Proof that the Book of Mormon is a fraud!!!

[Breetai]

I find it assuming that, "reconsidering our(LDS) understandings of scripture, prayer, and prophecy" was given as a solution to the scientific findings strongly supporting an Asian origin for native Americans and being stongly against a semetic origin. Doing so would require an all out rejection of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism itself. I'm not sure that leaving this, and the obvious assumption that the Bering Strait was used c.20,000 years ago, could be considered "misrepresenting" research. They did not misrepresent, they left out conclusions that Mormons would have to reject anyway. Everyone of the other 'solutions' given leads to forsaking the Book of Mormon.

 

[Doc T]

Ya, but there would be a male line going back from 600BC.

But you are looking at the genetics backward. Lehi's wife, Sariah, had very little mDNA passed on because she almost had all males. Ishmael had the opposite problem. He had more daughters and so his Y chromosome marker was greatly reduced. If you study genetics you will see that a specific marker can easily be "swamped out" or more commonly known as "genetic drift". I suggest you read Dr. Whiting's article "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective", so you have a better understanding of the effects of genetic drift.

I agree that most of those scientists may have assumed 20,000 years plus for the Bering Strait migration.

Which does present problems with "young earth creationist." Are you in that class or do you accept that the earth is millions of years old?

That doesn't effect the fact that American DNA shows Asian descent(yup, it's my new chant).

You are right, just as the fact that Native American DNA shows Asian desent had no bearing on the BofM. (And that continues to be my chant.)

Aboriganies have distictive Asian(Mongolian) characteristics, just look at them. They don't look Semetic at all. That alone should force one to question their proposed Semetic beginnings.

You obviously have not studied Ancient American art which clearly demonstrates many different ethnic characteristics, not all Asian.

I haven't seem too many legend telling us that American Indians have come from Jerusalem. Since there would be thousands of legens, it's certainly possible that there are many ocean crossing legends. That doesn't mean much for the BoM though, all that would help confirm is that natives weren't created on the American continents.

The article is picking at straws. It's like saying that 'posuto(which is post in Japanese)' and 'post', because they are so similar, are from the same language family. Or that, because of the similarities of the way to say 'hello' in French and Ojibway(bonjour and bohzou) that they are related. The article starts off saying that it appears that native languages have little to no relation to middle eastern languages, then lists many words from various languages and points out the similarities. It concludes that because of these similarites that were dug up, that it would not be just a coincidence that they have some similarities. The article argues from an [/size][/color][/font]argumentum ad numerum. It's conclusion is really indefinitive.

Interesting. Brian D. Stubbs has a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages. On what basis do you make your conclusions?

Guilty.

Glad that you acknowlege that lack of evidence is no evidence at all.

It's called a conclusion...You took this out of context.

I was not only speaking of your conclusion, but you post in general.

Doc

~

 

[Doc T]

I find it assuming that, "reconsidering our(LDS) understandings of scripture, prayer, and prophecy" was given as a solution to the scientific findings strongly supporting an Asian origin for native Americans and being stongly against a semetic origin. Doing so would require an all out rejection of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism itself. I'm not sure that leaving this, and the obvious assumption that the Bering Strait was used c.20,000 years ago, could be considered "misrepresenting" research. They did not misrepresent, they left out conclusions that Mormons would have to reject anyway. Everyone of the other 'solutions' given leads to forsaking the Book of Mormon.

So you accept Murphy when his conclusions support your preconcieved ideas of the BofM, but reject his conclusions when he says the Living Hope Ministries misrepresented some of his and others statements. And you know that the conclusions would be rejected by Mormons exactly how? I know of many Mormons who do not accept the "young earth theory".

Doc

~

 

[Doc T]

Everyone continues to state that because DNA evidence shows Native Americans to be of Asian decent refutes the BofM. Would someone here please demonstrate why they believe this to be true.

Thanks in advance.

Doc

~

 

[fatboys]

So you accept Murphy when his conclusions support your preconcieved ideas of the BofM, but reject his conclusions when he says the Living Hope Ministries misrepresented some of his and others statements. And you know that the conclusions would be rejected by Mormons exactly how? I know of many Mormons who do not accept the "young earth theory".

