"Doug the Avenger":

You again attempt to mislead readers here and have failed to cite any conclusion because no such conclusion exists within any credible scientific journal.

I did not say "ancient Israelite DNA," but rather conclusions based upon DNA research that link Native Americans to ancient Jews through DNA evidence.

You notably cite nothing.

Instead what scientists accept is that "DNA data, as well as anthropological studies, indicate American Indians are descended from Northeast Asians who migrated across the Bering Sea between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago."

That's what a Mormon anthropology professor concluded, though he may get excommunicated for it.

See [www.culteducation.com]

"Murphy, 35-year-old chairman of the Edmonds Community College Anthropology Department, contends DNA analysis contradicts Book of Mormon claims that American Indians are descended from ancient heathen Israelites, an argument he will outline in a 1 1/2-hour talk today at the University of Washington.

He's out to expose what he calls 'racism' in scriptural texts. The Book of Mormon assumes that dark skin is a curse for wickedness. I'm trying to examine where that idea came from, he says.

His stand could make Murphy the first Mormon in church history to face excommunication for publishing conclusions on the basis of genetic research."

You second post is quite telling. You say "Many scientists, who are Mormons" agree with you. No surprise as the Mormon Church has always been good at apologies based upon the biased spin from its faithful.

But there is not only no DNA evidence to back up Smith's wild claims about ancient Jews, there is no objective proof whatsoever through archaeology that any of the peoples named in his "Book of Mormon" ever existed, ineither the so-called "Nephites" or the fabled "Lamanites."

It is ridiculous to belive historically that ancient Jews supposedly settled in America with no objetive physical evidence.

Please understand that Mormons may believe whatever they want as a matter of faith, but history and DNA research is not based upon faith, it's based upon facts.

I realize that this is dismissed by amongst Mormon believers, but outside that bubble there is no serious credentialed scientist, historian, or anthropologist that supports claims about Smith's fictional "Nephites."

The following excerpts illustrate your serious and growing problem.

See [www.culteducation.com]

"In the 1990s, DNA studies gave Mormon detractors further ammunition and new allies such as Simon G. Southerton, a molecular biologist and former bishop in the church.

Southerton, a senior research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, said genetic research allowed him to test his religious views against his scientific training.

Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world had already shown that they shared common strains of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America. One mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300 Native Americans from 175 tribes.

Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA in the genetic strands of today's American Indians and Pacific Islanders."

And here is the bottom line.

"The problem is that Mormon leaders cannot acknowledge any factual errors in the Book of Mormon because the prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed it the 'most correct of any book on Earth,' Southerton said in an interview.

They can't admit that it's not historical, Southerton said. They would feel that there would be a loss of members and loss in confidence in Joseph Smith as a prophet."

rrmoderator,

It seems you have decided to bring this discussion to a close. I'm not very surprised because I have yet to find anyone active in he anti-Mormon community willing to debate the facts and you are clearly no exception. The question remains as to who you think your fooling. The word is out. Just this month the Christian Science Monitor published a story on genetic testing that reveals genetic links between Ashkenazi Jews and Native American, albeit with their own interpretation. Here is the link. The title is "Mixed Roots: Science looks at family trees"


[www.csmonitor.com]


and here is a quote

"Sometimes, the tests raise more questions than answers. Richards's wife, Laurie, who also took the test, found that her ancestry was 13 percent native American, 87 percent European. That was odd because she traced her ancestors back to Poland and Ireland and had no knowledge of any native Americans in the family tree. It led her to interview older relatives to try to solve the mystery.

The case also illustrates the limits of DNA testing, says Mark Shriver, a professor of anthropology at Penn State and a consultant for DNAPrint. Native Americans are believed to have immigrated from central Asia thousands of years ago. These same central Asians also migrated into eastern Europe, meaning that her "native American" DNA could have come from there, he says. Greeks and Ashkenazi Jews also may show significant percentages of "native American" ancestry for the same reason. Eventually, a more sophisticated test will be able to sort out these differences, Dr. Shriver adds."

