Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[altersteve]

My ultimate intent is to focus back on population genetics and help you understand how it is that the descendants from a single individual (say an Amerindian) from lineage carrying mutations different from those found in, for example, Northern Europe, can be identified in the Northern European population even after 1,000 years have passed. But for now back to by CFR responses with which you seem unhappy.

That's fine. I understand that. But what you're not getting is that the vast majority of LDS scholars believe that most, if not all, Book of Mormon events in the New World took place in Mesoamerica. Thus, to counter this, it is the ancient Mesoamerican genome that you should be discussing, not pre-Columbian America as a whole, because that doesn't mean anything in relation to the actual Book of Mormon narrative. What do you know about the ancient Mesoamerican genome? How can you study ancient Mesoamerican genetics? Are there any surviving samples of this genome? Because comparing modern American Indian DNA to modern Jewish DNA is extraordinarily sloppy science and tells us absolutely nothing about the Book of Mormon (except that it did not take place across the entire Western Hemisphere, but we already know that).

You were apparently not convinced by the conversation that Joseph Smith claimed to have had with the angel Moroni, even though is recorded as scripture in the PoGP. I trust that the above two statements by Joseph Smith himself, as well as the story of Zelph below, will be sufficient evidence that Joseph Smith himself believed the American Indians to be the descendents of the Lamanites and that their geographic distribution in Book of Mormon times extended far beyond "a very limited area".

I agree with Joseph Smith that the modern American Indians are Lamanites; as I said before, all Native Americans are "Lamanites" because they are in some way related to Lehi, even if they are not . However, Joseph himself said on numerous occasions that he believed the Book of Mormon to have taken place primarily in Central America, especially after reading a book by John L. Stephens titled Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. In July 1842 he cited ruins in Guatemala as an example of evidence for the Book of Mormon. In October of that year he said in an article in the Times and Seasons that Zarahemla stood in Central America. It is clear that Joseph's understanding of the Book of Mormon evolved over time.

As to the claim that the Book of Mormon civilizations were limited to a small geographies area, please see the following from Church sources.

Helaman 3:8 does not say they covered the entire Western Hemisphere. Obviously, they didn't cover "the whole earth," but they probably did cover what was "the whole earth" from their perspective. This is rather disingenuous reading.

If the range of the Lamanites was restricted to a small area in Mesoamerica, then what was a white Lamanite doing in the North American Midwest?

The account of Zelph has been extensively discussed and studied. See, for example, Kenneth W. Godfrey's article here.

And you have yet to answer my question: "I do have to ask, though; what is, exactly, 'Phoenician DNA,' and how do you know what the genetic makeup of an ancient Phoenician person looks like? Is there an existing sample of 'Phoenician DNA' dating back to 600 BC or prior? If not, then how can you possibly make a claim like this?"

In other words, when we look for "Lamanite DNA," we have no idea what we're looking for. Plain and simple.

[Mariner]

That's fine. I understand that. But what you're not getting is that the vast majority of LDS scholars believe that most, if not all, Book of Mormon events in the New World took place in Mesoamerica. Thus, to counter this, it is the ancient Mesoamerican genome that you should be discussing, not pre-Columbian America as a whole, because that doesn't mean anything in relation to the actual Book of Mormon narrative. What do you know about the ancient Mesoamerican genome?

You are not asking the right questions. Here is a suggestion: why don't you go onto Google and simply look at some DNA migration maps?

Below are some links for you. First is a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) migration map. As mentioned several times, please note that this map displays both temporal and spatial information about these migrations.

http://www.roperld....grationMap.jpg

Here is a Y-DNA based migration map.

http://stolzworldwid...-FTDNA-2006.jpg

Note their similarity. Also note that, at this level of resolution, we have pretty much the same haplogroups migrating through, and ending up in, North, Central and South America.

Please also remember that by the time ancient Amerindians made it to North America, small variations in these general haplogroups that had been acquired by the New World genome would distinguish them from members of the same haplogroups in the Old World (provided that the analyses were done at sufficiently high resolution). As I have said several times, this is because of the 10,000 plus year Siberia / Beningia delay or "hold back" in the eastward migration of these Asian populations.

How can you study ancient Mesoamerican genetics?

Here is the point you seem to be missing. No ancient DNA was required to get these gene maps. These data were all derived from analysis of samples gathered from groups of living people. We do not need to have ancient DNA. The mutations that were acquired between about 30,000 years ago and 15,000 years ago by the four lineages crossing through Beringia to the New World have been detected, analyzed and dated from samples provided by living people The approximate time of acquisition or insertion of a genetic mutation into a population can be determined fairly accurately, provided that sufficient samples are available from that population. In the case of the Beringia migration, we know from archeology, geology and climate research the period in time when Barengia could be negotiated on foot.

