Vance Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 2 Nephi 1:6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.So, are you claiming that God didn't lead other people to this land? 1
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) How does one delete a post? I broke my promise to Vance. Edited November 30, 2014 by LinuxGal
Vance Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) I broke my promise to Vance.How? You still are not a problem for me. Nor does it look like you ever will be. I noticed you failed to answer a simple question. Edited November 30, 2014 by Vance
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Seriously, kicked from the chatroom? I didn't say anything.
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 This article has nothing to do with boats.When we address the Beringia migration, we are talking about a major migration of peoples who settled the Americas at the end of the Pleistocene--not a theory that excludes possibilities of other, smaller migrations of people at various times.That's all I was saying. And that is all the BOM needs really, if you think history is important for it. 1
Darren10 Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 The dating does not prove anything about the BOM but it may be used at least to quite down the narrative that all native Americans came from Asia and are Asian. Perhaps most of them did but not all of them. That's the way I see it on both accounts.
katherine the great Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 But even these people did come from Asia. Like LinuxGal said, ultimately we all came from Africa (if we go back far enough.) Finding mtDNA that is predominantly found in West Asia in East Asian people (24,000 years ago) just really isn't all that surprising. People migrate and mix. I'm an American with ancestors who came from France and England a couple hundred years ago. Before then, my people lived in Europe for many generations and yet my mtDNA (U3) is most commonly found in Romani gypsy people and in people around the Black Sea--it's extremely rare in Western Europe. That doesn't mean that my ancestors were not European--they were. My dad has a completely European Y-DNA type, and I look completely European. I just don't see this particular find as meaning anything other than that X is one of the founding haplogroups in Native Americans and it still supports a Bering strait migration. I don't even see this as an anomaly--it just helps explain X. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Don't confuse them with facts!Tu quoque.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 LinuxGal, on 30 Nov 2014 - 3:23 PM, said:2 Nephi 1:6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.So, are you claiming that God didn't lead other people to this land?The verse she cites merely indicates that everybody coming to the Americas (whether across Beringia, or by boat) came with God's permission. Nothing more.
LinuxGal Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 LinuxGal, on 30 Nov 2014 - 3:23 PM, said:The verse she cites merely indicates that everybody coming to the Americas (whether across Beringia, or by boat) came with God's permission. Nothing more. More than that, they would be brought by God, like the Mulekites and Jaredites. The other folk just took a walk.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 More than that, they would be brought by God, like the Mulekites and Jaredites. The other folk just took a walk.No, not more than that. Sorry.
Rob Osborn Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Just to clarify, I am an active, believing LDS person. I just like to look at things with as much data as I find reasonable. I find it reasonable to believe that Native American ancestry predates the Book of Mormon timeline by many thousands of years. I find it reasonable that secular historians/archaeologists/scientists usually get most things wrong. Thats why I stick to the scriptures and prophets. I have yet to find any "peer reviewed" (your criteria for belief) history of native Americans that support the Book of Mormon. So, either secular historians are spot on and the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud and fabrication, or, secular historians do not have a clue on how to interpret the evidence. Edited December 1, 2014 by Rob Osborn
Teancum Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 This just in from National Geographic. Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/ As the accepted "science" is constantly shifting and evolving, It will be interesting to watch where this one goes. It's also kind fun to read the comments at the end of the NG article, lots of pro and anti Mormons getting worked up.Since this is from a 24,000 year old bone and the migration is eastwards through Asia and still across the Bering sea land bridge I don't think this help with Book of Mormon defenses.
Teancum Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Kathrine and Robert;I agree it's not as telling as many would like to think it is but this discovery is extremely compatible with the Book of Mormon narrative, is it not?No it is not. Did you read the article? Edited December 1, 2014 by Teancum
katherine the great Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 I find it reasonable that secular historians/archaeologists/scientists usually get most things wrong. Thats why I stick to the scriptures and prophets. I have yet to find any "peer reviewed" (your criteria for belief) history of native Americans that support the Book of Mormon. So, either secular historians are spot on and the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud and fabrication, or, secular historians do not have a clue on how to interpret the evidence. Oh yes. Those are definitely the ONLY two possibilities! (This one gets a big eyeroll...)
Rob Osborn Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 I have never read any of your peer reviewed material that supports the Book of Mormon. Does this mean the book is false?
