ldsfaqs wrote:tapirrider wrote:Did Joseph Smith lie? Did the resurrected Moroni that came into Joseph Smith's bedroom lie? Smith's own words are in his journal.
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... %931836#25"he [Moroni] said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham"
That is "literal", not spiritually speaking. If Joseph Smith did not lie, an ancestor of American Indians came to Joseph Smith and told him who the Indians were, "literally".
Ever heard of the 12 Tribes of Israel.....? EVERYONE is related to Abraham.
Further, ever read a Patriarchal Blessing? In most cases everyone knows it's a spiritual lineage, not a literal one. But we also know that in some cases it is literal.
The Church nor God doesn't make a distinction between literal and spiritual. Because spiritual is also literal.
And ldsfaqs, when you talk about dominant ancestors you are referring to people that lived long before Adam and Eve. People whose descendants were not killed in a world wide flood. When you talk about Lehi and the Mulekites mixing with other people, those others would not have even originated with Adam and Eve. bcspace thinks that they did not have spirits that were even the children of God. What do you think about that?
I'm not going to talk about pre-Adamites. No, I'm talking about that DNA doesn't determine every single Ancestor. If anti-mormons didn't cherry pick their DNA arguments, they would know that genetic drift entirely debunks their argument.
A small party inserting into the America's the year they did, and the number of years since, Lehi's DNA WOULD in fact be in nearly every single native american. Yes, it wouldn't almost at all be detectable because the dominate DNA in the region would show instead, i.e the millions over the years who migrated from Asia.
Let me give another example. History knows of many groups who traveled to the America's, had sex, and even settled. These small groups are rarely found DNA speaking. The main group Asiatic is dominant.
Anyway, any way you cut it, it's not the science that is wrong, it's anti-mormon usage, mis-usage, and false assumptions concerning it and Mormonism.
Some might think that you are denying the words of Joseph Smith, as told to him by an angel. The words were "literal descendants". I also should point out to you that not everyone is related to Abraham. There is no scripture to support your claim, for what then are the "gentiles"? You appear quite confused on basic Bible stories.
You said "EVERYONE is related to Abraham", then you said "ever read a Patriarchal Blessing? In most cases everyone knows it's a spiritual lineage, not a literal one. But we also know that in some cases it is literal." No, I don't know that. You said everyone is related. Shouldn't everyone be literal? And in most cases it is a literal, not a spiritual lineage. Why have you tried to say incorrect things? Does that go hand in hand with denying the words of Joseph Smith?
http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD"The great majority of those who become members of the Church are literal descendants of Abraham through Ephraim, son of Joseph. Those who are not literal descendants of Abraham and Israel must become such, and when they are baptized and confirmed they are grafted into the tree and are entitled to all the rights and privileges as heirs.”
http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?l ... 82620aRCRD"A person can receive all the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant—even if he or she is not a literal descendant of Abraham—by obeying the laws and ordinances of the gospel"
Not everyone is a literal descendant of Abraham. But Moroni told Joseph Smith that the Indians were.
http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD"The blood descendants of Abraham are not the only people whom God calls his covenant people. In speaking to Abraham, God said, “As many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed [lineage], and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father” (Abraham 2:10). Thus, two groups of people are included in the covenant made with Abraham: (1) Abraham’s righteous blood descendants and (2) those adopted into his lineage by accepting and living the gospel of Jesus Christ. "
This clearly shows that not everyone is related to Abraham.
http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD"Most people who accept the Lord and become members of his church are already descendants belonging to the house of Israel. Those who are not are adopted into his family."
Moroni said that the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham. How could Moroni have meant adopted? At the time Moroni came to Joseph Smith's bedroom, no Indians were members of the church because it had not yet been restored.
If you are not going to talk about preadamites, will you at least clarify when you think the dominant ancestors came into the Americas? I'm left wondering if you think it happened in the last 6,000 years, which of course does not agree with science. Perhaps you could clarify if you believe that Adam was about 6,000 years ago or do you allow for a more distant time in the past? Oh, come on, talk about preadamites. Tell me, is the dominant DNA from ancestors that were children of God? Your living prophets have been strangely silent on this one.
Also, your claim of many groups who traveled to the America's is not backed up with science.
http://ohio-archaeology.blogspot.com/20 ... ponse.html"…there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the cultural developments exhibited in the archaeological record [of North America]… were in any way inspired by visitors or migrants from Africa, Europe, or Asia." And, in view of my recent appearance on the television program Ancient Aliens, we could have added "visitors or migrants from other planets" to that list!"