1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Flaw in LDS doctrine

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Buttons*, Mar 20, 2006.

  1. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14

    I have some excellent and reasonable information on this at home. I think you'll find it very interesting. LDS apologists say things and run themselves in circles about this but I got some great explanations from a scientist friend of mine who explained it all rather well.
     
  2. Squirt

    Squirt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,239
    Ratings:
    +158
    Okay, I'm finally off work and decided to take a closer look at this thread. Now I'm trying to decide exactly what it is you're looking for.

    Okay, what "things" did Joseph Smith write down about the Native Americans that you want a rational reason for? Give me one or two examples, and I'll try my best to give you an answer.
     
  3. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,110
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    sure! i'd love to read anything you can provide! :D
     
  4. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    One argument one might hear from LDS apologists is a "limited geography" argument

    Could other people have lived in ancient America concurrently with Book of Mormon peoples?
    Careful examination and demographic analysis of the Book of Mormon record in terms of population growth and the number of people described implies that other groups were likely present in the promised land when Lehi's family arrived, and these groups may have genetically mixed with the Nephites, Lamanites, and other groups.4 Events related in the Book of Mormon likely took place in a limited region,5 leaving plenty of room for other Native American peoples to have existed

    The church only *very* recently started to embrace this "limited geography" theory, and only when it became necessary. There was never any "Careful examination and geographic anyalysis" done prior to this DNA information coming out, because it was accepted on faith that BOM was the word of God, and he obviously would know who was or was not living here. What about this scripture: (again from Jen's post) -The Jaredites came "into that quarter where there never had man been." (Ether 2:5) The Nephites likewise came to a land "kept from all other nations" (II Nephi 1:9-11).


    Nephi 2 from the Book of Mormon:
    1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
    1:9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.


    The scientific DNA stuff will come later - probably tomorrow, I've got a busy evening.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,110
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    *grabs handy dandy BoM* .... i'll look some stuff up and be right on it!
     
  6. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    OOOH! Found some of the previous conversations I had on the subject:

    "I've heard that mtDNA comes from the mother right? "
    yes
    " And it changes very little over time?"
    I'm not sure how it's mutation rate compares to that of genomic DNA, but I could look it up. What is more relevant is that it only comes from one parent, so minus mutations yours is indentical to your mother's and your mother's mother and your mother's mother's mother and so on. The link addresses Y chromosome data as well, which is genomic, but only past on through fathers to sons.
     
  7. Squirt

    Squirt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,239
    Ratings:
    +158
    The links I gave were also from scientists, Jillian. The problem is the whole science of mtDNA is still in its infancy. Any scientist (on either side of the issue) who would ask you to think that this matter has been resolved once and for all is being less than honest. At this point, the only truly valid conclusion is that the jury's still out and may be for quite some time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,259
    Ratings:
    +638
    That's not true. I heard that theory, along with the other theory, over 10 years ago in Seminary. We were taught both of them. I never "embraced" any theory that ALL the Native Americans were decendants of the Lamanites. It never made sense to me.
     
  9. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,919
    Ratings:
    +1,487
    Yeah, it doesn't make sense that all of them would be. A few possibly, and they've probably intermarried with other groups. I agree with Jonny.
     
  10. DeepShadow

    DeepShadow White Crow

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,924
    Ratings:
    +334
    Religion:
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
    The "limited geography" theory is hardly a recent concept. During the School of the Prophets, Joseph Smith refused to argue with claims about other groups coming to the US. He said very specifically that the Book of Mormon account was not the only source from which Native Americans sprang.

    This position was reinforced over 50 years ago by the preeminent LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, in "The World of the Jaredites." There, Nibley makes a strong case for an Asian bloodline among the Nephites via the Jaredites. His case is supported by paleolinguistic and anthropological data from non-LDS sources.

    What has been recent is widespread acceptance of this concept in "popular Mormonism." Frustrating as that is for those LDS who are interested in archaeology, it touches little or not at all on our established doctrine.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    So are you three saying that you embrace the limited geography theory? Even though the BofM fairly clearly contradicts that?
     
  12. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    Oh and just for the record, I'm not saying science can DISPROVE the BofM because it can't.

    So long as you don't take the BofM and what not too seriously since if it were literally true science could PROVE it.
     
  13. Squirt

    Squirt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,239
    Ratings:
    +158
    Well I'm glad we've got that out of the way. I was afraid this was going to evolve into a long, drawn-out argument that neither side could win.

    I take the Book of Mormon very seriously, actually. There are many things science is currently incapable of proving. That makes them no less true. Personally, I'm a patient woman. I'm in no great hurry to have scientists prove to me something that I already know to be true.
     
  14. DeepShadow

    DeepShadow White Crow

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,924
    Ratings:
    +334
    Religion:
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
    Where are these contradictions? The scripture you cite from 2 Nephi was being recorded while the Jaredites and Mulekites were also in the Americas, so it can't be taken literally. Odds are it's either a proof text or it merely reflected the opinion of the author at the time. There's two explanations, pick one.

