Hebrew DNA found in South America? [OPEN]

Was Hebrew DNA recently found in American Indian populations in South America? According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.

But it probably has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon -- at least not directly.

For years several critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the lack of Hebrew DNA markers in living Native American populations is evidence the book can't be true. They say the book's description of ancient immigrations of Israelites is fictional.

"But," said Woodward, "as Hugh Nibley used to say, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' "

Critic Thomas Murphy, for example, wrote in one article about how the Cohen modal haplotype had been found in the Lemba clan in Africa. The Lemba clan's oral tradition claims it has Jewish ancestors.

Murphy then complained, "If the (Book of Mormon) 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."

So will Murphy and other critics use this new evidence of Hebrew DNA markers to prove the Book of Mormon is correct? Probably not. But neither should anyone else.

According to Woodward, the way critics have used DNA studies to attack the Book of Mormon is "clearly wrong." And it would be equally wrong to use similar DNA evidence to try to prove it.

According to Woodward, while forensic DNA (popularized in TV shows like "CSI") looks for the sections of DNA that vary greatly from individual to individual, the sections of DNA used for studying large groups are much smaller and do not change from individual to individual.

Studies using this second type of DNA yield differing levels of reliability or, as Woodward calls it, "resolution."

At a lower resolution the confidence in the results goes down. At higher resolution confidence goes up in the results.

The critics' problem now is what they do with the low-resolution discovery of Hebrew DNA in American Indian populations.

For people who believe that the Book of Mormon is a true account, the problem is to resist the temptation to misuse this new discovery.

Woodward says that most likely, when higher-resolution tests are used, we will learn that the Hebrew DNA in native populations can be traced to conquistadors whose ancestors intermarried with Jewish people in Spain or even more modern migrations.

Ironically, it is the misuse of evidence that gave critics fuel to make their DNA arguments in the first place. According to Woodward, the critics are attacking the straw man that all American Indians are only descendants of the migrations described in the Book of Mormon and from no other source.

Although some Latter-day Saints have assumed this was the case, this is not a claim the Book of Mormon itself actually makes. Scholars have argued for more than 50 years that the book allows for the migrations meeting an existing population.

This completely undermines the critics' conclusions. They argue with evangelic zeal that the Book of Mormon demands that no other DNA came to America but from Book of Mormon groups.

Woodward also sees that it is essential to read the Book of Mormon story closely to understand what type of DNA the Book of Mormon people would have had. The Book of Mormon describes different migrations to the New World. The most prominent account is the 600-B.C. departure from Jerusalem of a small group led by a prophet named Lehi. But determining Lehi's DNA is difficult because the book claims he is not even Jewish, but a descendant of the biblical Joseph.

According to Woodward, even if you assume we knew what DNA to look for, finding DNA evidence of Book of Mormon people may be very difficult. When a small group of people intermarry into a large population, the DNA markers that might identify their descendants could entirely disappear -- even though their genealogical descendants could number in the millions.

This means it is possible that almost every American Indian alive today could be genealogically related to Lehi's family but still retain no identifiable DNA marker to prove it. In other words, you could be related genealogically to and perhaps even feel a spiritual kinship with an ancestor but still not have any vestige of his DNA.

"I don't dismiss the possibility," said Woodward, "but the probability is pretty low."

Woodward speculated about it, imagining he were able to identify pieces of DNA that would be part of Lehi's gene pool. Then, imagine if a match was found in the Native American population.

But even then, Woodward would be cautious. "It could have been other people who share the same (DNA) markers," said Woodward about the imaginary scenario.

"It's an amazingly complex picture. To think that you can prove (group relationships) like you can use DNA to identify a (criminal) is not on the same scale of scientific inquiry."

Like the Book of Mormon itself, from records buried for centuries in the Hill Cumorah, genetic "proof" may remain hid up unto the Lord.

Godzilla, any comments on this "evidence" that was tampered with? Do you want to present it at a UFO convention even?

Lets examine what the issue is first, then I’ll pick apart your citation.

Smith was charged with a count of treasure seeking in 1826.

Is the trial historically proven by the documents
Are the documents authentic.

It is well established that smith had a reputation for treasure seeking using a peep stone. This is affirmed by numerous testimonies such as Martin Harris (Account of Martin Harris given to the Rev. John A. Clark, as related in his 1842 book Gleanings by the Way, W.J. & J.K. Simon, pp. 222ff.), Smith’s father in law "Smith stated to me that he had given up what he called 'glass looking,' and that he expected to work hard for a living,... He also made arrangements with my son,... to go up to Palmyra,... after this, I was informed they had brought a wonderful book of plates down with them.... The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the 'money diggers,' with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the book of plates was at the same time hid in the woods.' " (New York Baptist Register, June 13, 1834). And even Apostle John A. Widtsoe bluntly stated: "...Joseph Smith is made to confess to all his errors, including treasure hunting, peepstone practices, etc., etc. " (Joseph Smith — Seeker After Truth, 1951, page 78)

The fact that smith possessed and used “seer stones” for his translation of the bom further confirms the practice.

Was smith charged with anything in 1826

The first point is that your source never denies that smith was taken to court. It spends much time misdirecting one’s attention to some questionable aspects of the history, but never denies it. Even Cowdrey in the mormon propaganda mouthpiece Messenger and Advocate, affirms the trial took place.

