wrzYeah, and then right along that Rio Grande just south of the
lower 48 all of the sudden the DNA became European, not Asian. OK. I guess that
is supposed to somehow discredit my original point.
To "Bob K" how is there any contradiction. In the Introduction to the
BoM it states "all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among
the ancestors of the American Indians." That means that the Lamanites are
only one of an unknown number of blood lines that have created the Native
American Indians. The cool thing is that by understanding that, we can accept
the fact that in the Eastern US, the indians have Middle Eastern bloodlines, and
in Central America they have Asian bloodlines. Apparently there has been more
than the 2 migrations to the US mentioned in the BoM.
Science is finally catching up.
I for one do not need hardcore, solid "proof" to substanciate my
"beliefs".I re-watched the movie "Contact" last
night after reading this article.Same premise as we have here.Science vs. Religion.If you have "proof", you do not need
"faith".If you have "faith", you do not need
"proof".Because, Faith is a belief in something unseen
or unknown.I prefer to keep the Faith.
24,000 & 17,000 years of human existence sort of gives the lie to the
Biblical account of the creation.Since humans migrated out of
Africa, they had to go North before the came across the land bridges to the
Americas. It wouldn't surprise me to find that there is some connection
w/Europe in the ancestry. Not to mention that the Vikings were also travelling
to the Americas LONG before Chris C. made his historic journey.
A-- The article makes sense, since, for instance, Iroquois and Aztecs bear very
little resemblance.B-- I forgot that it contradicts the BOM, until I
saw the comments. It is easy for me to view the Old Testament as "The form
of the story that people of that time could absorb", and I believe God
likely set Evolution in motion and let it play out, the way He puts you on the
Earth and gives you free will.As for the BOM -- MAYBE we could see
it as a bit "enhanced" to captivate the people of the time, but that the
lds religion is still good for its adherents whether some of he BOM stories are
not quite verifiable.Again, I think we were given free will to see
it as we see it -- not all agree.
@happy2bhere:"I've always been more impressed with Book of Mormon
authenticity based upon all the Central and South American civilizations and
ruins that have been discovered."Central and South American DNA
is Asian... these people likely came via the Bering Strait. The Hopewell
Indians, who inhabited areas through the Ohio Valley to upstate New York, have
As important as scientific knowledge is, it isn't the most important source
of knowledge. Experience isn't science, but it is knowledge, perhaps the
most important kind of knowledge anyone obtains in this life.
re:Luke NelsonI'm familiar with the apologetics sites and I use some
of what they say to help me research, but as a whole I find their conclusions
lacking depth, and I also find many of their arguments to be logical fallacies,
for example they may attack the credibility of someone in order to try and
disprove a point instead of discussing the issue at hand. That being said,
I'm still on a journey that will likely last the rest of this life, so
I'm not in a hurry to have all the answers. I believe in God and
that's the core of my foundation now, and I'm building from there.
As for science not being in conflict with the church's
teachings, it depends on what you consider church teachings. Many statements
from prophets in the past and today would lead a person to believe that science
is in conflict with religion. The other challenging thing is identifying just
what the church's position is on various topics. I think the church needs
more transparency and clarity on doctrine, especially with respect to changes
that have occurred over time.
Just a side note on this kind of stuff. I've always been more impressed
with Book of Mormon authenticity based upon all the Central and South American
civilizations and ruins that have been discovered. Stuff that certainly Joseph
Smith nor anyone in his circle could have known much about in their day.
"Why do I get the feeling this discussion board is going to morph into a
Book of Mormon authenticity topic influenced by those antagonistic toward the
church?"Why do I get the feeling that the Deseret News'
motivations behind "compiling" this story in this manner is exactly to
reference, without actually saying, the Book of Mormon?The
researchers in no way indicated that Native Peoples didn't all come across
the land bridge. Take a look at where Lake Baikal is--it is nowhere near the
Middle East as the article assumes. The area of Eurasia the researchers studied
is in Russia--as in the country with which the land bridge would connect.
We've known for a long time that there were at least two separate
migrations out of Africa, and that at least two of the groups interacted with
each other in what is now China. In fact, the Human Genome project found that
significant portions of the entire world stem from a mixed group in Central Asia
(Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc), including all of Europe.In short, the
author is merely trying to bend the research further than it actually goes.
@Legalize_the_ConstitutionFirst off, I'd recommend the
FAIRMormon website for another perspective on those historical issues. Second,
getting answers with little to no effort and science being in conflict with
religion are both in contradiction with what The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints teaches. I think you are reading things into gee-en's
post that aren't there.
Did you read the Nature.com article?It indicates that "...This
suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more
north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought...". No
changes on how the first Americans arrived here, that is walking during the
'...Last Glacial Maximum..."
Hutterite: What were you basing your conclusion on? Was it scientific data or
just plain intransigence?
Re:gee-enI've been a faithful believing orthodox Mormon all my life,
but recently have been exposed to historical events that have caused me to doubt
the authenticity of many aspects of the church, but I still go and I still
believe in many aspects of the church but come from a much different perspective
than before. That being said, the DNA argument against the BoM has never been a
strong argument for me because I think there are way to many factors to come to
a conclusion based on DNA alone.I find your response to this article
somewhat naive. If you think that the spirit is the only way to discover
answers to questions, and that God will somehow give you directions with little
to no effort on your part to prove or disprove the truth, then I think
you're in for a rude awakening. If you view science as in conflict with
religion, then I believe you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Truth
is truth, whether it comes from science or religion. We shouldn't be so
married to specific doctrines, because doctrines change with time, as our
The very earth will testify as to the truthfulness of the gospel. This is only one study, but it shows that the assumptions made for years about
early American DNA are on shaky ground. More and more data come out all the
time that refute those who attack the gospel. However, it wouldn't matter
if God himself came down to testify to these individuals. They'll just
dodge and weave, argue new positions and continue to live in denial. Those who have left the Church over DNA issues better rethink their position.
"Using science to learn about spiritual matters is akin to learning calculus
by taking a cooking class :-)"Couldn't the converse be true
as well. Using spirituality to learn about science matters is akin got learning
cooking by taking a calculus class?
Dang, You guys are drama queens. It's a tiny speck of information.
It's dated 24,000 years ago. According to modern religion nothing existed
then, however does that make me now indigenous?
Science tells us HOW, Religion tells us WHY.
Ha! This would be hilarious if science finally "discovers" what the Book
of Mormon has been trying to tell people for 150+ years. Of course, science will
never fully prove or disprove anything related to God. Using science to learn
about spiritual matters is akin to learning calculus by taking a cooking class
Well, we know where this discussion will go.
Why do I get the feeling this discussion board is going to morph into a Book of
Mormon authenticity topic influenced by those antagonistic toward the church?
They will probably collaborate on ex-Mormon sites to come here in droves and to
belittle the faith of the Saints using this article as an excuse. Either way, interesting study. I imagine we'll learn even more with time.
P.S. - The Book of Mormon is true.
I don't think they're descendants of ancient egyptians or israelites,
if that's what you were going for.