Hebrew DNA found in South America? [OPEN]

Mormon Times ^ | Monday, May. 12, 2008 | By Michael De Groote

[Tennessee Nana]

your dish washing leaves much to be desired..

But keep trying Grasshopper...

Maybe you’ll get the job of dishwasher in the telstial kingdom...

[Tennessee Nana]

Someone needs to learn about context, words mean things
__________________________________________

Yes, the words of Joey Smith need to be examined by the mormons in their context...

Joey meant something when he said anything and his words boded ill for anyone but Joey...

and all these apologists that have cropped up in the last 30 years to do damage control for the mormon god, need to sit down and let the members figure it out for themselves...

[DelphiUser]

AMPU doesn't like me posting to him (he can't take the heat but sneaks into the kitchen to complain about it) So I won't be pinging him as I usually do.

AMPU apparently does not intend to add to the discussion on DNA, he appears to want to distract from the loss his side is experiencing by publicizing letters by disgruntled members.

It's not exactly an intellectual approach, but we each do what we can...

[DelphiUser]

Tee hee, I thought it was Delphi.

While I appreciate both the sentiment and the humor, I represent a caucus of one, me. I am also a member in good standing with the church and have (so I have been told) a better than passing understanding of the gospel as preached by the LDS church.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not let this thread become "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Tennessee Nana]

Sorry...

I wont do that any more...

I,m sorry, DU. for the comments I have made that were about you...

[Godzilla]

Indians say it was here before them, and you think Hibben forged it....

That is the heresy DU, the site was uncontrolled and no official investigation has been made. Once again, the Nibster identified it as a fraud. Noting that you have also failed to source this so called rubbing that predates things as well which is alledgedly being held on to by the Smithsonian. . . . . .

Please drop the "Guilt by association fallacy".

The documentation and control of the site are highly questionable – your heresy evidence only points to writings in the area. Some one ‘said’. Interesting that no investigation followed up – guess they agreed with Nib’s assertion – which is still LDS/FARMS interpretation.

Please explain you specific objections to the Decalogue stone, and why it's related to Hibben being there.

Hibben improperly (some say fraudulently) presented data on the Scanda Cave as well as clearly falsified another site in Canada IIRC. It shows that he is capable of misrepresenting data to suit his own goals. Secondly, since you argue for it, Paleo-Hebrew may not have been known, but Phoenician script was known at the time, thus not precluding fraud. That along with the inclusion of clearly greek symbols (I see you added a chart, how nice), Greek Theta instead of Daleth; Greek Zeta instead of Zayin; Greek Kappa instead of Kaph and Tau instead of Taw. That combined with modern Hebrew punctuation, spelling and stylistic differences. Now whether or not you want to acknowledge these facts regarding the stone will only point to whether or not you choose to exclude it a priori.

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.

Again, this was not a controlled site and saying unproven things like an altar is only speculation on your part, not backed up by facts

There is no evidence that Hibben even knew that was there (it's also in Paleo Hebrew).

There is also no evidence that he did either, but Phoenician was known at the time, and that is the language most of your links in the past have attributed it to, not to Hebrews.

There are the ancient fortifications on top of the mesa that appear to date from the same period. (You keep saying there aren't any, so I thought I'd point this out)

LOL, oh Du, going into the twilight zone now. First you try to put words into my mouth You keep saying there aren't any when that aspect of the discussion hasn’t come up yet – getting a head of yourself. How do you know they are from the same period. Have archaeologist gone out there and excavated to show that those holes and rock piles actually constitute fortifications LOL! The old "I know something you don't know" debate tactic, I remember that... from third grade...

Well, since you didn’t respond with the answer, it is clear that I was correct. You are unable to stray off your depleted story line to address issues out side of it. Sad

The stone exists, it is of ancient manufacture,

On the basis of what proof, hearsay evidence. How do you manufacture a stone DU, LOL. Evidence exists that it is a fraud, just like Nib said, or do you not like to deal with evidence contrary to your sacred cow.

it has the Ten Commandments on it, and there are unaltered inscriptions of paleo Hebrew nearby. Disbelieve all you want, but the "no evidence" claim just died.

If you had read your articles, you would have seen that it was an abridgement, not the full citation. Secondly, there are plenty of other evidences that this stone is fraudulent, some already posted here. Ancient proto-Hebrew did not use Greek Characters DU – that is a not so subtle clue right off the bat. As far as unaltered other inscription – again the burden of proof is in your corner. What level of control to the site has there been since 1930? Prove via archaelogical journal that these writings are unaltered as you claim. There goes you unimpeachable evidence once again.

Who said Mormons don't need faith? Reading comprehension problems?

Well, I guess you have your name in for one of those Nephi bom land tours then (I hear they are unreal).

The church also has a Center in Jerusalem, has tours over there and spends money on research there, is it your contention that we do that to prove the Bible true?

