The General Authority has already put to paper its disagreement with the limited geography theory
The question now is - who speaks for the church? Its prophet and GA, or a group of scientists and apologists.
Posted on 02/14/2009 6:41:48 PM PST by restornu
Amazing, though none hold a candle to the scholarly integrity of work from BYU, at least in the philosophical and archaeological realms. Some of their ideas and finds have been unbelievable...
In reality Reno, Southerton has access to the info Du continues to blather on about. If you want to read his response you can do so here, where he takes the results from an even more recent study that clarifies the issues discussed on the youtube series. Its about half way down.. You will see that Southerton is very up to date on the current status of DNA studies. The facts are that this more recent, larger and more detailed study he cites totally wipes away Crandall's arguement. Crandall makes an even more egregious error by looking for evidence to prove his theory, instead of letting the evidence lead to the theory. We'll see play out below.
Secondly, DNA studies have progressed to the point where the Mitochondrial haplogroups such as X which is the focus of the dispute have been further subcategorized. The subgroup of X found in native americans is not common to semitic peoples such as Jews, an it further indicates a separation that occured an estimated 10-20K years ago.
You see what Crandall doesn't tell you is the current synthesis of the data and distracts the observer in only focusing on the X haplogroup without providing the larger picture. Two types of data have been used as the basis for the molecular genetic evidence for the migration from Asia - mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA. This has expanded more recently into other DNA related studies such as Polymorphic Alu insertions; Retroviral DNA elements; Intestinal microbial flora and Domesticated animals. These studies all point to Asian migration as the source of native americans, but I'll just focus on the origional two. Based upon the DNA data both here in the americas and in Asia, three different migrations have been proposed. The first are hypothesized to have brought mtDNA haplogroups A-D and Y chromosome haplogroup P-M45a and Q-242/Q-M3 haplotypes. A second, slightly later migration is hypothesized to have entered the Americas somewhat later, bringing mtDNA haplogroup X and Y chromosome haplogroups P-M45b, C-M130, and R1a1-M17, possibly using an interior route. A third and final migration is hypothesized to have taken place after the last glacial maximum in northern North America. Now, is the Haplogroup X the same as that in Hebrews, the answer is no. The New World haplogroup X2a is as different from any of the Old World X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e and X2f lineages as they are from each other, indicating an early origin "likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East. In fact Southerton goes into even greater detail on the X group issue in his answer.
So you see, by attempting to focus all the attention on a very generic (at the time) identification of a group Crandall causes the forest to be lost because of the trees. All of these lines of DNA evidence point to a Asian/Siberian lineage of the native americans:
Y-chromosome
mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA)
Polymorphic Alu insertions
Retroviral DNA elements
Intestinal microbial flora
Domesticated animals
Add other scientific specialities and discipline's results such as archeology, anthropology and linguistic development, all indicate an asian source. Interestingly, do a google search on Hebrew DNA and you will find an immense amount of data and studies. This would supply a huge wealth of direct comparative information that Crandall could have used to evaluate the study he spoke on in the youtube post. He doesn't even acknowledge it.
Finally, Crandall is using the DNA to defend one of four competing mormon theories for the bom lands. That leads itself to other issues regarding the viability of the testimony of the bom.
The only appear in non-peer reviewed pubs like what FARMS/Maxwell inst. put out. The don't appear in real periodicals because their application of the science is so unsupported that they would be embarrassed in front of their scientific peers for even thinking about that outside of the church.
The first sign of solid research and scholarship is the desire by its practcioer(s) to SHARE it with the rest of the overall community in an open and straight forward fashion for critical review.
Picking and choosing who does so or keeping it among those inclined to support you, while perhaps not dishonest, is, well shall we say a bit suspect...
I ran across this article from 2006 today, and thought it was interesting...it is excerpted according to FR posting rules
Officially, the Mormon Church says that nothing in the Mormon scriptures is incompatible with DNA evidence, and that the genetic studies are being twisted to attack the church.
“We would hope that church members would not simply buy into the latest DNA arguments being promulgated by those who oppose the church for some reason or other,” said Michael Otterson, a Salt Lake City-based spokesman for the Mormon church.
“The truth is, the Book of Mormon will never be proved or disproved by science,” he (Otteson) said.
Unofficially, church leaders have tacitly approved an alternative interpretation of the Book of Mormon by church apologists – a term used for scholars who defend the faith.
The apologists say Southerton and others are relying on a traditional reading of the Book of Mormon – that the Hebrews were the first and sole inhabitants of the New World and eventually populated the North and South American continents.
The latest scholarship, they argue, shows that the text should be interpreted differently. They say the events described in the Book of Mormon were confined to a small section of Central America, and that the Hebrew tribe was small enough that its DNA was swallowed up by the existing Native Americans.
“It would be a virtual certainly that their DNA would be swamped,” said Daniel Peterson, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, part of the worldwide Mormon educational system, and editor of a magazine devoted to Mormon apologetics. “And if that is the case, you couldn’t tell who was a Lamanite descendant.”
Southerton said the new interpretation was counter to both a plain reading of the text and the words of Mormon leaders.
“The apologists feel that they are almost above the prophets,” Southerton said. “They have completely reinvented the narrative in a way that would be completely alien to members of the church and most of the prophets.”
“The apologists feel that they are almost above the prophets,” Southerton said. “They have completely reinvented the narrative in a way that would be completely alien to members of the church and most of the prophets.”
Imagine THAT!
We will soon see what these titans of mormon DNA really say when they go to press in peer reviewed journals.
The General Authority has already put to paper its disagreement with the limited geography theory
The question now is - who speaks for the church? Its prophet and GA, or a group of scientists and apologists.
Tee hee, I thought it was Delphi.
I am sure they will gladly share it among the several LDS linked “scientific” organizations who will congratulate them on their thorough and excellent work...
Oh I am sure the contributions of mormom dna research will go hand in hand with the rest of science.
There HAS to be a more fitting word than IRONY.
There is but I cannot use it on a religion thread...
Someone said earlier that Jesus didnt think things we did were funny...
Just goes to show that some here dont know God...
Or dont know He has a sense of humor...
The God that designed DNA certainly has a sense of humor...
He was thinking ahead...
Did Joey Smith write a “prophecy” about this day ???
I’m sure he did...
2,345 Nephi “It shall come to pass save wherefore unto...DNA will cause great destruction to the evil empire of “prophet” of the mormon god to come to pass before two centuries have passed...” (Desert Newless, Feb 19, 2009 er Feb 19 1839)
We are created in God’s image
We have a sense of humor, so why wouldn’t God.
How about an armadillo...
Yes, God has a sense of humor, a big one...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.