Historicity of The Book of Mormon

[Green Monstah]

This is like the third time this article has been posted, lol.

Not to mention it would predate Adam.

Not interesting from an LDS perspective at all.

I don't agree that it has no bearing, but I understand it doesn't support the BOM timeline.

...

If your point is that a 24000 year old person doesn't exist in LDS theology, then it's a good point. If your claim is that a 24,000 year old predates BOM timeline, then you didn't read beyond the first paragraph.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't agree that it has no bearing, but I understand it doesn't support the BOM timeline.


If your point is that a 24000 year old person doesn't exist in LDS theology, then it's a good point. If your claim is that a 24,000 year old predates BOM timeline, then you didn't read beyond the first paragraph.

I think SU is pointing out that the DNA was analyzed by a bone in Siberia, not the new world.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think SU is pointing out that the DNA was analyzed by a bone in Siberia, not the new world.

Doubtful. His reading skills are better than that.

[Northwestcoug]

Doubtful. His reading skills are better than that.

The analyzed bone was from Siberia. The implication is that since Native Americans came from that region, the presence of western Eurasian DNA suggests another migrating group.

What am I missing?

[SeattleUte]

I don't agree that it has no bearing, but I understand it doesn't support the BOM timeline.


If your point is that a 24000 year old person doesn't exist in LDS theology, then it's a good point. If your claim is that a 24,000 year old predates BOM timeline, then you didn't read beyond the first paragraph.

What are "western Eurasians"? I assume if they were Jews the article would have said so.

[ERCougar]

I remember when this article came out thinking how poorly written it was, which I think has led to a lot of the fb posts about this supporting A BOM narrative. It doesn't, not only because of timeframe, but because neither the Jaredites nor Nephi's family landed in SIBERIA, which last time I checked has nothing to do with the New World. But the key finding is so deeply buried in the article that you have to dig to find it, so people come away with the idea that all of our theories about Native American origins are completely wrong, which isn't the case. I think the abstract to the paper would have been less confusing.

EDIT: Even now, after reading and rereading this article, I'm not completely clear on what the findings were. Just a really poor article.

[Uncle Ted]

Lots of metal breastplates but no swords...

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/...+Skeletons.pdf

[Green Monstah]

I remember when this article came out thinking how poorly written it was, which I think has led to a lot of the fb posts about this supporting A BOM narrative. It doesn't, not only because of timeframe, but because neither the Jaredites nor Nephi's family landed in SIBERIA, which last time I checked has nothing to do with the New World. But the key finding is so deeply buried in the article that you have to dig to find it, so people come away with the idea that all of our theories about Native American origins are completely wrong, which isn't the case. I think the abstract to the paper would have been less confusing.

EDIT: Even now, after reading and rereading this article, I'm not completely clear on what the findings were. Just a really poor article.

I think the point the article made was that they filled some genetic gaps in NA DNA because they sequenced the DNA of a "Western Eurasian" skeleton. As a result, they were able to postulate that Native Americans are a mash up of East Asian and Western Eurasion ancestry, but it is unclear whether the combination occurred before or after reaching North America. If after, Mopologists would cling to that fact.

I don't know how much we can depend on Dan Carlin of Hardcore History fame, but he says that the area from Turkey to Mongolia was an ancient racial melting pot between Asian and European/Middle Eastern nomadic peoples. It does't seem too far fetched that bi-racial nomads are the people who eventually populated North America.

[Green Monstah]

What are "western Eurasians"? I assume if they were Jews the article would have said so.

If you read the whole article, you would have seen that it included Middle East along with Western Eurasia.

[ERCougar]

I think the point the article made was that they filled some genetic gaps in NA DNA because they sequenced the DNA of a "Western Eurasian" skeleton. As a result, they were able to postulate that Native Americans are a mash up of East Asian and Western Eurasion ancestry, but it is unclear whether the combination occurred before or after reaching North America. If after, Mopologists would cling to that fact.

I don't know how much we can depend on Dan Carlin of Hardcore History fame, but he says that the area from Turkey to Mongolia was an ancient racial melting pot between Asian and European/Middle Eastern nomadic peoples. It does't seem too far fetched that bi-racial nomads are the people who eventually populated North America.

Again, it's a little unclear, but I think the study findings indicate that there was a mixing prior to this child's lifetime, and thus explains why current native Americans don't have more in common with modern Asians. The land bridge migration from Asia theory isn't contradicted by these findings, and is actually somewhat supported or explained. In other words, one of the potential objections to the current theory--why don't native Americans have more in common with Asians--is explained by the fact that there was mixing with Europeans prior to the migration.

[jay santos]

I think the only way this helps BOM apologists score any points is to say: look we just found out something we didn't know before, therefore there could be lots more we don't know about DNA. In other words, obfuscation.

[ERCougar]

I think the only way this helps BOM apologists score any points is to say: look we just found out something we didn't know before, therefore there could be lots more we don't know about DNA. In other words, obfuscation.

Except that this doesn't raise any questions--it answers questions that had already been raised. I think the only way it helps them is if people only read the caption to the title.

[LA Ute]

The much-beloved Dan Peterson makes a few points:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865...holarship.html

[jay santos]

The much-beloved Dan Peterson makes a few points:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865...holarship.html

hmm...maybe what he's saying is really true but it sure might seem like obfuscation to someone not as smart.

summary of the article:
--a lot of people say stuff like "give me the top three historical evidences for the BOM"
--here's why asking for that is problematic: lot of reasons which don't really seem to answer the question why that's such a problematic thing to ask
--in conclusion "there are hundreds of articles and books chock full of historical evidences for BOM"...but I'm not gonna give you my top three.

It would be refreshing to just answer the damn question. "Others may have different list, but here's my top three."

Think what would your response be if you were asked to provide your top three reasons for something.
Top three reasons you believe in God.
Top three reasons BYU football will win 10 games.
Top three reasons Coke is better than Pepsi.
Top three reasons Android beats IOS.

You would toss out your top three. If at any point you say, "I think you're going about it wrong", I become highly skeptical. Wait a second, what the hell's going on, I just want three reasons to support your statement that BYU will win 10 games. "no, no, no, this is a very problematic concept. you don't understand the issue. blah blah blah." Wait, what?

[TripletDaddy]

Probably easier to prove historicity of BOM than to provide 3 cogent reasons why BYU will win 10 games this season