Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

DNA vs Book of Mormon (INCREDIBLE New Evidence)


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

Does anyone know who this guy is? He talks about DNA evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, claiming it matches up with ancient native Americans living in North America.

....................................................................

Rod is a friend of mine and a member of my HP group, but he has oversimplified this DNA matter, aside from falsely stating (1) that the Maya are the center of interest of those who consider the Book of Mormon to be a Mesoamerican codex, and (2) that they focus on the Maya because they think that Joseph Smith did so as well.

The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that.  Moreover, they focus upon Chiapas as the center of Nephite culture -- which is not a Mayan area.  He is an extraordinarily nice guy, but his premises are wrong and so are his conclusions.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Gervin said:

Who, by name, are these "LDS anthropologists"?

A couple of them post on this board regularly, and you have likely had exchanges with one: Brant Gardner.  Read his book and you will find him citing a lot of other anthropologists who share the view that the New World Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica.  Indeed, you probably already know the names of several such scholars.

Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015).

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A couple of them post on this board regularly, and you have likely had exchanges with one: Brant Gardner.  Read his book and you will find him citing a lot of other anthropologists who share the view that the New World Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica.  Indeed, you probably already know the names of several such scholars.

Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015).

I thought that when you said "most LDS anthropologists" that the list would include "most" of these folks https://anthropology.byu.edu/Pages/Faculty/peoplenew.aspx

Does it not?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Gervin said:

I thought that when you said "most LDS anthropologists" that the list would include "most" of these folks https://anthropology.byu.edu/Pages/Faculty/peoplenew.aspx

Does it not?

Most LDS anthropologists do not work in the Anthropology Dept at BYU, and I have not taken a poll of the faculty listed at that site.  However, I have heard of an LDS anthropologist, John A. Price (York University, Downsview, Canada), who suggested that the Book of Mormon was created out of whole cloth by Joseph Smith, utilizing the Iroquois as the Lamanites, and the Moundbuilders (= Susquehannocks) as the Nephites whom they destroyed --   Price in Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974):35-40.  Then there is the opinion of LDS anthropologist, Thomas W. Murphy (Edmonds Community College, Lynnwood, WA), that "The events [of the Book of Mormon] never took place anywhere!" --   “Archaeology, the Bible and the Book of Mormon,” Living Hope Ministries video (Summer 2005); http://www.lhvm.org .   Of course these are minority opinions.

Notice how real conversation or discussion of such matters can proceed.  It requires that one be both serious and sincere.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most LDS anthropologists do not work in the Anthropology Dept at BYU, and I have not taken a poll of the faculty listed at that site.  However, I have heard of an LDS anthropologist, John A. Price (York University, Downsview, Canada), who suggested that the Book of Mormon was created out of whole cloth by Joseph Smith, utilizing the Iroquois as the Lamanites, and the Moundbuilders (= Susquehannocks) as the Nephites whom they destroyed --   Price in Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974):35-40.  Then there is the opinion of LDS anthropologist, Thomas W. Murphy (Edmonds Community College, Lynnwood, WA), that "The events [of the Book of Mormon] never took place anywhere!" --   “Archaeology, the Bible and the Book of Mormon,” Living Hope Ministries video (Summer 2005); http://www.lhvm.org .   Of course these are minority opinions.

Notice how real conversation or discussion of such matters can proceed.  It requires that one be both serious and sincere.

I dont think you're serious.  If you are, CFR that "The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that."  By "most" I assume you mean a sizable majority. Prove it.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Rod is a friend of mine and a member of my HP group, but he has oversimplified this DNA matter, aside from falsely stating (1) that the Maya are the center of interest of those who consider the Book of Mormon to be a Mesoamerican codex, and (2) that they focus on the Maya because they think that Joseph Smith did so as well.

The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that.  Moreover, they focus upon Chiapas as the center of Nephite culture -- which is not a Mayan area.  He is an extraordinarily nice guy, but his premises are wrong and so are his conclusions.

LOL! Of course it focused on the Maya. Go to the Maxwell Institute website and enter "maya" into the search field.

There are hundreds of articles at the MI comparing the Book of Mormon to the Maya. From the Maya Calendar to the Popo Vul Hulu or whatever it's called. Lol.

 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Gervin said:

I dont think you're serious.  If you are, CFR that "The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that."  By "most" I assume you mean a sizable majority. Prove it.

Still stuck on "proof" I see.  Do you really believe that it is possible to prove anything?  Are you sincere enough to want to find an answer to that question?  Are you serious enough to get real and have an actual conversation?

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

LOL! Of course it focused on the Maya. Go to the Maxwell Institute website and enter "maya" into the search field.

There are hundreds of articles at the MI comparing the Book of Mormon to the Maya. From the Maya Calendar to the Popo Vul Hulu or whatever it's called. Lol................................................

