SO before Alma, that scripture was not "validated" ?
come on. Mormon twisting of a scripture.
copy from bible gateway...

2 Corinthians 13
Final Warnings
1This will be my third visit to you. "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."[a] 2I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, 3since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. 4For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God's power we will live with him to serve you.

5Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? 6And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. 7Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. 8For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. 9We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection. 10This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.
Final Greetings
11Finally, brothers, good-by. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.

12Greet one another with a holy kiss. 13All the saints send their greetings.

14May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

see???

When I get a moment I'll do some more investigating on the claims that people existed mormons called lamanites and nephites. So far the evidence does not support it.

If so, all this 'discussion' on the merits of mormon theology is a moot point, it's just fiction anyways...

Happy New Year!

Tick tick tick... January 3 is right around the corner...

That's not what I was saying at all. Nabster, you seem a little testy.

I'm so sorry to have offended you by quoting a Book of Mormon verse that happened to agree with the Bible. My bad.

Allen, I assume you're trying to make a "joke"

Embie, tell me about it.

Perhaps because there are far too many people in the world who proclaim they have faith and are therefore saved, yet no works of righteousness are manifest in their lives.

I think it's necessary to preach the gospel of Good Works, otherwise, folks who come to faith, may not at first realize what it means to have faith and not engage in good works and eventually end up with a faith in Christ that is hollow and without meaning. professing Christ with their mouths, but following Satan in their hearts. Not relinquishing the sinful lives they have lived, because their pastor, preacher, or priest never clearly communicated to them what real faith is.

I would rather submit that a person should never separate faith and works, but rather emphasize that they ought to be one and the same - if you have faith, you must also have good works. If you have good works, they are for naught without faith. Anything short of that and you faith is perhaps not sufficient or real.

I believe the emphasis on works that you percieve in the Mormon church is for exactly this reason. To make sure that our people don't develop a hollow faith, but rather a real and effective faith in Christ.

not testy at all. sometimes pressed for time for lengthy response.
however, what you used to support your claim, was just not the intended translation of the Word.
AND the Bible does not need third party support for truth. This is where we differ, I know. Merely stating my position again.
There are other historical (written around same time by Historians, such as Josephus or Philos(sp?) ) that can help shed light on various studies for us to be able better understand what was written why it was written and the verbage used. But mainly because we , today dont speak greek or hebrew or understand Jewish tradition of the first century or even prior.
ALma or the book mormon does none of this.

joel33, your last post on works and faith is right on. I am in complete agreement. WHat good is faith if it produces no good works? WHat good are works if not produced by faith?
We , as Christians will be judged by our works after our salvation.
Our reward in Heaven is based on works on earth.

No, current evidence does not support the theory that 'lamanites' or 'nephites' ever existed, if further investigation holds this up then the book of mormon is a nice story at best, nothing more. With the Bible - those people existed and their descendants exist, the places spoke of existed/exist. The same cannot be said of the stories found in the bom.

Allen,

we just went over all this.

Non-Mormon produced DNA evidence points to the distinct possibility.

I'll reset the quote from Virginia Morell in science magazine



Archeological evidence points to the distinct probability

linguistic evidence shows some distinct probability.

Physical evidence exists abundantly throughout Mexico and Latin America.

But I guess a mere page later, you've answered my earlier question truthfully through your actions...


your reply...



and yet you've ignored it. What's the deal Allen, were you lying the first time?

evidence and distinct possibility are two different things.
there is a distinct possibility that mormonism is completely false. and the evidence to support mormonism is, at best only a distinct possibility. While the Bible offers proof beyond just possibility.
Darwinsm offers distinct possibility not evidence. The Great flood offers evidence not just distinct possibility. (Sea creatures fossils found on mountaintops. )
Mount Sinai offeers evidence, and so on. Show us Mormonism evidence of lamanites and nephites, not just distinct possibilities. I ask because the Mormon doctrine relies heavily on North American existence of these peoples, NO?
I commend you on your patience Joel33. We can be a bit trying ...