"Doug the Avenger":

You were previously spamming the board with essentially the same posts.

This one is ridiculous, but at least it's new information.

The article doesn't prove anything though.

So the woman or other Americans have mixed ancestory, this doesn't demonstrate any connection between Native Americans and Jews called "Nephites," a mythological group that never existed.

These Mormon myths are not accepted by any credible historian outside of Mormon circles and eventually the LDS Church will have to admit that Joseph Smith lied and the "Book of Mormon," which is fictional.

It's not just DNA, it's everything.

The long list of errors made by Smith when he faked the book is quite long.

Not only is it historically wrong and without merit, but the book is racist.

See [www.cultnews.com]

Take a closer look at this quote rrmoderator. Read it carefully.

"...says Mark Shriver, a professor of anthropology at Penn State and a consultant for DNAPrint. Native Americans are believed to have immigrated from central Asia thousands of years ago. These same central Asians also migrated into eastern Europe, meaning that her "native American" DNA could have come from there, he says. Greeks and Ashkenazi Jews also may show significant percentages of "native American" ancestry for the same reason"

Again, this offers no proof whatsover of Mormon myths.

The response of Mormon apologists seems to be getting weaker and weaker.

Why do you think the ancestors of American Indians came from Asia?

It's been established by science, history, anthropology and research.

Go to any history or anthropology department at a college or university outside of Utah and they will explain this to you.

Rick, You quoted one anthropologist, Tom Murphy, as saying "DNA data, as well as anthropological studies, indicate American Indians are descended from Northeast Asians who migrated across the Bering Sea between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago." The CSM report quotes another anthropologist from Penn State saying that they migrated from Central Asia. Which is Central Asia or Northeast Asia?...and why the discrepancy?

"Doug the Avenger":

You are attempting again to avoid the point.

That is, no credible historian or anthropologist accepts the ridiculous stories concocted by Smith as anything other than religious writings and myths. The Mormon Church will eventually have to admit this.

Native Americans have no ties to ancient Jews as stated by Joseph Smith and so he "lied."

I'm not avoiding anything, just trying to argue at a level you can understand. The essence of our discussion is where the ancestors of American Indians came from. You said

"It's been established by science, history, anthropology and research. Go to any history or anthropology department at a college or university outside of Utah and they will explain this to you."

Actually No it hasn't.

As my previous post indicated there is no uniformity of opinion among anthropologists.

As for history, the only document that purports to be a history of the first colonisation of America is the Book of Ether. Otherwise history has nothing to say about the first Americans.

As for research it goes on, but it has yet to be conclusively proved where the ancestors of the first Americans came from. Zegura says as much in his 2004 research.

At present, the majority opinion is that they came from Central Asia. This provides no conflict whatever between the Book of Ether and the current majority opinion. The Book of Mormon (BoM) does not indicate where the Jaradites came from nor can a date be established from the BoM alone. It does say that they travelled overland before crossing the ocean. So the new Central Asia theory fits better that the pre-DNA Northeast Asia theory.

The Jaredites settled America thousands of years before Lehi according to the Book of Mormon. Lehi's descendants discovered plates with writing in the ruins of a Jaredite city. That is where the Book of Ether comes from.

As for the coming of Lehi's group in 600 BC, no research whatever has been conducted on the subject. Ergo no conclusions have been drawn by any researcher as a result of formal research.

You say your claims about the BoM are based on research. There is no research directly related to it. There are no conclusions made by scientists in published peer reviewed research papers that make any reference to the BoM or of a small party of Israelites that landed in America in 600 BC.

Your claims are based on nothing.

As stated before, Simon Southerton drew from research studies conducted for other purposes, put some facts together and drew his own conclusion. He did this several years ago before a lot of facts had yet come to light. He also overlooked findings that were available as early as 1996.

It has been abundantly demonstrated that you have no detailed knowledge of the research that has been done. You are clearly not equipped to put together your own argument using facts gleaned from those studies. Nor do you exhibit any apparent interest in learning what those studies actully have found. Consequently, You are really boring as a debating adversary.