Ancient Evidence of the Book of Mormon

[Mike Griffith]

When the Book of Mormon was published in 1830, virtually nothing was known about ancient Arabia, and even less was known about ancient Mesoamerica (=southern Mexico and northern Central America). The book’s translator, Joseph Smith, had little formal education and little time for study. Yet, the Book of Mormon contains information about those ancient regions that was simply unavailable in Joseph Smith’s day. A few examples:

* The Book of Mormon states that while Lehi’s family was traveling in ancient Arabia, Ishmael died and was buried in a place that “was called” Nahom. Lehi’s party did not name the place; it was already called Nahom. In ancient Hebrew and Arabic, the word Nahom would have had the root NHM. In recent years scholars have discovered several inscriptions in southwestern Arabia that mention a land and tribe called NHM. In addition, this area of NHM is in exactly the right spot to be the place that the Book of Mormon says “was called” Nahom. Interviews with local Arabs have found that NHM is pronounced “Nahom” or “Nehem,” depending on the dialect. Moreover, the NHM inscriptions date back to Lehi’s time.

* Recent research in Arabia has also uncovered striking new candidates for the Valley of Lemuel and its River of Laman mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The correlations between Wadi Tayyib al-Ism and the Valley of Lemuel are truly impressive. If you take the travel information given in the 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon, you would arrive at the Wadi Tayyib al-Ism, where you would find a stream of water that runs continuously. Critics used to scoff at the Book of Mormon’s reference to the River of Laman. They said the idea of a body of water that ran continuously in southwest Arabia was absurd. Until recently, they had a credible argument, since no one had been able to find such a stream. Now, such a body of water has been found, and it’s been found in just the right place--in a valley that matches perfectly all the Book of Mormon requirements for the Valley of Lemuel.

* The Book of Mormon mentions a hill called Shim that was near the Hill Cumorah, the location of the great final battles of the Jaredite and Nephite civilizations. In Mayan the word “Shim” means “corn.” So the Hill Shim can be translated as Corn Hill or Hill of Corn in English. There is a hill in just the right area of the Tuxtla Mountains in Veracruz, Mexico that qualifies as the Book of Mormon’s Hill Shim or Corn Hill. It’s the Hill Cintepec in southern Mexico , which in English means Corn Hill, since “cintapec” in Aztec means “corn.” Less than 30 miles from the Hill Shim/Corn is a hill called Vigia, which Mormon scholars have long identified as the Hill Cumorah. The Book of Mormon also says the Hill Shim and the Hill Cumorah were located near an area of “many waters” called the waters of Ripliancum Impressively, the Hill Shim/Corn is close to the Papoloapan Water Basin, which perfectly qualifies as the waters of Ripliancum. Moreover, there are dozens of archaeological sites in that area that date back to both Book of Mormon time periods (Jaredite and Nephite-Lamanite). So we have a hill in Veracruz that is called Corn Hill in Aztec, and the Book of Mormon’s Hill Shim means Corn Hill in the earlier language of Mayan. This Hill Cintapec not only has the same name as the Hill Shim, and not only has ruins that date back to the right time periods, but it’s in just the right location to be the Hill Shim because of its proximity to an area of “many waters” and to Hill Vigia, the hill that has long been identified by LDS scholars as the Hill Cumorah.

* Semitic-looking bearded figures have been found in many ancient Mesoamerican carvings. Even some non-Mormon archaeologists have conceded that these figures clearly look Semitic.

* Critics used to attack the Book of Mormon because of its numerous references to warfare. Until the 1960s nearly all scholars believed ancient Mesoamerican peoples were largely peaceful and almost never, if ever, engaged in large-scale warfare. Even in the 1970s some anti-Mormon writers, such as Gordon Fraser, attacked the Book of Mormon’s references large-scale warfare as proven false by Mayan archaeology. Well, the tables have now turned dramatically. The old view of a peaceful, agrarian ancient Mesoamerica has been destroyed by archaeology. We now know that the ancient Olmecs and Mayans frequently engaged in large-scale warfare.

* In connection with the above point, ancient Mesoamerican fortifications have been found that are remarkably similar to the fortifications described in the Book of Mormon. And these fortifications, such as the ones at Becan and Tikal, date back to Book of Mormon times.