So keeping in mind the well understood connection between pre-Columbian Native Americans and their Asian sister lineages, we know about ancient Mesoamerican DNA by looking at modern Mesoamerican DNA and comparing it with samples from regions to the North and to the South along the migratory route. By looking locally and over wider areas we can determine numbers for the frequency and geographic distribution of a given gene variant (allele) in the overall population. From these frequency numbers it is possible to calculate the age of the mutation. You can look this up on your own or refer to papers such as these to see how this works. The basic method is statistical and can represented by a simple equation as seen here:

http://www.damtp.cam...rs-pdf/GT98.pdf

http://genepath.med....osatellites.pdf

Since it is possible to estimate the age of a mutation in a population, given enough samples from that population, one can get a pretty good idea of what the pre-Columbian Mesoamerican genome looked like. It is certainly good enough that one could detect insertion of old world DNA from pre Columbian tans-oceanic contact.

Very simply stated, ancient or pre-Columbian Mesoamerican DNA looks like modern Mesoamerican genome without the mutations acquired since the arrival of Columbus. Since we know to within a few years when many of the European genetic markers were introduced, we have a benchmark that can be used to firm up the estimates for the acquisition of earlier markers in time.

Are there any surviving samples of this genome?

I hope you can see by now that it really doesn't matter. Fossil DNA would be nice, but given enough samples from a study population of interest ancient DNA would serve mostly as confirmation.

That being said, and in the interest of fair discussion, if one believed that the HLA frequency distribution data described in the Guthrie paper that Luconeus mentioned, then one might look for genetic sequence that codes for that antigen as a marker in the Mesoamerican population and see if there seemed to be a geographic locus for this marker. For example, if one were to show a concentration for this allele in some coastal area of Mesoamerica, with declining frequency of occurrence as distance increased from the locus, or if one could show that the allele was concentrated or distributed along a migratory route that lead from that point, then one could begin to build a case.

That is a big if, and I mention this only as an example of how one would look for a Lehite DNA contribution to the Amerindian genome if one wanted to test Guthrie's hypothesis. I note that (as far as I can see) no professional has taken him seriously enough to actually do this - and probably for good reason.

Because comparing modern American Indian DNA to modern Jewish DNA is extraordinarily sloppy science and tells us absolutely nothing about the Book of Mormon (except that it did not take place across the entire Western Hemisphere, but we already know that).

I agree 100%. This is something that you should talk to LDS apologists about, especially Bro. Lindsey. They are the ones who keep claiming that the detection of haploid X in the Amerindian genome helps their case.

I agree with Joseph Smith that the modern American Indians are Lamanites; as I said before, all Native Americans are "Lamanites" because they are in some way related to Lehi, even if they are not .

You might want to re-read and then re-phrase this sentence. As written, it is one of the best examples of what critics often term "Mormon think" that I have ever seen.

Helaman 3:8 does not say they covered the entire Western Hemisphere. Obviously, they didn't cover "the whole earth," but they probably did cover what was "the whole earth" from their perspective. This is rather disingenuous reading.

You may consider this as a disingenuous reading now, but before the DNA problem, my reading was pretty much what the standard reading would have been for this passage. I even remember discussing this in Seminary.

And you have yet to answer my question: "I do have to ask, though; what is, exactly, 'Phoenician DNA,' and how do you know what the genetic makeup of an ancient Phoenician person looks like? Is there an existing sample of 'Phoenician DNA' dating back to 600 BC or prior? If not, then how can you possibly make a claim like this?"

In other words, when we look for "Lamanite DNA," we have no idea what we're looking for. Plain and simple.

So, I hope you can see by now that we do not need to know what Phoenician DNA looked like in any kind of detail to state confidently that it did not enter the pre-Columbian Amerindian genome as a result of trans-oceanic migration. Again, this is because we can trace the genetic markers in Mesoamerican popuations back along the migrations routes through Barengia and back to Siberia.

That having been said, if you will concede that it doesn't matter, I will readily admit that I personally do not know what ancient Phoenician DNA looked like.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

You don't get. We don't know Lehis' family genetic map, we don't know his wifes', we don't know Ishmaels', or his daughters. We don't know where they settled in the New World, and we don't know the extent of intermarriage for the Nephites', and the BoM says that the Lamanites quickly intermarried with the inhabitants already there. Plus there were periods of time when the term Lamanite was anyone not Nephite, and other times when it was a political designation not a genetic one. So all of your Y-DNA maps are completely worthless to BoM ancestry.

