News DNA tests disprove Mormon scripture

[quantumcarl]

No, I'm glad you posted their side, of course, they have a specific agenda trying to tap dance around the truth in an effort to salvage what they can. That's completely to be expected, can't blaim them. Fact is, the people doing DNA testing on the American Indians had no agenda, they were not trying to disprove the Book of Morman, it just happened that their findings disprove the story made up in the Book of Mormon.

I'm not sure but, is it the Mormons who have underground bunkers full of geneological records by name? A whole lot of "begats"?
SOS2008, not bagettes!(aka french bread)

I was rhyming leven with heaven. Did you just call me a mormon?

 

[SOS2008]

I think that, when confronted with conflicting ideas from science and religion, most people choose one of 3 paths: they completely reject science in favor of their religious views, the accept the science and stop believing in the religion, or they take a viewpoint that both must be correct and try to reconcile the two. The more strict the religion, the more people will be polarized to one of the two extreme views rather than taking the middle ground.

That is applicable to all of Christianity (i.e., the Bible) and all religions (the Torah, Koran, etc.). One must remember that before written records, history was passed down by story telling. Good story tellers embellished. Also, many story tellers/prophets used parables (including Christ, Mohammad, etc.). IMO, this is why a literal belief of any scripture is silly.

At the same time -- returning to the topic of DNA, most theories such as Africa being the cradle of life (Eve) remain unproven. Also there is not complete acceptance of Plate Tectonics, and when/how land masses may have moved. Look how many times dates have been changed in regard to Earth's history (e.g., the appearance of man). Of course migration took place across the Bering Straits, but who is to say other peoples could not have made it to the Americas by boat as well? How recently have we learned, for example that the Vikings sailed to the Americas before Columbus? Look at the peoples who inhabit islands in the Pacific (Polynesian), and what a mix of origin there is. And how reliable are these tests to separate genes in the determination of one single origin?

I completely support science and the scientific method, but the more we learn the more we realize we don't know.

 

[vanesch]

More productive from their point of view would be to interpret the material metaphorically. That's how mainstream churches cope with Genesis. Of course that's how they also lost a lot of their worshipers to the fundamentalists!

Theology is the art of reconsiling - in one way or another - reveiled religious sources with observation, such as to reduce the tension between what's to be believed and what's seen. Some religions have better theologists than others

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Often, the impetus for faith is what a person believes to be a personal spiritual experience. This is what makes a person believe. For example, the mormons constantly "give witness" in the form of testimonials. So this is really what science runs up against here - faith rooted in personal experiences.

i.e. Since I had a powerful spiritual experience, this religion and all that it teaches must be true.

 

[quantumcarl]

Often, the impetus for faith is what a person believes to be a personal spiritual experience. This is what makes a person believe. For example, the mormons constantly "give witness" in the form of testimonials. So this is really what science runs up against here - faith rooted in personal experiences.

i.e. Since I had a powerful spiritual experience, this religion and all that it teaches must be true.

Its when a religious person expects everyone else to believe the beliefs they have gathered from their personal experiences that things get ugly. In Canada practically every firstnation child from the 1800s to mid 1900s was taken from their parents and put through "residential schools" to "learn english" and to learn about the Catholic, Anglican, Baptisimal Gods.

An outside observer would say (and are saying) that these religions abducted the children to satisfy their own pedophile fetishes because of the evidence that most of the children in residential schools were raped and physically abused. Catholic nuns committed the same atrocities as the priests.

Religion seems to provide reason and an excuse for any type of behaviour and any type of theory one can come up with... as long as you're wearing a tall, pointy hat... or know someone who does.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You'd be surprised at just how long a religion will cling to beliefs in the face of proof. It took over a hundred years before the Catholic Church would accept the Earth went round the sun and was not the centre of the universe.

If equivalence holds (and I'm sure we all believe it does), geocentrism, heliocentrism and any other conceivable model reformulated to consistency with observation is unfalsifiable. We can't say whether the Earth is or is not the physical center of the universe with the tools of our cosmology since the question itself is absurd under them. On the other hand, we can say that geocentrism is less parsimonious than heliocentrism. Parsimony at that scale is hardly the most convincing scientific argument against a model, especially to those who lack a rigorous background in science.

