Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[thesometimesaint]

JeremyOrbe-Smith:

Do I agree with everything JS said. Nope. Do I agree with everything BY said. Heavens forbid. Heck I don't even agree with everything any mortal says, with the possible except of one. The only mortal whom I always agree with is myself, and I'm entitled to change my mind. The ONLY thing I'm duty bound to believe is the truth.

[Rob Osborn]

Just off the top of my head, here are the things the professional scholars say about pre-Columbian Native Americans for which there is genetic evidence as well as archeological evidence, including thousands of dated artifacts from hundreds of sites:

- The founding groups for Native American populations migrated relatively slowly from Siberia starting approximately 30,000 years ago moving first into Beringia with a greatly increase rate of migration moving on into North and South America dating back to approximately 15,000 years before the present.

- Native American populations are descended from several founding groups (at least four different lineages), all of them from Asia.

- Genetic analysis shows that there were pre-Columbian some back-migrations from the New World to Asia.

- The oldest artifacts at the likely jumping off sites in Siberia date back some 30,000 years, while the oldest sites at the southern tip of South America are no older than 15,000 years.

- Thus, both archeological data derived from artifacts (stone tools, spear tips, etc.), and human genetics, show that pre-Columbian populations in the Americas came from Asia starting more than 15,000 years ago.

Just off the top of my head, here are the things that Joseph Smith said about Native American populations that are different from what the scholars say and that are supported by credible physical evidence:

- empty set.

(I would be very interested to find out what Rob Osborn knows, or what he thinks Joseph Smith knew about American Indian history, that professional archeologists, geneticists, historians and ethnologists do not.)

This is my point exactly- various scholars have said this or that about American Indian history in the which none of them support a Book of Mormon view. In the Book of Mormon we are shown that after the flood the Jaredites were the first peoples to inhabit the land. This is in direct conflict with what secular means have come up with. Either the Book of Mormon is a fraud and all of mormonism too, or the scholars themselves are wrong. At this point i am standing by my religion because of the evidence that I myself see as a witness. As this relates to evolution, once again- the scholars have said how it is- man evolving from a lower order of species a long long time ago whil modern day prophets have affirmed the opposite- that Man has only been around a few short thousand years and that man absolutely did not come from a lower order of species.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Incorrect. It is your assumptions that are leading you astray. A massive but regional flood in the area where the Jaredites came from solves the problem of "The Flood". See Nibley about Noah.

Incorrect. We have modern day prophets who fully believe in Evolution as it relates to the physical bodies of all plants and animals including man. Further the Church takes no position on the subject of Evolution. Individual members, including prophets, are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

The Book of Abraham specifies no specific period of time for creation, neither does the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or D&C for that matter. You are reading into them more than is what's there.

PS. JS thought that the earth was 2.55 Billions of years old. A little bit more than a few thousands.

Edited January 22, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[zerinus]

You didn't retrace far enough. Mariner posted the Hinckley quote in response to your comment:

So the Hinckley quote was being applied to all those: "Well, [the resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles of Moses, the creation of Adam and Eve in one piece 7,000 years ago are] either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud."

If the Hinckley quote was meant to apply to the First Vision, then it was a non-sequitur and shouldn't have been used since there was no mention of the First Vision in the context of its use. It was being used to state a general principle of something being either true or false in a religious sense, with no shades of gray. But there are shades of gray in every religion, even the CoJCoLdS, and even on "core" issues dealing with the First Vision and the Book of Mormon.

And even in those things which a religion gets wrong (i.e. believes in that is false), it's not logically given that the religion is then a "fraud". There are many different reasons a religion might believe in something that is false. With all due respect to President Hinckley, the principle just doesn't stand.

The Hinckley quote wasn't just about the First Vision, it was about all the miraculous events that attended the Restoration, highlighted by the story of the First Vision. It looks like you haven't traced it far enough either. The Hinckley quote was part of a response to a presenter who had asked him this question:

Q. Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

Hinckley's response was as follows:

A. Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

I can see the logic of his argument. I don't know why you can't. That logic is basically applicable to every religion. If the fundamental beliefs of any religion is false, then that religion must be false. The fundamental beliefs of Christianity are the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, His death on the cross, subsequent resurrection and ascension to heaven. If these are all false, then the religion is false. There is no middle ground. That logic can be applied to every religion. I can't see what problem you are having with any of this.