These are just a few examples of the ancient evidence of the Book of Mormon. For more information on this subject, here are some worthwhile articles:

Becan: A Dramatic Validation of Book of Mormon Warfare Pattern
http://www.restoredcovenant.org/Document.asp?CAT=Archaeology+%26+Geography&DOC=Becan%3A+Book+of+Mormon+Warfare+Pattern&PREPRINT=True

Last-Ditch Warfare in Ancient Mesoamerica Recalls the Book of Mormon
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=2&id=227

Mesoamerican Fortifications and the Book of Mormon
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BForts.shtml

Nahom and the “Eastward” Turn
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=12&num=1&id=303

Arabia and the Book of Mormon
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Arabia_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

New Candidate in Arabia for the Valley of Lemuel
http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/ghl9vdty/New%20Candidate%20in%20Arabia%20for.htm?n=0

Book of Mormon Criteria for the Hill Cumorah
http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/ssjigxuf/BOOK%20OF%20MORMON%20CRITERIA%20FOR%20THE%20HILL%2 0CUMORAH.htm

Criteria for the Hill Cumorah
http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/MSWORD/1663Criteria-hill-Cumorah-Garth.rtf

Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050526mesoamerica.html

A Phonemic Analysis of Nephite and Jaredite Proper Names
http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/qx6x4fwp/A%20PHONEMIC%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20NEPHITE%20AND%20JAR EDITE%20PROPER%20NAMES.htm?n=0

Book of Mormon Evidences
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
Were There Two Cumorahs?
http://www.farmsresearch.com/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=98

A Brief History of the Limited Geographic View of the Book of Mormon
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050727geographic.html

“Bearded Foreigners” in Mesoamerica
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050308bearded.html

Was There Hebrew Language in Ancient America?
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=2&id=228

[Constantine the Great]

Not to nitpick here, but there is currently more direct evidence for Homer's Troy than Jews in the Americas in antiquity.

[Mikko]

Not to nitpick here, but there is currently more direct evidence for Homer's Troy than Jews in the Americas in antiquity.
For that matter, there are still Trojans in Southern California.:)

[HardHammer]

So, the First Presidency was incorrect in generating this letter?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/HardHammer/cumorahletter.gif

[fredeasy]

Sorry, forgot religious folk couldn't take criticism.

[Meriweather]

fredeasy,

If you haven't been <here> (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=68516) yet, I recommend the read.

Hope your day is going well.

[LoneStarHero]

The absolute biggest nail in the coffin for the book of mormon has to be genetics. We know our species started in Africa, followed the southern coast of India to southeast Asia and Australia, then fanned out into the mid east, Europe, Asia and eventually crossed the land bridge to get from Siberia to Alaska. If the book of Mormon were true then Native Americans would have the same markers as peoples from the mid east, instead in 100% of the cases (and there have been large studies done) Native Americans have the marker proving their decedents came from Asia and not the mid east.



We do not know that humanity started in Africa. Just because most of the hominid specimens WERE PRESERVED IN AFRICA does not mean they originated there. It's simply the best model we have right now based on the available scant evidence. It is in no way set in stone.

[Koushi Shinigami]

For that matter, there are still Trojans in Southern California.:)

And in every high school parking lot across America...

[orbitaldecay]

The absolute biggest nail in the coffin for the book of mormon has to be genetics. We know our species started in Africa, followed the southern coast of India to southeast Asia and Australia, then fanned out into the mid east, Europe, Asia and eventually crossed the land bridge to get from Siberia to Alaska. If the book of Mormon were true then Native Americans would have the same markers as peoples from the mid east, instead in 100% of the cases (and there have been large studies done) Native Americans have the marker proving their decedents came from Asia and not the mid east.

It appears that you do not understand the genetics, nor what the Book of Mormon actually claims. :wall:

[fredeasy]

Sorry, forgot religious folk couldn't take criticism.

[fredeasy]

Sorry, forgot religious folk couldn't take criticism.

[fredeasy]

Sorry, forgot religious folk couldn't take criticism.

[Meriweather]

I read it before I posted, I didn't think Joe Smith was a member here though.

Is Joseph Smith a key player in a religion that is discussed here? Is that religion and its tenets being discussed respectfully? If you are satisfied it is, then that is what matters.

We who post here are all passionate about our beliefs, and the same courtesy is extended to you that we extend to everyone here--we watch each other's backs is all, caring enough to call out a caution, but confident enough in each other that each can make the final call on what he or she believes is appropriate to the thread and forum.

[hillplus]

Going to elaborate or do you have no rebuttal?

Why should he? You don't know what you are talking about and your approach is highly offensive.

[HardHammer]

So, the First Presidency was incorrect in generating this letter?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/HardHammer/cumorahletter.gif

Bump, anyone?

[orbitaldecay]

So, the First Presidency was incorrect in generating this letter?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/HardHammer/cumorahletter.gif

I'm going to quote the wonderful people at fairmormon.org:

Question

Did the First Presidency identify the New York "Hill Cumorah" as the site of the Nephite final battles?
Answer

Initial letter

In 1990, F. Michael Watson (secretary to the First Presidency) sent a letter to a questioner which read as follows:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

"Office of the First Presidency Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

October 16, 1990

Bishop Darrel L. Brooks Moore Ward Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stake 1000 Windemere Moore, OK 73160

Dear Bishop Brooks:

I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

Sincerely yours, (signed) F. Michael Watson Secretary to the First Presidency"


Clarification/Correction letter

Bro. Watson seems to have been speaking on his own understanding of the matter, and not as an official declaration of Church policy. In 1993, he sent a clarification letter:

"The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.[1] "

Conclusion

The First Presidency's secretary apparently answered a question according to his own understanding, and then later clarified/corrected his statement to indicate that while many Latter-day Saints have expressed opinions about the location of Cumorah (or other Book of Mormon geography issues), the Church has no official geography. No revelatory basis exists for any geographical scheme outside of the Book of Mormon text itself.

