My First Encounters with Institutional Mormonism

[_Darth J]

Further, anti's don't even know what Lehi's DNA looked like, they only ASSUME.

Would it look like Semitic DNA, seeing as how he was a Hebrew from Jerusalem?

Further, they ignore the DNA science that debunks their claims, such as I've already mentioned now, Genetic Drift. Due to Genetice Drift, Lehi's DNA is 100% likely to be in nearly EVERY Native American and the Islands. Yes, it wouldn't show because it's not the "dominant" DNA, but he would certainly be in there.

Please explain in your own words what you think "genetic drift" is.

So, no matter how you want to interpret Mormonism, our leaders words, whatever, either way, DNA claims and anti-mormon claims against the Church are simply false.

You're aware, of course, that the DNA evidence also negates the possibility of all but 8 members of the human race drowning in a global flood around 5,000 B.C.E. or so----that being the official and long-established teaching of the LDS Church.

[_ldsfaqs]

I look forward to your citing your favorite passage or passages where the Book of Mormon refers to any people living in the Americas who are not descended from Lehi. Perhaps you could explain to me how in 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi, all of the descendants of Lehi living in peace together, and then dividing themselves again into groups called Lamanites and Nephites, somehow negates the word "Lamanites" referring exclusively to descendants of Lehi (since the commingling and division still only involved descendants of Lehi, and the Book of Mormon specifically designates the survivors of the genocidal war as Lamanites).

Do a Google search yourself and learn something for a change.

Also, if you would be so kind, please explain who the official Church publication Truth Restored unequivocally identifies Lamanites as the American Indians and the descendants of Lehi ("A Mission to the Lamanites"), and yet I am the one who is supposedly ignoring the various usages of the word Lamanite in the Book of Mormon (you have yet to demonstrate a usage applied to anyone not descended from Lehi).

Google is your friend.

If Lehi's DNA would in fact be in nearly every single Native American, then we would be seeing it in nearly every single Native American.

DNA doesn't detect "every ancestor", thus YOU ARE WRONG.... Even further, we don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like, anti's just are guessing.

[_Darth J]

Further, I can easily debunk your claim/interpretation. What about the Jaredites?

Are you positing that the Tower of Babel happened 11,000 to 19,000 years before the time that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, since that is what would be required for the Jaredites to account for the Asian DNA?

What about the "other" peoples that the Book of Mormon mentions that clearly were here outside of the Nephites?

You're right. Please cite your favorite verse(s) that talks (or talk) about the millions of natives who were already in America and who interbred with the children of Lehi.

My point was that the "article" posted by BRADE doesn't say anything about the Jaredites.
Yet, the article only focuses on the Lamanites. Brade and the article gives the impression that no one else existed in the America's. Well, at minimum the decedents of the Jaredites did.

In other words, I was debunking his claim that the Church ONLY believed natives of the america's were ONLY from Lehi.

Since all but one of the Jaredites died out in a genocidal war, and therefore there was no interbreeding between the descendants of Lehi and the Jaredites, that's really quite irrelevant.

Oh, but there are the Mulekites! Of course, they also would have had Semitic DNA and interbred with the descendants of Lehi.

As to articles of my claim, I don't have time to find them for you, but frankly, if you aren't aware of them, then clearly you aren't as informed in LDS scholarship as you like to claim.

Do a Google search for "others in the Book of Mormon" and you will find a bunch.

haa haa.... and you all claim "I'm" the ignorant one.

No, I'm not interested in Mopolgist arguments from ignorance. And I did not ask for articles. I asked for references from the text of the Book of Mormon

[_Darth J]

I look forward to your citing your favorite passage or passages where the Book of Mormon refers to any people living in the Americas who are not descended from Lehi. Perhaps you could explain to me how in 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi, all of the descendants of Lehi living in peace together, and then dividing themselves again into groups called Lamanites and Nephites, somehow negates the word "Lamanites" referring exclusively to descendants of Lehi (since the commingling and division still only involved descendants of Lehi, and the Book of Mormon specifically designates the survivors of the genocidal war as Lamanites).

Do a Google search yourself and learn something for a change.

In other words, you are not able to find this within the pages of the Book of Mormon.

Also, if you would be so kind, please explain who the official Church publication Truth Restored unequivocally identifies Lamanites as the American Indians and the descendants of Lehi ("A Mission to the Lamanites"), and yet I am the one who is supposedly ignoring the various usages of the word Lamanite in the Book of Mormon (you have yet to demonstrate a usage applied to anyone not descended from Lehi).

