More scripture

waitasec · Nov 21, 2010

Katzpur said:
I believe most, if not all Christians, believe believe that Jesus pre-existed before His birth. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but according to the Bible, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." All Christians agree that "the Word" was Jesus Christ. He was the Creator of heaven and earth (under His Father's direction), He was known even then, as the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Of course He existed before His birth! He didn't "[come] into being when he was conceived in Mary's womb." That is when He was made flesh, but He was in existence long before that. I don't think you'll have much trouble finding a great many Christians who would agree with me.

christ means messiah...
are you telling me the jews didn't expect a messiah?
Mosiah 18:5,17
"in Mormonthey were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward" [c. 148145 B.C]
it seems to me by saying "they were called the church of christ" is trying to separate the expecting jews of a messiah
from the jews who were expecting a messiah...
when all jews were expecting a messiah...this doesn't make any sense unless of course
the meaning of the word "christ" in the book of mormon is different from it's original meaning in the jewish tradition

Alma 46:13-16
{15} all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called [c. 73-72 B.C

lets replace the name christ with messiah, since this is it's original meaning.
'all those true believers in the messiah took upon them, gladly, the name messiah, or messiah's followers as they were called...'
how can anyone separate the jews from the jews since they all expected a messiah...

and of course there is no historical evidence for such a claim...
no mention of the word "christ" before BC....

The spelling Christ (Greek Genitive: τοῦ Χριστοῦ, toú Christoú,; Nominative: ὁ Χριστὸς, ho Christós) in English was standardized in the 18th century, when, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, the spelling of certain words was changed to fit their Greek or Latin origins. Prior to this, in Old and Middle English, the word was usually spelled Crist the i being pronounced either as /iː/, preserved in the names of churches such as St Katherine Cree, or as a short /ɪ/, preserved in the modern pronunciation of Christmas). The spelling "Christ" is attested from the 14th century.[2]
The term Christ (or similar) appears in English and most European languages, owing to the Greek usage of Christós (transcribed in Latin as Christus) in the New Testament as a description for Jesus. In the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible, it was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew mashiach (messiah), meaning "anointed."[3]
Khristós in classical Greek usage could mean covered in oil,, or annointed,[4] and is thus a literal translation of messiah.
[edit]

Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Katzpur · Nov 21, 2010

waitasec said:
christ means messiah...

I know what "Christ" means.

are you telling me the jews didn't expect a messiah?

Of course not. That's not what I said at all.

Mosiah 18:5,17
"in Mormonthey were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward" [c. 148145 B.C]
it seems to me by saying "they were called the church of christ" is trying to separate the expecting jews of a messiah
from the jews who were expecting a messiah...

Sorry, I don't understand why you see it this way.

when all jews were expecting a messiah...this doesn't make any sense unless of course
the meaning of the word "christ" in the book of mormon is different from it's original meaning in the jewish tradition

I'm sorry, waitasec, but I really don't know what you're driving at. These people were the descendants of Joseph (who was sold into Egypt) through his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. They were eagerly awaiting the coming of a Messiah and, even before He came, looked to Him for redemption of their sins and salvation. They continued to live the law of Moses, but knew enough of the coming Christ from their prophets that they wanted to associate themselves with Him.

Alma 46:13-16
{15} all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called [c. 73-72 B.C

lets replace the name christ with messiah, since this is it's original meaning.
'all those true believers in the messiah took upon them, gladly, the name messiah, or messiah's followers as they were called...'
how can anyone separate the jews from the jews since they all expected a messiah...

I'm sorry, I'm really trying to follow your logic but I'm having a hard time. The people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon, unlike their Jewish brothers in the Holy Land, recognized that the Messiah who would come would be Jesus Christ, He who would be born in Bethlehem to a virgin named Mary. The Jews would reject Jesus, but the people spoken of in Mosiah and Alma, believing what their prophets had said about Him, would not.

and of course there is no historical evidence for such a claim...

There's no historical evidence for the Exodus either. That doesn't stop billions from believing it happened.

no mention of the word "christ" before BC....