[altersteve]

You might want to re-read and then re-phrase this sentence. As written, it is one of the best examples of what critics often term "Mormon think" that I have ever seen.

Sorry, I'm not sure what I was trying to say there. I think I was going to say that they are related to Lehi, but they do not have to be related to him by blood, or not in a literal sense. Remember what I wrote earlier, about how the "seed of Lehi" does NOT mean every modern American Indian is his literal descendant; similarly, everyone who is an "Israelite" is of the house of Israel, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is an Israelite is directly descended from Jacob. In other words, a person can be a "Lamanite" but not have Lehi as a direct ancestor at all. It simply means that he is a "Lamanite" via the covenant God made with Lehi (just as people are "Israelites" via God's covenant with Jacob). The Book of Mormon and the Old Testament make this all very clear. And futhermore, as thesometimesaint said, "Lamanite" was often used as a religious and political term, and had nothing to do with a person's ancestry at all.

To further add to what thesometimesaint said above, this whole issue is far more complex than what you're suggesting. It's not enough to simply look at the pre-Columbian American genome and see what you can find. The Book of Mormon is an intricate and complex work, and there are a lot of things it says that need to be taken into consideration, which is what you are not doing.

Edited January 26, 2012 by altersteve

[Mariner]

Mariner:

You don't get. We don't know Lehis' family genetic map, we don't know his wifes', we don't know Ishmaels', or his daughters. We don't know where they settled in the New World, and we don't know the extent of intermarriage for the Nephites', and the BoM says that the Lamanites quickly intermarried with the inhabitants already there. Plus there were periods of time when the term Lamanite was anyone not Nephite, and other times when it was a political designation not a genetic one. So all of your Y-DNA maps are completely worthless to BoM ancestry.

Please don't tell me that, even with your scientific background, you don't understand what I have spent several hours in total explaining, references and all. I really thought that you would be able to get this stuff. Does it not make you a bit nervous to imply that I don't "get it" when every single peer reviewed reference that has been provided on this thread supports my position (which happens to be the position of the scientific community at large on this issue)?

If you read my previous posts carefully and for comprehension, you will see that it does not matter what Lehi's DNA looked like in detail. All we need to know is that Lehi did not travel to the New World via Berengia between about 30,000 years ago and 15,000 years ago. Assuming that he and his group did not travel this route at this time, then their DNA would be substantially different from pre-Columbian Amerindian DNA because the two populations would have been reproductively isolated for at least 10,000 years.

Since, as I have stated with references, the genetic transfer related to the Beringia migration and subsequent expansion into the New World accounts completely for the Amerindian genome, any introduction of DNA markers from pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migrations woud be readily detected, especially with the use of high resolution mtDNA analysis and data crunching by supercomputers.

As stated unequivocally in several peer reviewed papers based on recent high resolution mtDNA analysis, and with the two exceptions already noted several times, there is no evidence for DNA from pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migrations in the pre-Columbian Amerindian genome - period.

I really doubt that you read what I wrote or that you have looked at the references I and others have provided. What I detect here is a knee-jerk response and am sort of disappointed by that.

If I am wrong on this issue, then the scientific community as a whole is wrong on this issue. It is unlikely that you would be able to convince the larger scientific community that they just don't get it.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mariner

[Mariner]

To further add to what thesometimesaint said above, this whole issue is far more complex than what you're suggesting. It's not enough to simply look at the pre-Columbian American genome and see what you can find. The Book of Mormon is an intricate and complex work, and there are a lot of things it says that need to be taken into consideration, which is what you are not doing.

I see that you are getting to the bottom of the apologetic barrel here. Please give me one example of an "intricacy" or "complexity" that would mitigate against what I have stated on this thread, keeping in mind that what I have said reflects the consensus scientific view on the issue.

[altersteve]

I see that you are getting to the bottom of the apologetic barrel here. Please give me one example of an "intricacy" or "complexity" that would mitigate against what I have stated on this thread, keeping in mind that what I have said reflects the consensus scientific view on the issue.

Are you going to respond intelligently to what I said in my last post or not?

And I also hope you know that we don't give two flying flips about what the "consensus scientific view" is. The "consensus scientific view" about claims made by the Church has been proven wrong many times before, and it won't be the last time.

Edited January 26, 2012 by altersteve

[Mariner]

Are you going to respond intelligently to what I said in my last post or not?

And I also hope you know that we don't give two flying flips about what the "consensus scientific view" is. The "consensus scientific view" about claims made by the Church has been proven wrong many times before, and it won't be the last time.

Please see my response to thesometimesaint above.

Your comment regarding not giving a flying flip about science is your second "Mormon think" type comment of the day.

You must be on a roll.