    Oh, and by the way, I'm not trying to be snippy or curt, FWIW. I'm extremely limited on time and shouldn't even be awake right now. If this is my last post for a month or two, that's why. :coffee:
     
  15. God is love

    God is love Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    285
    Ratings:
    +25
    [FONT=helvetica, arial][SIZE=+1]Discussion[/SIZE][/FONT]
    Our analysis confirmed that haplogroup X is present in both modern Native American and European populations. For the Native Americans, this haplogroup encompasses [​IMG]25% of the Ojibwa, 15% of the Sioux, 11%[​IMG]13% of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth, 7% of the Navajo, and 5% of the Yakima (table 3). Thus, with the exception (see below) of the Na-Dene[​IMG]speaking Navajo, the distribution of this haplogroup among the Native Americans appears to be restricted to northern Amerindian populations.
    [​IMG][FONT=helvetica, arial][SIZE=-1]Table 3[/SIZE][/FONT] [SIZE=-1]Frequency of Haplogroup X mtDNAs in Native American and Asian Populations[/SIZE]
    In studies of Native American mtDNA diversity, the co-occurrence of the same haplogroup at significant frequencies in both the modern Native American and European populations is unique. Recent European genetic admixture cannot explain the presence of haplogroup X in the Amerindians. First, if the occurrence of haplogroup X were the result of female gene flow from Europeans, then other, more common European mtDNA haplogroups should also be present in the northern Native Americans, and they are not. Second, the Native American and European mtDNAs are very different and are connected only through an ancient common ancestor. Hence, Native American and European haplogroup X mtDNAs diverged long ago. Finally, Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs encompass substantial continent-specific diversity, implying an ancient arrival in America. Thus, haplogroup X represents a fifth founding mtDNA haplogroup for the Native Americans, supporting the conclusions of Bailliet et al. (1994), Forster et al. (1996), and Scozzari et al. (1997).
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My comment to above aticle {Sorry about size of print but something is making the type this size}
    There are some Native Americans that share some of the same DNA {through the mother} with Europeans.
    This is not the result of intermarrying with Europeans post Columbus and colonization. The article is saying if that were true there would be more more variety of DNA from various Europeans and more common DNA such as from those Europeans that immigrated here and intermixed with Native Americans more than others.
    This scientific article is saying that the "MT DNAs" are CONNECTED ONLY THROUGH AN ANCIANT COMMON ANCESTOR. The article further states that this implies an ANCIANT ARRIVAL in America.

    This is scientific {genetic} evidence that the history recorded in the Book of Mormom is valid.
    Although the genetic research does not name the anciant common ancestor, it is saying that there was one.
    That gives validity to the Book of Mormon. Mormon being one of those ancestors that links the common ancestor, Lehi's wife, to some of the Native Americans. Some of those being the Ojibwa, Sioux, Navajo, Yakima.

    I happened to see the Nova program on television tonight that mentioned what was written in the post beginning this thread. That being the Smithsonian information. Within the program it mentioned the x factor that the above article elaborated on.

    I descided to comment, NOT to debate and just add information as I find it.

    Eventually science will catch up to what God has done.
    I know the Book of Mormon {Another Testement of Jesus Christ} is true too but I knew before I saw the Nova program or any scientific evidence, through another source.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,363
    Ratings:
    +6,672
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Eve committed adultery? Since when?

    I know of couple Gnostic texts, which stated that the Eve had been raped by the archons, but not of her committing adultery. You can't compare rape and adultery, since they are 2 different things.

    But the Gnostic texts are only followed by one group of people. I had heard of Adam being the husband of Lilith in the story found in the Haggada, but no mention of Eve sleeping around with someone else.

    Again, you are making assumption.

    Adam and Eve didn't just have Cain, Abel and Seth as their only children. They had other children, so it is more than likely that Cain and Seth had children by their sisters, than by Eve.

    In the Haggada and other Jewish non-canonical literatures (Book of Jubilees), it stated that Cain, Abel and Seth took sisters as their consorts. Sorry, I don't have the time to look it up for you.

    Anyway, I would suggest to you that you read the Haggada at the Sacred Texts, but it has the title Legends of the Jews (chapter 1 Adam). They also have the Book of Jubilees there too.

    Until you have evidence that Eve mated with her sons, then your assumption are merely that - baseless. I don't believe in the Creation, but at least, I've tried to base it on sources, to find evidences.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    IF the sons of Lehi sailed to the Americas and prospered as the BofM indicates rather clearly that they did and IF Native Americans are their descendants we would be able, with the science we have to day, to verify that. Science has said "nuh uh".

    In and of itself this doesn't disprove the BofM because there's the limited geography theory. Now if that is how it all really went down then perhaps the lord (or brother joseph with his magic glasses and his magic rocks inside his magic hat) has embellished a bit?
     
  18. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,919
    Ratings:
    +1,487
    *Sigh* I love how people are just so, what's the word, ah, nevermind.:banghead3
     
  19. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    Which is pretty much what I said no? Imean not your two explanations - there are probably hundreds of different explanations we could come up with. But the don't take it literally part.

    No worries - you didn't seem snippy at all
     
  20. JillianMarie77

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +14
    No need to be angry or bang your head against the wall. Whatever you have to say I assure you I can take it. I've debated both sides of this argument ad nauseum so I promise you can't hurt my feelings.
     
Loading...