The Bible's central claim - that Jesus is the Christ - is not substantiated by scientific evidence. As such, the Bible cannot be proved "100% true" through science any more than the Book of Mormon can.

All that can be proved through science is the possibility that these two books might be true.

The only real proof of the divinity of the Bible and the Book of Mormon comes from God, through personal revelation.

There are certainly Book of Mormon artifacts that substantiate it's claims the same as the Bible and I talked about perhaps the most significant one on the previous page. Same as the Bible.

But if the Bible's main point, can't be proved beyond a shadow of doubt through the scientific method, then it doesn't hold up to the scrutiny the Book of Mormon faces either.

Hence, for the purposes of the divine, science will never provide the answers of absolute truth that God can and will provide.

The Bible has prophecy fulfilled over hundreds of years. this to me is proof.

It hasn't been ignored, I think I've posted twice now that "further investigation is needed". And that if further investigation doesn't support the theory of lamanites and nephites then the BOM is a hoax. I've been a bit busy in the last week, with the holidays, traveling to new york city, traveling back to texas for a funeral, work, starting a business, etc. It will be looked at more, trust me. Does this look familiar?


Were you calling me a liar? Are you the one who's a bit testy?

You posted a few paragraphs of 'distinct possibilities'; I responded to the first one showing you the stuff you linked to didn't support the bom in any way once you take into account the guy's work/writings over the last 16 years. You are taking mainstream work out of context, tossing in biased mormon apologists work and saying it supports the 'distinct possibility' that those people may have existed.

And to re-focus the discussion, we're not trying to prove the existence of the supernatural (God); afterall, that's where faith is involved. We are discussing whether a people who lived from sea to sea, covering south, central and north america, numbering 'as much as the sand' ever really even existed, let alone did the things claimed. For such a numerous people, there should be LOTS of physical evidence that they existed - currently there's just speculation of a 'distinct possibility'.

Headed to bed, but a quick glance into google produced an interesting book, produced in 2002, is a bit more current than morrell's 1996 writing. I plan to look for more current info, but here's more info on "Lineage X" by Martin Jones:

http://books.google.com/books?id=m495x_todUgC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=%22lineage+x%22&source=web&ots=eEOJ59pfmg&sig=5_GCSpi5QiwjulP7xO-KwSe9eEA#PPA145,M1

Basically they're seeing mitochondrial dna info in bones from many thousands of years ago, thousands of years before the account of the lamanites and nephites was supposed to occur, that contained what they're calling "lineage x" - dna not normally found in the generally supported asian heritage of native americans. The book goes on to draw some conclusions, saying that since the migrations were made well before water crossing was possible that possibly variations in the weather over thousands of years (heating and cooling) made it possible for people used to living in the vast wastelands of the north to drift in search of food and end up in north america and wander down into the continent. They use 'possibly' and 'maybe' quite a bit in their theories of how the ancient dna arrived here, but they're sure the dating of the bones is ancient, from 8,000-13,000+ years ago - nothing in support of the people mormons called lamanites and nephites from ~600BC arriving here.

Anyways, that's a brief glance at the material. I only read 3-4 pages of the 140+ page book and I'd also like to read something more current. When I get time I'll investigate more, but I don't think much more info will need to be found to refute the 'lineage x' theory you're fond of.

True. But I wouldn't say that really have faith. They are just pretending and God can see into their hearts. He knows those who are his. I am sure you would probably agree.




A Gospel of good works you say.

Why not teach law(good works) and then Gospel(good news) seperately?

The Bible teaches that law brings wrath. How is wrath good news?

Echo

The prophecies of the Bible are largely fallacious if Jesus is not the Christ (as many of those prophecies in the Bible, particularly the OT are about that very subject).

While there is ample evidence for you and me that the Bible is true as seen through our spiritual eyes, if you look through academic eyes, it is impossible to establish the divinity of Christ.

Can we test his DNA and see whether or not it matches that of God. What if it was a better match with Joseph the husband of Mary? Would we reject him then? Doubtful.