Doc

~

FB: The earth is four billion years old.

 

[ST:DS9]

Wasn't there a prophet in the early 1900s that said that there were more groups of people who came to the americas then what is stated in the Book of Mormon?

 

[pyro457]

All of the DNA evidence from Living Hope Ministries, which I am disapointed they are from my home town, is based on the fact that they are assuming that the groups of people that came to the Americas inhabited the entire continent when the Book of Mormon does not say that they inhabited the entire continent. The only way that DNA evidence could even suggest that Native Americans are of Semetic decent is if the Book of Mormon said that the groups inhabited the entire continents of North and South America and that there were no other peoples present.

 

[CaliforniaKid]

That's not true. Many different populations from all over the Americas have been tested pretty extensively. Not even one of these populations contains haplotypes from Africa, the Middle East, or Europe. The one exception is haplotype X, which is found in Northeastern Europe and parts of Siberia. We can therefore conclude that either

a) all the populations tested (which is a lot) originated in East Asia,

b) the population of Middle Eastern immigrants was so small that no direct patrilineal or matrilineal descendants have survived in tested populations (unlikely, but possible if all the males in one generation died, leaving only females and in another generation all the females died, leaving only males),

c) the population of Middle Eastern immigrants has been totally annihilated,

d) All or most of the individuals in Lehi's group came from a patrilineal or matrilineal line that had migrated from East Asia to Israel at some point,

or

e) The descendants of Lehi lived in a very confined area and rarely or never migrated to other areas, and we just haven't tested the right population yet.

Obviously, the most likely choice is (a).

(d) is very unlikely, since migrations of that kind take a long time. They might have emigrated instead from Northeastern Europe, but then they would all have to have been haplotype X, which is at least as unlikely as such an emigration occurring in the first place. The fact remains, too, that Lehi claimed to be a direct patrilineal descendant of Joseph, which means he would have Joseph's chromosome. He could not also be the patrilineal descendant of somebody from Eastern Europe unless Joseph himself was descended from a European (we know that's not true). Bottom line, we can throw out (d).

(b) and (c) are more possible, and they are usually the excuses that LDS apologists fall back on. Of course, the fact that Joseph Smith seemed to think that the Native Americans in the Great Lakes region were "Lamanites" casts some doubt on his credibility if no (or very few) Lamanites have actually survived. This is bad news for option (e), too, since Great Lakes Indian populations have been tested. Option (e) also faces difficulty because of the fact that Hill Cumorah is in New York. We've tested the New York populations, and never yielded any promising results for the Book of Mormon. Ever hear of "Zelph the white Lamanite"? Joseph gave by revelation a lengthy history of Zelph, whose bones were found by an expedition led by Joseph on the way to Missouri (that expedition was somethin' else! read about it in Fawn Brodie's book, No Man Knows My History). If the Moundbuilders weren't Lamanites (as [e], , and [c] imply), then Joseph's credibility duffers a severe blow. He apparently made up the Zelph story. The Zelph story, by the way, is well-attested in at least a dozen people's journals.

-CK

 

[jezusfreak]

All of the DNA evidence from Living Hope Ministries, which I am disapointed they are from my home town, is based on the fact that they are assuming that the groups of people that came to the Americas inhabited the entire continent when the Book of Mormon does not say that they inhabited the entire continent. The only way that DNA evidence could even suggest that Native Americans are of Semetic decent is if the Book of Mormon said that the groups inhabited the entire continents of North and South America and that there were no other peoples present.

That was a very nice thing to say about the people in your home town. I'm sure that Jesus feels the same way that you do, NOT. The people at Living Hope Ministries....didn't assume anything, they got the facts straight from the horses mouth, the BoM.

In the referances that I am going to give you out of your own BoM...it is very clear that they inhabited the ENTIRE continent, furthermore, that no one else even knew about it because it was promised to them, (Nephi and his family.) Read for yourselves...

Introduction to the Book of Mormon claims this in the last sentance of the second paragraph....."After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." I don't think that it can state it any clearer....there were NO other people according to this introduction, the people that were there are the PRINCIPAL ANCESTORS of the American Indians. Even then...those that were destroyed were of the so called Jaredites...the OTHER group that came from Isreal much earlier when God confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. Here are other passages taken from your BoM.


