In the thread where I disproved the bible:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48815
I mentioned that the modern Israelites and Arabs are actually the descendents of the Canaanites rather than their conquerors and neighbors. I've been looking into what genetics has to say about ancestries as related to the claims of religions and found this site to be informative:
http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp
The Mormons claim that the modern American Indians primarily are descendent from Israelites that boated across the ocean arriving somewhere around central America. They are darker skinned now supposedly because they were cursed due to certain sinful ancestors. This link demonstrates that there is no genetic connection between the American Indians and the Israelites, but instead the genetics demonstrates that they are descendents of multiple waves of migrating Asian ancestors starting over 40 thousand years ago. The genetic evidence goes on to prove that we are not only closely related to chimps but that we are so closely related that we really should be classified as a third species of chimp, the other two being pygmy and common. Our we had a common ancestry with chimps 5-7 million years ago. Archaic homosapiens came about 500 thousand years ago and fully modern humans about 100 thousand years ago. Well there goes the validity of a whole lot of world religions.

http://www.life.uiuc.edu/plantbio/260/dispersal/15a-Wind-tumbleweed.jpg

I've been looking into what genetics has to say about ancestries as related to the claims of religions and found this site to be informative:
Mormons can’t fight DNA evidence

http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp
¶28 Molecular anthropologists Neil Bradman and Mark Thomas have used the distinctive Cohen modal haplotype to link ancient Hebrews to the modern population of the Lemba. The Lemba, a black southern African Bantu-speaking population, draw upon their oral traditions to assert a Jewish ancestry. Bradman and Thomas note that "claiming Jewish origins is not an unusual phenomenon: the myth of the lost tribes is a powerful story and many groups have claimed to be descendants of one or other of the tribes or have been put forward for that honor."[71] The BoMor claims of an Israelite ancestry for Native Americans would certainly fit into this phenomenon but DNA tests of claims by the Lemba yielded a strikingly different outcome than we have seen with Mormon claims about Native Americans. Two studies have now demonstrated that one of the Lemba clans carries a high frequency of "a particular Y-chromosome termed the 'Cohen modal haplotype,' which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin."[72] If the BoMor documented actual Israelite migrations to the New World, then one would expect to find similar evidence to that found in a Lemba clan in one or more Native American populations. Such evidence, however, has not been forthcoming.

Mormons can’t fight DNA evidence
Sure they can. All they need to do is get together enough of an angry mob, complete with pitchforks and burning torches, and start mobbing labs. Religions in general have a long history of doing things like that to anything that contradicts them or otherwise piss them off. ;)

"In the thread where I disproved the bible"

That thread hardly does that.

"In the thread where I disproved the bible"

That thread hardly does that.
Yes I did.

Actually, no one has refuted the Book of Mormon's actual claims about the DNA of its characters yet. This is because the Book of Mormon is mainly silent about such DNA evidence. See the following exhaustive web site by Jeff Lindsay:

Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon? (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml)

The Book of Mormon has come under heavy fire from critics in light of DNA evidence that is said to utterly refute the Book of Mormon, for the evidence points to Asiatic origins, not Middle Eastern origins of the ancient inhabitants of this continent. These attacks typically rely on several faulty assumptions about what the Book of Mormon actually states and do not refute a divine origin for the Book of Mormon. The DNA "proof" has very little to do with the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Of the various men and women in three different Old World groups who came to the Americas according to the Book of Mormon, we can only safely state that one of them, Mulek, was definitely Jewish, but we still do not know what kind of DNA he carried. Lehi was somehow descended from Manasseh, but that does not specify what kind of Y-chromosome he had. We have no clue about the genetic origins of his wife or the other individuals that came with him. We know nothing about the genetic origins of others in Mulek's party or the people they almost certainly intermarried with in the Americas. We know nothing about the Jaredites, though they probably originated from Central Asia. The DNA they contributed to the Americas could have looked like Asiatic DNA. Given the uncertainty in the genetic origins of the groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon, one cannot claim that genetic evidence has somehow disproved the Book of Mormon

Also see

Why Should We Expect to See Jewish DNA in Native Americans? (http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme13.shtml)

Yes I did.

I'm sorry, exactly how does your argument "disprove" the Bible?

If you want, just message me your response, so as to keep this discussion on track. I sure noone wants to see this thread spiral into a topic semi-unrelated.

hah...just read the starter post where it claims the American Indians were 'cursed' and that how they got darker skin......oh my goooooood. who said this , the friggin freaky mormons.
talk about racism made myth
'speakin of the mormons. they are truly spookily VERY commensurate with the Illuminati!!!!!check it out

hah...just read the starter post where it claims the American Indians were 'cursed' and that how they got darker skin......oh my goooooood. who said this , the friggin freaky mormons.
talk about racism made myth
'speakin of the mormons. they are truly spookily VERY commensurate with the Illuminati!!!!!check it out

Please see the following web page to refute this idea that dark skin was the curse (note especially when it says that dark skin was a sign of the curse, not the curse itself.

Do Mormons Believe That Dark Skin Is A Curse? (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/blacks_skin_color.htm)

From the "All About Mormons" website:

One of the favorite techniques of anti-Mormons is to falsely say that the Lamanites were cursed with dark skin. They falsely say that Latter-day Saints believe that there is something inherently wrong with someone because he has dark skin. By the dictionary definition of racism, this idea is certainly racist. However, it is not a Latter-day Saint teaching and stands in direct opposition to the Book of Mormon (the keystone of our religion): "... [Jesus Christ] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God ...(2 Nephi 26:33)

According to President Joseph Fielding Smith,

"The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord and the Lamanites becoming a "loathsome and filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.'' The Lord commanded the Nephites not to intermarry with them, for if they did they would partake of the curse." (Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 3, p.122)

The dark skin given to the Lamanites was simply a physical characteristic to distinguish the Lamanites and Nephites and to keep them from intermarrying. Skin color has no moral significance one way or the other. Why were the Nephites commanded not to intermarry with the Lamanites? For the same reason that Latter-day Saints today are counseled not to date or marry nonmembers of the Church. Latter-day Saints who are married to nonmembers do not enjoy full Church participation, especially temple marriage. Furthermore, their children are far less likely to be faithful members of the Church. (See Dating Nonmembers)

Also see:

Are Mormons Prejudiced? (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/blacks_prejudice.htm)

Actually, no one has refuted the Book of Mormon's actual claims about the DNA of its characters yet. This is because the Book of Mormon is mainly silent about such DNA evidence. See the following exhaustive web site by Jeff Lindsay:

Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon? (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml)
You were proven wrong by genetics. No apologetic arguement saves your religion from that.

hah...just read the starter post where it claims the American Indians were 'cursed' and that how they got darker skin......oh my goooooood. who said this , the friggin freaky mormons.
talk about racism made myth
'speakin of the mormons. they are truly spookily VERY commensurate with the Illuminati!!!!!check it out
They also think the mark of Cain was passed onto his children and that was what led to blacks and so they denied blacks the preistood up until sometime in the '80s.

Please see the following web page to refute this idea that dark skin was the curse (note especially when it says that dark skin was a sign of the curse, not the curse itself.

Do Mormons Believe That Dark Skin Is A Curse? (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/blacks_skin_color.htm)

Also see:

Are Mormons Prejudiced? (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/blacks_prejudice.htm)
So you are trying to explain away what you now realise is unethical doctrine. What an embarrassment for you.

You were proven wrong by genetics. No apologetic arguement saves your religion from that.

Genetics? So do you know the exact genetic makeup of Lehi, Sariah, Jared, Ishmael, Mulek? Do you claim to know the exact genetic makeup of all Native Americans on both American continents?

Genetics? So do you know the exact genetic makeup of Lehi, Sariah, Jared, Ishmael, Mulek? Do you claim to know the exact genetic makeup of all Native Americans on both American continents?Since they didn't exist, why would I have to? Seriously, yes the geneticists involved know exactly what components of the genetic make up proves that the American Indians evolved from the same ancestors as did the moden asians and that they did not have a common ancestory with people of the middle east for several tens of thousands of years.

Unless the geneticists in question have determined that all Native Americans originate in northeast Asia (and I mean ALL, not some representative percentage), you cannot credibly say that there haven't been any groups that have different genes.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Unless the geneticists in question have determined that all Native Americans originate in northeast Asia (and I mean ALL, not some representative percentage), you cannot credibly say that there haven't been any groups that have different genes.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What group has different genes? Prove it. Show me the DNA You are not being honest even with yourself.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The onus is on you. You are going against what has been scientifically accepted.

"Show me the DNA"??? What am I, the DNA Fairy? I say, YOU show ME that all Native American genes are of Northeast Asian origin. The onus is indeed on you if you're going to claim that NONE of them have Israelite genes. No one has proved that, and I believe no one can.

Plus, I have a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is true. Do you?

"Show me the DNA"??? What am I, the DNA Fairy?Yeah I knew you were just speculating. I say, YOU show ME that all Native American genes are of Northeast Asian origin. Why?

Plus, I have a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is true. Do you?
As I've said, self delusion does not usurp imperical data. You have been scientifically proven wrong by the DNA evidence among other things.

You have been scientifically proven wrong by the DNA evidence among other things.

Not even close, sorry. If you think you can "disprove" the Book of Mormon, you don't know what you're up against. Have you ever even read it?

Not even close, sorry. If you think you can "disprove" the Book of Mormon, you don't know what you're up against. Have you ever even read it?
Yes I did disprove it. Contrary to your wishful version of the world, yes I have read it and I've read the entire bible and I've read a sizable portion of the Koran so far and I've read the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenents and the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and more science fact documents that prove such false than you've probably ever even heard of. Have you?

Book of Mormon - 4 to 5 times completely through; 1 year Seminary Study
New Testament - About 4 times completly through; 1 year Seminary Study
Old Testament - Just about done once through; 1 year Seminary Study
Doctrine & Covenants - Once through; 1 year Seminary Study
Koran - Scratched the surface

Perhaps the question shouldn't be, "Have you read it?" but rather, "Have you felt it, or are you past feeling?"

Perhaps the question shouldn't be, "Have you read it?" but rather, "Have you felt it, or are you past feeling?"
Your trying to satisfy your confirmation bias with this. If I say I don't feel it then in your mind I must be past feeling and therefor its my fault for not just ignoring all the imperical data as you do in favor of self delusion taken as devine revalation. Here in the real world when it comes to matters of fact feelings are irrelevent because you will have a tendency to feel whatever you want to believe to the point that your heart will lie to you. In matters of fact use your head not your heart if you don't want to be deceived. This is a matter of fact, whether the book of Mormon is Historically valid or not is not in any way a matter of the heart and the data which you should be using your head to process instead of your heart dissproved it.

Mm-kay.

Genetics? So do you know the exact genetic makeup of Lehi, Sariah, Jared, Ishmael, Mulek?
actually, if the BoM narrative is to be believed, yes, they were Israelish, if they came from any of the tribes of Israel, they would have Middle Eastern DNA (very distinct); so if from Judah, Dan or Benjamin, it makes no mind, because they would not be Asiatic from Siberia, which the DNA plainly proves

Do you claim to know the exact genetic makeup of all Native Americans on both American continents?shucks, starting from here,yes
http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560851813/103-2274275-1131040?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
http://americanindiandna.com/


dig deeper:
http://www.ericbarger.com/cgidna.htm
http://www.lhvm.org/arch/bband.htm
http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmnh/origin.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701509129_6/First_Americans.html
http://cita.chattanooga.org/mtdna.html
http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html

have fun

You have fun, too:

Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon? (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml)
DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html)
Dr. Scott Woodward: DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/)
Is An Historical Book of Mormon Incompatible with DNA Science? (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/BoMDNA.pdf)
A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event" (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html)
The Tempest in a Teapot: DNA Studies and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html)
The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=231&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3L nBocA==)
A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf)
Who Are the Children of Lehi? (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Stephens_Meldrum_DNA.pdf)
Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity (http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-5nativeidentity.html)
Before DNA (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Sorenson_Roper_DNA.pdf)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part I (http://www.ldsmag.com/ancients/050711dna.html)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part II (http://meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050712dna2.html)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part III (http://meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050713dna3.html)
DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Whiting_DNA.pdf)

You have fun, too:

Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon? (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml)
DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html)
Dr. Scott Woodward: DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/)
Is An Historical Book of Mormon Incompatible with DNA Science? (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/BoMDNA.pdf)
A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event" (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html)
The Tempest in a Teapot: DNA Studies and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html)
The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=231&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3L nBocA==)
A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf)
Who Are the Children of Lehi? (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Stephens_Meldrum_DNA.pdf)
Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity (http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-5nativeidentity.html)
Before DNA (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Sorenson_Roper_DNA.pdf)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part I (http://www.ldsmag.com/ancients/050711dna.html)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part II (http://meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050712dna2.html)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part III (http://meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050713dna3.html)
DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Whiting_DNA.pdf)Those are nothing but the same kind of apologetic arguements given by any other Christian group. No amout of beating around the bush is going to change the fact that the DNA evidence beyond any reasonable doubt proved your religion wrong.

Those are nothing but the same kind of apologetic arguements given by any other Christian group. No amout of beating around the bush is going to change the fact that the DNA evidence beyond any reasonable doubt proved your religion wrong.

