I truly hope these videos find wider circulation amongst Latter Day Saints. It's invaluable in today's secular culture for members to be informed about the more controversial/ complex issues relating to church history, doctrine, or practice. Infact, I would argue that in order to be more effective missionaries (and to show that we have nothing to fear/ hide) we should be more familiar with them than our critics. Your videos are one of the best resources I've seen in this regard. Excellent work guys!!!
It took the LDS church till the 1970s to give black people a right to be preachers when the people in the Book of Mormon come from the Middle East so they most likely had dark skin and Jesus himself had darkskin. Also the polygamy and how Joseph smith lied and had others lie for him about the polygamy. And the how the book of Abraham was translated from the book of breathings and the book of the dead that has 0 mention of Abraham
Okay but what you're missing is Joseph Smith himself... knowing nothing about genetics.. claimed that the native Americans were descendents of the Lamanites!! He was just straight up wrong. The mental gymnastics involved is truly incredible...
There is actually Middle Eastern DNA among Native Americans. I'm a little surprised David missed this but Middle Eastern DNA is the only other DNA, besides East Asian, that exists among native Americans. At least, as far as we know today.
@@loudogg73 No... Firstly, what you mean by "Middle Eastern DNA" (which doesn't exist) is that the DNA of the Native American's shared some, very limited, genetic markers that of the Middle East. Not only do the Siberian groups that Native Americans are most closely related to also have these genetic markers, Europeans did too. The Native Americans have no more connection to the middle east than they do western Europe. These people all lived on the same continent and intermingled accordingly.
@@loudogg73 Also keep in mind that general middle eastern genetic markers exist among all humans, after all life originated there. The Book of Mormon doesn't claim that the Native Americans are decendents of Middle Easterners, it claims they're the decendents of Jews.... Jewish genetics, that is the genetics of the Levant, are distinct from those of the wider west asian area. The claim that there is Middle Eastern DNA among Native Americans has a grain of truth, but there is not Jewish blood in the Native Americans...
@@myles6235 If we are going to get granular about it, the Lehites aren't actually Jewish either. Hebrew is probably more accurate. In any case, when I say middle eastern dna, I'm talking about genetic markers closely associated with the ancient near east/middle east. Specifically, X6, X7, and X2 haplotypes found in the Americas (quite significantly among certain tribes) which root in the X haplogroup most prominent in and native to the ancient near east. Interestingly, it's also non existent in East Asia (as far as we've found).
@@loudogg73 This is a gross misunderstanding, I'm not sure where you found this information. These haplotypes are found in East Asia, specifically the X2. It is relatively rare, but certainly common enough to appear in both Ojibwa and Navajo geneology. Native American geneology is overwhelming similar to Siberia, not the Middle East. There is no evidence in genelogy that suggests even a subgroup of Native Americans were decendent from ancient Jews and no evidence that people from the Levant ever journied to the Americas.
None of this changes the fact that there isn’t any direct evidence of anything in the Book of Mormon actually happening. At best you’re explaining why your hypothesis is still a hypothesis. The evidence you haven’t found yet is not evidence of anything, it’s just an assertion and/or a belief.
Yeah you're right, there really isn't any possible way to completely prove that the Book of Mormon is true. There is plenty of evidence for it (and against it) and it's up to us to decide. That's where faith comes in. Faith is a fundamental part of every religion and to some that may seem stupid, blind, or gullible, but to those that have experienced it, it is something much greater. Faith is a hope and a belief in things that we don't fully know, but that we hope to be true. No matter how much evidence we have, it will still always be a hope. However, we believe that God can strengthen that hope as we continually have faith in him. You can think what every you want, and people can find as much evidence as they can, but in reality, it is only by faith that we can know the truth. This channel made a really good video about faith that you may want to check out too.
If God wished to prove it, he would. Just as if God wished to prove Christ’s resurrection, he would. There is adequate internal and external evidence to believe but not so much that God would have to condemn the unbeliever so harshly. Same reason Christ taught in parables.
@@calebjenkins3215 You said, "...but in reality, it is only by faith that we can know the truth". If faith, not evidence, is ultimately how someone "can know the truth", then every other religion in the world outside of the LDS Church is just as true as the LDS Church because the followers/members of those religions have just as much, if not more, faith in the truthfulness of their religion as members of the LDS Church have in theirs. Believing something is true and/or exercising faith that something is true has no bearing on whether it is actually true. My kids believe that Santa Clause, his flying reindeer, and his toy making elves are all real and all live in the North Pole. They exercise faith in their belief by trying to be good throughout the year, writing letters to Santa asking for specific gifts they desire, and going to bed on time on Christmas Eve so that he will come to deliver their presents. They experience positive emotions and good feelings when they exercise faith in their belief. My kids can even point to "evidence" that supports their belief that Santa is real. Does their “evidence” prove that Santa, his elves, and his flying reindeer really do exist? No. Their “evidence” just supports their belief that it is all real. Do they benefit from that belief? I believe they do benefit to some degree at this point in their lives. However, one day, they will begin to apply critical thinking skills to that belief and realize that reindeer can’t fly, Santa can’t deliver presents to all the children of the world in a single night, toy making elves don’t exist, and none of them live in the North Pole. And, despite the fact that they benefited from their belief in Santa for a period in their lives and their belief helped produce positive emotions/good feelings for them, they will outgrow that false belief when it no longer benefits them.
I remember when I was in first grade, in 1982, that my teacher asked the class if we knew which genetic markers were found in the American Indigenous population. She said it contained that of the Jews. She wasn't LDS, nor did she know about the heritage of the Book of Mormon (I believe, I was only 6 years old). I have often wondered where she got that information from.
I was watching a western on TV , can’t remember the name . In the story a new hand is coming onto this ranch. The owner is telling him things about the ranch , then he introduces his Indian hand and states he , the Indian, “thinks he’s an Israelite .” I was so surprised to hear that in a movie. Maybe it’s stories handed down the generations because the Indians didn’t write events down. I found it interesting , that bits of truth are revealed somehow .
Gregorio García (an Spaniard colonizer) wrote some books about the similarities in appearance, custom (including idolatry) and language (including the frequency of glottals) that the lost tribes of Israel travelled to the Americas alongside other migrations. Also, García asserted that "Mex-" in "Mexico" was based on the Hebrew term "Messiah". García argued that circumcision was common among indigenous peoples of the Americas, particularly in the Yucatán and Cuba.
Is it possible that the knowledge that the American Indians came from Siberia was just not known the the people of Joseph Smith's time, and so Joseph Smith just made the whole story up of American Indians being the descendants of ancient Israelites? Is it at all possible?
The problem with these theories in this video is that they do not take into account the possibility of taking DNA from the remains of individuals. This video makes it sound like that it has only focused on the genetics from living populations. We have seen some of the traits that he mentioned in the archaeological record, but there is absolutely no evidence for genetic linkage from archaeological DNA that had been recovered. We have a sizable amount now to make certain predictions. To those who say 'well, there is still some out there that we have not found' when will it be enough to show there there is no connection? In all, this video does not really explain anything.
Because there is a minuscule connection if there’s any connection at all. In short, the Book of Mormon is fiction. And I’m not saying that to be a hater. I wanted the church to be true so badly. But I can’t ignore facts. If the church is going to claim the BoM is historical when it demonstrably isn’t, I’m not going to devote my life to it.
Trying to match DNA is pretty pointless when you consider that Lehi wasn't even a Jew strictly - he was of the tribe of Manasseh - whose mother was the daughter of a priest in Egypt. And Egypt at that time was ruled by the Hyksos, whose origin is uncertain, but came from the north-east. Which btw would be Asia. We don't know Sariah's origins, or Ishmael's, and it would be foolish to make assumptions in light of the foregoing. DNA proves / disproves nothing.
Even they are not jew, they should look like like middle eastern people because the northern Israel people when they get destroyed they are scattered in nearby places like Turkey, IRAQ, IRAN ,LEBANON AND IN NORTHERN EUROPE and some of the tribes are in south Israel
The other two migration from the Book of Mormon were also Jewish people with Jewish DNA markers. That seems disingenuous, and leave out that fact, does it not?
They were from the tribe of Joseph actually. We do not have genetic markers from the Tribe of Joseph. The modern Jewish people descend from the Levites, Judah, and I believe either Dan or Benjamin but you have to look it up to check. The only genetic connection might be through Jacob, but we do not have Jacob's DNA and by now there would probably be too much genetic drift.
The Principle ancestor comments where never in the BOM text. The claim was written by contemporary apostles. And not everyone agreed among the 12 apostles even on this issue. Regardless of this the Book is either true or false. Based on my study and experience I happen to believe in its divine origin.
@@brettmajeske3525 You said, "Because we learn line upon line, precept upon precept." Why make such a significant change in Mormon belief quietly? Most members don't even know it was changed unless someone points it out to them. Why not publicize the correction to all members so they know the truth? That truth that: 1) the church’s belief and teachings for more than 170+ years, that MOST, IF NOT ALL, of the American Indians are direct descendants of the BoM Lamanites is NOT true, and 2) that the church now believes and teaches that ONLY SOME American Indians are descended from the Lamanites of the BoM, despite lack of DNA evidence to even support this new belief.
@@adamholloway7963 Well, for what it is worth, only the text of the Book of Mormon is considered scripture, the forward/explanation is merely commentary. Members do know there is a diversity of opinions among leaders. Different eras have different footnotes. I do not know any member over the age of 20 who isn't a complete idiot who doesn't understand that. So thanks for the Strawman argument.
@@brettmajeske3525 You said, "Well, for what it is worth, only the text of the Book of Mormon is considered scripture, the forward/explanation is merely commentary." I didn't claim it wasn't. And, the teaching that most if not all Native Americans were descendants of the BoM Lamanites was not limited to the text in the Introduction of the BoM. You said, "Members do know there is a diversity of opinions among leaders." I didn't claim they don't. You said, "Different eras have different footnotes." I didn't claim they don't. You said, "I do not know any member over the age of 20 who isn't a complete idiot who doesn't understand that.." I didn't make that claim. You said, "So thanks for the Strawman argument." What strawman argument? Please point out the "strawman argument" that you claim I made. Based on your reply, you don't seem to understand what I said in my comment.
I would also recommend the video "*What can DNA tests really tell us about ancestry*". The video isn't talking about this issue specifically but it shows the problems posed with trying to find out a persons ancestry and how it isn't the most reliable to find out a person's ancestry.
I do concede that genetic research is tentative and has a long way to go. However, I also find genetics to be far more consistent and reliable in the effort of investigating genealogy than the unsubstantiated claims of a 19th century proselytizer.
The responsibility of evidence lies on the people making a claim. Not the ones criticizing the claim. Mormons claim many things but cannot provide reliable evidence to back up their claims. To say, “well you can’t disprove my theory, so it must be true!” is a poor argument.
To go along with the point of not knowing what DNA to look for, it should be pointed out that Lehi and his family were trying to escape a "bottleneck" event by flirting from the Babylonian conquest. Given that between the departure of Lehi from Jerusalem and the new testament, Jerusalem was conquered by Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome, all of which conquests were probably bottleneck events (or at the very least would have been major dilutions of the genre pool). I would speculate that the DNA of those living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' ministry probably didn't really match up that well with the DNA of the ancient Jews of the Old Testament either.
This is all fine, and props on the explanation of pretty complex genetic concepts. However, the entire premise is backwards. The book of Mormon makes many extraordinary claims, and those claims require extraordinary proofs. Proving a negative doesn't follow logic. The only conclusion that can be reached from current evidence is that there is currently no proof that the events in the Book of Mormon took place. Until further proof is found, the claims are rejected.
The video's claim was not about providing an historic proof, but the refutation of an objection, which is logically permissible. I would also differentiate between insufficient proof and no proof.
To my atheist friends: Unexplicable Claims are essential for religion. Every religion carries extraordinary claims and that's kind of the point. If they were usual, we would be in your boat going off the edge of the world. To point out every religious claim needs to be rejected based on absence of physical evidence is not original and futile. We know that. Followers still follow because Science hasn't provided an good alternative. For a world struggling on whether they are a boy or a girl you definitely have more important uses of your time in helping people understand what is right or wrong instead of stating obvious claims are not supported fully yet.
Looking for "extraordinary proofs" is simply not the way science gathers evidence, no matter how often atheists demand it. If we simply have enough "ordinary evidence", then a premise can be supported. In this case, however, the evidence is greatly lacking, and the most logical conclusion should be accepted.
What happened to all the structures, weapons,tools,human bones and all other things that would have been left behind from the book of Mormon stories? Why hasn't anyone found a single thing in the Americas ...
As usual a very good instructional video on this subject. I have my own admittedly very unique theory of the Lamanites. We have very little history of them early on, but do hear of their skin turning dark. I think it is plausible that that portion of Lehi's family came in direct contact with native peoples and combined with them. They did not understand genetics, but only described what they saw.
@@mirandahopkins3676 Odd that you throw this statement in here that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It must mean a lot to you. I assume this is the scripture you speak of… Galatians 1: 8, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” I hope you can see that this statement begs the question: What gospel is Paul talking about? Who, if anyone, has the wrong gospel? First of all, I think it is significant to realize that the gospel is already being distorted so soon after Christ’s death. So what IS the gospel? Well, what did Jesus and the apostles teach in the Bible? They taught many things, but the basics of the gospel that they taught are faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end. This is the gospel. Jesus gives it well in the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi, “This is my gospel… that I came into the world… that I might be lifted up upon the cross… that I might draw all men unto me… that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled, if he endureth to the end, behold him will I hold guiltless before my Father.” This is the gospel I believe. What is yours?
@@dkbradshaw Mormons believe blacks weren't allowed the priesthood because of Ham seeing his fathers nakednes. So they believe that his sin was passed down to Hams decendents. Because Ham means black in Greek they believe Ham to be black person(ME TOO). So his son Canaan was chose as the descendent that was punished. Because his father Ham is called black , that should mean all blacks come from Canaan. Problem with this theory is Ham had 4 kids. So how can they say all blacks were denied when all blacks didn't come from Canaan. How did the Mormons decide which blacks came from Canaan and which blacks came from the other 3 children. They didn't, they just said all blacks can't recieve it because of the curse. But the curse was only for Canaan's decendents. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
@@johnfonua I hope this helps you out... th-cam.com/video/KvWPmLLV3Jw/w-d-xo.html In my mind, the history you describe is irrelevant. The reason for the ban, whether because of racism or ignorance does not matter either, but I believe it WAS meant to be. It was a stumbling block (as was polygamy) to the casual believer, and racism was still a problem, not just for the LDS, but all faiths. I hope you will check out the link--very informative.
@@johnfonua Mostly this is a straw man, neither LDS scriptures nor Brigham Young used the rationality you claim. I think you are confusing LDS with Southern Baptists and Methodists who promoted the curse of Ham justification for slavery. Frankly the policy was not well explained or understood. Brigham did not establish any formal rules, just refused to ordain some without any official policy. After that it was basically a matter of tradition. Some local Bishops did continue to ordain some African-Americans to the Aaronic priesthood until 1908. Even then that practice only applied to Africans. Other dark skinned groups, such as those from India or south pacific never had any kind of priesthood restriction. Mauri were ordained as Bishops during Brigham Young's lifetime.
Nobody outside of Mormonism believes any of the people described in the book ever existed. I don't mean the specific characters named in the book. I mean the tribes or groups written about; Lamanites, Nephites and Jaredites. We know that Hebrews existed, yet most people do not believe in Judaism. So the most basic foundational aspect of the Mormon religion, even before we tackle the supernatural claims cannot even hold up. There is no real world foundation for this religion to stand on, because the groups described in their most sacred book are fiction and totally made up
As you know, anything not 100% proven, can be made up. So of course it can't "hold up". Dinosaurs existing, holds up, even if we haven't seen one. (in the traditional sense of what a dinosaur is). That's because of the bones, of course. -- But no text or book about religion will ever hold up, until Jesus shows you himself. -- The point of a lot of these videos is reminding people that no one has been able to disprove anything about the LDS church, or even religion. Since you were not alive over 2000 years ago, you weren't there, and can't claim that the Laminates are totally made up. "but even still, since there's not enough evidence, it's probably made up, and that's good enough for me". Your presumed response (or rather, perhaps your presumed thoughts) is quite fallacious. -- Most people not believing in Judaism, therefore it's probably false, doesn't hold up to logic (and it's a typical stance of atheists). -- Science and religion will co-exist the way that we both want it to, at the right time. "I don't want religion to co-exist with science". This can't be true, or you never would've been born. "Prove this claim". I cannot, and it won't hold up if i try. "You sure are making a lot of 'absolute statements', and assuming a lot. That is fallacious, in and of itself". Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't need to matter.
Know one has been able to disprove anything about the LDS religion? Say what. Book of Abraham is not what it was once said to be. Now it is claimed it was not a direct translation. The fake kinderhook plates that Joseph Smith translated proven to be false. Lots of stuff about Joseph Smiths history. Church lying about removing plural marriage the first time. Just to name a few.
@@dark_winter8238 poor choice of words on my part. I meant, disprove anything about the church that would prove it to be a false religion. Of course things have been disproven, but mostly by the church itself. Like Joseph Smith sitting at the table clutching the golden plates, while reading the translations. Perhaps it was sugar coated, so it would help people believe it more. Sounds silly? Yes. But they knew that the stuff they sugar coated was true, and it didn't matter at the time. Obviously it matters now because of the internet.
I get what this videos saying but I wouldn’t want to believe on the Book of Mormon when everything requires such a stretch of what is likely. No Middle Eastern DNA. No archaeological evidence. No good reason why the BOM was translated into 16th century English during the 19th century of which it was transmitted. Why did the angel want the plates back even though he hadn’t needed them for the past 1800 years? There may be ways to justify these points, but when every aspect requires this huge stretch of what ought to be expected, the odds of the BOM been true start to look similar to the odds of winning a life changing sum of money from a one dollar lottery ticket
Unfortunately for those who earnestly believe or just wish it were all true. You are objective and logical. Yeah, you make sense. No one could some it up any better than you just did.
The Book of Mormon states that the Jaredites and Mulekites went extinct before the arrival of Lehi's family, and 2 Nephi chapter 1 details that the promised land would be set apart exclusively for Lehi's family and their descendants. This principle was validated by multiple church leaders, notably Jeffery R Holland who stated: "The Promised Land was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of god's special purposes." -A Promised Land, Ensign Magazine 1976 As such the theory that the Laminates intermingled with people who were already in the Americas is incompatible with LDS doctrine. This is why I love LDS doctrine. You don't even need to look to external sources to prove it wrong, it proves itself wrong.