What is affirmed by Neely’s and Sheriff DeZeng documentation is the date of the trial (March 20, 1826) and the cost ($2.68) mentioned in the previous accounts of the trial. History, both mormon and non, indicate that a trial occurred. What DU argues is that since we don’t have an official court document of the actual trial proceedings itself and that those who published about it had an agenda, the trial never occurred. In order to convince himself of this, DU must discount and ignore Cowdrey’s and the earlier reporting on the trial in his citation. (Apr. 9, 1831 - A W. Benton in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate; Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate; 1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977) which are not associated with the Pearsall ‘record’. In this instance the misdirect is towards Pearsall, ignoring the other evidence. As DU likes to cite absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and in this case the circumstantial evidence continues to confirm the account.

1. Smith is recognized by LDS sources as having a history of ‘treasure seeking’.
2. Smith had in his possession a seer stone which by his own admission he used to seek treasures
3. Historians accept the trial as a fact.

Finally, addressing the authenticity of the bills. DU would cast aspersions because of the handling. I will agree they were mishandled The FAIR article quotes They are generally considered to be authentic, but now there is always room for doubt. The fact is that these bills have been in open public possession since at least 1980 and in 2005 turned over to the mormon church. This should have allowed for plenty of time for mormon apologists to closely examine the document and see if it is an original or forgery. Now 27 years later, the documents have not been examined and declared a forgery. Why does the image from Indiana Jones watching the ark being placed into storage never to be found again come to mind. That is probably why FAIR weasel worded the phrase above.

The Neely bill shows smith found guilty of a misdemeanor. The Sheriff’s bill shows
1. Both before and during the examination Joseph remained under guard, with Constable De Zeng in 'attendance with Prisoner two days & 1 night,' referring to the day of the examination and the day and night preceding. Since the evidence appeared sufficient to show that Smith was guilty as charged, he was ordered held for trial.
2. Mittimus - Webster's 1828 dictionary gives this definition of the word Mittimus: "In law, a precept or command in writing, under the hand or hand and seal of a justice of the peace or other proper officer, directed to the keeper of a prison, requiring him to imprison an offender; a warrant of commitment to prison. 2. A writ for removing records from one court to another." Constable De Zeng's bill proves that the mittimus related to the imprisonment of Joseph Smith rather than the "writ for removing records from one court to another." It plainly states: "10 miles travel with mittimus to take him."
Smith was convicted of a misdemeanor and ordered held over for trial. In A New Conductor Generalis, 1819, page 109, we read:
"A justice of the peace may convict disorderly persons,... to the bridewell or house of correction, at hard labor, for a time not exceeding sixty days, or until the next general sessions....
"When a person has been thus committed by a justice, to remain till the next general sessions, if the justices at the sessions adjudge him to be a disorderly person, they may, if they think convenient, order him to be detained, at hard labor, for any future time not exceeding six months, and during his confinement to be corrected by whipping, according to the nature of the offence, as they shall think fit."

e On March 8, 1842, Joel K. Noble, who had acquitted Joseph Smith of some charges brought against him in 1830 (see History of the Church, vol. 1, pages 91-96), wrote a letter in which he spoke of Joseph Smith's "first trial" — i.e., the case before Justice Neely. According to Noble, Smith "was condemned" at that time. Plea bargaining was not unknown in that era and in that same letter "Mr. Noble succinctly states that the 'whisper came to Jo., 'Off, Off!' ' and so Joseph 'took Leg Bail,' an early slang expression meaning 'to escape from custody.'...

Finally, Du tries to sluff it off with the old because everyone was doing it. Perhaps, folk magic has been pretty well documented in that area and time frame. What is different here is that none of these others claimed to have talked to God six years prior. Smith’s arrest and conviction is embarrassing for the fact that this occurred between the so called first vision (which ever of the 9 one wants to choose) and the revealing of the plates, who by some accounts I’ve cited were found by the means of those same seer stones to find them as well.

Regarding DU’s last bleats

Godzilla, any comments on this "evidence" that was tampered with? Do you want to present it at a UFO convention even?

Your FAIR source is already on record in admitting the documents are authentic and nothing has been proven to be tampered with. So until you can prove tampering (and document handling is not evidence of tampering DU), then your assertion doesn’t hold water. The mormon church has had them in their possession since 2005, there is has been ample opportunity for them to examine these documents and identify if they have been tampered with or are spurious. When will mormon central get around to that? (crickets).

So you have a manufactured document, it's not the first time (Mark Hoffman) thy never did find all of Hofmann's "forgeries"...

Stick with slumming at UFO sites DUh and read your articles more closely. The FAIR article does not come to the conclusion that this is a manufactured document. Infact, a mormon, Ron Jackson, attempted to forge Stowell’s signature to the Neely bill based upon a copy from UTLM, and was hoisted by his own petards.

As for those documents proving a trial, Joseph was arrested many time, as was Martin Luther.

Luther was never arrested for treasure seeking only to later use the same item – a seer stone to allegedly write an 18th century work of fiction. Contrary to your purpose, your source has proven smith was tried and convicted of treasure seeking.

Whether you grew up summers near Nauvoo is interesting, but not so relevant.

Then neither is your uncles third hand testimony against Joseph smith, got a journal, or just your memory of oral stories? As Godzilla has already invalidated oral histories unless backed up by something tangible on this thread...