[altersteve]

Sometimes, my friend, I get the distinct impression that either you do not know the scriptures that well or you spend too much time reading the works of the apologists and not enough time reading the works of the Apostles and Prophets.

I believe I am very familiar with my own religion's scriptures, thank you very much. I read and study them on a daily basis and I have read them cover to cover several times. And I am very aware of what many Church leaders have taught.

In the Book of Mormon it is made clear in several places that the Western Hemisphere was considered by Lord as a choice land above all others and was to be preserved only for those who would serve the Lord.

I don't see the word "only."

In the Book of Ether we find this description of why there was no human habitation in the Western Hemisphere at the time of the Book of Mormon migrations to the New World.

Where does it explicitly say that there was no human habitation in the Western Hemisphere prior to the Jaredites' arrival?

When you think about it, the Flood of Noah precludes the survival of any humans who migrated to the New World before approximately 4,500 years ago.

CFR that in LDS doctrine the Flood occurred 4,500 years ago. And don't quote some Church manual, because those don't declare official, binding doctrine.

According to LDS teachings, if any populations from Asia did migrate to the New World from Asia before the Flood of Noah, it would not be possible that their DNA would be in the pre-Columbian human genome of New World populations as determined today.

If the Flood actually covered the entire earth, then sure. But I believe the Flood was a gradual event, with several floods taking place over a very long period of time. I don't believe the entire earth was ever completely underwater.

Yet there it is. In fact, the pre-Columbian human genome of the New World, as determined today, is comprised exclusively of east Asian DNA.

"Exclusively," huh? CFR.

Recent analysis shows that there are at least four separate Asian clades or lineages in pre-Columbian New World populations.

Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites, and Mulekites?

This and other evidence shows that there were several migrations back and forth from Asia to the New World starting from Siberia as early as 30,000 years ago.

How many times are you going to repeat this? I don't disagree with you, and the Book of Mormon doesn't either.

Back to the Book on Mormon scripture you requested that I find for you; the apostle Jeffrey Holland makes the meaning of this scripture absolutely and unmistakably clear, as follows:

Did he claim to know this by revelation? Has his interpretation of this passage been declared by the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a doctrine that is binding upon the entire Church?

I accept Elder Holland as a prophet, seer, and revelator; I have a tremendous amount of respect for the man, and I always enjoy hearing him speak; but I am not obligated to agree with every single statement he has ever made.

Mormon apologists are very uncomfortable with the idea that the scriptures (and LDS teachings prior to the publication of Simon Southerton's book) preclude the presence of human habitation in the New World prior to the Book of Mormon migrations.

Since you seem to be the expert on the Book of Mormon here, please, enlighten us. Where else do you think the Book of Mormon makes the claim that nobody lived in the Western Hemisphere prior to the Jaredites?

You are obviously uncomfortable with this idea as well. Unfortunately there is just too much in scripture and pre-Southerton teachings by the Prophets and Apostles to allow a change in the Mormon narrative to account for the DNA evidence described above. An apologist's work is never done.

You do understand the whole concept behind "continuing revelation," right? LDS doctrine changes. Get used to it.

Edited January 22, 2012 by altersteve

[Mariner]

Mariner:

Incorrect. It is your assumptions that are leading you astray. A massive but regional flood in the area where the Jaredites came from solves the problem of "The Flood". See Nibley about Noah.

Incorrect. We have modern day prophets who fully believe in Evolution as it relates to the physical bodies of all plants and animals including man. Further the Church takes no position on the subject of Evolution. Individual members, including prophets, are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

The Book of Abraham specifies no specific period of time for creation, neither does the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or D&C for that matter. You are reading into them more than is what's there.