The point is that we show a deep contempt or ignorance of history when we ridicule people who lived centuries before the innovation of rockets and space probes for believing something that, for the most part, was consistent with observed evidence for millenia as well as the philosophical and religious convictions of all the major players. We also show a deep disrespect for Copernican celestial mechanics--which predates calculus--by pretending it is so obvious in the first place.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Galileo's discovery of the large satellites of Jupiter convinced a lot of people of heliocentrism, though I can't see why. Their orbits are perfect illustrations of epicycles!

 

[Skyhunter]

Of course migration took place across the Bering Straits,

Did anyone check which way the footprints were pointed?

I'm just asking.

 

[Skyhunter]

Often, the impetus for faith is what a person believes to be a personal spiritual experience. This is what makes a person believe. For example, the mormons constantly "give witness" in the form of testimonials. So this is really what science runs up against here - faith rooted in personal experiences.

i.e. Since I had a powerful spiritual experience, this religion and all that it teaches must be true.

I ate some mushrooms once that gave me a powerful religious experience.

I don't worship mushrooms though.

 

[Skyhunter]

More productive from their point of view would be to interpret the material metaphorically. That's how mainstream churches cope with Genesis. Of course that's how they also lost a lot of their worshipers to the fundamentalists!

Sad but true, those who believe they already know the truth will stop seeking it. IMO that is spiritual death. We exist in an infinite and eternal universe, to presume that we can know anything, let alone eternal truths and values is the height of arrogance. (Isn't arrogance one of the 7 deadlies?)

 

[climbhi]

A Quick Reply

Hmm, seems like little has changed around here over the past two years. This place is a lot bigger now, granted, but when I left to Brazil to serve as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints two years ago I think we were still debating this topic. Honestly, I think its kind of funny.

I won't bother to make an elaborate argument here, I simply don't have the time (I have a QM test tommorow that I should really be studying for right now). But, there are just a few things that I wanted to mention:

First, I was suprised by how bitterly some of the people who have posted oppose the LDS church. Your comments were entirely unreasonable and, as far as I know, unprovoked. I just don't understand, why the bitterness? Making such flagrantly uneducated statements just damages the credibility of anything reasonable you might have pointed out. Leaders of my Church have emphasized repeatedly that church members treats others of different faiths with respect and civility. I don't see why others can't afford us the same luxury.

Second, The Book of Mormon does not claim that Lehi and his family were the only group of people ever to inhabit the early Americas. In fact, it specifically mentions other groups of people who migrated to the American continent (Jaredites, Mulokites, and others for example). In Christ's recorded dealings with Lehi's descendants, he suggests that there were many other groups of people on the American continent. And, perhaps most importantly, the book does not ever suggest that other groups of people could not have migrated to the Americas, it actually suggests the contrary in several instances.

I don't want to get into complex gentic evolution debates here-frankly that's way out of my league, biology never was my strong suit-but its seems to me that much of what quantumcarl posted would actually serve to confirm the Book of Mormon's validity. There are also many other evidences available for those wishing to "prove" the book's validity. I won't post them because they honestly don't interest me that much (that and I really need to get to my studies), but I'm sure you could easily find them on the internet.

To anyone interested in what Mormon scholars have said about reconciling science with religion, I would recommend the book "Reflections of a Scientist." It was written by Henry Eyring, a brilliant chemist (even the Nobel website has suggested he was one of the most deserving scientists ever to be skipped over for a Nobel) and also an outstanding member of the Church. In it he talks about how he doesn't see any need to reconcile, per se, religion and science. Rather, he shows how, to him, they are really just compliments of one another, eaching adding to and enriching the other.

To finish, I wanted to make a specific reply to SkyHunter's last post about religious arrogance. Mormon's do not claim to know "all" truth, and we certainly have not stopped seeking it nor stopped trying to learn more of it! It is part of our doctrine, in fact, that while on Earth no one can know "all" truth. Anyone familiar with Mormon scripture would tell you that it repeatedly emphasizes the importance of continually seeking after truth. That really is what we try to do-humbly seek after truth. That's why I'll be studying tonight for my Quantum test tommorow. That's also why I'll read in my scriptures tonight.

Also, I just do not see how you can call the "presumption" of knowing eternal truths and values arrogant. We do not claim to have discovered them, or found them out through reason or any other method. Mormon doctrine teaches that such knowledge was given to everyone by a loving and wise Heavenly Father who has knowledge of all things. Such knowledge can be added to through obedience and dilligence, or diminished-but never extinguished-by disobedience and rebellion.