I will allow that an argument could reasonably be made that at the time Smith was sitting in the Carthage jail, he might not have intended to break out of jail that evening. It is plausible that the rush of a mob numbering almost 100 hastened his plan - as well as his demise.

Why thank you so much for allowing dissent, LOL!

It is totally illogical for you or anyone to think you know what was in Joseph's mind. However, since Joseph had every expectation that in a court of law he would be exonerated there is no reason to break out of jail and run out to the waiting mob (file this in the you have got to be kidding file!)

But if Smith had no plans to shoot or threaten anyone, nor to try to escape from jail, why did he request the six-shooter that Cyrus Wheelock offered?

Um... Many people buy a gun when threatened. It's called self defense. I am even in favor of those who oppose me having the right and ability (including weapons) to defend themselves, you? (Do you really support the second amendment?)

Why did he not follow through on his own words and go as “a lamb to the slaughter”?

He came quietly to the jail, he could have made a stand in Nauvoo and made it a very costly thing to bring him in, the Nauvoo militia under his control was of a significant size. He expected to be protected, the Governor had given his word and Joseph assumed he would keep it. Then with all the changes, the mob being in the area, and the Governor deciding to give a speech and requiring all the troops to attend, well if anyone was not concerned for their safety, they would be an idiot.

Suicide and death by cop, you are correct, are not martyrdom.

Joseph was killed by a mob of armed men after being abandoned by the Governor (who removed all the troops who were supposed to protect the jail) this is martyrdom as it happened to may of the apostles. If Joesph had publicly renounced his calling and denied his vision from God he knew he would have been spared, he died for his faith. EG he was martyred. Whether or not you believe his faith does not matter a whit.

Neither is it martyrdom to be killed after having shot two men to death and wounded a third (as happened to J Smith).

Just like the Christians who died in the Colosseum?

The best face you could put on it would be dying in battle.

Hardly, maybe you just don know the meanings of the words you throw about so easily Dictionary.com Martyr:

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

Words, they mean things, you should know what they mean before you use them, nothing in the definition says it has to be the "true" religion.

BTW, I did not go to an “Anti” site.

Congratulations!

I read books. Original materials.

Books are not always original materials...

They can be found in libraries. In some cases things can be ordered from LDS run depositories that wold probably shock you (and the quorum, too, if they knew what had not YET been removed or suitably altered to reflect the history they wish they had...)

Actually, I doubt if you could shock me, you see I've been at this (defending my church) a long time and while I am surprised, I am never shocked.

Anti - what a word fragment. You must be one of those Mormon antichristians, because you are against my posited arguments, therefore it follows that you must be against me, right?

Actually, Anti is an accepted abbreviation here, like ROTFLOL and JFTR, or IMHO, It means one who's only purpose is to tear down the opposition, not to spread their own version of religion or of a story.

Oh wait - it’s just a meaningless pejorative term to lend the appearance of discrediting any argument stemming from such a source.

Actually I explained it above, but it has become a pejorative term like cult (another word thrown around by those who do not know the meaning of the word cult, all churches are cults by definition.)

Because after all, if the source is “anti mormon”, then that means they hate mormons are against all mormons and automatically all their referenced material is subjective, biased, lacking in truth, feeling, scholarship, etc...

Actually, if all they do is oppose us, then they are just as shallow as you describe. There are others who oppose us who are not "anti Mormon", the Catholic church is a good example, they say we (and all protestant churches too) are apostate and of the devil, however, they have an agenda and would rather advance that then argue interminably. The Catholics are also willing to recognize that we believe we are right and even work with us on a good cause. Many true Christians worked together on proposition 8 for example.

But if, in fact, the person is anti mormonISM, then they can fairly say that they love many of the mormons of today, simultaneous to detesting the doctrine to which they adhere (to varying extents)

The religious version of the support the troops, but not the commander? LOL!

That would be me. Anti “ISM”.

Whatever, as long as your purpose is just to oppose, anti is fine.

It is a significant stretch of the imagination to expect the non-mormon world to believe that every single book and historical document which does not reflect positively upon Joseph Smith and Brigham Young - is unavoidably and inalterably biased, dishonest, or incorrect.

I never said that and you never asked me my opinion of Joseph Smith. I am not of the opinion that Joseph Smith was a perfect man, far from it. But God has testified to me that he was his prophet.

Out of curiosity, are you of the opinion that prophets... say in the old testament, were perfect men?

For my part, I have no doubt based upon the accounts of my late great-grandfather - given him by his father and uncles - that Smith and Young were scoundrels of the first order - You cannot “shoot down” their experiences.

Sure I can, give us names and stores and we'll do research just like you have done on Joseph. I'm sure we'll find something...

(if that didn't make you uncomfortable then you made them and this story up)

I too have relatives from the area and era. I am a descendant of Governor Liliburn Boggs (My mom had forbidden us to close the link, but apparently someone else is working on that line and the work is now in the computer in slat lake...) In case you don't know, Governor Boggs is the Governor in Missouri who signed the extermination order making it legal for anyone in Missouri to shoot a Mormon on sight. (Nice guy huh?)

You can only imagine the stories I could pull out of my family history, for I will not tell them.

I wanted to know for myself, I asked God and here I am, a Mormon, defending truth on the Internet in my spare time. (whoo'da thunk?)