1Nephi 12:1....And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld MULTITUDES of people, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea. (BoM...emphasis added)

2Nephi 1:8-9.....And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would over run the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. 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. (BoM... emphasis added)

Mormon 1:7..."The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea."
(BoM...emphasis added)

Helaman 3:8...."And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east." (BoM...emphasis added)

According to these verses taken from the BoM....it pretty well states that they inhabited the entire continent. I don't see how you can take it any other way.

 

[Breetai]

But you are looking at the genetics backward. Lehi's wife, Sariah, had very little mDNA passed on because she almost had all males.

What the heck does that matter? Lehi himself would be passing on his DNA to his sons, so the semetic line would be continued.

Which does present problems with "young earth creationist." Are you in that class or do you accept that the earth is millions of years old?

The Bering Strait hypothesis creates no problems for YECs. (OTR- Why does fatboys believe in an old Earth? I'm a little surprised at that.) I believe the Bible, that God created man about 6000 years ago.

You are right, just as the fact that Native American DNA shows Asian desent had no bearing on the BofM.

But the fact that no semetic DNA is shown in native Americans does.

You obviously have not studied Ancient American art which clearly demonstrates many different ethnic characteristics, not all Asian.

I haven't seem too many legend telling us that American Indians have come from Jerusalem. Since there would be thousands of legens, it's certainly possible that there are many ocean crossing legends. That doesn't mean much for the BoM though, all that would help confirm is that natives weren't created on the American continents.

OK, you are right. One the other hand, I know of no native art that displays strictly semetic characteristics.

The only legends that show natives coming from Jerusalem are in the stories of the white man.

Interesting. Brian D. Stubbs has a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages. On what basis do you make your conclusions?

That he has an extreme bias towards proving Mormon doctrine and that his paper greatly reflects this. He's still picking at straws and is disagreeing with virtually every non-Mormon who is a specialist in linguistics. I've talked to people with Ph.Ds in Near Eastern Religions who are fluent in multiple Near Eastern languages and they laugh at the idea that native American languages have any relation. As well, Lehi would've spoken and written in Hebrew and passed it down through his decendants. More then likely, Mormon and Moroni would've written the plates in the Hebrew that was passed down from Lehi, using the Hebrew script. Why is there no instance of Reformed Egyptian found in the world, other than what is speculated to be Reformed Egyptian in Mormon literature? Even that has been shown to be a fraud.

Glad that you acknowlege that lack of evidence is no evidence at all.

You did catch me there. I ask why Mormons can believe in Mormonism when there is such a lack of evidence for Mormonism. There aren't even any gold plates in existance! They were taken away and all were are left with is a few conflicting stories? That's not only a lack of evidence, but it's also a story that doesn't quite add up. None of the places named in the BoM have been found... not one. The Lehi trail has only been speculated upon. That's it. There's nothing. It's a total lack of evidence. The Mormon faith is based on a lack of evidence and a feeling from what one believes is the Holy Ghost that this huge amound of missing evidence is truth.

I was not only speaking of your conclusion, but you post in general.

I think that we are both guilty of this more often than we'd care to admit.

So you accept Murphy when his conclusions support your preconcieved ideas of the BofM, but reject his conclusions when he says the Living Hope Ministries misrepresented some of his and others statements. And you know that the conclusions would be rejected by Mormons exactly how? I know of many Mormons who do not accept the "young earth theory".

I did not expect that many Mormons would accept the old earth theory. I'm surprised at this. Do they still accept that man was created 6000 years ago? Fatboys?

I didn't think that saying that the scholors were old earth advocates mattered, since I didn't think that very many(if any) Mormons bought into it. Looks like I was wrong. I don't see how any Mormon can agree with this though, that some natives came from Asia. The BoM mentions everyone who was living in America. Other than the Jaredites, who were completely wiped out(one man left doesn't exactly have any kids), everyone of the groups living in America were of semetic origin. To believe that other groups came from Asia is to deny large parts of the BoM. Therefore any Mormon who says that some natives did come from Asia is doing so against the BoM and is denying their own faith without knowing it.