I hope this helps you to understand a little better our beliefs. Perhaps you can help me better understand genetic evolution someday when I don't have a test to study for This really was meant to be a respectful post, and I hope it came off that way. If not, my apologies.

 

[Anttech]

Ahh, A mormon, welcome. And you were respectful, and as I have said before, mormons are in general nice people nowadays.

However within our post, you have not confronted the evidence, that is stacked up against the book of mormon claims. There is NO evidence anywhere outside your book that anyone traveled from the M.E. whatever you want to call them, Jaredites, Lehi... This is a Science forum, this is why we are looking at the claims of Mormons, with respect to Hard scienctific evidence, and it doesn't bode well for your book.

 

[kmarinas86]

Didn't man in general come from the Middle East or North Africa area? I know the Mormon and Scientific timelines don't match each other, but both ideas do speak of an origin of man from near or in the Middle East area, whether it's evolutionary migration or the artificial dispersion of people from their homeland. If we take the evolutionary approach, it is obvious that the first ancestors came from this area. The recent ancestors would be Asian. But they are all ancestors. If we knew our genealogy really well, nearly all of us (if not 100%) would be able to track our ancestry back to the Middle East or North Africa - that would be the farthest back to my knowledge. Humans of all races share over 99% of their DNA.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I ate some mushrooms once that gave me a powerful religious experience.

Frankly, I doubt it. What you experienced was a drug.

 

[Anttech]

Frankly, I doubt it. What you experienced was a drug.

No what he eat/took was a Drug and what he experienced was a:

powerful religious experience

And Skyhunter my brother, I had the same :)

 

[SOS2008]

Didn't man in general come from the Middle East or North Africa area? I know the Mormon and Scientific timelines don't match each other, but both ideas do speak of an origin of man from near or in the Middle East area, whether it's evolutionary migration or the artificial dispersion of people from their homeland. If we take the evolutionary approach, it is obvious that the first ancestors came from this area. The recent ancestors would be Asian. But they are all ancestors. If we knew our genealogy really well, nearly all of us (if not 100%) would be able to track our ancestry back to the Middle East or North Africa - that would be the farthest back to my knowledge. Humans of all races share over 99% of their DNA.

Thank you for doing a better job of saying this than I did in my post. The African origin from which we all branched from is big news right now. You can buy a kit for $100 to find out how your ancestors migrated, and the more people who participate, the more refined the data can become. Still, I do not regard this 100% undisputed fact, but rather a strong theory.

 

[Evo]

Didn't man in general come from the Middle East or North Africa area? I know the Mormon and Scientific timelines don't match each other, but both ideas do speak of an origin of man from near or in the Middle East area, whether it's evolutionary migration or the artificial dispersion of people from their homeland. If we take the evolutionary approach, it is obvious that the first ancestors came from this area. The recent ancestors would be Asian. But they are all ancestors. If we knew our genealogy really well, nearly all of us (if not 100%) would be able to track our ancestry back to the Middle East or North Africa - that would be the farthest back to my knowledge. Humans of all races share over 99% of their DNA.

But that wouldn't apply here as the book of Mormon claims the migration happened 3500 BC straight from the Middle East. By that time, the "out of Africa" migration would have nothing to do with it.

 

[quantumcarl]

I don't want to get into complex gentic evolution debates here-frankly that's way out of my league, biology never was my strong suit-but its seems to me that much of what quantumcarl posted would actually serve to confirm the Book of Mormon's validity. There are also many other evidences available for those wishing to "prove" the book's validity.

Someone/thing erased my original reply to this post.

My main point was to urge the Mormon community to petition the Smithsonian Institute for any and all records and artifacts it has from the discovery that is described on the front page of the April 5th, 1909 edtion of the Phoenix Gazzette.

Remarkable Finds Indicate Ancient People Migrated From Orient: The latest news of the progress of the explorations or what is now regarded by scientists as not only the oldest archaeological discovery in the United States, but one of the most valuable in the world, which was mentioned some time ago in the Gazette was brought to the city yesterday by G.E. Kinkaid, the explorer who found the great underground citadel of the Grand Canyon during a trip from Green River, Wyoming, down the Colorado, in a wooden boat, to Yuma, several months ago.

