Posted on 02/14/2009 6:41:48 PM PST by restornu
Was Hebrew DNA recently found in American Indian populations in South America? According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.
But it probably has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon -- at least not directly.
For years several critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the lack of Hebrew DNA markers in living Native American populations is evidence the book can't be true. They say the book's description of ancient immigrations of Israelites is fictional.
"But," said Woodward, "as Hugh Nibley used to say, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' "
Critic Thomas Murphy, for example, wrote in one article about how the Cohen modal haplotype had been found in the Lemba clan in Africa. The Lemba clan's oral tradition claims it has Jewish ancestors.
Murphy then complained, "If the (Book of Mormon) documented actual Israelite migrations to the New World, then one would expect to find similar evidence to that found in a Lemba clan in one or more Native American populations. Such evidence, however, has not been forthcoming."
Until now.
So will Murphy and other critics use this new evidence of Hebrew DNA markers to prove the Book of Mormon is correct? Probably not. But neither should anyone else.
Why?
According to Woodward, the way critics have used DNA studies to attack the Book of Mormon is "clearly wrong." And it would be equally wrong to use similar DNA evidence to try to prove it.
This is because "not all DNA (evidence) is created equal," Woodward said.
According to Woodward, while forensic DNA (popularized in TV shows like "CSI") looks for the sections of DNA that vary greatly from individual to individual, the sections of DNA used for studying large groups are much smaller and do not change from individual to individual.
Studies using this second type of DNA yield differing levels of reliability or, as Woodward calls it, "resolution."
At a lower resolution the confidence in the results goes down. At higher resolution confidence goes up in the results.
Guess which level of resolution critics of the Book of Mormon use?
The critics' problem now is what they do with the low-resolution discovery of Hebrew DNA in American Indian populations.
For people who believe that the Book of Mormon is a true account, the problem is to resist the temptation to misuse this new discovery.
Woodward says that most likely, when higher-resolution tests are used, we will learn that the Hebrew DNA in native populations can be traced to conquistadors whose ancestors intermarried with Jewish people in Spain or even more modern migrations.
Ironically, it is the misuse of evidence that gave critics fuel to make their DNA arguments in the first place. According to Woodward, the critics are attacking the straw man that all American Indians are only descendants of the migrations described in the Book of Mormon and from no other source.
Although some Latter-day Saints have assumed this was the case, this is not a claim the Book of Mormon itself actually makes. Scholars have argued for more than 50 years that the book allows for the migrations meeting an existing population.
This completely undermines the critics' conclusions. They argue with evangelic zeal that the Book of Mormon demands that no other DNA came to America but from Book of Mormon groups.
Yet, one critic admitted to Woodward that he had never read the Book of Mormon.
Woodward also sees that it is essential to read the Book of Mormon story closely to understand what type of DNA the Book of Mormon people would have had. The Book of Mormon describes different migrations to the New World. The most prominent account is the 600-B.C. departure from Jerusalem of a small group led by a prophet named Lehi. But determining Lehi's DNA is difficult because the book claims he is not even Jewish, but a descendant of the biblical Joseph.
According to Woodward, even if you assume we knew what DNA to look for, finding DNA evidence of Book of Mormon people may be very difficult. When a small group of people intermarry into a large population, the DNA markers that might identify their descendants could entirely disappear -- even though their genealogical descendants could number in the millions.
This means it is possible that almost every American Indian alive today could be genealogically related to Lehi's family but still retain no identifiable DNA marker to prove it. In other words, you could be related genealogically to and perhaps even feel a spiritual kinship with an ancestor but still not have any vestige of his DNA.
Such are the vagaries, ambiguities and mysteries of the study of DNA.
So will we ever find DNA from Lehi's people? Woodward hopes so.
"I don't dismiss the possibility," said Woodward, "but the probability is pretty low."
Woodward speculated about it, imagining he were able to identify pieces of DNA that would be part of Lehi's gene pool. Then, imagine if a match was found in the Native American population.
But even then, Woodward would be cautious. "It could have been other people who share the same (DNA) markers," said Woodward about the imaginary scenario.
"It's an amazingly complex picture. To think that you can prove (group relationships) like you can use DNA to identify a (criminal) is not on the same scale of scientific inquiry."
Like the Book of Mormon itself, from records buried for centuries in the Hill Cumorah, genetic "proof" may remain hid up unto the Lord.
I had in mind a cureloms
Two cureloms walked in to a bar...