I suppose you read all of them? That was quick, considering some of them are more than 80 pages long, and I just posted them a couple of hours ago.

To quote Jeff Lindsey from
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

Science frequently causes old assumptions to be revised or even discarded. For example, it was long an assumption in Christian circles that the earth was created in six 24-hour days. Then the scientific evidence became nearly overwhelming for an old earth whose biosphere changed and developed over a course of many millions of years before man appeared. Many Christians then had to revisit their old assumption, noticing that the Hebrew word translated as "day" in Genesis 1 can also mean "epoch" or "time." (Latter-day Saints had a head-start in this area, as one version of the Creation story recorded in the Book of Abraham, translated by Joseph Smith, speaks of the creation events not in terms of days, but times.) Scientific evidence has led many Christians to drop an old but popular assumption to replace it with a more reasonable assumption, with no need to discard faith in God. (See, for example, the approach of Dr. Hugh Ross at Reasons.org, a scientist who accepts Genesis and the concept of an old earth. I, like most of the scientists I know who are also Christian, believe that God's creation proceeded under His direction in logical steps, roughly as described in Genesis, over a long period of time.)

DNA evidence of human origins, which entered public consciousness with the work of Cann et al. (1987) and the "African mitochondrial Eve," has been shaking up many old assumptions. The science around DNA and its role in tracing human origins is a complex topic with many helpful basic treatments available online, such as "American Indian mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Data: A Comprehensive Report of their Use in Migration and Other Anthropological Studies" by Peter N. Jones (2004), made available by the International Institute for Indigenous Resource Management. We'll discuss the science in more detail below. For now, the main implication for the Book of Mormon is that a popular nineteenth-century assumption about the scope of the Book of Mormon made by many leaders and members of the Church is incorrect.

Many people, not knowing anything about the early settling of this continent outside of the migrations reported in the Book of Mormon, assumed that ALL Native Americans descended ONLY from the few small groups mentioned there. That assumption is wrong, to the best of our knowledge. The assumption that the Book of Mormon covered the entire hemisphere and explained all Native American origins is not supported by the text or by scientific evidence. It was not a matter of doctrine or anything affecting the core of our religion, but is an area of academic interest. Destroying that errant though understandable assumption with modern evidence does not destroy the Book of Mormon, but enhances our understanding of the details behind and helps clarify many issues in the text. The critics think they can destroy the LDS faith with DNA evidence, but all that is necessary is to revise and update an errant assumption--and keep learning! Emphasis added.

To quote Jeff Lindsey from
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml
The assumption that the Book of Mormon covered the entire hemisphere and explained all Native American origins is not supported by the text
not true, the text says that the land was empty
or by scientific evidence.since when did LDS ever use that?
It was not a matter of doctrine or anything affecting the core of our religion,actually, its at the core of your religion for 3 reasons:
1) never does the BoM mention the people round about, it is silent about the Native Peoples because J. Smith knew nothing of their origins (using fictitious Lamanites, Jareites, Mulikites & Nephites instead)
2) if J. Smith's BoM was true, it would mention Native Peoples, either in conflict with, marriage to, trade, war, religion; the Bible mentions all the people round about, under those circumstances; the silence is deafening
3) LDS missionaries have been using it to try to convert Native Peoples & Polynesians to good effect

not true, the text says that the land was empty

Give me chapter and verse for that, please.

since when did LDS ever use that?

You've obviously never heard of BYU.

actually, its at the core of your religion for 3 reasons:
1) never does the BoM mention the people round about, it is silent about the Native Peoples because J. Smith knew nothing of their origins (using fictitious Lamanites, Jareites, Mulikites & Nephites instead)

The core of our religion is Jesus Christ, to which all other doctrines are corollaries.

2) if J. Smith's BoM was true, it would mention Native Peoples, either in conflict with, marriage to, trade, war, religion; the Bible mentions all the people round about, under those circumstances; the silence is deafening

Amazing, coming from someone who has never even read the book and refuses to do so! Actually, Nephi was commanded to only touch on the history of his people as far as necessary, because the plates were meant to be sacred truth, not a history book. The complete history of the Lehites is on other plates somewhere, buried.
3) LDS missionaries have been using it to try to convert Native Peoples & Polynesians to good effect

As I quoted Jeff Lindsay as saying, we had an erroneous belief, DNA science came along and modified that belief, and we modified our world view regarding the Book of Mormon accordingly.

The core of Mormonism is and always has been Jesus Christ and His gospel and Atonement. You can say that we don't believe that, but we do. We get tired of having people tell us what we believe, when we don't believe what they think we do. Christ is at the center of our worship services, our scriptures, and our lives.

let me put my 2 cents in. i was raised in a religious household, as a matter of fact my grandfather was about 2 fruitloops short of fanatic. he called television the work of the devil and was evil reincarnate. practically everything that man didn't understand was truely evil. now about religion,i have not seen any evidence not one shred that leads me to believe that there is an all powerfull force that controls everything, on the other hand evolution can't possibly explain the great diversity of life on this planet. therefore i believe that BOTH THEORIES ARE WRONG. instead of wrangeling aruond evolution or religion maybe we should come up with another option. what if time had no begining and life itself was always here in the universe somewhere?

Tril says
"there is no genetic connection between the American Indians and the Israelites, but instead the genetics demonstrates that they are descendents of multiple waves of migrating Asian ancestors"

There is evidence in the book of mormon that they sailed from the americas WEST towards asia... this could also be a reason why asians show a genetic relation to the Israelites that populated the americas.

"And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward."

"And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward."

The book of Mormon is TRUE-----read it while you have the opportunity too.

You are suggesting that the Asians are the descendednts of the American indians. Are you insane?

God Bless you too....

Give me chapter and verse for that, please.

Amazing, coming from someone who has never even read the book and refuses to do so! Actually, Nephi was commanded to only touch on the history of his people as far as necessary, because the plates were meant to be sacred truth, not a history book. For shame, for shame, that me, a non-mormon would know more about the BoM than you? Or were you hoping that my lack of reading the entirety of the BoM would hide the truth from others? Google to the rescue!

Try 2 Nephi Chapter 1: verses 3 through 9.

And I’m not the first to grapple with this problem
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=141
Views of Book of Mormon history and geography imply possible definitions for Book of Mormon populations. According to the traditional hemispheric interpretation, the American continents were empty of people when Jared's party arrived. When the Jaredites self-destructed, Lehi's and Mulek's recent immigrant groups were left to repopulate the land. This implies that all pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas, including all of the populations of the Olmec, Maya, Inca, Aztec, and other North and South American native populations, and their descendants down to modern times, grew from one or more of the three Book of Mormon migrations. In considering this traditional view, B. H. Roberts noted how it implies "an empty America three thousand years B.C. . . . into which a colony may come."25 After the Jaredites arrived, grew to large numbers, and then became extinct, the traditional view implies "American continents again without human inhabitants," following which "into these second time empty American continents—empty of human population—we want the evidence of the coming of two small colonies about 600 BC, which shall be the ancestors of all native American races as we know them."26Recognizing the difficulties in this, Roberts asked "how shall we answer the questions that arise from the considerations of American archaeology? Can we successfully overturn the evidences presented by archaeologists for the great antiquity of man in America, and his continuous occupancy of it? . . . Can we successfully maintain the Book of Mormon's comparatively recent advent of man in America?"27

You've obviously never heard of BYU.
you're serious? aren't you? when push comes to shove, BYU would send obstacrators like you, to try & confuse the issues

Oh, BTW, while I was at the LACMA "Egyptian exhibit", I bought me a handy-dandy, hieroglyphic decoder for about $3.99. I now know more Egyptian than J. Smith ever did.

:D hehehehe

For shame, for shame, that me, a non-mormon would know more about the BoM than you? Or were you hoping that my lack of reading the entirety of the BoM would hide the truth from others? Google to the rescue!

Try 2 Nephi Chapter 1: verses 3 through 9.

And I’m not the first to grapple with this problem
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=141

I was just curious where you were getting the idea that the land was empty, that's all. Nothing to put you down or "hide the truth." The truth is not afraid to defend itself--no need to hide it. Now let's have a look at what 2 Nephi 1:3-9 actually says:

1. The land of America should be an inheritance for Lehi's seed, AND for those the Lord led out from other countries.
2. No one shall come to the land unless they are led by the Lord.
3. The knowledge of the existence of this land will be kept from other nations, because they would overrun it if they knew of it.
4. If the Lehites should keep the commandments, they shall be kept from all other nations. But if they don't keep the commandments, other nations will scatter them.

From the above, we can safely infer that if there were others besides the Book of Mormon peoples, they must have been led by the hand of the Lord to get here. This passage of scripture does not say that the land was empty when the Lehites and Jaredites got there.

You've obviously never heard of BYU.

you're serious? aren't you? when push comes to shove, BYU would send obstacrators like you, to try & confuse the issues

BYU would never send me anywhere--I dropped out after my first year there. But let me tell you, BYU science courses are rigorous and very difficult to pass. I took Chemistry and found it to be so hard that I only got a C-, and that was *after* working my butt off. Similarly, biology (which also taught evolution, genetics, and anthropology) was very, very hard and very savvy about the current scientific advances. BYU has very rigorous, up-to-date and modern courses of science. So hard that I dropped out!

I was just curious where you were getting the idea that the land was empty, that's all. Nothing to put you down or "hide the truth." Good save, buckaroo!!! You’d make a good “spin doctor” for Prez Bush, I hear he’s hiring.

BTW, I don’t buy it, I bet you were just hoping I couldn’t back it up, you of all people should know, that almost everything is on the net now, you can’t hide those “embarrassing little peccadilloes”, like J. Smith's fake “Book of Abraham”

The truth is not afraid to defend itself--no need to hide it. Now let's have a look at what 2 Nephi 1:3-9 actually says:

1. The land of America should be an inheritance for Lehi's seed, AND for those the Lord led out from other countries.
2. No one shall come to the land unless they are led by the Lord.
3. The knowledge of the existence of this land will be kept from other nations, because they would overrun it if they knew of it.
4. If the Lehites should keep the commandments, they shall be kept from all other nations. But if they don't keep the commandments, other nations will scatter them.

From the above, we can safely infer that if there were others besides the Book of Mormon peoples, they must have been led by the hand of the Lord to get here. This passage of scripture does not say that the land was empty when the Lehites and Jaredites got there.Let’s see what the actual text says:

From:
http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/1
3 And he also spake unto them concerning the land of promise, which they had obtained—how merciful• the Lord had been in warning us that we should flee out of the land of Jerusalem.

4 For, behold, said he, I have seen• a vision, in which I know that Jerusalem• is destroyed•; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have perished•.

5 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.

6 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.

7 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.

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.

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.


As a Mexican Christian, I find it hard to believe that God in any way led my ancestors to the Western Hemisphere, because if anything, they were very un-Jewish, very un-Christian, very ‘gloriously’ pagan, even bloodily so, if history is any judge, for the last 20K years.

I like my history, (bloody as it is, its totally, unabashedly Mexican, I won’t make any apologies, its what it was, what it is), my ancestors accomplished much without the help of foreign interlopers, if the BoM cultures existed anywhere near Mesoamerica, why they must have been in some other dimension, out-of-phase or in a parallel universe, since they obviously never touched or influenced each other in their immensity of populations, trade, wars, travels, religion, culture or technology, now why is that, I wonder?

they should have at least mentioned each other, no?

they obviously never touched or influenced each other in their immensity of populations, trade, wars, travels, religion, culture or technology, now why is that, I wonder?

they should have at least mentioned each other, no?

Personally (and this is not necessarily Mormon doctrine, so don't take it as if it is), I believe that:

1. The Lehites and Mulekites lived in a very limited part of the Americas rather than the entirety of North and South America. As such, they were limited as to what other cultures they came in contact with. The Book of Mormon does mention that they met up with the last of the Jaredites, and that there was a land (called "Desolation") to the north of them which was filled with dead men's bones. But other than that, I believe they lived in comparatively isolated geography.

2. I believe that when Christ was crucified, the whole face of the land was changed, wiping out and burying entire cities, gutting them with fire, earthquake, winds and hurricanes, etc. This may be why we don't see a bunch of Nephite or Lamanite ruins, because God Himself buried those wicked cities. When God buries something and says, "Get out of my sight, wicked city!", who is to find it?

These are my speculations, not church doctrine. I don't know if they are true or not. IANAAnthropologist.

1. It has been proven that the Indians came to north america thousands of years before monotheism was even a concept, let alone the formation of Judaism.
2. If the american indians came from the israelites, don't you think that they would belive in judaism, from traditions passed down, instead of their nature-religion?
3. Marlin, go fuck yourself.

Moderator comment -

Hapsburg - how about leaving out the very frequent and unnecessary profanities that add nothing to the debate and do offend many people?

I was just curious where you were getting the idea that the land was empty, that's all. Nothing to put you down or "hide the truth." The truth is not afraid to defend itself--no need to hide it. Now let's have a look at what 2 Nephi 1:3-9 actually says:

1. The land of America should be an inheritance for Lehi's seed, AND for those the Lord led out from other countries.
By the and part Joseph Smith meant us modern nonindian Americans. You goofed the tense. On purpose? He used the future tense to mean us modern nonindian americans, not the past tense to mean asians. Next time don't change the text.