Critics often cite the first letter, without citing the second which corrects it. This represents a fundamental dishonesty.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements/First_Presidency_Letter

[orbitaldecay]

Going to elaborate or do you have no rebuttal?

You've already assumed, declared, and condemned what you think Mormons believe. I suggest before I elaborate, you inform yourself on what Mormons actually believe.

[LoneStarHero]

Gravity, Evolution, Relativity, The Big Bang, all just models backed up by fact......

Yeah, but they have a lot more evidence than the present state of hominid paleontology.

I couldn't do better either, as human bones rarely end up in environments favorable to preservation hundreds of thousands to millions of years later.

[Mike Griffith]

Gravity, Evolution, Relativity, The Big Bang, all just models backed up by fact......

Evolution is an Emperoro's New Clothes myth. It is backed up by zero facts. Some day it will be seen for the absurd, illogical myth that it is, the biggest hoax in the history of the planet. When evolutionists can create a single "simple" living cell in an origin-of-life experiment, then they'll have an ounce of credibility.

Evolutionists have to do one major overhaul of evoutionary theory after another as scientific evidence keeps destroying evolutionary assumptions. Darwin was actually more honest than most modern evolutionists about evidence that refutes/contradicts evolution.

The evolutionists' pathetic, evasive, dishonest responses to Michael Behe's research on irreducible complexity shows that they refuse to admit when they're wrong and that they defend evolution with more dogmatism and closed-mindedness than the Vatican defended Copernicus.

[Ron Jon]

Becan: A Dramatic Validation of Book of Mormon Warfare Pattern
http://www.restoredcovenant.org/Document.asp?CAT=Archaeology+%26+Geography&DOC=Becan%3A+Book+of+Mormon+Warfare+Pattern&PREPRINT=True
Mike, Do you use the Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon?

"THE RESTORED COVENANT EDITION
The Restored Covenant Edition (RCE) has been prepared because, according to our testimony, the Lord directed us to do it:

1. to restore the purity of the Book of Mormon-restoring words from the manuscripts that were either left out or changed," http://www.restoredcovenant.org/

[HardHammer]

I'm going to quote the wonderful people at fairmormon.org:



http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements/First_Presidency_Letter

Well, If I had a scanned picture of it I would produce it.

[Ron Jon]

Well, If I had a scanned picture of it I would produce it.A scanned picture of what? The hill Cumorah?

[HardHammer]

A scanned picture of what? The hill Cumorah?

No, the correction letter to the one I posted.

[Ron Jon]

No, the correction letter to the one I posted.Ok. I found a couple of links that discuss the location of the hill cumorah to be rather interesting.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

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

[Thor]

Evolution is an Emperoro's New Clothes myth. It is backed up by zero facts.

ZERO facts? Really? Science is not in the habit of promoting theories without supporting evidence. If you truly believe evolution is "backed up by zero facts", then you should easily be able to falsify it. This would make you a giant in the scientific community. Write up your thesis and submit it to a scientific journal. I'm sure we'll see your picture on the cover of Scientific American real soon!

When evolutionists can create a single "simple" living cell in an origin-of-life experiment, then they'll have an ounce of credibility.


You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution does not offer an explanation for how life began. It only explains how organisms evolved once life appeared. Demanding that an evolutionist "create a living cell in an experiment" is like asking an auto mechanic to explain the processes that went into manufacturing your car.
The evolutionists' pathetic, evasive, dishonest responses to Michael Behe's research on irreducible complexity shows that they refuse to admit when they're wrong and that they defend evolution with more dogmatism and closed-mindedness than the Vatican defended Copernicus.


"Irreducible complexity" is a sham. What is "pathetic, evasive and dishonest" about responses to this alleged "research"? Oh, and since Copernicus postulated a heliocentric universe, I don't believe the Vatican defended him. Perhaps you're confusing Copernicus with Ptolemy?

[fredeasy]

Is Joseph Smith a key player in a religion that is discussed here? Is that religion and its tenets being discussed respectfully? If you are satisfied it is, then that is what matters.

We who post here are all passionate about our beliefs, and the same courtesy is extended to you that we extend to everyone here--we watch each other's backs is all, caring enough to call out a caution, but confident enough in each other that each can make the final call on what he or she believes is appropriate to the thread and forum.

Which is part of the problem in America today. We don't "respect" the belief that the Holocaust or 9/11 were hoaxes because of the overwhelming evidence against that conclusion. Why then should we respect the belief that the world is 6000 years old, or that non-white people are doomed to hell (ya, I know you guys "fixed" this little inconvenient part)? Religion deserves the same respect given to any other idea not based in reality.