According to the story related to the Gazette by Mr. Kinkaid, the archaeologists of the Smithsonian Institute, which is financing the expeditions, have made discoveries which almost conclusively prove that the race which inhabited this mysterious cavern, hewn in solid rock by human hands, was of oriental origin, possibly from Egypt, tracing back to Ramses.

Egypt and the Nile, and Arizona and the Colorado will be linked by a historical chain running back to ages, which staggers the wildest fancy of the fictionist. Under the direction of Professor S.A. Jordan, the Smithsonian Institute is now prosecuting the most thorough explorations, which will be continued until the last link in the chain is forged.

Nearly a mile underground, about 1480 feet below the surface, the long main passage has been delved into, to find another mammoth chamber from which radiates scores of passageways, like the spokes of a wheel. Several hundred rooms have been discovered, reached by passageways running from the main passage, one of them having been explored are 854 feet and another 634 feet.

This evidence and whether it is related to an Egyptian migration from 3500 bc may will help people to understand the origins of the Mormon belief in a tribe of Hebrews and their monothesiastic faith (sun god, "aten") arriving in America at that time, 1500 years before the Christian faith got started.

 

[Grogs]

But that wouldn't apply here as the book of Mormon claims the migration happened 3500 BC straight from the Middle East. By that time, the "out of Africa" migration would have nothing to do with it.

Your date is off by a few millenia. The BOM says Lehi's exodus took place shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, which has been dated to about 586 BCE. My copy actually states the Exodus took place in 600 BC, but I suspect that date was added by an editor, and not part of the original book.

@quantumcarl: I have to look at that story with a grain of salt. Surely, if the massive citadel/cave system is still there, you would expect countless archeologists from all over the SW United States would have explored it by now. It just seems too big for one group to cover up - it would require a conspiracy on a massive scale. I'm not saying that it *didn't* happen, just that it's odd that nobody in the past 100 years has followed up / been able to verify it.

 

[quantumcarl]

Your date is off by a few millenia. The BOM says Lehi's exodus took place shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, which has been dated to about 586 BCE. My copy actually states the Exodus took place in 600 BC, but I suspect that date was added by an editor, and not part of the original book.

@quantumcarl: I have to look at that story with a grain of salt. Surely, if the massive citadel/cave system is still there, you would expect countless archeologists from all over the SW United States would have explored it by now. It just seems too big for one group to cover up - it would require a conspiracy on a massive scale. I'm not saying that it *didn't* happen, just that it's odd that nobody in the past 100 years has followed up / been able to verify it.

All written accounts are subject to question and should be being taken with a grain of salt... whether its the Book of Mormon or the front page of the Phoenix Gazette from April 5th, 1909. Dating an exodus like the one Akenatenmoses initiated is tricky work that depends on oral and written record passed down over millenia. Accuracy is all but lost to the passing of time.

There have been many attempts to verify the Gazette story and all of them have returned with accounts of how the entrance to the "cave" described by Kincaid has been sealed with large boulders that reach well into the entrance.

There is also a ban on hiking in the area with risk of imprisonment and this "security" is in place under the guise of "public safety". You are allowed to climb the most dangerous cliffs in the US but just not the "dangerous" cliffs around the Temple of Isis in the Marble Canyon of the Grand Canyon.

Here is an account of where the site is. The author repeatedly warns against any attempt to follow his directions... as is required by law.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_orionzone_9.htm

 

[Evo]

Your date is off by a few millenia. The BOM says Lehi's exodus took place shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, which has been dated to about 586 BCE. My copy actually states the Exodus took place in 600 BC, but I suspect that date was added by an editor, and not part of the original book.

Thanks for the correction, then it's even less applicable.

@quantumcarl: I have to look at that story with a grain of salt. Surely, if the massive citadel/cave system is still there, you would expect countless archeologists from all over the SW United States would have explored it by now. It just seems too big for one group to cover up - it would require a conspiracy on a massive scale. I'm not saying that it *didn't* happen, just that it's odd that nobody in the past 100 years has followed up / been able to verify it.

Agree, I remember seeing a debunking of it some time ago, not sure where.

 

[Grogs]

Agree, I remember seeing a debunking of it some time ago, not sure where.

I did a little searching and this was the closest thing to a 'debunking' I could find:

http://www.philipcoppens.com/egyptiancanyon.html

It seems to be one of the most 'balanced' articles I could find on the subject. Unfortunately, a lot of the things that pop up when you do a search are 'woowoo' sites. That doesn't automatically make them wrong, but I think the story is muddy enough even without tales of time travel, giant lizards, and the Illuminati.