Now, are you going to give me an example of one of the mitigating 'complexities" you mentioned, or should I just assume that you were engaging in apologetic obfuscation?

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mariner

[altersteve]

Your comment regarding not giving a flying flip about science is your second "Mormon think" type comment of the day.

I never said I don't care about science. I said I don't care about what the "consensus" is. There's a difference. The "consensus" changes all the time.

Now, are you going to give me an example of one of the mitigating 'complexities" you mentioned, or should I just assume that you were engaging in apologetic obfuscation?

You want me to say it again?

Modern American Indians are related to Lehi, but they do not have to be related to him by blood, or not in a literal sense. Remember what I wrote earlier, about how the "seed of Lehi" does NOT mean every modern American Indian is his literal descendant; similarly, everyone who is an "Israelite" is of the house of Israel, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is an Israelite is directly descended from Jacob. In other words, a person can be a "Lamanite" but not have Lehi as a direct ancestor at all. It simply means that he is a "Lamanite" via the covenant God made with Lehi (just as people are "Israelites" via God's covenant with Jacob). The Book of Mormon and the Old Testament make this all very clear. And futhermore, as thesometimesaint said, "Lamanite" was often used as a religious and political term, and had nothing to do with a person's ancestry at all.

Edited January 26, 2012 by altersteve

[Mariner]

I never said I don't care about science. I said I don't care about what the "consensus" is. There's a difference. The "consensus" changes all the time.

You want me to say it again?

Modern American Indians are related to Lehi, but they do not have to be related to him by blood, or not in a literal sense. Remember what I wrote earlier, about how the "seed of Lehi" does NOT mean every modern American Indian is his literal descendant; similarly, everyone who is an "Israelite" is of the house of Israel, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is an Israelite is directly descended from Jacob. In other words, a person can be a "Lamanite" but not have Lehi as a direct ancestor at all. It simply means that he is a "Lamanite" via the covenant God made with Lehi (just as people are "Israelites" via God's covenant with Jacob). The Book of Mormon and the Old Testament make this all very clear. And futhermore, as thesometimesaint said, "Lamanite" was often used as a religious and political term, and had nothing to do with a person's ancestry at all.

And exactly how does any of this mitigate against the conclusion that, based on all relevant genetic, archeological and linguistic evidence, with two noted exceptions, there was no pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migration from the Old World to the New World as described in the Book of Mormon?

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mariner

[Jeff K.]

Modern American Indians are related to Lehi, but they do not have to be related to him by blood, or not in a literal sense. Remember what I wrote earlier, about how the "seed of Lehi" does NOT mean every modern American Indian is his literal descendant; similarly, everyone who is an "Israelite" is of the house of Israel, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is an Israelite is directly descended from Jacob. In other words, a person can be a "Lamanite" but not have Lehi as a direct ancestor at all. It simply means that he is a "Lamanite" via the covenant God made with Lehi (just as people are "Israelites" via God's covenant with Jacob). The Book of Mormon and the Old Testament make this all very clear. And futhermore, as thesometimesaint said, "Lamanite" was often used as a religious and political term, and had nothing to do with a person's ancestry at all.

And exactly how does any of this mitigate against the conclusion that, based on all relevant genetic, archeological and linguistic evidence, with two noted exceptions, there was no pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migration from the Old World to the New World as described in the Book of Mormon?

I once went through a dense jungle. No light from the sun could penetrate it. Mariner is like the heart of darkness.

[Jeff K.]

Atoms were only a theory until they were proven to exist. Before their proven existence Mariner would have you believe no atoms existed.

[altersteve]

And exactly how does any of this mitigate against the conclusion that, based on all relevant genetic, archeological and linguistic evidence, with two noted exceptions, there was no pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migration from the Old World to the New World as described in the Book of Mormon?

You're changing the subject, but you're still wrong, because there is what many consider to be evidence of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migration. You just don't believe that because it's not the "consensus scientific view."

Seriously, if you have to let the mainstream scientific community dictate what you believe about how the world works, instead of coming to your own conclusions, then I feel sorry for you.

Edited January 26, 2012 by altersteve

[Mariner]

Jeff K. and altersteve,

Okay. This has been a very enlightening discussion. Let me make sure that I understand what your are saying here.

1. The Book of Mormon migrations took place even if there is no archeological, linguistic or genetic evidence whatsoever to support this claim, and a great deal of evidence against it.

2. Joseph Smith taught that the Western Indian tribes of North American were Lamanites until he read a book on Mesoamerica and decided that Mesoamerica would be a better setting for his story.

