W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
first published around 1830, but mormons claim it is the translation of gold plates found by Joseph Smith in upstate NY of an earlier Jewish exile community. It seems to be a mix of ideas around that time, with parts of the Bible.
But doesn't come FROM the Bible, it is NOT FROM the Bible.
Lost tribes
Randalfo , I was reading quotes from William Penn that were written approx. 1685 . He states that he was of the opinion that the American indians resembled the jewish population in London ( I'll try to locate the quote ) . Do you know if Penn was the originater of this myth ...or if this was just an opinion that was prevailing at the time ?
Randalfo , I was reading quotes from William Penn that were written approx. 1685 . He states that he was of the opinion that the American indians resembled the jewish population in London ( I'll try to locate the quote ) . Do you know if Penn was the originater of this myth ...or if this was just an opinion that was prevailing at the time ?
William Penn's Quote ( spring 1683 ) : " For their persons , they are generally tall , straight , well built and of singular proportion...of complextion black , but by design as the gypsies in England . Their eye is little and black , not unlike a straight-look'd jew . "
The author of the book this was taken from ( William Penn , Apostle of dissent ) inserts before Penns quote : " Penn did in fact believe the indians to be ... of the Jewish race - I mean of the stock of the ten tribes . I find them of like countenance and their children of such lovely resemblance , that a man would think himself in Dukesberry or Berry street in London when he seeth them . "
The author of the book this was taken from ( William Penn , Apostle of dissent ) inserts before Penns quote : " Penn did in fact believe the indians to be ... of the Jewish race - I mean of the stock of the ten tribes . I find them of like countenance and their children of such lovely resemblance , that a man would think himself in Dukesberry or Berry street in London when he seeth them . "
Last edited:
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
Re: Lost tribes
Plus, there were reports of 'white Indians', but they were always beyond the next ridge. As if ghosts or myths, that were always within grasp, but still out of reach
Here's a link about the "View of the Hebrews" theory
http://www.lds-mormon.com/voh.shtml
Apparently many had this idea; a book that may have inspired J. Smith was "View of the Hebrews" by Ethan Smith, who had a similar storyline. There was a theory that many Europeans could not believe that savage Indians could build or leave so much 'civilized' remains; such as Mayan, Aztec & Toltec ruins, so they said that Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Africans, Asians, or Atlanteans built all these wonders. Anybody, but Indians in these theories.
Plus, there were reports of 'white Indians', but they were always beyond the next ridge. As if ghosts or myths, that were always within grasp, but still out of reach
Here's a link about the "View of the Hebrews" theory
http://www.lds-mormon.com/voh.shtml
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
What do you think of these quotes?
These are from an anonymous mormon source, what do you think of these quotes? Any comments?
the book of mormon isTRUE
I would like to start out by saying that this is a great thing that you are trying to get people from the church or prove us wrong well let me tell you some ting no matter what any one says this is a true book tell me something i would like to know if we are so called wrong then tell me why we have somany people joing this religon well it has to be true if not then we are damned becaus christs church is not on this earth to day and we will alll go to hell i know that the book of mormon is correct and the people in the book of mormon are indeed the ancesters of the native americans and that this land is choice above all other lands i know that if the peopl had contionued to live the teaching of the profits of old columbus would not have found america it is hard to cut ont the mormon church. " And behold I would exort you if you should these thing if it be wisdom in god that you should read these things and rember how mercful the lord has been unto the children of men from the creaton of adam even down to the time you shall recev the s thing i would exort you to ask god the eternal father in the name of jesus christ if these thing arenot then by the power of the holy ghost ye may know the truth fulness of the things." well i thnk that you should ask god your self and with a sicner heart and real intent having faith in jesus christ well i did and i have found so much happness in its teachings . and you can to if you want to . seth
I would like to start out by saying that this is a great thing that you are trying to get people from the church or prove us wrong well let me tell you some ting no matter what any one says this is a true book tell me something i would like to know if we are so called wrong then tell me why we have somany people joing this religon well it has to be true if not then we are damned becaus christs church is not on this earth to day and we will alll go to hell i know that the book of mormon is correct and the people in the book of mormon are indeed the ancesters of the native americans and that this land is choice above all other lands i know that if the peopl had contionued to live the teaching of the profits of old columbus would not have found america it is hard to cut ont the mormon church. " And behold I would exort you if you should these thing if it be wisdom in god that you should read these things and rember how mercful the lord has been unto the children of men from the creaton of adam even down to the time you shall recev the s thing i would exort you to ask god the eternal father in the name of jesus christ if these thing arenot then by the power of the holy ghost ye may know the truth fulness of the things." well i thnk that you should ask god your self and with a sicner heart and real intent having faith in jesus christ well i did and i have found so much happness in its teachings . and you can to if you want to . seth
pumpkinsaren'torange
Registered Senior Member
:bugeye: Seth, have you been channeling Joseph Smith again?
