what happened to the people of Israel. If both are read and understood one can easily see that there is a record of migration subtly in them. If people understood this better then there would be less problems explaining the DNA. I recently overheard a conversation about an old Jewish skeleton found in northern America. With this discovery, the person who found it thought that there might have been two land bridges, one from Asia and one from Europe. I find that the problem with the land bridge theory is the migration patterns are not coherent.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal+Dec 18 2004, 10:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Dec 18 2004, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--speedomansam@Dec 18 2004, 12:39 AM

i know you're being sarcastic, but the only mention of native americans in that article was stating how the skeletons were not native americans. so, did you just bring this up because an anti who totally misread the article might conceive it deals with native americans being scandinavian? if so, i see your little humor but it seems strange; you might as well start quoting articles that say "horses found in american grave sites" and comment how stupid it would be for an anti to misread and claim that, since no horses have been found, the bom is not true.

i need to go to bed.

I have to agree the article adds very little to the origins of native americans. The fact that scandanavians or other small groups may have set foot in the americans over the centuries adds little to the mountain of evidence that the native american tribes are the decendants of asiatic migrants from north west asia and siberia. The mitochondrial DNA evidence points in this direction, with virtually no evidence linking any native american tribe to caucasians, much less middle eastern causcacians. Vitually no anthropologists who know the literature are claiming that there is any evidence that native americans are "jewish". If the truth of the book of mormon has to stand on the origin of native americans--the claim has to be reevaluated.

A rather brash statement. The Kiah were blond hair and blue eyed and I know of no DNA study that linked them to "north west asia and siberia". In case you are wondering and I may have misspelled "Kiah", they were the first native Americans encuntered by the Europieans.

The Traveler

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 20 2004, 06:45 PM

that Native American forebearers may have mingled with BoM types and swallowed up their DNA.

The problem here is that the introduction of the Book of Mormon still states that the Lamanites were the Primary ancestors of American Indians. It seems that there is ample scientific evidence to prove that they were not. The text itself never makes that claim. It seems appropriate for the church to take that phrase out of the introduction.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Traveler@Dec 21 2004, 11:19 AM

A rather brash statement. The Kiah were blond hair and blue eyed and I know of no DNA study that linked them to "north west asia and siberia". In case you are wondering and I may have misspelled "Kiah", they were the first native Americans encuntered by the Europieans.

The Traveler

The first Native Americans encountered by the Europeans were the Arawaks. Definitely not "white and delightsome."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American

[Eros Augustus]

For those of you arguing about time lines etc....

A friend of mine is a vulcanologist (spelling?) and about 2 years after the Mt St Helen's eruption I got to go with him and his fellow scientists up around the volcano.

And something that several of the said my intrest you. What they said over and over was that if they hadn't been alive for the eruption and knew that it had just erupted they would have concluded that the present condition of the area would have been caused by erosion over thousonds of years. Just the way "the cookie crumbled" would suggest that a long steady process had occured and not a super violent eruption. That was the opinion of 9 or 10 men and women who study volcanos and plate techtonics for a living and all have PHD's. So, I hesitate to fully trust any time lines that have been given.

Also, I have heard of several native american folk lore that sound almost word for word out of the Book of Mormon, ie, the sun going dark for 3 days, the fact that when the Spanish discovered the america's the conqistador was refered to as "the great white god" (refering to Christ) because he came from the east and had a light complection and a beard.

Not to mention that the further north you go the LESS like the asians the Native Americans become. So they knew how to build pyramids etc but suddenly forgot when they got here then got south and though oh ya, we can build huge pyrimamids.....I think the other way around would make more sence. Got over here, did what what they knew how to do and as time went on and they moved north began to adapt in different ways thus becomming less and less like the asians.

I think the word of God and science go hand and hand BUT since we don't fully understand either one I think it would be safer to follow what the prophets of God have said than to rely on our own understanding. After all in the 40's they thought you're face would peel off if you went 60mph!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Eros Augustus@Dec 21 2004, 02:42 PM

For those of you arguing about time lines etc....

A friend of mine is a vulcanologist (spelling?) and about 2 years after the Mt St Helen's eruption I got to go with him and his fellow scientists up around the volcano.

And something that several of the said my intrest you. What they said over and over was that if they hadn't been alive for the eruption and knew that it had just erupted they would have concluded that the present condition of the area would have been caused by erosion over thousonds of years. Just the way "the cookie crumbled" would suggest that a long steady process had occured and not a super violent eruption. That was the opinion of 9 or 10 men and women who study volcanos and plate techtonics for a living and all have PHD's. So, I hesitate to fully trust any time lines that have been given.

Also, I have heard of several native american folk lore that sound almost word for word out of the Book of Mormon, ie, the sun going dark for 3 days, the fact that when the Spanish discovered the america's the conqistador was refered to as "the great white god" (refering to Christ) because he came from the east and had a light complection and a beard.

Not to mention that the further north you go the LESS like the asians the Native Americans become. So they knew how to build pyramids etc but suddenly forgot when they got here then got south and though oh ya, we can build huge pyrimamids.....I think the other way around would make more sence. Got over here, did what what they knew how to do and as time went on and they moved north began to adapt in different ways thus becomming less and less like the asians.

I think the word of God and science go hand and hand BUT since we don't fully understand either one I think it would be safer to follow what the prophets of God have said than to rely on our own understanding. After all in the 40's they thought you're face would peel off if you went 60mph!

Even a very low IQ "vulcanologist" would realize that layers of ash surrounding a volcano would probably be caused by volcanic eruptions. I suggest you find smarter people to hang out with. :)