3. From MI the apologetic you referred me to on Zelph: the fact that Zelph was found in the North American Midwest does not mean that the Nephites and Lamanites did not live in a relatively small geographic area in Mesoamerica that cannot be identified (and the fact that Zelph had somehow escaped the curse of dark skin does not mean that he was not a true Lamanite).

4. We can be confident that the Book of Mormon events took place in a relatively small geographical area of Mesoamerica that cannot be identified even though the Book of Mormon states clearly that the Lamanites "covered the face of the whole earth from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east."

5. All Lamanites are related to Lehi even if they are not.

6. And scientists can take a flying flip if they don't agree with all of the above.

Does that pretty much sum up your consensus position?

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

Your condescension is duly noted. Take it elsewhere.

First in any genetic study you need a base population. We don't know what that base population is to work from. Secondly you need a target population. Again we have no idea as to what that target population is to work towards. Your "Peer Reveiwed" studies are worthless without those two things known. It is like asking what is the genetic base of citizens of the US?

[altersteve]

1. The Book of Mormon migrations took place even if there is no archeological, linguistic or genetic evidence whatsoever to support this claim, and a great deal of evidence against it.

Except that there is what many consider to be archaeological, lingusitic, and genetic evidence for this. But, like I said, you simply don't want to accept it because it's not the "consensus."

2. Joseph Smith taught that the Western Indian tribes of North American were Lamanites until he read a book on Mesoamerica and decided that Mesoamerica would be a better setting for his story.

No. That's not even close to what I said. Joseph taught that all Native Americans were, and are, Lamanites. He seemed to believe, however, that Central America was somehow relevant to the Book of Mormon, although his understanding of where "his story" took place grew over time. This changes nothing about his previous teaching about all Indians being Lamanites, because, as I've explained before, anyone who was not a Nephite was, in technical terms, a "Lamanite."

3. From MI the apologetic you referred me to on Zelph: the fact that Zelph was found in the North American Midwest does not mean that the Nephites and Lamanites did not live in a relatively small geographic area in Mesoamerica that cannot be identified (and the fact that Zelph had somehow escaped the curse of dark skin does not mean that he was not a true Lamanite).

No. The article does not say any of this. We don't know when Zelph existed, nor do we know exactly what Joseph Smith said about him because we have no firsthand account of him saying anything about Zelph at all. It is true, though, that the fact that he was discovered in the Midwest does not mean that the Nephites did not in the Mesoamerican area, since Zelph could very well have lived after the primary Book of Mormon events, or during the years that Moroni was traveling (about which time we know very little, if anything at all, with regards to Nephite history). And furthermore, the Lamanites were not given a "curse of dark skin." The dark skin was a mark, not the curse, and the Book of Mormon says nothing about later Lamanites with regard to this.

4. We can be confident that the Book of Mormon events took place in a relatively small geographical area of Mesoamerica that cannot be identified even though the Book of Mormon states clearly that the Lamanites "covered the face of the whole earth from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east."

Once again, they obviously didn't cover "the face of the whole earth." This is an obviously metaphorical statement, and describes how they covered "the whole earth" from their own perspective. Then again, it should be pointed out that, to the Nephites, anyone who was not a Nephite was considered a Lamanite (since it later became a religious and political term that did nothing to describe a person's ancestry), so by that defintion, the Lamanites did, in fact, cover the entire Western Hemisphere. But I still don't think that's what this verse is saying.

5. All Lamanites are related to Lehi even if they are not.

No. Once again, that's not what I said. To accuse me of saying something that idiotic proves that you never really read anything I wrote about this topic whatsoever.

6. And scientists can take a flying flip if they don't agree with all of the above.

I never said that either.

Does that pretty much sum up your consensus position?

Not even close.

Edited January 26, 2012 by altersteve

[Jeff K.]

Reminds me of Shakespeare's Dogberry

[Mariner]

There is in fact archaeological, lingusitic, and genetic evidence to support this claim. Like I said, you simply don't accept it because it's not the "consensus."

Please provide just one piece each of archeological, linguistic and genetic evidence that trans-oceanic migration took place as described in the Book of Mormon. It would be best if one of these artifacts was an example of reformed Egyptian.

No. That's not even close to what I said. Joseph taught that all Native Americans were, and are, Lamanites. He seemed to believe, however, that the primary Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica. This changes nothing about his previous teaching about all Indians being Lamanites.

You are now claiming that when the Lehites finally arrived in the New World, the Lamanites were already here. Is this now doctrine or simply apologetics?

And furthermore, the Lamanites were not given a "curse of dark skin." The dark skin was a mark, not the curse, and the Book of Mormon says nothing about later Lamanites with regard to this.