By the and part Joseph Smith meant us modern nonindian Americans. He goofed the tense because in his time it had already been colonised.

OR, he meant the group which first crossed the Bering land bridge. How do you know they weren't led by God?

OR, he meant the group which first crossed the Bering land bridge. How do you know they weren't led by God?
Because you changed the tense.

So God didn't help the Bering land bridge people because I changed the tense?

Non sequitur time, I guess. :rolleyes:

So God didn't help the Bering land bridge people because I changed the tense?no, because if God had helped them under the conditions set forth in the BoM, those self-same Amerinds would have been God-fearing jewish or Christian Amerinds, a scenario that is not supported by the evidence of history or anthropology

Non sequitur time, I guess. :-rolleyes-:I guess so, seeing that you don't get it either

no, because if God had helped them under the conditions set forth in the BoM, those self-same Amerinds would have been God-fearing jewish or Christian Amerinds, a scenario that is not supported by the evidence of history or anthropology

I guess so, seeing that you don't get it either

God can lead people who are not "God-fearing jewish or Christian Amerinds" as well as He can lead Israelites. He cares about all men. Whatever you believe about the Bering land bridge people, you certainly have not and cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they were not led by God.

Moderator comment -
Hapsburg - how about leaving out the very frequent and unnecessary profanities that add nothing to the debate and do offend many people?

He deserved it, and so do you, government fiend.

trilairian -

why do you seek to disprove all religion? why is it so necessary to try and tear down peoples' faith? you obviously do not believe in any religion, and therefore have no reason to try and persuade anyone else out of theirs.

but the focus of my response is not on your faith or anyone elses' - i'd just like to know what purpose your threads serve. are you trying to tell everyone that religion is false? are you trying to tell people that their beliefs are incorrect? are you just trying to start arguments? or do you just like to stamp on the very fabric that holds the universe together in some peoples' hearts?

trying to tell people their beliefs are wrong is futile. belief does not need to be backed up by factual evidence, and can not be torn down by quoting someone else's research. belief is not something that is easily erased. mutable; yes. based on total crap; often. but it is unnecessary to try and change the beliefs of people who have had their own unique religious experience.

i am not a mormon. i barely can call myself a christian. yet, no matter what anyone says, no matter the heaps upon heaps of data you can pile in front of me that 'disproves' my god, he will still exsist in my heart, because i believe. and there should be NO reason anyones' faith should be bulldozed for any reason, unless it infringes on someone else's rights. what do you possibly stand to gain from attacking people with jargon and regurgitated data? i'm quite sure that if anyone here wanted all of the things you cut-and-pasted into a topic, they would have gone looking for them.

maybe that's too harsh, and it doesn't make my point. my point is this:
if you have come to a forum looking for a place to intelligently discuss peoples' faiths and beliefs, then why do you attack people with websites? why do you post "proof" that all religions are bull crap?

i pity you, in a way; your heart is so closed that your mind has followed.

God can lead people who are not "God-fearing jewish or Christian Amerinds" as well as He can lead Israelites. true, but that does not satisfy the conditions set forth by the BoM itself, you are out of compliance, going out into conjecture, that is not supported by the document itself

re-read it for yourself

Personally (and this is not necessarily Mormon doctrine, so don't take it as if it is), I believe that:[/SIZE]
conjecture then? you are rationalizing then, trying to fit the facts with the now ‘out-of-context’ document
1. The Lehites and Mulekites lived in a very limited part of the Americas rather than the entirety of North and South America. As such, they were limited as to what other cultures they came in contact with. you are going against LDS doctrine & belief as stated by J. Smith, the founder & every subsequent leader, up until modern science reared its ugly head, & made many LDS beliefs untenable
But other than that, I believe they lived in comparatively isolated geography.then the BoM exaggerated the extent of Nephite occupation, while 'New Wave Mormons' like yourself, are limiting it? so, where is Hill Cumorah, in New York or Mexico? if in NY, then was J. Smith lost or are you?
2. I believe that when Christ was crucified, the whole face of the land was changed, wiping out and burying entire cities, gutting them with fire, earthquake, winds and hurricanes, etc. This may be why we don't see a bunch of Nephite or Lamanite ruins, because God Himself buried those wicked cities. that would have been extremely localized to Central America under this new Limited Geography Theory, otherwise why would Olmec, Teotihuacán, & Maya sites have survived in the same areas? And why just in BoM lands, the same should have happened to the Bible lands? yet even after the Roman wars, & the Muslim onslaught & occupation, we can still find Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, etc…, some as ruins, but they’re still there, why?

Also, as the Tsunami & Katrina showed, when nature is unleashed, it is indiscriminate
These are my speculations, not church doctrine. I don't know if they are true or not. so, you are the first wave of doctrine changers, that will modernize the LDS church, don't be surprised if at the end of this process, the LDS church finds itself within mainstream Christianity, much as the WWCoG did
IANAAnthropologist.IAgree

Early church leaders just assumed that the hill in New York was the same Hill Cumorah as the one mentioned in the Book of Mormon. They also assumed the "whole continent" theory, which is apparently false. As I have said before on this message board, just because they made this understandable mistake doesn't mean the LDS faith is false--it just means that we have to modify our beliefs. Jesus is still Jesus, no matter where the Nephites and Lamanites originated from. The Atonement is still viable, no matter where the original Hill Cumorah is. You see, Christ is at the center of the LDS faith, not geography, not anthropology, not genetics.

why do you seek to disprove all religion?

Religion propagates ignorance, oppression and fear - reasons enough.

there should be NO reason anyones' faith should be bulldozed for any reason, unless it infringes on someone else's rights

Bingo! We have a winner!

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but my rights, and everyone elses, are infringed upon by theist thought every single day.

Religion propagates ignorance, oppression and fear - reasons enough.
& you on the otherhand propagate peace, harmony, oh so good thoughts? get real

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but my rights, and everyone elses, are infringed upon by theist thought every single day.boy, not only are you a liar, but you exaggerate too.

me thinkest, thou wouldest infringeth on mine rights if thou couldest, too bad for thee, thy canst

boy, not only are you a liar, but you exaggerate too.

A liar? How so, sfb?

Early church leaders just assumed that the hill in New York was the same Hill Cumorah as the one mentioned in the Book of Mormon. poor J. Smith & others, they being prophets & all, couldn't tell where Hill Cumorah was? makes you wonder what else they got wrong? how bout everything! poor fellows, couldn't tell true from false to save their lives or souls,

even you, have been calling LDS belief into question, stating things that contradict J. Smith!
you better think about that, so that you have a chance to change before its too late, now's the time to look into what Jesus said, read the Gospels, get re-acquainted with the person you say is your Savior
They also assumed the "whole continent" theory, which is apparently false. if the prophet who wrote it, couldn't tell the diff, what makes you think he got anything right? first of all; if you do any research on the subject of mormon origins (I know its not 'faith promoting', but you've already broken that taboo by calling into question early LDS foundational beliefs), you'll probably find that J. Smith took ideas then current & fashioned a belief system that fit his beliefs (& peccadilloes; remember polygamy? what better way to use his manly charms & oratory skills than to woo all those young ladies to his bed chamber? & with his "god's" approval, no less. B. Young took full advantage of that "assumption”)

A liar? How so?
if you don't know, then you're even lying to yourself

WildBlueYonder, I read the Bible every day, thank you very much. I recently finished the Old Testament and the four Gospels, and am currently reading 2 Corinthians. I have already found my Savior, don't worry. He is the Christ of the Bible and the Christ of the Book of Mormon, one and the same.

Attack Joseph Smith all you want. Did you know that you are fulfilling a prophecy Moroni made about Joseph Smith when you try to tear him down? Namely, that Joseph's name should be both good and evil spoken of among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.

WildBlueYonder, I read the Bible every day, thank you very much. good for you, its a good start
I have already found my Savior, don't worry. He is the Christ of the Bible and the Christ of the Book of Mormon, one and the same.ahh, if that were true buckeroo, it would make things so much simpler, why muslims would be christians & mooonies, & JW's too, why lets go skip hand-in-hand down to the mosque, my young naive friend
Attack Joseph Smith all you want. Did you know that you are fulfilling a prophecy Moroni made about Joseph Smith when you try to tear him down? me!!!???? you're the one calling into question his veracity, I'm just pointing out that with that goes his so-called "prophethood"

anyway, I think J. Smith was a genius after a fashion; why who could put together a religion "whole cloth", write a 'holy' book , add his peccadilloes into it & get millions of people to believe its true? Mohammad comes to mind, L. Ron Hubbard too.


byw, I like J. Smith's sense of humor, naming an angel "moron'I"

me!!!???? you're the one calling into question his veracity, I'm just pointing out that with that goes his so-called "prophethood"

No, I am not questioning Joseph Smith's prophethood. Prophets do not know everything, and they are not infallible. They are human beings with their own beliefs and opinions, and when they are not speaking for the Lord, they may express these beliefs and opinions as fallible men. A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. The rest of the time he is a normal man.

if you don't know, then you're even lying to yourself

Ah, just blowing smoke out your ass, as I suspected, sfb.

trilairian -

why do you seek to disprove all religion?
Seeking? I have already disproved the religions I have discussed. If you found out that virtually every war around you, the societal oppressions around you, the inhibition of scientific progress around you, the abuse of animals, the demeaning of women, racial conflict, abortions, burnt written knowledge, justification of revenge, murders of "infidels", wicca etc, the destruction of the environment,.... was ultimately caused by people having put false statements into the mouth of God and passing that on to you and others as indoctrination's called religion, wouldn't you want to say something about it? I also learn a lot for myself in researching the things that I debate. I do it on the net because, it is one thing to get into the inevitable following arguments with people I don't know where is it another thing to argue with people I have to socialize with frequently.
your heart is so closed that your mind has followed.
Who are you to judge me? You don't know me. You don't know my heart. And it is your mind that is closed, not mine. You said so yourself in that post.

Seeking? I have already disproved the religions I have discussed.

Not to believers of those religions, you haven't. You've only been believed by those who already discount those religions as false. To the rest of us, our faith remains.

Not to believers of those religions, you haven't. You've only been believed by those who already discount those religions as false. To the rest of us, our faith remains.
Yes I have, you just reflexively blink everytime I show you proof. In other words, you are in denial.

No, you haven't, really.

No, you haven't, really.
Yes I have, really.

My faith remains.

Religion propagates ignorance, oppression and fear - reasons enough.
oh, no, i beg to differ. PEOPLE associated with religion propagate ignorance, oppression, and fear. religion itself does not.

Bingo! We have a winner!
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but my rights, and everyone elses, are infringed upon by theist thought every single day.

How are your rights infringed upon by thought? Thought itself, being intangible; how can it possibly invade your personal space? I don't understand what you are saying.

Ah, just blowing smoke out your ass, as I suspected, sfb.
hmmm, lets see:
http://www.sharpened.net/glossary/acronyms.php
SFB "S••• for brains"

What a childish little name-caller, I suppose you have something better in that wet noodle of yours? Because if your level of discourse is any indication, you must be one of those 12-year old geeks

now, how exactly do you make this thread more logical, more reasoned without the name-calling?

as I stated before, if you say religion infringes on your rights in any way, you're a liar, unless of course you are a sociopath, or a psychopath, maybe even an axe murderer or serial killer or a child molester? care to explain, Mr. Q?

If you found out that virtually every war around you, the societal oppressions around you, the inhibition of scientific progress around you, the abuse of animals, the demeaning of women, racial conflict, abortions, burnt written knowledge, justification of revenge, murders of "infidels", wicca etc, the destruction of the environment,.... was ultimately caused by people having put false statements into the mouth of God and passing that on to you and others as indoctrination's called religion, wouldn't you want to say something about it?

Hahaha. You give religion far too much credit my good man. People do that sort of stuff regardless of their belief. People are animals.

Yes I have, you just reflexively blink everytime I show you proof. In other words, you are in denial.are you playing poker with Marlin? trying to bluff or out-psych him?

No, I am not questioning Joseph Smith's prophethood. Prophets do not know everything, and they are not infallible.
...
A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. The rest of the time he is a normal man.didn't some of his musings go into the D&C then? & I suppose Deuteronomy 18:18-22 means nothing to LDS?

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2018:18-22;&version=31;
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bible/bible07.html)

Personally (and this is not necessarily Mormon doctrine, so don't take it as if it is), I believe that:

1. The Lehites and Mulekites lived in a very limited part of the Americas rather than the entirety of North and South America. As such, they were limited as to what other cultures they came in contact with.
funny, but being that close to all those Mexicans, they should have passed some DNA onto them, check this site out:
http://www.med.nyu.edu/genetics/research/jewish_origins.html
Genetic Analysis of Jewish Origins

Did you ever wonder if 2000 years of recorded history could be preserved in the genetic record? Recent work from genetics labs has validated the Biblical record of a Semitic people who chose a Jewish way of life several thousand years ago.