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
Hi Pumpkin!
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
Re: the book of mormon isTRUE
I feel that current studies of DNA, linguistics, etc. will disprove the Mormon theory that Native Americans are descendant from the 'Ten Lost Tribes of Israel'. I do not believe this theory, because except for the Vikings, there's no real evidence that any other culture had an impact on any Native American tribe, until Columbus. No stories, no place names, no family names, no words or languages, no foods, no writing, no art, no animals, no technology, no resistance to diseases, no genetic trace.
Any tribe exposed to advanced cultures, usually takes up aspects of it. Look at what happened in New Guinea and Polynesia. Recently in southern Africa they were able to prove that the Lemba are Jewish descendents, using gene studies that followed the Y chromosome of the priestly Aaronic-line of males (cohen = priest). And the genes matched Jews from Israel and the Diaspora. The Lemba also had stories that they were Jewish, had Kosher-type laws and other customs. Yet they were as black as any other African, in other words they looked native! If the stories in the Book of Mormon are to be believed, this would also be true of Native Americans, if they were Jewish as the Mormons claim, you could trace their genetic makeup, customs and stories. It should be provable.
My point is, since it seems that most Indians are majority 'B' blood type and belong to the A, B, C, & D halogroups; it would then be simple to correlate the blood types and halogroups that the majority of Asiatic, Israeli & Diaspora Jews belongs to. If you can find out, you will prove the Mormon theory one way or another.
Any one coming over to the Western Hemisphere with iron, steel or shipbuilding technology would have made a huge impact on stone-age people. Which, except for precious metals and some copper and tin, there's no evidence that any tribe was other that stone age. Anybody with metal swords would have become kings or great warriors of myth, under any of the warrior cultures, (which the Mayans, Aztecs, & Incas were). These swords would have been treasured and handed down for generations, sort of like the Arthurian legend of Excalibur in England. There should be words in common, for those tribes that came in contact with Europeans or Asians. When white, black or yellow peoples first showed up here in the Western Hemisphere, they should have been called mythological names that could be traced to their homelands, (like 'Israelotl', 'Neftotl', or 'Moronotl', etc, not Quetzalcoatl = Feathered Serpent). They should have had elephants, horses, etc. in their art.
They should have common writing, which except for the Olmec & Mayan glyphs and Aztec picture drawing there is no evidence that that any Native American tribe used writing. There has to be some tangible evidence.
Mormons, that claim that the Native American Indians are descendant from the "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel", say that all the ancient monuments and cities are the result of an ancient war by these 'Lost Tribes', which left them without any knowledge of their past, and because of their evil, turned them into dark-skinned people!!??
I do not agree with this belief, and as a Mexican (mixed Indian & Spanish blood), I find it culturally imperialistic to think that Native peoples needed outside help to develop these ancient sites. I also think, that any reference to "Lost Tribes" is in error, since I think that many descendents of the Assyrian Captivity stayed on in the Assyrian Empire, lived as Jews there (so they were never ‘lost’), up until the founding of the modern State of Israel, when they immigrated to Israel from present-day Syria, Iraq & Iran (the borders of the old Assyrian Empire).
If you are a missionary, you have a long way to go, to prove anything you said
First, if the BoM was true, you should be able to refute this:
I feel that current studies of DNA, linguistics, etc. will disprove the Mormon theory that Native Americans are descendant from the 'Ten Lost Tribes of Israel'. I do not believe this theory, because except for the Vikings, there's no real evidence that any other culture had an impact on any Native American tribe, until Columbus. No stories, no place names, no family names, no words or languages, no foods, no writing, no art, no animals, no technology, no resistance to diseases, no genetic trace.
Any tribe exposed to advanced cultures, usually takes up aspects of it. Look at what happened in New Guinea and Polynesia. Recently in southern Africa they were able to prove that the Lemba are Jewish descendents, using gene studies that followed the Y chromosome of the priestly Aaronic-line of males (cohen = priest). And the genes matched Jews from Israel and the Diaspora. The Lemba also had stories that they were Jewish, had Kosher-type laws and other customs. Yet they were as black as any other African, in other words they looked native! If the stories in the Book of Mormon are to be believed, this would also be true of Native Americans, if they were Jewish as the Mormons claim, you could trace their genetic makeup, customs and stories. It should be provable.