These are passages from the Book of Mormon wherein Nephi is describing the fate of his brothers Laman and Lemuel and their descendants, the Lamanites.

2 Nephi 5

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be ^aloathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that ^amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their ^acursing which was upon them they did become an ^bidle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to ^astir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

There seems to be a lot of cursing going on here.

Then again, it should be pointed out that, to the Nephites, anyone who was not a Nephite was considered a Lamanite (since it later became a religious and political term that did nothing to describe a person's ancestry), so by that defintion, the Lamanites did in fact cover the entire Western Hemisphere.

Please show where it says in the Book of Mormon that the designation of Lamanite had nothing to do with ancestry. Please note that the scriptures quoted above would militate against your statement.

No. That's not what I said.

Here is what you said in Post # 526 above.

“I agree with Joseph Smith that the modern American Indians are Lamanites; as I said before, all Native Americans are "Lamanites" because they are in some way related to Lehi, even if they are not.”

I never said that either.

Here is what you said:

And I also hope you know that we don't give two flying flips about what the "consensus scientific view" is. The "consensus scientific view" about claims made by the Church has been proven wrong many times before, and it won't be the last time.

Interesting assertion. Would you mind providing one example wherein the scientific consensus about claims made by the Church has been proven wrong?

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mariner

[altersteve]

Please provide just one piece each of archeological, linguistic and genetic evidence that trans-oceanic migration took place as described in the Book of Mormon. It would be best if one of these artifacts was an example of reformed Egyptian.

Brother John L. Sorenson has a lot to say about this subject. As for reformed Egyptian, it helps us to realize that the Book of Mormon specifically says that the Nephites' reformed Egyptian script was developed by them for the purpose of writing their sacred scriptures, and the claim is never made that it was used for anything but. And since the Spaniards destroyed all the religious and historical records when they invaded, we should have no reason to expect to find any example of it. For interesting information on "reformed Egyptian," please see:

http://maxwellinstit...nscripts/?id=36

http://maxwellinstit...=5&num=2&id=128

http://en.fairmormon...formed_Egyptian

You are now claiming that when the Lehites finally arrived in the New World, the Lamanites were already here. Is this now doctrine or simply apologetics?

No, I'm not claiming that. I do believe, however, that there were people here when Lehi and his family arrived. The Church does not have an official position whether or not this is the case, but I believe it to be so based on my own understanding, my own reasoning abililties, and my own reading of the Book of Mormon. It has nothing to do with "apologetics," because I don't consider myself an apologist.

These are passages from the Book of Mormon wherein Nephi is describing the fate of his brothers Laman and Lemuel and their descendants, the Lamanites.

2 Nephi 5

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be ^aloathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that ^amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their ^acursing which was upon them they did become an ^bidle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to ^astir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

There seems to be a lot of cursing going on here.

Yes, there does. But the curse is not black skin. The curse is a separation from God because their rejection of the gospel: "Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence" (2 Nephi 5:20).

How convenient for you to leave that verse out.

Please show where it says in the Book of Mormon that the designation of Lamanite had nothing to do with ancestry. Please note that the scriptures quoted above would militate against your statement.

"Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:13-14).

This passage makes it obvious that when the people of Nephi established a government ("the reigns of the kings"), "Nephite" and "Lamanite" became terms that no longer described a person's ancestry. Rather, they described a person's beliefs: either they reject the gospel of Jesus Christ and "seek to destroy the people of Nephi" (Lamanites), or they believe and practice Nephite religion and "are friendly to Nephi" (Nephites). This was clearly the Nephite understanding.

Here is what you said in Post # 526 above.

“I agree with Joseph Smith that the modern American Indians are Lamanites; as I said before, all Native Americans are "Lamanites" because they are in some way related to Lehi, even if they are not.”

And I already explained that that's not what I meant. That was a clumsy mistake that I forgot to fix before I submitted the post.

Here is what you said:

And I also hope you know that we don't give two flying flips about what the "consensus scientific view" is. The "consensus scientific view" about claims made by the Church has been proven wrong many times before, and it won't be the last time.

Interesting assertion. Would you mind providing one example wherein the scientific consensus about claims made by the Church has been proven wrong?

Sure:

As you can see, Book of Mormon evidences are adding up, and they will continue to do so.

[Mariner]

altersteve,

Guess you were correct on the issue of the use of the term Lamanites in the Book of Mormon to designate other than ancestry or lineage. Well done.

While you are technically correct, you will have to admit that all of the Lamanite lineages mentioned were named after folks who were in the original Lehite party according to the BoM. I don't see how this passage makes the case for others who were already in the New World also being called Lamanites, but you have stated that this is really your own view, so that's fine as well.