These observations are the biological equivalent to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, suggesting that despite 2000 years of Diaspora, the relatedness of the Jews of Eastern European ("Ashkenazi"), North African ("Sephardic") and Middle Eastern ("Oriental") origin can be demonstrated by genetic marker analysis.
…
Figure 1:Relatedness of Jewish and non-Jewish populations based on Y chromosomal haplotypes. Virtually all Jews came from the Middle East as evidenced by the clustering of their Y chromosomal haplotypes between Jewish groups and between Jews and non-Jewish Middle Easterners.

We don't even know that Lehi was Jewish, nor the genetic makeup of those with whom he went to America. If we don't know at least that much, how in the world can we extrapolate the Lehi party's makeup? It's sheer speculation to try.

We don't even know that Lehi was Jewish, nor the genetic makeup of those with whom he went to America. If we don't know at least that much, how in the world can we extrapolate the Lehi party's makeup? It's sheer speculation to try.for a mormon, you need to read your own source documents; Lehi was of the tribe of "Joseph" according to the BoM, a partial error by J. Smith, since under the division of the tribes of Israel, Joseph had been apportioned to his sons into 3 tribes, Ephraim (which became Samaria) & (2 for) Manasseh (by conquest)

see 1 Nephi 5:14:
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/relg/bookofmormon/TheBookofMormon01-1Nephi/chap6.html
5:14 And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt, and who was preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all his household from perishing with famine.

We don't even know that Lehi was Jewish, nor the genetic makeup of those with whom he went to America. If we don't know at least that much, how in the world can we extrapolate the Lehi party's makeup? It's sheer speculation to try.
Of course he wasn't because he didn't exist. Of course you want him to be Asian, but thats rediculous.

PEOPLE associated with religion propagate ignorance, oppression, and fear. religion itself does not.

And what is religion but the belief in supernatural powers that control human destiny. Without people, religion wouldn't exist.

How are your rights infringed upon by thought?

Is it not theist thought that has run the world for many centuries?

as I stated before, if you say religion infringes on your rights in any way, you're a liar, unless of course you are a sociopath, or a psychopath, maybe even an axe murderer or serial killer or a child molester?

What are you talking about? Have you been living in a cave? Do you not think that those in power don't use their faith based ideals in their decision making process? Get a grip.

I think I've given enough links in this and other threads to explanatory websites on why DNA evidence doesn't disprove the Book of Mormon. Look them up--do a search for my user name, if you want.

As for myself, it's only an academic issue of passing interest, because I already know without a doubt that the Book of Mormon is true, independent of the DNA issue.

Here they are again:

Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon? (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml)
DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html)
Dr. Scott Woodward: DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/)
Is An Historical Book of Mormon Incompatible with DNA Science? (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/BoMDNA.pdf)
A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event" (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html)
The Tempest in a Teapot: DNA Studies and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html)
The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=231&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3L nBocA==)
A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf)
Who Are the Children of Lehi? (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Stephens_Meldrum_DNA.pdf)
Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity (http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-5nativeidentity.html)
Before DNA (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Sorenson_Roper_DNA.pdf)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part I (http://www.ldsmag.com/ancients/050711dna.html)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part II (http://meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050712dna2.html)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part III (http://meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050713dna3.html)
DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Whiting_DNA.pdf)

Here they are again:

Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon? (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml)
DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html)
Dr. Scott Woodward: DNA and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/)
Is An Historical Book of Mormon Incompatible with DNA Science? (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/BoMDNA.pdf)
A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event" (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html)
The Tempest in a Teapot: DNA Studies and the Book of Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html)
The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=231&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3L nBocA==)
A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf)
Who Are the Children of Lehi? (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Stephens_Meldrum_DNA.pdf)
Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity (http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-5nativeidentity.html)
Before DNA (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Sorenson_Roper_DNA.pdf)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part I (http://www.ldsmag.com/ancients/050711dna.html)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part II (http://meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050712dna2.html)
Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon Part III (http://meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050713dna3.html)
DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Whiting_DNA.pdf)
And we've already told you why such apologies were invalid, spammer.

And we've already told you why such apologies were invalid, spammer.

"We"? Who is "we"?

LOL, calling me a spammer for referring you to relevant websites, eh? Methinks I'm dealing with someone who has less than a full deck of cards.

Marlin

Do you have a source that actually isn't biased?

Insults don't substitute equivelently for a valid argument Marlin. Yes you are spamming by repeating link posts already invalidated, and Q no he doesn't.

Marlin

Do you have a source that actually isn't biased?

At the risk of further damaging Trilairian's delicate spam sensors, here you go:

Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity (http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-5nativeidentity.html)

We don't even know that Lehi was Jewish, nor the genetic makeup of those with whom he went to America. If we don't know at least that much, how in the world can we extrapolate the Lehi party's makeup? It's sheer speculation to try.

for a mormon, you need to read your own source documents; Lehi was of the tribe of "Joseph" according to the BoM,

For an anti-Mormon, you need to recognize the difference between "Jewish" and "Israelite." Jewish means "of the tribe of Judah," which was only one of the twelve tribes. "Israelite" includes people from all twelve tribes. Lehi was Israelite, but that doesn't mean he was Jewish.

And what is religion but the belief in supernatural powers that control human destiny. Without people, religion wouldn't exist.
ok, i worded that incorrectly, because yes, i see how religion would not exist with out people. it's that whole "some people spoil it for others" philosophy. some people are idiots, religious zealots, psychotic killers, power-hungry overlords, and closed-minded - or any combination of the five. i'll be the first to admit that people rarely practice what they preach. what i am trying to say is that there are those of us out here that quietly believe in something bigger, and follow what they believe is right while observing a moral code. do you really think that benevolence, altruism, and morality do not exist in people?

Is it not theist thought that has run the world for many centuries?
yes, it has. but once again, any thought can become dangerous in the minds of someone who wants to use it destructively. any thought can become a motivation to power for those who seek it. and any thought can become nothing at all.

do you really think that benevolence, altruism, and morality do not exist in people?

Yes, without the need for religion, of course.

yes, it has. but once again, any thought can become dangerous in the minds of someone who wants to use it destructively. any thought can become a motivation to power for those who seek it. and any thought can become nothing at all.

It is theist thought that controls the decision making process, which has shaped and formed our societies over the centuries that resulted in those idiots, zealots, killers, overlords and the close-minded. This is the same thought process that commands allegiance to invisible beings over fellow men, precludes reality for fantasy and sets living standards towards a non-existent afterlife.

At the risk of further damaging Trilairian's delicate spam sensors, here you go:

Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity (http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-5nativeidentity.html)
That chromosome research has nothing to do with the mitochondrial DNA evidence that proves you wrong. Not that you paid it any attention to know the difference.

At the risk of further damaging Trilairian's delicate spam sensors, here you go:

Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity (http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/14-5nativeidentity.html)
If only the paper were valid. So much trash gets published these days...

Trilairian, let's just agree to disagree. It's gotten down to the point where we're just making assertions that neither of us can prove to the other. You cannot destroy my faith and I cannot enlighten your wilfull ignorance.

Trilairian, let's just agree to disagree. It's gotten down to the point where we're just making assertions that neither of us can prove to the other. You cannot destroy my faith and I cannot enlighten your wilfull ignorance.
Lets just agree to dissagree and then you insult me? No.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lindsay
The Book of Mormon has come under heavy fire from critics in light of DNA evidence that is said to utterly refute the Book of Mormon, for the evidence points to Asiatic origins, not Middle Eastern origins of the ancient inhabitants of this continent. These attacks typically rely on several faulty assumptions about what the Book of Mormon actually states and do not refute a divine origin for the Book of Mormon. The DNA "proof" has very little to do with the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Of the various men and women in three different Old World groups who came to the Americas according to the Book of Mormon, we can only safely state that one of them, Mulek, was definitely Jewish, but we still do not know what kind of DNA he carried. Lehi was somehow descended from Manasseh, but that does not specify what kind of Y-chromosome he had. We have no clue about the genetic origins of his wife or the other individuals that came with him. We know nothing about the genetic origins of others in Mulek's party or the people they almost certainly intermarried with in the Americas. We know nothing about the Jaredites, though they probably originated from Central Asia. The DNA they contributed to the Americas could have looked like Asiatic DNA. Given the uncertainty in the genetic origins of the groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon, one cannot claim that genetic evidence has somehow disproved the Book of Mormon

That's a good quote Marlin.


Anyone who has read the book, knows it talks about VARIOUS groups of inhabitants. I don't see how this topic can keep going. Since the data necessary to solidify any conclusion, isn't available to us.

The BoM claims people came to the Americas and bred. Along with other peoples that were already in the Americas. Some sailed off towards the west sea (asia), and did their thing there. Later another group comes the americas, mixes in again............................................. ......................................

"And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward."


That's great that joe shmo DNA from 2,000 AD doesn't show any similarity to another joe shmo 2,000 AD.

There is no basis for comparison that can even get close to what the book is talking about. Unless they have a cryogenic clinics where bodies have been stored from all the different tribes of people that settled.

I'll bet that 99% of the people accusing the Book of Mormon as being false due to DNA studies, have never picked up or read the book at all. Yet they have almost a fanatical religious fervor, some of them, in the name of DNA science's discoveries. They proclaim that their god, Science, has proven the true God's revelations wrong, even when it is shown to have done no such thing.

Of course he wasn't because he didn't exist. that's beside the point (it's a given),

mormonism's problem for me, is that it was created during recent historic times (after the printing press) & close enough in time to have preserved several "foundation" documents, like the 'Book of Abraham' papyrus, facsimiles of founders' notes, pioneer diaries & early non-corrected editions of the 'Book of Mormon' (disproving the LDS hypothesis of "most correct book on earth"), so that it has 'real' history to prove or disprove it.

J. Smith didn't get the memo that Native Peoples of the Western Hemisphere were descented from Asians by way of Siberia
see:
http://www.signaturebooks.com/Losing.htm
For the past 175 years, the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) church has taught that Native Americans and Polynesians are descended from ancient seafaring Israelites. Recent DNA research confirms what anthropologists have been saying for nearly as many years, that Native Americans are originally from Siberia and Polynesians from Southeast Asia.
Also, poor J. Smith didn't get the memo that Champollion had deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphics in 1822, thus giving old Joe the idea to use the term "Reformed Egyptian" for the language of the BoM people.
see: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9022364
Champollion at last began to piece together the puzzle of the hieroglyphics. In 1821–22 he started publishing papers on the hieroglyphic and hieratic elements of the Rosetta Stone
And he didn't get the memo that modern archeology was being formed soon, being transformed from "antiquarian’ treasure' hunters" to actual scientific historians
see:
http://www.nps.gov/hocu/adhi/adhi1c.htm
Archeology began moving from an antiquarian footing to a professional discipline in the late nineteenth century. The discipline eagerly embraced Darwinian evolution. In the U.S., Moundbuilder studies were eclipsed by the impressive Southwestern ruins.
Of course you want him to be Asian, but thats rediculous.even if Marlin won't admitt it, the source document for mormonism, the "Book of Mormon" states that at least one of the so-called founders was from the Israelish tribe of Joseph

I'll bet that 99% of the people accusing the Book of Mormon as being false due to DNA studies,not just, there are about 100 diff reasons; including DNA; tech for one, languages for another, list of domesticated & wild animals sopposedly here or brought here by them, flora, metalurgy, etc
have never picked up or read the book at all. Yet they have almost a fanatical religious fervor, some of them, in the name of DNA science's discoveries. ugh, for a so-called abrigment, its to quote Mark Twain, "chloryform in print"
They proclaim that their god, Science, has proven the true God's revelations wrong, even when it is shown to have done no such thing.science is only a small part, God proclaims the BoM false, by condemning its so-called 'prophet' J. Smith, for his many false prophecies

even if Marlin won't admitt it, the source document for mormonism, the "Book of Mormon" states that at least one of the so-called founders was from the Israelish tribe of Joseph

What are you talking about? I said we didn't know that Lehi was Jewish, in response to your assertion that he was. I never denied that he was an Israelite.

not just, there are about 100 diff reasons; including DNA; tech for one, languages for another, list of domesticated & wild animals sopposedly here or brought here by them, flora, metalurgy, etc

The reason I read the Book of Mormon is to learn more about Christ and His gospel.

ugh, for a so-called abrigment, its to quote Mark Twain, "chloryform in print"

And the Bible may be described that way also. Does that stop you from believing in it?

science is only a small part, God proclaims the BoM false, by condemning its so-called 'prophet' J. Smith, for his many false prophecies

I've already touched on the nature of prophets and prophecy (see my link above by the same name). Indeed, I've touched on ALL of these issues, over and over again, and yet you in your obstinate unbelief refuse to acknowledge that you're wrong in the least bit.

Yes, without the need for religion, of course.
It is theist thought that controls the decision making process, which has shaped and formed our societies over the centuries that resulted in those idiots, zealots, killers, overlords and the close-minded. This is the same thought process that commands allegiance to invisible beings over fellow men, precludes reality for fantasy and sets living standards towards a non-existent afterlife.

i understand that there are people who are "christians" who exhibit very unchristian-like behaviour. but, you are generalizing an entire demographic by a small section of the group. i also understand that there is a large amount of corruption in the organized religions. organized religion is a lot like organized crime.

however, some of us out here just believe in something bigger, and don't listen to the dogma. i don't subscribe to the lies of a church, and i don't put stock in the words of men even if god supposedly guided their pens. and that is what i am defending - the right to believe whatever anyone wants to believe so long as it doesn't step on anyone elses' toes.

i've just realized that this whole time i've been attacking that same belief. so, i will let this go, and accept my defeat. i got so wrapped up in this whole debate that i never stopped to think about the fact that you have to right to say whatever it is you want to say. i can't change how you feel, and you can't change how i feel. so let's call it a draw, (Q).