Well I would not call it doctrine, but an interpretation, Hugh Nibley has written extensively on the subject. The BoM never uses the word extinct or extinction, in matter of fact it specifically states that at least one jaredite joined the mulekites, and that several mulekites joined the nephites. A culture or political organization can be destroyed without meaning the extinction of every constitute member. And your Holland quote doesn't mean that purpose could not have involved other groups. Indeed Nephi talks about this being a choice land for whomever the Lord chooses.
Brett Majeske Brett Majeske Ok, even if we assume that some Jaredites/Mulekites survived, the Book of Mormon claims that they too are of middle eastern dissent. Given doctrinal confirmation that the Americas were uninhabited prior to the arrival of the Jaredites, there is no reason to believe that their genetic makeup would be significantly different from that of the Nephites when they arrived.
@@enigmaticvaran6597 First of all, what doctrinal confirmation? The Americas are a big place, the only thing one can reasonably assume is that there was no one else living in the location the Jaredite first settled. There could have been dozens of unknown peoples living in distant corners at the same time. Or not, there is really no way to know. As for Jaredites being what we would consider middle eastern, do you know where the Tower of Babel was located? I do not, although most guess somewhere in eastern Iraq or Iran. The claim of the BoM is that the Jaredites came over 2-3000 BCE. Their described journey is travelling east for several years until they reached the sea, where they built boats to take them to the Americas. We have no understanding of of their ethno-cultural make up. Oliver Cowdry thought they were descendants of Ham not Shem. Hugh Nibley thought they might have been partly Asiatic, given that their described journey would have taken them to parts of modern Asia. We know even less about the Mulekite genetic make up. One of the big problems with DNA analysis is we don't know for what we are looking. We do not have a claimed route for the Mulekite journey, so we can not make any reasonable assumptions about whom they may have intermingled. The time scale alone complicates things. Genetic researchers look at statistical models based on current DNA patterns and then project backwards based on assumptions of migratory patterns. The father back in time one looks, the less accurate the modeling becomes. We do not even know what to look for with regards to Lehi and company. The BoM describes them as an ethnic minority descending from the tribe of Mannasa, not Juda. We do not know what differences may exist. There are no data bases for any of the Israelite tribes other than Juda and Levi. I agree DNA evidence fails to provide dispositive proof in favor of the BoM, but that is a long way from actually disproving either.
Brett Majeske Doctrinal confirmation that the Americas were literally uninhabited when the Jaredites arrived: The Great flood. The church accepts the literal interpretation of the Great flood story as doctrine. We know this for the following reasons: For one thing, the annotations provided in their print of the King James Bible as well as the Book of Moses. For example, The prelude to Genesis 7 reads "...The Flood comes, and water covers the WHOLE earth- ALL OTHER LIFE THAT BREATHES IS DESTROYED." If this were false doctrine, surely your church leaders would have objected to these annotations considering they are blessed with revelation and discernment. Further more, there is at least one article on the church's official website that defends the literal interpretation. Going back on that quote by Jeffery Holland, allow me to provide more of it: "Holy scripture records that after the waters [of the flood] had receded from off the face of the earth of this land, it became a choice land... ...to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler... ...without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of god's purposes... ...The Lord began almost at once to repelled the promised land. The Jaredites came FIRST..." But could people have colonized the Americas between the great flood and the Jaredites? Not according to Jeffery Holland, a general authority alledgely blessed with the gifts of revelation and discernment. But if those credentials don't satisfy you, here's a secular argument: Given the genealogy provided by the Book of Genesis, researchers determined the construction of the Tower of Babel would have taken place roughly one century after the flood (See Genesis 10 and 11). Hardly enough time for the genome of Noah and his descendants to have evolved into an entirely different ethnicity. So, given the church accepts the literal interpretation of the flood and the timeline required by the scriptures, we have doctrinal confirmation that there can't have been any people present in the Americas when the Jaredites arrived. The Tower of Babel: I don't believe the Tower of Babel existed in the first place, but for our purposes we'll go off of what was likely Joseph Smith's understanding. The Book of Genesis, the source from which Christianity and by extension Joseph Smith derived the Tower of Babel in the first place, describes the tower as having been built in the land of Shinar. Shinar is essentially Mesopotamia, which is historically located in The Middle East. So yes, to the understanding of Joseph Smith and his peers, people who would have lived there including the alleged Jaredites were Middle-eastern. The Mulekites: The church has posted an article on their official website that was featured in the 1987 ensign which details the implicit Middle-Eastern origins of the Mulekites, link provided below. If the church is confident enough to post and maintain its claims on their official website, it is safe to say they currently accept this interpretation as their official stance. www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/03/the-mulekites?lang=eng Hugh Nibley: I've only read snippets of his writings, but from what little I have read and what you're describing, his apologietics seem lacking in empirical data and rely largely on speculation to fill the gaps. Nibley's strategy for justifying belief in the Book of Mormon in the abscence of DNA evidence is to ambiguate the church's claims and suggest that they are open to interpretation. However, contrary to his efforts, the church does have official stances on some of these issues as detailed by their official website and general authorities. Weighing his speculatory apologetics against your church's official stances, I vote in favor of your church's official stances. DNA can't disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon: this is true, as given the absence of relevant data it is a negative claim. But by this standard, we might as well speculate that unicorns once roamed the earth because their existence cannot be disproven either.
@@enigmaticvaran6597 Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this thread, You Tube dropped the ball alerting me to your response. You seem to be operating under a number of misunderstandings. The beliefs of a single Apostle is not enough to qualify his opinion as official doctrine. Indeed there are some Apostles who view the story of Noah as literal, others who suscribe to a more figurative view. This difference in opinion goes back at least until the open debates between B.H. Roberts and Joseph F Smith over a hundred years. Yes Holland is a JFS loyalist, (not surprising as he is a great-grandson), others like Eyring and Nelson belong to the Roberts camp. The Church has no official stance regarding the matter. Whether literal or figurative, it is the lessons taught that matter to us today. As for Hugh Nibley, he was a linguist, and mostly stuck to his field of expertise. He relied on linguistic and literary evidences. Well yes, the Mulekites were certainly of Middle Eastern origins, we do not know their route and what other people may have mixed during their journey.
That is not a Biblical interpretation for faith. Faith is not without a reason to place your faith in it. Jesus calls himself a firm foundation for a reason.
@@stelladavis7832 can you quote the whole passage. If you do that you will see that seeing is not the only form of evidence. Mathew7:15¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. That is not blind faith at all. So the question stands. What was Joseph's fruit like?
As a native American myself, how do you expect me to believe this? My skin is a result of sin of my ancestors? How could any person with a darker complexion believe that.
If God has created and engineered the body .... He can modify it as He sees fit. Also, we are all living with bodies that are the result of the sin of our ancestors.
It’s not true like they’re saying. You have regular dna from both parents, and mitochondrial dna from your mama. Think of it like invisible chains in your mitochondrial dna. Genetics. It gets passed down. They did know about that way back then. They did start changing it in populations. Study Ireland a bit. It connects to all this. Look online with Library of Congress. If you research any religious books, look at it in a scientific/genetic way. When you do that, the books tell you. How do you break the chains? Choice. The universe will take care of the signal/frequency. You can’t keep a bird caged forever. Can you think of anything mainstream that is an effort to get every single person in the whole world in on it? Adds more chains. We’re all dealing with it. We’re all in the same boat. But as a native American, be proud. Your culture and the ways are super important to this world. ❤️
These people will believe anything to support an idiotic religion that has no truth claims. They are seriously blinded in they’re sin. They can’t even fathom science bc it doesn’t support anything the bom claims. Like this guys in the video’s seriously delusional.
Nice job - I think we're both mostly on the same page here. The scientific process doesn't claim to prove anything at 100%, so you're right that DNA evidence hasn't "proved" the BoM false. But to reiterate, we are finding mounting genetic evidence (though not proof) that the stories in the BoM aren't likely true, and we are not finding any genetic evidence that supports the claim that the BoM is true. Sure, it's possible that no genetic relations of Lehi were included in the DNA testing done so far. Sure, it's possible that Lehi was a genetically Asian Jew from Jerusalem. *Or*, perhaps the Book of Mormon isn't as historically accurate as your faith leads you to believe. Which is a more reliable path to uncovering historical truth? Evidence, or faith?
@@optulent4041 There's a lot of content on that site for a lot of different topics, and I didn't see a clear 'evidence' section. Can you point me toward what you think is the strongest supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon?
@@kenhilker2507 - One DNA used to condemn the Book of Mormon is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Only women pass mtDNA to their children. All of us inherited our mtDNA from our mothers. The other genetic marker being used is the Y-chromosome (Y-chr), which is passed by men to their sons. Tom Murphy, Simon Southerton, and others claim the Book of Mormon is false because neither Middle East mtDNA nor Y-chr has been found among the American Indians. Here are a few reasons for that. Lehi and his family of no more than 40 individuals sailed into an area already populated by tens of thousands of people. They intermarried with the natives, and their mtDNA and Y-chr disappeared within a few generations. Another reason would be that after the arrival of Europeans in 1492, the native population of 100 million was drastically reduced by warfare and disease. In the National Geographic video "America Before Columbus," Professor Andrew Isenburg of Temple University said that upwards of 90% of the Indians died within 50 years. Entire villages and tribes vanished. That means that all DNA tests performed today would be on the descendants of the 10 or 20 percent who survived. That is not a very accurate sampling. Also, many tribes have refused to participate in any genetic database tests. My final reason is the unreliability of mtDNA and Y-chr. Our second daughter married a man whose paternal line is Danish and whose maternal line is Japanese. They have a daughter and two sons. All three children have the mtDNA of their mother, which is my wife's mtDNA, which is from Sweden. The boys have their father's Y-chr, which is from Denmark. Using the same tests that Murphy and Southerton cite to support their argument, one can prove that those children have Swedish ancestry, and that the boys have Danish ancestry. But NO ONE can prove that they also have Japanese ancestry! If those tests cannot find any mtDNA from their Japanese grandmother, who is alive, how reliable are those tests in finding Israelite mtDNA or Y-chr from 2,600 years ago? The lack of Japanese mtDNA in those children DOES NOT mean that they are not part Japanese! The lack of Israelite mtDNA or Y-chr in the surviving American Indians DOES NOT disprove the Book of Mormon! The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@@GaryKColeman I think you need to go back and re read the book of mormon and get your facts straight about how much the land was populated and how much the New Jews landing from Israel affected the population over time according to the book of mormon. If the book of mormon is true it would be easy to find Native Americans with Jewish DNA
@@billyr9162 First, youtube did not alert me about your response. I only found it while checking another alert. Why don't you explain how much the land was populated and how much 30 people affected the population? Can you tell us how it should "be easy to find Native Americans with Jewish DNA? I stand by my comment. Can you show me where I'm wrong?
@@GaryKColeman Doesn't say so in the book of mormon? I don't remember the exact quote but I believe the book of mormon States that those 30 people populated the entire Americas. The American Indians might be one of the most research group in American history. Certainly someone would find Jewish DNA in them.
What I realized just this morning is HOW are the American Indians ancestors to the people from the Book of Mormon when according to Moroni he was the LAST member to survive the last battle.
I am not Mormon but I have read the book and it says He was the last of the nephites not the lamenites. So all the nephites died out but lamenites continued on which is why he supposedly buried the gold plates so it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands
Middle Eastern DNA does indeed show up in my own indigenous heritage. I have Mi'kmaq Canadian heritage through my grandmother, an Acadian Mi'kmaq. Yet, no "Mi'kmaq" DNA showed up in my DNA test of 2022. Instead, I had 1.3% Middle Eastern DNA and 0.9% MesoAmerican DNA. Can these results be any clearer?
Autosomal DNA tests can only really test ancestry for the last 200 years. DNA autosomal testing is best guesswork when it comes to ethnic origins which are not always so cut and dry with explanations. *I'm a DNA genealogist so I know a few things about DNA
As a latter day saint, I take issue with this whole theory about mixing with other non-Israelite races, especially considering that 90% of indigenous people were wiped out by Europeans. This would have to mean that either the vast majority of natives were in fact blood Israelites, or that the minority who were of Israelite decent by some miracle survived this mass genocide. I think the theory of genetic drift is much more fitting given the situation. The Book of Mormon clearly tells us it is a record written specifically to a Lamanite audience for the purpose of them knowing of the covenants which the Lord made with their fathers. Not only is there no mention of any mixing with other no-Israelites, but the narrative is pretty clear on there being no other civilizations present on the continent until the arrival of European colonizers. Personally, I don't see this as any cause for concern to any believing latter day saint, especially when there is no ancient Israelite DNA available for comparison and essentially no way of confirming or disproving any genetic Israelite origin. In my humble opinion, the argument only serves to cheapen the Book of Mormon's credibility.
To be fair, nomadic native american groups wouldn't exactly be considered a civilization, and it's entirely too possible that the Nephites had no contact with these groups until after they had already integrated with Laman's family. After which they would be considered Lamanites as a blanket term by the Nephites.
@harry My bit about civilization is purely from the Nephite's perspective as it pertains to the text, I wasn't saying there were no native american civilizations at the time. The Americas are a big place and the Book of Mormon only describes a few interconnected city states. Heck, there could have been many civilizations they came in contact with that were simply omitted from Mornon's abridgement because it was of no spiritual significance. The Lamanites were an otherwise completely native american group who inherited the hatred and jealousy of two lehite families that they intermarried with. The families of Laman and Lemuel (perhaps 12-20 individuals altogether) were a drop in the bucket compared with the preexisting population they joined.
Well said! Best candidates for Nephites were the Hopewell Indians (Algonquin) who populated the Heartland from 200 BC to 500 AD - Who shared Haplogroup X (middle eastern) DNA and experienced a sudden cultural decline.
Interesting theory. As per the video I'm personally very skeptical of 'DNA evidence' that attempts to either disprove or prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I think it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
“Ethiopian Semitic (also Ethio-Semitic, Ethiosemitic, Ethiopic or Abyssinian[1]) is a family of languages spoken in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan. They form the western branch of the South Semitic languages, itself a sub-branch of Semitic, part of the Afroasiatic language family. With 21,811,600 total speakers as of 2007, including around 4,000,000 second language speakers, Amharic is the second-most common language of Ethiopia (after Oromo) and second-most commonly spoken Semitic language in the world (after Arabic).[2][3]. Tigrinya has 7 million speakers and is the most widely spoken language in Eritrea.”
So the biggest thing is only like 3% or 7% of all of that is even uncovered and I talked with the lady that I baptize my mission. She was actually at archaeologists that worked at Mesa community college and she didn’t know what it was till she actually got baptized and then went into the temple became a temple worker when she got told of me and she just couldn’t believe that she could see what was going on in the temples they had in the south Americas, and then Help would actually relate to even what we have because it was so similar she could see the different rooms, but no one talks about that because why?
Don't have to worry about genetics. Not all peoples in the americas, this hemisphere, will have any middle eastern DNA. When Lehi came to this hemisphere he and his family couldn't have mingled with all the population. When the latter day saints talk about anybody or people coming from a particular tribe of Isreal, it doesn't always mean direct bloodline or DNA. If a person or people aren't direct relation, DNA or bloodline, it means that those people or person will be of a particular tribe of Isreal through adoption. Adoption into one of the 12 tribes to be blessed spiritually through and by the abrahamic covenant. Thus one can be considered a reubenite, judahite, Ephraimite, etc. Keep this in mind with what this gentleman said. Also, DNA research, science, academic thought and research is human based, imperfect and always evolving and finding more and more truths and information. Nothing in this world is a closed case.
The book of Mormon teaches that God preserved the America's for his chosen people. Saying a huge majority of American ancestors were not part of God's chosen people still contradicts the BOM.
at 5:10 gathering more accurate results are not going to turn around 180 degrees the previous findings with the very large amount of data collected so far. Would you agree ?
One thing to point out is that many genetic studies are based on mitochondrial DNA. As far as the people of the BOM, we know virtually nothing about their mitochondrial DNA. The descendants of the Lehi migration will basically all have (as far as we know) mitochondrial DNA from Ishmael’s wife of which we know nothing about (anything anyone would say about it is pure speculation) and we forget about the Mulek migration of which we know virtually nothing about as well. In addition, the Mulekites were more numerous than the Nephites, which generally would mean they would have a sizable contribution.
I'm neutral towards the LDS, and I really enjoyed a 9-week-long road trip through Utah and Arizona back in 2015 (I've been to 43 states so far) BUT: It's obvious that the LDS church is always in a defense mode, trying to explain why there is no evidence for anything. It would be lovely if they could produce (positive) evidences for any of the claims in the Book of Mormon to be true. Why do they not allow archeological research on their grounds, for example? As long as this is the policy of the church, people will keep saying: It's because scientists won't find anything. The big wars between Lamanites and Nephites (between 600 BC and 200 BC) remain unproven, too. And so on. Not to mention the "Book of Abraham" papyri disaster.
Except in the Book of Mormon, they had great battles with horses and chariots.... Natives had neither Horses, Chariots or even the Wheel... so did they just forget something as important as the Wheel? Did all the horses just die out??? Come on.... Face Reality.
A chariot in the book of Mormon does not mean the same in the European sense or the horses. Book of Mormon does not say they were riding horses, find me a passage where it says that. Is not impossible that there was an animal that they might have called horse at that time.
@@legacy756 Horses are mentioned in eight different Book of Mormon that involve an ancient New World setting.1 Chronologically the first mention is in Jaredite times (Ether 9:19) and the last mention is among the Nephites in approximately 20 AD (3 Nephi 6:1).
@@txaggievet Horses are never ridden, they may have been used as a food source, and the Nephite text never says that chariots are used in war or even that they were wheeled or ridden. The English word “chariot” comes from Latin carrus, car, and is etymologically related to the verb to carry. The primary definition for chariot seems to be a device to carry some sort of load. We should not automatically assume that the Nephites understood chariots as wheeled war machines. Because no Book of Mormon verse says or suggests that chariots are mounted, dismounted, or that they carried people or were ridden (although this could be inferred from a twenty-first century view), we cannot say for certain what a Book of Mormon “chariot” means. Native American kings, for example, were often carried into war or to ceremonial events on litters or palanquins. These were sedans carried on the shoulders of other men and certainly fits the Hebrew definition of a “chariot.” The Book of Mormon, it must also be noted, never mentions horses “pulling” chariots. You can check more explanations on www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/horses-in-the-book-of-mormon.
Then why change the original claim "principal" to "among" ? And also the BOM says that the land will be for a land where no other people have set foot on. Because if other people found out then they would occupy the land
Mate,.. Honestly, you are so desperate to prove this book has some validation... Its hard to admit to ourselves that we had it wrong but you got to set yourself free from this madness.
