Replies

>Are you familiar with the Levitical Priesthood, BTW? And the absolute requirement in Judaism that the Priests of the Temple be of the line of Levi? And that it is the Y chromosome which passes the father specific lineage?

You equate genealogical and DNA lineage which are two seperate things when it comes to the requirement for the Levitcal priesthood lineage. It doesn't work like that. Jesus' lineage is identified in Matthew chapter 1 through Joseph (his "adoptive" Father). John the Baptist was a Levite both through his Father's and Mother's line. (wouldn't that give him both Y and Mitochondrial markers?) Genealogical lineage requirement in the Bible was not as precise as modern scientific DNA understanding.

IOW, you didn't have to have the exact DNA (or only the Y side) to still be considered of the lineage.

You provide an example of one line or tribe that can show they are related through the Y marker. OK, what about all the other lines from the Tribe of Levi? What about the other 11 (technically 12) Tribes besides the Levites and their descendants. The Nephites don't claim the tribe of Levi but Manasseh. You have shown another straw man argument (that BoM people must have the Y Levirate DNA)

So apparently you do not understand the necessity of the Levitical Priesthood for Jewish Temple worship. Also, you apparently do not understand the meaning of 'parents' from a DNA standpoint in identifying the two women who were mothers of note used in the BYU dissembling talking points to respond when DNA is brought up. Go back one or two generations prior to the two females becoming parents and you have common mitochondrial DNA, so the entire farce from BYU's talking points collapses on itself ... and that talking point was supposedly from a microbiologist! Wouldn't want to be in his classes if that's the depth of his understanding..

Dig a little, learn a little about DNA alleles and markers and we'll discuss it further ... you may awaken to come out of Mormonism! The DNA evidence of Native Americans points to their being descended from Asians not Jews. If they were descended from Jews, there are markers that would be present regadless of how much 'mixing' you try to infer. Period. This is not seeking to prove a negative, the evidence points away from the fabrication by Smith in his novel. Trying to substantiate the fable in the B of M is like sending someone to find an address in Chicago by giving them a map of Los Angeles. It's getting comical, actually.

In a court of law, if the assertions by Smith regarding genetic descent were on trial for fraud, and DNA evidence proving Asian descent were presented, the fraud would be verified. Apparently you choose to ignore this. That's fine, readers aren't missing the fine points here. Keep spittling.