Except in the Book of Mormon, which is focused on Him from beginning to end.

The spelling Christ (Greek Genitive: τοῦ Χριστοῦ, toú Christoú,; Nominative: ὁ Χριστὸς, ho Christós) in English was standardized in the 18th century, when, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, the spelling of certain words was changed to fit their Greek or Latin origins. Prior to this, in Old and Middle English, the word was usually spelled Crist the i being pronounced either as /iː/, preserved in the names of churches such as St Katherine Cree, or as a short /ɪ/, preserved in the modern pronunciation of Christmas). The spelling "Christ" is attested from the 14th century.[2]

Click to expand...

The term Christ (or similar) appears in English and most European languages, owing to the Greek usage of Christós (transcribed in Latin as Christus) in the New Testament as a description for Jesus. In the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible, it was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew mashiach (messiah), meaning "anointed."[3]
Khristós in classical Greek usage could mean covered in oil,, or annointed,[4] and is thus a literal translation of messiah.
[edit]

I'd comment on this, but I'm really not sure why you posted it. Sorry to be so slow on figuring out what you want from me.

Autodidact · Nov 21, 2010

wordmagnifiedabovenames said:
By using the "discernment of spirits" gift mentioned in 1 Cor 12.

Right, so how would you do that exactly. Could you set it out in detail? Thanks.

roli · Nov 21, 2010

Elder_Bevan said:
I was wondering, in our church we Believe in the Bible as the word of god. We also believe the book of mormon to be the word of god, we believe we have a prophet on the earth, and that he too reveals the word of the lord to us. So my Question to all christians. does your religion believe that there is other scripture or Revelation?

Can you give some orginal and personal revelations your prophet has given that proves he is a prophet fom God.
I can quote scripture and be called a prophet by definition of the word.
I can prophecy over people by reading/quoting what the bible says concerning them and technically be called a prophet, so I ask, what is the proof he is a prophet and what has he said that indicates it comes from God.

.....just curious, as we are to test the spirits to see what comes from God,so here are some verses that speak of prophets ?

Num 12:6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, [and] will speak unto him in a dream
Jer 23 speaks of false prophets and how his wrath was against them.

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Deu 13:1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
Deu 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
Deu 13:3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
Deu 13:5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

DavyCrocket2003 · Nov 22, 2010

Well, who wants the Bible anyway? All we need is the Spirit! So let's just simplify things and get rid of all scripture! Wouldn't that be great?

Or... we can leave the essentials, but I am certain there are parts of the Bible that hardly ever get read. Isaiah is pretty confusing and hard to understand, let's get rid of it. The four Gospels basically all say the same thing. Mathew and John are my favorite, let's keep them.

Obviously I am kidding. But the idea is valid. Why would we need more scriptures? If for no other reason, because they are awesome! Don't you guys love feeling the Spirit when you read the Bible? Don't you love the power of God that is manifest in the stories and lives of people in the Bible? If the things in the Bible are valuable, wouldn't more of the same be good? If you believe the Bible is the word of God, and you love the word of God, you would love to have more of the word of God. I love the Book of Mormon for the same reason I love the Bible. It teaches me about God, and his nature. And it teaches me about his plan for us. It teaches me how to fulfill my purpose here on earth. It teaches me that God loves me. And it teaches me to love God.

The Book of Mormon led me to Jesus Christ.

DavyCrocket2003 · Nov 22, 2010

roli said:
Can you give some orginal and personal revelations your prophet has given that proves he is a prophet fom God.
I can quote scripture and be called a prophet by definition of the word.
I can prophecy over people by reading/quoting what the bible says concerning them and technically be called a prophet, so I ask, what is the proof he is a prophet and what has he said that indicates it comes from God.

.....just curious, as we are to test the spirits to see what comes from God,so here are some verses that speak of prophets ?

Num 12:6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, [and] will speak unto him in a dream
Jer 23 speaks of false prophets and how his wrath was against them.