Everyone continues to state that because DNA evidence shows Native Americans to be of Asian decent refutes the BofM. Would someone here please demonstrate why they believe this to be true.

Thanks in advance.

You're welcome.

The only way that DNA evidence could even suggest that Native Americans are of Semetic decent is if the Book of Mormon said that the groups inhabited the entire continents of North and South America and that there were no other peoples present.

Pyro, I hate to break it to you, but it does say this.

The original Jaredites were destroyed, leaving no inhabitants in the Americas. Then Lehi landed, there was nobody there. Read 2 Nephi 1:5-8:

2 Nephi 1:5-8
But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

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.

Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

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.

There was no other people in the land when Lehi and his family would have come to the Americas. They were the only ones until well after Moroni would've buried the tablets.

(Jezusfreak, you beat me to it!)

 

[jezusfreak]

Everyone continues to state that because DNA evidence shows Native Americans to be of Asian decent refutes the BofM. Would someone here please demonstrate why they believe this to be true.

Thanks in advance.

Doc

Because the BoM clearly teaches that the American Indians are the descendants of the Lamenites, (You know, those that the Lord cursed and changes their skin color.) It also states that Lamen was a son of Lehi, brother of Nephi. The BoM states that this family comes from Isreal. Thus it would make them of Hebrew descent. Now if they are of Hebrew descent...they can't have the Asian blood in them. This is where it refutes the Book of Mormon....the blood lines do not match. Joseph Smith never counted on DNA evidence to prove that he was a fraud, but then again he never counted on the fact that someday someone would be able to TRULY read the papyrus that he claims tells the story of Abraham, of which turns out to be a funeral prayer for a Egyptian Priest/god named Horus. What's this...yet another LIE from the mouth of JS!!!!!

I pray that you would open your mind....and that you would see the truth for what it really is.

 

[skylark1]

Could you please point me to where I might read this comment from Thomas for myself. Please understand that I only seek the truth...that is how I found out that the LDS faith is based on deception from JS.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/apocrypha3.html

 

[jezusfreak]

Thank you Skylark1...I appreciate it.

 

[fatboys]

Because the BoM clearly teaches that the American Indians are the descendants of the Lamenites, (You know, those that the Lord cursed and changes their skin color.) It also states that Lamen was a son of Lehi, brother of Nephi. The BoM states that this family comes from Isreal. Thus it would make them of Hebrew descent. Now if they are of Hebrew descent...they can't have the Asian blood in them. This is where it refutes the Book of Mormon....the blood lines do not match. Joseph Smith never counted on DNA evidence to prove that he was a fraud, but then again he never counted on the fact that someday someone would be able to TRULY read the papyrus that he claims tells the story of Abraham, of which turns out to be a funeral prayer for a Egyptian Priest/god named Horus. What's this...yet another LIE from the mouth of JS!!!!!

I pray that you would open your mind....and that you would see the truth for what it really is.

FB: Although I disagree with many things anti mormon websites portray about the LDS theology, I do visit many of them because it is interesting as to how they place different emphasis on things. I have been to many boards and forums, and this forum that is not LDS is one of the best sites I have been on for discussion. I would hope that many of you go to the Pro LDS websites and see the research that LDS do on these topics also. Jez, I think that you have taken two pet points that is on the very top discussion lists. On other boards it had died away because many realize that what the LDS are saying about the outcomes could be as plausable as what anti's are trying to suggest. There has not been a study done by a unbiased group. The study that Murphy was part of, was funded by an anti mormon group. Do you think that if the outcome had been different, that one word would have come out from Murphy? Do you think that he would have started going back to the church he had not gone to for ten years? No I would not think so. The Book of Mormon claims to have people who are from the House of Israel. That is a big house, and has many branches. When they came to the New world, there were already people here. It is possible as Doc pointed out that their genetic markers to have been swallowed up. You can not think that Murphy's work is going to be the definitive genetic work.