In the case of an idea, if we think "here is an idea that is protected by holiness and sanctity", what does it mean? Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative Party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the universe began, about who created the universe, no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interisting how much of a furor Richard (Dawkins) creates when he does it! Everybody get's absolutely frantic about it because you're not alloed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between usthat they shouldn't be.


As far as being here goes I will respect the rules of the forum but that is as far as I am willing to go.

[fredeasy]

Sorry, forgot religious folk couldn't take criticism.

[terri910]

Why then should we respect the belief ...that non-white people are doomed to hell (ya, I know you guys "fixed" this little inconvenient part)?
I don't know that I know which faith you're speaking of that at one time doomed non-white people to hell.....could you enlighten me?

[terri910]

<snip for brevity>However this tends to make me skeptical of the Mormon faith because from what I understand of it, it would fit nicely in the library between <deleting possible violation>.

fredeasy, I don't know if your post that I've partially quoted goes over the line of respect in this forum, but you might want to tone it down just a bit.

If you want to leave it as is and confirm whether it passes, we can do that, too (then we'll both know! I'm not always sure, myself).

[fredeasy]

Yeah, but they have a lot more evidence than the present state of hominid paleontology.

I couldn't do better either, as human bones rarely end up in environments favorable to preservation hundreds of thousands to millions of years later.


You mean everything that dies doesn't become fossils?

[fredeasy]

Evolution is an Emperoro's New Clothes myth. It is backed up by zero facts. Some day it will be seen for the absurd, illogical myth that it is, the biggest hoax in the history of the planet. When evolutionists can create a single "simple" living cell in an origin-of-life experiment, then they'll have an ounce of credibility.

Evolutionists have to do one major overhaul of evoutionary theory after another as scientific evidence keeps destroying evolutionary assumptions. Darwin was actually more honest than most modern evolutionists about evidence that refutes/contradicts evolution.

The evolutionists' pathetic, evasive, dishonest responses to Michael Behe's research on irreducible complexity shows that they refuse to admit when they're wrong and that they defend evolution with more dogmatism and closed-mindedness than the Vatican defended Copernicus.

Put up or shut up is what I always say. Either publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal highlighting the falsehoods of evolution or quit making baseless claims till you can.

Evolution has a mountain of evidence behind it and is the only conclusion pointed to by not only biology, but just about every other field of science. If the theory of evolution was false like you claim then why does every single biological discovery we make fit perfectly into the biological and geological model?

When you claim that the biggest biological discovery our species has made is false you better have more than a story book (not trying to insult but that is what it is, a book filled with stories) as evidence.

Behe is a joke. He also believes in common descent so he is an "evolutionist". He was basically forced to admit to this at the Dover trial after the attorney for the science side slaughtered him at cross. If I remember correctly Behe made some claim about the immune system being too complex to evolve and how we didn't know how it worked. The attorney got about 40 books on the evolution of the human immune system and went through each and every one of them asking "have you read this one" with each "no" Behe muttered the book was set down on the table in front of him. By the time the attorney was done the books stacked taller than Behe and he was blushing a bit.

If you are interested search "Ken Miller" on youtube.

[fredeasy]

Sorry, forgot religious folk couldn't take criticism.

[terri910]

It was not meant to offend. From what I understand of the church our "God" was at one time really just a human. The "goal" of the LDS faith is to "be good" and create a large family here. If they are good than Elohim will give them a planet of their very own to rule over like him. Also while polygamy is now banned, once an LDS man is given his planet, he gets many wives.

Now if I had written this as sci-fi don't you think it would fit well with a "In a time long ago and a place far away" DUHNUAAAAAAAAAA at the start? I would love to learn what Mormons really believe. Again I mean no disrespect but a spade is a spade.
Very well, we'll find out, then!

[Buffalo]

Quote deleted on request of poster
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=26703931&postcount=1
Good start to learn what the people on this forum, who are Mormons, believe. Also Mormon topics are abundant, just do a search. Generally, when asking respectfully about one's beliefs, you don't start with, these are the bad and unbelievable aspects of your faith that I think I know, will you fill me in?

[fredeasy]

fredeasy, I don't know if your post that I've partially quoted goes over the line of respect in this forum, but you might want to tone it down just a bit.

If you want to leave it as is and confirm whether it passes, we can do that, too (then we'll both know! I'm not always sure, myself).

I have edited my post since it is obvious that some people get their feelings hurt pretty easy. I would appreciate those who have me quoted doing the same to save the mods a bit of time.

[RayMan]

I have edited my post since it is obvious that some people get their feelings hurt pretty easy. I would appreciate those who have me quoted doing the same to save the mods a bit of time.

Hi fred,
To set the record straight, neither terri or myself got out feelings hurt. We both simply felt that you were being unnecessarily rude. The rules of respect for the RF are in place to ensure polite discussion between persons of differing faith and/or persons of no faith.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Hi Fred. Welcome to the boards. I hope you soon feel at home here.