In this letter the GA makes it clear that the last battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites occurred in New York.
I believe this to be accurate, the battle did occur there, but the fighting took place in either Peru or perhaps further north in Central America....
See, now I am qualified to be an LDS Scholar.
Positively NON of the information about the textual inconsistencies between different dated versions of the first bom and varying accounts of Joseph Smith’s second vision have been refuted.
Just because you come in without any accurate or sourced and neutral material capale of even passingly refuting the thesis of my remarks, and cast your “blanket of dismissal” broadly over the whole of it does not make your wishes so.
I cited “View of the Hebrews” by the Poultney Congr. church pastor, Ethan Smith (the church Ollie Cowdery and family are known to have attended regularly) as well as 3 other known volumes of similar topic, which predate the bom, I also cited two newspapers contemporary with Smith and the accounts.
You have not challenged - let alone disproven the facts extant on the face of these (the Painesville, Ohio “Telegraph”, the “Evening and Morning Star”, and the original “Book of Commandments”) which, by their very existence cast a dark and wide shadow of doubt on Joseph Smith’s tendency to tell the truth on anything remotely resembling a regular basis - especially regarding his two visions.
Neither can you adequately explain the diverging paths of whether the “angel” was in fact initially:
1) known as Moroni
2) known as Nephi (1839’s “History” of the church, dictated by Smith, repeated in “Times and Seasons”, 1839 without correction [by Smith or anyone else] through the remainder of Smith’s life
3) not specifically named (original “revelation”, 1830 - in print as such on/before 19 April, 1831. Also found in Smith’s 1832 account, in which he reworked into a vison of Christ
Accounts are in print which inarguably demonstrate that all three variations were offered forth - by Smith and his followers, and that they were represented as truth.
So who was the apparition? Many reliable witnesses - neighbors of young Joseph in the Manchester-Palmyra area - insist the story Joseph told was of a bloody ghost, dressed as a Spaniard.
These people include neighbor Fayette Lapham, and relative Hiel Lewis, (cousin of Smith’s wife Emma) - who said he hear Joe tell a Rev. N. Lewis that a dream led to his discovery of the golden plates {Hiel Lewis, letter to James T. Cobb, “Amboy Journal”, April 30, 1879. This is reprinted in Wyl and available online for purchase at:
www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/up016_mormonportraits}
Fayette Lapham heard the same scenario from Joseph Smith Sr., but young Joe’s father additionally revealed that it was the very same bloody ghost that appeared to Joseph at the location of the plates had been the same messenger to appear in young Joseph’s dream.
So just WHO was the messenger? Moroni, Nephi, the “father and Son”?
Personally, I vote - LUCIFER/SATAN. Maybe not in a seersucker suit with cloven hooves, but...
The whole of it belongs in the “fiction is stranger than TRUTH” category. As it turned out for Joseph, you apparently CAN make up stuff like that.
Given that in 1826, young Joey was arrested in Bainbridge, New York for being a “disorderly person and an imposter” He broke the law by hiring himself out as a money-digger to one Josiah Stowell, and was consequently brought to court as a glass-looker, or “one who, by peering through a glass stone could see things not discernible to the natural eye.”
Under examination by the court, Smith admitted to having “a certain stone” that he used to find buried treasure.
Several witnesses were brought forth, and following their sworn testimony, a “Guilty” judement was pronounced.
However, owing to Smith’s age, he was allowed to make “leg bail”
This is a nice way of saying he was released and told in no uncertain terms to get out of town.
Mormons have argued against the veracity of this story for decades - some persist even now - but in 1971, evidence was uncovered by religious researchers to prove it conclusively and indisputably.
Namely, the authenticated bill for the 1826 court case, presided over by one Justice Albert Neely, which had been previously published in the form of a court transcript by the 1873 “Fraser’s Magazine”.
Prior to the unearthing of this evidence, LDS apologist Hugh Nibley stated that if those allegations made in the magazine’s transcripted account were ever proved authentic it would be “the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith”, and highly popular LDS author Frances Kirkham echoed the same opinion.
Naturally, both knew that G_d condemns divination, among many other occultic practices (known popularly today as ‘magick’)
Why is all of this important in a dialogue that ostensibly began as a back-and-forth about “Hebrew DNA”?
Because the whole DNA argument rests upon a foundation of sand. It is the fruit (or nuts) of an ill-begotten tree.