As for the Book of Abraham, I have studied it for a few years, and I admit, I am slow in trying to piece all there is. This is a very complicated topic, and like the genetics can be interpreted so many different ways. You need to get a better balance of this topic as well. The best I have read is by Kerry Shirts. He has his own website. He has not only pro LDS websites but also anti websites as links. So I will say this, in my opinion, we do not have the Papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham. The fragments we do have were part of the original papyri that was purchased, but they do not represent what was translated. Also understand that there are many things scholars are still learning about the Egyptian language.

 

[unbound]

Jezusfreak and Breetia, while your enjoying your video from Living Hope Ministries you might chew on Thomas Murphy's comment about the video.

"Apologists are not the only ones to misrepresent my research for their own religious advantage. Living Hope Ministries of Brigham City, Utah, has similarly misled the viewers of a video documentary, “DNA vs. the Book of Mormon” by carefully editing out statements by scientists (including me) that conflict with their worldview.31 While the video includes several clips from scientists acknowledging an Asian origin of American Indians, the editors did not include any statements identifying the likely time range of those migrations. The first such migration likely occurred 13,000 to 20,000 years ago, well outside the range of dates acceptable to “young earth” creationists. Similarly, Pastor Joel Kramer and his crew edited out statements that discussed archaeological problems undermining literal views of the historicity of the biblical narrative. They also avoided any discussion of the nearly 99 percent similarity between human and chimpanzee dna. Finally, this Christian ministry cut my statements suggesting alternative responses to genetic data Mormons might employ instead of leaving the Church. I suggested that other possible responses include challenging the scientific data and/or reconsidering our understandings of scripture, prayer, and prophecy. In this case, the conflict is not between science and religion; rather, it is between two religious worldviews, both of which may eventually need to reconsider older views in light of the discoveries of the scientific community."​

Doc

~

Not all christians believe in "young earth" creation. We know from Gods words that one day is not 24 hours to him. So this is not a problem for me.

 

[ST:DS9]

2 Nephi 1:5-8
But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

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.

Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

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.

There was no other people in the land when Lehi and his family would have come to the Americas. They were the only ones until well after Moroni would've buried the tablets.

(Jezusfreak, you beat me to it!)

Hmmm, Lehi knew about the land, but Jerusalem nation or babylon nation did not. Maybe there were a ton of asians that came to the americas by the hand of the Lord. Maybe they were numerouse and was enough to swallow up Ephriams blood line.

Joseph Smith said this: [font=&quot] "The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians; having been found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God, after having been hid up in the earth for the last fourteen hundred years, containing the word of God which was delivered unto them (the ancestors of the American Indians). By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and the land of America is a promised land unto them, and unto it all the tribes of Israel will come, with as many of the Gentiles as shall comply with the requisitions of the new covenant" [/font][font=&quot]Smith, Joseph. History of the Church. vol. 1, p. 315

It has been taught in the 19th century that there were more then just the 3 groups stated in the Book of Mormon that came into the Americas., it seems that this new evidence just proves that.
[/font]

 

[Doc T]

In the referances that I am going to give you out of your own BoM...it is very clear that they inhabited the ENTIRE continent, furthermore, that no one else even knew about it because it was promised to them, (Nephi and his family.) Read for yourselves...

Thank you for bringing these up because it will give me a chance to clear up yours and others mis-interpretation of these scripture.

Introduction to the Book of Mormon claims this in the last sentance of the second paragraph ....."After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." [/color]I don't think that it can state it any clearer....there were NO other people according to this introduction, the people that were there are the PRINCIPAL ANCESTORS of the American Indians. Even then...those that were destroyed were of the so called Jaredites...the OTHER group that came from Isreal much earlier when God confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. Here are other passages taken from your BoM.

First of all as I have explained here to others the Introduction to the BofM is not scripture and therefore not binding on the Church, but let's examine what you have quoted. Who were the Lamanites? Shortly after arriving in the Americas, Lehi's family divided up into two groups. One group known as the Nephites and the other group known as the Lamanites. But early on in the BofM (Jacob 1:13) Jacob shows that the names were no longer a genetic classification, but a political one. He said, "the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites." So it became a situation of "if you are not a Nephite, then you are a Lamanite. A sort of "us" vs "them". And in Alma 26:17, a group of converted Lamanites (former enemies of the Nephites) changed the name of their group to "Anti-Nephi-Lehies" and "were no more called Lamanites." Again, the term Lamanite can be a cultural rather than genetic indicator.