Scientific evidence can never yield religious answers, it is merely evidence, it is not proof, and there is a distinct difference.

As such, there exists ample evidence of the Bible as a true book. There also exists ample evidence of the Book of Mormon as a true book.

Allen,

You and I are busy guys, we don't have time to become experts in DNA analysis, and the idea that you will suddenly become able to debunk the LDS faith beyond doubt, when no one else has been able to do that in the history of our religion, is laughable.

That being said, just read this website, admittedly it was compiled by a well known LDS apologist. However, the sources he cites throughout are not LDS.

Good luck, it is a long read, informative nonetheless - the basic conclusion is that DNA evidence provides insight but is inconclusive with regards to defining exactly who populated our continent anciently.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml#asia

As I said, the author is most certainly biased, but the sources he cites are most certainly not. He even discusses this information on lineage X and addresses your most recent objection.

This statement is completely wrong as the Vinland/Norse example I've cited a few times shows.

A people can come here, live here for over 500 years and leave practically no trace whatsoever, either genetic, or architectural or historical.

The Book of Mormon is no different except for the fact that there are noted architectural similarities between the the New World and Old, the influence of the Hebrew on the languages of the Ancient Americans is clear. In fact, setting aside DNA evidence, there exists more evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story than there does evidence supporting Vinland.

Here's some evidence from the website of a non-lds christian ministry.

http://hope-of-israel.org/hebinusa.htm

Here's another non-LDS source

http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/decalog.html



Echo,
Because they are the same. If you have faith you will do good works, they cannot be divided.

The Law of Moses does indeed bring wrath, but what you've misunderstood, is that the Bible speaks of two separate laws - the Law of Moses and the the Higher Law instituted by Christ. Most certainly the law (either one) is difficult for even the most faithful to abide by 100%. Nonetheless, all things are possible with God. As our faith increases in strength so will our ability to abide by Christ's higher law. The two go hand in hand.

If our Faith ever increases to the point where we surpass faith in Christ and have a pure knowledge of his goodness and glory, I would expect also that a person in that condition would be like Job - a perfectly just man.

Faith is fragile, when a person originally comes to the faith it can be easily lost through personal sin which offends the spirit and we become withdrawn from our Savior. Unless a person reinforces their infant faith with works that nurture and strengthen that faith, they may indeed fall away.

To that end, I believe it necessary to preach faith and works hand in hand. Not to emphasize one over the other, but to make sure that both recieve their proper place - we are saved by faith, even after all that we can do, faith must save us, not our works.

You say "I'm ignoring you", then when I respond that I'm not you say "irregardless my responses will be laughable". A little rusty on your Andrew Carnegie lessons?

While I have had graduate-level education in DNA and other biological sciences, I'm not going to become a "DNA expert", only present current evidence. That in itself takes time. You like to take mainstream evidence, decades old, out of context, and present it as "evidence of proof" for the mormon fiction. Then link to mormon apologists who do the same as a way of backing up those falacies.



The sources he cites in the paragraphs you link to are most certainly biased mormon apologists. They *start* their discussions assuming we believe lamanites and nephites actually lived.

John Sorenson (Nephite Culture and Society: Selected Papers, Salt Lake City: New Sage Books, 1997).

Gardner, 2001; see also Brant Gardner's online article, "A Social History of the Early Nephites").

They go on to use bom scripture as proof bom stories are true.

This discussion is becoming laughable. Post the one by the baptist preacher again, please... it has as much truth to it as anything you've linked to recently.

That guy actually believes the United States is Israel (as the culimination of OT prophecy). He also believes the Israelites came here >1,000 years prior to the bom account. Nothing he writes can be seen as supportive of bom theology. He's definitely not a historian, archeologist, or scientist. Just someone trying to find some support for his theology by taking other's research out of context and quoting people who believe as he does for backup... sound familiar? I looked up a few of his examples in current research (such as the Yuchi Indians having Jewish heritage) - no one who actually studies such things believes this.