With regard to the Lamanites being cursed with a black skin, please read 2 Nephi 5:21 again, especially the bolded passage.

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

As for evidence that you believe supports Book of Mormon truth claims; all I can say is that you have got to be kidding me. None of this is evidence for Book of Mormon truth claims unless these artifacts and conditions would have not otherwise been reasonably expected to be present in Mesoamerica.

As I look over your list, the only artifact that one might not otherwise expect to be in Mesoamerica would be Hebrew language text. If you happen to know why this claim is marked as confirmed, I would be interested to know. I am sure the scientific community would be fascinated to hear about this as well.

In any case, apologists need to show that the Book of Mormon narrative constitutes the most likely explanation for the presence of these artifacts in Mesoamerica. If I can come up with a better (more parsimonious) hypothesis to explain the presence of these artifacts in Mesoamerica, then the apologists have no real supporting evidence.

I realize that you probably don't believe this to be the case, but unfortunately that is how evidence works in science.

Earlier in this thread I said that I would write a post about the problems with the LDS claim often applied to missing evidence of Book of Mormon migrations to the effect that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It would appear that the time has come to post this information and so I will try to get this done later today or tomorrow.

In the meantime, thanks for your Status of Book of Mormon Claims charts. They are very interesting. However, as I have pointed out, they do not constitute supporting evidence for Book of Mormon claims and I will explain why that is in a subsequent post.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mariner

[altersteve]

With regard to the Lamanites being cursed with a black skin, please read 2 Nephi 5:21 again, especially the bolded passage.

I'm aware of what the bolded passage says. What it does not say is that this "skin of blackness" was the curse. All it says is that "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" so that "they might not be enticing unto [Nephi's] people." It's a mark of the curse, but not the curse itself. As I have already shown you, the "curse" was that they would be separated from God as a result of their wickedness.

As for evidence that you believe supports Book of Mormon truth claims; all I can say is that you have got to be kidding me. None of this is evidence for Book of Mormon truth claims unless these artifacts and conditions would have not otherwise been reasonably expected to be present in Mesoamerica.

When the Book of Mormon was first published, none of them were reasonably expected to be present anywhere in pre-Columbian America.

As I look over your list, the only artifact that one might not otherwise expect to be in Mesoamerica would be Hebrew language text. If you happen to know why this claim is marked as confirmed, I would be interested to know. I am sure the scientific community would be fascinated to hear about this as well.

In this interview, Brian Stubbs provides his reasoning for believing that there may be a possible link between Semitic and Mesoamerican languages:

http://maxwellinstit...=228&cat_id=292

Also take a look at Stubbs' article below :

http://maxwellinstit...=5&num=1&id=112

Also, this doesn't have anything to do with the Hebrew language, but it's very interesting:

http://www.deseretne....html?s_cid=s10

In any case, apologists need to show that the Book of Mormon narrative constitutes the most likely explanation for the presence of these artifacts in Mesoamerica. If I can come up with a better (more parsimonious) hypothesis to explain the presence of these artifacts in Mesoamerica, then the apologists have no real supporting evidence.

Usually, but not always, the Book of Mormon never gives explanations for why these artifacts existed in Mesoamerica. It only says they were there.

I realize that you probably don't believe this to be the case, but unfortunately that is how evidence works in science.

I was actually very aware of this.

Earlier in this thread I said that I would write a post about the problems with the LDS claim often applied to missing evidence of Book of Mormon migrations to the effect that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It would appear that the time has come to post this information and so I will try to get this done later today or tomorrow.

This doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but go for it.

In the meantime, thanks for your Status of Book of Mormon Claims charts. They are very interesting. However, as I have pointed out, they do not constitute supporting evidence for Book of Mormon claims and I will explain why that is in a subsequent post.

Go for it. But they are evidence, and you know it. Again, you just don't want to accept it because it's not the "consensus scientific view."

[Mariner]

altersteve,

Thanks for a lively discussion

The topic of this thread is supposed to be the mutual exclusivity of evolution and creation, so this last little discussion is already far off course.

I have learned a few things on this thread, though, including the real definition of a Lamanite and that science does not seem to count for much in this community.

Since a discussion of the meaning and use of an absence of evidence argument is even further off topic, I will post this on a new thread.

Have a good weekend.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mariner

[Nomad]

Wants to know: Just some friendly advice because I like you and I remember the story of your journey: It's probably better to not discuss evolution in church. I spend my weekdays studying human evolution and I consider it an indisputable fact, but, in spite of mountains of evidence, most LDS people don't want to look at it and flatly reject it.