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Deu 13:1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
Deu 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
Deu 13:3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
Deu 13:5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith multiple times. Have you heard of the Book of Mormon? It is fruit of the prophet Joseph Smith. Test the Spirit of that book. See if it is a true or false Spirit:

Jesus Christ said:

15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Click to expand...

Gaura Priya · Nov 22, 2010

I have an open Canon... with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, their canon stops at the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price... however, my canon is open to wherever I feel that the Truth of God's personality and greatness is magnified.

"Blessed is the spot, and the house, and place, and the city, and the heart, and the mountain, and the refuge, and the cave, and the valley, and the land, and the sea, and the island, and the meadow, where mention of God hath been made and His praise glorified."
-- Baha'u'llah

At least in the Community of Christ, their canon is open to whatever their Prophet reveals to the Christian group.

Katzpur · Nov 22, 2010

madanbhakta said:
I have an open Canon... with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, their canon stops at the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price... however, my canon is open to wherever I feel that the Truth of God's personality and greatness is magnified.

I'm really surprised to hear that you think we have a closed canon! God has never stopped communicating to His prophets. The most recent addition to the Doctrine and Covenants was in 1978. That's exactly where any new revelations would go.

waitasec · Nov 22, 2010

Katzpur said:
I'm sorry, waitasec, but I really don't know what you're driving at. These people were the descendants of Joseph (who was sold into Egypt) through his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. They were eagerly awaiting the coming of a Messiah and, even before He came, looked to Him for redemption of their sins and salvation. They continued to live the law of Moses, but knew enough of the coming Christ from their prophets that they wanted to associate themselves with Him.

ok, but they were still jews expecting a messiah...right? this is before jesus came here on earth physically...the name christ was not mentioned...there is no record of it, not until antioch....

I'm sorry, I'm really trying to follow your logic but I'm having a hard time. The people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon, unlike their Jewish brothers in the Holy Land, recognized that the Messiah who would come would be Jesus Christ, He who would be born in Bethlehem to a virgin named Mary. The Jews would reject Jesus, but the people spoken of in Mosiah and Alma, believing what their prophets had said about Him, would not.

again 'christ' was a greek translation after jesus resurrected
there is absolutely no mention of the word christ until antioch. unless you are saying these people knew the messiahs name was jesus before jesus was physically born...

There's no historical evidence for the Exodus either. That doesn't stop billions from believing it happened.

thats not a good argument for truth, is it now...?
6 million jews died because the germans believed they were "evil"

I'd comment on this, but I'm really not sure why you posted it. Sorry to be so slow on figuring out what you want from me.

i just wanted you to see how there is no evidence of the name 'jesus christ' ever mentioned until after antioch
the book of mormon wasn't "discovered" until way after antioch...quite suspect but that's just me

Gaura Priya · Nov 22, 2010

Katzpur said:
I'm really surprised to hear that you think we have a closed canon! God has never stopped communicating to His prophets. The most recent addition to the Doctrine and Covenants was in 1978. That's exactly where any new revelations would go.

Wow? Really? My bad!

I lost my Economy Triple somewhere, so I haven't looked at that section for ages!

Katzpur · Nov 22, 2010

waitasec said:
i just wanted you to see how there is no evidence of the name 'jesus christ' ever mentioned until after antioch
the book of mormon wasn't "discovered" until way after antioch...quite suspect but that's just me

Okay! I finally get what you've been trying to say. My response would be simply that we believe that Joseph Smith was guided in his translation of the plates. He knew that the individual being spoken of in the Book of Mormon was the person English-speaking Christians today know as "Jesus Christ." I don't know what word was used in the original, i.e. what word he was translating into English, but whatever it was, we believe he was acting under inspiration when he translated the word as "Christ." Obviously the people whose history is told in the Book of Mormon would not have used either the Greek or the English, so they may have referred to Jesus by some other word, such as simply the Messiah. But since the no English-speaking Christians say, "Jesus Messiah," Joseph correctly translated what he read as "Jesus Christ."