Think for your self, check it out, your self, you never know...

It in fact only augments the truthfulness of my ancestors to have read (in countless books) since I became an adult, stories which paralleled what they passed to my great grandfather.

Have you actually read the Book of Mormon? Not to impugn your ancestors, but only God knows for sure if Joseph was his prophet or not.

My great grandfather had eleven children, the youngest of whom was my (now late) grandmother, his only daughter, and I knew seven of her elder brothers and spent time around them and their many children.

Sounds like a great family, my mom and dad had seven, they have over fifty grandchildren now.

Whenever family reunions were held (about three summers out of every five through my childhood) the old men would sit around and talk about their dad’s recounting of his dad - their grandfather, great uncles and the tales of the old mercantile. I heard them so many times I could have told them myself - like any good oral history.

You know, I know a lot of stories from my grandpa about the depression and the many acts of compassion that were performed by and to my ancestors, how my great great granddad killed a deer with a pocket knife (it's true), stuff like that. I don't know why anyone would want to perpetuate a tale about something that is not uplifting.

The stories about the “mormon encounters” were not the only ones by a long stretch - but they were among the more popular, and memorable amongst a bunch of men who were by and large, Conservative Methodists or Baptists.

Again why were they popular? I could tell a ton of stories about how people have wronged me to my kids, I don't because I want the to grow up happy and well adjusted.

JFTR, My mom and dad were Methodist before they joined and I went to the Methodist church whenever I was staying with my relatives. I had a hard time remembering to bring a couple of bucks when we were going to go, LOL! (The LDS do not pass a plate.)

The point is, I have read plenty of books and magazines over the last three decades - a lot of it (but not all) from non-mormon sources, along with things that are chronicled in histories within the church archives.

Great! So have I...

There is a certain nagging consistency to accounts like those of my ancestors; one which runs parallel to other independently written histories.

Yep, there is a nagging consistency to people who say we are not the true church too. (LOL)

While consistency is good, the Jews were consistent who chose not to follow Jesus when he fulfilled the Law of Moses...

If what my ancestors had experienced was at wide variance with all other information you could find, I would be somewhat willing to give guys like Joe Smith a bit of leeway as “good guy...meant well, good intentions. just a little misguided at times...”

I could show you stuff, but I don't think you will listen, besides, it seems to me that there are three ways people look at Joseph Smith: 1) If you grew up Mormon, you tend to think, "well of course...", 2) If you grew up with people telling you, or if you left the church, or in anyway decided Mormons were wrong then no matter what you read you come out with "it's not true", 3) then there are those who actually read the Book of Mormon, and pray about it in faith, they obtain a testimony and know Joseph is a prophet of God.

But that is not the case. I have no reason NOT to trust the information passed to me by my great-grandfather. How about that he would sit around and tell such stories? why not tell stories about a horse race or an act of charity...

On the contrary it lines up closely with readily obtainable information that is considered historically accurate by all but those avowedly loyal to the LDS church and the demonstrably sanitized (embellished) portraits of Smith and Young.

LOL! Have you seen portraits of early church leaders in Christs day? Does anyone actually think they looked like that? It was not until recently that we found some actual photos of Joseph (and even those are debated) so you have a problem with the "soft focus" some people use, fine, I have that problem with some politicians, but I do not intend to tell my children stories about them...

If my Gr-Grandfather or his father were known in the family to have been incorrigible liars, then I would have taken it all with a grain of salt.

I am not calling them liars, I just don't think their story is historically accurate, I do think it accurately reflects their feelings, which is sad.

They liked their liquor on occasions, I know - but they told the cold hard truth about their own faults and those of others they had known over the years.

Did they ever speak of anyone's virtues?

I respect the dead - when and if they have earned that respect.

I respect the dead because they are not "here" to defend themselves. You know, someday you will be dead, I hope people do not treat you the way you are saying people should treat those who did not "earn" better" It's called being gracious, and kind.

I respect Joseph Smith and Brigham Young not one teensy iota.

That's too bad, they accomplished a lot temporally in the world, and you can see none of it because you grandpa told you some stories...

It is not required of me by G_d, and contrary to Young’s opinion, is not necessary for my salvation, therefore I will never respect them, let alone adulate them (like a majority of today’s mormons are indoctrinated to do.) They have done nothing to earn it nor deserve it.

Actually, it is, consider the following:
Matt. 7: 1-2

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Mark 11: 25-26

25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Well, at least the Bible says so...

They were not good men - every man has his shortcomings and inconsistencies but the LDS church seems to want us all to believe those two were giants among all of mankind, uniquely lacking in the common failings of mere mortals.

See Matt. 7: 1-2 listed above, you did not even know these men, yet you take it upon your self to be their judge and jury.

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian, and if so do you believe it's OK for you to judge everyone? if so, why?

The simple unfortunate truth is they were more often VILE, self-serving abusers of power than not. They abused and lorded themselves over women regularly, acting like they were better than Solomon himself when they were neither one wise enough to be a servant to one of Solomon’s servants.

Again, you did not even know these men you are judging them on hearsay.

IMHO, I would rather in the last day have been accused of being to lenient with my fellow man for I have much to be forgiven of in my life, and most who know me consider me a good man...

I would not treat a dog I hated the way Smith treated some of his illegally married plural wives that he lied about having.