Don’t need mormons to prove the bible true, you are newcommers to the game. But that is a change in policy – mormons historically have dissed the bible inspite of paying lip service to it.

I will state that we already know the Book of Mormon is God's word. (God tells us so)

Circular logic to the max. bom claims it is true tells you to read it and pray and if you get a subjective warm fuzzy its true.

Actually, I read an article somewhere that said He only had photographs in which the wire brush marks were clearly visible. I can't seem to find that article again though :-( That memory is what my statement was based on, it was not a lie.

Then clearly state so. However, still doesn’t answer the question, Nib would / should have had access to the rubbing if it existed. More hearsay

Yes I know of the “geologist’s” estimate, but that is only a WAG and not anything I would bet my professional credential on.
Why not? You go out on slimmer limbs here...

Because, unlike you, I have a far greater understanding of those variables involved and such a WAG doesn’t stand the test today. Since you cannot prove the ‘dates’ otherwise – there are no studies of the sort at the site – you just have more unsubstantied claims.

Did you or did you not hear the native talking about Nahom? Now he does not pronounce it quite the way I do, but it would have had the same vowels. If you did not get this, go listen again.

As pointed out earlier, the insertion of vowels is not proof, as there are 25 different combinations. It sounded like Nihm. If the consonants "NHM" are pronounced as written, it should be pronounced with the H as hard, not soft (this is what we find in "nahom" to be sorry"). So the sound would be like "ch" as in Scottish "loch" and we should expect it to have been pronounced Nachom, not "Nahom." The Book of Mormon placename doesn't fit the Hebrew word "to be sorry". The location of Nahom is nothing more than shooting arrows, then drawing the target.

Le's see, the markings on the Decalogue stone are if translated as Hebrew the Ten Commandments Lessee, a stone that the lead and quasi authorative mormon apologists and archeologists of mormonism have declared as a fraud.

Naholm exists where it's supposed to be, Bountiful exists where it's supposed to be

From a book so generic that just about any place could match the description. ”. The location of Nahom is nothing more than shooting arrows, then drawing the target. But that begs the point – if they are valid, there should be millions times more artifacts here in America, not some highly debated (and unauthenticated by proper scientists) stones. Still want to see evidence that bountiful could supply the proper timber for an oceanic vessel as well as iron.

there is evidence of Horses in the ancient Americas.

This is twice you’ve made this claim. I’ve already shot down one, where are your documented sources that there were horses during the bom era? Or were they deer or tapirs as Sorensen et.al. try to claim. Provide citation or withdraw the claim.

The evidence supporting the Book of Mormon just keeps mounting, . . . Book of Mormon, being confirmed? is a good example of this.

Wow a powerpoint presentation with no documentation to support, that is just overwhelming. I can see the gentiles now just banging at the gates wanting in, scientists by the gadzillions throwing down their work Yerp, the Video was produced I think a couple of years after he joined the church..

And you claim I don’t watch these things.

Thus your argument that Keith misrepresented the data, must include the report he wrote before he Joined the church.

Where in the non-mormon world is this report.

Keith's position is consistent, does not support your interpretation of the same data, his credentials are impeccable, you got the genetics of two brothers confused.

Consistent, perhaps, but consistently wrong. Crandall diverted the focus, thus losing the forest because of the trees. More recent studies make it very clear, the haplogroup X that Crandall reported detected is not related by subgroup to that of Hebrews. And the trouble starts right at your own home supporting this

While interesting, at present it does not seem that Haplotype X can serve as good evidence of Book or Mormon antiquity given the problems of dating and the failure of the model to come to grips with textual issues from the Book of Mormon. It also fails to interact responsibly with a fairly large body of literature which has led most LDS scholars to place the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, not the Great Lakes region. . However, since a wiki site is not always a source of accurate information (though this is a pro-mormon site), I opted to go to source documentation.

And fresh off of the presses mormon Scott R. Woodward former scientific director of the Molecular Genealogy project at BYU and DNA expert now head of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, (as well as other mormons associated with the foundation) along with other researchers reported - in an article published in 13 January 2009 issue of Current Biology (volume 19 issue 1) stated Haplogroup D4h3 spread into the Americas along the Pacific coast, whereas X2a entered through the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. The examination of an additional 276 entire mtDNA sequences provides similar entry times for all common Native American haplogroups, thus indicating at least a dual origin for Paleo-Indians. This was published with the full force and weight of the mormon Sorensen lab behind it.

Now read take a minute and read it slowly DU, as it seems you are unfamiliar with scientific writing. This article confirms what I and even Southerton (as well as others) have been saying all along, the X haplotypes touted by Crandall as evidence of hebrews genetics are not those from Hebrews – period. It accounts for its presence in the same fashion DNA researchers have already been, so no cries of ignoring data (unlike you do for the los lunas fraud). Science has spoken to those ignored data, and found that mormonism claims to them are once again false.