God proclaims the BoM false, by condemning its so-called 'prophet' J. Smith, for his many false prophecies

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (Matt. 7: 18)

however, some of us out here just believe in something bigger... what i am defending - the right to believe whatever anyone wants to believe so long as it doesn't step on anyone elses' toes.

Even if that which you WANT to believe in has no basis in reality, and WILL undoubtedly lead you to make decisions based on your faith?

That may very be your right to do so, but wouldn't it make more sense to make decisions on that which IS based in reality?

Wouldn't you at the very least agree that if there were a god, a single god, the he would reveal his message to us equally and unequivocally, so that we all agree?

Doesn't the un-Christian-like behaviour, the corruption and the dogma even remotely make you think it might all be man-made nonsense?

For an anti-Mormon, you need to recognize the difference between "Jewish" and "Israelite." Jewish means "of the tribe of Judah," which was only one of the twelve tribes. "Israelite" includes people from all twelve tribes. Lehi was Israelite, but that doesn't mean he was Jewish.

first, my little buckeroo, all israelites shared one grandfather: Abraham, one father; Jacob (called Israel), they shared genes, something that would come out in DNA studies my dear fellow, they are not the "red-headed" son, so they all share Y chromosomes, & 4 mtDNA from their moms

you're pretending that we're talking about this as if the diff between them, was like mexicans & scots. wrong again buckeroo

I hate to burst your bubble, but in modern times, it has been found that what was once called the "lost tribes of Israel" were never really lost, they set up communities in Babylonia, Assyria, Iran, Yemen, Arabia (remnants of the old Assyrian & Babylonian empires), these people helped build up the modern state of Israel when they started to get discriminated in their home countries, they fled to the new Jewish state, read up on 'aliya'

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/history/modern%20history/centenary%20of%20zionism/aliya%20and%20absorption
By 1951, the number of immigrants more than doubled the Jewish population of the country in 1948. The immigrants included, inter alia, survivors of the Holocaust from displaced persons' camps in Germany, Austria and Italy; a majority of the Jewish communities of Bulgaria and Poland and one third of the Jews of Romania; and nearly all of the Jewish communities of Libya, Yemen and Iraq.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iraqijews.html
One of the longest surviving Jewish communities still lives in Iraq. In 722 B.C.E., the northern tribes of Israel were defeated by Assyria and some Jews were taken to what is now known as Iraq. A larger community was established in 586 B.C.E., when the Babylonians conquered the southern tribes of Israel and enslaved the Jews. These Jews distinguished themselves from Sephardim, referring to themselves as Baylim (Babylonions). In later centuries, the region became more hospitable to Jews and it became the home to some of the world's most prominent scholars who produced the Babylonian Talmud between 500 and 700 C.E.

plus to further inform you, I'm pasting this from a previous post:
I used the following keywords to google: dna tables jews Palestinians Arabs
found these below:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=379128#RF54

Figures and Tables

Table 1
Y Chromosome Diversity within 18 Jewish and Non-Jewish Populations

Table 2
mtDNA Diversity within 18 Jewish and Non-Jewish Populations[Note]

Table 3
Frequently Encountered mtDNA Haplotypes

Table 4
Mean FST Values in mtDNA and Y Chromosome Data[Note]

Table 5
Comparison of X Chromosome LD among Georgian Jews and non-Jewish British Men


http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/Nebel%20_2005.pdf
Adobe Doc, I can’t copy, but tables start on pg 2

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2003-10/1066334341
About 18% of genes are shared between Arab Men from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq,
Palestine, and Jordan with Polish Jewish men, particularly Jews from
Bialystock, Poland. They also share similar markers in the immune system
dating to a possible common origin about 7,800 years ago in the Middle East.
Note that Iraqi Jewish men and Polish Jewish men also match closely in Y
chromosomes and also with the CMH. However, Iraqi Jewish women with 17% U3
mtDNA match with a high U3 in the Iraqi Christian Assyrian and Chaldean
population and most people in the Middle East in general. Ashkenazi mtDNA is
only 2.9% U3 and 9% H CRS, but Moroccan Sephardic mtDNA is 27% H CRS.

http://www.assyrianfoundation.org/genetics.htm
The results of these scientific studies lead to the startling realization that Turks, Iranians, Kurds, Iraqis, Jordanians, Lebanese are more closely related genetically to Assyrians than they are to other members of their own respective language families in Asia. These seven groups (and Jews) are genetically close. The great language, cultural and religious differences are not reflected in the most fundamental aspect of their biology - their genes, which are the most accurate indicators of their shared origins and ancestry.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=14674
Subjects. We analyzed 159 males from eight populations. These individuals were Ashkenazi Jews from Poland (20), Druze (20), Ethiopian Jews (19), Iraqi Jews (20), Libyan Jews (20), Moroccan Jews (20), Palestinian Arabs (20), and Yemenite Jews (20). DNA samples were obtained from The National Laboratory for the Genetics of Israeli Populations (www.tau.ac.il/medicine/NLGIP/nlgip.htm). Jewish DNA samples were contributed by second-generation immigrants to Israel from the various source populations.

Randy Baby, you are just too much! Don't you know that your "proof texts" are biased and cannot be taken seriously? It's true, mi amigo. Nothing you have said or quoted identifies the specific DNA makeup of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Ishmael, or even Mulek, the last of which was Jewish.

The DNA testing, as I quoted in one of my many sources, yields false positives and false negatives, plus, (and write this down so you don't forget it, viejo) there were people with whom the Lehites intermarried with that diluted their gene pool until it was beyond easily identifiable recognition. Unless you can show directly that ALL Native Americans do not have Israelite DNA, your defense has holes all through it and is scientifically unprovable.

Now, go home and read the Book of Mormon, viejo, and pray about it. Maybe God will forgive your hypocrisy and take the scales of darkness off of your blinded eyes.

Randy Baby, you are just too much!Marline, don't call me 'baby', you're not my type, even if you are a lady :-)
Don't you know that your "proof texts" are biased and cannot be taken seriously? It's true, mi amigo. Nothing you have said or quoted identifies the specific DNA makeup of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Ishmael, or even Mulek, the last of which was Jewish. actually, that's easy, the answer is, they have the same DNA as "Sherlock Holmes", since they, like him are fictional characters, their DNA would be ‘ink & paper’
The DNA testing, as I quoted in one of my many sources, yields false positives and false negatives, plus, (and write this down so you don't forget it, viejo) there were people with whom the Lehites intermarried with that diluted their gene pool until it was beyond easily identifiable recognition. Unless you can show directly that ALL Native Americans do not have Israelite DNA, your defense has holes all through it and is scientifically unprovable.me thinkest thou protesteth too much, thou, mine dear friend, are the one with holes, so much so, that you need to circle the wagons, call for more help from the Danites, bishops, cowboys, marines, FARMS, whoever

tell us, my dear fellow, why is most of the evidence the other way around, namely, if you aren't paying attention; that Native Peoples are proving to be overwhelmingly of east Asian DNA? why is that? Yet you say that they have not tested all the Native Peoples DNA, as if that proves your point, as if ALL have to be tested, & not just a reprehensive number, as in most stats, like polls, etc…

also, why does the BoM never mention these ‘diluters’, could it be because there are really more ‘deluders” in this mix?

Also, are you grasping at straws?
Now, go home and read the Book of Mormon, viejo, and pray about it. Maybe God will forgive your hypocrisy and take the scales of darkness off of your blinded eyes.hehehe, you're funny, too funny, definitely weakening under pressure, me buckaroo, is that the best you can do?

Here’s another shot at your bow, if all these guys got to the Western Hemisphere leaving from the Arabian peninsula via a covered ship, how did they get through the Australian continent/Indonesian archipelago/Malay peninsula without crashing into any of the 1000 islands, before going on to the Pacific Ocean?
See below for “real world” ocean currents:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q_1.html

Randi, honey, get a life! If all you can do is break down other people's religions, you have a serious attitude problem.

Again, all of your sources are biased and your reasoning is faulty. I'm not going to repeat what I've said in the past, as you obviously have not even shown any tendency to investigate my claims. I'm talking to a brick wall.

Randi, honey, hey, cut it out, before long, people will start talking
get a life! If all you can do is break down other people's religions, you have a serious attitude problem.nah, just make-believe ones, like LDS
Again, all of your sources are biased and your reasoning is faulty.biased, you mean because they don't support LDS beliefs? shucks, guy, they're just the facts, I'm letting the cards fall where they may
I'm not going to repeat what I've said in the past, as you obviously have not even shown any tendency to investigate my claims. shucks, I was thinking the same about you? wow, we actually agreed on something, watch out guys!!! either hell is freezing over or the sky is falling?
I'm talking to a brick wall.hmmm, maybe you should stop yelling into the mirrror?

Even if that which you WANT to believe in has no basis in reality, and WILL undoubtedly lead you to make decisions based on your faith?


yes. god is an imaginary friend for grown-ups, and i choose to keep him. and it leads me to make some decisions, however i find that it helps me make decisions leading away from self-destructive tendancies, and that is helping me as a person.

That may very be your right to do so, but wouldn't it make more sense to make decisions on that which IS based in reality?

it might make more sense, yes. however, i find that living by a structure far suits me then leaving me to my own devices. i understand that i am not grown-up enough to take care of myself.

Wouldn't you at the very least agree that if there were a god, a single god, the he would reveal his message to us equally and unequivocally, so that we all agree?

no. i feel that the point of life is to learn, and learn on one's own. i do not think that one possibly learn and grow and shape themselves as an individual when everything is spoonfed to them.

Doesn't the un-Christian-like behaviour, the corruption and the dogma even remotely make you think it might all be man-made nonsense?

at times, yes. but as i said, i discard all that and look at the fact that all things seem to be invisibly connected. by what? i don't know. i take that unknown, and call it "god".

DNA


Why are we still talking about DNA?

Gonna put this in caps lock so maybe the point gets through. Then i'm going to bold it as well.

THERE ARE NO DNA STRANDS FROM NEPHITES THAT YOU CAN COMPARE TO ANY 5TH CENTURY B.C. JEWS.

THERE ARE NO DNA STRANDS AT ALL THAT YOU CAN ANALYZE THAT HAVE ANY APPLICATION TO WHO WROTE THE BOM.

THEY'RE ALL DEAD, SWALLOWED UP IN THE EARTH, TURNED BACK INTO DUST, AND ALL THEIR ANCESTORS INTERBRED

WITH

TONS

OF

DIFFERENT

CLASSES

OF

INHABITANTS

MULEKITES

LAMANITES

NEPHITES

ZORAMITES

ISHMAELITES

THEREFORE THERE ISN'T THE LEAST POSSIBLE WAY TO COMPARE DNA ---

Unless you want to compare DNA from people that existed 1,000 YEARS

1,000 + years after, who knows what happened in that time line. With whom they bred. Who sailed where. If anyone else arrived to the Americas and bred with them.

The BOM says the nephites were destroyed 420 AD, that's

1,584 YEARS have passed since they were destroyed. How much can a Gene pool change in that amount of time? Why wouldn't it change?

And the Jews... they've been to assyria, babylon and back. Then scattered throughout all of europe, then after breeding everywhere they went; their ancestors (some? who knows) come back to Jerusalem and call themselves Jews/Israelites. That Gene pool has more extensive evidence of having been manipulated and changed-------OBVIOUSLY-----

Can we stop talking about DNA now? please?

From my experience with WBY, if he says the sky is pink and you prove to him that the sky is blue, next week he will come back and say it's pink again. He doesn't learn. He doesn't reason. He doesn't think for himself, but just reads anti-Mormon websites and parrots back what they say. Don't expect that to change anytime soon.

i find that it helps me make decisions leading away from self-destructive tendancies, and that is helping me as a person.

Ah, but that is not the way to go about it, you're merely replacing one problem with another. You must deal with the self-destructive tendencies by facing the issues causing those tendencies.

i understand that i am not grown-up enough to take care of myself.

Religion will further stifle that growth, inhibiting your abilities to think.

. i do not think that one possibly learn and grow and shape themselves as an individual when everything is spoonfed to them.

What does that have to do with a single message from a god to all people?

i discard all that and look at the fact that all things seem to be invisibly connected. by what? i don't know. i take that unknown, and call it "god".

How do you know things are invisibly connected? What would make you leap to that conclusion?