PS. JS thought that the earth was 2.55 Billions of years old. A little bit more than a few thousands.

thesometimesiant,

Looks as if you are taking the "pick and choose option" here. The published statement by apostle Jeffrey Holland that I quoted leaves little room for your suggested interpretation of the scriptures in regard to the global flood of Noah. The statement by Joseph Smith that the Garden of Eden was located in Daviss County, MO causes further problems for the whole Mormon narrative regarding the Fall of Adam, the atonement and the emergence of modern homo sapiens.

The fact that the myths that comprise the scriptures can be (and must be) twisted, tortured and constantly re-interpreted in an attempt to keep them out of direct conflict with science does not mean they are not myths. The violence done to the scriptures by the apologist's "nuanced reading" and liberal or alternative interpretations does not make them fact.

As I recall, D&C 77 does give a temporal age of the Earth of 7,000 years. This is what I was taught and what my parents were taught at the official scripturally revealed age of the Earth, and that was fine with my Seminary and Institute teachers, and with the authors of the various Gospel Doctrine and Priesthood manuals, until it wasn't.

While it is possible for many members of the LDS Church to simultaneously hold two diametrically opposed assertions as true, you must see how unseemly this appears to those unfamiliar with this kind of doublethink.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Mariner

[Mariner]

LDS doctrine changes. Get used to it.

Truer words were never spoken.

As to the exclusivity of Asian DNA in the pre-Columbian New World genome, please see:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025160653.htm

http://csfa.tamu.edu/who.php

[Rob Osborn]

CFR that in LDS doctrine the Flood occurred 4,500 years ago. And don't quote some Church manual, because those don't declare official, binding doctrine.

I thought "official church manulas" did do just that- declare official binding doctrine. If you discount the manuals then you may as well discount what every prophet has said which includes the scriptures themselves. What then are you left with? Absolutely nothing but secular reasoning.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Last I looked the Middle East is part of Asia.

The DNA issue is more complex than you are presenting. We have no idea as to what Lehis' DNA looked like nor of his wife, nor do we know the genetics for Zoram the servant of Laban, or his daughters that went with Nephi. Further all told it was probably it was less than 20 people that journed to the West. What; if any residual DNA would you expect to find after 2600 years of mixing?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth

[Jeff K.]

Mariner:

Last I looked the Middle East is part of Asia.

The DNA issue is more complex than you are presenting. We have no idea as to what Lehis' DNA looked like nor of his wife, nor do we know the genetics for Zoram the servant of Laban, or his daughters that went with Nephi. Further all told it was probably it was less than 20 people that journed to the West. What; if any residual DNA would you expect to find after 2600 years of mixing?

I think you just killed Mariners entire line of questioning.

[Jeff K.]

Rob Osborn:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth

That certainly is an official opinion. I will note that.

[LeSellers]

The DNA issue is more complex than you are presenting. We have no idea as to what Lehis' DNA ... nor do we know the genetics for Zoram the servant of Laban, or his daughters that went with Nephi.

I'm sure you meant Ishmael's daughters.

Zoram, as far as we know, had no family before he married Ishmael's eldest daughter. It's not explicit in 1 and 2 Nephi, but it is as close as possible to it without actual wording to that point.

Lehi

Edited January 23, 2012 by LeSellers

[altersteve]

I thought "official church manulas" did do just that- declare official binding doctrine. If you discount the manuals then you may as well discount what every prophet has said which includes the scriptures themselves. What then are you left with? Absolutely nothing but secular reasoning.

Official binding doctrine is contained in the Standard Works and the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, not in Church manuals.

Truer words were never spoken.

As to the exclusivity of Asian DNA in the pre-Columbian New World genome, please see:

http://www.scienceda...71025160653.htm

http://csfa.tamu.edu/who.php

Hey, guess what? The Middle East is in Asia.

But once again, please show me the Book of Mormon explicitly says that the entire Western Hemisphere was empty prior to the arrival of the Jaredites. This is a CFR.

Edited January 23, 2012 by altersteve

[Mariner]

Mariner:

Last I looked the Middle East is part of Asia.

