What's new
By:

Longest Thread Ever

Well, I wander off the topic there (above), though I was still on the general point of my personal commitment to putting things in perspective the best I can. . . . and being willing to at least make footnotes about sources. . . relevant to their credibility. . . .relevant to the reasons for or against any personal beliefs or convictions.

My "convictions" on religion would not fit well with any existing system of religious instructions or "faith" promulgated by mere humans that I know anything about. . . . The actual point of my concern is making an effort to be consistent with the "God" I imagine to be interested in us as we are. . . .
 
In my consideration of the critics of Mormonism who have invested their human energies and abilities in the cause of providing those interested with some kinds of reasons to disbelieve the LDS history or lore, including the Book of Mormon, I try to be fair to their reasons and facts as so far elucidated. . . . though I have independent reasons for believing as I do. . . .

I have a brother who has, for years, been working on a book to "prove the Book of Mormon false". He is, of all my family, the only one who I actually consider "family". . . . who I will make up reasons to go visit, who will still play chess with me.
 
PKM said:
Neither the populations (not even close) or the timelines work. Now, I do recognize that there are differing opinion, obviously, but mine are very strong that the Hopewells never had great numbers. They certainly never lived/organized in huge masses. And they were predominantly a.d. 200 - 400'ish.
Click to expand...

So from several readings of the Book of Mormon, as I recall, there were few cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon timeline, as documented by early footnotes to the Book of Mormon, until about a hundred years BC. . . . basing that on a departure date from Jerusalem a few years prior to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. There are statements in the Book of Mormon about a lot of earthquakes in the area coincident with the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem, where several cities were destroyed, including some being burned, some being lost into "the sea". And there was a period for some two hundred years thereafter of general peace, followed by a hundred years or more of wars.

According to the hypothesis being set forth by Rod Meldrum, the "Lamanites" lived to the south and west of the Hopewell culture. The Hopewell center is hypothesized to be the "Nephites", and the time was the 200 AD to 400 AD when they reached their most populous and extensive mark. The final wars commenced with a battle with a city called "Bountiful" on the west shore of the river "Sidon", which he says was an extensive center on the west bank of the present Mississippi in Iowa, across the river from the Nauvoo site known to modern Mormons. . . . and that they were driven back towards the area known to modern Mormons as the Hill Cumorah. . . .
 
Last edited:
The tale of Solomon Spaulding, dating to about 1805, which you can read as the text of "Manuscript Found", lays out wars between the pre-Columbian natives of Ohio and Kentucky, and has a scope and scale much like the Book of Mormon, which came later. . . . about 1826-1830. Though some have alleged that Sidney Rigdon may have been revising the "Manuscript Found" tale, and adding theological outlays, from his contact with it in the print shop where he worked, from about 1816. . . . .

Clearly, the frontier folk in the area of Ohio around the year 1800 and on, had enough mounds to fuel a lot of tales. . . .

which is my point, that the critics of Mormons who have built up the "complete lack of archaeological correlations" problem, have missed something in overlooking the Mound Builders. . . .

I don't think the population of the Mound Builders is inconsistent with the archaelogical evidence of the Hopewell culture. . . . . The Book of Mormon, to my impressions, describes a population about two hundred thousand people to perhaps as many as a million. . . . . somewhat more than the populations of natives encountered by the settlers of the American frontiers. . . . , but clearly sustainable by the technology if their time, and capable of building all those mounds. . . .
 
Well, it's Christmas, and the kids are busy all around with their stuff, and I have to get back to things at hand. I'll be back to this in maybe a week. . . . . thanks for joining in with your comments here.
 
Please allow me to preface this post.

- These are admittedly my opinions derived from multi-generational archaeological and anthropological work done by my father and grandfather in predominantly KY, IN, OH.
- None of their work had anything to do with Mormonism at all. Meaning, there was no religious pursuit involved in the work.
- Archaeology is my life’s passion. Again, not from a religious perspective.
- I write this as fact-finding, not to either support nor debunk Mormonism.
- If I say anything that is taken as offensive, it was not the intent. I promise you that.


Some random thoughts based on things I have ‘heard’ as claimed by the BoM to get us started. (and I am leaving out some of the tired worn out stuff)


DNA studies tie the Hopewell to living people, most closely to the Eastern Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho.

The Hopewell did not grow corn, it came after. They did not grow wheat either. They grew crops that were domesticated in the Eastern U.S., independent of the plant domestications in Meso-America and South America. The plants were already domesticated before “Lehi's arrival.”

Large wars ending the civilization does not agree with reality of archaeological evidence. More evidence supports that climate changes had an impact on the decline of the Roman empire, the Mayan and.. the Hopewell.

Other than merely a handful of questionable finds, there is nearly zero evidence of linguistics that link to Hebrew.

I am no expert on the BoM, but I have heard claims of chariots (made of iron), swords, scepters, etc. There is just nothing like that within the heartland area nor any other area of the United States from that time period. (again, perhaps besides a few questionable artifacts and rumors of ‘guarded’ artifacts.)