waitasec · Nov 22, 2010

Katzpur said:
Okay! I finally get what you've been trying to say. My response would be simply that we believe that Joseph Smith was guided in his translation of the plates. He knew that the individual being spoken of in the Book of Mormon was the person English-speaking Christians today know as "Jesus Christ." I don't know what word was used in the original, i.e. what word he was translating into English, but whatever it was, we believe he was acting under inspiration when he translated the word as "Christ." Obviously the people whose history is told in the Book of Mormon would not have used either the Greek or the English, so they may have referred to Jesus by some other word, such as simply the Messiah. But since the no English-speaking Christians say, "Jesus Messiah," Joseph correctly translated what he read as "Jesus Christ."

but that's just saying messiah...
and all jews were expecting a messiah
i don't understand how you can separate jews that were expecting a messiah from other jews (the lost tribe) that were expecting a messiah
do you follow?

Katzpur · Nov 22, 2010

waitasec said:
but that's just saying messiah...
and all jews were expecting a messiah
i don't understand how you can separate jews that were expecting a messiah from other jews (the lost tribe) that were expecting a messiah
do you follow?

Uh... I don't think I do.

The largest group of people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon descended from a small number of Israelites who left Jerusalem in abou 600 B.C. and were led by God to the American continent. (They were not one of the "Lost Tribes.") The leader of this group was a prophet named Lehi. He took with him copies of the words of Isaiah (and possibly other Old Testament prophets) because these words prophesied of a coming Messiah. Lehi and his son, Nephi, also received prophecies about the Messiah. Theirs were considerably more detailed. These prophesies foretold the coming of Jesus Christ and His ministry in the Holy Land (which would be recorded in the New Testament). They also said that He would, at some point after His death and resurrection, visit "His other sheep" in the Americas. All of the Jews expected the same Messiah. The same Messiah who was born in Bethlehem and who was crucified on Calvary later appeared to the Book of Mormon people. I'm not sure if you just aren't familiar with the story line in the Book of Mormon and if that's what's causing the confusion or if it's something else. If this post doesn't answer your question, maybe we're going to have to enlist the services of a "translator."

waitasec · Nov 22, 2010

Katzpur said:
Uh... I don't think I do. The largest group of people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon descended from a small number of Israelites who left Jerusalem in abou 600 B.C. and were led by God to the American continent. (They were not one of the "Lost Tribes.") The leader of this group was a prophet named Lehi. He took with him copies of the words of Isaiah (and possibly other Old Testament prophets) because these words prophesied of a coming Messiah.

i'm sorry, i'm having a hard time accepting this.

i'm sure you've seen this study about the DNA of native american's and how it contradicts this claim. how do you reconcile this?

New study questions authenticity of Book of Mormon - Salt Lake City Freethinking | Examiner.com

Katzpur said:
Lehi and his son, Nephi, also received prophecies about the Messiah. Theirs were considerably more detailed. These prophesies foretold the coming of Jesus Christ and His ministry in the Holy Land (which would be recorded in the New Testament). They also said that He would, at some point after His death and resurrection, visit "His other sheep" in the Americas. All of the Jews expected the same Messiah. The same Messiah who was born in Bethlehem and who was crucified on Calvary later appeared to the Book of Mormon people. I'm not sure if you just aren't familiar with the story line in the Book of Mormon and if that's what's causing the confusion or if it's something else. If this post doesn't answer your question, maybe we're going to have to enlist the services of a "translator."

this is why i call mormonism the american religion, sure other people from other countries can be mormon's (which i would imagine not many are)
but it's roots are based here in the states.

Pegg · Nov 22, 2010

Elder_Bevan said:
I was wondering, in our church we Believe in the Bible as the word of god. We also believe the book of mormon to be the word of god, we believe we have a prophet on the earth, and that he too reveals the word of the lord to us. So my Question to all christians. does your religion believe that there is other scripture or Revelation?

No we dont.

We believe that the bible is complete and nothing more was to be added to it. No more prophets were to come after Jesus and his 12 apostles.

Katzpur · Nov 22, 2010

waitasec said:
i'm sorry, i'm having a hard time accepting this.