In other words, there is no relevance to whether or not you can tap-dance and shuffle fast enough to make it appear for stolen moments as if DNA either:
a)appears to lend some credence/support to some version of the bom account(s) of a pre-Babylonian captivity Jewish diaspora to the Americas,
or
b) does not conclusively DISPROVE bom contentions about a pre-Babylonian captivity Jewish diaspora to the Americas.
...Because Joseph Smith’s personal credibility, honesty, and integrity are as suspect as ANY erstwhile religious sect leader to rear his head throughout the 1800s (hey, at least Charles Taze Russell was not an illicit polygamist - he only sold “miracle wheat”).
Smith took a second wife in 1832 or 1833, a third wife in 1838 or 1839, and three more wives in 1841. Not until 12 July, 1843 did Smith (allegedly) receive a revelation commanding his first wife Emma to accept polygamy. All the while, Smith and many mormon leaders publicly DENIED polygamy.
In an 1843 issue of the “Times and Seasons” periodical, it was declared, “We are charged with advocating a plurality of wives...[T]his is as false as the many other ridiculous charges which are brought against us. No sect has a greater reverence for the laws of matrimony, or the rights of private property; and we do what others do not, practice what we preach.”
It is usually at this point that LDS faithful point to Abraham’s lying (Gen. 12:10-16), David’s adultery (2 Samuel 11), or Peter’s denial of Christ (Matthew 26:69-75).
These anecdotes, however, are just that - anecdotes. They are not key indicators of a larger pattern of lifelong conduct. They are humanly normal and momentary moral lapses...exceptions.
Joseph Smith’s entire life from his Bainbridge, NY conviction through his secretly practiced polygamy, until his timely death during an attempted jailbreak was a parade of “exceptions”, an evident pattern of behaviours which directly violated 1 John 3:6-10,
“No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. Dear children do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of G_d appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of G_d will continue to sin because G_d’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning because he has been born of G_d. This is how we know who the children of G_d are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of G_d; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.”
Joseph Smith’s doctrine apparently includes the premise that Lucifer - the Serpent - Satan, who deceived Eve and Adam in the Garden was simply making available to them, the opportunity to exercise the “wise choice”.
Since the eating of the fruit led to Man being expelled from the Garden, and was the work of the devil - and the Son of G_d (as mentioned above) appeared to destroy the devil’s work, then Smith’s doctrine is IN OPPOSITION to the work of the Saviour, as was evidenced amply by the way Smith conducted his life.
The stain of repetitive sin (sexual immorality, lying, divination and occultic arts, his efforts to cheat merchants out of money owed to them for their goods) upon his character marks him as NOT a man born of G_d, and therefore wholly unsuitable and unworthy to be a credible prophet, nor an exemplary leader.
He had charisma, remarkable intuition, toughmindedness, a relatively handsome physical appearance, and was athletic, as well as being a fairly natural speaker.
But he was not holy, not righteous, and not a prophet. Therefore in the case of the many known and documented internal contradictions among versions of the first and second visions, it is Smith and the subsequent “refinements” and revisions of his account(s) which cannot and may not be trusted by those with any wisdom or discernment.
And since...
...LDS “prophet” David McKay (1873 - 1970) described Smith’s first ‘vision” as foundational to mormonism. Recently passed LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley said more pointedly, “Either Joseph Smith talked with the Father and the Son or he did not. If not, we are engaged in a blasphemy.”
Hinckley also articulated,”We declare without equivocation that G_d the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith...our whole strength rests in the validity of that vision. It either occurred, or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud.”
This work is a fraud, the vision(s) invalid, the doctrines are blasphemy.
I followed your links (irrelevant as they are), even though they were intended as nothing more than a “red herring” to distract attention from evidence you could not (and did not) refute, in an abortive effort to regain any ground in an argument where you consistently suffer from the axiomatic “one step forward, two steps back” problem...
they really do nothing to bolster the strength of the DNA evidence on the side of the mormon beliefs in Native Americans as Jews, nor do they offer a remedy for the shortcomings in your skills at crafting cogent or cohesive points in support of the LDS position.
I could have a vision of a broken sword, a lost ring, a forgotten Dark lord, Elves of pure light, and lay claim to the “Lord of the Rings” as ‘another testament’, created a set of companion volumes full of rules for living and repetitions of chapters from LOTR, and set my “followers” to unearthing archaeological evidence to demonstrate the existence of Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, Orcs and Goblins...cite fossilized foods as proof of the fact of ‘Lembas - Elvish waybread’ and cite DNA studies from varying scholars to hold up dwarfism genes as proof that Christ came as Gandalf, or Frodo, or Aragorn - to middle earth...
But the story would remain fiction, and I would have shown myself a fraud and a huckster.
One cannot misuse science to remake a lie and a (repeatedly and substantially revised) work of flawed, plagiarized fiction into a work of original nonfiction.
That is the point.
A.A.C.
I have asked a similar question and the best I rec’d is,
“a prophet is a prophet when acting as such”. Meaning? Nothing but weasel words as far as I’m concerned.
And good posts, much better thread with them!
bears repeating.
Personally, I vote - LUCIFER/SATAN. Maybe not in a seersucker suit with cloven hooves, but... The whole of it belongs in the “fiction is stranger than TRUTH” category. As it turned out for Joseph, you apparently CAN make up stuff like that.
If at least it was satan in disguise, the story would have maintain a cohesiveness that is totally lacking in the evolution of the story.
One cannot misuse science to remake a lie and a (repeatedly and substantially revised) work of flawed, plagiarized fiction into a work of original nonfiction.
Only false prophets translate false plates.
Unless the doctrine is now embarrassing to a 21st century people who know bad fiction when they see it. Kinda like nailing jello to the wall - defining when a prophet is a prophet.
Well done!
That, in a nutshell, is EXACTLY how the LDS/Mormon church has consistently tried to deal with textual inconsistencies, unflattering facts about notable leaders, and other evidence that they didn’t appreciate...
Cross it out, conceal it, or excise it, and carry on as if it never happened!
I admire your unabashed willingness to be blatant about it - I think...
A.A.C.
now if we can only just “strike through” those eight pesky, extraneous accounts of Joe’s vision...
The Deseret Newsless was published in the Deseret alphabet.
"This reader was published in 1868 in the Deseret alphabet. Its title reads "The Deseret Second Book by the Regents of the Deseret University." Development of the Deseret Alphabet was begun in October 1853, and a few books, including the Book of Mormon, were published in this phonetic script before 1870. Courtesy Rare Books and Manuscripts, Brigham Young University.
-SNIP-
Scriptural passages written in the Deseret Alphabet appeared in the Deseret News in 1859. Orson Pratt transcribed further materials that were published in New York City, printed with type designed and cast there, at a total cost of $18,500. These included first and second school readers in 1868 and the Book of Mormon and a third reader of excerpts from it in 1869. Although few of these books were sold, some Sunday schools as well as territorial schools used them."
Reno,
Just wanted to draw your attention to Godzilla’s
EXCELLENT response, informing you of Southerton’s
updated work.
Did you know Southerton used to be a Bishop in the
Mormon Church, before he realized the fallacy of
what the Book of Mormon teaches about DNA and
other issues?
Yep, he was an honest man, who saw the falsehood
and left mormonism!
This should give you and every other mormon who
wants to face the truth and leave, extra incentive
to know there is life - great life and faith -
outside mormonism. I will personally help you or
any other mormon who would like to make a break
and leave mormonism. I know Colorcountry would
also - and frankly, since she used to be a part
of the system, many, many mormons may feel quite
a bit more comfortable talking to her. She will
certainly understand your struggles, doubts and
concerns, since she used to be right where you are.
I’m speaking for you cc, but wouldn’t you be available
to help any mormon who would like some support as
they try to make a clean break with mormonism?
All the best,
ampu
Oh yes! I would love to help. The problem is, they have already labled me an enemy. I wish they could see what a good conservative I am. I have great family values and a wonderful work ethic. I am not the ogre they believe me to be.
Please, please anyone private mail me at any time with any question. If I don’t know the answer, I know where there are those who do.
Thanks ampu for speaking my heart!
Indians say it was here before them, and you think Hibben forged it....
As to the "Straw man" assertion, no, there are collateral carvings, including a carving over what is probably an alter that have the Tetragrammaton carved over it. There is no evidence that Hibben even knew that was there (it's also in Paleo Hebrew).Book of Mormon anticipates modern Mesoamerican archeology.Now you had a long list of "Problems" and it boils down to time. I like to put links to videos because I have two monitors on my computer and work takes precedence, but I can have a video going on the second monitor, listen and start and stop it as needed to keep working. You want to give me large documents to read, and that's fine, I like to read, but I can't do that and even pretend to work >:-0.