Nice.  You enter "Maya," but it never occurs to you to actually read the articles which come up in your search.  Had you done so, you would find that the articles do not assert that the Maya are Book of Mormon peoples, but that they naturally participate with several other Mesoamerican civilizations in the general high culture inherited from the earlier Mother Culture, the Olmecs.  All of these cultures have some things in common, and we can learn something via comparison and study of them.  Had you bothered to study anthropology and to read widely you would know this.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 7:51 AM, Tacenda said:

He makes a good point... the Lord leads those missionaries to NY, Ohio and Missouri, not Mesoamerica.  Now what do the scholars say?  Right in the D&C.  

 

 

Does calling them the Lamanites require that God thinks of them as descendants of Laman and Lemuel?  Beats me.  I guess for years I've been told that calling them Lamanites is a mistake, if we want to be technically correct because well, what do we know?  Perhaps Joseph didn't actually know either.  Perhaps had called them Lamanites and God just never corrected Him, because, well, what does it matter to Him?  It's hard to take too seriously the notion that scripture, any scripture, is anything but a mortal person's rendition of what he/she feels strongly God supports. 

I think that's kinda what people might respond with. 

Link to comment
On 1/20/2016 at 9:14 PM, Gervin said:

I dont think you're serious.  If you are, CFR that "The focus of most LDS anthropologists is on Mesoamerica because the internal content of the BofM requires that."  By "most" I assume you mean a sizable majority. Prove it.

You are rude. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or are you just being a jerk?

Poster removed.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Does calling them the Lamanites require that God thinks of them as descendants of Laman and Lemuel?  Beats me.  I guess for years I've been told that calling them Lamanites is a mistake, if we want to be technically correct because well, what do we know?  Perhaps Joseph didn't actually know either.  Perhaps had called them Lamanites and God just never corrected Him, because, well, what does it matter to Him?  It's hard to take too seriously the notion that scripture, any scripture, is anything but a mortal person's rendition of what he/she feels strongly God supports. 

I think that's kinda what people might respond with. 

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Link to comment
On January 20, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Nice.  You enter "Maya," but it never occurs to you to actually read the articles which come up in your search.  Had you done so, you would find that the articles do not assert that the Maya are Book of Mormon peoples, but that they naturally participate with several other Mesoamerican civilizations in the general high culture inherited from the earlier Mother Culture, the Olmecs.  All of these cultures have some things in common, and we can learn something via comparison and study of them.  Had you bothered to study anthropology and to read widely you would know this.

Oh so sorry.

The hundreds of articles about the Maya is not equating the Maya to Book of Mormon people. But the Maya are "naturally participants with several other Mesoamerica Civilizations in the general high culture inherited from the earlier Mother Culture the Olmecs."

This of course means we CAN equate the Maya to Book of Mormon people without actually discovering any evidence of Book of Mormon people in Mesoamerica.

But if it weren't for the Maya which John Lloyd Stephens wrote about in his travel book a copy of which was gifted to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith would never have known that Mesoamerica was the location for the geography of the Book of Mormon (per the Mesoamerica theory). So remember Dear Reader. If it weren't for Maya ruins, a Prophet of God would never have known where the geography of the Book of Mormon was located. Which ruins did not belong to Book of Mormon people because said ruins are Maya and the Maya are not Book of Mormon peoples. LOL!

 

 

 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

Oh so sorry.

The hundreds of articles about the Maya is not equating the Maya to Book of Mormon people. But the Maya are "naturally participants with several other Mesoamerica Civilizations in the general high culture inherited from the earlier Mother Culture the Olmecs."

This of course means we CAN equate the Maya to Book of Mormon people without actually discovering any evidence of Book of Mormon people in Mesoamerica.

So, in your estimation the Russian people and culture are indistinguishable from that of the Germans, or English, etc., and your geographical correlations for the Russian capital would be as applicable to the German or English capitals.  All you are able to see is sameness, regardless of real differences.  For you, one should simply equate any civilization with any other, without regard to what anthropologists say.  Thus, for you the Hebrews and Egyptians are all the same, the Greeks and Romans the very same peoples, etc.  And you are not even embarrassed to make such suggestions.

But if it weren't for the Maya which John Lloyd Stephens wrote about in his travel book a copy of which was gifted to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith would never have known that Mesoamerica was the location for the geography of the Book of Mormon (per the Mesoamerica theory). So remember Dear Reader. If it weren't for Maya ruins, a Prophet of God would never have known where the geography of the Book of Mormon was located. Which ruins did not belong to Book of Mormon people because said ruins are Maya and the Maya are not Book of Mormon peoples. LOL!

Joseph is entitled to express his opinion on geography as well as any other person.  There is no evidence that he was speaking as a prophet on that or other occasions when he spoke of very different geographic correlations.  Your mockery simply shows your distaste for serious scholarship.