What we can prove is that we can't yet prove from the evidence that the BoM narrative is true. The other option is to admit that the descendents of the Nephites were not from MesoAmerica, instead, the DNA in many eastern United States Native American's shows another race of people that pre-dated the Asiatic American Indians.
You do realize this whole charade could’ve been easily explained if Moroni just explained the JS where the exact location of Cumorah was & how he found Cumorah in NY.
We find R1b of the Y chromosome among mostly northern Native Americans. Just as it should be as tribes of Israel carried away during the Assarian conquest eventually lived in lands north of Galilee such as around The Black Sea, Caucus mountains, and the great grass land of the Pontic Steppe. They also had mostly R1b as per the DNA of ancient graves. They were called Saki (with a long i ) a reasonable corrupted name meaning the Isaac people. They were called different names by different peoples over time. as Scythians, Parthians, Gauls and more. They likely migrated up the Danube River Basin (Note the name Dan being one of the tribes of Israel.) And settled all over Europe as far west as Ireland where Joseph Smith's R1b DNA (He was descendant of Joseph of Egypt.) came from and also north into Scandinavia. The Danish named people of Denmark (Danmark?)) may also come from the Israelite name Dan. Then there were the Saxons a reasonable corruption of Isaac's sons. English and Scottish history indicate those peoples thought themselves to be from Israelites of the Ten Tribes. R1b is the by far the most prevalent Y haplogroup of Europe and Scandinavia. The H mitochondrial female DNA is the most common haplogroup of the same countries. H and R1b Haplogroups are associated as per grave studies in the Pontic Steppe and likely migrated together to the west. As far as I know, R1b of Native American tribes has not been shown to be only due to intercourse with much later R1b migrants from Europe / Scandinavia. I would guess of the Book of Mormon males were R1b with some X haplotype as well. Just what I have heard others to reason.
The Lord says , my ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts. My Ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts. Any way you are clearly allowed to think what you want.
So there were other people on the land when Lehi's family arrived? Then what about 2 Nephi 1:6-9 - "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance...they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves." Accordingly, there should not have been any tribe/or groups of people present when Lehi arrived in the Americas. Any large Asiatic tribe in America by Lehi's time would contradict with these verses. Lehi is "a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt by the hand of his brethren" (Alma 10:3). So unless Joseph and Manasseh are Siberian Asians, Native Americans, if the Book of Mormon is true, should have majority Semitic/Israelite DNA.
Do you know of any ancient trade routes between the Americas and the other lands? This land was kept as a pretty big secret for most of history. Did people find their way over here? Yes, and when they did they tended to prosper. But knowledge of this land was kept from other nations. When I read the Book of Mormon, I expect that the basic land area involved is no bigger than the land of Israel as far as the Nephites are concerned. I would have no idea how widespread the Lamanites would have gone since there is no record of their comings and goings. That, and I was never good at geography :/
@@majesticliberatoroftheoppr3971 According to the LDS church, America was set apart to fulfil God’s righteous purposes. “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord” and was “uninhabited, so far as human beings were concerned, until the Lord led to this land from the tower of Babel a colony of people, the Jaredites”. The church also teaches that “the land now known as America would be protected by the Lord from interference from other nations”, that “the Lord kept America “hidden“ and “isolated from the rest of the world” so that the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites could “be kept from all other nations” and “kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune” “that they may possess this land unto themselves” and “possess it unmolested by other people”. The church also teaches that, “If there had been large numbers of other peoples here when the Jaredites came, or when Lehi arrived, certainly the Book of Mormon would have said so.” “In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.” (January 1998 Ensign, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Donald W. Parry) “...that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof” (Ether 13:2) “...whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8) "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance...and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves." (2 Nephi 1:8-9) “In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country...For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon, which can be purchased at Nauvoo, or from any of our traveling elders.” (Joseph Smith, The Wentworth Letter, Ensign, July, 2002) “It is worthy of note that this decrease in maritime activity is coincident with the era of the departure of the colonies of Lehi and Mulek for America, and of the promise which the Lord gave to the first named that as long as his seed were faithful in keeping the laws of heaven the land that had been given to them "should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations."*II. Nephi i: 5-11...the fulfillment of the Lord's promise of isolation to the seed of Lehi. And that promise was fulfilled in its completeness, for if the ancients had any knowledge of this continent it became to them a vague tradition and most certainly the people of no other nation reached its shores until long after the descendants of Lehi had turned from the Lord and had fallen right into the lowest depths of savagery and idolatry.” (George Reynolds, The Jaredites, The Juvenile Instructor, vol 28, no 16, August 15, 1892, p 501) “Come down a little later in history, six hundred years before the meridian of time, in the reign of Zedekiah, a body of Israelites was led away by the power of God and by direct intervention of divine agency brought across the great waters and established upon this then unknown continent, isolated from the rest of the world. The purpose of that separation, segregation, isolation and hiding was made plain. It provided a means whereby that part of the House of Israel should serve the Lord their God with purity and sincerity, so long as they would remain obedient.” (James E. Talmage, Ninetieth Annual General Conference, October 1919, p 95) “And behold it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for beyond, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance...My brethren and sisters, Lehi foresaw what would be the condition among his children if they would live in harmony with the commandments of the Lord that he had received for his children upon this land - That it should always be for them a land of security, the land of their inheritance, and they should possess it unmolested by other people. But when they should turn away the reverse would be the case. History tells us that they turned away from the God of the land.” (Elder Ray L. Pratt of the First Council of Seventy, Gospel Tidings for the Southland, Millennial Star, April 15, 1926, p 226-227)
@@majesticliberatoroftheoppr3971 “After the Flood and ‘the waters had receded from off the face of this land,’ the Lord declared through His prophet His dedication that this had become a ‘choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve Him who dwell upon the face thereof.’ (Ether 13:) The first attempt to set up a righteous people after the Flood, came when, at Babel (Omni 22), the Lord ‘swore in His wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth’ (ether 1:33), and Jared and his brother, he to whom the Lord said, ‘for never has man believed in me as thou hast’ (Ether 3:15), were guided to these shores. They came with a blessing and an overhanging judgement...Before God’s first effort had come to its final tragedy, He had begun His second...two groups left Jerusalem under the Lord’s direction to escape the fate then pending for Israel and to make a new effort to build a righteous people in the promised land. Of one - that which founded the people of Zarahemla - we know little, save that they were later absorbed by the people of Mosiah (Omni, verses 14-19.) We do not have their records. (Omni, verse 18.) But of the other, the family of Lehi and their descendants, the bulk of the Book of Mormon gives us a full account...Choice peoples have thus been tried twice and each failed to live the law and obey ‘the everlasting decree’ governing this land. The Lord took every precaution to see that nothing might interfere with this posterity of Joseph in working out their God-given destiny and the destiny of America. He provided, and so told Lehi at the very beginning of his settlement, that, ‘...it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for beyond, many nations would overrun the land, and there would be no place for an inheritance. (2 Nephi 1:8.) The Lord so kept the land for a thousand years after Lehi Landed. He so kept it in His wisdom for another thousand years after the Nephites were destroyed, perhaps to give the Lamanitish branch another chance.” (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr, PROPHECIES, PENALTIES, and BLESSINGS; Concerning America, and Liberty, and its Price, The Improvement Era, vol 43, no 7, July 1940, p 396-441) “‘it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations...These prophecies mention several specific points: first, that the land now known as America would be protected by the Lord from interference from other nations until after the descendants of Lehi had rejected the true Messiah and had dwindled away in unbelief; second, that when the people had become unrighteous, the Lord would bring other nations, led specifically by ‘a man’ on whom his Spirit would work; third, that he would give these gentiles power over the unrighteous Israelites, that he would take away from them the lands which heretofore had been theirs.” (Hyde M. Merrill, Christopher Columbus & The Book of Mormon, The Improvement Era, February 1966, p 97) “this land [America] was deluged by the Flood and left uninhabited, so far as human beings were concerned, until the Lord led to this land from the tower of Babel a colony of people, the Jaredites, declaring as he led them that he was bringing them to a “land of promise, . . . choice above all other lands,” and “that whoso should possess this land . . . from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them” (Ether 2:7-8)” (Marion G. Romney, American’s Fate and Ultimate Destiny, May 2 1972) “Holy scripture records that ‘after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.’ (Ether 13:2) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God's decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God's special purposes. With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord's solemn declaration ringing in their ears: ‘Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them.’ (Ether 2:8)” (Jeffrey R. Holland, A Promised Land, Ensign, June 1976) “If there had been large numbers of other peoples here when the Jaredites came, or when Lehi arrived, certainly the Book of Mormon would have said so. The land was reserved for the Lord’s purposes and for His peoples, and the Book of Mormon provides their histories.” (Mark E. Peterson, Children of Promise: The Lamanites: Yesterday & Today, Bookcraft, 1981, p. 46) “For centuries the Lord kept America hidden in the hollow of His hand until the time was right to unveil her for her destiny in the last days. ‘It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations,’ said Lehi, ‘for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance’ (2 Ne. 1:8). In the Lord’s due time His Spirit ‘wrought upon’ Columbus, the pilgrims, the Puritans, and others to come to America.” (President Ezra Taft Benson, Our Divine Constitution, Ensign, November 1987) Contrary to the church’s position that the Americas [and the rest of the world] were unpopulated by humans prior to Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC (Adam, Eve, the Garden of Eden, and evolution-) and that the Americas were kept hidden, isolated, and unpopulated by humans after the flood around 2,300 BC - 2400 BC (Old Testament Chronology) until the Jaradites arrived around 2200 BC (Book of Mormon Time Line & Book of Mormon Seminary Student Study Guide), there is tremendous archaeological evidence of human habitation and civilizations in the Americas before, during, and after the recorded history of the BoM from 2200 BC - 400 AD. If the church is correct, how does one account for all the archaeological evidence of human habitation and other civilizations in the Americas that should not exist according to the church and BoM, (First Americans arrived, 28,000 BC, Clovis Culture, 11,000 BC, Huaricanga - Oldest city in the Americas, 3500 BC, Caral Supe, 3000-2500 BC, Olmec, 1200-400 BC, Maya, 500 BC-900 AD, Zapotec, 500 BC-750 AD, Nasca, 1-700 AD, Tiwanaku, 550-950 AD, Wari, 750-1000 AD, Inca, 1250-1532 AD, Mississippian, 1000-1500 AD, Aztec, 1430-1521 AD, etc), and the lack of archaeological evidence for the Jaredite/Lehite/Mulekite civilizations that should exist according to the LDS church and BoM?
@@adamholloway7963 Thank you. I believe you may be taking some liberties in stating “what the church believes“. There have been many and various leaders and church members, groups and publications that possess differing beliefs about the Book of Mormon through time. The church doesn’t take a stance on the location of the book of Mormon at this time let alone some of the other ancillary topics such as we are discussing. I noticed you didn’t cite your quotes in your first paragraph, perhaps due to dubious credibility? I appreciate you putting in quotes from the book of Mormon itself during the latter part of your text. I can believe Those quotes and can imagine how America could have potentially been overrun by Europeans earlier than Columbus, had the Americas been widely known to the old world. This potentially could have set up a system in America much like the old world where religious freedom was oppressed. If there is a God in heaven, who lovingly administers to his children, and I testify that there is, it would be understandable for me that he would wait for his time to make this geography known. Without religious freedom protected by constitutional law, Christ’s restored church May have been frustrated. Regarding pre-Lehite habitation, many serious students of the book of Mormon today understands that this is obvious. It is also obvious that we are dealing with a limited geography model. It is my belief that Lehi’s seed was only a drop in the bucket among the vast inhabitants of the Americas. Kind regards friend
This video is completely misunderstanding of genetic principles. What evidence do you have of a founder effect in native populations? How about the fact that native american's lack any sort of middle eastern Y-DNA, why wouldn't there be at least one in at least one tribe? This would seem quite odd considering genetic drift wouldn't explain a lack of middle eastern Y-DNA. Or how about the linguistic evidence? There is not a single native american tribe that speaks Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other Semitic language for that matter. Heck, they don't even have a language in the same language family as any Semitic language. None of these questions were risen in this video, it's a bunch of bunk, and this video is full of assumptions.
Don't worry, even the argument presented in this video is insufficient to justify belief in the Book of Mormon. See my comment thread posted around two weeks ago.
Here's the problem. You're arguing about possibility, not what's probable. Science is based on statistics, and if you asked any non-mormon population geneticist, they'd tell you that there's no DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon. So sure, you can point to the founder effect or bottlenecking, but just like all other apologetics-- you're stretching the truth to fit a narrative. If I believed that Toy Story movies depict real events, I'd have the same amount of evidence as the Book of Mormon. Have faith. You can't know that Woody isn't alive. He fakes it when you're not looking. Employees at Pixar show you the computers and files they made the film from? They non-believers or anti-ToyStoryians. Or the evidence was planted by Satan. You see how silly it gets? Latter-Day Saints swallow the wildest positive truth claims, but once you question their faith-- they become hardcore epistemological skeptics or solipsists. Also, the bottlenecking still doesn't explain why we can't find Lehite DNA, because we have the capacity to test DNA from bones of ancient Native Americans. They have done those tests too. And still no middle eastern DNA. Also there are plenty of scriptures that indicate that the Americas were empty in the Book of Mormon: "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations..." God indicated that this land was a covenant and choice land for Lehi's descendents, it's a parallel of the land of Canaan. Joseph literally found the bones of Zelph the WHITE Laminate warrior buried not too deep at all on Zion's Camp. The fact that he is white seems weird if Lehi came from Jerusalem. But since the Nephites were white, and that came exclusively from them, right? Why then can't researchers find other "white" Native American DNA? Anyways. It's just silly. If Joseph was actually correct, why doesn't anything we can test bear that out? I mean, we have crazy evidence of Romans during the time of Christ. We have all kinds of evidence of the Bible being old-- why is God so opposed to doing the same thing with the Book of Mormon? He just wants to trick people looking for evidence of the one true church so that they can have more faith? Now we're in loony town.
An article from the Guardian that says Africans lived in Roman Britain??I’d be skeptical of that one. It’s possible there was the odd one but there was no large settlement of Africans at that time in Britain, I’m pretty sure that’s wrong.
You have NO evidence, just pure your talking. I testify The Book of Mormon is true and that is true word of God. I am a Mormon, and I have so many miracles in my life after I joined this church and I also saw God in a vision that He healed me from serious car accident in our Mormon Temple New York.
Another importent bottleneck happened on the Israelite side, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering and capture of Israel. We don't know if we have all the genetic variety that was there when Lehi lived in Jerusalem.
What about the bottleneck during Noah's Ark and the global flood around 2400 BC? According to the LDS church, only 8 humans survived. "Adam and Eve and the Fall (approximately 4000 B.C.), Enoch (approximately 3000 B.C.), Noah and the Flood (approximately 2400 B.C.), and the tower of Babel (approximately 2200 B.C.) " (“The Book of Abraham,” The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual) “In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.Scriptural Evidence for a Worldwide Flood. Many prophets from two different continents and different eras have identified Noah as a historical, not a mythical, character. These include Enoch (see Moses 7:42-43), Abraham (see Abr. 1:19), Amulek (see Alma 10:22), Moroni (see Ether 6:7), Matthew (see JS-M 1:41-42), Peter (see 2 Pet. 2:5), Joseph Smith (see D&C 84:14-15; D&C 133:54), and Joseph F. Smith (see D&C 138:9, 41). The Lord Jesus Christ himself spoke to the Nephites of the “waters of Noah” (3 Ne. 22:9)...The most voluminous scriptural witness to Noah and the Flood is recorded in the writings of Moses, who dedicated a total of 57 verses in the King James Version to the account (Gen. 6:9-8:19)...In the book of Genesis, Moses clearly states that a flood occurred, and the terminology definitely refers to a worldwide flood, as opposed to a localized flood. The Joseph Smith Translation backs up the Genesis account, modifying the wording only slightly...Taken altogether, these statements should convince every believer in the Bible that the great Deluge was a worldwide event, not a localized flood that filled only the Mesopotamian or some other region...Thus, although there are many in our day who consider the accounts of the Flood and tower of Babel to be fiction, Latter-day Saints affirm their reality.” (January 1998 Ensign, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Donald W. Parry) “Evil was manifest early in this world when Cain slew Abel. It increased until in the days of Noah ‘God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart’ (Gen. 6:5-6). He commanded Noah to build an ark ‘wherein few, that is, eight souls’ would be saved (1 Pet. 3:20). The earth was cleansed. The floods receded. Righteousness was again established.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, The Dawning of a Brighter Day, General Conference, April 2004) If the entire world population was wiped out around 2400 BC, except for 8 souls, how does one explain the many civilizations around the world that existed during and after the global flood, which could not have existed if the Noah's Ark story is true?
@@adamholloway7963 Apologies don't work in science. The Mormon claim could work with the numerous Caucasian skeletons found all over North and South America (Clovis, Solutrean, Kennewick man, etc.) between 9,000 and 13,000 years ago, but Smith locked these facts out when he dated his fairy tale at 400 BC.
@@adamholloway7963the Flood story doesn’t originate with LDS it is scripture according to all Abrahamic religion. There are also dozens of flood myths found in cultures throughout the world. Nice try though
@@ChrisShadowman I never said that the Flood story originated with LDS nor that it is exclusive to LDS. Maybe you should reread what I posted more carefully next time. It is, however, accepted and taught by the LDS Church as historically true. So, the problem still stands. Where is the evidence of a Global flood that wiped out all land animal life in the world except for those saved on Noah's Ark? The LDS Church clearly taught that it was not a local flood but a global flood.
@@adamholloway7963 perhaps you should re read what I said because my argument is your criticism of lds is in fact a criticism of all Christianity as well as the Jews and Islam. If there wasn’t a world wide flood how can you explain the prevalence of flood stories in nearly every culture around the earth? And why is this the hill you’re dying on lol there’s a million other places you can attack lds on but the flood isn’t one of them
@@TaoT3 i should have put quotation marks around smoking gun but yeah, the only time the mormon idea of native americans makes sense is when they talk about the mound builders civilization and the ledgends about it
Except haplo group X has been found among native Americans in the Midwest region of the United States. The highest percentage of haplo X was found in the Great Lakes region.
There is not one archeological find in the Americas that substantiates Laminites and Nephites where all over the world there are finds such as the Egyptian civilization that go back thousands of years. In the BOM JS wrote about massive civilizations with massive wars where millions died...no bones, no weapons, no poetry, jewelry, no nothing...Please explain this to us.