Is it now your contention that Joseph Smith in the 1830's wrote a book with the express purpose of fooling a geneticist in the future when it's extremely doubtful Joseph Smith even knew what Genetics would be.

No, it is his 3d grade education showing through. And being such a poor (non) prophet, he couldn’t (didn’t) foresee that his fraud would be uncovered scientifically. Science speaks again in the November 2003 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics states It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences that constitute the distinctive X2a clade, a clade that lacks close relatives in the entire Old World, including Siberia.. Since this is a 2003 report, Crandall had this data, yet he ignored it (GASP, imagine that!). Isn’t that what you claimed researchers did – ignore data? This just further shows that he mis-represented the 2005 Rosenburg study.

Book of Mormon anticipates modern Mesoamerican archeology.

Drinking the koolaid again. From the Smithsonian, their standard answer.

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonian's position is contained in the enclosed "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.
Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonian's name. Please address any correspondence to:

Anthropology Outreach Office
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History MRC 112
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560


PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
This includes the Los Lunas fraud
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

So much for the bom predicting central American cultures

(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.

And so where are the artifacts Du, swords, armor, chariots, steel bows, helmets – the markers of an civilization with advanced metallurgy? The mormon archaeologists says . . . . (crickets). Mayans dominated the region selected for the LGT, yet no mention or influence from a Hebraic culture with advanced technology has ever been encountered. (more crickets)

For your Problems, Bacteria from ancient poop? How low can you go? (Just had to have fun with it.) But so?

You have been arguing only one facet of DNA studies – mtDNA, as I have several times now pointed out, other DNA methodologies have been investigated (including Y chromosome, and Polymorphic Alu insertions) used to study the origins of native americans. You must be very blissful in your ignorance. Let your apologists spin away these other studies. Now regarding coprolites (proper termonlogy for ancient poop), the study I cited had nothing to do with that, here is an example of what I was refering to -

Helicobacter pylori, a chronic gastric pathogen of human beings, can be found in virtually every human population group. Variations of the bacteria can be divided into seven populations and subpopulations with distinct geographical distributions. Analysis of these bacteria within native populations worldwide reveals that the East Asian strain of Helicobacter pylori can be isolated from Native Americans, indicating that East Asians are the likely ancestor of Native Americans. (Falush D, Wirth T, Linz B, Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Kidd M, Blaser MJ, Graham DY, Vacher S, Perez-Perez GI, Yamaoka Y, Megraud F, Otto K, Reichard U, Katzowitsch E, Wang X, Achtman M, Suerbaum S. 2003. Traces of human migrations in Helicobacter pylori populations. Science 299: 1528-1529.)

However, since it seems you have a fixation with Coprolites, they further support the migration from Siberia – not Israel.

That doesn’t even begin to evaluate Y chromosomal data (the x haplogroup is mtDNA), retroviral DNA studies and more – all come to the same conclusion, native Americans came from Asia, not the middle east area of Israel. Multiple lines of evidence, multiple disciplines all converging on the same answer – apply Occam’s razor liberally DU.

This does not interest me because A) It's poop and B) even if true, it has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. kind of like who discovered an artifact that could not have been forged, does not matter to me nearly as much as the artifact.

An act of dismissal a priori DU, poor form. Already outlined above as another independent DNA test. And coprolites also show the myth of hebrew origins of native americans remain just that – a myth.

You mentioned dogs, sorry, missed that, so? I like dogs is that a problem?

You display a great deal of ignorance on the DNA studies outside of the very limited apologetic by Crandall (and now discredited by a mormon genetic research institute) on mtDNA Haplogroup X. Genetic studies of dogs also show migration with humans via Siberia. How is your bom guide book at predicting that?

The Book of Mormon talks about people who were here before them, really you need to read the Book of Mormon before you cut yourself again on that Occam's razor you keep swinging about. Maybe you should stick to using an electric razor...

The Jaredites are whom you are refering to, a nation that underwent a devastating war, which completely erased their civilization. According to the Book of Mormon introduction, “The other [Jaredites] came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed... There is one possible exception, being one of the leaders, Coriantumr. According to the Book of Ether, introduction to the 15th chapter, “The Jaredite nation is utterly destroyed—Only Coriantumr remains”

Another group is the Mulekites, from the Book of Omni. The Mulekites had come out of Jerusalem at the time of the Jewish captivity by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. However, since these people were also of Jewish origin, they would be expected to express Jewish genetics.

Therefore, the bom does not talk about others. The mayan culture of the era totally encompased the LGT target area – yet silence on any interactions with them.

GZ: Hey book of Mormon guy – Laman was a son of Lehi even as Nephi was, therefore the genetics were not wiped out. This view has been carried forward to this very day by mormom missionaries to the native Americans, central and south Americans. Um, again with the colossal ignorance about genetics thing? Descendant does not mean pure genetics. . . .