I would not treat anyone the way you are treating Joseph smith here, so? You are posting your opinion as fact, and I am compelled by my curiosity to ask, do you know the difference?

For crying out loud, DU, this P.O.S., Smith...

You have strong opinions of men you have never met, do not know and quite frankly, neither did those who "told you the story", yet you condemn them anyway in complete disregard of the Bible's teachings, which presumably you believe in. Interesting.

Publicly addressed himself to his accusers,on 26 May, 1844 - saying “[William Law] swears that I have commotted adultery. I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are...I am wuite tired of the fools asking me. A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives...I am innocent of these charges...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery and having seven wives when I can only find one. I am the same man and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”

When Smith made these public statements, he actally did NOT have seven wives.

He had not less than thirty three, perhaps as many as forty.

Further eleven of his wives were already wed to other men and cohabiting with them when Smith married them.

This is far removed from the facts which I admit are difficult to explain, kind of like those who claim that the ten commandments forbid polygamy when confronted with Moses' plurality of wives.

however, I will simply say that your rendition is factually challenged, this thread is about DNA and Indians, Remember?

I am going to cut out your rendition of Joseph's wives as it is irrelevant and factually at odds with reality, another thread some time?

<--Snip-->

Yeah, nothing like the exemplary character of Joe Smith and Brigham Young as a good model to look down upon!

and you certainly seem to be "looking down" on them to me...

At least it was all divinely sanctioned by the Lord, in the OT of the Bible.

Actually, if God does not change... then neither should his standard of righteousness.

Oh wait, that’s right - it wasn’t. I can cite many Bible verses which demonstrate that fact here - as well as the ones which amply demonstrate that polygamy as shown in the lives of OT characters (Lamech - the first recorded polygamist, Abraham, Jacob, Elkanah, David, Solomon,) reflects there as having been tragedy, suffering, or punishment directly related to polygamy - AKA “plural marriage”...but since those verses might not be “correctly translated” - it would not matter much to you.

Been there, had that discussion, and often, Google ""mia gune" Greek" and (as of the time I write this response)) you will find the first result is a PDF file called Husbandofonewife.pdf. this is a scholarly document written by a non Mormon about polygamy, you might be surprised, anyway, knowledge is power, read it please.

Far from supporting the misguided notion of a “Law of Abraham”, the accounts of these men’s lives portray lack of faith, disobedience, and in general seem to represent a discouragement of the practice.

Why in the world Smith and Young thought themselves better that any of those men, capable of improving upon those examples, and producing a better outcome - is a mystery to me.

Your logic here underwhelms me.

Smith and Young? It’s “Open Season” on their character, baby!

Spoken like a truly objective, rational, fanatic.

Move along...move along, nothing to respect there!

are you speaking of yourself? Very well...

Affirming, once again, that they are not good men - far from being truly sad (as you put it)...

I did not say that they were sad, it is your attitude that I find sad and unbecoming of any who claims to follow Jesus Christ.

Is truly wise...One who admires their life examples has fools for his spiritual models.

"A truly wise man can learn from even a fool" -- Confucius
I have learned something new here today.

I would rather try to emulate Jesus and fall short, than try to emulate Smith or Young and succeed.

On this I would actually agree with you...

At least I know which path will lead me into heaven.

Apparently, knowing it and taking it are two entirely different things.

When I read your post(s) I cannot help but picture a man walking the low road yelling loudly while pointing uphill "The high road is over there!" as he walks.

God bless.

Got that? A caveat on what the response must be or "it may not be from God".

Um, I know you were "around" A couple of years ago all the antis were on this kick trying to tell everyone we were receiving an answer from Satan instead of God. (What a specious argument that was in that it had not a shred of support from the Bible.)

Thus I pointed out that: First John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

First John 4:1-3 precludes that as an answer to my testimony, since my testimony, from God, of the Book of Mormon contained a testimony of Jesus Christ, it had to be from God. Anyone who wants the "Straight poop" on what's actually on my page, Here is a link to the section greyfoxx39 is talking about.

THAT is to inform those taking the "test" that if you get a response to your prayer that the BOM is from satan, you can't possibly have received the response from God.

Again with the mind reading? How can you tell people (legitimately) what I mean by something? I mean what I say, if people don't understand, they should come to me not you. However, since you think that is fair, I would suggest that everyone who has a question about anything you say should come to me for clarification, are you good with that greyfoxx39?

I thought not.

Then you link people to an anti site (can't you people come up with your own arguments? LOL!)

Now, I'll examine your claims...

Moroni 10:4 is not so much of a promise as it is a manipulative device.

Yeah, my daughter went through a phase where she thought I was being manipulative when I told her I loved her... Some people (usually those trying to manipulate others) see manipulation everywhere.

It promises a particular result if certain terms are met.

That is called a contract in today's terms, can a contract be manipulative, yes, but it does not have to be manipulative, so this does not prove your point.

But the terms reflect on the seeker's integrity as regards both his sincerity and resolve, and on his faith in Christ.

Which are both valid points, lets address them both:

Must God answer an insincere prayer?

The Bible has many Scriptures about men praying with insincerity, here is one of my favorites

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing far off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

so not all prayers are equal, sincerity is important.

Is God required to answer a prayer from someone who is sincere one moment and not the next (fickle)?

