But weren’t both of those groups basically from the same Milieu?

I have long believed that the Lamanites got so numerous and distinct in appearance from the Nephites by mixing with indigenous people to the South of where Lehi landed. The Lamanites dominated the culture (but not the genetics) of those more primitive peoples, just as the Nephites dominated the culture (because of their books and swords) but not the genetics of the people of Zarahemla.

Whenever some prominent person among the Nephites was an actual descendant of Nephi, it was something worthy of comment (if not bragging).

The people of Zarahemla seemed to be a mixture of Mulekites and remnants of the Jaredites. “Destruction” does not necessarily mean total annihilation of the population. In fact, that would be a rare use of the term.

The prominence of Jaredite names among the people of Zarahemla has been noted by Nibley and others. While reading chapter 1 of Helaman the other day I noticed that the bad guy of that chapter has the same name, Coriantumr, as the last Jaredite king, and is described as a giant of a man descended from Zarahemla, i.e. not a descendant of Lehi.

I would be greatly surprised to find out that Zarahemla was a pure descendant of Mulek. More likely he had a lot of Jaredite DNA.

Surely the Siberians are more Josephite than the modern European Jews.

Correspondence with Siberian DNA among indigeneous American groups would rather support the claim of tribe of Joseph DNA.

I did have a question about your quote of Joseph F. Smith and subsequent paraphrase: “if what has been said is conflict with the facts, we can set it aside.”

It seems that Joseph F. Smith is referring to “the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks”. When did science (which is what I assume you mean by facts) become one of the standard works? Which one has been replaced by it?

Or, if that is not what you mean – and I don’t think that it is what you mean, do we still have a problem if ‘facts’ ARE in conflict with the four standard works? This seems to me to be the heart of the issue.

Whether we’re looking at scientific evidence or talking about matters of faith, it’s important that we have common sense about the matter. If someone were to tell me that a teapot was orbiting out in space, my common sense would tell me that their report isn’t true (unless the teapot were space junk ejected by a space traveler). However, in the case of the Book of Mormon, my common sense tells me that the book in plausible. I’ve already documented an example from science about a later migration to Europe having a profound influence of the culture of Europe but leaving no DNA signatures that have lasted down to the current Europeans. This means that it is feasible that the Lehites could have migrated to the Americas but left no DNA signatures that are found in native Americans today. In addition, the story of the Lehites coming by ship seems feasible to me, because the Phoenicians had been sailing long distances for hundreds of years before the Lehites. That is, traveling by ship was not an unknown skill. With the help of the Lord, the Lehites could have traveled to the Americas. The Book of Mormon states that Nephi was taught by the Lord how to build a ship, using techniques that were not in common use at that time.

Keep in mind, ujlapana, that we accept the Book of Mormon as a matter of faith. We don’t accept the book because of logic, debate, or scientific evidence. Unless you can look at the book from our viewpoint (i.e. you also make it a matter of faith) you won’t understand our perspective, and our acceptance of the book will look illogical to you, and the book will appear as a myth to you.

We do believe that eventually scientific evidence will arise that will allow people to accept the book because of that evidence, but that time has not come yet.

We support you in your right to look at the Book of Mormon and at Mormonism from a scientific view and a logical view, and we hope you support us in our right to look at the book and at our religion as matters of faith.

We expect that you will have objections to our religion because of your perspective of science and logic. We hope that you understand that those reasons have little meaning to us right now due to our perspective of faith towards our religious beliefs.

A few more typos though. “FIAR” should be “FAIR” and I think you mean “Southerton” instead of “Solomon” at one point.

Precisely.