There is an atmosphere we try to maintain and it is one of civility for the most part. We do not want ourselves to become a burden for the moderators of this fine board. We do that by trying to not cause them trouble or undue headaches. We want you to know this because having new input to the board keeps it alive and interesting. Please read the rules of respect posted here so that you know what is expected of members of this board.

Hope you enjoy your stay here.

[fredeasy]

Hi fred,
To set the record straight, neither terri or myself got out feelings hurt. We both simply felt that you were being unnecessarily rude. The rules of respect for the RF are in place to ensure polite discussion between persons of differing faith and/or persons of no faith.

That is understandable and I understand the need for rules here. I do disagree with the "respect" policy because it means I have to feign respect for positions that have absolutely no base in reality. I don't respect ideas like that in all other arenas. I mean I consider it part of being an intelligent person to be able to defend the positions you hold with fact. So if you tell me you want to ban all semi-automatic guns "for the children" and then refuse to even look at all the data saying it would be pointless, I do not consider you an intelligent person.

I am not here to get anyone's panties in a bunch, I just do see the logic in having a religious forum where you can't call a spade a spade. That is not my rule though and I know if I want to stay here I have to follow it.

Can we please make this the last post about me so this thread can get back on topic. I will step quietly into the shadows now, sorry for the inconvenience.

[Koushi Shinigami]

easy there, Ray.

[RayMan]

Yeah, don't want to see a kettle next time I look in the mirror.

[Koushi Shinigami]

:clap:

[Ron Jon]

I guess I must have missed it, but what was the point of this thread?

[RayMan]

To show how neighborly and courteous Koushi and I can be when we try really hard.

[Reeder]

Looks like everything has been taken care of here.......moving on. :shifty:

[RayMan]

Oh yeah...NOW you show up.

[Ron Jon]

Oh yeah...NOW you show up.
A regular "Johnny come lately." :lol:

[HokieCougarVandal]

Shouldn't that be modified to "Reeder come lately?"
:mrgreen:

[Chuangtzu]

How come American Indians have Asiatic/Turkic haplogroups, and almost zero overlaps which share with Semitic populations?

[RayMan]

Shouldn't that be modified to "Reeder come lately?"
:mrgreen:


My new name for him is "Hit and Run Boy."

[MobyMule]

How come American Indians have Asiatic/Turkic haplogroups, and almost zero overlaps which share with Semitic populations?

Why aren't there alot of Viking DNA in the indian tribes in the upper north? Why do you expect to find huge semite dna when a handful of people came over. What specific Semite dna marker are you looking for since Lehi wasn't a Jew but was Hebrew from the line of Mannasseh. So much is ignored in this so called debate.

The BOM never excludes other large groups. It even promotes the idea of an asiatic migration( Jaredites ). There is much still to learn of this science. It is not an end all that some would make it out to be. These things are very complex and generalizing findings and also claims that the BOM supposedly makes is just outright misleading.

[Chuangtzu]

Why aren't there alot of Viking DNA in the indian tribes in the upper north? Why do you expect to find huge semite dna when a handful of people came over. What specific Semite dna marker are you looking for since Lehi wasn't a Jew but was Hebrew from the line of Mannasseh. So much is ignored in this so called debate.

"Semite haplogroups" cover more than Jews. Kurds and Arabs are included, among others.

Or are you actually suggesting that a "Hebrew" is somehow different from a Semite person.

And there's not a lot of Viking DNA because the Viking colony died off, and rather quickly. There's more Basque DNA among Hurons and Turkic DNA among Melungeons, than Semite to be found among all post-Clovis peoples - and the donating populations were signifigantly smaller.

The BOM never excludes other large groups. It even promotes the idea of an asiatic migration( Jaredites ). There is much still to learn of this science. It is not an end all that some would make it out to be. These things are very complex and generalizing findings and also claims that the BOM supposedly makes is just outright misleading.

Religious claims are not science.

[MobyMule]

"Semite haplogroups" cover more than Jews. Kurds and Arabs are included, among others.

Or are you actually suggesting that a "Hebrew" is somehow different from a Semite person.

And there's not a lot of Viking DNA because the Viking colony died off, and rather quickly. There's more Basque DNA among Hurons and Turkic DNA among Melungeons, than Semite to be found among all post-Clovis peoples - and the donating populations were signifigantly smaller.



Religious claims are not science.

Then why put them to a test if they can not be specific in its claims as you need it to be to prove one way or the other.

You are correct that religious claims are not science. I have no problem with DNA science. I just believe we don't have all the pieces to a very complex puzzle.

If anyone should be concerned about DNA it should be the fundamentalists who believe in certain ideas relating to creation. There seems to be just as much evidence against those ideas as there is against the BOM. So I find it funny when a fundamentalist will attack the BOM with science that can also shred their own beliefs.