From my experience with WBY, if he says the sky is pink and you prove to him that the sky is blue, next week he will come back and say it's pink again.but it is pink, at least at sunset, with red, orange, grey, white & blue too
He doesn't learn.me? I've managed to learn plenty, but you? I'm worried about you, take a deep breath, pray for guidance, hope for the best, keep smiling, let go of that bitterness, pray for others, even me, thanks
He doesn't reason.au contraire, I do a reasonably good job, just happen to not agree with your brainwashing program, too bad for you
He doesn't think for himself, I was thinking the same about you
but just reads anti-Mormon websites and parrots back what they say. actually, I read a vast cross-section of stuff, mostly sci-fi, which is the reason I can safely say, that the BoM is a work of fiction, you've been brainwashed, you read only pro-mormon propaganda & parrot it. my guess is, that your world would fall apart if you ever had a small doubt about all that LDS stuff, you need to be careful, a fragile mind like yours must not read my comments too carefully, otherwise you would see how weak your BoM really is, tell us, Mr. Mormon Bishop, how did all those Middle Easterners get here again? oh yeah, a ship was blown & storm-tossed from Arabia to Mexico, must have been quite a trip, seeing that they would have had to pass through 16,000 islands of the Indonesian Archipelago. How was that done? easy, J. Smith didn't know any better, he just wrote away & invented a fantasy world, with make-believe Jew-like people (you & Nisus say, we have no DNA proof of what or who they were) & they peopled a world where they did not interact with their near-neighbors, almost as if they didn't exist, why? poor old J. Smith didn't know, so he wrote away, J. Smith said the BoM plates were written in "Reformed Egyptian", a language that never existed & when documents surfaced that J. Smith supposedly translated from Hieroglyphic Egyptian for the BoA, well, lo & behold it don't say what J. Smith says it said, seems its the Book of Breathing, poor old J. Smith, he didn't know that Champollion had translated that pesky Egyptian hieroglyphics that had evaded so much effort after almost 2 thousand years of silence
Don't expect that to change anytime soon.ok, I'll try not to disappoint you
;-p

but it is pink, at least at sunset, with red, orange, grey, white & blue too

Once again, you completely miss the point.

actually, I read a vast cross-section of stuff, mostly sci-fi, which is the reason I can safely say, that the BoM is a work of fiction, you've been brainwashed, you read only pro-mormon propaganda & parrot it.

That's funny. I read a great deal of stuff other than "pro-mormon propaganda," including anti-Mormon propaganda. In fact, I collect anti-Mormon books and read them just for fun, to laugh at the ridiculous arguments put forth by people who think they are being reasonable but fall short of all logic and reason. My most recent foray was reading "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn Brodie. A very entertaining read, I have to say. Brodie stands on her head and does spiritual cartwheels to explain away Joseph Smith's magical ability to make other people see visions.

my guess is, that your world would fall apart if you ever had a small doubt about all that LDS stuff, you need to be careful, a fragile mind like yours must not read my comments too carefully, otherwise you would see how weak your BoM really is,

Don't worry, your comments may make me angry, but they certainly aren't of the caliber to challenge my faith in an deep, significant way. You argue flora and fauna, metallurgy, and DNA. My church teaches Christ and Him crucified, love for all men, and love for God.

tell us, Mr. Mormon Bishop,

I am not a bishop, nor have I ever been a bishop.

how did all those Middle Easterners get here again? oh yeah, a ship was blown & storm-tossed from Arabia to Mexico, must have been quite a trip, seeing that they would have had to pass through 16,000 islands of the Indonesian Archipelago. How was that done? easy,

Have you ever heard of the power of God? Can't God guide a ship wherever He wants it to go? Or perhaps your God isn't omnipotent. :rolleyes:

J. Smith didn't know any better, he just wrote away & invented a fantasy world, with make-believe Jew-like people (you & Nisus say, we have no DNA proof of what or who they were) & they peopled a world where they did not interact with their near-neighbors, almost as if they didn't exist, why? poor old J. Smith didn't know, so he wrote away, J. Smith said the BoM plates were written in "Reformed Egyptian", a language that never existed

How do you know that Reformed Egyptian never existed? How do you know anything about the Book of Mormon when you refuse to read and pray about it?

& when documents surfaced that J. Smith supposedly translated from Hieroglyphic Egyptian for the BoA, well, lo & behold it don't say what J. Smith says it said, seems its the Book of Breathing, poor old J. Smith, he didn't know that Champollion had translated that pesky Egyptian hieroglyphics that had evaded so much effort after almost 2 thousand years of silence

The Book of Breathing is a funerary document which made up a small part of the Book of Abraham. The main part of that scroll was lost in a fire and *no one* has ever translated it since Joseph Smith did.

your brainwashing program

Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Wo unto the wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!
Nephi 15:20-21


Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
Moroni 7:14

you would see how weak your BoM really is

And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
2 nephi 33:11


tell us, Mr. Mormon Bishop, how did all those Middle Easterners get here again?


And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased?



How was that done?


Behold I say unto you, it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.


written in "Reformed Egyptian", a language that never existed
And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

Yea, I make a record in the aanguage of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've helped in fulfilling this prophecy from the Book of Mormon...

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible•! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will be judged by these words,

For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Book of Mormon is amazing. And wether you attribute all these words to have been written by Joseph smith, or Christ... at this point it doesn't matter...

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting the Book of Mormon contains all this information. The book testifies against people like you.

Interesting the Book of Mormon contains all this information. The book testifies against people like you.Interestingly, I think I saw a quote from the movie "Contact" about "delusional" people have self-defensive statements, such as this self-protecting quote that the BoM has.

tell us Nisus, why would all the evidence point to the BoM being falsehood? remember that when J. Smith wrote the BoM, the Egyptian language had just barely been translated in 1822; in that lonely outpost of scientific research called France

the BoM is a novel, a work of fiction, that when the LDS hierarchy finds that it can no longer sustain, it will change its stance, then people like you will have to swallow hard, & tow the new "official" line, just like happened with polygamy & blacks in the priesthood, or are you denying that happened too?

also, did you know that the early mormon leadership were 'sinners' according to the BoM? it specifically condemns the practice of polygamy, a rite that both J. Smith & B. Young thoroughly enjoyed. & you can’t get around that, unless you are going to 'burn', 'edit' or 'erase' the evidence for that too?
Quick guys, read Jacob 2:22-29 before it is 'sanitized'

Once again, you completely miss the point.no, I got it & one-upped you
How do you know that Reformed Egyptian never existed? can you prove that it ever did? No, I thought so
The Book of Breathing is a funerary document which made up a small part of the Book of Abraham. The main part of that scroll was lost in a fire and *no one* has ever translated it since Joseph Smith did.tisk, tisk, caught in a lie, can we get independent verification on that? anyone interested in either proving Marlin or myself, right or wrong, should google ""book of abraham" scroll found "new york" "

and find out for yourself

Randolfo, here is what the Book of Mormon says about polygamy:

Jacob 2:29
For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me [through polygamy], I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [the things spoken above forbidding polygamy].

It is plain that God says here that polygamy is forbidden UNLESS God "commands his people otherwise." This is completely in harmony with LDS teachings.

can you prove that it ever did? No, I thought so

Yes, actually I can, but only if you believe in personal revelation.

tisk, tisk, caught in a lie, can we get independent verification on that? anyone interested in either proving Marlin or myself, right or wrong, should google ""book of abraham" scroll found "new york" "

and find out for yourself

It's no lie. The scroll they found was only part of the entire Book of Abraham. You're the one who is mistaken. The original scroll was described as being rolled out for the length of several rooms, while the scroll you are talking about was much shorter.

read Jacob 2:22-29 before it is 'sanitized'[/COLOR]

These scriptures address "many wives and concubines"... Which the LDS church condemns.

However many wives and concubines David/Solomon chose to have, that weren't administered to them under the covenant of Eternal Marriage, is seperate issue.

Solomon built a temple, there is some evidence in the scriptures he practiced plural marriage. BUT what is spoken of in Jacob, is how they stepped outside of their bounds. Outside of the covenants, and chose to commit abominations.

The scriptures are perfect... the doctrine as well. IF you search out for understanding. As for the preisthood, all the things that the prophets did were according to their knowledge and understanding. It doesn't matter if you condemn how they carried out these affairs, you aren't associated with the organization or it's endeavors, and they weren't your decisions to make-- and the work will continue onward. Growing stronger.

It would also be wise for you to consider the words, under an open heart.

These scriptures address "many wives and concubines"... Which the LDS church condemns.

However many wives and concubines David/Solomon chose to have, that weren't administered to them under the covenant of Eternal Marriage, is seperate issue.

Solomon built a temple, there is some evidence in the scriptures he practiced plural marriage. BUT what is spoken of in Jacob, is how they stepped outside of their bounds. Outside of the covenants, and chose to commit abominations.

The scriptures are perfect... the doctrine as well. IF you search out for understanding. As for the preisthood, all the things that the prophets did were according to their knowledge and understanding. It doesn't matter if you condemn how they carried out these affairs, you aren't associated with the organization or it's endeavors, and they weren't your decisions to make-- and the work will continue onward. Growing stronger.

It would also be wise for you to consider the words, under an open heart.
*************
M*W: Wives and concubines held the very same status. Their children were reared together. Back then, wives were not jealous of concubines but received them well. You need to do some research on this subject.

*************
M*W: Wives and concubines held the very same status. Their children were reared together. Back then, wives were not jealous of concubines but received them well. You need to do some research on this subject.

I just finished reading Genesis, and Leah and Rachel, both wives of Jacob, certainly had some bad feelings toward each other. Sarah, Abraham's wife, was jealous of Hagar as well and sent her with her child, Ishmael, into the desert.

I'd say you need to do some research yourself, no offense, M*W.

I just finished reading Genesis, and Leah and Rachel, both wives of Jacob, certainly had some bad feelings toward each other. Sarah, Abraham's wife, was jealous of Hagar as well and sent her with her child, Ishmael, into the desert.first of all, Abraham was not a king, which is probably what MW is referring too, second of all, you are right, there was 'palace intrigue', & murder to get your sons in as king, etc...
I'd say you need to do some research yourself, no offense, M*W.& thirdly, you missed the point entirely, no amount of hemming & hawing can erase the fact that J. Smith went against BoM teaching, he was a polygamist, a sinner

http://www.letusreason.org/LDS%209.htm
The Prophet Joseph Smith actually took a very strong stand against polygamy when he originally wrote the Book of Mormon. In Jacob 2:23-24 we read: "But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son."Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (Matt. 7: 18)you are right, poor J. Smith, not only a false prophet, but a sinner by BoM standards

WildBlueYonder, what part of "If I will...raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." don't you understand?

The Lord says, If I want to, I will command my people to practice polygamy. Otherwise, do not practice it.

That's what the Book of Mormon says. Get a clue. I've corrected you on this very point numerous times, and still you act like I haven't. Hopefully this will be the last time I have to correct you on this issue.

Why are we still talking about DNA?

Gonna put this in caps lock so maybe the point gets through. Then i'm going to bold it as well.

THERE ARE NO DNA STRANDS FROM NEPHITES THAT YOU CAN COMPARE TO ANY 5TH CENTURY B.C. JEWS.

Can we stop talking about DNA now? please?no, since I'd like to know what a reasonable person would say about a very interesting question, namely:
why would God preserve (or at least leave alone) evidence of Israelite & Jewish occupation in the Holy Land so that it can still be recovered, studied, analyzed, but not in Mesoamerica or any other so-called BoM lands???

Also, I’d like to paraphrase an old saying: “in cyberspace, no one can hear you scream”, so putting your statements in bold, caps or whatever, doesn’t make them any more real, truthful or convincing, that any of my arguments or those of others, lets try this; how about using Occam’s Razor, for this little scenario & ask; why would God destroy all the evidence of BoM people, but not the Holy Land people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]
or
Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
I think the evidence shows, because J. Smith made the BoM up, its a work of fiction, pure & simple

WildBlueYonder, what part of "If I will...raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." don't you understand?

That's what the Book of Mormon says. Get a clue. I've corrected you on this very point numerous times, and still you act like I haven't. Hopefully this will be the last time I have to correct you on this issue.typical cultist, when caught, you become a verse hopper, so could you read for us, verses 29-34? Mr. word parser?

WBY, Occam's Razor doesn't work in all cases. Sometimes it's wrong. It's just a probability-predictor, not 100% gospel truth in every case.

And it is absolutely hilarious that you yell at Nisus for capitalizing his post, and then put your words that you want emphasized in RED! :D

Jacob 2:24-34

24 Behold, David and Solomon• truly had many wives• and concubines, which thing was abominable• before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous• branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one• cwife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed• be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed• unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms•, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father•, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
======================================
Here is what is being said in my words:

24. David and Solomon had many unauthorized wives and concubines, which the Lord found abominable (because He had not commanded them to do so. If He had authorized it, they would have been blameless.)

25. The Lord intended to lead the Lehites out of Jerusalem so that He could raise a righteous branch of Israel.

26. The Lord would not allow them to practice abominations, such as David and Solomon did (having unauthorized wives and concubines).

27. The Lord commanded the Nephites to have only one wife and no concubines. Thus, the Nephites received the commandment NOT to practice polygamy. Therefore, because the Lord forbade it, it was wrong for them to do it. This is LDS doctrine as well--if the Lord forbids it, it's wrong. If He authorizes and commands it, it is righteous.

28. The Lord loves chastity and hates whoredoms.

29. The Nephites were commanded to observe the commandments or the land would be cursed.

30. The Lord said, If I want to raise up righteous seed unto me, I will command you to do so by practicing polygamy; Otherwise, do not practice it.