I agree that it is pretty much pointless these days to discuss evolution in a church-setting, or even on message boards. That said, I don't believe AT ALL that there are "mountains of evidence" to support the dogma of modern evolutionists. In fact, I think the evidence is VERY scanty, at best. But those who believe in it and advocate it have managed to create an assumption of "indisputable" consensus where the majority of the so-called "experts" and "scientists" tell us that Darwinist dogma is essentially beyond question. Katherine's comment reflects that assumption of "indisputable" consensus. But I have spoken to and read books by scientific experts who disagree with the consensus, and they give what I think are very good reasons for their disagreement. A book I read a couple years ago that I really liked is The Case for Divine Design by Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, former professor of biology and plant physiology and former head of the Plant Science Department at Utah State University. Their reasons mainly boil down to the idea/belief that God has much greater power than is commonly believed to control the earth and its ecosystems, etc. I believe, like Dr. Salisbury, that our planet and all the life on it are the products of an intelligent designer (although I am not a follower of what is called the "Intelligent Design" movement.)

I reject many of the explanations of modern science as to the origins of life on this planet. I don't argue about these things with anyone, and I also read all I can about these issues. I'm just not persuaded that science is correct when it tries to explain how this earth and the life on it came to be. I think God has a whole lot more power than he is given credit for. And I believe the scriptures that say Adam and Eve were the first man and woman on the earth. I'm personally convinced that every human on this planet descends from a very real and historical Adam and Eve, and that they were the first humans on this planet.

I also don't believe that this is an issue that bears upon our salvation. That's why I don't talk about it in church settings or on message boards. And I don't get into debates about it with friends or family members. As far as I'm concerned, they are free to believe what they want to believe. I don't believe the various species have evolved from primordial organisms, but I accept the reality of evolution of life forms within strict parameters. We can see that in the form of intelligently directed, selective breeding of plants and animals. But I don't believe that humans share common ancestors with apes, or that cows share common ancestors with eagles, or that dolphins share common ancestors with dogs, etc.

That's all I have to say.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Nomad

[ERayR]

I agree that it is pretty much pointless these days to discuss evolution in a church-setting, or even on message boards. That said, I don't believe AT ALL that there are "mountains of evidence" to support the dogma of modern evolutionists. In fact, I think the evidence is VERY scanty, at best. But those who believe in it and advocate it have managed to create an assumption of "indisputable" consensus where the majority of the so-called "experts" and "scientists" tell us that Darwinist dogma is essentially beyond question. Katherine's comment reflects that assumption of "indisputable" consensus. But I have spoken to and read books by scientific experts who disagree with the consensus, and they give what I think are very good reasons for their disagreement. A book I read a couple years ago that I really liked is The Case for Divine Design by Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, former professor of biology and plant physiology and former head of the Plant Science Department at Utah State University. Their reasons mainly boil down to the idea/belief that God has much greater power than is commonly believed to control the earth and its ecosystems, etc. I believe, like Dr. Salisbury, that our planet and all the life on it are the products of an intelligent designer (although I am not a follower of what is called the "Intelligent Design" movement.)

I reject many of the explanations of modern science as to the origins of life on this planet. I don't argue about these things with anyone, and I also read all I can about these issues. I'm just not persuaded that science is correct when it tries to explain how this earth and the life on it came to be. I think God has a whole lot more power than he is given credit for. And I believe the scriptures that say Adam and Eve were the first man and woman on the earth. I'm personally convinced that every human on this planet descends from a very real and historical Adam and Eve, and that they were the first humans on this planet.

I also don't believe that this is an issue that bears upon our salvation. That's why I don't talk about it in church settings or on message boards. And I don't get into debates about it with friends or family members. As far as I'm concerned, they are free to believe what they want to believe. I don't believe the various species have evolved from primordial organisms, but I accept the reality of evolution of life forms within strict parameters. We can see that in the form of intelligently directed, selective breeding of plants and animals. But I don't believe that humans share common ancestors with apes, or that cows share common ancestors with eagles, or that dolphins share common ancestors with dogs, etc.

That's all I have to say.

Nomad:

I agree with your assesment. I would add that in my view evolution would negate the doctine fo the fall and with it the doctrine of an atonement. Evolution is a story of gradual development and rise, whereas the scriptures speak of a severance and a fall from celestial realms with an atonement and reconciliation with those higher realms by Jesus Christ. Like Nomad I do not find the "mountains of evidence" compelling for several reasons.

[thesometimesaint]

That is a religious opinion and not a scientific fact.

You can believe that the sun revolves around the earth, about a quarter of the adult population of the US does. But that religious belief(IE; "It says so in the Bible" The Bible doesn't actually say that, but those people sure religiously believe it does)) in no way negates the fact that the earth rotates around the sun.