[HardHammer]

Ok. I found a couple of links that discuss the location of the hill cumorah to be rather interesting.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

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


Thanks RJ, I've already seen these.

If it 'was' the actually Hill, then of course there would vast riches of evidence. I suspect it will never be found or located per the description of the BoM, if it was owned by someone else, then digging could take place.

It's best for the LDS folks to just let it be a mystery where it is, for where ever it is, is where the proof of that final battle is or is not.

You and I share many of the same beliefs reagrding that battle, well...

[Chuangtzu]

Then why put them to a test if they can not be specific in its claims as you need it to be to prove one way or the other.

I'm not clear what you mean here.

You are correct that religious claims are not science. I have no problem with DNA science. I just believe we don't have all the pieces to a very complex puzzle.

If anyone should be concerned about DNA it should be the fundamentalists who believe in certain ideas relating to creation. There seems to be just as much evidence against those ideas as there is against the BOM. So I find it funny when a fundamentalist will attack the BOM with science that can also shred their own beliefs.Haplogroups are traceable. If Semitic peoples migrated to the American continents, interbred and birthed children, they would leave mDNA and other genetic markers in the host population.

American Indians do not have those markers. To this day, some Iroquoian populations show evidence of interbreeding with Basque peoples (not to mention some loan words) - and the period of contact lasted only approximately 100 years, with a very, very small donating group.

[MobyMule]

I'm not clear what you mean here.

Haplogroups are traceable. If Semitic peoples migrated to the American continents, interbred and birthed children, they would leave mDNA and other genetic markers in the host population.

American Indians do not have those markers. To this day, some Iroquoian populations show evidence of interbreeding with Basque peoples (not to mention some loan words) - and the period of contact lasted only approximately 100 years, with a very, very small donating group.

So all semitic peoples can be indentified with one marker?

[MobyMule]

I'm not clear what you mean here.



Scriptural records are not necessarily designed to provide comprehensive detailed accounts of historical events. Trying to use such records for a purpose that they were not designed for doesn't seem like a very sound or logical methodology to me.

[HokieCougarVandal]

My new name for him is "Hit and Run Boy."
Or maybe a "Drive-By Reeder"
:mrgreen:

[Greyclouds]

Why aren't there alot of Viking DNA in the indian tribes in the upper north? Why do you expect to find huge semite dna when a handful of people came over. What specific Semite dna marker are you looking for since Lehi wasn't a Jew but was Hebrew from the line of Mannasseh. So much is ignored in this so called debate.

Then he would likely contain haplogroups shared by Turkic/Arabic ethnicities in his mtDNA.


The BOM never excludes other large groups. It even promotes the idea of an asiatic migration( Jaredites ). There is much still to learn of this science. It is not an end all that some would make it out to be. These things are very complex and generalizing findings and also claims that the BOM supposedly makes is just outright misleading.

MtDNA is passed from mother to child and the mtDNA of the sperm gamete is completely destroyed upon entry of the oocyte during fertilization. This makes the mitochondrion's genome one of the best human markers for female progression.

What more do we need to learn of this sort of hereditary genetics apart from the expression significance of the distinctive haplogroups?

[Greyclouds]

So all semitic peoples can be indentified with one marker?

Chuangtzu is correct, albeit he did NOT say that semitic peoples can be identified solely by one haplotype.

In fact, there can be a diversity of haplotypes within an ethnicity; however, there are few haplotype overlaps with other ethnicities (except in the case of documented inter-breedings).

So, if the Native Americans have completely different haplotypes than the Semitic peoples, then there was most likely no inter-breeding nor was it likely that the one ethnicity diverged from the other.


Y chromosome haplotyping (the male phylogenetic equivalent to mtDNA haplotyping) has revealed the presence of several haplogroups that are shared by Native Americans and Siberian/Mongolian peoples. There have been no reportings of Semitic haplotypes within the Native American Y chromosome to my knowledge:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/1/164

[hillplus]

Chuangtzu is correct, albeit he did NOT say that semitic peoples can be identified solely by one haplotype.

In fact, there can be a diversity of haplotypes within an ethnicity; however, there are few haplotype overlaps with other ethnicities (except in the case of documented inter-breedings).

So, if the Native Americans have completely different haplotypes than the Semitic peoples, then there was most likely no inter-breeding nor was it likely that the one ethnicity diverged from the other.



Y chromosome haplotyping (the male phylogenetic equivalent to mtDNA haplotyping) has revealed the presence of several haplogroups that are shared by Native Americans and Siberian/Mongolian peoples. There have been no reportings of Semitic haplotypes within the Native American Y chromosome to my knowledge:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/1/164

I think we all need to "watch that space" when it comes to DNA and the BOM.

Following article talking about haplotype x.

Proves nothing but is interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/features/dna2.htm

[Greyclouds]

I think we all need to "watch that space" when it comes to DNA and the BOM.

Following article talking about haplotype x.