To my atheist friends: Unexplicable Claims are essential for religion. Every religion carries extraordinary claims and that's kind of the point. If they were usual, we would be in your boat going off the edge of the world. To point out every religious claim needs to be rejected based on absence of physical evidence is not original and futile. We know that. Followers still follow because Science hasn't provided an good alternative. For a world struggling on whether they are a boy or a girl you definitely have more important uses of your time in helping people understand what is right or wrong instead of stating obvious claims are not supported fully yet.
Reality has to match the claims. If the universe was eternal then that would disprove that God created the universe. But the universe had a beginning point therefore it shows that God creating the universe is possible. The problem is that Joseph couldn't keep his mouth shut and it exposed him as a fake. I mean you have the book of Abraham papyrus that proves this without a shadow of a doubt. What was in those scrolls have nothing to do with the book of Abraham. Instead they are just common book of the dead burial scrolls. You don't even have fragments that show anything about the book of Abraham. And nothing that matches JS claims has ever been found. If you use the well maybe the actual book of Abraham got burned excuse. It still won't help you because if that is the case the mathematical improbability that happening is insane. But even if you choose to hold on to that. We have Papyrus JSP-1 is the same one that Jospeh Smith has notes on. And nothing of what he said matches with what was on the papyrus. But even if you can ignore that somehow. The book of Abraham is written in a autobiographical style that never existed in the ancient world. Instead it became popular in the time Joseph Smith was alive. Its not that there isn't evidence to show if its true or not. Is that the evidence shows definitively he was a fraud.
@@alejandromartin8347 Oh my gosh you solved the case Sherlock. Joseph would have gotten away with it if it wasnt for you and your meddling dog too! You need to tell me how you did it. Please say you had a time machine, that you had all the original accounts took a picture of the scrolls and heard it from Joseph himself. What? At least tell me you have a published and undisputedly accepted article from a PHD in Egyptology that its wrong? What no again? Oh so you just looked at everything online and just regurgitated everything like some kind of academic bulimic. Oh man and here I thought you had the world's best coffee. Look at all the times you say never, nothing, improbable. People who speak in absolutes like that have no business to deal with an all powerful God and His prophets. They're much too smart for Him. Good luck with the next groundbreaking discovery though. Maybe you'll get someone to mindlessly believe you.
Where are the swords, the horses, the chariots, the wheat seeds, etc,etc,etc. You are totally unable to support evidence of the book of Mormon in total.
@@rockit3422 Amarth is a wheat analog found in central and south America. There is also evidence of palanquins in south America, which are called chariots in the Old Testament. Although no definitive proof of horses and elephants, at Book of Mormon times, in the last 20 years extinction dates have been revised from 100k bce, to 5k bce. Trending toward the possibility.
@@kennance115 That’s not true. Mormon “scholars” and the church itself has spent vast amounts attempting to prove the BOM accurate (true) with hard evidence. This evidence doesn’t exist so Mormon leaders tend to downplay the importance of searching for it. Sad.
@@rockit3422 The fact that their is no hard evidence of the book of mormon is concerning and hard to explain. Roman coins, relics, and construction has been discovered all over Europe and Great Britain. Some of the things didn't have to be discovered because they just stayed in the same place, like the Colosseum. Also you have to wonder what happened to the horses. It seems to me the Laminates would have had horses before America was discovered by Europeans. If the Nephites had them then surely the Laminates would have stole a few. I think horses can survive pretty much on their own too. Where did all the those horses go? LDS scholars are pretty good when it comes to explaining things like this away. Since I was raised LDS I have to argue that there hasn't been any evidence found YET.
Hey I love the explanation given. I wanted to add another possibility to explain why the Native American DNA is closer the Asian than Middle Eastern. One thing we need to keep in mind is Lehi and his family were of the Tribe of Manassah, while the majority of the Israelites we know of today are of one three tribes that of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as the other 10 had separated into the Kingdom of Israel and then were scattered. Where were they scattered to? It's not clear exactly where each tribe ended up but it is likely that many of the Tribe of Manassah ended up in Asia. Granted this is just a thought and I am no scientist so I couldn't even come close to saying how likely that is, but it could be that the genetic markers that survived in the America's had also be incorporated into Asia by other members of the same tribe who were scattered. Another thing to keep in mind that even the Kingdom of Judah was eventually scattered, and they mingled with the Europeans and could have diluted their own DNA during that scattering thus changing their own DNA which could lead to greater differences. Like you said there are too many factors to be certain as to what actually happened.
@Richard Nelson, here's another vid with a bit of info to check out. There actually ARE similarities between between Israelites and certain Native American populations, including maternal haplogroup x (x2). th-cam.com/video/5pgZbsNqurc/w-d-xo.html
Apologists are just people who defend their own doctrine. Atheists defend their doubt in God and Creationists defend expectations in God. If Atheists and Creationists went back and forth with the promotion of doctrine and objection of evidence then they are both apologizing in their own defense. Everyone that responds to backlash is an Apologist. If you reply to me right now then you are an Apologist. Nobody should be embarrassed in this situation.
Ouch dude! DNA changes BUT no where on a level where a linage disappears... WRONG dude, wrong! Geneticists can identify DNA from markers and see WHEN changes happened and when, NOT lose the linage decent. Only ONE band of Natives carry middle eastern DNA, the Cherokee and it’s shown they are not pure Native from the ice bridge migrations BUT due to mixing
I am not Mormon. But here's my take. When God gave the Lamanites a dark skin it wasn't just a sun tan; it was a DNA change. Hence no "Jewishness" remained.
Thanks for being respectful in voicing your opinion. I think your idea is interesting. I've def thought about this idea before glad to know others think similar haha
@@jamestaylor1975 I think there is evidence, but no matter what physical evidence is presented to a skeptic, it will never convince him. Spiritual things cannot be discerned by physical evidence only. Only faith and prayer, and the power of the Holy Ghost can change a persons heart and thinking. I will give you some evidence though to prove a point, and I know despite what I tell you, it probably won't make a difference in your thinking. ---- The "ah" connection. The ah or aih sound is a characteristic of the Hebrew language. For instance: Isaiah, Noah, Methuselah, Zedekiah, Elijah, Elisha, Sarah, Leah, Dinah, Judah, Hannah. etc. Now, let's look at Book of Mormon names: Mosiah, Zarahemnah, Amalekiah, Cumorah, Ramah, Cumenihah, Zemnarihah, Onidah. etc. Do you really think Joseph Smith knew that? Now lets look at Heartland Native American names: Shoukakihegah, Ladokeah, Talacooshcroomah, Ompahtonnggah, Mawdnessah, Lolocktohoolah, Rawnowaywawkah, Ahonhwatha, And some words where modern spelling dropped the h at the end but the sound remained: Tallapoosa, Coosada, Talladega, Utica, Seneca, Oneonta, Palmyra, Onandaga, Tuscarora, Cayuga, Seneca, Chippewa. Ah, ah, ah sound in all of them. Here's an interesting one The Oneida tribe. Nearly the same as the Book of Mormon Onidah. There is some pretty convincing linguistic evidence. Does it make a difference to you now?..... I doubt it. We haven't even covered the whole Chiasmus thing, showing parallels from the Bible and Book of Mormon.
Fantastic video! The naysayers raised the DNA issue, now they gripe because their evidence against the Book of Mormon has gone up in smoke. Now they gripe and make it sound as though we're the ones who brought up the DNA issue. We aren't.
Our critics raised the DNA issue. Not us. If we go to Mesoamerica and take random samples, they can neither prove nor disprove the existence of Nephites. Our critics said DNA disproved the existence of of Nephites and Lamanites. They are wrong. As for evidence, if the Book of Mormon is false, certainly it could be proven false. That it can't is certainly evidence in its favor. Cities, no snow or ice mentioned, cement, roads, Nephite armor, a writing system that starts many sentences with "and it came to pass" (Mayans had a glyph that began sentences with, "and it came to pass."), swords of wood and stone that could cut a horse's head off and many other things (including a city buried in lake as described in the Book of Mormon and presently there is evidence of pre-Columbian horses and barley. You can say there's no evidence ago you want, but those of us who believe in the BofM aren't winging our hands over it. Even the way the Mayans waged war is similar to that of the Nephites. And Dan Peterson has even drawn similarities between the Gadiantons and communist guerrillas, in how they seize and hold territory, and the problems in doing so. Joseph Smith had no knowledge of these things. If he wrote the Book of Mormon, how could he have read all those pages while starring into a dark hat? We don't benefit at all whether you believe us or not. It doesn't benefit us or harm us at all in the eternities. The only one you harm, sir, is yourself. The fact that there's no proof isn't up to us. But you can't say there's no evidence. You're just plain wrong.
Not Hebrew, that cannot be determined. Just DNA from the middle east area as well as Europe. Also when you say Mound builders you should say Algonquian peoples known by archeologists as the Hopewell.
The DNA of the Jews, the Palestinians & Samaritans was very strongly preserved even though scattered among many cultures for 2,000 years! Joseph's D&C revelations as to missionaries to the Lamanites, specifically say they are in Missouri.
1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:
Didn't they cross the ocean in some kind of a submarine? That's the story I recall. If so why do you depict a sailing ship crossing the ocean. You dream up all kinds of specious explanations. I would love to watch you debate a legitimate archaeologist who hasn't a master to serve like you do.
If they were there why are none of the cities names in the record or written on temples that say the names of those places and why no people named the names of nephites and lamanites anywhere until present day Mormon names were given
Here's an interesting thought. If you want to present this as science there's an important step that's often missed. If you're wrong and Lehi and his family never existed house would you know? What data would be sufficient to falsify your claim? An unfalsifiable claim is indistinguishable from being wrong.
This video certainly does not attempt to prove the existence of Lehi and his family. It only points out the pretty huge flaws in what many people think is a 'smoking gun' to the validity of the Book of Mormon. It's true, an unfalsifiable claim may indeed still be wrong, but it doesn't mean it _is_ wrong. The same idea applies to countless religious principles. The claim that God exists would also be an unfalsifiable claim. Or that Moses spoke to a burning bush. Or that Jesus Christ was resurrected. This is a principle that every religion has to grapple with.
@@stelladavis7832 "You mean this video isn't trying to prove Lehi and his family existed?" I believe they really existed, but I do not attempt to use DNA evidence to try to prove they existed, as mentioned in the video. I just consider myself a regular Latter-day Saint. You can call me apologist if you'd like. Is there a chance they did not exist? Let me put it this way: I believe they existed, I don't _know_ they existed. Implicit in faith is the possibility of being in error. That's something that all people of faith have to learn to be OK with. I agree, DNA research can neither conclusively confirm not deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, those that I'd say are biased against our faith have done their best to portray the research as if it does disprove the Book of Mormon. This video was simply meant to counter that assumption with solid scientific principles. Interesting suggestions in your last sentence. That could be really cool.
@@davidsnell2605 I agree David. Applying that to where exactly the Book of Mormon took place is the same dilemma. There are theories you can support different models with, but no way to know definitively, because so much has been lost to time and events. Exactly where it took place, is not as important as that it took place. I am most comfortable however, with the Heartland model myself, when imagining where it took place when reading the Book of Mormon. However, those that imagine it was Central America is fine too. It doesn't effect ones testimony either way.
@@davidsnell2605 here's the crux of my issue. I think it is a best practice to withhold belief until something is demonstrated to be true. And then to only proceed with caution at all times acknowledging you could be wrong. Brushing off criticism does not make an assertion more true. At the core of every religious belief I seem to always find some logical fallacy. The argument from personal experience fallacy Post hoc fallacy Arguments from ignorance or incredulity And others. You're right. These fallacies don't mean a person is wrong. It just means I can't be confident their right. If someone could demonstrate all these claims to be true I would definitely believe it. want believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I am not convinced ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America, refined steel, had massive populations, industrialized the continent, had and used domesticated horses, honeybees, cattle, wheat, etc. Long long before they were introduced to the Americas ( and in the case of steel refined it long before it was refined anywhere else in the world) demonstrated supernatural abilities fundamentally altering the laws of physics. If all this were the case and the evidence supported it to a high degree it would be scientific consensus. But it isn't. Because it doesn't. It may in the future and that would certainly be interesting. But for now I find lehi and his family and the ancient American Jews innocent of having ever existed.
@@jessibell-pj8dx And I certainly respect your perspective. We can talk about supposed anachronisms (planning on doing a video about these) and other topics forever but you're right in that religion fundamentally cannot prove its tenets to be true. We're circling back around to the age-old battle between belief and knowledge, which, as you said, certainly is the crux of the issue. I believe many things I do not know. You do not believe in anything that cannot be proven to be true. I think there are pros and cons to both philosophies. But either way, I wish you all the best with the philosophy you find most useful.
I’m sorry, you don’t know what DNA you should be looking for? What? That isn’t a problem is current genetic testing when finding descendants of ancient peoples, especially those like the Ancient Israelites who were so closely homogenous and where marrying other ethnicities was taboo. National Geographic was able to find the modern descendents of the Canaanites, a much older people, in modern day Lebanon without issue. I don’t know about other factors but not knowing “Israelite DNA” is a huge reach.
Anthropologist Thomas Murphy, Ph.D. has credibility when he speaks concerning Native American DNA markers. His ancestry links to Native Americans and has done decades of research concerning the supposedly link between the Lamanites and Native Americans. Interestingly enough though the evidence he has found disagrees with the Book of Mormon, he would like to be part of a reformed Mormon church. Not sure what he totally means by that but it would be hard to try to refute his findings on this DNA evidence. This interview is lengthy but worth the time watching if you're truly interested in this subject. Here is the link: @t
I trust the findings of Thomas Murphy and others like him because I have done my DNA research. They know what they are talking about. I did not base my decision about the church on DNA alone, but on many different factors after loads of research. I think that true believing members of the church should consider regarding the Book of Mormon as an allegory delivering lots of truth. The Catholic church now regards some of the Bible stories as allegorical. The same truth is delivered whether literal or not.
The only place mentioned in the book of mormon is the hill of cummorah. Which means there must be a city land and waters of cummorah. Trust me on this... All book of mormon lands suggest this disruption... But where in the world is the chief city of cummorah
I watch many videos of attempts to support the book of Mormon as legit. Yours are by far the best, however it's still grasping at air. The old and new testaments are used for archaeology and if the book of Mormon were true, it would be used for archaeology. It isn't because it isn't.
Do the math. A Native American has a significantly higher probability of having Jaredite DNA as opposed to Lamanite DNA. Where did the Jaredites come from? Best guess is somewhere in the Mesopotamia valley, which is Western Asia. They were not Semitic as were the family of Lehi and the Mulekites. They started out in greater numbers and were in the Western Hemisphere between 2000-3000 years before Lehi showed up. Keep in mind also that so little scientific evidence of the origin of Native Americans was available in the 19th century. A lot of proclamations even by Joseph Smith were speculative. He was not infallible. If you want an infallible religious leader, so they say, look to the Catholic church.
What's the point of having a prophet if their claims aren't infallible? I thought the purpose of having a prophet was to disambiguate doctrine, and raising speculation is quite counter productive to this. Surely an omniscient deity would have better sense than to allow his ordained spokesperson to unwittingly preach false doctrine.
But if the Book of Mormon were actually true, there wouldnt be just DNA from Lehi and Sariah. There is Lehi, Sariah, Zorom, Ishmael, Ishmael's wife, Mulek, mulek's wife, Jared, his wife, and his other followers. And many supposedly joined the Lamanites.
I truly hope these videos find wider circulation amongst Latter Day Saints.
It's invaluable in today's secular culture for members to be informed about the more controversial/ complex issues relating to church history, doctrine, or practice. Infact, I would argue that in order to be more effective missionaries (and to show that we have nothing to fear/ hide) we should be more familiar with them than our critics. Your videos are one of the best resources I've seen in this regard.
Excellent work guys!!!
Ethan F. in general I agree, but so much more powerful when the BOM is placed in the right national boundaries.
It took the LDS church till the 1970s to give black people a right to be preachers when the people in the Book of Mormon come from the Middle East so they most likely had dark skin and Jesus himself had darkskin. Also the polygamy and how Joseph smith lied and had others lie for him about the polygamy. And the how the book of Abraham was translated from the book of breathings and the book of the dead that has 0 mention of Abraham
Okay but what you're missing is Joseph Smith himself... knowing nothing about genetics.. claimed that the native Americans were descendents of the Lamanites!! He was just straight up wrong. The mental gymnastics involved is truly incredible...
There is actually Middle Eastern DNA among Native Americans. I'm a little surprised David missed this but Middle Eastern DNA is the only other DNA, besides East Asian, that exists among native Americans. At least, as far as we know today.
@@loudogg73 No... Firstly, what you mean by "Middle Eastern DNA" (which doesn't exist) is that the DNA of the Native American's shared some, very limited, genetic markers that of the Middle East. Not only do the Siberian groups that Native Americans are most closely related to also have these genetic markers, Europeans did too. The Native Americans have no more connection to the middle east than they do western Europe. These people all lived on the same continent and intermingled accordingly.
@@loudogg73 Also keep in mind that general middle eastern genetic markers exist among all humans, after all life originated there. The Book of Mormon doesn't claim that the Native Americans are decendents of Middle Easterners, it claims they're the decendents of Jews.... Jewish genetics, that is the genetics of the Levant, are distinct from those of the wider west asian area. The claim that there is Middle Eastern DNA among Native Americans has a grain of truth, but there is not Jewish blood in the Native Americans...
@@myles6235 If we are going to get granular about it, the Lehites aren't actually Jewish either. Hebrew is probably more accurate. In any case, when I say middle eastern dna, I'm talking about genetic markers closely associated with the ancient near east/middle east. Specifically, X6, X7, and X2 haplotypes found in the Americas (quite significantly among certain tribes) which root in the X haplogroup most prominent in and native to the ancient near east. Interestingly, it's also non existent in East Asia (as far as we've found).
@@loudogg73 This is a gross misunderstanding, I'm not sure where you found this information. These haplotypes are found in East Asia, specifically the X2. It is relatively rare, but certainly common enough to appear in both Ojibwa and Navajo geneology. Native American geneology is overwhelming similar to Siberia, not the Middle East.
There is no evidence in genelogy that suggests even a subgroup of Native Americans were decendent from ancient Jews and no evidence that people from the Levant ever journied to the Americas.
None of this changes the fact that there isn’t any direct evidence of anything in the Book of Mormon actually happening. At best you’re explaining why your hypothesis is still a hypothesis. The evidence you haven’t found yet is not evidence of anything, it’s just an assertion and/or a belief.