Genetic studies do not need pure genetics – even Crandall will acknowledge that I’m sure. A genetics lecture from one who can only parrot FARMS/FAIR haplogroup X results that have already been disproven by mormon genetic researchers (as well as dozens of others) Lamanites and Mulekites were of jewish origin, therefore they would have continued the jewish genetics – isn’t that exactly what you are trying to claim via Crandall LOL. Putting words in my mouth are meaningless when you do not even grasp the breadth of the various DNA studies brought to bear. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge either just show the dishonest depth that mormon apologetics will stoop to obfuscate the issue.

I'll say it again "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Genetics is a dry hole for anti Mormons, please keep digging your hole deeper! LOL!

Hardly, DU, as stated above, Crandall’s arguments have been refuted HERE,. You are a one note Johnny DUh, mtDNA haplogroup X as evidence of Nephite / Lamanite colonization of the new world is now proven to represent something else – and endorsed by the Sorsenson Foundation. Mormon apologetics is still silent on Y chromosomal results, as well as the many other avenues of investigation.

As proven by Keith Crandall, Et Al.

Then Mr. Crandell needs to get up to date on the current evidence, perhaps he needs to talk to his collegue Mr. Woodward, who, along with others at this mormon genetic institute, addressed the whole X haplotype issue (didn’t hide it like you claim), and showed that the detections in the americas were not associated with Semitic peoples from the area around Israel.

You just can't quote them and escape the fact that Keith Crandall was on the case and he has joined the church, why if it was such an egregious, obvious, amateurish faux pas of genetic bumbling did he do that?

I cannot answer why he would do such a foolish thing. Yet he did misrepresent the data, as well as while doing so ignored data that explained the presence of that haplotype in 2003 . Maybe, just maybe, Keith knows a bit more than you do about genetics (in fact, I'd bet good money on that) and he thinks your objections are unfounded.

Oh I don’t doubt that. However, I seem to be the one in this discussion who is bringing up primary research material that has no dog in this fight. As a scientist myself, I can read and grasp the fundamentals being presented. Those studies all show population of the americas from asia, and now, even more clearly and endorsed by the Sorenson Foundation, the mtDNA X questions have been cleared up. So it is a dead issue, and Crandall found wrong. Again, One Note Johnny, the spectrum of methodologies (multiple DNA related studies) and disciplines (archeology, anthropology and linguistics) have produced an abundance of data regarding the origions of man in the americas, they all deny the bom presentation that the native americans are descendants of hebrew lamanites.

You mean this guy?
At the time, his work concerned church involvement with plural marriage after the 1890 Manifesto, in which the practice was officially renounced.

Ah, rejection of your church history, Lalalalalalala, not listening are you. Didn’t project your church and its prophets in the proper enlightened and deified manner because the facts said otherwise

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!

My my, du such bigotry. Instead of dealing with the facts he presented about mormon history, you find it easier to try to smear the character of the individual. As much as I disagree with homosexuality, one must deal with the facts of the presentation. Classical Fallacy - Ad Hominem attack. Lurkers here can plainly see the shallowness of you apologetics to the subject, nor doe it deny the fact that when he published material not pleasing to the church (because he didn’t candy coat it). The mormon church did the same to Fanny Alger – they didn’t maintain a faithful history He sounds like a typical anti Mormon doing his target practice, LOL!

You just posted that he still considered mormonism to be the way, he only disagreed with policies and some doctrines – fancy that. Quinn was part of five other prominent intellectuals and dissidents, most of them in the employ of Brigham Young University, were excommunicated . I’m sure DU will find other sexual innuendos with which to tag them with as well.

Now, can we get back to the focus of this thread, there is no way to disprove the Book of Mormon with DNA...

I thought you’ve been saying that Crandall had proved the bom via DNA. Are you that confused on the subject, especially when you get off the story line? Crandall’s proofs are now moot, directly contradicted by mormons and the mormon Sorenson institute as well as others. As a fraud now revealed in the light of todays science, mormon doctrine itself claims that lamanites founded the american indians

a) D&C 3:20
b) D&C 10:48
c) D&C 19:27
d) D&C 28:8-9,14
e) D&C 30:6
f) D&C 32:2
g) D&C 49:24
h) D&C 54:8
i) D&C 57:4 (See also the heading info for this section, which provides contextual expansion.)
j) D&C 101:70-71
k) D&C 109:65-66.

The footnotes of the editions of the Book of Mormon from 1876-1921 indicate Lehi & company landed in Chile; the description of Helaman 3:8 is explicated in the [officially sanctioned] footnotes in editions of the Book of Mormon from 1880-1920: "And it came to pass that they [the Nephites] did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land [g] southward to the land [h] northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea [i] south, to the sea [j] north, from the sea [k] west, to the sea [l] east." The footnotes provide the following identifications of these lands and bodies of water: "g, South America. h, North America. i, Atlantic, south of Cape Horn. j, Arctic, north of North America. k, Pacific. l, Atlantic.". The bom predicts that the genetic make up of indians should be hebraic. DNA data of all types indicates that this is false. Remember DU absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is an argumentum ex silentio - a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. However, there is no lack of contrary evidence, as has been well documented (and I’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg) there is an exceeding abundance of contrary evidence. Since you fail to provide the burden of proof in this matter DU, yours is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Your daily diet of FARMS has dulled your occam’s razor DU.