Yet another example of this is when a group of Nephite dissenters became "Lamanites" (Alma 43:4) certainly a cultrual designation rather than a genetic one.

So when the Introduction speaks of "all were destroyed except the Lamanites" we are not talking about a genetic group here, but a cultrual one.

Next is the issue of the wording "prinicpal ancestors". If you look up the word "principal" at dictionary.com you find: "First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth, or degree; chief." Certainly as far as the BofM is concerned Lehi and his family were the "foremost in importance" of all the possible ancestors of the Amerindians. This does not exclude that they did however have other ancestors besides Lehi and his family.

Now let's get to the scriptures in the BofM.

1Nephi 12:1....And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld MULTITUDES of people, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea. (BoM...emphasis added)

Now the fact that Nephi beheld "Multitudes" of people to me in no way indicates that there were not others here. In fact, IMO it supports the idea that there were others here. That is how they became a great "multitude". But this in no way requries them to cover all of north and south America.

2Nephi 1:8-9.....And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would over run the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. 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. (BoM... emphasis added)

Several issues here. First of all this was a conditional promise, if ye "shall keep his commandments". If you read the BofM that did not happen. Secondly is the phrase "posses this land unto themselves". That phrase does not necessarily mean to be the only inhabitants but can also mean--as it often does in Book of Mormon contexts--that a group has the ability to control and exercise authority over the land and its resources (see, for example, Mosiah 19:15; 23:29; 24:2; Alma 27:22, 26). This does not imply the entire continent of north and south America.

Mormon 1:7..."The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea."

The term "The whole face of the land" if you read this verse in context is referring to the "land southward even to the land of Zarahemla" and not all of North and South America.

Helaman 3:8...."And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east." (BoM...emphasis added)

I'm not sure again how this is supposed to demonstrate that they covered "the entire continent". It really was not the “whole earth” as we conceive it. It was the whole earth as they conceived it. That earth was their known lands, defined by the directions. Even this is a cultural definition rather than a physical one.

According to these verses taken from the BoM....it pretty well states that they inhabited the entire continent. I don't see how you can take it any other way.

I would not say that "they" inhabited the entire continent, but they inhabited the land as far as they knew it.

Doc

~

 

[Doc T]

Because the BoM clearly teaches that the American Indians are the descendants of the Lamenites, (You know, those that the Lord cursed and changes their skin color.) It also states that Lamen was a son of Lehi, brother of Nephi. The BoM states that this family comes from Isreal. Thus it would make them of Hebrew descent. Now if they are of Hebrew descent...they can't have the Asian blood in them. This is where it refutes the Book of Mormon....the blood lines do not match. Joseph Smith never counted on DNA evidence to prove that he was a fraud, but then again he never counted on the fact that someday someone would be able to TRULY read the papyrus that he claims tells the story of Abraham, of which turns out to be a funeral prayer for a Egyptian Priest/god named Horus. What's this...yet another LIE from the mouth of JS!!!!!

I pray that you would open your mind....and that you would see the truth for what it really is.

Jezusfreak have you actually read the BofM? Because your characterization of it would indicate that all you have read is the ant-Mormon protrayal of it.

Doc

~

 

[jezusfreak]

First of all as I have explained here to others the Introduction to the BofM is not scripture and therefore not binding on the Church, but let's examine what you have quoted.

Is this just another way of telling me that we can pick and choose what we want or what WE believe to be right and wrong? It seems to me that if your prophet said it, that it would be gospel. If he is TRULY speaking for God, Doc.....God doesn't lie nor does he change...he is the same from everlasting to everlasting!!!

Doc said.....Who were the Lamanites? Shortly after arriving in the Americas, Lehi's family divided up into two groups. One group known as the Nephites and the other group known as the Lamanites. But early on in the BofM (Jacob 1:13) Jacob shows that the names were no longer a genetic classification, but a political one. He said, "the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites." So it became a situation of "if you are not a Nephite, then you are a Lamanite. A sort of "us" vs "them".