Yeah you're right, there really isn't any possible way to completely prove that the Book of Mormon is true. There is plenty of evidence for it (and against it) and it's up to us to decide. That's where faith comes in. Faith is a fundamental part of every religion and to some that may seem stupid, blind, or gullible, but to those that have experienced it, it is something much greater. Faith is a hope and a belief in things that we don't fully know, but that we hope to be true. No matter how much evidence we have, it will still always be a hope. However, we believe that God can strengthen that hope as we continually have faith in him. You can think what every you want, and people can find as much evidence as they can, but in reality, it is only by faith that we can know the truth.
This channel made a really good video about faith that you may want to check out too.
Actually there is proof
@@Hpencer exactly
If God wished to prove it, he would. Just as if God wished to prove Christ’s resurrection, he would. There is adequate internal and external evidence to believe but not so much that God would have to condemn the unbeliever so harshly. Same reason Christ taught in parables.
@@calebjenkins3215 You said, "...but in reality, it is only by faith that we can know the truth".
If faith, not evidence, is ultimately how someone "can know the truth", then every other religion in the world outside of the LDS Church is just as true as the LDS Church because the followers/members of those religions have just as much, if not more, faith in the truthfulness of their religion as members of the LDS Church have in theirs.
Believing something is true and/or exercising faith that something is true has no bearing on whether it is actually true. My kids believe that Santa Clause, his flying reindeer, and his toy making elves are all real and all live in the North Pole. They exercise faith in their belief by trying to be good throughout the year, writing letters to Santa asking for specific gifts they desire, and going to bed on time on Christmas Eve so that he will come to deliver their presents. They experience positive emotions and good feelings when they exercise faith in their belief. My kids can even point to "evidence" that supports their belief that Santa is real. Does their “evidence” prove that Santa, his elves, and his flying reindeer really do exist? No. Their “evidence” just supports their belief that it is all real. Do they benefit from that belief? I believe they do benefit to some degree at this point in their lives. However, one day, they will begin to apply critical thinking skills to that belief and realize that reindeer can’t fly, Santa can’t deliver presents to all the children of the world in a single night, toy making elves don’t exist, and none of them live in the North Pole. And, despite the fact that they benefited from their belief in Santa for a period in their lives and their belief helped produce positive emotions/good feelings for them, they will outgrow that false belief when it no longer benefits them.
I remember when I was in first grade, in 1982, that my teacher asked the class if we knew which genetic markers were found in the American Indigenous population. She said it contained that of the Jews. She wasn't LDS, nor did she know about the heritage of the Book of Mormon (I believe, I was only 6 years old). I have often wondered where she got that information from.
Well this just isn't right, she got wrong information. Did you watch this video? There are no DNA marks that middle eastern people ever were there.
I was watching a western on TV , can’t remember the name . In the story a new hand is coming onto this ranch. The owner is telling him things about the ranch , then he introduces his Indian hand and states he , the Indian, “thinks he’s an Israelite .” I was so surprised to hear that in a movie.
Maybe it’s stories handed down the generations because the Indians didn’t write events down. I found it interesting , that bits of truth are revealed somehow .
Gregorio García (an Spaniard colonizer) wrote some books about the similarities in appearance, custom (including idolatry) and language (including the frequency of glottals) that the lost tribes of Israel travelled to the Americas alongside other migrations.
Also, García asserted that "Mex-" in "Mexico" was based on the Hebrew term "Messiah".
García argued that circumcision was common among indigenous peoples of the Americas, particularly in the Yucatán and Cuba.
@@Irvingdector Mexico is a nahuatl word.
She probably heard it in a Bob Marley song 🎶 😊
Is it possible that the knowledge that the American Indians came from Siberia was just not known the the people of Joseph Smith's time, and so Joseph Smith just made the whole story up of American Indians being the descendants of ancient Israelites? Is it at all possible?
The problem with these theories in this video is that they do not take into account the possibility of taking DNA from the remains of individuals. This video makes it sound like that it has only focused on the genetics from living populations. We have seen some of the traits that he mentioned in the archaeological record, but there is absolutely no evidence for genetic linkage from archaeological DNA that had been recovered. We have a sizable amount now to make certain predictions. To those who say 'well, there is still some out there that we have not found' when will it be enough to show there there is no connection? In all, this video does not really explain anything.
Because there is a minuscule connection if there’s any connection at all. In short, the Book of Mormon is fiction. And I’m not saying that to be a hater. I wanted the church to be true so badly. But I can’t ignore facts. If the church is going to claim the BoM is historical when it demonstrably isn’t, I’m not going to devote my life to it.
Not so-th-cam.com/video/5pgZbsNqurc/w-d-xo.html
As with a ton of videos from this channel
Trying to match DNA is pretty pointless when you consider that Lehi wasn't even a Jew strictly - he was of the tribe of Manasseh - whose mother was the daughter of a priest in Egypt. And Egypt at that time was ruled by the Hyksos, whose origin is uncertain, but came from the north-east. Which btw would be Asia. We don't know Sariah's origins, or Ishmael's, and it would be foolish to make assumptions in light of the foregoing. DNA proves / disproves nothing.
Even they are not jew, they should look like like middle eastern people because the northern Israel people when they get destroyed they are scattered in nearby places like Turkey, IRAQ, IRAN ,LEBANON AND IN NORTHERN EUROPE and some of the tribes are in south Israel
The other two migration from the Book of Mormon were also Jewish people with Jewish DNA markers.
That seems disingenuous, and leave out that fact, does it not?
come back to church bro. cmon ur better than this
the Jaredites were neither jewish, or even hebrew.
@@tylerprice4415 ...Got some Bernie Madoff stock certificates for you, Bro...
They were from the tribe of Joseph actually. We do not have genetic markers from the Tribe of Joseph. The modern Jewish people descend from the Levites, Judah, and I believe either Dan or Benjamin but you have to look it up to check. The only genetic connection might be through Jacob, but we do not have Jacob's DNA and by now there would probably be too much genetic drift.
How come it went from the “principal” and now “among”? Why the word change?
Because we learn line upon line, precept upon precept.
The Principle ancestor comments where never in the BOM text.
The claim was written by contemporary apostles. And not everyone agreed among the 12 apostles even on this issue.
Regardless of this the Book is either true or false.
Based on my study and experience I happen to believe in its divine origin.
@@brettmajeske3525 You said, "Because we learn line upon line, precept upon precept."
Why make such a significant change in Mormon belief quietly? Most members don't even know it was changed unless someone points it out to them. Why not publicize the correction to all members so they know the truth? That truth that:
1) the church’s belief and teachings for more than 170+ years, that MOST, IF NOT ALL, of the American Indians are direct descendants of the BoM Lamanites is NOT true, and
2) that the church now believes and teaches that ONLY SOME American Indians are descended from the Lamanites of the BoM, despite lack of DNA evidence to even support this new belief.
@@adamholloway7963 Well, for what it is worth, only the text of the Book of Mormon is considered scripture, the forward/explanation is merely commentary. Members do know there is a diversity of opinions among leaders. Different eras have different footnotes. I do not know any member over the age of 20 who isn't a complete idiot who doesn't understand that. So thanks for the Strawman argument.
@@brettmajeske3525 You said, "Well, for what it is worth, only the text of the Book of Mormon is considered scripture, the forward/explanation is merely commentary."
I didn't claim it wasn't. And, the teaching that most if not all Native Americans were descendants of the BoM Lamanites was not limited to the text in the Introduction of the BoM.
You said, "Members do know there is a diversity of opinions among leaders."
I didn't claim they don't.
You said, "Different eras have different footnotes."
I didn't claim they don't.
You said, "I do not know any member over the age of 20 who isn't a complete idiot who doesn't understand that.."
I didn't make that claim.
You said, "So thanks for the Strawman argument."
What strawman argument? Please point out the "strawman argument" that you claim I made. Based on your reply, you don't seem to understand what I said in my comment.
Why did the Church not tell us this until the DNA studies came out? You would think they would have revelation that would clarify this.
Because Mormonism is a lie and the longer you go along with it, the more they can fleece you.
I would also recommend the video "*What can DNA tests really tell us about ancestry*". The video isn't talking about this issue specifically but it shows the problems posed with trying to find out a persons ancestry and how it isn't the most reliable to find out a person's ancestry.
I do concede that genetic research is tentative and has a long way to go. However, I also find genetics to be far more consistent and reliable in the effort of investigating genealogy than the unsubstantiated claims of a 19th century proselytizer.
So these Genetics drift happened within a short hundred of years. Sounds like fiction
The responsibility of evidence lies on the people making a claim. Not the ones criticizing the claim. Mormons claim many things but cannot provide reliable evidence to back up their claims.
To say, “well you can’t disprove my theory, so it must be true!” is a poor argument.
To go along with the point of not knowing what DNA to look for, it should be pointed out that Lehi and his family were trying to escape a "bottleneck" event by flirting from the Babylonian conquest. Given that between the departure of Lehi from Jerusalem and the new testament, Jerusalem was conquered by Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome, all of which conquests were probably bottleneck events (or at the very least would have been major dilutions of the genre pool). I would speculate that the DNA of those living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' ministry probably didn't really match up that well with the DNA of the ancient Jews of the Old Testament either.
The skittles theory is as confusing as the trinity 😂
This is all fine, and props on the explanation of pretty complex genetic concepts. However, the entire premise is backwards. The book of Mormon makes many extraordinary claims, and those claims require extraordinary proofs. Proving a negative doesn't follow logic. The only conclusion that can be reached from current evidence is that there is currently no proof that the events in the Book of Mormon took place. Until further proof is found, the claims are rejected.
The video's claim was not about providing an historic proof, but the refutation of an objection, which is logically permissible. I would also differentiate between insufficient proof and no proof.
Best comment on here!
To my atheist friends: Unexplicable Claims are essential for religion. Every religion carries extraordinary claims and that's kind of the point. If they were usual, we would be in your boat going off the edge of the world. To point out every religious claim needs to be rejected based on absence of physical evidence is not original and futile. We know that. Followers still follow because Science hasn't provided an good alternative. For a world struggling on whether they are a boy or a girl you definitely have more important uses of your time in helping people understand what is right or wrong instead of stating obvious claims are not supported fully yet.
@@brettmajeske3525 All of the "insuficiant proof" is proof that the BoM is fiction.
Looking for "extraordinary proofs" is simply not the way science gathers evidence, no matter how often atheists demand it. If we simply have enough "ordinary evidence", then a premise can be supported. In this case, however, the evidence is greatly lacking, and the most logical conclusion should be accepted.
What happened to all the structures, weapons,tools,human bones and all other things that would have been left behind from the book of Mormon stories? Why hasn't anyone found a single thing in the Americas ...
As usual a very good instructional video on this subject. I have my own admittedly very unique theory of the Lamanites. We have very little history of them early on, but do hear of their skin turning dark. I think it is plausible that that portion of Lehi's family came in direct contact with native peoples and combined with them. They did not understand genetics, but only described what they saw.
I would encourage you to read what the Bible says about false gospels.God bless
@@mirandahopkins3676 Odd that you throw this statement in here that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It must mean a lot to you.
I assume this is the scripture you speak of…
Galatians 1: 8, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” I hope you can see that this statement begs the question: What gospel is Paul talking about? Who, if anyone, has the wrong gospel? First of all, I think it is significant to realize that the gospel is already being distorted so soon after Christ’s death.
So what IS the gospel? Well, what did Jesus and the apostles teach in the Bible? They taught many things, but the basics of the gospel that they taught are faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end. This is the gospel.
Jesus gives it well in the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi, “This is my gospel… that I came into the world… that I might be lifted up upon the cross… that I might draw all men unto me… that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled, if he endureth to the end, behold him will I hold guiltless before my Father.”
This is the gospel I believe. What is yours?
@@dkbradshaw Mormons believe blacks weren't allowed the priesthood because of Ham seeing his fathers nakednes. So they believe that his sin was passed down to Hams decendents. Because Ham means black in Greek they believe Ham to be black person(ME TOO). So his son Canaan was chose as the descendent that was punished. Because his father Ham is called black , that should mean all blacks come from Canaan. Problem with this theory is Ham had 4 kids. So how can they say all blacks were denied when all blacks didn't come from Canaan. How did the Mormons decide which blacks came from Canaan and which blacks came from the other 3 children. They didn't, they just said all blacks can't recieve it because of the curse. But the curse was only for Canaan's decendents. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
@@johnfonua I hope this helps you out... th-cam.com/video/KvWPmLLV3Jw/w-d-xo.html
In my mind, the history you describe is irrelevant. The reason for the ban, whether because of racism or ignorance does not matter either, but I believe it WAS meant to be. It was a stumbling block (as was polygamy) to the casual believer, and racism was still a problem, not just for the LDS, but all faiths. I hope you will check out the link--very informative.
@@johnfonua Mostly this is a straw man, neither LDS scriptures nor Brigham Young used the rationality you claim. I think you are confusing LDS with Southern Baptists and Methodists who promoted the curse of Ham justification for slavery.
Frankly the policy was not well explained or understood. Brigham did not establish any formal rules, just refused to ordain some without any official policy. After that it was basically a matter of tradition. Some local Bishops did continue to ordain some African-Americans to the Aaronic priesthood until 1908.
Even then that practice only applied to Africans. Other dark skinned groups, such as those from India or south pacific never had any kind of priesthood restriction. Mauri were ordained as Bishops during Brigham Young's lifetime.
Nobody outside of Mormonism believes any of the people described in the book ever existed. I don't mean the specific characters named in the book. I mean the tribes or groups written about; Lamanites, Nephites and Jaredites. We know that Hebrews existed, yet most people do not believe in Judaism. So the most basic foundational aspect of the Mormon religion, even before we tackle the supernatural claims cannot even hold up. There is no real world foundation for this religion to stand on, because the groups described in their most sacred book are fiction and totally made up
As you know, anything not 100% proven, can be made up. So of course it can't "hold up". Dinosaurs existing, holds up, even if we haven't seen one. (in the traditional sense of what a dinosaur is). That's because of the bones, of course. -- But no text or book about religion will ever hold up, until Jesus shows you himself. -- The point of a lot of these videos is reminding people that no one has been able to disprove anything about the LDS church, or even religion. Since you were not alive over 2000 years ago, you weren't there, and can't claim that the Laminates are totally made up. "but even still, since there's not enough evidence, it's probably made up, and that's good enough for me". Your presumed response (or rather, perhaps your presumed thoughts) is quite fallacious. -- Most people not believing in Judaism, therefore it's probably false, doesn't hold up to logic (and it's a typical stance of atheists). -- Science and religion will co-exist the way that we both want it to, at the right time. "I don't want religion to co-exist with science". This can't be true, or you never would've been born. "Prove this claim". I cannot, and it won't hold up if i try. "You sure are making a lot of 'absolute statements', and assuming a lot. That is fallacious, in and of itself". Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't need to matter.
Know one has been able to disprove anything about the LDS religion? Say what. Book of Abraham is not what it was once said to be. Now it is claimed it was not a direct translation. The fake kinderhook plates that Joseph Smith translated proven to be false. Lots of stuff about Joseph Smiths history. Church lying about removing plural marriage the first time. Just to name a few.
@@dark_winter8238 poor choice of words on my part. I meant, disprove anything about the church that would prove it to be a false religion. Of course things have been disproven, but mostly by the church itself. Like Joseph Smith sitting at the table clutching the golden plates, while reading the translations. Perhaps it was sugar coated, so it would help people believe it more. Sounds silly? Yes. But they knew that the stuff they sugar coated was true, and it didn't matter at the time. Obviously it matters now because of the internet.
I get what this videos saying but I wouldn’t want to believe on the Book of Mormon when everything requires such a stretch of what is likely.
No Middle Eastern DNA. No archaeological evidence.
No good reason why the BOM was translated into 16th century English during the 19th century of which it was transmitted. Why did the angel want the plates back even though he hadn’t needed them for the past 1800 years?
There may be ways to justify these points, but when every aspect requires this huge stretch of what ought to be expected, the odds of the BOM been true start to look similar to the odds of winning a life changing sum of money from a one dollar lottery ticket
Unfortunately for those who earnestly believe or just wish it were all true. You are objective and logical. Yeah, you make sense. No one could some it up any better than you just did.
The Book of Mormon states that the Jaredites and Mulekites went extinct before the arrival of Lehi's family, and 2 Nephi chapter 1 details that the promised land would be set apart exclusively for Lehi's family and their descendants. This principle was validated by multiple church leaders, notably Jeffery R Holland who stated: "The Promised Land was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of god's special purposes."
-A Promised Land, Ensign Magazine 1976
As such the theory that the Laminates intermingled with people who were already in the Americas is incompatible with LDS doctrine.
This is why I love LDS doctrine. You don't even need to look to external sources to prove it wrong, it proves itself wrong.
Well I would not call it doctrine, but an interpretation, Hugh Nibley has written extensively on the subject. The BoM never uses the word extinct or extinction, in matter of fact it specifically states that at least one jaredite joined the mulekites, and that several mulekites joined the nephites. A culture or political organization can be destroyed without meaning the extinction of every constitute member. And your Holland quote doesn't mean that purpose could not have involved other groups. Indeed Nephi talks about this being a choice land for whomever the Lord chooses.
Brett Majeske Brett Majeske Ok, even if we assume that some Jaredites/Mulekites survived, the Book of Mormon claims that they too are of middle eastern dissent. Given doctrinal confirmation that the Americas were uninhabited prior to the arrival of the Jaredites, there is no reason to believe that their genetic makeup would be significantly different from that of the Nephites when they arrived.
@@enigmaticvaran6597 First of all, what doctrinal confirmation? The Americas are a big place, the only thing one can reasonably assume is that there was no one else living in the location the Jaredite first settled. There could have been dozens of unknown peoples living in distant corners at the same time. Or not, there is really no way to know.
As for Jaredites being what we would consider middle eastern, do you know where the Tower of Babel was located? I do not, although most guess somewhere in eastern Iraq or Iran. The claim of the BoM is that the Jaredites came over 2-3000 BCE. Their described journey is travelling east for several years until they reached the sea, where they built boats to take them to the Americas.
We have no understanding of of their ethno-cultural make up. Oliver Cowdry thought they were descendants of Ham not Shem. Hugh Nibley thought they might have been partly Asiatic, given that their described journey would have taken them to parts of modern Asia.
We know even less about the Mulekite genetic make up. One of the big problems with DNA analysis is we don't know for what we are looking. We do not have a claimed route for the Mulekite journey, so we can not make any reasonable assumptions about whom they may have intermingled.