OK, one more before bedtime again - your multiple citings of vinland as an example:

First - vinland was several viking attempts at settling in new england/ southeastern canada (New Foundland), none of which lasted more than 2 years. They kept fighting with the local native americans and losing badly. There was nothing like "live here for over 500 years". It was less than 5 years total.

Second, yes, settlements were found and excavated in 1960, that's how they corroborated the initial norse history.

There's your architectural 'trace' from settlements that lasted no where near as long as the bom would have us believe the much larger populations of the nephites and lamanites were here.

The history is interesting to me, but this could take a while for me to go through each example you regurgitate from a circa 1997 FARMS pamphlet... no, it won't be ignored, but eventually you're going to run out of FARMS data from the 90s, hopefully they've done more than denounce McConkie's "primary" since then...

Wrong.

The author cited 159 sources 13 of them were LDS sources. That's less than 10%.

and

73 of the 159 sources he cites were written after the year 2000. that's not quite half, but certainly not regurgitation from 1997, it's also not FARMS data and also not from the nineties. So wrong again.

Wrong again.

The evidence shows that there was a more or less unbroken presence from 950 to the early 1400's and that they were widespread even reaching to the upper Mississippi.

the point of the article that I linked to by the apologist was that there is so many variations that it is impossible to make a definitive conclusion regarding the origins of ancient Americans by appealing to DNA evidence. He makes that point by citing non-LDS sources. It's a valid point.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say I realize that the change from "primary" to "among" has you quite unnerved, but the fact is, the claim that Lehi was the Primary ancestor of Ancient Americans is not a scriptural claim. The Book of Mormon does not say that. By large populations, I assume you know that the Nephites and Lamanites in the Book of Mormon descend from two families (a total of 10 to 14), that came here together. Is it possible that the genetic influence of 10 -14 people could be lost? Most definitely.

For years, most Mormons have believed that the Nephites and Lamanites rapidly intermarried with the natives that were already here in order to generate the numbers of people that are talked about in the Book of Mormon. I was even taught that in LDS-seminary when I was in High School and I graduated in 1992.

So granted, Lehi is not the Primary ancestor from a genetic standpoint. However, his descendants were most certainly in pre-eminent positions of power according to the Book of Mormon account and in that sense could still be considered primary.

You know, I hadn't thought of this earlier, but, I was thinking last night and I realized the following. There is a second reason DNA evidence is irrelevant.

As I said, Lehi and Ishmael's families leave Israel in 600 B.C. and arrive here about 12 years later. while they are traveling Ishmael dies and shortly after their arrival Lehi dies. Lehi has six sons that are primarily discussed and two of them emerge as leaders of separate factions after his death. Nephi and his followers are called Nephites. Laman and his followers are called Lamanites. Laman is the unrighteous/rebellious son. Much like the Canaanites had a dark skin in the OT, the Lamanites are given a dark skin so that the Nephites will know not to intermarry with them. We see countless times in the OT that when Israelites intermarry with non-covenant people like Canaanites that the results are disastrous.

Over the many years the Book of Mormon covers, the Lamanites and Nephites obviously do intermarry. At times, the Nephites are the righteous group and at other times the Lamanites are the righteous group. In the end, nobody is really righteous except for a handful of Nephites who are exterminated by the Lamanites.

I tell you all this for one reason. The Lamanites had their skin color altered by God. Could this affect a person's DNA? I suppose it could. Then the Lamanites eradicated the Nephites - those who still would have had traces of Israelitish blood.

Archeological evidence? If we accept the proposition that Lamanites and Nephites intermarried with others who were already here (and I do) then we have the archeological evidence.

Are there not ruins in Latin America? Do they not come from the ancient inhabitants of this continent? I believe that's much more than a "trace" of evidence.



First "irregardless" is a non-standard word and highly suspect as correct grammar at all. You're not even supposed to use a double negative in a sentence and this is a double negative all in one word with the "ir" and the "less" so I suppose it means "without, without regard". Just a pet peeve.

Second, I didn't mean to imply that your responses would be laughable. What I find laughable is the notion that a person can prove or disprove a religious belief through an appeal to science. So my apologies.