This doesn't change anything, Doc. Just because your loyalties change that doesn't mean that your blood lines do as well. Do you think that I have the word STUPID written on my forhead? The fact remains that they all, the Lamenites the Nephites the Jeridites etc....all came from Isreal...therefore they all would have had Hebrew genes. The BoM, (as I already stated), clearly says that there were NO OTHERS in the land. To me this is just another way for your religion to change things to make them fit. I am very sad for you because.....you have no idea of who God really is.

Yet another example of this is when a group of Nephite dissenters became "Lamanites" (Alma 43:4) certainly a cultrual designation rather than a genetic one.

Explain to me, please, how when someone dissent's, or changes loyalties, this changes their genetics? Nephi and Lamen were brother's, so how in the world would they have different genes? I used to be somewhat prejudice, does that mean that when I was my genes were, let's say white for the fun of it, and then when I changed my views and realized that color was of no boundries, my genes changed, to let's say black, for even more giggles? Come on, Doc...what you are saying makes no sense at all!!

Certainly as far as the BofM is concerned Lehi and his family were the "foremost in importance" of all the possible ancestors of the Amerindians. This does not exclude that they did however have other ancestors besides Lehi and his family.

Possible? The BoM teaches that they ARE the ancestors of the American Indians...NOT the POSSIBLE ancestors of them. If they DID have OTHER ancestors besides Lehi and his family....tell me where in your book does it teach this? From what I have already posted...it is clear to me that, according to the BoM, there were NO OTHER people around...it (the land) was for them ONLY.

Now let's get to the scriptures in the BofM.

1Nephi 12:1....And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld MULTITUDES of people, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea. (BoM...emphasis added)

Now the fact that Nephi beheld "Multitudes" of people to me in no way indicates that there were not others here. In fact, IMO it supports the idea that there were others here. That is how they became a great "multitude". But this in no way requries them to cover all of north and south America.

2Nephi 1:8-9.....And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would over run the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. 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. (BoM... emphasis added)

Several issues here. First of all this was a conditional promise, if ye "shall keep his commandments". If you read the BofM that did not happen. Secondly is the phrase "posses this land unto themselves". That phrase does not necessarily mean to be the only inhabitants but can also mean--as it often does in Book of Mormon contexts--that a group has the ability to control and exercise authority over the land and its resources (see, for example, Mosiah 19:15; 23:29; 24:2; Alma 27:22, 26). This does not imply the entire continent of north and south America.

Mormon 1:7..."The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea."

The term "The whole face of the land" if you read this verse in context is referring to the "land southward even to the land of Zarahemla" and not all of North and South America.

Helaman 3:8...."And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east." (BoM...emphasis added)

I'm not sure again how this is supposed to demonstrate that they covered "the entire continent". It really was not the “whole earth” as we conceive it. It was the whole earth as they conceived it. That earth was their known lands, defined by the directions. Even this is a cultural definition rather than a physical one.



I would not say that "they" inhabited the entire continent, but they inhabited the land as far as they knew it.

I already covered this and I think that the BoM "scriptures", (I hate to call them that), tell the story better than I could. They speak for themselves...or are you really trying to tell me that they are OPEN to interpretaion?

Humbly His,
Sandy

 

[jezusfreak]

Doc said...
Jezusfreak have you actually read the BofM? Because your characterization of it would indicate that all you have read is the ant-Mormon protrayal of it.

Doc

From cover to cover...NO I have not. I for the life of me can't figure out how anyone could read that book. It doesn't mesh....it contradicts itself and so I figured out that it was a fraud. It really is quite the piece of fiction. Go ahead and ask me...I would be glad to point out the difference's between the BoM and the LDS Doctrine...between the BoM and the D&C....between the D&C and the D&C. The plagerisms that come from the KJV of the Bible. Makes me sick....as I'm sure it does the Lord.

Doc....have you ever read the Bible? Because the fact that you place another book above the Word of God...clearly indicates that you have no idea what SCRIPTURE really is. The Bible meshes together like NOTHING else in exsistance. It proves itself over and over...New Testament with Old, and Old with the New....it is the COMPLETE Word of God. There is no room for another. There is NO NEED for another.
Sandy