No need to be sorry. We all accept what makes sense to us and reject what doesn't. Spirituality is highly subjective. That's why I am really not comfortable trying to convince people that they need to see things my way. I just try to clear up misconceptions that people have about us more than anything else.

i'm sure you've seen this study about the DNA of native american's and how it contradicts this claim. how do you reconcile this?

New study questions authenticity of Book of Mormon - Salt Lake City Freethinking | Examiner.com

Of course I have. I've also seen the rebuttals. It's a complicated topic, and it's getting late. I wouldn't even be able to scratch the surface of it if I were to try to respond to it tonight. Tomorrow I'll at least post a couple of links for you, though.

this is why i call mormonism the american religion, sure other people from other countries can be mormon's (which i would imagine not many are)

Church membership now numbers over 14 million. Fewer than half of the members live in the U.S. and Canada. Rougly two-thirds of the membership are first-generation converts.

but it's roots are based here in the states.

Yes, it was founded in upstate New York and its headquarters are now in Salt Lake City, Utah.

silvermoon383 · Nov 23, 2010

The DNA thing can be summed up thusly: Trying to find Hebrew DNA in Native Americans would be like trying to find the bucket of lake water I dumped into the ocean. It's just like a drop in the ocean.

Maybe in a hundred years or so, AND if we discover Sariah's remains (the wife of Lehi and common maternal ancestor to many of the Nephites and Lamanites) we might be able to track their DNA through the ages. Simply looking at DNA from modern Natives and modern Jews is wrong, DNA does not work like that.

waitasec · Nov 23, 2010

silvermoon383 said:
The DNA thing can be summed up thusly: Trying to find Hebrew DNA in Native Americans would be like trying to find the bucket of lake water I dumped into the ocean. It's just like a drop in the ocean.

Maybe in a hundred years or so, AND if we discover Sariah's remains (the wife of Lehi and common maternal ancestor to many of the Nephites and Lamanites) we might be able to track their DNA through the ages. Simply looking at DNA from modern Natives and modern Jews is wrong, DNA does not work like that.

sure it does...
how do you think studies have shown mans origins are from africa?
DNA
i've heard that it is very possible that modified strands will be detected (i am not an expert by any means, are you?)
i find it funny that when science has the evidence...the old argument of 'the science is not good enough' is used. well if that is your answer to the hard and difficult questions we have to face sometimes then all i have to say to that approach is; that's just swell :sarcastic

roli · Nov 23, 2010

DavyCrocket2003 said:
Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith multiple times. Have you heard of the Book of Mormon? It is fruit of the prophet Joseph Smith. Test the Spirit of that book. See if it is a true or false Spirit:

I won't go there concerning the history of his prophecies and the book of mormon or it's validity, I have tested the spirits and have come to my own conclusion based on what the word of God says, and his spirit testifies of.
I just can't get past the opposing doctrines LDS and it's leadership have compiled that fly in the face of the Judeo Christian doctrine and Holy Bible:
....comments/beliefs or as some may call it, prophecy such as cited below are very ccontrary to the biblical accounts of who God is.

Joseph Smith taught: "I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is...God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345);
Joseph Smith continues: "God himself...is a man like unto one of yourselves...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth...You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves" (Times and Seasons, vol.5, pp.613-614); "Here then is eternal life---to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you...To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.346-347).

Katzpur · Nov 23, 2010

waitasec said:
sure it does...
how do you think studies have shown mans origins are from africa?
DNA

Actually, it doesn't. Of course you're right about DNA studies showing that man originated in Africa. American newspaperman, H.L. Mencken once said, "There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." In your opinion, Silvermoon's analogy is just that: neat, plausible, and wrong. My response is that our critics' claim that "DNA has proven the Book of Mormon to be a fraud" is equally neat, plausible, and wrong.

Let's start by looking at the initial premise. The article in question begins by declaring that it "lays to rest any lingering questions about Native American ancestry: Lehi and his family almost certainly had nothing to do with it." It goes on to say that it has previously been "shown that the Native American population was most likely the exclusive descendants of a group that traveled across the Bering Strait from Severia some 12,000 years ago."

Before I even begin to explain why I believe this statement is incorrect, I can't resist the urge to comment on several phrases in the brief portion of the article which I quoted.