Again, nothing in the Scriptures says a fickle man will recieve an answer to his prayer: James 1: 5-7

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Let me emphasize this: Let not that man think he shall receive anything from the lord..

The Bible does not lead me to believe fickle men, men who are not steadfast in their belief will receive anything from the Lord. Many posters here will already have quotes coming to their mind.

To be willing to rely on the promise of this verse as a test for the Book of Mormon's truthfulness one must already have concluded somehow that its instruction is valid and its promise reliable.

OK, let's examine the Bible, does it have anything in it that give a similar promise? Why yes, my page that you quote from talks about First John 4:1-3, not Moroni 10: 4... This is a Straw man argument (since I don't quote Moroni 10: 4 on my page.)

Now, let's talk about the logic involved, if I sign a contract with Greyfoxx39 and say you give me $10,000 and I will give you this bridge (just so greyfoxx39 will like this analogy). I can point out to you that you can verify the deed with both a title company, and the state. so, you decide to "do the deal", you get the deed and everything checks out with the state and the title is clean, did you not legitimately buy a bridge from me? I used selling a bridge which is a stereotypically shady deal, lots of jokes are made about selling bridges, but bridges are sometimes legitimately bought and sold. The key is to do your research and make sure the title is valid.

So, contracts are a "valid" form and the Bible contains many of them. Offering testimony from the Holy Spirit is valid if it can be verified that it is the Holy spirit that testified, the Bible in First John 4:1-3 takes care of that, so it's valid too.

Let's see what else is in here...

That is, one must already believe in the "truthfulness" of this verse.

LOL! All you have to do is know and believe the Bible. As a matter of fact, the Book of Mormon is subtitled "ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST" Which means it is intended for those who already have the Bible (the first testament), thus First John 4:1-3 applies and once the book of Mormon is validated by First John 4:1-3, the Book of Mormon as a second testament can make parts of the Bible which are not clear, clear because that's one of it's purposes.

If the verse is true, then the only possible explanation for failing to obtain the result promised is a failure to meet the terms.

Actually, there are many possible reasons for not receiving an "immediate" answer, God does things in his time and to his purposes, not ours. God sometimes wants "more" from us, I have several friends who were told they would never have kids, then after they adopted a child, boom they're pregnant! I think God just wanted them to show their commitment to having kids. (Hey it's an opinion and everybody gets one!)

That is, one must lack a sincere heart, and/or real intent, and/or faith in Christ.

That is entirely possible, you see, I knew a fundamentalist Christian (he would have been condemning you guys too BTW) who told me that he read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it once just so he could say he'd proven it wrong. What a waste of time.

If one believes the verse is true then one must obtain the answer promised, or face an embarrassing judgement of one's sincerity, intent, or faith in Christ.

Or if one sincerely prays and does not get an answer, over time say a year or two, then one could conclude that God is not going to answer you, and the Book of Mormon is false. To my knowledge that has never happened and I've been doing this for a while. In my experience, if an Anti Mormon tells you he has received a testimony the book of Mormon is wrong and you start to get "the details" you catch them lying about something (like even reading the book...). There are also people who used to be members who have testified of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph smith who now testify against him, They are suspect, because they are perjurers before God, either then, or now.

Go with God, he always tells the truth, once you ask him, what anyone tells you won't matter.

Anyone out there who has read the Book of Mormon every day for a year, been praying about it for a year, and has not had an answer, FM me, I'd like to talk to you and find out why.

I have talked to many anti's who started to read it.. or read it to "prove it false" we all know what's wrong with that from the quotes in the Bible.

the seeker is forced into convincing himself he has had some kind of manifestation from God, just to vindicate his own character.

Really, does that hold true for people who read First John 4:1-3 and pray about the Bible and don't get an answer?

Now you might say that never happens... kind of like I said I hadn't seen that, but the logic is the same. That is the problem with many of the objections antis to any religion bring up, they forget to check and see if their logical assault invalidates their own religion as well. (oops)

Or worse, he is moved to a frame of mind where he will gladly and indiscriminately embrace any supernatural manifestation as though it were from God.

Nowhere does the Book of Mormon, or the Bible promote the acceptance of indiscriminate supernatural manifestations. Any allusions to that are strictly a construct of your own mind.

Plain reason, not to mention all the force of Scripture's revelation of the character of God, testifies that God would not, does not, use such manipulative mind/ego games against the human family to bring them to believe the truth.

Wow, what a Complex question you pose to reach a conclusion that is not supported by your logic.

Plain reason, huh.

Scripture reveals God's character, I'll agree with that, but how do we know it's God's character that the Bible is revealing? By the Spirit. How do we invite the Spirit to testify of that to you? Through prayer. This sounds familiar, doesn't it, kind of like First John 4:1-3 sounds a lot like Moroni 10: 4, huh?

The invalidating logic you would apply to the Book of Mormon would invalidate the bible as well.

Try this scripture from the Book of Mormon Second Nephi 32:8

8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.

God does not approve, and truth does not need, such machinations.

God does approve, it says so in the Bible, truth does not need but we men do need God's revelation to know the truth. What we need is revelation from God to know his truth.

Are you using a "canned argument", or did you actually come up with this from my page, because I quote the Bible...

Also from My page:

The Bible teaches man to Pray, the Book of Mormon teaches men to pray, anyone who teaches something else is not of God.