 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph is entitled to express his opinion on geography as well as any other person.  There is no evidence that he was speaking as a prophet on that or other occasions when he spoke of very different geographic correlations.  Your mockery simply shows your distaste for serious scholarship.

I'm not mocking serious scholarship. I don't consider the Mesoamerica LGT to be serious scholarship. It's silly.

You mock the Prophet Joseph Smith. You deny revelation per your statement.

 

You mock him by supporting this claim of the Mesoamerica Theory (which is supposed to be SERIOUS scholarship):

- Four years before he was murdered, Joseph Smith read a book by John Lloyd Stephens then changed his mind claiming the geography of the Book of Mormon was never in North America but it occurred in Mesoamerica - because he read a book about Maya ruins - Maya which were later determined in the 60s,70s, 80s, 90s by F.A.R.M.S. - not to be Nephites.

Apparently, the Mesoamerica Theory believes the Prophet Joseph Smith was impressed by books about great and spacious buildings left in ruin. Wow. What an impressionable guy for him to change his mind: that is what you're suppossed to believe about Joseph Smith if you embrace a Mesoamerica geography.

If you don't, then you're attacked as one mocking SERIOUS scholarship. LOL!

11th Commandment: Thou shall not mock serious scholarship which mocks the Prophet.

Link to comment

Ugo Pergo posted this on his FB wall:

Ugo A. Perego
Yesterday at 7:11am · 
There is a video circulating widely on the internet about NEW INCREDIBLE DNA EVIDENCE in favor of the Book of Mormon. I want everyone to know that I do not support the views presented in this video (here is the link on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADM3RYKl5Y&feature=youtu.be).
I personally believe the Book of Mormon to be sacred scripture, but not based on genetic evidence.
It is my opinion that the presenter in this video (Rod Meldrum) is oversimplifying and stretching complex scientific data to fit its own view and purposes. This is dangerous because some people might actually believe in what he is saying and take for granted his conclusions. I have listened to Rod Meldrum in the past and spoke with him on several occasions. I have also tried to explain to him the mistakes with his approach, but to no avail. Here are in a short few points the main problems with the information presented in this video:
1. Lineage (haplogroup) X in the America is an unusual marker, but there is absolutely no evidence to link it to Book of Mormon people.
2. As far as science has been able to determine to date, lineage X has been in the Americas probably long before Book of Mormon times (based on both carbon dating and the molecular clock).
3. It is not true that the first four lineages in the Americas prior to the discovery of haplogroup X are identical to lineages found in Asia. They are related with each other, but the ones in the Americas have their own unique characteristics.
4. Likewise, lineage X in Northern North America has its own unique characteristics and it is not found anywhere else in the world. The one in the Americas is know has lineage X2a.
5. There are other lineage X's in the world (Europe, North Africa, Middle East and Asia) but none of them is the same as their American counterpart X2a.
6. It is not true that lineage X was identified in the Americas in 2003. Data on a fifth lineage in the America has been widely published since 1991.
7. All the DNA that has been talked about in this video is referred to a genetic molecule known as mitochondrial DNA that is transmitted exclusively along the unbroken maternal line. This means that this approach cannot be easily used to determine the genetic ancestry of male lineages such as those described in this video and in the Book of Mormon. In other words, this is not the DNA we would expect to find today from Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Lehi, Nephi, etc.
8. The LDS Church does not support DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. Here is something more official found on the LDS.org website:https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies…
There is much more to it but this should be sufficient for now. It is too early to know for sure what the actual relationship of lineage X in the Americas with the Old World is and we need to be careful to jump at any conclusions at this time.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, PeterPear said:

I'm not mocking serious scholarship. I don't consider the Mesoamerica LGT to be serious scholarship. It's silly.

You mock the Prophet Joseph Smith. You deny revelation per your statement.

You mock him by supporting this claim of the Mesoamerica Theory (which is supposed to be SERIOUS scholarship):

- Four years before he was murdered, Joseph Smith read a book by John Lloyd Stephens then changed his mind claiming the geography of the Book of Mormon was never in North America but it occurred in Mesoamerica - because he read a book about Maya ruins - Maya which were later determined in the 60s,70s, 80s, 90s by F.A.R.M.S. - not to be Nephites.

Apparently, the Mesoamerica Theory believes the Prophet Joseph Smith was impressed by books about great and spacious buildings left in ruin. Wow. What an impressionable guy for him to change his mind: that is what you're suppossed to believe about Joseph Smith if you embrace a Mesoamerica geography.

If you don't, then you're attacked as one mocking SERIOUS scholarship. LOL!

11th Commandment: Thou shall not mock serious scholarship which mocks the Prophet.

Mockery and sarcasm are not the same as serious scholarship -- nor indeed scholarship of any kind.  You might even try understanding what you are mocking before you begin the mockery.  You need to study Nehor:  There is learned sarcasm and buffoonery which we can all enjoy.  Yours is just uninformed and mean-spirited.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...