1. This one article claims to "lay to rest" a claim that certainly isn't going to be "laid to rest" for many more years. No scientist worth his salt would be so presumptuous. Conclusions of that sort aren't the end. They're merely the place at which the lazy and biased stop thinking.

2. The claim that has supposedly been "laid to rest" concludes that "Lehi and his family almost certainly had nothing to do with it." Within a single sentence, the article went from saying that a claim has been conclusively disproven -- almost certainly. :facepalm:

3. The statement that the "Native American population was most likely the exclusive descendants of a group..." is a dangeerous one to make. To describe an entire population as being "the exclusive descendants" of a single group of people is so restrictive that sooner or later it would almost certainly be proven wrong. Hardly any populations anywhere except for the most isolated places in the world could be described as being "the exclusive descendants" of any one group.

Okay, on to my actual response to the claims made in this rather poorly written article...

I would like to think that all were dealing with is a simple misunderstanding. The question to be argued really isn't, "Are today's Native Americans of Middle-eastern ancestry?", but "Is it possible that a small family from the Middle-east could have settled on the already populated American continent 2600 years ago and left no genetic evidence of their existence?" Genetic drift alone would explain how Lehi's haplogroup would almost certainly have disappeared after just a few generations. If Lehi and his family had arrived on an empty continent, it would be a different matter entirely, but we know that wasn't the case.

We don't believe that all, or even most Native Americans are of Israelite descent. If that was our claim, then yes, it would clearly be wrong. Our claim is that it is entirely possible, for a small family from the Middle East to have settled somewhere on the American continent-- that continent being largely populated at the time of their arrival -- and to have left no genetic evidence 2600 years later.
There are a number of reasons why. One of them is Genetic Drift. Since you say youre not an expert in the field, Im going to assume you dont know how Genetic Drift works. (I didnt either, but I made it a point to learn.) The following is an experiment anyone can do to demonstrate the process by which Nephites generic markers could not only easily have disappeared over time, but how they almost certainly would have done:

Put 10 red marbles and 10 blue marbles in a jar. Pick one marble at random and check the color. Let's say it's red. Return the marble to the jar, but also take a marble of the same color from a bottle of spares, and put it in a second jar. The new marble (the one you just put in the second jar) will represent the red lineage. It's the lineage you want to track. Keep repeating this process, picking one random marble each time until the second jar has twenty marbles. (Always return the original marble you picked to the jar you took it from. That jar must always contain 20 marbles.) Of the 20 marbles in the second jar, you might have 8 red ones and 12 blue ones. After you've got 20 marbles in the second jar, start the whole process over again, this time picking marbles from the second jar and adding marbles of the corresponding color from your pile of spares to a third jar. By the time you've got 20 marbles in your third jar, you may have 5 red ones and 15 blue ones. By the time you're working on your fourth or fifth jar, you will likely have only blue marbles. If you have even one red one, though, repeat the process. You are guaranteed to have all blue by the time you get to the sixth or seventh jar. Blue will be fixed and red (the lineage you were trying to trace) will be gone forever.

This is not just a hypothetical explanation. Let's say you have a man from Italy who has five daughters. How many of those daughters would have his mtDNA? None, since mtDNA is passed through the womans lineage, but not a mans. Let's say those five daughters give him 30 grandchildren. If that man had married an African woman, every single one of his grandchildren would be classified as African according to their mtDNA. There would not be a single solitary one who would have his mtDNA.

Other factors are the Founder Effect and Population Bottlenecks. The deCODE Project in Iceland, is an excellent example of the results of a population bottleneck which completely obliterated an entire genetic line in that country. I can explain these in greater detail if youd like. Or if youd prefer, I can just post some links.

More scripture

Veteran Member

Not your average Mormon

Intentionally Blank

Born Again,Spirit Filled

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

IRL

Not your average Mormon

Veteran Member

IRL

Not your average Mormon

Veteran Member

Not your average Mormon

Veteran Member

Jehovah our God is One

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Born Again,Spirit Filled

Not your average Mormon