How do Mormons refute all of the native American historians? The native historians tell a much different tale?

Question

Any native American historian that isn't Mormon will tell you a much different story than the Mormons regarding the natives and they have evidence. How do Mormons with their ZERO evidence refute this fact?

Answer 1

You're correct. No vast civilization has been found in North America despite claims by the Book of Mormon.



Linguistics and genetics both show the Native Americans to be Asian in origin (fitting the Bearing Sea land bridge theory), not Jewish as the Book of Mormon suggests. In fact, there was a TV show on a few months ago which focused on a group of Native Americans who believed they were descended from the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. They agreed to genetic testings. Scientists showed they were not Jewish descendants.

Answer 2

Mormons don't have "zero evidence". They have a warm fuzzy feeling that trumps evidence. How can you argue with that?



Joshsy's overly defensive post is instructive. First, he ridicules you for claiming that the Book of Mormon people are the primary ancestors of the Native Americans. What he fails to mention is that the Book of Mormon introduction said just this for over 100 years. It has only recently been changed in the face of mounting evidence that this just isn't the case. Next he pulls out the old Mormon chestnut about Quetzalcoatl being Jesus. It only takes a cursory review of the myths and legends surrounding Quetzalcoatl to realize that this is a stretch, even by Mormon apologist standards. Next he states emphatically that the Olmec civilization matches up with the Book of Mormon people. However, again just a cursory read on Wikipedia shows us that half of the Olmecs disappeared between 400-300 BC...however the Book of Mormon tells us that the entire Jaredite civilization was killed off to the last man. So it doesn't really fit at all. Then he goes on to tell us about the favorite argument by Mormon apologists: the Limited Geography Theory (LGT). Unfortunately the narrative of the Book of Mormon simply doesn't support this theory. It doesn't hint at other groups of people or other nations. In fact it explicitly says that God has preserved the entire land for only the select few people whom He led over to the Americas. If in fact the entire hemisphere was already populated (as science tells us it was), then the Book of Mormon is simply incorrect in its claim of this land being "preserved" for the Lehites and Jaredites.



It really isn't hard to shoot down the laughable arguments of the Mormon apologists. But it doesn't matter to them. They go back to their warm fuzzy feeling and tell themselves that they must believe Joseph Smith despite all the evidence contradicting what he claimed. And they give thumbs down to anyone who challenges those claims.



EDIT: I see...so now you're saying the McConkster was the only Mormon leader to teach that the Native Americans are Lamanites? You go Joshsy! lol I just did a word search to see how many times the BoM refers to people being 'actual descendants of Lehi' but I couldn't find a single instance... Finally, your comparison of the New World being "preserved" for only those whom the Lord would lead here is not valid to the comparison of Israel being the "promised land", because God never claimed to have preserved that land and kept all others away except for the Israelites. You're right about one thing though Joshsy...facts are nice.

Answer 3

That might be relevant if what you said was true (it's not) or if all native Americans were descendants of the people in the Book of Mormon, or if those people in the Book of Mormon weren't destroyed.



So let's look at that:



1 - Not all Native American historians refute all of the Book of Mormon - that's impossible to claim and the truth is that most tribes have a creation story and flood story that seem to be Judeo-Christian in origin - however I don't attribute those to the Book of Mormon peoples.



For some groups in Meso-America they had specific religions traditions that actually fit very well with the Book of Mormon. Quetzalcoatl has a lot of aspects that relate to Christianity, in the Yucatan there is a temple to the descending bearded God that I've visited, and everybody knows that some of the Aztecs accepted the Spainards because they resembled the bearded white gods that were supposed to return. So you're absolutely wrong about that.



Furthermore the entire population cycle of the mid to late classic Olmec period fits the Book of Mormon text perfectly.



2 - The Book of Mormon seems to have taken place with a limited geography and mentions borders of lands, implying that other people were already in the land - therefore their religions would not have been known throughout the ancient Americas.



3 - The believers in the Book of Mormon all got killed by the group who didn't accept their traditions. It seems like some traditions (like the bearded god coming back) stuck and was passed on, but not all traditions were.







EDIT - I find it ironic that you make claims without backing them up and then come at others claiming that we have zero evidence.



What's your evidence? Do you really think that ALL non-Mormon native American historians have some evidence against Mormonism which you failed to detail or mention?



You skipped your evidence section, went straight to an impossibly difficult claim, then claim that we're the ones without evidence. Kind of ironic.







Searchery - warm fuzzies are nice, but so are facts:



The introduction to the Book of Mormon (commentary, not scripture) used the phrase "principal" not for 100 years, but from 1981 (added by McKonkie) until a few years ago when it was taken out - principal can mean "important", which was the general context most read it as.



