Posted on 01/18/2006 11:50:52 AM PST by johnk
The articles I linked discuss the limitations of DNA studies in general. They are well worth reading.
But will they believe it when it happens, or will they issue the same type statement as always, that all one requires is faith.....that science, reason, and God have not suceeded in revealing the untruthfulness of the Isrealite migration?
I do not know what Lindsay, FARMS, or FAIR will say when that particular study is released. But I would expect them to respond the way they have always done: with facts and reason.
(Really, you cannot have read much by Lindsay, FARMS, or FAIR if you think that their stock answer is "that all one requires is faith.")
Several things struck me about the linked video. First, the presentation seemed very one-sided. Second, the critics spent too much time attacking straw men. Third, the interviewees claimed more certainty than is possible from their methods.
Other than that, the video was fine.
Years ago I use to frequent Genforum.com they had list of various Religions for those doing geneology.
they had List The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and under the name Mormon
it got so bad that they had to remove the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because a few anti Mormon would just reek havoc!
During that time their were no Fair or Jeff Lindsey sites to get answers that other LDS might have knowledge of!
It became necessary LDS apologetic becaues for years site like CRI Walter Martin, Angleberg etc had been going strong for years!
There is nothing new under the sun I read them all and what I discovered it is the same old, same old just got new packaging!
Here a place to find LDS and bash to ones heart content!
http://www.fairboards.org/
Yep. And some "anti-cult" folks (Rick Ross) have more blood on their hands than any religious group (except maybe the muzzies).
I don't believe Jesus is included in JW's system - certainly not as the Son of God
The linguistic evidence is fairly fatal on that score as well, despite claims to the contrary. I am studying Iroquoian and Algonquian languages now, and it's fairly obvious that their grammatical construction is way way different from anything we see in Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) or Indo-European.
If indeed a group of Jews came to North America and their language was so totally transformed in the course of 2000 years so as to have totally no recognizable relation to the original Hebrew, it would be unparalleled with any similar kind of language change ever observed in history.
By contrast, in the same span of 2000 years Latin only moved as far as Italian, French, and Spanish. Proto-Eastern-Algonquian only moved as far as Abenaki, Massachusett, and Delaware.
Factor in the tenacity with which Jews have held on to their liturgical language no matter where they were dispersed in the world, and I think the theory unravels rather quickly.
You are attacking a straw man. That is, no knowledgeable LDS scholar would claim that all or even most Native American languages are derived from Hebrew.
Moreover, most scholars believe that the Book of Mormon lands were in Central America. So if you are looking for evidences of Hebrew in Iroquoian and Algonquian, you are likely looking in the wrong place.
What DNA dilemma?
Is this about the magical underpants again???
My apologies; I stand corrected. I'm not very familiar with LDS scholarship, so would colorcountry be right in saying that most LDS scholars today maintain that the Hebrew-derived groups were a smaller subset of an already-established larger population of indigenous Americans?
There you go...already comes the assertion that the Hebrew's were just a sub-set of a much larger population.
I can't see how any raised in the Mormon Church, or anyone with ANY knowledge of it's history will buy this story. My DIL is a native Guatemalan...those languages can also be studied. I think they too, will be proven to be of "other than Hebrew" origin (if they haven't already.)
I've read another tactic the Church is taking against the DNA evidence That is to say that the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites were only a smaller number of the population; that they joined an already established population of Amerindians that had migrated across the Bering Straight. This theory goes on to say that the Iraelite genotype was overwhelmed by the genotype of the larger populations of Asiatics.
Well, here is the press release (dated 11 November 2003) from the LDS Church on the subject:
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be — a record of God’s dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness.Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex. Those interested in a more detailed analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below.
The press release also gives links to various scholarly articles on the subject.
I really don't think they should take this approach since they've been marketing the Church as the history of the Polynesians and American Indians for over 150 years. I don't know how they continue changing their story and their history and get away with it.
Who has been "marketing" the Church this way?
Look, I do not doubt that leaders and members of the Church have changed their view of many things over the years. (Nor do I doubt that many members still cling to discredited Mormon folklore.) It would be strange indeed if their views did not change in the face of additional knowledge.
I would say that this poses less of a problem for "Mormons" than it does for those who believe in a closed canon. As you should know from your days in the LDS Church, we are open to continuing revelation. Indeed, our Ninth Article of Faith we expect new knowledge:
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
One thing has remained and will remain constant, however. We have been consistent and firm in our testimony of Jesus Christ. I daresay that most of us have come to that testimony by way of Book of Mormon. That is why I am confident that the Book of Mormon will stand the test of time, whatever its critics might say.
Simon G. Southerton, author of the book: "Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church" believes that several passages from the Book of Mormon and statements by Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS, show that the Israelite immigrants to the new world found an uninhabited world when they arrived. He said: "In the entire 1,000-year period covered by the Book of Mormon, there is not one explicit reference to people outside the migratory groups that came from the Middle East."
No apology needed.
I am not sure there is a consensus among LDS scholars on how large an indigenous population may have been present in the area where Lehi's party landed. The Book of Mormon itself talks about an earlier migration (the Jaredites). It also hints that other people may have been around, although it does not identify them. Moreover, the Book of Mormon says that other nations would be led to the area and would overwhelm and scatter the descendants of Lehi.
Cognitive dissonance?
LOL....
How apt!
This is nothing new. This theory has been around for at least 40 years. Surely you knew that.
I can't see how any raised in the Mormon Church, or anyone with ANY knowledge of it's history will buy this story. My DIL is a native Guatemalan...those languages can also be studied. I think they too, will be proven to be of "other than Hebrew" origin (if they haven't already.)
You may be right that none of the languages in Guatemala will prove to be of Semitic origin. But what of it? There is nothing in the Book of Mormon or our doctrine that requires that this or that language be an offshoot of Hebrew.
Look, LDS Church leaders and members have speculated over the years about the locations and events described in the Book of Mormon. As far as I know, however, the leaders of the Church have never taken an official position on such matters. What has always been most important to them is the testimony of the Book of Mormon regarding Jesus Christ.
Your answer in post #21…(Really, you cannot have read much by Lindsay, FARMS, or FAIR if you think that their stock answer is "that all one requires is faith.")
A different answer by you in post #36 …… What has always been most important to them is the testimony of the Book of Mormon regarding Jesus Christ.
Do you see a conflict in your posts?
Just a follow-up to my post #31:
The Book of Mormon records that soon after their arrival in the Americas, the descendants of Lehi “multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land” (Jarom 1:8). By about 46 BC, after which time they had joined with the Mulekites, they had multiplied until they “covered the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east (Hel. 3:8). By the time of the final conflagrations around 400 AD, the Israelite populations numbered in the many hundreds of thousands if not millions. There is not a single mention in the text of groups of people living in ancient America, other than the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites. All three population groups had very large populations. It is hardly surprising then that Joseph Smith and all other church leaders have regarded Native Americans to be the descendants of the Lamanites. The God speaking to Joseph Smith in 1830-31 referred to the “borders of the Lamanites” when talking about missionaries being sent to teach Native Americans who had been relocated to Missouri (D&C 28: 9; 54: 8)
Not at all. I see no conflict between faith, knowledge, testimony, and reason. Do you?
You may not...but I do. I think other posters to this thread might see the dichotomy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.