The DNA issue is more complex than you are presenting. We have no idea as to what Lehis' DNA looked like nor of his wife, nor do we know the genetics for Zoram the servant of Laban, or his daughters that went with Nephi. Further all told it was probably it was less than 20 people that journed to the West. What; if any residual DNA would you expect to find after 2600 years of mixing?

thesometimesiant,

I understand that you are a scientist, but that you are not engaged in the hard sciences. If you will look at the literature, you will see that there is unanimous agreement among credible non-LDS scientists that the pre-Columbian human genome in the New World contains no indication of genetic contributions from the Eastern Med or Mesopotamia. There is not now and never was any Lehite DNA in the pre-Columbian New World genome.

Your claim that it would be impossible to detect a genetic contribution from 20 people after 2,600 years is simply wrong. It is possible to identify Neanderthal DNA in human populations. Neanderthal DNA remains identifiable in the Europeans (and not in Africans) some 38,000 years after it was inserted there.

A second problem with your DNA apologetics is if the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians, and the Lamanites were descended from Laman and Lemuel as stated in the book of Mormon, then the DNA in pre-Columbian New World populations should be readily identified with lineages or clades that originated from their homeland. It is not.

If you read the article I referenced, you will see that the DNA found in the pre-Columbian New world was in fact evolved in Siberia or Beringia starting some 30,000 years ago. This and other papers state clearly and unequivocally that there is NO EVIDENCE that there is any contribution the pre-Columbian New World genome from transoceanic crossings - period.

You have to realize that all of the apologetic nonsense such as "the genetic contribution from the Nephites would have washed out after 2600 years" or that "nobody knows what Nephite DNA looked like" reflect a woefully uninformed approach to the issue.

If it makes you happy to believe this, have at it. But my strong advice to you is not to show up at a population genetics Conference with a hypothesis that transoceanic crossings from the Old World to the New World would not have left a trace in the pre-Columbian New World genome.

Do yourself a favor and read the New Scientist article I referenced, and then read some other papers on human migrations throughout history as determined by population genetics. With the exception of a few isolated settlements along the west coast of South America that some think may have been established by Polynesians, you will not find a single published paper on the subject that even leaves open the possibility that trans-oceanic migrations contributed to the New World Genome before the arrival of Europeans (Nordic Explorers in Canada, Columbus in the Caribbean, and then the Spanish in Central America and in Florida.)

I hate to say this, but as a scientists, simply repeating this apologetic nonsense doesn't do anything for your professional reputation.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Mariner

[Mariner]

Official binding doctrine is contained in the Standard Works and the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, not in Church manuals.

Hey, guess what? The Middle East is in Asia.

But once again, please show me the Book of Mormon explicitly says that the entire Western Hemisphere was empty prior to the arrival of the Jaredites. This is a CFR.

altersteve,

If you would have read the articles I referenced, or knew anything more about what you are talking about than what you have read on apologetic websites, you would not have made the comment about the Middle East being in Asia, because it makes no difference whether the Middle East is in Asia or not. There is no DNA in the pre-Columbian New World human genome that came from the Middle East any later than 10,000 - 15,000 years before the Book of Mormon migrations.

All four of the clades found in pre-Columbian New World human DNA were developed starting some 30,000 years ago in Siberia and/or Beringia. You seem to be annoyed that I keep repeating this, but believe me, I am just as annoyed that you seem unable to comprehend what this means to your apologetic arguments.

As for your CFR; the LDS Church taught, as described by Jeffrey Holland, an apostle of the Lord, and as mentioned in Ether and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, that the Western Hemisphere was a promised land reserved for those whom the Lord brought here.

The idea of pre-Jaredite populations was seldom, if ever, (probably never) mentioned in Church manuals or teachings before the DNA bombshell (and as far as I know from discussions with my NOM wife it is still is not mentioned in the manuals or in classes).

I claim, along with Elder Holland and many other Prophets and Apostles of the Church, that the Book of Mormon should be interpreted as Joseph Smith intended - that the migrations to the New World described in the Book of Mormon were the only migrations to have occurred since the flood of Noah.