The Book of Mormon doesn't include a single journey of people going from one end of the north land to the south part that lasts more than 39 days, and that group was lost. and it frequently mentioned the "borders of the land" - the limited geography is very much supported by the text.



The Olmec civilization has a major and abrupt end around 400 CE, it also did have a huge dip around 300 BCE - interestingly enough that is when the Jaredite group would have been wiped out - so it fits very well!



Laman and Lemuel went off with others and had brown babies, and there were large cities built in a generation - and throughout the book people identify themselves as "an actual descendant of Lehi" when according to you that would have included everybody. Furthermore there are other landings from the middle east also noted - so you're clearly wrong on there not being other people.



Quetzalcoatl isn't Jesus, yet there are Judeo-Christian elements to his legend that are impossible to ignore.



Last but not least, the land promised doesn't necessarily mean all of the land or that it's only for that group - look at the middle east, it was promised to "Abraham and his seed", that would be the Jews and Muslims. A promise like that isn't mutually exclusive against other groups.

Answer 4

Dude, wait till rroskopf responds, he's got a whole list of correlations/evidences that work for him. The point is Mormons don't have to convince historians, they just have to convince themselves.

Answer 5

"Based on what you wrote, any Mormon that has spent their entire life studying

Native American Histories, would be automatically disqualified from any sort of

discussion, sort of like how the Germans discounted Einstein's Theory Of Relativity

by claiming that that was a "Jewish Theory"... "





and yet mormons will discount actual native people born and raised in the cultures when we tell them we have no such stories or traditions. typical when non natives think they know more about us than we do. arrogant too.



we are NOT some lost tribe of judah nor are we lamanites or whatever other nonsense so many ascribe to us. we do not have stories of white bearded gods. in fact, we don't have any gods, nor do we worship anything or anyone. keep your religion out of our lives, thanks.

Answer 6

You should probably get help for your eschatohierophobia. You'll be much happier if you do.



Nobody has all of the facts except God, and he seems to be all right with people having their own opinions. Are you better than God?



Suddenly I feel like I have to be more specific. No, you're not.

Answer 7

Think like a mormon for a second..... Can you see it now? --- If Joseph Smith didn't say it, it is not to be believed. If Joseph Smith DID say it, swallow, sit down, and shut up. He claimed it was true, so they swallow, sit down, and shut up. Don't overthink it.



Smith's other name was "Simon Says". Simon could never saw DNA technology nor Egyptian linguistics coming, despite his "prophet" status. Didn't happen in his day, so he thought himself safe. Imagine waking up every morning and wondering, "Did they crack the Egyptian code yet? What am I going to say if they do?" Mormons merely carry on the same tradition.

Answer 8

Why do Anti-Mormons bluff all the time???



Why do Anti-Mormons constantly make stuff up and assert stuff

that they have no knowledge about whatsoever???



And the Anti-Mormons prey on the ignorance and the prejudice of the public

with their ridiculous assertions that they have not studied or know anything about.



Based on what you wrote, any Mormon that has spent their entire life studying

Native American Histories, would be automatically disqualified from any sort of

discussion, sort of like how the Germans discounted Einstein's Theory Of Relativity

by claiming that that was a "Jewish Theory"...



and we know how that worked out

don't we.



Furthermore do you honestly believe that any truly honest person would believe

your absurd illogical assertion that anything that Mormons say is wrong

but anything that Anti-Mormons say is one hundred percent the gospel truth???



Just because you hate a group of people, that does not mean that they are always

wrong and you are always right. The truth is the truth and truth is independent

of you.



No amount of hatred against Mormons, because Mormons give more to charity

than any other group in the world, is going to change that true fact.



http://Mormon.org Chat.





God bless.

Answer 9

That is why mormonism is a cult. Just believe anything they tell you no matter how crazy.

Answer 10

You won't get an answer. There aren't a lot of mormons wandering around in here. On the plus side, write this question on a scrap of paper to keep. Remember to pull it out when the missionaries show up, it'll keep them away.

Answer 11

What native American historians? NONE of them have any history that dates back to the Book of Mormon times. You, my friend, are either woefully ignorant of what native American historians are actually saying, or you are just blowing smoke.

Answer 12

Because God is more knowledgeable than all the Native Americans put together... and God is where we get our knowledge.... so you do the math.



Who CARES what mainstream thinks??? I don't give a pinch of puppy poo. I care what my Savior thinks.



My evidence comes from God. Yours comes from man. I'll stick with God, thanks.

Answer 13

Their magic underwear gives them the special power to refute even the most obvious truths.

Answer 14

They are just another cult being led to Hell, which they, conveniently, don't believe in.