A Very Limited Geography

[_Kishkumen]

Although I know that others tire of reading this, I believe that all one needs to know about the Book of Mormon is that outside of Joseph Smith's production of an English text by that title in the 19th century, there is no reason why anyone would suppose that Nephite/Lamanite civilization ever existed. For this reason, any argument against their existence is really beside the point.

Believing in Nephites is akin to believing in any other myth for which there is no evidence outside of human opinion. In terms of evidence, one may just as well believe in leprechauns, Big Foot, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Lost Continent of Mu. For those who are determined to believe in such things, no amount of reason and no lack of evidence will disabuse them of their fantasy.

[_Yong Xi]

... the "DNA disproves the Book of Mormon" artifice has long-since played itself out in terms of its capacity to persuade intelligent and discerning Latter-day Saints. It will, no doubt, still function adequately as a second or third-tier justification (as with most so-called "scientific" criticisms of Mormonism), but the now-well-established appreciation of its several false premises, coupled with the scientific clarity provided by those who really do understand population genetics, has rendered the Southerton/Murphy gambit effectively moot.

What, I ask myself, is the point of Schryver's post, apart from the pleasure that writing overblown and Droopy-like prose may give to its author, which surely cannot outbalance the delights of the many other things he could be doing instead?

It is called narcissism (rooted in insecurity).

[_Fifth Columnist]

Some of you may be interested in this. The March 30, 2011 episode of Skeptics Guide to the Universe contains an interview with professor Kenny Feder, an archaeologist at Central Connecticut State University. http://www.anthropology.ccsu.edu/facult ... Feder.html

The topic of the interview was a newly found archaeological site of a pre-Clovis culture. The interview can be found here (look for March 30th episode) and begins at 33:30.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive ... aspx?mid=1

At 46:38, one of the hosts asks whether any of these finds support Mormons' claims about early American civilizations. Dr. Feder's response: "Oh my God, No!" He then goes on to explain in some detail the reasons why. His most persuasive argument is that multiple disciplines (Biology with DNA; dirt archaeology, etc) have converged to arrive at a common explanation for the origin of the American Indians (they came across the Bering land bridge 15,000 - 20,000 years ago).

[_Inconceivable]

LGT was a response to earlier science showing a lack of archaeological evidence supporting Book of Mormon.

No, it wasn't. It was, quite demonstrably, an outgrowth of the concerted Book of Mormon study conducted by the first post-pioneering generation of Latter-day Saints..

..But the "DNA disproves the Book of Mormon" artifice has long-since played itself out in terms of its capacity to persuade intelligent and discerning Latter-day Saints.

Dr. "Horton" Schryver,

Are there any intelligent and discerning Mormons left? Surely, you are not referring to your bomb trough of literary Danites?

For someone that considers himself intelligent and discerning, what is your argument that would make clam chowder out of the assertions of scientists who rely on DNA evidence?

So far, you have provided zero explanation.

by the way, Simon (s),

Thanks. I think you have made your conslusions plain enough that even a caveman can understand them.

[_harmony]

Believing in Nephites is akin to believing in any other myth for which there is no evidence outside of human opinion.

That would be... belief that a man named Abraham existed.

[_stemelbow]

Southerton,

The mitochondrial (maternal) DNA lineages have now been published for 1,164 native Mesoamericans from 30 populations ranging from Central Mexico down to Cost Rica. About 99.6% of their maternal lineages belong to the four major lineages (A, B, C or D) which are derived from Asia. Only eleven Mesoamericans possessed a mtDNA lineage that didn’t originate in Asia. Of the eleven non-Asian lineages, three were African L lineages, and three were not fully characterised.

This appears to be nothing more than sheer dogmatism it seems to me. The derivation is and will perhaps always be in question. While theories abound in regards to it all, nothing is so definitive, it seems. There are far too many examples of not knowing origins of peoples, like jews themselves, it is just unreasonable, it seems to me, to suggest such clear cut, white and black, thinking on this topic. Indeed as alluded to, even the idea of what could possibly be Lehite DNA is unknown. And as I understand, the assumption that we can understand ancient Israelite DNA based on modern Jewish studies is an absurdity, an assumption, in consideration of the data, that doesn't make much sense.

In all this, its not the LGT alone that causes problems for the DNA critique of the religion, indeed that would only be a small part of it, but the assumption that we can define the DNA of ancient Israelites and the origins of the "Native" american peoles.

In the end, this really is a weak argument taken as a whole. Not much of anything but assumption and bias., it seems to me.

[_harmony]

Thanks. I think you have made your conslusions plain enough that even a caveman can understand them.

That would be the little touch of Neanderthal in us!

[_Simon Belmont]

Until the final returns are in, no one is in a position to make final pronouncements, and as long as science continues to progress, the final returns will remain at the other end of a future of wonders and surprises. In the world of things, we must forever keep an open mind, because we simply don’t know the answers. But we are not claiming that because science does not have the ultimate answers, religion does have them. What we do claim is that the words of the prophets cannot be held to the tentative and defective tests that men have devised for them. Science, philosophy, and common sense all have a right to their day in court. But the last word does not lie with them. Every time men in their wisdom have come forth with the last word, other words have promptly followed. The last word is a testimony of the gospel that comes only by direct revelation. Our Father in heaven speaks it, and if it were in perfect agreement with the science of today, it would surely be out of line with the science of tomorrow. Let us not, therefore, seek to hold God to the learned opinions of the moment when he speaks the language of eternity.

[Guest]

Some of you may be interested in this. The March 30, 2011 episode of Skeptics Guide to the Universe contains an interview with professor Kenny Feder, an archaeologist at Central Connecticut State University. http://www.anthropology.ccsu.edu/facult ... Feder.html

The topic of the interview was a newly found archaeological site of a pre-Clovis culture. The interview can be found here (look for March 30th episode) and begins at 33:30.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive ... aspx?mid=1

At 46:38, one of the hosts asks whether any of these finds support Mormons' claims about early American civilizations. Dr. Feder's response: "Oh my God, No!" He then goes on to explain in some detail the reasons why. His most persuasive argument is that multiple disciplines (Biology with DNA; dirt archaeology, etc) have converged to arrive at a common explanation for the origin of the American Indians (they came across the Bering land bridge 15,000 - 20,000 years ago).

While there might still be a group of blindly stubborn Beringia-only scholars out there, the prevailing trend is towards the recognition that ancient migrations to the Americas occurred as well via both the North Atlantic and the South Pacific. Evidence from multiple disciplines has made this pretty much a foregone conclusion among the new generation of anthropologists and archaeologists. I'm surprised that Feder would make a statement like the one you attribute to him. I find it hard to believe he is not aware of the growing body of evidence that demonstrates multiple ancient migration paths to the Americas.

ETA: Here is one recent examination of evidence contradicting the "Beringia Only" theory of Amerindian origins: The First Americans: Race, Evolution and the Origin of Native Americans

[_Kishkumen]

Show me the evidence, Simon. E V I D E N C E.