The time scale alone complicates things. Genetic researchers look at statistical models based on current DNA patterns and then project backwards based on assumptions of migratory patterns. The father back in time one looks, the less accurate the modeling becomes.
We do not even know what to look for with regards to Lehi and company. The BoM describes them as an ethnic minority descending from the tribe of Mannasa, not Juda. We do not know what differences may exist. There are no data bases for any of the Israelite tribes other than Juda and Levi.
I agree DNA evidence fails to provide dispositive proof in favor of the BoM, but that is a long way from actually disproving either.
Brett Majeske
Doctrinal confirmation that the Americas were literally uninhabited when the Jaredites arrived: The Great flood. The church accepts the literal interpretation of the Great flood story as doctrine. We know this for the following reasons: For one thing, the annotations provided in their print of the King James Bible as well as the Book of Moses. For example, The prelude to Genesis 7 reads "...The Flood comes, and water covers the WHOLE earth- ALL OTHER LIFE THAT BREATHES IS DESTROYED." If this were false doctrine, surely your church leaders would have objected to these annotations considering they are blessed with revelation and discernment. Further more, there is at least one article on the church's official website that defends the literal interpretation.
Going back on that quote by Jeffery Holland, allow me to provide more of it:
"Holy scripture records that after the waters [of the flood] had receded from off the face of the earth of this land, it became a choice land... ...to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler... ...without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of god's purposes... ...The Lord began almost at once to repelled the promised land. The Jaredites came FIRST..."
But could people have colonized the Americas between the great flood and the Jaredites? Not according to Jeffery Holland, a general authority alledgely blessed with the gifts of revelation and discernment. But if those credentials don't satisfy you, here's a secular argument: Given the genealogy provided by the Book of Genesis, researchers determined the construction of the Tower of Babel would have taken place roughly one century after the flood (See Genesis 10 and 11). Hardly enough time for the genome of Noah and his descendants to have evolved into an entirely different ethnicity.
So, given the church accepts the literal interpretation of the flood and the timeline required by the scriptures, we have doctrinal confirmation that there can't have been any people present in the Americas when the Jaredites arrived.
The Tower of Babel: I don't believe the Tower of Babel existed in the first place, but for our purposes we'll go off of what was likely Joseph Smith's understanding. The Book of Genesis, the source from which Christianity and by extension Joseph Smith derived the Tower of Babel in the first place, describes the tower as having been built in the land of Shinar. Shinar is essentially Mesopotamia, which is historically located in The Middle East. So yes, to the understanding of Joseph Smith and his peers, people who would have lived there including the alleged Jaredites were Middle-eastern.
The Mulekites: The church has posted an article on their official website that was featured in the 1987 ensign which details the implicit Middle-Eastern origins of the Mulekites, link provided below. If the church is confident enough to post and maintain its claims on their official website, it is safe to say they currently accept this interpretation as their official stance.
www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/03/the-mulekites?lang=eng
Hugh Nibley: I've only read snippets of his writings, but from what little I have read and what you're describing, his apologietics seem lacking in empirical data and rely largely on speculation to fill the gaps. Nibley's strategy for justifying belief in the Book of Mormon in the abscence of DNA evidence is to ambiguate the church's claims and suggest that they are open to interpretation. However, contrary to his efforts, the church does have official stances on some of these issues as detailed by their official website and general authorities. Weighing his speculatory apologetics against your church's official stances, I vote in favor of your church's official stances.
DNA can't disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon: this is true, as given the absence of relevant data it is a negative claim. But by this standard, we might as well speculate that unicorns once roamed the earth because their existence cannot be disproven either.
@@enigmaticvaran6597 Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this thread, You Tube dropped the ball alerting me to your response.
You seem to be operating under a number of misunderstandings. The beliefs of a single Apostle is not enough to qualify his opinion as official doctrine. Indeed there are some Apostles who view the story of Noah as literal, others who suscribe to a more figurative view. This difference in opinion goes back at least until the open debates between B.H. Roberts and Joseph F Smith over a hundred years. Yes Holland is a JFS loyalist, (not surprising as he is a great-grandson), others like Eyring and Nelson belong to the Roberts camp. The Church has no official stance regarding the matter. Whether literal or figurative, it is the lessons taught that matter to us today. As for Hugh Nibley, he was a linguist, and mostly stuck to his field of expertise. He relied on linguistic and literary evidences.
Well yes, the Mulekites were certainly of Middle Eastern origins, we do not know their route and what other people may have mixed during their journey.
God is never going to show where the Book of Mormon people lived. We have to live by faith.
That is not a Biblical interpretation for faith. Faith is not without a reason to place your faith in it. Jesus calls himself a firm foundation for a reason.
@@stelladavis7832 can you quote the whole passage. If you do that you will see that seeing is not the only form of evidence.
Mathew7:15¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
That is not blind faith at all. So the question stands. What was Joseph's fruit like?
I’ve basically told people the same thing, but not is such great detail. Great video.
As a native American myself, how do you expect me to believe this? My skin is a result of sin of my ancestors? How could any person with a darker complexion believe that.
If God has created and engineered the body .... He can modify it as He sees fit. Also, we are all living with bodies that are the result of the sin of our ancestors.
Don't believe it because it isn't true.
It’s not true like they’re saying. You have regular dna from both parents, and mitochondrial dna from your mama. Think of it like invisible chains in your mitochondrial dna. Genetics. It gets passed down. They did know about that way back then. They did start changing it in populations. Study Ireland a bit. It connects to all this. Look online with Library of Congress. If you research any religious books, look at it in a scientific/genetic way. When you do that, the books tell you. How do you break the chains? Choice. The universe will take care of the signal/frequency. You can’t keep a bird caged forever. Can you think of anything mainstream that is an effort to get every single person in the whole world in on it? Adds more chains. We’re all dealing with it. We’re all in the same boat. But as a native American, be proud. Your culture and the ways are super important to this world. ❤️
1nefi 12:23 👨🏿🦲👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
These people will believe anything to support an idiotic religion that has no truth claims. They are seriously blinded in they’re sin. They can’t even fathom science bc it doesn’t support anything the bom claims. Like this guys in the video’s seriously delusional.
Nice job - I think we're both mostly on the same page here. The scientific process doesn't claim to prove anything at 100%, so you're right that DNA evidence hasn't "proved" the BoM false. But to reiterate, we are finding mounting genetic evidence (though not proof) that the stories in the BoM aren't likely true, and we are not finding any genetic evidence that supports the claim that the BoM is true. Sure, it's possible that no genetic relations of Lehi were included in the DNA testing done so far. Sure, it's possible that Lehi was a genetically Asian Jew from Jerusalem. *Or*, perhaps the Book of Mormon isn't as historically accurate as your faith leads you to believe. Which is a more reliable path to uncovering historical truth? Evidence, or faith?
@@optulent4041 There's a lot of content on that site for a lot of different topics, and I didn't see a clear 'evidence' section. Can you point me toward what you think is the strongest supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon?
@@kenhilker2507 - One DNA used to condemn the Book of Mormon is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Only women pass mtDNA to their children. All of us inherited our mtDNA from our mothers. The other genetic marker being used is the Y-chromosome (Y-chr), which is passed by men to their sons.
Tom Murphy, Simon Southerton, and others claim the Book of Mormon is false because neither Middle East mtDNA nor Y-chr has been found among the American Indians.
Here are a few reasons for that. Lehi and his family of no more than 40 individuals sailed into an area already populated by tens of thousands of people. They intermarried with the natives, and their mtDNA and Y-chr disappeared within a few generations.
Another reason would be that after the arrival of Europeans in 1492, the native population of 100 million was drastically reduced by warfare and disease. In the National Geographic video "America Before Columbus," Professor Andrew Isenburg of Temple University said that upwards of 90% of the Indians died within 50 years. Entire villages and tribes vanished. That means that all DNA tests performed today would be on the descendants of the 10 or 20 percent who survived. That is not a very accurate sampling. Also, many tribes have refused to participate in any genetic database tests.
My final reason is the unreliability of mtDNA and Y-chr. Our second daughter married a man whose paternal line is Danish and whose maternal line is Japanese. They have a daughter and two sons. All three children have the mtDNA of their mother, which is my wife's mtDNA, which is from Sweden. The boys have their father's Y-chr, which is from Denmark. Using the same tests that Murphy and Southerton cite to support their argument, one can prove that those children have Swedish ancestry, and that the boys have Danish ancestry. But NO ONE can prove that they also have Japanese ancestry! If those tests cannot find any mtDNA from their Japanese grandmother, who is alive, how reliable are those tests in finding Israelite mtDNA or Y-chr from 2,600 years ago?
The lack of Japanese mtDNA in those children DOES NOT mean that they are not part Japanese! The lack of Israelite mtDNA or Y-chr in the surviving American Indians DOES NOT disprove the Book of Mormon! The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@@GaryKColeman
I think you need to go back and re read the book of mormon and get your facts straight about how much the land was populated and how much the New Jews landing from Israel affected the population over time according to the book of mormon. If the book of mormon is true it would be easy to find Native Americans with Jewish DNA
@@billyr9162 First, youtube did not alert me about your response. I only found it while checking another alert.
Why don't you explain how much the land was populated and how much 30 people affected the population? Can you tell us how it should "be easy to find Native Americans with Jewish DNA?
I stand by my comment. Can you show me where I'm wrong?
@@GaryKColeman
Doesn't say so in the book of mormon?
I don't remember the exact quote but I believe the book of mormon States that those 30 people populated the entire Americas.
The American Indians might be one of the most research group in American history. Certainly someone would find Jewish DNA in them.
What I realized just this morning is HOW are the American Indians ancestors to the people from the Book of Mormon when according to Moroni he was the LAST member to survive the last battle.
I am not Mormon but I have read the book and it says He was the last of the nephites not the lamenites. So all the nephites died out but lamenites continued on which is why he supposedly buried the gold plates so it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands
Yes. Short answer to the title? Yes. Book of Mormon is fiction.
Keep studying friends
Middle Eastern DNA does indeed show up in my own indigenous heritage. I have Mi'kmaq Canadian heritage through my grandmother, an Acadian Mi'kmaq. Yet, no "Mi'kmaq" DNA showed up in my DNA test of 2022. Instead, I had 1.3% Middle Eastern DNA and 0.9% MesoAmerican DNA. Can these results be any clearer?
Autosomal DNA tests can only really test ancestry for the last 200 years. DNA autosomal testing is best guesswork when it comes to ethnic origins which are not always so cut and dry with explanations.
*I'm a DNA genealogist so I know a few things about DNA
You probably almost certainly have some Hispanic heritage.
"Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Does no one even mention the big DNA change the Laminates went through the whole changed skin tone? I feel like that would also be a big factor.
Skin tone does not matter . The there are blacks who are albino.
As a latter day saint, I take issue with this whole theory about mixing with other non-Israelite races, especially considering that 90% of indigenous people were wiped out by Europeans. This would have to mean that either the vast majority of natives were in fact blood Israelites, or that the minority who were of Israelite decent by some miracle survived this mass genocide. I think the theory of genetic drift is much more fitting given the situation. The Book of Mormon clearly tells us it is a record written specifically to a Lamanite audience for the purpose of them knowing of the covenants which the Lord made with their fathers. Not only is there no mention of any mixing with other no-Israelites, but the narrative is pretty clear on there being no other civilizations present on the continent until the arrival of European colonizers. Personally, I don't see this as any cause for concern to any believing latter day saint, especially when there is no ancient Israelite DNA available for comparison and essentially no way of confirming or disproving any genetic Israelite origin. In my humble opinion, the argument only serves to cheapen the Book of Mormon's credibility.
mulikites were there when they showed up but the last were northward that met up with people of Limhi
All of the tests on Indians demonstrate "Asiatic." None of the DNA tests on Indians report Middle Eastern peoples = proof the BoM is fiction.
To be fair, nomadic native american groups wouldn't exactly be considered a civilization, and it's entirely too possible that the Nephites had no contact with these groups until after they had already integrated with Laman's family. After which they would be considered Lamanites as a blanket term by the Nephites.
@harry My bit about civilization is purely from the Nephite's perspective as it pertains to the text, I wasn't saying there were no native american civilizations at the time. The Americas are a big place and the Book of Mormon only describes a few interconnected city states. Heck, there could have been many civilizations they came in contact with that were simply omitted from Mornon's abridgement because it was of no spiritual significance.
The Lamanites were an otherwise completely native american group who inherited the hatred and jealousy of two lehite families that they intermarried with. The families of Laman and Lemuel (perhaps 12-20 individuals altogether) were a drop in the bucket compared with the preexisting population they joined.
The poor white native Americans were wiped out by white people 😔😔😔
Well said! Best candidates for Nephites were the Hopewell Indians (Algonquin) who populated the Heartland from 200 BC to 500 AD - Who shared Haplogroup X (middle eastern) DNA and experienced a sudden cultural decline.
Interesting theory. As per the video I'm personally very skeptical of 'DNA evidence' that attempts to either disprove or prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I think it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Rod Meldrum's theory was discredited by Ugo Perego, LDS geneticist.
Haplogroup x is one the critics try to avoid
“Ethiopian Semitic (also Ethio-Semitic, Ethiosemitic, Ethiopic or Abyssinian[1]) is a family of languages spoken in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan. They form the western branch of the South Semitic languages, itself a sub-branch of Semitic, part of the Afroasiatic language family.
With 21,811,600 total speakers as of 2007, including around 4,000,000 second language speakers, Amharic is the second-most common language of Ethiopia (after Oromo) and second-most commonly spoken Semitic language in the world (after Arabic).[2][3]. Tigrinya has 7 million speakers and is the most widely spoken language in Eritrea.”
I'm surprised you didn't mention haplogroup x. It is a halpogroup that is only present in populations from the middle east and north america.
David, you're my faves.
Faith is just that, believing without proof of existence. Having Faith is up to you, as an individual.
Dave's exhibiting some serious effort toward the rationalization of the irrational here!
So the biggest thing is only like 3% or 7% of all of that is even uncovered and I talked with the lady that I baptize my mission. She was actually at archaeologists that worked at Mesa community college and she didn’t know what it was till she actually got baptized and then went into the temple became a temple worker when she got told of me and she just couldn’t believe that she could see what was going on in the temples they had in the south Americas, and then Help would actually relate to even what we have because it was so similar she could see the different rooms, but no one talks about that because why?
Don't have to worry about genetics. Not all peoples in the americas, this hemisphere, will have any middle eastern DNA. When Lehi came to this hemisphere he and his family couldn't have mingled with all the population. When the latter day saints talk about anybody or people coming from a particular tribe of Isreal, it doesn't always mean direct bloodline or DNA. If a person or people aren't direct relation, DNA or bloodline, it means that those people or person will be of a particular tribe of Isreal through adoption. Adoption into one of the 12 tribes to be blessed spiritually through and by the abrahamic covenant. Thus one can be considered a reubenite, judahite, Ephraimite, etc. Keep this in mind with what this gentleman said. Also, DNA research, science, academic thought and research is human based, imperfect and always evolving and finding more and more truths and information. Nothing in this world is a closed case.
The book of Mormon teaches that God preserved the America's for his chosen people. Saying a huge majority of American ancestors were not part of God's chosen people still contradicts the BOM.
I feel like this whole channel might actually be the most clever way to lead people out
its done quite the opposite for me
at 5:10 gathering more accurate results are not going to turn around 180 degrees the previous findings with the very large amount of data collected so far.
Would you agree ?
One thing to point out is that many genetic studies are based on mitochondrial DNA. As far as the people of the BOM, we know virtually nothing about their mitochondrial DNA. The descendants of the Lehi migration will basically all have (as far as we know) mitochondrial DNA from Ishmael’s wife of which we know nothing about (anything anyone would say about it is pure speculation) and we forget about the Mulek migration of which we know virtually nothing about as well. In addition, the Mulekites were more numerous than the Nephites, which generally would mean they would have a sizable contribution.
Ironic you say to "be very skepitcal" with evidence AGAINST the Book of Mormon and not of it.
I'm neutral towards the LDS, and I really enjoyed a 9-week-long road trip through Utah and Arizona back in 2015 (I've been to 43 states so far) BUT: It's obvious that the LDS church is always in a defense mode, trying to explain why there is no evidence for anything. It would be lovely if they could produce (positive) evidences for any of the claims in the Book of Mormon to be true. Why do they not allow archeological research on their grounds, for example? As long as this is the policy of the church, people will keep saying: It's because scientists won't find anything. The big wars between Lamanites and Nephites (between 600 BC and 200 BC) remain unproven, too. And so on. Not to mention the "Book of Abraham" papyri disaster.
Great job on this Vid! Informative and factual. Because science!
silly mormon. no.
Except in the Book of Mormon, they had great battles with horses and chariots.... Natives had neither Horses, Chariots or even the Wheel... so did they just forget something as important as the Wheel? Did all the horses just die out??? Come on.... Face Reality.
A chariot in the book of Mormon does not mean the same in the European sense or the horses. Book of Mormon does not say they were riding horses, find me a passage where it says that. Is not impossible that there was an animal that they might have called horse at that time.
@@legacy756 Horses are mentioned in eight different Book of Mormon that involve an ancient New World setting.1 Chronologically the first mention is in Jaredite times (Ether 9:19) and the last mention is among the Nephites in approximately 20 AD (3 Nephi 6:1).
@@txaggievet Horses are never ridden, they may have been used as a food source, and the Nephite text never says that chariots are used in war or even that they were wheeled or ridden.
The English word “chariot” comes from Latin carrus, car, and is etymologically related to the verb to carry. The primary definition for chariot seems to be a device to carry some sort of load. We should not automatically assume that the Nephites understood chariots as wheeled war machines. Because no Book of Mormon verse says or suggests that chariots are mounted, dismounted, or that they carried people or were ridden (although this could be inferred from a twenty-first century view), we cannot say for certain what a Book of Mormon “chariot” means. Native American kings, for example, were often carried into war or to ceremonial events on litters or palanquins. These were sedans carried on the shoulders of other men and certainly fits the Hebrew definition of a “chariot.” The Book of Mormon, it must also be noted, never mentions horses “pulling” chariots.
You can check more explanations on www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/horses-in-the-book-of-mormon.
Then why change the original claim "principal" to "among" ? And also the BOM says that the land will be for a land where no other people have set foot on. Because if other people found out then they would occupy the land
Mate,.. Honestly, you are so desperate to prove this book has some validation... Its hard to admit to ourselves that we had it wrong but you got to set yourself free from this madness.
DNA doesn’t prove the Book of Mormon is false! Common sense does.
What we can prove is that we can't yet prove from the evidence that the BoM narrative is true. The other option is to admit that the descendents of the Nephites were not from MesoAmerica, instead, the DNA in many eastern United States Native American's shows another race of people that pre-dated the Asiatic American Indians.