31. The Lord has heard the cries of the wives of wicked husbands in Israel due to their abominations.

32. The Lord will not suffer the wives' cries to come up against their husbands.

33. The Lord will curse those who commit whoredoms with a sore curse unto destruction.

34. The Nephite men have come under condemnation by committing whoredoms and abominations.
===========================

Now WBY, the above passage in no way limits what the Lord can command and what He can't. Nor does it forbid authorized polygamy. It merely says that whoredoms are an abomination, and that unauthorized polygamy such as David and Solomon practiced is wrong.

WildBlueYonder, what part of "If I will...raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." don't you understand? you quote verse 30 out of context, but how else can you sell the fact that J. Smith was a sinner?

here are verses 33-35, that contradict you:
http://www.paganlibrary.com/etext/mormon/jacob/jacob_chapter_2.php
JACOB 2:33. For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
JACOB 2:34. And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
JACOB 2:35. Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

WBY, you are the one quoting out of context. Your quote reinforces the above idea that God will punish UNAUTHORIZED POLYGAMY and other whoredoms. NOWHERE does it say that He cannot authorize polygamy for His own purposes. You are trying to interpret LDS doctrine as meaning something that it doesn't. Let US interpret our own doctrine, for goodness sake.

you quote verse 30 out of context, but how else can you sell the fact that J. Smith was a sinner?


He was by nature a sinner, like normal men. But he's also the only prophet to have been killed on American soil in the last 200 years. He's the only one to claimed to have seen God and got assasinated for it, after he started a religion also.

In the times of the Bible the Jews rejected, stoned and killed their prophets. We live in a time where a Man, claiming to have seen God was KILLED FOR IT. That hasn't happened at all in our history(american) since.

God called a prophet, you rejected the message... you might as well have picked up a stone to join in the murder.

For more information about Joseph Smith and polygamy, see the following site:

Why Did Joseph Smith Preach Against Plural Marriage? (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/against_plural.htm)

Please note that while critics often claim the Book of Mormon condemns plural marriage, a careful reading of the text shows that this interpretation is incorrect. The Lord condemns plural marriage when the practice is used to gratify lustful desires for sensuality. Such perversion of a sacred doctrine violates the Lord's standards on sexuality. However, at times a divine commandment is given to "raise up seed unto" God. In such cases, the practice is not only approved, but the necessary prerequisites (e.g., patience, love, humility) leads the practitioners into deeper sanctification.

The Bible teaches that the Patriarchs of the Old Testament, who had multiple wives, were still admitted to Heaven:

And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 8:11)

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob[.] God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (Matthew 22:32)

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out. (Luke 13:28)

If their marital relations were inherently sinful, they surely would have been condemned by God. Why were their actions accepted? Because plural marriage had been sanctioned by the Lord in their case. Yet, men in the Book of Mormon practiced plural marriage and were condemned for it harshly. Why? Because it had not been sanctioned by the Lord in their case.

In the times of the Bible the Jews rejected, stoned and killed their prophets. We live in a time where a Man, claiming to have seen God was KILLED FOR IT. That hasn't happened at all in our history(american) since.
read real history, he was killed because he practiced polygamy, the mob was going to hang him high, except someone smuggled a gun to him, so there was a shoot-out instead, result; 1 dead polygamist, plus J. Smith shot about 2 dead, several wounded (if I remember right)

you make it seem as if he stood there awaiting his fate stoically, not him, he wasn't going down without a fight

And it is absolutely hilarious that you yell at Nisus for capitalizing his post, and then put your words that you want emphasized in RED! :-DI'm not sure if you understand the diff between yelling & emphasis on the internet, capitalizing words is yelling, like so "IN CASE YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFF", while using color to emphasize, I’m just making sure you don't miss a point by highlighting it.
of course, you might not know, being you may not understand subtle diff's
;-p

oh, & thanks for noticing, lets me know that there is a nogin there

I'm not sure if you understand the diff between yelling & emphasis on the internet, capitalizing words is yelling, like so "IN CASE YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFF", while using color to emphasize, I’m just making sure you don't miss a point by highlighting it.
of course, you might not know, being you may not understand subtle diff's
;-p

oh, & thanks for noticing, lets me know that there is a nogin there

Ah, the subtleties of wit are lost on you, mon ami. Of course I know what "SHOUTING" on the internet is. I'm amused at you because you objected to Nisus doing it, and then did it yourself with red instead of CAPS.

I don't object to your using red--I use it too. But the fact that you hypocritically took Nisus to task for the same thing you did struck my funny bone. I called TBS and they said, "Why yes, that's mildly funny, you may laugh!" So I did.

And that's.... the REST of the story...

WBY, you are the one quoting out of context. Your quote reinforces the above idea that God will punish UNAUTHORIZED POLYGAMY and other whoredoms. NOWHERE does it say that He cannot authorize polygamy for His own purposes. you are a shameless hemmer & hawer, it’s funny to see you bob & weave & verse hop throughout whatever text you think will shore up your flimsy arguments, hahaha
You are trying to interpret LDS doctrine as meaning something that it doesn't. Let US interpret our own doctrine, for goodness sake.that’s the problem, you guys have done such a bad job of that, that I feel I needed to jump in to help you get it straight, BTW you're welcome

you are a shameless hemmer & hawer, it’s funny to see you bob & weave & verse hop throughout whatever text you think will shore up your flimsy arguments, hahaha
that’s the problem, you guys have done such a bad job of that, that I feel I needed to jump in to help you get it straight, BTW you're welcome

::shrug:: I said that Jacob 2 proved that authorized polygamy was okay.
You said, "Quote verses X through Y and tell me where it says that."
I said, Okay, "Jacob 24-34, with emphasis on verse 30."
You now say, "You're a verse hopper."

I quoted the verses you told me to quote. I interpreted them for you, showing that God will "raise up seed" when He will (authorized polygamy).

Where is the "hemming and hawing" when I just did what you told me to do?

::shrug:: I said that Jacob 2 proved that authorized polygamy was okay.
it never once mentioned authorized, where do you see it?
you're reading into it in a desperate attempt to find your 'proof', where is it? in plain english please, not some convoluted phraseology or reading between the lines, type stuff

that’s a perfect example of “Hemming & Hawing”

it never once mentioned authorized, where do you see it?
you're reading into it in a desperate attempt to find your 'proof', where is it? in plain english please, not some convoluted phraseology or reading between the lines, type stuff

that’s a perfect example of “Hemming & Hawing”

And your response is the perfect example of "Hello, I'm a clueless moron!"

(just kidding, you know I love ya, my cherie amor.)

Seriously, read verse 30. It may take several readings to get the point across, but it will come to you.

"Hello, I'm a clueless moron!"stop giving away your secrets, we already know that (you're too funny, I like a girl with a good sense of humor)
(just kidding, you know I love ya, my cherie amor.)stop giving away our secrets, shhh
Seriously, read verse 30. It may take several readings to get the point across, but it will come to you.if you got to read it more than once, it ain't there, trust me, you are brainwashing yourself or self-hypnotizing

stop giving away your secrets, we already know that (you're too funny, I like a girl with a good sense of humor)

stop giving away our secrets, shhh

I think it's time the whole world knows of our love, darling. Our time has come!

if you got to read it more than once, it ain't there, trust me, you are brainwashing yourself or self-hypnotizing

All right, all right, once more I will try to explain this to you:

Jacob 2
God sez to the Nephites: David and Solomon had many wives and concubines, which was abominable to Me. So, you may have only one wife and no concubines. But if I want to, I will command my people to raise up seed unto me; OTHERWISE you shall listen to the commandment to be monogamous.

The command to "raise up seed" is obviously OTHERWISE than the commandment to be monogamous; thus, it entails a condition that is not monogamous (polygamy).

Does that help?

But polygamy doesn't help increase population groth rate when male and female numbers are roughly equal as in the time of J Smith. It only increases it when female numbers outweigh male significantly. As such you still have a contradiction.

Ah, but that is not the way to go about it, you're merely replacing one problem with another. You must deal with the self-destructive tendencies by facing the issues causing those tendencies.

i don't understand how adopting a moral code from a religion is replacing one problem with another.

Religion will further stifle that growth, inhibiting your abilities to think.

how so? i think that you've got the wrong idea about what i believe.

What does that have to do with a single message from a god to all people?

because everyone must have their own journey. there is no singular correct answer for all people, all cultures. even you must have had your own journey in discovering your personal beliefs.

How do you know things are invisibly connected? What would make you leap to that conclusion?

i didn't say that i know, i say that it seems all things are connected. it seems that in this world there are certain constants. i believe that those constants tell of something larger.

i don't understand how adopting a moral code from a religion is replacing one problem with another.

For one thing, morality has nothing to do with religion, they are borne from sociology, and as I already mentioned, you are not dealing with the problems, which still exist. They have not magically dissapeared merely because you found religion.

All you've essentially done is replace crack with smack.

i think that you've got the wrong idea about what i believe.

If you believe in a god, then I haven't got it wrong.

there is no singular correct answer for all people, all cultures.

Perhaps in life with earthly issues, but that has nothing to do with a god revealing his message, which must be the same for all and be known by all.

even you must have had your own journey in discovering your personal beliefs.

I have no need for beliefs, they are for the weak minded who are unable to think for themselves.

it seems that in this world there are certain constants. i believe that those constants tell of something larger.

The constants you speak are of a physical nature; speed of light, etc. Anything you might believe beyond physical constants is from your imagination. It is something you want to believe, not something that might exist.

But polygamy doesn't help increase population groth rate when male and female numbers are roughly equal as in the time of J Smith. It only increases it when female numbers outweigh male significantly. As such you still have a contradiction.

Scenario #1: Let's say that George is a faithful Latter-day Saint in the mid-1800s. Barbara, another one of the faithful, marries him, as do Ellen and Ruth, also faithful LDS. They each have 10 children, resulting in 30 faithful LDS children.

Compare that with what happens if...

Scenario #2: Bob is not a faithful LDS. He marries Barbara and they have 10 children. However, Bob doesn't raise his children to be faithful LDS. Ellen marries Fred, also not one of the faithful, resulting in 10 more non-LDS children. Finally, George marries Ruth and they have 10 faithful LDS children. In this scenario, there are only 10 faithful LDS children.

Which scenario is going to result in more LDS children?

They each have 10 children, resulting in 30 faithful LDS children.

That is, until they grow up and begin thinking for themselves, Once they find out the religion is a fraud, they will vanish.

Which scenario is going to result in more LDS children?

To have children for the sake of propping up corporate numbers, so to speak, is beyond reproach. It is sickening to hear of such things. And if that's the way you truly feel about your religion, then I hope you never become a parent.

Marlin: They each have 10 children, resulting in 30 faithful LDS children.

That is, until they grow up and begin thinking for themselves, Once they find out the religion is a fraud, they will vanish.

Not necessarily. All of the children in my family are adult LDS, and we all think for ourselves. It's insulting of you to say that we can't.

Marlin: Which scenario is going to result in more LDS children?

To have children for the sake of propping up corporate numbers, so to speak, is beyond reproach. It is sickening to hear of such things. And if that's the way you truly feel about your religion, then I hope you never become a parent.

It's not for numbers' sake. It's for salvation's sake. 10 children get saved, versus 30 get saved. And those 30 influence others to be saved, who in turn influence still more others, etc.

All of the children in my family are adult LDS, and we all think for ourselves. It's insulting of you to say that we can't.

You can't, you yourself have made that blatantly clear. Sorry if you're offended, but that is a fact.

It's not for numbers' sake. It's for salvation's sake. 10 children get saved, versus 30 get saved.

Complete nonsense. Those other 20 children don't need to be saved if they aren't born. No, it is clearly a numbers game. And again, if you only need more children to go out and influence others towards your religion, that too is sickening.

Oh, bite me.

Consider yourself bitten.

Idiot.

Scenario #1: Let's say that George is a faithful Latter-day Saint in the mid-1800s. Barbara, another one of the faithful, marries him, as do Ellen and Ruth, also faithful LDS. They each have 10 children, resulting in 30 faithful LDS children.

Compare that with what happens if...

Scenario #2: Bob is not a faithful LDS. He marries Barbara and they have 10 children. However, Bob doesn't raise his children to be faithful LDS. Ellen marries Fred, also not one of the faithful, resulting in 10 more non-LDS children. Finally, George marries Ruth and they have 10 faithful LDS children. In this scenario, there are only 10 faithful LDS children.

Which scenario is going to result in more LDS children?Are you insane?

Are you insane?

Why shouldn't God want His church to grow in number, especially when it was a small institution? There's nothing "insane" about it.