My point is, since it seems that most Indians are majority 'B' blood type and belong to the A, B, C, & D halogroups; it would then be simple to correlate the blood types and halogroups that the majority of Asiatic, Israeli & Diaspora Jews belongs to. If you can find out, you will prove the Mormon theory one way or another.
Any one coming over to the Western Hemisphere with iron, steel or shipbuilding technology would have made a huge impact on stone-age people. Which, except for precious metals and some copper and tin, there's no evidence that any tribe was other that stone age. Anybody with metal swords would have become kings or great warriors of myth, under any of the warrior cultures, (which the Mayans, Aztecs, & Incas were). These swords would have been treasured and handed down for generations, sort of like the Arthurian legend of Excalibur in England. There should be words in common, for those tribes that came in contact with Europeans or Asians. When white, black or yellow peoples first showed up here in the Western Hemisphere, they should have been called mythological names that could be traced to their homelands, (like 'Israelotl', 'Neftotl', or 'Moronotl', etc, not Quetzalcoatl = Feathered Serpent). They should have had elephants, horses, etc. in their art.
They should have common writing, which except for the Olmec & Mayan glyphs and Aztec picture drawing there is no evidence that that any Native American tribe used writing. There has to be some tangible evidence.
Mormons, that claim that the Native American Indians are descendant from the "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel", say that all the ancient monuments and cities are the result of an ancient war by these 'Lost Tribes', which left them without any knowledge of their past, and because of their evil, turned them into dark-skinned people!!??
I do not agree with this belief, and as a Mexican (mixed Indian & Spanish blood), I find it culturally imperialistic to think that Native peoples needed outside help to develop these ancient sites. I also think, that any reference to "Lost Tribes" is in error, since I think that many descendents of the Assyrian Captivity stayed on in the Assyrian Empire, lived as Jews there (so they were never ‘lost’), up until the founding of the modern State of Israel, when they immigrated to Israel from present-day Syria, Iraq & Iran (the borders of the old Assyrian Empire).
If you are a missionary, you have a long way to go, to prove anything you said
pumpkinsaren'torange
Registered Senior Member
*awaits patiently for Seth's reply*
p.s. hi Randolpho...
p.s. hi Randolpho...
There was a post about Joseph Smith working from some Egyptian papyrus manuscripts. ????
I thought he was given or found some gold tablets and a pair of spectacles which miraculously allowed him to read the tablets. After he read them to somebody who wrote it all down, the tablets and spectacles were taken away never to be seen again.
As far as I know the above is the basic story of the origin of the Book of Mormon.
An interesting aspect of the LDS church is that it believes in on-going revelation. The head of the church (their version of the Pope) can get communications from god telling him that dogma and/or behavioral rules have been changed. This allowed them to officially stop practicing polygamy when it was interfering with their becoming a state.
If need be, god can tell the leader that the story about the origin of the Book of Mormon and the whole concept of the ten tribes showing up in the New World was an allegory designed to help ignorant people find a truer religion than the one they had. The story can be changed to one about how god inspired Joe Smith to have hallucinations and make up this story so that a new religion could be founded.
Many modern Judeo-Christian sects have essentially done this with Old Testament stories.
I thought he was given or found some gold tablets and a pair of spectacles which miraculously allowed him to read the tablets. After he read them to somebody who wrote it all down, the tablets and spectacles were taken away never to be seen again.
As far as I know the above is the basic story of the origin of the Book of Mormon.
An interesting aspect of the LDS church is that it believes in on-going revelation. The head of the church (their version of the Pope) can get communications from god telling him that dogma and/or behavioral rules have been changed. This allowed them to officially stop practicing polygamy when it was interfering with their becoming a state.
If need be, god can tell the leader that the story about the origin of the Book of Mormon and the whole concept of the ten tribes showing up in the New World was an allegory designed to help ignorant people find a truer religion than the one they had. The story can be changed to one about how god inspired Joe Smith to have hallucinations and make up this story so that a new religion could be founded.
Many modern Judeo-Christian sects have essentially done this with Old Testament stories.
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
To answer here is an excerpt from, http://www.mormonstudies.com/seer2.htm:
"In July 1835 Joseph Smith acquired some Egyptian scrolls, which he immediately started to translate, claiming that the rolls contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph of Egypt. He also began work on an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and discovered that the hieroglyphs on the papyri were similar to both Hebrew and to the characters on the plates which contained the Book of Mormon.