DNA evidence supports the Hopewell’s being of Asian descent. Also, DNA evidence ties the Hopewell's to the earlier Adena culture and also to that of the Glacial Kame culture which pre-dates the Adena. This suggests a more closer one culture over a much more extensive time period... 3,000 b.c., iirc.

---- In the interest of full-disclosure and being fair, I am aware of a few artifacts that very few others are aware. A few were found by my grandfather, personally. One of which, I am quite certain, I am the only living person that knows it exists.
These things convince me that visitors pre-dated Columbus, but don't corroborate the claims of the BoM.----
 
PKM said:
Please allow me to preface this post.

- These are admittedly my opinions derived from multi-generational archaeological and anthropological work done by my father and grandfather in predominantly KY, IN, OH.
- None of their work had anything to do with Mormonism at all. Meaning, there was no religious pursuit involved in the work.
- Archaeology is my life’s passion. Again, not from a religious perspective.
- I write this as fact-finding, not to either support nor debunk Mormonism.
- If I say anything that is taken as offensive, it was not the intent. I promise you that.


Some random thoughts based on things I have ‘heard’ as claimed by the BoM to get us started. (and I am leaving out some of the tired worn out stuff)


DNA studies tie the Hopewell to living people, most closely to the Eastern Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho.

The Hopewell did not grow corn, it came after. They did not grow wheat either. They grew crops that were domesticated in the Eastern U.S., independent of the plant domestications in Meso-America and South America. The plants were already domesticated before “Lehi's arrival.”

Large wars ending the civilization does not agree with reality of archaeological evidence. More evidence supports that climate changes had an impact on the decline of the Roman empire, the Mayan and.. the Hopewell.

Other than merely a handful of questionable finds, there is nearly zero evidence of linguistics that link to Hebrew.

I am no expert on the BoM, but I have heard claims of chariots (made of iron), swords, scepters, etc. There is just nothing like that within the heartland area nor any other area of the United States from that time period. (again, perhaps besides a few questionable artifacts and rumors of ‘guarded’ artifacts.)

DNA evidence supports the Hopewell’s being of Asian descent. Also, DNA evidence ties the Hopewell's to the earlier Adena culture and also to that of the Glacial Kame culture which pre-dates the Adena. This suggests a more closer one culture over a much more extensive time period... 3,000 b.c., iirc.

---- In the interest of full-disclosure and being fair, I am aware of a few artifacts that very few others are aware. A few were found by my grandfather, personally. One of which, I am quite certain, I am the only living person that knows it exists.
These things convince me that visitors pre-dated Columbus, but don't corroborate the claims of the BoM.----
Click to expand...

We need to get together and talk about this.

OK, I play with theories and ideas on a big stage, but I hardly ever go anywhere in actuality, and have never made a significant archaeological find, or ever screen a wheelbarrow of dirt looking for some cultural artifact. I took a class on archaeology and the Bible where we looked at the methods of some studies, like a lady named Kenyon for example, who found to her satisfaction and mine, that the mound of "Jericho" contained the remains of thirty or so separate cultures across three thousand years, the last of which pre-dated the "Hebrew" occupation by a significant period, hundreds of years. . . . .

It doesn't mean I don't believe in the Bible in some fashion anyway, though. I consider that it was an impressive mound that probably provoked some "faithful" storytellers, who made up a story good enough to become interwoven with the tribal legends of the Hebrews, and was some hundreds of years later just something any "faithful" scribe telling the Hebrew story would just have to include in the history.

I bet if you read Kenyon's research, you'd be glad to have some way to still believe in the Bible.

Right?
 
So, here's another garbled bit of reaction to facts as set in this situation. . . . .

When you trot out terms like fraud in respect to Joseph Smith I sort of surmise that perhaps you feel sorry for people who "believe" in the Book of Mormon for being such dupes. I know folks who will lace their sneering lips with sympathy just like that for anyone who believes in "God" at all.

Mormons don't talk about the "Pure Adamic Language" much any more, or use the Deseret Alphabet when they write their two-minute talks either. Not very many people delve into the works of Parley P. Pratt, as in "The Key to Theology" anymore, either.

Mormonism could be understood in a patronizing way. . . . with a bit of a sneer, I suppose. . . . . as a period romance of the early nineteenth century, when a lot of people were curious if not fascinated by the native peoples they were encountering. . . . bible-reading, bible-believing folks who were quite set upon their own ways as being enlightened or civilized. I'm just the kind of person who goes out to find the natives' accounts of the story. I have on my kitchen table at the moment, the "Myths of the Cherokee", and set of DVD's called "Chiefs", put out by advocates of the native tribes, telling the stories of Sitting Bull, Joseph Brant, Poundmaker, Pontiac, and Blackhawk. Great stuff.

I also have the set of DVDs done by Rod Meldrum and the FIRM outfit he runs. I have listened to/watched them several times. I understand he's an apologist for Mormonism. I think he does a good job at it. I also like some other "apologists", such as for example Robbie Zacharias who produces some excellent talks in favor of Christianity as he understands it.

