What do people make of this?

[Meerkatarmy]

I was cruising LDS forums and I found this, what do people make of it?

 

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

 

1.    The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2.    The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3.    Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4.    One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

5.    Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

6.    There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.

7.    No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

8.    Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

 

[Removed link to source at anti-Mormon website.  --JAG]

[bytebear]

If this is the kind of evidence you base your religious faith on, you will be come an atheist very quickly.

[livy111us]

John Sorenson, who is an anthropologist/archaeologist wrote a rebuttal to this letter http://www.lightplanet.com/response/smithsonian.htm

And a quick write up on it.

 

Smithsonian recently opened an exhibit featuring pictures of Joseph Smith and Brigham young containing inaccuracies on the captions. Brigham Young is said to have converted to the Church in 1823, that was before the Church was even organized, and years before he heard anything about it. It was said that the Saints in Utah were "communal, undemocratic and separatist venture . . . antithetical to the ideals and structure of the national government", which is the exact opposite of what they actually were.
LDS scholars had to go in, hold Smithsonians hand, and oversee the changes for correction, much like the old letter they sent out about The Book of Mormon. You would think that a scholarly organization would put a little bit of research into claims they make before publishing or presenting information, but, for the second time, they haven't. (Salt Lake Tribune 9-20-06)
                                                                                                                       

Answering the first Smithsonian letters can be found here:

It is not very well known that the letter which condemns the Book of Mormon was removed from circulation by the Smithsonian. They now send out a very neutral letter.

[carlimac]

I went to the Smithsonian natural history museum for the first time about 2 weeks ago. Very liberal, no reference to even the slightest possibility of religious truth existing. It felt very cold and calculated. No warmth of the spirit.  I'm taking my elementary school kids to DC in the fall and will by-pass that famous museum. I basically couldn't get out of there fast enough.

[Maureen]

I went to the Smithsonian natural history museum for the first time about 2 weeks ago. Very liberal, no reference to even the slightest possibility of religious truth existing. It felt very cold and calculated. No warmth of the spirit.  I'm taking my elementary school kids to DC in the fall and will by-pass that famous museum. I basically couldn't get out of there fast enough.

 

Why would a natural history museum need to have a religious/spiritual feel to it?

 

M.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I've seen stuff like this before.  The thing is science is not perfect.  People once believed the earth was flat.  Drugs once considered safe, are sometimes recalled.  Medical procedures change when better ways are found.

 

So to throw all my faith and testimony out the window based on some scientific findings?  Not going to happen.

 

My testimony is based on a combination of my mind, my heart and a lot of prayer.  I think the combination of mind/emotion is very important.  Alone the mind (science) or the heart (emotions) can deceive you.  When you put them together you are less likely to be deceived.  

 

If you are looking for a more direct answer to these claims, here is a great resource.  http://www.fairmormon.org

[Sali]

Because  as LDS we learn to tune into feeling the Spirit and grow used to having that feeling with us most of the time.  We soon feel the difference when it is absent.  The Spirit testifies of truth, and so when it is absent, it leaves us with the feeling that the truth we seek is not present.

[Urstadt]

While I am sympathetic to the Cartesian Anxiety that all our so-called "science" is based off of, I am also post-positive due to seeing first hand how fallible scientists are and how quickly they toss and turn their theories to try explaining what they know they can't. Everything I've read from the past 4,500 years of philosophy tells me this.

 

I have seen the history books in my undergraduate and graduate programs contradict the Encyclopedia Britanica. I also know that many scientists have prejudices (Gadamer's use of the term, not Webster's) against religion that sway their interpretations. Let's remember that all historical inquiry is largely interpretation. We uncover clues, artifacts, cultures, etc, but at the end of the day, what we make of our findings is largely an interpretation. Granted many interpretations of more recent histories have greater momentum behind them, but the further back in history we go, the muckier it gets. A scientist could come to me tomorrow and say, "Urstadt, we found the body of Jesus of Nazareth. DNA evidence has confirmed it along with geneological scrolls found with the body. The evidence is clear, we found the body of Jesus of Nazareth."

 

And I'm going to say to that scientist: "Uh, no you didn't, Sir."

 

Science has definitely done a lot of good. Much has been revealed and invented because of it. That is why I am still sympathetic to post-Cartesianism. But, scientists are not perfect. Don't scientists also belong to the human race? "Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frederic Bastiat

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have absolutely no training or education in archeology but when I read the Book of Mormon I see a story of a group of people who at first were on their own but then quickly mingled and intermixed with the people who were already there.  The influence from the middle east that the first family of the Book of Mormon took with them really only remained with those that remained true to their religion.  Over the course of hundreds of years, who remained close to the religion changed from culture to culture.  In other words, the middle east influence was washed out pretty quickly and probably only was retained by the religious elite.

Even Mosiah had to translate the stone containing the history of the Jaredites which makes up the book of Ether.  Meaning, those ancient roots were lost to the general people and probably would not be found by any archeological discovery amongst the common people.

We carry only 1.5% of the DNA from a great-great-great-great grandparent.  Some say there are roughly 50 generations that pass per 1000 years.  So how much DNA is left after 100 generations pass when only 5 generations ago only 1.5% of the DNA is carried through?  DNA studies I think are useless in this regard unless one believes that the majority of people that remained where direct and only descendents of Lehi. I don't have the impression that everyone was descended from Lehi's family exclusively in the Book of Mormon even when they are called Nephites or Lamanites.  I think they were mixed pretty quickly. 

[Blackmarch]

I was cruising LDS forums and I found this, what do people make of it?

 

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

 

1.    The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2.    The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3.    Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4.    One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

5.    Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

6.    There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.

7.    No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

8.    Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

 

[Removed link to source at anti-Mormon website.  --JAG]

National geographic put out an article over a year ago about findings of middle east dna markers found in north american indians.

the oldest tool/tech related artifacts that have been found in the north american continent are more closely related to early european tech rather than early asian or middle east or african.

there are some hopewell culture finds that would seem to contradict some of these items. How old is this list?

people really ought to pay attention to more of the tribes oral histories and legends.