[Jeff K.]

I claim, along with Elder Holland and many other Prophets and Apostles of the Church, that the Book of Mormon should be interpreted as Joseph Smith intended - that the migrations to the New World described in the Book of Mormon were the only migrations to have occurred since the flood of Noah.

Strange... Elder Holland said there were many groups and that we aren't sure of the size of the Nephite and Lamanite nations. You may want to recheck your facts.

[altersteve]

There is no DNA in the pre-Columbian New World human genome that came from the Middle East any later than 10,000 - 15,000 years before the Book of Mormon migrations.

So it's a widely accepted, 100% fact that a group of 20 people did NOT sail from Jerusalem to America in 600 B.C. and mixed with the local Mesoamericans?

All four of the clades found in pre-Columbian New World human DNA were developed starting some 30,000 years ago in Siberia and/or Beringia.

Again, where does the Book of MOrmon claim otherwise?

As for your CFR; the LDS Church taught, as described by Jeffrey Holland, an apostle of the Lord, and as mentioned in Ether and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, that the Western Hemisphere was a promised land reserved for those whom the Lord brought here.

I'm not asking what Church leaders have taught, I'm asking about what the Book of Mormon itself says. Where does it say no others besides the Book of Mormon peoples were brought to the promised land? And where does it say that only righteous peoples may travel to the New World?

And no, the Church does not teach that the Western Hemisphere was empty prior to the Jaredites. The Church has no official position on this topic, and Church leaders speaking about the topic are representing their own views and opinions. Furthermore, not only do Dallin H. Oaks, Neal A. Maxwell, and others believe that the Book of Mormon peoples were not alone in the Western Hemisphere, a Church spokesperson said:

"As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture."

The idea of pre-Jaredite populations was seldom, if ever, (probably never) mentioned in Church manuals or teachings before the DNA bombshell (and as far as I know from discussions with my NOM wife it is still is not mentioned in the manuals or in classes).

So?

I claim, along with Elder Holland and many other Prophets and Apostles of the Church, that the Book of Mormon should be interpreted as Joseph Smith intended - that the migrations to the New World described in the Book of Mormon were the only migrations to have occurred since the flood of Noah.

CFR that Joseph Smith "intended" for the Book of Mormon to be interpreted this way.

Edited January 23, 2012 by altersteve

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth

Absolutely not "official doctrine" so what are you trying to prove?

[Mariner]

So it's a widely accepted, 100% fact that a group of 20 people did NOT sail from Jerusalem to America in 600 B.C. and mixed with the local Mesoamericans?

A genetic map of human migration for more than 50,000 years, including contributions from hundreds of scientists and tens of thousands of samples, which detects evidence for inter breeding with Neanderthals some 38,000 years ago, shows no evidence whatsoever that 20 people (or even a single breeding pair) came from Jerusalem to the New World in 600 BC. Not only is there no genetic evidence for this migration, there is also no archeological or linguistic evidence.

Again, where does the Book of Mormon claim otherwise?

I'm not asking what Church leaders have taught, I'm asking about what the Book of Mormon itself says. Where does it say no others besides the Book of Mormon peoples were brought to the promised land? And where does it say that only righteous peoples may travel to the New World?

Second Nephi, Chapter 9

Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

And no, the Church does not teach that the Western Hemisphere was empty prior to the Jaredites. The Church has no official position on this topic, and Church leaders speaking about the topic are representing their own views and opinions. Furthermore, not only do Dallin H. Oaks, Neal A. Maxwell, and others believe that the Book of Mormon peoples were not alone in the Western Hemisphere, a Church spokesperson said:

"As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture."

What these men are saying is that their doctrine has changed. These changes require a very different interpretation of scripture, such as the one quoted below that states in Joseph Smiths own words that the Nephites and Lamanites were THE former inhabitants of this (the American) continent.

CFR that Joseph Smith "intended" for the Book of Mormon to be interpreted this way.

Please see below.

In the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1:33-34 Joseph Smith writes (in the first person):

"The Angel called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do."

"He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent (America), and the source from whence they sprang."