You do realize this whole charade could’ve been easily explained if Moroni just explained the JS where the exact location of Cumorah was & how he found Cumorah in NY.
Wow David, great job and thank you! I found this very interesting!
We find R1b of the Y chromosome among mostly northern Native Americans. Just as it should be as tribes of Israel carried away during the Assarian conquest eventually lived in lands north of Galilee such as around The Black Sea, Caucus mountains, and the great grass land of the Pontic Steppe. They also had mostly R1b as per the DNA of ancient graves. They were called Saki (with a long i ) a reasonable corrupted name meaning the Isaac people. They were called different names by different peoples over time. as Scythians, Parthians, Gauls and more. They likely migrated up the Danube River Basin (Note the name Dan being one of the tribes of Israel.) And settled all over Europe as far west as Ireland where Joseph Smith's R1b DNA (He was descendant of Joseph of Egypt.) came from and also north into Scandinavia. The Danish named people of Denmark (Danmark?)) may also come from the Israelite name Dan. Then there were the Saxons a reasonable corruption of Isaac's sons. English and Scottish history indicate those peoples thought themselves to be from Israelites of the Ten Tribes. R1b is the by far the most prevalent Y haplogroup of Europe and Scandinavia. The H mitochondrial female DNA is the most common haplogroup of the same countries. H and R1b Haplogroups are associated as per grave studies in the Pontic Steppe and likely migrated together to the west. As far as I know, R1b of Native American tribes has not been shown to be only due to intercourse with much later R1b migrants from Europe / Scandinavia. I would guess of the Book of Mormon males were R1b with some X haplotype as well. Just what I have heard others to reason.
I learned about Genetic drift!!
The Lord says , my ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts.
My Ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts. Any way you are clearly allowed to think what you want.
Genetic drift is Vin Diesel in it 🤣😂😅🍑💨
So there were other people on the land when Lehi's family arrived?
Then what about 2 Nephi 1:6-9 - "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance...they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves."
Accordingly, there should not have been any tribe/or groups of people present when Lehi arrived in the Americas. Any large Asiatic tribe in America by Lehi's time would contradict with these verses.
Lehi is "a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt by the hand of his brethren" (Alma 10:3). So unless Joseph and Manasseh are Siberian Asians, Native Americans, if the Book of Mormon is true, should have majority Semitic/Israelite DNA.
It was kept from other nations who would over run it. How long did it take us Europeans to overrun America?
Do you know of any ancient trade routes between the Americas and the other lands? This land was kept as a pretty big secret for most of history. Did people find their way over here? Yes, and when they did they tended to prosper. But knowledge of this land was kept from other nations. When I read the Book of Mormon, I expect that the basic land area involved is no bigger than the land of Israel as far as the Nephites are concerned. I would have no idea how widespread the Lamanites would have gone since there is no record of their comings and goings. That, and I was never good at geography :/
@@majesticliberatoroftheoppr3971 According to the LDS church, America was set apart to fulfil God’s righteous purposes. “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord” and was “uninhabited, so far as human beings were concerned, until the Lord led to this land from the tower of Babel a colony of people, the Jaredites”. The church also teaches that “the land now known as America would be protected by the Lord from interference from other nations”, that “the Lord kept America “hidden“ and “isolated from the rest of the world” so that the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites could “be kept from all other nations” and “kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune” “that they may possess this land unto themselves” and “possess it unmolested by other people”. The church also teaches that, “If there had been large numbers of other peoples here when the Jaredites came, or when Lehi arrived, certainly the Book of Mormon would have said so.”
“In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.” (January 1998 Ensign, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Donald W. Parry)
“...that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof” (Ether 13:2)
“...whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8)
"And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance...and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves." (2 Nephi 1:8-9)
“In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country...For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon, which can be purchased at Nauvoo, or from any of our traveling elders.” (Joseph Smith, The Wentworth Letter, Ensign, July, 2002)
“It is worthy of note that this decrease in maritime activity is coincident with the era of the departure of the colonies of Lehi and Mulek for America, and of the promise which the Lord gave to the first named that as long as his seed were faithful in keeping the laws of heaven the land that had been given to them "should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations."*II. Nephi i: 5-11...the fulfillment of the Lord's promise of isolation to the seed of Lehi. And that promise was fulfilled in its completeness, for if the ancients had any knowledge of this continent it became to them a vague tradition and most certainly the people of no other nation reached its shores until long after the descendants of Lehi had turned from the Lord and had fallen right into the lowest depths of savagery and idolatry.” (George Reynolds, The Jaredites, The Juvenile Instructor, vol 28, no 16, August 15, 1892, p 501)
“Come down a little later in history, six hundred years before the meridian of time, in the reign of Zedekiah, a body of Israelites was led away by the power of God and by direct intervention of divine agency brought across the great waters and established upon this then unknown continent, isolated from the rest of the world. The purpose of that separation, segregation, isolation and hiding was made plain. It provided a means whereby that part of the House of Israel should serve the Lord their God with purity and sincerity, so long as they would remain obedient.” (James E. Talmage, Ninetieth Annual General Conference, October 1919, p 95)
“And behold it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for beyond, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance...My brethren and sisters, Lehi foresaw what would be the condition among his children if they would live in harmony with the commandments of the Lord that he had received for his children upon this land - That it should always be for them a land of security, the land of their inheritance, and they should possess it unmolested by other people. But when they should turn away the reverse would be the case. History tells us that they turned away from the God of the land.” (Elder Ray L. Pratt of the First Council of Seventy, Gospel Tidings for the Southland, Millennial Star, April 15, 1926, p 226-227)
@@majesticliberatoroftheoppr3971 “After the Flood and ‘the waters had receded from off the face of this land,’ the Lord declared through His prophet His dedication that this had become a ‘choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve Him who dwell upon the face thereof.’ (Ether 13:)
The first attempt to set up a righteous people after the Flood, came when, at Babel (Omni 22), the Lord ‘swore in His wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth’ (ether 1:33), and Jared and his brother, he to whom the Lord said, ‘for never has man believed in me as thou hast’ (Ether 3:15), were guided to these shores. They came with a blessing and an overhanging judgement...Before God’s first effort had come to its final tragedy, He had begun His second...two groups left Jerusalem under the Lord’s direction to escape the fate then pending for Israel and to make a new effort to build a righteous people in the promised land. Of one - that which founded the people of Zarahemla - we know little, save that they were later absorbed by the people of Mosiah (Omni, verses 14-19.) We do not have their records. (Omni, verse 18.) But of the other, the family of Lehi and their descendants, the bulk of the Book of Mormon gives us a full account...Choice peoples have thus been tried twice and each failed to live the law and obey ‘the everlasting decree’ governing this land. The Lord took every precaution to see that nothing might interfere with this posterity of Joseph in working out their God-given destiny and the destiny of America. He provided, and so told Lehi at the very beginning of his settlement, that, ‘...it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for beyond, many nations would overrun the land, and there would be no place for an inheritance. (2 Nephi 1:8.) The Lord so kept the land for a thousand years after Lehi Landed. He so kept it in His wisdom for another thousand years after the Nephites were destroyed, perhaps to give the Lamanitish branch another chance.” (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr, PROPHECIES, PENALTIES, and BLESSINGS; Concerning America, and Liberty, and its Price, The Improvement Era, vol 43, no 7, July 1940, p 396-441)
“‘it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations...These prophecies mention several specific points: first, that the land now known as America would be protected by the Lord from interference from other nations until after the descendants of Lehi had rejected the true Messiah and had dwindled away in unbelief; second, that when the people had become unrighteous, the Lord would bring other nations, led specifically by ‘a man’ on whom his Spirit would work; third, that he would give these gentiles power over the unrighteous Israelites, that he would take away from them the lands which heretofore had been theirs.” (Hyde M. Merrill, Christopher Columbus & The Book of Mormon, The Improvement Era, February 1966, p 97)
“this land [America] was deluged by the Flood and left uninhabited, so far as human beings were concerned, until the Lord led to this land from the tower of Babel a colony of people, the Jaredites, declaring as he led them that he was bringing them to a “land of promise, . . . choice above all other lands,” and “that whoso should possess this land . . . from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them” (Ether 2:7-8)” (Marion G. Romney, American’s Fate and Ultimate Destiny, May 2 1972)
“Holy scripture records that ‘after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.’ (Ether 13:2) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God's decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God's special purposes.
With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord's solemn declaration ringing in their ears: ‘Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them.’ (Ether 2:8)” (Jeffrey R. Holland, A Promised Land, Ensign, June 1976)
“If there had been large numbers of other peoples here when the Jaredites came, or when Lehi arrived, certainly the Book of Mormon would have said so. The land was reserved for the Lord’s purposes and for His peoples, and the Book of Mormon provides their histories.” (Mark E. Peterson, Children of Promise: The Lamanites: Yesterday & Today, Bookcraft, 1981, p. 46)
“For centuries the Lord kept America hidden in the hollow of His hand until the time was right to unveil her for her destiny in the last days. ‘It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations,’ said Lehi, ‘for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance’ (2 Ne. 1:8). In the Lord’s due time His Spirit ‘wrought upon’ Columbus, the pilgrims, the Puritans, and others to come to America.” (President Ezra Taft Benson, Our Divine Constitution, Ensign, November 1987)
Contrary to the church’s position that the Americas [and the rest of the world] were unpopulated by humans prior to Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC (Adam, Eve, the Garden of Eden, and evolution-) and that the Americas were kept hidden, isolated, and unpopulated by humans after the flood around 2,300 BC - 2400 BC (Old Testament Chronology) until the Jaradites arrived around 2200 BC (Book of Mormon Time Line & Book of Mormon Seminary Student Study Guide), there is tremendous archaeological evidence of human habitation and civilizations in the Americas before, during, and after the recorded history of the BoM from 2200 BC - 400 AD. If the church is correct, how does one account for all the archaeological evidence of human habitation and other civilizations in the Americas that should not exist according to the church and BoM, (First Americans arrived, 28,000 BC, Clovis Culture, 11,000 BC, Huaricanga - Oldest city in the Americas, 3500 BC, Caral Supe, 3000-2500 BC, Olmec, 1200-400 BC, Maya, 500 BC-900 AD, Zapotec, 500 BC-750 AD, Nasca, 1-700 AD, Tiwanaku, 550-950 AD, Wari, 750-1000 AD, Inca, 1250-1532 AD, Mississippian, 1000-1500 AD, Aztec, 1430-1521 AD, etc), and the lack of archaeological evidence for the Jaredite/Lehite/Mulekite civilizations that should exist according to the LDS church and BoM?
@@adamholloway7963 Thank you. I believe you may be taking some liberties in stating “what the church believes“. There have been many and various leaders and church members, groups and publications that possess differing beliefs about the Book of Mormon through time. The church doesn’t take a stance on the location of the book of Mormon at this time let alone some of the other ancillary topics such as we are discussing.
I noticed you didn’t cite your quotes in your first paragraph, perhaps due to dubious credibility? I appreciate you putting in quotes from the book of Mormon itself during the latter part of your text. I can believe Those quotes and can imagine how America could have potentially been overrun by Europeans earlier than Columbus, had the Americas been widely known to the old world. This potentially could have set up a system in America much like the old world where religious freedom was oppressed. If there is a God in heaven, who lovingly administers to his children, and I testify that there is, it would be understandable for me that he would wait for his time to make this geography known. Without religious freedom protected by constitutional law, Christ’s restored church May have been frustrated.
Regarding pre-Lehite habitation, many serious students of the book of Mormon today understands that this is obvious. It is also obvious that we are dealing with a limited geography model. It is my belief that Lehi’s seed was only a drop in the bucket among the vast inhabitants of the Americas.
Kind regards friend
This video is completely misunderstanding of genetic principles. What evidence do you have of a founder effect in native populations? How about the fact that native american's lack any sort of middle eastern Y-DNA, why wouldn't there be at least one in at least one tribe? This would seem quite odd considering genetic drift wouldn't explain a lack of middle eastern Y-DNA. Or how about the linguistic evidence? There is not a single native american tribe that speaks Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other Semitic language for that matter. Heck, they don't even have a language in the same language family as any Semitic language. None of these questions were risen in this video, it's a bunch of bunk, and this video is full of assumptions.
Also missing part that the Book of mormon most likely in south america, and traveled north.
A very scientific explanation! I am studying Laboratory Medicine and this is just so interesting! ❤❤
Keep studying because your studies are based on men who found factual evidence, not myth
Neat video. Thanks, Saints Unscripted! ❤
You are so welcome!
There’s no blue skittles! Therefore the Book of Mormon is FALSE!!!!!
My mom got baptised mormon we have First Nations ancestory why didn't her skin turn White?
Yes that is a great point doest the book of Mormon say that
She wasn't faithful enough...
What about the lack or archaeological evidence?
Check out their other videos
Also the linguistic evidence didn't add up.
Regarding archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon...
th-cam.com/video/EOPFob0cjfw/w-d-xo.html
Don't worry, even the argument presented in this video is insufficient to justify belief in the Book of Mormon. See my comment thread posted around two weeks ago.
@@sarak6860 th-cam.com/video/7_xbqr5WZ_o/w-d-xo.html
Honestly, this is a stretch. 🤔
Love your presentations!
Here's the problem. You're arguing about possibility, not what's probable.
Science is based on statistics, and if you asked any non-mormon population geneticist, they'd tell you that there's no DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon.
So sure, you can point to the founder effect or bottlenecking, but just like all other apologetics-- you're stretching the truth to fit a narrative.
If I believed that Toy Story movies depict real events, I'd have the same amount of evidence as the Book of Mormon.
Have faith. You can't know that Woody isn't alive. He fakes it when you're not looking. Employees at Pixar show you the computers and files they made the film from? They non-believers or anti-ToyStoryians. Or the evidence was planted by Satan.
You see how silly it gets?
Latter-Day Saints swallow the wildest positive truth claims, but once you question their faith-- they become hardcore epistemological skeptics or solipsists.
Also, the bottlenecking still doesn't explain why we can't find Lehite DNA, because we have the capacity to test DNA from bones of ancient Native Americans.
They have done those tests too. And still no middle eastern DNA.
Also there are plenty of scriptures that indicate that the Americas were empty in the Book of Mormon: "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations..." God indicated that this land was a covenant and choice land for Lehi's descendents, it's a parallel of the land of Canaan.
Joseph literally found the bones of Zelph the WHITE Laminate warrior buried not too deep at all on Zion's Camp. The fact that he is white seems weird if Lehi came from Jerusalem. But since the Nephites were white, and that came exclusively from them, right? Why then can't researchers find other "white" Native American DNA?
Anyways. It's just silly. If Joseph was actually correct, why doesn't anything we can test bear that out?
I mean, we have crazy evidence of Romans during the time of Christ. We have all kinds of evidence of the Bible being old-- why is God so opposed to doing the same thing with the Book of Mormon? He just wants to trick people looking for evidence of the one true church so that they can have more faith?
Now we're in loony town.
@Joseph the Wanderer
You might be right-- but do you care to correct me? I'd love to learn, Mr. Joseph.
According to a recent study of National Geographic, native americans also descend from the middle east, BoM was telling us the truth.
No, that is not correct.
Laughable.
An article from the Guardian that says Africans lived in Roman Britain??I’d be skeptical of that one. It’s possible there was the odd one but there was no large settlement of Africans at that time in Britain, I’m pretty sure that’s wrong.
You have NO evidence, just pure your talking. I testify The Book of Mormon is true and that is true word of God. I am a Mormon, and I have so many miracles in my life after I joined this church and I also saw God in a vision that He healed me from serious car accident in our Mormon Temple New York.
🤣🤣
Another importent bottleneck happened on the Israelite side, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering and capture of Israel. We don't know if we have all the genetic variety that was there when Lehi lived in Jerusalem.
What about the bottleneck during Noah's Ark and the global flood around 2400 BC? According to the LDS church, only 8 humans survived.
"Adam and Eve and the Fall (approximately 4000 B.C.), Enoch (approximately 3000 B.C.), Noah and the Flood (approximately 2400 B.C.), and the tower of Babel (approximately 2200 B.C.) " (“The Book of Abraham,” The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual)
“In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.Scriptural Evidence for a Worldwide Flood. Many prophets from two different continents and different eras have identified Noah as a historical, not a mythical, character. These include Enoch (see Moses 7:42-43), Abraham (see Abr. 1:19), Amulek (see Alma 10:22), Moroni (see Ether 6:7), Matthew (see JS-M 1:41-42), Peter (see 2 Pet. 2:5), Joseph Smith (see D&C 84:14-15; D&C 133:54), and Joseph F. Smith (see D&C 138:9, 41). The Lord Jesus Christ himself spoke to the Nephites of the “waters of Noah” (3 Ne. 22:9)...The most voluminous scriptural witness to Noah and the Flood is recorded in the writings of Moses, who dedicated a total of 57 verses in the King James Version to the account (Gen. 6:9-8:19)...In the book of Genesis, Moses clearly states that a flood occurred, and the terminology definitely refers to a worldwide flood, as opposed to a localized flood. The Joseph Smith Translation backs up the Genesis account, modifying the wording only slightly...Taken altogether, these statements should convince every believer in the Bible that the great Deluge was a worldwide event, not a localized flood that filled only the Mesopotamian or some other region...Thus, although there are many in our day who consider the accounts of the Flood and tower of Babel to be fiction, Latter-day Saints affirm their reality.” (January 1998 Ensign, The Flood and the Tower of Babel, Donald W. Parry)
“Evil was manifest early in this world when Cain slew Abel. It increased until in the days of Noah ‘God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart’ (Gen. 6:5-6). He commanded Noah to build an ark ‘wherein few, that is, eight souls’ would be saved (1 Pet. 3:20). The earth was cleansed. The floods receded. Righteousness was again established.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, The Dawning of a Brighter Day, General Conference, April 2004)
If the entire world population was wiped out around 2400 BC, except for 8 souls, how does one explain the many civilizations around the world that existed during and after the global flood, which could not have existed if the Noah's Ark story is true?
@@adamholloway7963 Apologies don't work in science. The Mormon claim could work with the numerous Caucasian skeletons found all over North and South America (Clovis, Solutrean, Kennewick man, etc.) between 9,000 and 13,000 years ago, but Smith locked these facts out when he dated his fairy tale at 400 BC.
@@adamholloway7963the Flood story doesn’t originate with LDS it is scripture according to all Abrahamic religion. There are also dozens of flood myths found in cultures throughout the world. Nice try though
@@ChrisShadowman I never said that the Flood story originated with LDS nor that it is exclusive to LDS. Maybe you should reread what I posted more carefully next time.