Friends, brethren, beware of those who teach that God will not answer a sincere prayer from the heart. Seek God. Seek to do good continually, Do good to those who persecute you and despitefully use you. In the end you will in no wise lose your reward for seeking to follow the scriptures.

Amen.

Since you are not actually addressing the claims and arguments on my page, I consider your post to be building a Straw man, with the additional attempt to burn it before it can be examined.

I testify to you all that I have received a testimony from God that included a testimony of Jesus Christ that the Book of Mormon is his word. I testify to you the Jesus is the Christ that he suffered and died for my sins, was resurrected on the third day and has ascended to heaven with his resurrected body, and that he will return in like manner to which he left. This I testify, so help me God.

God bless you all.

GZ Because of the length of DU’s last two posts, I will have to break my replys over three posts.

Golly Gee, your posts are so short, how on earth did this happen?

Oh wait, you keep throwing things in (because you can't support your arguments) and this kitchen sink approach leads to large posts that no-one reads. LOL!

GZ But for the lurkers out there, this series will show the absolute emptyness of the mormon apologetic regarding actual physical data with which one can evaluate the claims of the bom. Additionally, it will showcase the low threshold and sources of evidences in comparison to independent scientific studies.

And he'll do this while spinning a plate on his nose, LOL!

Can we just stick to DNA and how the heck you get a valid result from a corrupted sample?

I'm a programmer, remember? Garbage in Garbage out! Words to live by my FRiend, words to live by.

DU Tell you what, you admit that Hugh Nibley was always right, and I'll go with your interpretation... I didn't think you would go with that. Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to insist that he was wrong on many other things, and insist that I say he was right on this one?

GZ Nice how you try to isolate him from FARMS/Maxwell inst who also apparently view this irrefutable artifact as a fraud too. If los lunas proof cannot get over their low bar – perhaps you should take notice. In my search today, FARMS/Maxwell search for the term “Los Lunas” still turns up empty

You are the one who brought up Nibley as if he was infallible and I just "Had to accept anything he said as Authoritative", I searched for Godzilla in the Bible and didn't find you there... So?

DU So? how many things have you actually sourced on this thread (pot ... Kettle...)

GZ I have cited sources for the scientific studies and where possible the links. I believe the lurkers out there can tell the difference between my factual back up and your fictional backup.

LOL! I think they can too, and it isn't going well for you from the FMs I'm getting...

DU You know that the Los lunas stone is only one of many places that paleo hebrew has been found in the Americas.

GZ Funny DUh, most of your sources that have been provided have conistently indicated it was Phonecian, not proto-Hebrew and there are no citations that either used greek characters mixed in.

Paleo Hebrew and Phonetician are very close, but there are differences, call it what ever you want, they couldn't read it when the stone was discovered, or when the Indians say they first discovered it (when they moved into the area), then that goof Higgen came in an messed up the site, and now you want to say he forged it, say what you want, it's your opinion, but it's just not fact. You can no more get proof for or against the Book of Mormon from a "corrupted" site then you can get an accurate result from a DNA sample that is corrupted. (Hey, I actually brought us back on topic!)

The one argument invalidates the other, and that is why I went with the Los Lunas stone, I knew you'd go there.

DU You said that was no evidence, there is, it's not "mainstream" or the Book of Mormon would be "mainstream". But the evidence exists, if that is what you are looking for. If you are looking for evidence against, you can find that too.

GZ Not all evidence is equal.

Boy you can say that again. The DNA evidence by a guy who's a plant Biologist which started this whole thing is certainly not equal to the evidence of a Population Geneticist who pioneered the science, who finds the plant biologist's work to be in error.

GZ Yes, even fraud could be considered evidence in your world.

Um, don't you have that backwards? I have already invoked Mark Hoffmann, the forger, who's documents have not all been tracked down.

GZ It has been found sorely lacking and if this were a court trial, it would be dismissed for lacking authenticity.

If this were a court trial your DNA evidence would be bounced for the same reason (which was my point!)

GZ Nib’s knew that, so do FARMS/Maxwell, so does the smithsonian, so do all legitimate archaeologists.

So do all legitimate DNA Experts...

DU So you finally have two objections that are not just smoke and mirrors, the dots to separate words have been found in other period documents you might want to review The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon.

GZ is still talking about the Los Lunas Stone...)

GZ Right, Kerry Shirts, a wonderful self proclaimed expert, I can see why you would cite him. No it is not the ‘dots’ but the carets used, not present in hebrew until the middle ages and not earlier. Lurkers note, DU sourcing only from a pro-mormon site, not a professional journal of any sort.

Kind of like a wonderful self proclaimed expert on DNA... and as for the Sources, Lurkers note, Godzilla has not yet quoted any source... (Point set match, would you care to play again? LOL!)

DU Quoted It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.

GZ I’ve not brought up spalding or VTTH in this thread.

I don't edit my quotes because I try to keep them in context, try it sometime!

GZ Unfortunately, while the Lachish ostraca do provide great historic data, they do not prove the bom to be correct in the slightest.

Lurkers note that Godzilla cut the link to the quote and I added it back in, nad I'll include it here: The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon.

The Lachish Letters agree with the Book of Mormon about so many things that used to be places where anti's would attack us for being outrageously wrong (Godzilla kept trying to say Nephi and his brothers would have been dragged to Babylon before Lehi left Jerusalem in this thread), the Lachish letters set the time and the period perfectly, in that the deportation had not happened yet!