Google is your friend.

In other words, you are not able to find this within the pages of the Book of Mormon.

If Lehi's DNA would in fact be in nearly every single Native American, then we would be seeing it in nearly every single Native American.

DNA doesn't detect "every ancestor", thus YOU ARE WRONG.... Even further, we don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like, anti's just are guessing.

Do we know what the DNA of ancient Semitic people looked like?

Anyway, what is your understanding of what "genetic drift" is? In your own words, I mean.

[_Fence Sitter]

Ok, in all seriousness folks, ldsfaqs is most likely trolling.

Brade I have always appreciated the understated way you express yourself.

[_Darth J]

Ok, in all seriousness folks, ldsfaqs is most likely trolling.

Brade I have always appreciated the understated way you express yourself.

I think you guys underestimate the human capacity for crazy.

[_SteelHead]

Faqs,
You like to throw about the word liar a lot.... so let's see how honestly you can answer a simple yes or no questions.

The brethren (meaning apostles and prophets) have repeatedly, persistently and consistently in official church publications taught that Lehi is the father of the American Indians and the Polynesian people.

Yes or no?

It is a binary question. There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who can count to 1023 on their fingers and those who can't.

Can you?

[_RockSlider]

No, you can't make the same claim, because I'm both a convert and a basic believer/apologist who THEN I'm at minimum One Step ahead of you all, not to mention being a convert also, which means I have a more objective and experienced background.

Well, I personally was not overly impressed with your wealth of experience, and empathy over a comment of mine in a different thread. But of course you suggested me the fool for not being in touch with the board and knowing your situation. So please help me catch up on this incredible new source of wisdom on the forum.

Based on your previous comment to me, and comments here, you are a convert, but were not converted to any depth or significant amount of time that your subsequent falling away produced any emotional trauma for you.

However, during your original time active, you were somehow vested in apologetic pursuits. But for reasons unknown to me (sorry was not following along here or elsewhere), you fell to such depths that you label yourself an anti-Mormon at that point in time.

But obviously something, again, changed in your life and now you are back in the church, taking back up apologetics and now because of this journey know more than everyone else.

I'm interested to know more about this, especially some timelines:
1. How old are you?
2. At what age did you convert?
3. How long after that until you became involved in apologetics?
4. How long after converting until your fall.
5. How long after your fall until your coming back into full fellowship?
6. Finally, how long have you been back in full fellowship?

[_ldsfaqs]

Faqs,
You like to throw about the word liar a lot.... so let's see how honestly you can answer a simple yes or no questions.

The brethren (meaning apostles and prophets) have repeatedly, persistently and consistently in official church publications taught that Lehi is the father of the American Indians and the Polynesian people.

Yes or no?

It is a binary question. There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who can count to 1023 on their fingers and those who can't.

Can you?

Actually it's NOT a "binary" question, it's a worded question which can have variations varaiables etc. depending on context..... Friggen idiots! :(

The answer is YES..... "however", when the Church speaks, it's most often referring to who is ones "spiritual" Father, not "literal" genetic Father.

Lehi IS the Father of the people's of the America's and the Islands spiritually speaking.
But, there is also like I've said also likely a literal/genetic tie, because of genetic drift.

God is also my Father..... And I and every other Mormon always just says it.... We don't make the "distinction" of it being "spiritual only", but I'm not clearly not genetically related. The Church tends to speak the same on other issues such as Lehi.

Again, this is all anti-mormon ignorance, false assumptions, false judgments, etc. strawmen that they then tear down with DNA.

[_Simon Southerton]

Simon,

This is from your blog.

... scientists at BYU had tested over 6000 American Indians from Peru and they came up with the same problem of virtually all the female DNA lineages coming from Asia. To date this research has not been published.

Besides the obvious reason would there be any other reasonable explanation why data like this would go unpublished?

I don't know of any other reasonable explanation. They had a huge amount of data, and it would have made for an excellent paper. Perhaps there was nobody at BYU who had time or the motivation to write up the paper. I don't think Hinckley was happy about BYU doing the DNA research. He met with Woodward several years later and the wash up from that was that Woodward lost his professorship and moved off campus to the SMGF. I suspect we will never know the precise details of what went on.