[ejonesie22]

Outstanding and substantial reply.

A few things stick out in my mind, a couple we have touched on before. First that whole idea of both independent scientific scholarship both in the DNA area and IMHO more importantly the archaeological record.

I once had a scientist friend, a Christian individual, who said something to the effect of “I thank God for the Atheist in the science community, they help prove his (God's)truths more than most.” And there is great merit in that. Independent archaeologist have found many of the ruins that substantiate the places and facts of Christ's life even above and beyond simple oral tradition. Jewish researchers found the corner stone of Herod's palace a few years for example.

Good Scholarship stands up to scrutiny far beyond that of ones allies or philosophical peers.

And were is the oral tradition that tells the stories of these very significant Mesoamerican cultures, there is no rational way they would have passed unnoticed or had just as mild passing influence at best on those around them. As you so succinctly put it, where are the artifacts? I think I was told once that the ruins are gone due to the climate here. Well the harshest climate in the new world is Central American and yet the ruins of the Incas and Mayans still stand testament to their existence. Arrow heads and stone tools litter many areas of the continent and date back from almost any given time in the history of man in this hemisphere. And yet nothing remains of the people in the BOM. Oh we have some antiquities theft here and there, claims by LDS “archaeologist” of artifacts that were made by others as being “authentic” proof of the Mormon story. Of course as Indian Jones would say, antiquities theft is a bad thing. So is stealing another cultures thunder in my book.

The Smithsonian letter speaks volumes in this regard as well.

I was also struck by the argument about the native Americans using the word “Nahom”. Why when I read that do I equate that with the idea of assuming because the Russians tend to say “net” very often they are passionate fishermen.

One last thing, I love the pointing out of Scott Woodward and others work that has just been published. Nothing like have your definitive science dismissed by your own scientist.

oops...

Again, just a few musings, again a very well done and competent piece by you. The reasoned will be impressed and dare i say swayed. those for whom this puts the light even brighter on the lie will be equally dismissive and work harder to cover their deception...

[Godzilla]

This will be far briefer because most has been addressed in the previous post.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, I understand blood typing, but I learned long ago that you cannot underestimate the intelligence of an anti Mormon.

And blood typing has absolutely nothing to do with looking at mtDNA. Again, you get off your script and you show you shallowness in the matter.

Why is there oral tradition of the Lemba tribe enough for serious investigation, yet the Indians in Los Lunas's stories about the rock are not?

One is documented by hard physical evidence that is testable, the other is heresy.

They can now, when was the data for the studies you are quoting collected? not within the last five years... (your comment is being filed in the appropriate receptacle, along with all the others.

Just for the lurkers, since DU it is uncertain he will address it in my previous (or try to ignore it like the other DNA data methodologies i presented).

While interesting, at present it does not seem that Haplotype X can serve as good evidence of Book or Mormon antiquity given the problems of dating and the failure of the model to come to grips with textual issues from the Book of Mormon. It also fails to interact responsibly with a fairly large body of literature which has led most LDS scholars to place the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, not the Great Lakes region.

in an article published in 13 January 2009 issue of Current Biology (volume 19 issue 1) stated Haplogroup D4h3 spread into the Americas along the Pacific coast, whereas X2a entered through the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. The examination of an additional 276 entire mtDNA sequences provides similar entry times for all common Native American haplogroups, thus indicating at least a dual origin for Paleo-Indians. This was published in 2009 with the full force and weight of the mormon Sorensen lab behind it as a co-author.

Science speaks again in the November 2003 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics states It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences that constitute the distinctive X2a clade, a clade that lacks close relatives in the entire Old World, including Siberia..

As stated earlier, this is only the tip of the iceberg that directly addresses your yeh-buts about mtDNA haplotype X in the americas.

You just don't have a group of Nephites that take in small groups of people from the same region, you have a small group of Nephites who join a much larger group of unknown ancestry, then to make matters worse, the add several smaller groups also of unknown ancestry. Now that you know they were not from the same "area" what do you say about the "genetics"?

Once again, DU shows he is very shallow in his argument once he gets off script. Genetic population studies do not need pure ancestry, but follows the very traceable mtDNA (passed by women, yet present in men) and Y chromosomal sequences (passed by men). He is pure because he can some how make the claim that non of his ancestors intermarried with the dark and loathsome/B> lamanites, and was therefore white and delightful.

You just don't have a group of Nephites that take in small groups of people from the same region, you have a small group of Nephites who join a much larger group of unknown ancestry, then to make matters worse, the add several smaller groups also of unknown ancestry. Now that you know they were not from the same "area" what do you say about the "genetics"?