Proves nothing but is interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/features/dna2.htm

Of course. No disrespect intended towards the Mormon Ethos in particular. I was simply stating scientific findings based on Y chromosome and mtDNA haplotyping.

If presenting peer-reviewed scientific findings does constitute disrespect, then I will delete my post.

[Reeder]

Of course. No disrespect intended towards the Mormon Ethos in particular. I was simply stating scientific findings based on Y chromosome and mtDNA haplotyping.

If presenting peer-reviewed scientific findings does constitute disrespect, then I will delete my post.

Not to worry, Grey......it all flew so far over my head I don't think I could have found anything disrespectful if I was looking for it. :mrgreen:

[Chuangtzu]

I think we all need to "watch that space" when it comes to DNA and the BOM.

Following article talking about haplotype x.

Proves nothing but is interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/features/dna2.htm

I echo what was stated by Greyclouds. I should note, though, that if claims about genealogical records, and genetics is particular, become a matter of protected religious doctrine - this forum becomes almost immediately unavailable to anyone who disagrees with such claims.

[RayMan]

Not to worry, Grey......it all flew so far over my head I don't think I could have found anything disrespectful if I was looking for it. :mrgreen:

Ah...you're not even trying to get offended. :mrgreen:

[hillplus]

Of course. No disrespect intended towards the Mormon Ethos in particular. I was simply stating scientific findings based on Y chromosome and mtDNA haplotyping.

If presenting peer-reviewed scientific findings does constitute disrespect, then I will delete my post.

I am totally not offended!

I don't base my belief on DNA evidence, anyway. :)

[MobyMule]

I just think there is more pieces to this puzzle than we are aware of. I don't think we have near enough info to make a choice on either side that is entirely 100% correct. Does it look like the current knowledge with what we know is not very kind to the BOM? Yes I would say so but I will let it run its course. Because If you get past what the opinions of man are(those in the church) and look at the actual text and doctrine taught in the standard works there is pleny of room for science.

Since we believe that science is truth and all truth is from God I think in the end it will be made clear how these things came to be.

[HokieCougarVandal]

I just think there is more pieces to this puzzle than we are aware of. I don't think we have near enough info to make a choice on either side that is entirely 100% correct. Does it look like the current knowledge with what we know is not very kind to the BOM? Yes I would say so but I will let it run its course. Because If you get past what the opinions of man are(those in the church) and look at the actual text and doctrine taught in the standard works there is pleny of room for science.

Since we believe that science is truth and all truth is from God I think in the end it will be made clear how these things came to be.

:clap:

[Herradura]

I don’t want to be an antagonist, but is must ask. The book of Mormon has been changed more than 3,900 times since 1830.

Formal education or not, don’t you think the names could have been changed to protect Joseph Smith’s vision?

In that process, don’t you wonder why if he was a prophet (a real one) that his works had to be changed?

[terri910]

I don’t want to be an antagonist, but is must ask. The book of Mormon has been changed more than 3,900 times since 1830.

Formal education or not, don’t you think the names could have been changed to protect Joseph Smith’s vision?

In that process, don’t you wonder why if he was a prophet (a real one) that his works had to be changed?
Are you saying that names were changed in the Book of Mormon? :confused:

It could be argued that with all the various translations of the Bible that it, too, has been changed many times. Hmmm. Actually, that makes me wonder something. For our LDS friends: other than translations into different languages has the BoM ever been "translated" into different "versions" (as we know the Bible has been)? (Please include any "version" that may have been produced by any "sects" that claim roots to Joseph Smith's original church) (and yes, I know you do not consider it Joseph Smith's church, but hopefully, you know what I mean)?

[MobyMule]

Are you saying that names were changed in the Book of Mormon? :confused:

It could be argued that with all the various translations of the Bible that it, too, has been changed many times. Hmmm. Actually, that makes me wonder something. For our LDS friends: other than translations into different languages has the BoM ever been "translated" into different "versions" (as we know the Bible has been)? (Please include any "version" that may have been produced by any "sects" that claim roots to Joseph Smith's original church) (and yes, I know you do not consider it Joseph Smith's church, but hopefully, you know what I mean)?

I do think there are a few different ones running around. From what I know( which isn't much ) there isn't much difference in them.

[terri910]

I do think there are a few different ones running around. From what I know( which isn't much ) there isn't much difference in them.
Wait until you've been around for a thousand years or two and get a few thousand off-shoot sects and see what happens (speaking from the Catholic perspective, of course ;))!

What about name changes? What is Herradura talking about as far changing names goes? :confused:

[MobyMule]

Wait until you've been around for a thousand years or two and get a few thousand off-shoot sects and see what happens (speaking from the Catholic perspective, of course ;))!

What about name changes? What is Herradura talking about as far changing names goes? :confused:

Name changes? Hmm.. Yes there were a few I think. Errors in the original edition that incorrectly named Benjamin instead of Mosiah. Also I think there were a few more. Most of these were errors that happened were errors in the printers manuscript and not the origianl although some words were changed for clarification of meanings.