It is, however, accepted and taught by the LDS Church as historically true. So, the problem still stands. Where is the evidence of a Global flood that wiped out all land animal life in the world except for those saved on Noah's Ark? The LDS Church clearly taught that it was not a local flood but a global flood.
@@adamholloway7963 perhaps you should re read what I said because my argument is your criticism of lds is in fact a criticism of all Christianity as well as the Jews and Islam. If there wasn’t a world wide flood how can you explain the prevalence of flood stories in nearly every culture around the earth? And why is this the hill you’re dying on lol there’s a million other places you can attack lds on but the flood isn’t one of them
Really dude, you didn't use the mound builder thing as an example, you had one smoking gun and you didn't use it, 😐😐😐
nathan jones bald head smoking gun.... 😂
@@TaoT3 i should have put quotation marks around smoking gun but yeah, the only time the mormon idea of native americans makes sense is when they talk about the mound builders civilization and the ledgends about it
Haplo group X2a - near eastern and found plentifully in mound builder bones from bom times. Algonquin tribes still possess it.
Except haplo group X has been found among native Americans in the Midwest region of the United States. The highest percentage of haplo X was found in the Great Lakes region.
There is not one archeological find in the Americas that substantiates Laminites and Nephites where all over the world there are finds such as the Egyptian civilization that go back thousands of years. In the BOM JS wrote about massive civilizations with massive wars where millions died...no bones, no weapons, no poetry, jewelry, no nothing...Please explain this to us.
To my atheist friends: Unexplicable Claims are essential for religion. Every religion carries extraordinary claims and that's kind of the point. If they were usual, we would be in your boat going off the edge of the world. To point out every religious claim needs to be rejected based on absence of physical evidence is not original and futile. We know that. Followers still follow because Science hasn't provided an good alternative. For a world struggling on whether they are a boy or a girl you definitely have more important uses of your time in helping people understand what is right or wrong instead of stating obvious claims are not supported fully yet.
Reality has to match the claims. If the universe was eternal then that would disprove that God created the universe. But the universe had a beginning point therefore it shows that God creating the universe is possible.
The problem is that Joseph couldn't keep his mouth shut and it exposed him as a fake. I mean you have the book of Abraham papyrus that proves this without a shadow of a doubt. What was in those scrolls have nothing to do with the book of Abraham. Instead they are just common book of the dead burial scrolls. You don't even have fragments that show anything about the book of Abraham. And nothing that matches JS claims has ever been found. If you use the well maybe the actual book of Abraham got burned excuse. It still won't help you because if that is the case the mathematical improbability that happening is insane.
But even if you choose to hold on to that. We have Papyrus JSP-1 is the same one that Jospeh Smith has notes on. And nothing of what he said matches with what was on the papyrus. But even if you can ignore that somehow. The book of Abraham is written in a autobiographical style that never existed in the ancient world. Instead it became popular in the time Joseph Smith was alive.
Its not that there isn't evidence to show if its true or not. Is that the evidence shows definitively he was a fraud.
@@alejandromartin8347 Oh my gosh you solved the case Sherlock. Joseph would have gotten away with it if it wasnt for you and your meddling dog too! You need to tell me how you did it. Please say you had a time machine, that you had all the original accounts took a picture of the scrolls and heard it from Joseph himself. What? At least tell me you have a published and undisputedly accepted article from a PHD in Egyptology that its wrong? What no again? Oh so you just looked at everything online and just regurgitated everything like some kind of academic bulimic. Oh man and here I thought you had the world's best coffee. Look at all the times you say never, nothing, improbable. People who speak in absolutes like that have no business to deal with an all powerful God and His prophets. They're much too smart for Him. Good luck with the next groundbreaking discovery though. Maybe you'll get someone to mindlessly believe you.
Where are the swords, the horses, the chariots, the wheat seeds, etc,etc,etc. You are totally unable to support evidence of the book of Mormon in total.
I agree and ask the same. These artifacts should be abundant (in the millions). Also Elephants? When will you people admit it’s a fairy tale?
@@rockit3422 Amarth is a wheat analog found in central and south America. There is also evidence of palanquins in south America, which are called chariots in the Old Testament. Although no definitive proof of horses and elephants, at Book of Mormon times, in the last 20 years extinction dates have been revised from 100k bce, to 5k bce. Trending toward the possibility.
No one has looked that hard for evidence of the book of mormon.
@@kennance115 That’s not true. Mormon “scholars” and the church itself has spent vast amounts attempting to prove the BOM accurate (true) with hard evidence. This evidence doesn’t exist so Mormon leaders tend to downplay the importance of searching for it. Sad.
@@rockit3422 The fact that their is no hard evidence of the book of mormon is concerning and hard to explain. Roman coins, relics, and construction has been discovered all over Europe and Great Britain. Some of the things didn't have to be discovered because they just stayed in the same place, like the Colosseum. Also you have to wonder what happened to the horses. It seems to me the Laminates would have had horses before America was discovered by Europeans. If the Nephites had them then surely the Laminates would have stole a few. I think horses can survive pretty much on their own too. Where did all the those horses go? LDS scholars are pretty good when it comes to explaining things like this away. Since I was raised LDS I have to argue that there hasn't been any evidence found YET.
Really wanted a video on this topic.
So all humans have DNA leading back to Africa...but the Lamanite DNA has disappeared?
Hey I love the explanation given. I wanted to add another possibility to explain why the Native American DNA is closer the Asian than Middle Eastern. One thing we need to keep in mind is Lehi and his family were of the Tribe of Manassah, while the majority of the Israelites we know of today are of one three tribes that of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as the other 10 had separated into the Kingdom of Israel and then were scattered. Where were they scattered to? It's not clear exactly where each tribe ended up but it is likely that many of the Tribe of Manassah ended up in Asia. Granted this is just a thought and I am no scientist so I couldn't even come close to saying how likely that is, but it could be that the genetic markers that survived in the America's had also be incorporated into Asia by other members of the same tribe who were scattered. Another thing to keep in mind that even the Kingdom of Judah was eventually scattered, and they mingled with the Europeans and could have diluted their own DNA during that scattering thus changing their own DNA which could lead to greater differences. Like you said there are too many factors to be certain as to what actually happened.
@Richard Nelson, here's another vid with a bit of info to check out. There actually ARE similarities between between Israelites and certain Native American populations, including maternal haplogroup x (x2).
th-cam.com/video/5pgZbsNqurc/w-d-xo.html
Shameful apologists. Put your head in the ground.
Apologists are just people who defend their own doctrine. Atheists defend their doubt in God and Creationists defend expectations in God.
If Atheists and Creationists went back and forth with the promotion of doctrine and objection of evidence then they are both apologizing in their own defense.
Everyone that responds to backlash is an Apologist.
If you reply to me right now then you are an Apologist.
Nobody should be embarrassed in this situation.
Ouch dude! DNA changes BUT no where on a level where a linage disappears... WRONG dude, wrong! Geneticists can identify DNA from markers and see WHEN changes happened and when, NOT lose the linage decent.
Only ONE band of Natives carry middle eastern DNA, the Cherokee and it’s shown they are not pure Native from the ice bridge migrations BUT due to mixing
I am not Mormon. But here's my take. When God gave the Lamanites a dark skin it wasn't just a sun tan; it was a DNA change. Hence no "Jewishness" remained.
There is no evidence of a Lamanite people.
@@jamestaylor1975 I agree. As I said I am not a Mormon. I was playing Devil's Advocate.
Thanks for being respectful in voicing your opinion. I think your idea is interesting. I've def thought about this idea before glad to know others think similar haha
@@jamestaylor1975 I think there is evidence, but no matter what physical evidence is presented to a skeptic, it will never convince him. Spiritual things cannot be discerned by physical evidence only. Only faith and prayer, and the power of the Holy Ghost can change a persons heart and thinking. I will give you some evidence though to prove a point, and I know despite what I tell you, it probably won't make a difference in your thinking. ---- The "ah" connection. The ah or aih sound is a characteristic of the Hebrew language. For instance: Isaiah, Noah, Methuselah, Zedekiah, Elijah, Elisha, Sarah, Leah, Dinah, Judah, Hannah. etc. Now, let's look at Book of Mormon names: Mosiah, Zarahemnah, Amalekiah, Cumorah, Ramah, Cumenihah, Zemnarihah, Onidah. etc. Do you really think Joseph Smith knew that? Now lets look at Heartland Native American names: Shoukakihegah, Ladokeah, Talacooshcroomah, Ompahtonnggah, Mawdnessah, Lolocktohoolah, Rawnowaywawkah, Ahonhwatha, And some words where modern spelling dropped the h at the end but the sound remained: Tallapoosa, Coosada, Talladega, Utica, Seneca, Oneonta, Palmyra, Onandaga, Tuscarora, Cayuga, Seneca, Chippewa. Ah, ah, ah sound in all of them. Here's an interesting one The Oneida tribe. Nearly the same as the Book of Mormon Onidah. There is some pretty convincing linguistic evidence. Does it make a difference to you now?..... I doubt it. We haven't even covered the whole Chiasmus thing, showing parallels from the Bible and Book of Mormon.
@@stelladavis7832 Please seek spiritual truth. It will help you more.
Fantastic video! The naysayers raised the DNA issue, now they gripe because their evidence against the Book of Mormon has gone up in smoke. Now they gripe and make it sound as though we're the ones who brought up the DNA issue. We aren't.
John Iler Uh you have to have evidence to make a claim, and there is no evidence. Lack of evidence =/= evidence.
Our critics raised the DNA issue. Not us. If we go to Mesoamerica and take random samples, they can neither prove nor disprove the existence of Nephites. Our critics said DNA disproved the existence of of Nephites and Lamanites. They are wrong. As for evidence, if the Book of Mormon is false, certainly it could be proven false. That it can't is certainly evidence in its favor. Cities, no snow or ice mentioned, cement, roads, Nephite armor, a writing system that starts many sentences with "and it came to pass" (Mayans had a glyph that began sentences with, "and it came to pass."), swords of wood and stone that could cut a horse's head off and many other things (including a city buried in lake as described in the Book of Mormon and presently there is evidence of pre-Columbian horses and barley.
You can say there's no evidence ago you want, but those of us who believe in the BofM aren't winging our hands over it. Even the way the Mayans waged war is similar to that of the Nephites. And Dan Peterson has even drawn similarities between the Gadiantons and communist guerrillas, in how they seize and hold territory, and the problems in doing so. Joseph Smith had no knowledge of these things. If he wrote the Book of Mormon, how could he have read all those pages while starring into a dark hat?
We don't benefit at all whether you believe us or not. It doesn't benefit us or harm us at all in the eternities. The only one you harm, sir, is yourself. The fact that there's no proof isn't up to us. But you can't say there's no evidence. You're just plain wrong.
There's no cultural evidence of those civilizations too.
The Mound Builders in eastern USA and eastern Canada have found to have Hebrew DNA.
Not Hebrew, that cannot be determined. Just DNA from the middle east area as well as Europe. Also when you say Mound builders you should say Algonquian peoples known by archeologists as the Hopewell.
KevlarX2 : Yes, their official name is Hopewell. Yes, Middle East (which includes Hebrew).
We don't know what ancient Hebrew DNA looked like. So we wouldn't be able to say for sure if they were Hebrew or not.
Kat Bos Yes, but that would include Arabs, and there is no evidence to determine which group or subset it would be or from what time
Impressive
So.... no evidence
No... Because that wasn't the video's intent
no evidence to prove or disprove either way
Pamela Jackson what evidence would prove it to not be true to you?
@@beefmaster4 Are you saying I have to exercise faith and pray to know the truth of spiritual things?
The DNA of the Jews, the Palestinians & Samaritans was very strongly preserved even though scattered among many cultures for 2,000 years! Joseph's D&C revelations as to missionaries to the Lamanites, specifically say they are in Missouri.
The monty python reference 4:07
1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:
Didn't they cross the ocean in some kind of a submarine? That's the story I recall. If so why do you depict a sailing ship crossing the ocean. You dream up all kinds of specious explanations. I would love to watch you debate a legitimate archaeologist who hasn't a master to serve like you do.
If they were there why are none of the cities names in the record or written on temples that say the names of those places and why no people named the names of nephites and lamanites anywhere until present day Mormon names were given
Here's an interesting thought. If you want to present this as science there's an important step that's often missed. If you're wrong and Lehi and his family never existed house would you know? What data would be sufficient to falsify your claim? An unfalsifiable claim is indistinguishable from being wrong.
This video certainly does not attempt to prove the existence of Lehi and his family. It only points out the pretty huge flaws in what many people think is a 'smoking gun' to the validity of the Book of Mormon. It's true, an unfalsifiable claim may indeed still be wrong, but it doesn't mean it _is_ wrong. The same idea applies to countless religious principles. The claim that God exists would also be an unfalsifiable claim. Or that Moses spoke to a burning bush. Or that Jesus Christ was resurrected. This is a principle that every religion has to grapple with.
@@stelladavis7832 "You mean this video isn't trying to prove Lehi and his family existed?" I believe they really existed, but I do not attempt to use DNA evidence to try to prove they existed, as mentioned in the video.
I just consider myself a regular Latter-day Saint. You can call me apologist if you'd like. Is there a chance they did not exist? Let me put it this way: I believe they existed, I don't _know_ they existed. Implicit in faith is the possibility of being in error. That's something that all people of faith have to learn to be OK with.
I agree, DNA research can neither conclusively confirm not deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, those that I'd say are biased against our faith have done their best to portray the research as if it does disprove the Book of Mormon. This video was simply meant to counter that assumption with solid scientific principles.
Interesting suggestions in your last sentence. That could be really cool.
@@davidsnell2605 I agree David. Applying that to where exactly the Book of Mormon took place is the same dilemma. There are theories you can support different models with, but no way to know definitively, because so much has been lost to time and events. Exactly where it took place, is not as important as that it took place. I am most comfortable however, with the Heartland model myself, when imagining where it took place when reading the Book of Mormon. However, those that imagine it was Central America is fine too. It doesn't effect ones testimony either way.
@@davidsnell2605 here's the crux of my issue. I think it is a best practice to withhold belief until something is demonstrated to be true. And then to only proceed with caution at all times acknowledging you could be wrong. Brushing off criticism does not make an assertion more true. At the core of every religious belief I seem to always find some logical fallacy.
The argument from personal experience fallacy
Post hoc fallacy
Arguments from ignorance or incredulity
And others. You're right. These fallacies don't mean a person is wrong. It just means I can't be confident their right. If someone could demonstrate all these claims to be true I would definitely believe it. want believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I am not convinced ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America, refined steel, had massive populations, industrialized the continent, had and used domesticated horses, honeybees, cattle, wheat, etc. Long long before they were introduced to the Americas ( and in the case of steel refined it long before it was refined anywhere else in the world) demonstrated supernatural abilities fundamentally altering the laws of physics. If all this were the case and the evidence supported it to a high degree it would be scientific consensus. But it isn't. Because it doesn't. It may in the future and that would certainly be interesting. But for now I find lehi and his family and the ancient American Jews innocent of having ever existed.
@@jessibell-pj8dx And I certainly respect your perspective. We can talk about supposed anachronisms (planning on doing a video about these) and other topics forever but you're right in that religion fundamentally cannot prove its tenets to be true. We're circling back around to the age-old battle between belief and knowledge, which, as you said, certainly is the crux of the issue. I believe many things I do not know. You do not believe in anything that cannot be proven to be true. I think there are pros and cons to both philosophies. But either way, I wish you all the best with the philosophy you find most useful.
I’m sorry, you don’t know what DNA you should be looking for? What? That isn’t a problem is current genetic testing when finding descendants of ancient peoples, especially those like the Ancient Israelites who were so closely homogenous and where marrying other ethnicities was taboo. National Geographic was able to find the modern descendents of the Canaanites, a much older people, in modern day Lebanon without issue. I don’t know about other factors but not knowing “Israelite DNA” is a huge reach.
Anthropologist Thomas Murphy, Ph.D. has credibility when he speaks concerning Native American DNA markers. His ancestry links to Native Americans and has done decades of research concerning the supposedly link between the Lamanites and Native Americans. Interestingly enough though the evidence he has found disagrees with the Book of Mormon, he would like to be part of a reformed Mormon church. Not sure what he totally means by that but it would be hard to try to refute his findings on this DNA evidence. This interview is lengthy but worth the time watching if you're truly interested in this subject. Here is the link: @t
I trust the findings of Thomas Murphy and others like him because I have done my DNA research. They know what they are talking about. I did not base my decision about the church on DNA alone, but on many different factors after loads of research. I think that true believing members of the church should consider regarding the Book of Mormon as an allegory delivering lots of truth. The Catholic church now regards some of the Bible stories as allegorical. The same truth is delivered whether literal or not.
The only place mentioned in the book of mormon is the hill of cummorah. Which means there must be a city land and waters of cummorah. Trust me on this... All book of mormon lands suggest this disruption... But where in the world is the chief city of cummorah
Lol this video is such a cope.
I watch many videos of attempts to support the book of Mormon as legit. Yours are by far the best, however it's still grasping at air. The old and new testaments are used for archaeology and if the book of Mormon were true, it would be used for archaeology. It isn't because it isn't.
Do the math. A Native American has a significantly higher probability of having Jaredite DNA as opposed to Lamanite DNA. Where did the Jaredites come from? Best guess is somewhere in the Mesopotamia valley, which is Western Asia. They were not Semitic as were the family of Lehi and the Mulekites. They started out in greater numbers and were in the Western Hemisphere between 2000-3000 years before Lehi showed up. Keep in mind also that so little scientific evidence of the origin of Native Americans was available in the 19th century. A lot of proclamations even by Joseph Smith were speculative. He was not infallible. If you want an infallible religious leader, so they say, look to the Catholic church.
What's the point of having a prophet if their claims aren't infallible? I thought the purpose of having a prophet was to disambiguate doctrine, and raising speculation is quite counter productive to this. Surely an omniscient deity would have better sense than to allow his ordained spokesperson to unwittingly preach false doctrine.
The Hopewell Dna is 75-82% middle eastern
Please post your evidence for this. Thanks!
But if the Book of Mormon were actually true, there wouldnt be just DNA from Lehi and Sariah. There is Lehi, Sariah, Zorom, Ishmael, Ishmael's wife, Mulek, mulek's wife, Jared, his wife, and his other followers. And many supposedly joined the Lamanites.
How many were part of the Jaredites and Mulekites? They seemed to be larger groups and I wonder how diverse these groups were.