Once again, off script and floundering. The Bom and mormon teaching say that the continent was empty for Nephi, et al. There was no larger group for them to join. If DU bothers to read any of the posts, DNA population studies deal with regional sources (ethinic groups having the same genetic identity) and how those people migrated out from them. All of the peoples listed in the bom came from the same region. Even if a few slaves were thrown into the mix, the semetic DNA patterns would still carry down of what the bom predicts is true - the native americans are from the middle east. You are trying to hide within the LGT that in itself cannot hold water.

And you are not selective in your citations? Shame on you!

I went back to the source documents to see if they were cited correctly - they were distorted. That is the difference between you and me. I look deeper, you don't.

LOL! Can you prove any of that? No. I didn't say that everyone who was doing genetic reasearch on Indians was an anti Mormon, I said anti Mormons always make such discussions into a cesspool (reading comprehension, it's essential to a good argument.)

Yes it is because by common mormon definition, anyone who counters mormon beliefs or doctrine in any way is automatically defined as an anti-mormon.

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.

Ah yes, the old bom didn't really mean what it said ploy. Once again there is total silence regarding interactions with these others. Fact is that they are identified in vs 9 - those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem, you know that context thing. Common usage of the term nations also preclude othersThe fact that your interpretation doesn't hold water to what Smith taught (something about the original intent of the author)

Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon as "the history of ancient America . . . from its first settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel [the Jaredites]" – Times and Seasons, (March 1, 1842) III:707.

Further mormon teaching affirms that the descendants of the native americans were the Lamanites I cited this earlier, but will again for completeness. The footnotes of the editions of the Book of Mormon from 1876-1921 indicate Lehi & company landed in Chile; the description of Helaman 3:8 is explicated in the [officially sanctioned] footnotes in editions of the Book of Mormon from 1880-1920: "And it came to pass that they [the Nephites] did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land [g] southward to the land [h] northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea [i] south, to the sea [j] north, from the sea [k] west, to the sea [l] east." The footnotes provide the following identifications of these lands and bodies of water: "g, South America. h, North America. i, Atlantic, south of Cape Horn. j, Arctic, north of North America. k, Pacific. l, Atlantic." These footnotes indicate the official Church interpretation of Helaman 3:8 was that the Lamanites/Nephites covered BOTH continents of the entire western hemisphere. My first bom had photos of the great lakes and identified them as the great waters listed in the bom.

And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla

Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. Hint, hint DU, they would have the same genetic make up as Nephi - vs 9 thing again.

Mulek came from Jerusalem too - fancy that and would have the same semetic genetic background.

There were Descendants of Ishmael

Who also came from the region of Israel - wow fancy that.

Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing.

stayed white and delightsome. All that you have done is to prove that these others were from Israel and the surrounding region and would carry the those semetic genetic patterns and types. In you blindness, you ignore that current science, endorsed by the Sorenson Foundation, places men here far, far earlier. Not only does the bom fail to document interactions with these established peoples, these same peoples document interactions with everyone but these hebrew speaking people.

See how hard it is when people speak in imprecise terms? Multitude (exactly how many is that?) "Exceedingly great" again an imprecise term. As for 300,000 warriors, I did a search on the BOM, and as I remembered it, the largest number of "thousands" was "even to exceed the number of thirty thousand" so you are off by a couple of orders of magnitude. (which is par for the course) That said some of the "uncounted" numbers include to records og Genocide where a people were basically wiped out, men women and children so there really is no need to have a "population" to "support" them.

Those were from Sorenson - a pro-mormon. The largest number listed for the Nephite record is 230,000 thousand in Mormon 6:11-14. That is only a count of the 'warriors', not the women and children. You cannot reconcile that the bom uses such general and expansive terms as “multiply in the land”, “fill the land”, “multiply exceedingly”, or “numberless” all of which are relative terms and could mean anything from thousands to millions. You have to duck behind LGT to hide the facts.

As for beginning their own race... It was an ideological difference, ending up in a people who looked different I don't think you can prove they intended to start their own race.

Way off your script again, a new race was not created, what genetic differences were there between the two groups - none, both were Jews. To say otherwise would deny mormonism's claim that the indians were descendants of jewish ancestors. LOL, go look up the definition. As I asked earlier, did God change the Lamanite dna when he made them dark and loathsome? LOL, keep spinning du

GZ: Well, you tweaked my interest, please document these earthquakes that destroyed entire civilizations in the Americas, as this geological history should be most enlightening. I do not propose to "educate" you, nor do I expect to convince you since most of these anomalies are just that to archeologists who want everything to fit, so I'll mention the road to nowhere (A road that runs across the land, down the beach and into the ocean near Bimini Island.