LOL! This is huge! This is either the hugest collections of the luckiest guesses in the history of the world, or it's absolute support for the Book of Mormon. Godzilla, I assume you will not accept it, I know it will not prove to anyone who is not a Mormon that Book of Mormon is true, but if you have read the Book of Mormon, and received an answer, this will just POP in front of your eyes!

GZ First, the ostraca only deal with pre-exile information.

Which is when the Book of Mormon exodus was taking place... (people kept telling us we had the time wrong, this moved that time archeologists used to use to match our time line...)

From The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon

Lehi's story begins in the *first* year of the reign of Zedekiah, while the LL and background to them, actually happened in the *last* year of the reign of Zedekiah, so we're clearly in the same time frame and same place. The two sets of documents (BofM and the LL) ought to match up pretty good. (see also, Hayim Tadmor, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah" in *Journal of Near Eastern Studies*, Vol. 15, 1956, p. 229-230)

They actually match up more perfectly than anything in the Bible and outside archaeological discoveries. The LL are nigh unto perfect for archaeological proof that Joseph Smith was *not* kidding when he said the BofM was real history.

LL # 6 says "The words of the [prophet] are not good [and are liable] to loosen the hands." This is a Bible phrase as Torczyner points out at Jer. 6:24, 38:4, Isa. 13:7, Ezekiel 7:17, etc. (Torczyner, p. 112f). Note how the BofM fits right in here "In that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed." (1 Ne. 1:4) Disheartening news indeed. (Nibley, "The Lachish Letters: Documents From Lehi's Day" in "Ensign", Dec. 1981, p. 50).

So, the Time frame of the destruction was wrong and is corrected by the Lachish Letters to now agree with the Book of Mormon, which had the date right first and was criticized for it.

GZ Secondly, during the first year of the reign of Zedekiah Lehi prays (1 Nephi) and receives visions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of its Jewish residents. Well that is a very easy prophecy to make, considering that the first year of the reign of Zedekiah is after those very same events.

Actually, that's the old Archeological information, See the Lachish Letters, they talk about Prophets still prophesying this in the last year of the reign of Zedikiah (the sixth year)...

I'm gonna cut your continuing wail about this non issue for Brevity, and mercy <--Snip-->

GZ Only a non-existant writer would have made that tale up.

Or told the truth and waited for Archeology to catch up...

GZ As indicated above, they alledgedly left in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign. Now take a deep breath, Lachish is before the deportation and before they alledgedly left. In this case this prophet was someone other than Lehi.

BZZT! Wrong! Go back to Remedial reading 101. The Lachish Letters are in the Sixth year of the reign of Zedikia, and therefore the "deportation" had not happened yet (because they talk about the war leading up to it...

From The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon

Lehi's story begins in the *first* year of the reign of Zedekiah, while the LL and background to them, actually happened in the *last* year of the reign of Zedekiah, so we re clearly in the same time frame and same place.

Read slowly, you 'll get it eventually. (Now we jump back to Los Lunas again)

DU A) I said Probably an alter (the speculation was clear) B) The pyramids are not a "controlled site" and you don't seem to deny they exist.

GZ Oh but the other evidence found in assocation with the pyramids more than confirmed what was lost or obscured due to outsiders. There are other associated ruins - The builders' villages boasted bakers, butchers, brewers, granaries, houses, cemeteries, and probably even some sorts of health-care facilities—there is evidence of laborers surviving crushed or amputated limbs. Bakeries excavated near the Great Pyramids could have produced thousands of loaves of bread every week. Are similar associated with Los Lunas – NO. Secondly, real archeologists have studied the site (how many real archaeologists have studied Los Lunas? (crickets).

LOL! Clearly for you, Experts make the evidence "real" except for when those experts are now Mormons, or agree with Mormons, or... (Keith Crandall Vs What's his name Southerton for example).

DU What is it Anti Mormons wanting "controlled sites" and "per reviews" all the time? Life is messy.

GZ Reduces the chance of fraud.

Do you know how many Frauds have been perpetrated in Archeology on the "experts", LOL! Google Archeology Fraud, for some fun.

I'm gonna cut the rest of your "tit for tat" on the Los Lunas stone, My points have been made:

A) If you want to find evidence, you can, if you try hard enought to invalidate it by any means, you can.
B) Corrupted evidence, like a corrupted DNA sample will be rejected by anyone who does not want to agree with you.

you deny these points at the peril of looking silly.

<--Snip-->

I will address your comment that I am Dissing the Bible by pointing out that the Smithsonian does not consider it a Historical guide. This note was offered as a direct comparison to the Book of Mormon not being recognized by the Smithsonian that way either. The point was not to "diss" the Bible, but to point out that Archeology is not Religion and Vice Versa.

I submit that anyone who believes in the Bible only because of archeological evidence has a weak testimony and needs to spend more time in prayer and with the Bible and less time with the Smithsonian.

Similarly, anyone who disbelieves the Book of Mormon because they have not seen a peer reviewed paper saying it is true needs to spend more time on their knees and with the Book of Mormon and less time with the Smithsonian.

Archeology will never teach you eternal truth because it comes from man. The Gospel teaches eternal truths because it comes from God. I promote people putting the trust in God, not man.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.