After Joseph's death in 1844, the papyri remained in the custody of Emma Smith. In 1856 she sold them to a man named A. Combs. For many years, it was thought that they had been given to a museum in Chicago and that they had been destroyed in the Great Fire of 1871. However, they were discovered in 1966 at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art and were acquired by the Mormon church the following year.
Since their discovery, the papyri have been examined by Egyptologists. Because Joseph copied characters from the papyri and wrote out his translation next to them, it has been possible to determine exactly which one of the papyri supposedly contained the writings of Abraham. This is often referred to as the small Sensen fragment. This papyrus has been translated and is nothing more than a very common funerary text, dating between 100 B.C. and A.D. 100, taken from the Book of Breathings, which is itself a shorter version of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. These texts were placed in coffins or burial chambers to assist the soul of the deceased in the afterlife. "
Some more links:
BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 2
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/examfac2.htm
http://nowscape.com/mormon/kolob-defined3.htm
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
truth as in little "t", we all have subjective "truths", things we believe are true, but that doesn't make them "TRUTH", I could know as truth that the planet earth is a golfball, but that doesn't make it true, even though its my "truth"
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Be careful with vague words like "thousands." India and China have only been civilizations, capable of engaging in activities like trade and war, for six or seven thousand years. (The exact figure eludes my Googling but I know it can't be more than eight thousand.) Before that they were Stone Age tribes like all the world was, except for a few people in Mesopotamia who got a very slight head start of maybe one or two thousand years. The big migration across Beringia was six thousand years before that. At that time, the ancestors of the Chinese, Indians and Mesopotamians were nomadic hunter-gatherers with no permanent settlements, and their "culture" was limited to what they could carry, since there were no domesticated animals to help. There were no Jews or even Canaanites yet, no Israelite tribes to become lost.
The aboriginal Americans hunted the mastodon to extinction. Are there no renditions of this animal in their art?
Check me but I'm fairly certain they were invented here, as they were invented independently in many places, not brought by immigrants.
Well actually it did, but that's not such an insult. "Civilization" merely means "the building of cities." It was a quantum advance in technology, just like agriculture, metallurgy, writing, engines, electronics and computers. "Uncivilized" people are simply people who live in farming or fishing villages (Neolithic) or nomadic hunter-gatherers (Mesolithic).
In the context of this debate, the key impact of the building of cities was probably the sociological one: for the first time people learned to live in harmony and cooperation with strangers. "Uncivilized" people are those who have never had a reason to learn to trust strangers, who regard them as competitors for scarce resources or as bandits who will steal their surplus wealth (stored food, clothing, etc.).
Yet civilization is a gradual process. Most of the native peoples of what is now the USA and Canada never quite got to the point of building true cities, yet many of them had made the necessary first step of establishing trade among their villages. This facilitated both overcoming the human ape species's pack-social instinct to drive off outsiders, as well as allowing the human ape species's strong curiosity to demystify the differences among them.
This is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. Don't forget that China was several thousand years into the world's longest continuous civilization, with an elaborate government, an ancient written language, and plenty of chroniclers and historians. The Chinese of that extremely recent era (from their perspective) were described in written accounts as accomplished sailors (but from everything I've read ) they didn't much care to lose sight of the land and they were not noted for a driving curiosity. They could have sailed north along their coastline, past Alaska, and down the American coast--especially twenty thousand years ago when sea level was much lower--and indeed one of the not-at-all-crackpot theories competing with the hike across Beringia is just that. But if you want intrepid explorers you'd best look at the Polynesians, who settled both Madagascar and Hawaii.
It started in Human Science or something like that. The first postings fit quite well in C.R. Six-page threads have a habit of morphing into something different from the original discussion.
the book of moron is true.
peace.
peace.
kmguru
Staff member
on a related matter...
Cave sites in Sri Lanka have yielded the earliest record of modern homo sapiens in South Asia. They were dated to 34,000 years ago . (Kennedy 2000: 180). mtDNA analysis dates the immigration of Homo sapiens to South Asia to 70 to 60 thousand years ago.
Based on a syntheses of fossil, artifact, and genetic data, Michael Petraglia and Hannah James argue that modern humans arrived there about 70,000 years ago.
Cave sites in Sri Lanka have yielded the earliest record of modern homo sapiens in South Asia. They were dated to 34,000 years ago . (Kennedy 2000: 180). mtDNA analysis dates the immigration of Homo sapiens to South Asia to 70 to 60 thousand years ago.
Based on a syntheses of fossil, artifact, and genetic data, Michael Petraglia and Hannah James argue that modern humans arrived there about 70,000 years ago.
I have no idea! Someone has moved this thread here from somewhere.
I guess it is kinda anthropological... :bugeye: