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.
They claim the Bible to be their standard, their example, & yet do we find such practices in the Bible? For example, did the Apostles spend MOST of their time teaching the gospel, exhorting all to come unto Christ, or did they spend MOST of their time bashing the Pharisees, Sadducee's, etc.?
I can fully understand that there are those that have differences w/ us here, we are talking about religion after all. But if one were to go & look at the posting histories of most of the anti’s, one would find a large percentage of their posts bashing Mormons on threads like this & a smaller percentage, if any at all, actually proclaiming the gospel as they know it. In fact I've noticed threads dealing w/ Christianity bashing where these anti’s are nowhere to be found. But they are always found here.
Makes one wonder where their priorities are, what their real agenda is, what their lives are really about. Makes one wonder what their true motives are, Christ's work, or just Mormon bashing. Of course, they will claim that the bashing in abundance IS the Lord's work. I don't find any justification for that in the Bible. In fact, quite the opposite.
I feel quite certain a rash of flame posts are soon to follow this post. I haven't posted lately due to an enormous work load. I just flat out don't have the time right now to answer the flames that always follow, especially considering the amount of time it takes to answer the flames. I would stay up late, as I do in other arenas, to have a reasoned discussion w/ these folks, however that has proven to be a fruitless venture here.It's often not about right or wrong, but about winning.
I appreciate the time you do have & spend here. It's a good work you do despite the vitriol returned. My best to you as well as the others here (anti’s included). Have a great weekend.
No flames here - not even bashing mormons (well except ol’ Joey boy - and some days, Brigham Young...)
But attacking the not so fine points of mormon doctrine - you bet!
In a broader sense, it is within the parameters of the topic. So we take issues with the specifics of DNA and how the church and apologists in general pursue and represent thier findings.
We take issue with the specifics of Joseph Smith’s character as it relates to his suitability to be considered a prophet of G_d by anybody, his truthfulness, his behaviour towards mormons, non-mormons, and mormons departing from the “high and Joseph” path.
We take issue with the conflict and contradictions of details among the nine known versions of Smith’s alleged two visions or visitations...because the veracity of those visions - or lack thereof - goes directly to the heart of whether DNA even matters.
In other words if it appears that there are too many discrepancies (as we insist there are), too many unexplainable and/or irresolvable contradictions, or variances in critical details from one known account to another - then we make it our business to call attention to those and when the vastness of them seems insurmountable, and the evidence against ANY of them being true seems to meet the standards of reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence if you prefer - then we look at the stories and cry “Foul”.
If the stories cannot be reconciled - then it is pointless to try to find empirical evidence to prop them up. It would be like my earlier example of trying to build a religion around the Lord of the Rings, and then seek DNA or archaeological artifacts to reconstruct a society that only ever existed in the mide of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien.
Or in this case, Joseph Smith and the known contemporary and older fictional sources he plagiarized.
See - I did all of that without personal attacks, name calling or other crud.
A.A.C.
| |||||||
Version Number When Published Brief Description |
Age Year |
Pillar of light |
No. of Person- ages |
Father Present |
Son Present |
Question: Join What Sect? |
Remarks-References |
1. Offical version, written 1838,
first Published 1842
(There are minor differences between the various source references,
Ensign Jan 1985, page 14)
|
14
1820 |
yes | 2 |
yes
Both spoke |
yes |
Join none |
Lucy, Hyrum, Samuel, Sophronia join the Presbyterian Church - JSH, pages 49-50, 1981 edition;
Times & Seasons, March, April 1842;
Ensign Jan. 1985, page 14;
Joseph Smith's First Vision by
Milton V. Backamn, Bookcraft, 1971, 1980, Appendix C, page 160f
|
2. Dictated by Smith to F.G. Williams, Summer to Nov. 1832 | 14 or 15 | yes |
1 | no |
yes Saw Lord, He "spoke" |
No question,
told "None doeth good",
sins forgiven
|
Joseph Smith's First Vision, Appendix A, page 155f |
3. Written by Smith,
his 1832 diary,
in his own hand
|
15 |
yes |
1 |
no |
yes Saw the Lord Jesus Christ |
No question,
told sins forgiven,
all do no good
|
Ensign, Dec. 1984, pages 24-26; ibid, Jan. 1985, page 11 |
4. Smith's diary of 1835,
recorded by
Warren Cowdery,
Nov. 9, 1835, conversation of Smith with Joshua
|
About 14 |
yes |
One, then another like unto first |
?
|
?
Second spoke, saw many angels
|
No questions,
told sins forgiven,
Jesus is Son
|
Joseph Smith's First Vision, Appen. B |
5. Letter form Smith to
John Wentworth,
editor of Chicago Democrat
|
none |
no |
2 |
? They spoke |
? |
No Question |
Joseph Smith's First Vision, Appendix D;
Ensign, Jan 1985, page 16;
Times & Seasons, Vol 3, pages 706-707, March 1, 1842
|
6. Early church leaders
Brigham Young, G.A.Smith,
John Taylor
|
15 |
no |
1 Saw an angel, and asked the angel |
no |
no |
Join none |
See Journal of Discourses,
2:17;
18:239;
13:77, 78;
20:167;
12:333, 334.
|
They cared SO much that the first cracter was an inverted black ribbon!
Say...
This sounds very much like a certain politician I've heard about.
But some folks thinks it's his RELIGION that makes folks not like him.
YOUR religion doesn't upset folks; do it??
So true!
But, then again; who needs DNA when the BIBLE has already condemned the Book of MORMON.
It's more fun!!