Well, I admit that in here I do a lot of babbling, but this is an excursion of sorts for me. A journey into unknown, unexplored lands. When I sit down at this computer and write stuff in Jazzfanz, it's an exercise of trying to organize the stuff I've been thinking about, or studying.

I could not just say I don't believe there's something to the Book of Mormon. I wouldn't say that even if I knew for the fact that Sidney Rigdon re-worked the Solomon Spaulding fable. Sidney Rigdon was a college-educated preacher of the proto-Baptist sort, something of a Campbellite I believe. He was also something of socialist, a believer in a different economic order based on communal interests rather than individual interests. . . . . a dreamer, a utopian of a type.

Many Mormons wouldn't accept me in their number because I just don't latch on to stuff without a second thought. Many Christians wouldn't accept me in their number for the same reasons. . . .

The way I make it out, people in the field of religion are idiot-savants who can tell you the truth of God while believing in absolute lunacy on every hand. . . . The priests of King Solomon tasked with pulling together the lore of the Hebrews with the scraps of texts they might have still had from their earliest days in the land of Israel, to me or to my way of thinking, obviously used a lot of what I call "Madison Avenue" liberties with the truth in formulating a respectable text that incorporated the major belief themes of their times.

You might call that "Spirit-Breathed Inspiration" or "The Word of God" and you might approve of your minister thumping it soundly on his pulpit to make a good point. . . . . but you are on no firmer ground than the average Mormon who takes the Book of Mormon as scripture, or who believes in the LDS leaders as "The Living Oracles".
 
DNA studies tie the Hopewell to living people, most closely to the Eastern Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arap

There has indeed been a significant amount of DNA research on native Americans. This is addressed in Rod Meldrum's DVD set with a one of about five of the set specifically addressing it.

Rod Meldrum seems a bit hokey to me on some points. But not all. Of interest in particular to the point of a "Nephite/Hopewell" connection is the presence of a mitochondrial RNA marker that is present in the tribes of the Algonquin area that matches up with some European and particular a middle-eastern group. . . The Druze, I think is what they're called. . . . a small sect of Hebrew origins who have kept a strict ban against marrying "outsiders" for over a thousand years. . . . The marker is present in one particular tribe in American at the level of 25%, which is about it's frequency in the Druze in Jordan/Syria.

So here's my own little discussion. . . . I've satisfied myself that there were people here, and everywhere on this planet, over twenty to fifty thousand years ago. . . . not an issue with me. We can talk about Adam and follow the fabulous "genealogies" of the Bible for whatever purpose we want, except I don't accept that data as "factual". . . . It's a flawed history, perhaps with allegorical or metaphorical values, and a nice story. The fact is, people were here before twenty to fifty thousand years ago. . . .

In relation to DNA, I profess to know a little about DNA, and fancy myself to be a "breeder" of sorts, following what I think I learned in college about genetics. There are a number of exceptional phenomena that do happen in genetics. We have learned to do them in the lab, but there is a non-zero probability that these things can occur in nature as well, and a possibility that an interested actor on the universal scene could have, somewhere or sometime. . . . possibly billions of years ago. . . . done the same sorts of things on purpose. . . .

There is a lot we just don't know, for sure. . . .

But in the line of natural and ordinary events, we need to understand a few facts about population genetics before we start jumping to unfounded conclusions about the past. . . .

If any of us will do a factual genealogical research back twenty generations. . . . we will be looking at over a million ancestors. . . way back then. . . . only six hundred years ago. Whether hutched up in Europeans hovels, or Asiatic, or African. . . . it would mean we have a significant chance of being a descendant of any particular one of several million total people living then, in that area. . ..

And yet we only have 46 specific elements of DNA, and that means almost all. . . . over 99%. . . . of those ancestors from 600 years ago. . . . lost out on passing one of their chromosomes to a specific living person at this time. . . .

Only the maternal extranuclear ribosomal DNA and the male Y chromosome can be followed across time in a manner that can generate a positive statement of inheritance. one mother to daughter, the other father to son.

The Book of Mormon story brings four groups of people into America. . . . one supposedly about five or six thousand years ago, two about 2600 years ago. One group that left, and came back, and some of which left again with others, about 2400 years ago. So if it were the Hopewell/Nephite identity, the Nephites would be practically gone. The displacing culture would be Lamanites from the south and the western plains. Nothing is said about Lamanite contacts with other groups, but it should be presumed that there were other groups "out there".

We are told about the Nephites encountering and assimilating one other group. Any reputable "scientist" trying to debunk the Book of Mormon story should address the genetic implications of this basic history, and I have not seen one such erudite "scientist" who has done so. None of them read the Book of Mormon past the title page, and none of them actually understand even what it says there.

So, the reasonable position is that the "Lamanites" we might encounter today have been in long contact with larger groups around them, particularly to the north and west, and the genetic fact is we should expect the genetic "markers" for the smaller group to get "washed out" over a long period of time. . . as the 1400 years since the close of the Book of Morman account should be considered to be. . . . .

so, any, as erudite as it may seem, the DNA "disproof" is BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top