ROTFLAICGU, how appropriate DU - a road to no where. And your authoritative site has this posted at the top -

Presented at the July 2003 International MUFON Symposium in Dearborn, Michigan, July 4, 5, 6, 2003. Visit www.mufon.com for more information

I am a professional geologist, I don't go to UFO conventions to gain insights on recent tectonic activity in the world. My goodness you are waaaaay off of your script now (and you accused me of wearing tinfoil). Ladies and gentleman, lurkers of FR, this is another example of how mormonism supports its interpretations

You lose. Zoram, Mulek, Ishmael; we don't know their genetic makeup.

Zoram Alma 54: 23 I am Ammoron, and a descendant of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem.
Mulek - a son of Zedekiah, king at the time of Jerusalem. Wow and you say we don't know their genetic makeup? Its all right there in the bom - they are hebrews and as such carry the semitic genetic makeup. Stick to your script du, you are way over your head.

Amazing, you have an eminently qualified scientist, one who's work you have to cite in order to make the case against us, who then joins the church after saying the findings against us are wrong and you want to cite his early work, dismiss the work that disagrees with you and besmirchg his reputation by saying that he is now compromised becasue of his (new) faith.

As was clearly shown in this and the previous post, Crandall had the information regarding the mtDNA X in the americas, and chose to ignore it. As shown later by Southerton and others, his interpretation of the data was premature (or flawed, since he didn't factor in the other data). But that is moot now because of the 2009 report that has mormons from the Sorenson Genetic Foundation that has clearly identified the X2a as a separate haplogroup not related to the old world (hint - Europe or middle east). Whether or not his new found faith created a zeal that overroad his common sense and common practices of science, only he can answer. But his treatment of the data was clearly flawed.

It's the old Occam's razor thing again, which is more likely, that you are a flat earther when it comes to Mormons, or that Keith Crandall suddenly lost his mind and joined a church that he could prove wrong scientifically? Occam's razor slices you pretty deep on that one.

An appeal to authority is a flawed methodology to apply to Occam's razor. Occam's razor is based upon the burden of proof and the simplest answer that evidence points to. Mormonism has no evidence, nada, zero, zilch as the studies and reports I've posted show. And if geologic interpretations from a presentation at a UFO convention is part of mormonism's evidence, then mormon scholarship and apologetics are truly bankrupt.

[ejonesie22]

'Can you direct us to a place named "Salt Lake City", we have some updates to something call the "Book of Mormon" to deliver..."

[DelphiUser]

AAC: 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.

Non? Have you any problems with the varying accounts of Judas' death? (there are well over 700 inconsistencies in the Bible) does that cause you to question it? It does not for me. Your unequal treatment of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is unreasonable, I suggest that we apply the same standard to everything that purports to be God's word, not pick and choose what to examine and what not to examine.

AAC: 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.

So does anyone take you seriously? come on what in this world is neutral?

Your character assassination of Joseph Smith is duly noted. Here is everything you asked for Here Joseph Smith's 1826 glasslooking trial

We don't have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows:

1. Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely
2. She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle.
3. Miss Pearsall dies in 1872.
4. Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer's Magazine in 1873.
5. Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall's death
6. Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia.
7. Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886
8. Then the record was lost.

It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published.

Do we have a court record?

We know that the supposed "court record" obtained by Miss Pearsall can't be a court record at all.

1. Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials.
2. No witness signatures—they were required in an official record.
3. It appears to be a pretrial hearing.
4. Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts.

AAC: 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...

Then why bother to post? If I am irrelevant, Ignore me.

FYI, on this forum you are not allowed to tell me or others what my intentions are. Just to set the record straight, my intentions are of the highest order, to protect the name of good men and women who are not here to protect them selves from the slanderous lies of those who have little decency or respect for the dead. I also intend to correct the misstatements of others about my faith. In this I know I am fighting an up hill battle there are many anti Mormons and like the true cretins they will attempt to shout down with loud and numerous voices what they cannot defeat with logic and reason. Much time have I spent in such endeavors here and it would be difficult to keep a cheerful demeanor except for the fan mail which I receive and the occasional thank you from a new member of the church.

You see many people are put off by the attacks of the anti Mormons and decide to check out what engenders such animosity in what would otherwise be a "good Christian people" obviously "something is up". since I often offer a free Book of Mormon, I get people who get one, read it, ask God about it, and get an answer. These people then know the truth of my claims and go forward. Some bother to write and thank me for fighting the "good fight".

So you see nothing you can say or do will dampen my spirits, although the cold I am currently fighting might.

AAC: 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.

You mistake me with someone who has something to prove. I have nothing to prove. The sloppy workmanship of those trying to prove the Book of Mormon false with DNA is the group with something to prove, Me, I testify of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon which he translated by the gift and power of God, I testify of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ... as God testified of them to me.

...

AAC: But the story would remain fiction, and I would have shown myself a fraud and a huckster.

I know some atheists who feel the same way about the Bible. Just because you believe that about the Book of Mormon, does not make it true, that merely makes it your opinion.

AAC: 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.

I note the consistency with which Anti Mormons post accusations with little or nothing to back them up. In this case I really have no idea what you mean, I could guess, but whatever, it's your fiction.

AAC: That is the point.

"It's like a bowling ball son... Pointless!" -- Foghorn Leghorn

Now, this thread is about DNA not all that other stuff, do you have anything to add to the topic at hand?

[AmericanArchConservative]

ROTFLOLWTIME!

I cannot imagine what “good men and women” you are defending.

Joey boy ought not be counted among them, nor Brigham Young.

I find it amusing that telling the simple truth about Smith’s well and widely known, and heavily documented lifelong affinity for, and involvement with the occult

(as late as 1844 he was showing off a pocket full of “seer stones” to the “Quorum of the Twelve, and told Brigham Young that he thought “every man ought to be entitled” to have one)

- his many run-ins with authorities over his treasure seeking escapades, his mother’s familiarity with the “abrac” amulet,

and literally dozens of other examples - far from being anecdotal - constitute “character assassination”...?

Kind of like his shooting death during a jailbreak effort constitutes “martyrdom” of a saint...yeah and if Joey was a martyr, then we might as well call Judas a martyr as well. It is no more of a stretch. Judas was known to help himself to the monies the group held, so, too was Joey boy. (He went further, sending men out on “missions” afield in order to facilitate assignations with their wives.)

It is hard to tell which one lived a life that did more to betray Jesus’ teachings.

At least Judas had some remorse for his actions in this life. Smith apparently had little or no sense of shame - unsurprisingly!

A.A.C.

[DelphiUser]

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,

Thanks, I'll ping as often as I can.

BTW, love the Tag!

[DelphiUser]

DU: Someone needs to learn about context, words mean things

---

TN: Yes, the words of Joey Smith need to be examined by the mormons in their context...

We do that all the time, and it only strengthens our faith in God.

TN: Joey meant something when he said anything and his words boded ill for anyone but Joey...

I can understand why you would think that, since you reject his and God's words.

"When you tell the truth you divide the people" -- Brigham young.

TN: and all these apologists that have cropped up in the last 30 years to do damage control for the mormon god, need to sit down and let the members figure it out for themselves...

the "Mormon God" as you put it is the God of Abraham, and of Issac and of Jacob, and just for the record, I am a Member, not a professional apologist, while some of the anti Mormons here are professionals, and since I have the truth on my side I routinely hand them their "teeth" in these discussions.

Nana, you have a nice day and do yourself a favor, before you post next time see if you can really feel the "spirit of God" while saying nasty things about someone else, even if you believe them to be true.

Go with God, the alternative is go with the other guy...

[DelphiUser]

Do not let this thread become "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

My apologies if I was making things personal, I will endeavor to cease.

Thank you for reminding me.

[Tennessee Nana]

TN: Joey meant something when he said anything and his words boded ill for anyone but Joey...

I can understand why you would think that, since you reject his and God’s words.
____________________________________________

While I reject totally Smith’s words, as a Christian, I believe God’s words...

I do not reject the word of God...the Bible..

Joey Smith never spoke God’s words...

The book of mormon is not part of the Bibnle...

The book of mormon and the other trash that Smith and his cabal wrtote are not the words of God...

Mormonism has nothing to do with Christianity...

[Tennessee Nana]

the “mormon God” as you put it is the God of Abraham, and of Issac and of Jacob,
___________________________________________

No, the mormon god is not the God of Abraham, and of Issac and of Jacob,

The God of Abraham, and of Issac and of Jacob is Righteous...

The mormon god is the imagination of Smith because he gained an excuse to commit adultery, scam others and to have the power to abuse other men and sexually abuse women as a despot in a theocracy..

And BY and these rest found that they could continue the evil...

The mormon god was handy when Smoth wanted to have sex with unwilling under age girls..

The mormon god was handy when Smith and BY blamed “him” for the “commandment to “use up” or destroy innocent men, women and children in Missouri, and in wagon trains in order to steal their cttle anmd their belongings..

The mormon god was handy when BY wanted to defy the US government...

The mormon god was handy when Young wanted to take any wwoman he wanted ...even other mens wives...

The mormon god was handy when Young wanted to murder someone who wouldnt give him their land or belongings or wife or dauhter...

Etc...

And now the mormon god is handy whe n the Mormon corporation wants to build TWO BILLION DOLLAR malls with the tithe money...

And the mormon god is handy when the Mormon corporation wants to strong arm members into giving them blackmail money to the tune of 10% on the it gross income, plus other “tithes” and offerinfs, plus up to 40-50 hours of unpaid labor AKA slavery each and every week...

The mormon god is a Molech...

[Osage Orange]

Well that's gonna leave a mark, and some gnashing of teeth................

LOL!!

[ejonesie22]

I wonder if those “teeth” will be “handed over” in a timely fashion...

LOL...

[ejonesie22]

Now Nana, please tell us how you really feel...

And don’t hold back now...