Just to see 'em spin and squirm when presented with FACTS about their history and FACTUAL things their old leaders have said...
Beats most any other form of entertainment around!
Thank you so much for pinging me to your posts - they’ve been incredibly informative (and entertaining!). Please continue to ping me to any of your other posts.
Warm FRegards,
rscully
A mindset that thinks experiences and feelings trump data, evidence and logic; is able to be contolled by those who claim to receive revelations that they do not get.
Would the definition of a "reasoned discussion" be for you to be allowed to present any and all mormon tenets without any rebuttal to such claims?
I direct you to my post HERE in which I note that your contribution to the thread consists of nothing but flaming non-mormons, and post #341 is a continuation of complaints, pointing fingers, whining and passing judgement because we have the temerity to challenge the lies of Joseph Smith.
Hey Delphi User,
In case you didn’t see my last post to YOU, thank you again for your REASONED and entertaining posts - keep ‘em coming! (I’m a fan!)
Warm FRegards,
rscully
p.s. I LOVE your tagline, like mine??? ;-)
Your post, like many similar ones is what drives me to many of these threads. I just love the combination or woe is us poor victims combined with the whole patronizing arrogance bit. Arrogant victimhood I guess I should call it.
Anyways, enough of that and on to the initial point of your post.
Why we do this and shouldnt we be doing something else with our time.
There are a couple of issues to address.
First you assume we dont witness for our faith. Just because you dont see it here does not mean we dont do it. Also you cannot make such a broad statement for I am sure you do not go and track down every post all of us so called antis make.
Secondly, what we do in defending our faith is required of us. I will not bore you with passages and admonitions you have heard dozens of times, but we as Christians are charged to root out false teachings and expose them. It is a sad commentary that, especially in America, we as Christians no longer do this as often as we should. The desire to get along and be politically correct has weakened the Christian Soldier, allowed ideas such as homosexuality and abortion to seep in, allowed the once intolerable to be tolerated. I also find your term "bashing" to be used by a host of others when such efforts are made by us today. I can see why one would feel that way, being shown a "truth" or practice that you had followed for many years was wrong would seem to be an "attack" I guess.
Anyways, that is the main issue isnt it. See unlike the debates between we Christians and our Jewish friends or arguments between our faith and the Muslims, the defense against the teachings of Smith have a special significance, one that would be true of any faith that seeks to be a derivative of Christs true intent.
You see Muslims dont come along and say to see the glory in heaven, seek to fulfill the task Allah sets out for you, kill the infidel and accept Jesus Christ as your savior, then you shall receive your reward and 72 virgins. Muslims dont place crosses next to the star and crescent and do other things that would try and blend our faith into theirs. Muslims are Muslims, and have their own unique identity.
No so the LDS. While being a wholly separate movement from that of the true body of Christ, they borrow (polite term for steal) many elements from his teachings and the word of God to make something new. Indeed it has been somewhat humorous as I studied the faith how much effort was initially made to be separate from Historic Christianity and how an almost equally sizeable effort is now being made to look Christian in todays world (I will grant the LDS understand marketing).
But you see under all the rhetoric and PR campaigns, the LDS is a totally different creature than the true church their namesake actually created. And this is why it is imperative to confront the LDS.
Let me give you an analog as a demonstration.
Let us say that Scientology actually referred to itself as The Church of Scientology of Jesus Christ of Last Week. Let us assume that their Bio Feedback centers carried the cross and the path of salvation consisted of First one should achieve self realization and purging of toxins, come to believe in Christ as your savior, and upon death, with the approval of Xenu, your essence shall be whisked to the heavens in a DC8 Starship. Furthermore they openly discuss an odd mix of new age ideas and Christian dogma and call them self both Christian and Scientologist who feel Dianetics is modern scripture for the new millennium and equal to the Bible.
A casual lurker, a pilgrim on his path to the truth may stop by a CSJCLW Treatment center, hear the ideas and dogma of the Scitochristians, see the cross and think wow what a bunch of nut jobs the Christ followers are, and leaves. The next Church he comes across is Methodist, with a similar cross and bearing the words of Jesus. Well I bet he moves on. Nuts of another name, that is all that he thinks.
So yes we will fight for what is ours, and the true nature of Christ belongs to all those who have carried the tradition lo these past 2000 years in his name. And you will seek to divide us and talk down to us for those are the tools the evil one uses, and we will fight back in the true name of Christ. In the end the brotherhood of Christians, no matter our denominations, no matter our various methods and procedures, all emanate for a core simple truth, there is but one God, one Savior and one path, that belief in Christ and acceptance of his love and grace shall save us for eternity.
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.So instead of saying they are the only ones, Nephi is saying only men that God leads can come to the Americas, and that they will be safe as long as they are righteous. (A side political note this is why Mormons are so afraid of what will happen with a man so steeped in abortion in the white house!) Now, note all the Italicized words, every scripture except the one you quoted is talking about "them", others who will come to this land. Then there are the quotations from my page:
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him hom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for i>their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lordhaving a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promisebehold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is cjust shall rest upon them.
Not even a particularly imaginative try, and I suspect you got it from a site, I do believe you would have read the scriptures surrounding it if you had researched it yourself.
- And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla
- Mulekites who came over to the americas separately married in with the Lamanites
- There were Descendants of Ishmael
- Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing.
IMHO, you are only fooling yourself.
Some of those plastic dishes you were washing melted...
Did nobody every tell you...
To take the plastic out of the dishwasher before the dry cycle...
And you were suppose to wash them all by hand...
cant you do a simple calling right ???
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.