 

[Skyhunter]

To finish, I wanted to make a specific reply to SkyHunter's last post about religious arrogance. Mormon's do not claim to know "all" truth, and we certainly have not stopped seeking it nor stopped trying to learn more of it! It is part of our doctrine, in fact, that while on Earth no one can know "all" truth. Anyone familiar with Mormon scripture would tell you that it repeatedly emphasizes the importance of continually seeking after truth. That really is what we try to do-humbly seek after truth. That's why I'll be studying tonight for my Quantum test tommorow. That's also why I'll read in my scriptures tonight.

Also, I just do not see how you can call the "presumption" of knowing eternal truths and values arrogant. We do not claim to have discovered them, or found them out through reason or any other method. Mormon doctrine teaches that such knowledge was given to everyone by a loving and wise Heavenly Father who has knowledge of all things. Such knowledge can be added to through obedience and dilligence, or diminished-but never extinguished-by disobedience and rebellion.

I was not referring to any particular religion, since I believe everyone's religion is their own. I was referring to the religious practice of presuming that eternal truths and values are contained in a book.

BTW- nice post

 

[quantumcarl]

@quantumcarl: I have to look at that story with a grain of salt. Surely, if the massive citadel/cave system is still there, you would expect countless archeologists from all over the SW United States would have explored it by now. It just seems too big for one group to cover up - it would require a conspiracy on a massive scale. I'm not saying that it *didn't* happen, just that it's odd that nobody in the past 100 years has followed up / been able to verify it.

What works to further verify the account of the "complex " are the two distinctly separate views of two completely unrelated explorers of the Grand Canyon...

There is an article in the Arizona Gazette that precedes the larger April 5th article from March 12, 1909.

The article states that Kincaid traveled the entire length of the Colorado River and that he was "the second man to make this journey." So who was the first man to make this journey? That was the famous John Wesley Powell who explored the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon from 1869 to 1872.

In his book Exploration of the Colorado River and its Canyons, Powell describes his journey through the Grand Canyon. As he is passing through an area known as Marble Canyon, Powell sees in the canyon walls that,

great numbers of caves are hollowed out, and carvings are seen which suggest architectural forms, though on a scale so grand that architectural terms belittle them.

Powell may be using the term "architectural forms" to describe the beauty of the natural formations, but the fact that he includes mention of a great number of caves in the same sentence is certainly curious when viewed in the context of the 1909 Arizona Gazette (correct name of publication) article.

Later on, Powell describes a curious discovery:

I walk down the gorge to the left at the foot of the cliff, climb to a bench, and discover a trail deeply worn into the rock. Where it crosses the side gulches in some places steps have been cut. I can see no evidence of its having been traveled for a long time. It was doubtless a path used by the people who inhabited this country anterior to the present Indian races-the people who built the communal houses of which mention has been made.

I returned to camp about three o'clock and find that some of the men have discovered ruins and many fragments of pottery; also etchings and hieroglyphics on the rocks.

Compare Powell's discovery to the entrance described by G. E. Kinkaid in the Arizona Gazette:

"There are steps leading from this entrance some thirty yards from what was at the time the cavern was inhabited, the level of the river."

Both accounts describe stone steps carved into the rocks. The Gazette article also describes Kinkaid's discovery of "tablets engraved with hieroglyphics."

Powell also speculates that the creators of the steps he found were a race of people who came before the Indian races. He does not speculate on their origin, but it appears possible that both Powell and Kinkaid are describing discoveries that point to the same culture.What is also true is that two ancient bodies were found entombed at a site that an early Smithsonian expedition named the canyon, "del Muerto" — "of the Dead" in Spanish. Here, we have something that is virtually identical to what Kinkaid alleges: a cave, in a cliff, with a complex series of rooms, containing mummies… even the Smithsonian is involved. The one major difference is that this site is known, whereas Kinkaid’s isn’t.

But what the Mummy Cave equally proves, is that there is no need for Tibetans or Egyptians, perhaps just the local Anasazi. Mummy Cave may look very different from what we imagine Kinkaid was describing at the Marble Canyon… But with so little known about Kinkaid… we are in the dark on that until the Temple of Isis becomes another archaeological highlight and perhaps... a tourist attraction.