Here is a decent take on it I think http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

[terri910]

Name changes? Hmm.. Yes there were a few I think. Errors in the original edition that incorrectly named Benjamin instead of Mosiah. Also I think there were a few more. Most of these were errors that happened were errors in the printers manuscript and not the origianl although some words were changed for clarification of meanings.

Here is a decent take on it I think http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml
interesting! From your link:
Though much of the Original Manuscript has not survived...
What has happened to the original manuscript?

[MobyMule]

interesting! From your link:

What has happened to the original manuscript?

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of_mormon/manuscripts.html

[Greyclouds]

Are you saying that names were changed in the Book of Mormon? :confused:

It could be argued that with all the various translations of the Bible that it, too, has been changed many times. Hmmm. Actually, that makes me wonder something. For our LDS friends: other than translations into different languages has the BoM ever been "translated" into different "versions" (as we know the Bible has been)? (Please include any "version" that may have been produced by any "sects" that claim roots to Joseph Smith's original church) (and yes, I know you do not consider it Joseph Smith's church, but hopefully, you know what I mean)?

Translation of the New Testament from Greek Manuscripts has left out a crucial name: Barabbas' real name.

In the Greek manuscripts, "Barabbas" is instead called Yeshua Bar-Abbas which is translated into English as "Jesus son of the Father."


Translating authors left out the "Jesus" portion of his name for some unknown reason; perhaps because they did not see the significance of having two people named "Jesus" up for release or perhaps because they did not want to confuse the reader. I do not know.

However, it is well-known fact that this name has been changed from the original texts of the New Testament.

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

[Herradura]

Are you saying that names were changed in the Book of Mormon? :confused:

Maybe, it's possible. The big deal would be words added and deleted, not really words changed.

[MobyMule]

Maybe, it's possible. The big deal would be words added and deleted, not really words changed.

Why? Has this not been done to the Bible to clarify meaning and in some instances to make better translations.

I'm not sure what your getting at. But we have a good portion of the original manuscripts and there is no wholesale changes to cover something up like you seem to be suggesting.

[jade84116]

If the Mormon church doesn't speak officially on archaeology and the Book of Mormon, they don't, then, why should we accept it?

[orbitaldecay]

If the Mormon church doesn't speak officially on archaeology and the Book of Mormon, they don't, then, why should we accept it?

What do you even mean?

[jade84116]

What do you even mean?
The church neither endorses or rejects it. They're neutral on it. If the church doesn't feel strong enough about that archaeological evidence to endorse and formally accept it, then, why should we accept any of it?:)

[orbitaldecay]

The church neither endorses or rejects it. They're neutral on it. If the church doesn't feel strong enough about that archaeological evidence to endorse and formally accept it, then, why should we accept any of it?:)

Because it's a church, not an archaeology club.

Its expertise is spiritual matters, not history, not archaeology.

[terri910]

The church neither endorses or rejects it. They're neutral on it. If the church doesn't feel strong enough about that archaeological evidence to endorse and formally accept it, then, why should we accept any of it?:)
From an earlier post in this thread:
Scriptural records are not necessarily designed to provide comprehensive detailed accounts of historical events. Trying to use such records for a purpose that they were not designed for doesn't seem like a very sound or logical methodology to me.

[HokieCougarVandal]

Amen, terri & orb.
:hug:

[Mike Griffith]

The church neither endorses or rejects it. They're neutral on it. If the church doesn't feel strong enough about that archaeological evidence to endorse and formally accept it, then, why should we accept any of it?:)

How about because it's factual and logical? How about because the evidence is sound and the correlations it demonstrates are far too complex to be the result of chance?

Figure the odds that anyone in 1830 could sit down and make up a book that could later be found to have dozens of data about ancient Mesoamerica that were simply unknown in his day. Ditto for anyone in 1830 making up a book that included a section on ancient Arabia that later turned out to contain numerous data about that region that were unknown in his day.

Furthermore, the Church has published several articles in its official magazines that correlate the Book of Mormon to ancient Mesoamerica.

[HardHammer]

How about because it's factual and logical? How about because the evidence is sound and the correlations it demonstrates are far too complex to be the result of chance?

Figure the odds that anyone in 1830 could sit down and make up a book that could later be found to have dozens of data about ancient Mesoamerica that were simply unknown in his day. Ditto for anyone in 1830 making up a book that included a section on ancient Arabia that later turned out to contain numerous data about that region that were unknown in his day.

Furthermore, the Church has published several articles in its official magazines that correlate the Book of Mormon to ancient Mesoamerica.

How come Joseph Smith didn't know about all this stuff as a Prophet?

[Mike Griffith]

How come Joseph Smith didn't know about all this stuff as a Prophet?

One, he did: He said the day would come when ancient evidence of the Book of Mormon would come in greater and greater amounts. Two, he identified Mesoamerica as relating to the Book of Mormon.