I think it's time the whole world knows of our love, darling. Our time has come! Stop gushing, you’re embarrassing me, send all your little lovenotes via PM to me, no need for all these other guys to hear all our mushy-washy talk
All right, all right, once more I will try to explain this to you:

Jacob 2
God sez to the Nephites: David and Solomon had many wives and concubines, which was abominable to Me. So, you may have only one wife and no concubines.
Now I understand the problem, the LDS believe that if it says to do one thing, you can do the opposite under “inspired” or “authorizing” revelation, makes sense to me, wow, you can change any passage then, wow, it lays the ground work for any change, wow, that means that when the LDS leadership decides to conform to mainstream Christianity, you won’t even blink, seeing as it was “authorized”, you’re right, it makes sense to me, thanks Marlin, you’re the best
But if I want to, I will command my people to raise up seed unto me; OTHERWISE you shall listen to the commandment to be monogamous.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but was that the same logic that “corrected” polygamy once, so that it can be “corrected” again? I mean, if, let’s say, ‘inspiration’ comes again, could the LDS once again proclaim “polygamy” as essential to ‘godhood’, as in the old days, right?
The command to "raise up seed" is obviously OTHERWISE than the commandment to be monogamous; thus, it entails a condition that is not monogamous (polygamy).
Now I admit, I didn’t pay enough attention to my English teachers, when they diagramed-out sentences, to show the structure of its grammar, but I’m about 99% convinced that the LDS church has gone out on a limb, stretching for meaning that isn’t there.
Does that help?
Sort of, but let me help trying to un-stretch you guys a bit, since I have the feeling that J. Smith was really referring to Matthew 3:9 when he wrote this passage, like so:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat003.html#7
Mat 3:7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Mat 3:9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Meaning, if the BoM people didn’t obey the admonition to marry only one wife, he would curse them & raise “other seed”, just as John the Baptist said of the Jewish religious leaders and God’s ability to raise ‘other seed’ in their stead

I hope that helps you

WBY, it all comes down to:

Was Joseph Smith a true prophet? or
Was he a false prophet?

I've told you many times how to get a testimony that he was for real. If you won't follow the instructions in Moroni 10:3-5 (http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10) and if you continue in unbelief, I can't help you. The way is shown for you to get a bona fide testimony within your heart; you need but knock and it will be opened unto you. It may take a while; very few people get a testimony right away, but rather, after much study and prayer over a course of time, but it will come if you nurture it.

And that is all I have to say at this time. Good luck, and may God show you that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

Marlin

So, you want to breed with females in order to create an army of indoctrinators for a cult started by a snake-oil salesman, and I'm the idiot?

There's nothing "insane" about it.

I feel sorry for those children, you are sick and twisted, Marlin.

(Q), no worries. I am not a polygamist. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices polygamy, and it hasn't since 1890.

And anyone who thinks I want an army of cult indoctrinators is sick and twisted himself. I don't even want to marry unless I can find the right girl, and then, I only want one wife, ever. I wouldn't make a good polygamist, nor do I want to be one.

(Q), I'm sorry for calling you an idiot. That was rude of me.

No problem, Marlin. Water off a ducks back. :)

WBY, it all comes down to:

Was Joseph Smith a true prophet? or
Was he a false prophet?.the evidence shows he is a false prophet, look at the BoM, a true work of fiction
I've told you many times how to get a testimony that he was for real. If you won't follow the instructions in Moroni 10:3-5 (http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10) and if you continue in unbelief, I can't help you. The way is shown for you to get a bona fide testimony within your heart; you need but knock and it will be opened unto you. why would I want to do that for a work of fiction? I'd rather use a better novel, such as; Diane Duane's "Spock's World", that way I have a better start in my Futurama's "Star Trek" religion
And that is all I have to say at this time. Good luck, and may God show you that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is trueGod already spoke through the Bible, it states that the LDS is a false church

"If you won't follow the instructions in Moroni 10:3-5 and if you continue in unbelief, I can't help you."

"If you won't follow the instructions in Moroni 10:3-5 and if you continue in unbelief, I can't help you."
But it is you that needs help.

No it's not.

"If you won't follow the instructions in Moroni 10:3-5 and if you continue in unbelief, I can't help you."now why would anyone in their right mind want to follow the BoM? it’s just a novel, probably the first fantasy novel written in the US. If I want to believe in a book of God, I'll pick the Bible for Moroni's promise,

let’s try it, you're right, its true, the Bible is true, thank you Marlin, I am no longer an unbeliever

BTW, can you do 2 or 3 religious books under Moroni's promise? I mean, what if a good mormon tried this with lets say, the BoM, the quran & the Popul Vuh? could all 3 be correct, or does one book take precedence? & how would you know which it would be? is there a formula?

I wonder what it's going to be like when you guys find out the BoM is true. If among all the time/space in eternity, I will have opportunity to see your reactions... or what I'll be doing.

Some people say the world is a small place. The universe probably isn't that big either once you have time to count and catalog everything.

I wonder what it's going to be like when you guys find out the BoM is true. If among all the time/space in eternity, I will have opportunity to see your reactions... or what I'll be doing.

Some people say the world is a small place. The universe probably isn't that big either once you have time to count and catalog everything.for a little 'god-in-training' you sure are cocky, too bad you're going to be in the "rich man's" position to see all this, do you know that Jesus said many would call on His name & He would tell them, "I knew you not", you need to find out why He would say that & whether you would be in the position to hear that condemnation or not

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat007.html
Mat 7:21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Mat 7:24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:


take care & may God bless you

I wonder what it's going to be like when you guys find out the BoM is true. If among all the time/space in eternity, I will have opportunity to see your reactions... or what I'll be doing.

Some people say the world is a small place. The universe probably isn't that big either once you have time to count and catalog everything.man, check this out first, I wouldn't be so sure that you are going to enjoy this experience at all, see below:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk016.html
Luk 16:19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Luk 16:20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luk 16:21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luk 16:22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.
Luk 16:27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

That is funny.

for a little 'god-in-training' you sure are cocky, too bad you're going to be in the "rich man's" position to see all this, do you know that Jesus said many would call on His name & He would tell them, "I knew you not", you need to find out why He would say that & whether you would be in the position to hear that condemnation or not


Matt. 10: 29-30
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If our hairs are numbered then also our words. Which are more than the hairs on our head. These words are even here, for anyone to see. And if man can store up our words, then also God can have them written in heaven.
And even as He lives, let Him judge between me and thee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry you reject the message that God is still a God of miracles. That he can cause a book to be written and for men to behold angels. I don't fear accountability to my words because I know them to be true. It's natural for me to wonder when people will understand. And I only hope that for your sake you understand sooner before later, because I wouldn't wish condemnation upon a single soul. But people have plainly and openly testified to you, and you fail to receive their message. On top of that you have a great knowledge, and with a single seed of faith all the doubts you have could be dispelled and you would see the bigger picture.

I'm sorry you reject the message that God is still a God of miracles. That he can cause a book to be written and for men to behold angels. I don't fear accountability to my words because I know them to be true.I do not reject that, since I know that God lives, I reject LDS belief that either J. Smith or the BoM are from God, seeing that they are both suspect, one for convenience-sake (polygamy & prophethood) & (the BoM), the (close to so im)-perfect book of all time

poor J. Smith knew nothing about Egypt, Jews, Indians, plants, animals or geography (that I am almost astounded that you mormons are almost as weak in those regards as he was, but not really, knowing you have to brainwash yourselves to believe all that)

poor J. Smith knew nothing about Egypt, Jews, Indians, plants, animals or geography

Forgive me for pointing this out, but every single thread about Mormonism that you post to contains the exact wordage of the above post! It's like you have to keep repeating it to keep believing it. Lame, lame, lame.

poor J. Smith knew nothing about Egypt, Jews, Indians, plants, animals or geography (that I am almost astounded that you mormons are almost as weak in those regards as he was, but not really, knowing you have to brainwash yourselves to believe all that)

You reject the possibility that it could exist as well. Simply put it's not something where you put your faith, and I respect that. But you don't absolutly disprove anything, and you can't. You can shadow your eyes with disbelief, say we brainwash ourselves, etc.

But for all you know it could all be true. But saturating your mind with lies and words intended to provoke disbelief the Spirit can't enter into your heart.

I bid you farewell, because I've no desire to dispute with you. The truth can find any man who sincerly searches.

Forgive me for pointing this out,you don't need forgiveness for this; it’s for not being Christian that you'll need to explain to Jesus about
but every single thread about Mormonism that you post to contains the exact wordage of the above post!oh, I forgot, your answer to everything is "read the BoM & take the Moroni promise", about every 5th post, or should I count & post for you or do you remember that now?
It's like you have to keep repeating it to keep believing it. Lame, lame, lame.no, just trying to get it through your head, especially since you can't seem to explain it logically, only illogically

WBY, the truth is simple. If I have to repeat it, it's only because I feel that you are missing the point repeatedly.

You reject the possibility that it could exist as well. Simply put it's not something where you put your faith, and I respect that. But you don't absolutly disprove anything, and you can't. You can shadow your eyes with disbelief, say we brainwash ourselves, etc.I differ on that, its proof to me that the BoM is a false document, a novel at best, a deception at worst
But for all you know it could all be true. impossible; lingiustics, genetics, archeology, antropology, paleobiology, would all have to be false, for the BoM to be true,
sorry for you, you'll need to do more research here
But saturating your mind with lies and words intended to provoke disbelief the Spirit can't enter into your heart.funny, I was thinking the same about you, poor fellow
I bid you farewell, because I've no desire to dispute with you. The truth can find any man who sincerly searches.I hope that you are really serious about truth, that you do really look for truth, and hopefully find it

WBY, the truth is simple. If I have to repeat it, it's only because I feel that you are missing the point repeatedly.thanks for caring, too bad you're sending incorrect data, weak info

I know that God lives... you have to brainwash yourselves to believe all that

Yes, you do.

Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder
I know that God lives... you have to brainwash yourselves to believe all that
Originally Posted by (Q)
Yes, you do.
First, to get the meaning you probably intended, you would need to have done this:

Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder
I know that God lives...
Originally Posted by (Q)
Yes, you do
you have to brainwash yourselves to believe all that
you sure did.

secondly, & more to your point, I would like to ask you 2 questions;
1) if this universe is the result of a series of random chances, how do you explain all the order, shouldn’t it be chaos
2) how did life evolve by random chance, into more complex models, since complexity beyond a certain level, implies ‘intelligent design’

For one thing, morality has nothing to do with religion, they are borne from sociology, and as I already mentioned, you are not dealing with the problems, which still exist. They have not magically dissapeared merely because you found religion.

All you've essentially done is replace crack with smack.

i never said that anything "dissapeared" when i found religion. i see your side, that morals come from sociology. i don't know what i'm arguing here anymore, i suppose.

If you believe in a god, then I haven't got it wrong.

fair enough. i'm not a mormon, though. at least i'm not that far into fiction.

Perhaps in life with earthly issues, but that has nothing to do with a god revealing his message, which must be the same for all and be known by all.

it must be the same for all, and must be heard by all - but the message must be translated many different ways, no? and a billion translations means a million interpretations by a billion people. i think that's why it's a personal quest.

I have no need for beliefs, they are for the weak minded who are unable to think for themselves.

so what do you have? just logic? i'm not being mean, i'm trying to understand. you have no faith in anything?

The constants you speak are of a physical nature; speed of light, etc. Anything you might believe beyond physical constants is from your imagination. It is something you want to believe, not something that might exist.

how do you know that, specifically? did i miss a memo?

1) if this universe is the result of a series of random chances, how do you explain all the order, shouldn’t it be chaos

Which 'order' do you refer exactly?

how did life evolve by random chance, into more complex models, since complexity beyond a certain level, implies ‘intelligent design’

Evolution, of course.

Intelligent design can easily be discarded when one compares the complexities and finds them full of flaws.

it must be the same for all, and must be heard by all - but the message must be translated many different ways, no? and a billion translations means a million interpretations by a billion people. i think that's why it's a personal quest.

Why would the message need to be translated? The message MUST be understood by all as something inherent to all; ie. through their connection with god. Each individual would have exactly the same connection receiving the exact same message, without the slightest bit of confusion or misinterpretation. It would be gods utter failure if he did not make that connection perfect in that all would understand his message equally and unequivocally.

In that, theists commonly confuse their connection with god as being similar to the way we communicate with each other. That is a major flaw in their arguments.

so what do you have? just logic? i'm not being mean, i'm trying to understand. you have no faith in anything?

Faith has two meanings, one is the blind faith of theists while the other is faith based on evidence. I live the latter and abhor the former. Having faith in something that has not and cannot possibly be shown to exist is complete delusion. I would have to ask how anyone could possibly live that way? It's utterly baffling!

I take a lot of pride in knowing humans have reached this current level of evolution, that we've managed to survive this long without becoming extinct ourselves and that we've evolved intelligence that allows us to ask questions and find answers as to how the universe works and that we can share with one another these marvels of nature.

To throw it all away on religion is the ultimate tragedy of mankind.

how do you know that, specifically? did i miss a memo?

Simple. How was the concept of religion initiated without any evidence whatsoever?

The flaw for me is that, since we are intelligent, something intelligent must have created us...

Did a higher gravity make the gravity in our universe? Since gravity can not think, thankfully it does not come to this niave conclusion.

Life could just be in the grand scheme of things a simple phenomenon that just happens and is of no importance to anything... Except of course ourselves.

Kenny

If something intelligent created us, what created that intelligence, and so on... ?

A higher gravity? hehe, good one.

Life could just be in the grand scheme of things a simple phenomenon that just happens and is of no importance to anything... Except of course ourselves.

I'll comment on this and something else you said in another thread; ie. why/how we are here.

We are currently investigating, through science, how we got here. However, the question as to why we are here is purely philisophical. Without religion, the question has no meaning. We are simply here.