(From 'The Ensign' magazine, September, 1984, pg. 33)A prime example of a topic on which expert views have changed drastically to be more in agreement with the Book of Mormon is armed conflict. Until recently the prevailing picture of Mesoamerica was that only peaceful societies existed in the the climatic Classic era, exemplified by the spectacular Maya and Teotihuacan ruins dating from about AD 300 to 800.(From the Book of Mormon, Alma 49:18-20)
Mayan leaders were supposed to have spent their time peacefully contemplating and worshipping a complex set of gods, gazing at notable art, playing philosophical games with their calendar, and otherwise acting like "the Greeks of the New World." Only after AD 1000 was militarism supposed to have played a role in Mesoamerican history.
In the 1950s and 1960s a few voices - Armilles, Rands, Palerm - urged that this picture must be revised, but nobody listened. The big shift came with the 1970 work by Tulane University at Becan in the Yucatan Peninsula. The center of the site is surrounded by a ditch almost two kilometers in circumference and averaging 16 meters across. The makers had piled the earth to form a ridge on the inner side of the ditch. David Webster described the military effect of this fortification:
"To throw 'uphill' from the outside is almost impossible. Defenders, possibly screened by a palisade, could have rained long-distance missiles on approaching enemies using spearthrowers and slings."18 Now behold, the Lamanites could not get into their forts of security by any other way save by the entrance, because of the highness of the bank which had been thrown up, and the depth of the ditch which had been dug round about, save it were by the entrance.
19 And thus were the Nephites prepared to destroy all such as should attempt to climb up to enter the fort by any other way, by casting over stones and arrows at them.
20 Thus they were prepared, yea, a body of their strongest men, with their swords and their slings, to smite down all who should attempt to come into their place of security by the place of entrance; and thus were they prepared to defend themselves against the Lamanites.
When it comes to genetics, your just doing it wrong, and that's not Occam's razor...
At the time, his work concerned church involvement with plural marriage after the 1890 Manifesto, in which the practice was officially renounced.So a Gay Professor at the university got hung up on polygamy in the early church and got himself canned and excommunicated for writing salacious materials and identifying himself as a professor at a church owned collage, How dare they! LOL!
...
Despite his excommunication and his open acknowledgment of his homosexual orientation, Quinn believes in the Latter Day Saint movement, although he is in disagreement with certain policies and doctrines.
ROTFLM*O!!
And we have ALL come to know and expect such completely UNbiased, objective, and unshaded information from PRO mormon support sites?
Ppppppplllleeeease!!
New definition of an Eeevilll, hateful “Anti” site:
Any site which
1) does not implicitly or expressly, without reservation or equivocation, warmly, wholeheartedly, and enthusiastically with a burning in the bosom - endorse the church of “Jesus Christ”, LDS - AKA the Mormon church.
2) purports, alleges, or otherwise represents itself as possessing facts which when taken at face value, tend to contradict or disprove “prophets”, teachings, doctrines, scriptures, or printed accounts originating from past leaders of, or apologists for, the church of “Jesus Christ”, LDS
(including such divergent “internal” accounts as may be mistakenly interpreted by unsanctified and apostate gentiles as contradicting one another)
All the ungentle Gentiles clear?
do I need an “/s” ?
A.A.C.
Duckbilled platypus!
Fur bearing, duck bill, beaver tail,lays eggs, nurses its young, poison-filled “spurs” on hind legs.
A.A.C.
You could add this: “New definition of an Eeevilll, hateful “Anti-mormon” site:
“Any site which
1)DOES implicitly or expressly, without reservation or equivocation, warmly, wholeheartedly, and enthusiastically with a burning in the bosom - endorse the BIBLE, without the caveat “as far as it is translated correctly”
2) purports, alleges, or otherwise represents itself as possessing facts which when taken at face value, tend to PROVE the words of “prophets”, teachings, doctrines, scriptures, or printed accounts originating from past leaders proclaiming God was NEVER a man, and Jesus Christ is our one and only Savior.
< grin >
Good example...
Also proof that the BOM is true I’m sure...
CC,
“The problem is, they have already labled me an enemy.”
They HAVE to label you as an enemy, of a moral failure, or
as an apostate. It is how they keep each other inside the cult.
In reality, you are a woman of God, who follows and loves
Christ and can relate to every issue of leaving that a mormon
can have. You’ve struggled through them all.
I hope many contact you cc. I know you would treat their
inquiries confidentially and with great compassion. It is
very hard to leave a cult of any kind. Yet there is wonderful
life afterwards - plus incredible freedom in Christ.
best always,
ampu
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.