Darren10 Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) No it is not. Did you read the article?Yes. I read it soon after it was originally published. Edited December 2, 2014 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 I find it reasonable that secular historians/archaeologists/scientists usually get most things wrong. Thats why I stick to the scriptures and prophets. I have yet to find any "peer reviewed" (your criteria for belief) history of native Americans that support the Book of Mormon. So, either secular historians are spot on and the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud and fabrication, or, secular historians do not have a clue on how to interpret the evidence.Probably more in between but essentially I agree with the two options.
katherine the great Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Probably more in between but essentially I agree with the two options.You do? It sounds incredibly simplistic and unrealistic to me.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 More than that, they would be brought by God, like the Mulekites and Jaredites. The other folk just took a walk.The verse doesn't specify that. That is an interpretation. Read it again.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Just to clarify, I am an active, believing LDS person. I just like to look at things with as much data as I find reasonable. I find it reasonable to believe that Native American ancestry predates the Book of Mormon timeline by many thousands of years.Entirely reasonable, katherine, and I don't know of any Mormon anthropologists (including archeologists) who think otherwise.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 And if you want to get technical, all humans have African origins.True enough, and all humans from Africa have their origins in the ancestors of the Bushmen of southern Africa (although their range was likely much broader anciently), where we find the greatest genetic variation among any human subgroup on the planet. See http://phys.org/news/2011-03-genetic-analysis-modern-humans-evolved.html .
Robert F. Smith Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) I find it reasonable that secular historians/archaeologists/scientists usually get most things wrong. Thats why I stick to the scriptures and prophets. I have yet to find any "peer reviewed" (your criteria for belief) history of native Americans that support the Book of Mormon. So, either secular historians are spot on and the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud and fabrication, or, secular historians do not have a clue on how to interpret the evidence.Sometimes you are spot on, Rob, but here you have me flummoxed.There are plenty of peer reviewed articles and books on the history of Amerinds which are in synch with the Book of Mormon, and LDS scholars like John L. Sorenson use them regularly to show how they support data internal to the Book of Mormon. So I don't understand why you make the above statement, unless you are talking about the unscholarly articles and books written by anti-Mormons which make the false claim that this or that fact of American archeology is in conflict with the Book of Mormon. Of course, among archeologists (and anthropologists generally) there is plenty of variation in interpretation. This will happen in any area of research. Especially on the cutting edge. And those who selectively pick and choose their evidence and apply it invidiously to the Book of Mormon can predetermine fully negative conclusions. However, that is not scholarship, but an example of dirty pool, of cheating. Let me add that this sort of nonsense spills over into mainstream claims about the Book of Mormon. An example I just read is from “Olmec alternative origin speculations,” in Wikipedia, online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec_alternative_origin_speculations , where this statement is made: “. . . known not to have been part of or present in Olmec culture, including iron, silk, and elephants.” Archeologists working on Olmec culture know that tons of iron artefacts have been recovered at major Olmec sites. Other Mesoamericanists know that plenty of silken fabric was produced in Mesoamerica. As noted by Alan Miner, According to an article by John Sorenson, dictionaries define silk as a "fine, lustrous fiber produced by the larvae of certain insects." It refers especially to the fiber from which an Asian moth, Bombyx mori, spins its cocoon, but also to cloth more generally "something silklike." Silk from cocoons gathered from the wild in Mexico and spun into expensive cloth at the time of the Spanish conquest provides the most literal parallel to Asiatic "silk." Silklike fiber (kapok) from the pod of the Ceiba (or "silk-cotton") tree was gathered in Yucatan and spun; this seems to be what Landa referred to as "silk." Father Clavigero said of this kapok that it was "as soft and delicate, and perhaps more so, than silk." Furthermore, the silky fiber of the wild pineapple plant was prized in tropical America; it yielded a fiber, "finer and perhaps more durable than agave (henequen), derived from the pita floja ('silk-grass,' aecmea magdalenae)." Moreover, a silklike fabric was made by the Aztecs from fine rabbit hair. But even cotton cloth was sometimes woven so fine that specimens excavated at Teotihuacan and dating to the fourth century A.D. have been characterized as "of irreproachable evenness, woven . . . exceedingly fine," and "of gossamer thinness." [John L. Sorenson, "Possible 'Silk' and 'Linen' in the Book of Mormon," in J. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (F.A.R.M.S., 1992), p. 162] Finally, elephants (mammoths & mastodons) probably did not become fully extinct in the Americas until Olmec/ Jaredite times, thus making it possible that the early Jaredites were familiar with them. Edited December 2, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 2
Gervin Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Of course, among archeologists (and anthropologists generally) there is plenty of variation in interpretation. This will happen in any area of research. Especially on the cutting edge. And those who selectively pick and choose their evidence and apply it invidiously to the Book of Mormon can predetermine fully negative conclusions. However, that is not scholarship, but an example of dirty pool, of cheating.Likewise, those who selectively pick and choose their evidence and apply it invidiously to the Book of Mormon can predetermine fully positive conclusions. A predisposition to believe that the Book of Mormon reflects history is the best indicator of such motives and actions. And that is not scholarship. 1
Recommended Posts