Please not the Joseph Smith did not same "some of" , he said "THE" former inhabitants.

And then there is this recorded address to a group of Native Americans by Joseph Smith.

"The Great Spirit has given me a book, and told me that you will soon be blessed again. The Great Spirit will soon talk with you and your children. This is the book which your fathers made. I wrote upon it (showing them the BoM). This tells you what you have to do. Do not kill white men; it is not good; but ask the Great Spirit for what you want, and it will not be long before the Great Spirit will bless you, and you will cultivate the earth and build good houses like white men."

The Prophet Joseph Smith, Official Church History, Vol 5, p. 381

I understand that the DNA evidence means that the Church leadership is bring forced to retreat from their former interpretation of the scriptures and of Church history. However, the scriptures that they now must re-interpret or ignore are a matter of record. There is only so much wiggle room.

I stand by my earlier suggestion that you pay more attention to LDS scriptures than to Mormon apologists and their websites.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Mariner

[Jeff K.]

I think Mariner has English as a second language.....

Quote

"The Angel called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do."

"He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent (America), and the source from whence they sprang."

Where is the word "ALL" for "the former inhabitants of this continent?

I am a former inhabitant of the state of Virginia. But I wasn't the only one. The presumption that if it doesn't specify some it must be all is a bit of an illogical stretch. But it is the norm for anti Mormons.

"The Great Spirit has given me a book, and told me that you will soon be blessed again. The Great Spirit will soon talk with you and your children. This is the book which your fathers made. I wrote upon it (showing them the BoM). This tells you what you have to do. Do not kill white men; it is not good; but ask the Great Spirit for what you want, and it will not be long before the Great Spirit will bless you, and you will cultivate the earth and build good houses like white men."

The Prophet Joseph Smith, Official Church History, Vol 5, p. 381

Since Joseph Smith was not familiar with DNA, would he not assume that the mixture would indeed include Lamanites and Nephites? Then again, if the translation was done without an imbedded video might he not also assume the same thing? Given our anti Mormon friend has not experienced revelation, what are his assumptions regarding the revelatory experience?

In effect it is the same old canard from anti Mormons even as Latter-day Saints tell them, "No, it is not specific that there were only Lamanites and Nephites in the land. Even as Elder Holland was misappropriately given as a reference when he said the exact opposite in the Ensign as far back as the early 1980's. It all goes to the lack of credibility.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

You seem to be forgeting about the caucasian mummies of China. If they could travel thousands of miles. Why couldn't another group not do it.

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

There were blacks in the Americas before Columbus. If they could do it. Why couldn't another group do it?

http://www.blackhistoryjohnmoore.bravehost.com/mexican.html

There were possibly Phoenicians in America before Columbus. If they could sail to the Americas in the same time frame as Lehis' group. Why couldn't Lehis' group do it.

http://www.sfslac.org/Library/PhoeniciansDiscoverAmerica.htm

There were Norse in America before Columbus. If they could do it in open boats. Why couldn't another group do it?

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

Again Neanderthal DNA is different than modern human DNA, albeit very small. The Modern Human DNA differenences are even smaller. Further with 2600 years of mixing of unknown genetics would be indistinguishable. Heck the best we can do is tell that the proposed children of Thomas Jefferson and Sally were from some male in the Jefferson family, and that was only about 200 years ago not 2600.

[cinepro]

thesometimesaint, on 22 January 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

Rob Osborn:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth

That certainly is an official opinion. I will note that.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but just in case:

“Those who have written and edited [the Encyclopedia of Mormonism] have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” - Daniel H. Ludlow

Edited January 23, 2012 by cinepro

[Senator]

... But it is the norm for anti Mormons.

... our anti Mormon friend..

...canard from anti Mormons ..

Dang Jeff, you're almost there!!!

If you could just squeeze in two more "anti Mormons" per paragraph, your argument would then be bullet proof..

[Jeff K.]

Senator, please look up the definition of "paragraph". You would have been better to say "post".

Secondly.....

Are you saying these are NOT the tactics of anti Mormons?