Hebrew DNA found in South America? [OPEN]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

My treatment of the Bible is perfectly acceptable, and reasonable given the deep and wide variety of biblical archaeological artifacts which have been and continue to be unearthed, and you are neither in an evidentiarily, nor a philosophically tenable position to contend otherwise.

Your notion that we should “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.” is laughable for the sheer volume of fallacies and frauds it opens the door to, and I am certain that every cultist would just love to have their fantasies and gibberish allowed the same objective beginning stature as the Bible itself.

Why not allow every pseudo-biblical ranting of every unshaven, alcoholic denizen of every mental ward across the US equal stature as well? That is why your suggestion falls off the edge, undeserving of rescue.

Therein is the nib of this problem: Smith’s stubborn insistence that (no matter how wildly inconsistent the details nor how many the stories) he was a prophet, he had a “vision” from the Lord, his vision and the subsequent revelations (no matter how far they diverged from the real Bible, nor how many of his “prophecies” outlived their proscribed timelines, utterly unfulfilled) were entitled to not just the same, but GREATER weight and consideration than the Bible itself, and that his works were greater than those of Paul, Peter, John, or even Christ.

When one specifically prophesies “in the name of the Lord G_d of Israel unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the State of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers, that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left.”, and

the United States continued as a nation, despite never having met Smith’s demands

I would say that falls (along with all his other failed prophecies) into the category of Deuteronomy 18: 18 - 22.

If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything that I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, he must be put to death. You may say to yourself, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what the prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

There were no “do-overs” or escape clauses in the Lord’s mandate. Smith proclaimed many times in the name of the Lord and they did not come to pass.

He placed himself under the Lord’s own sentence of death for speaking falsely in G_d’s name, and out of turn, and that death overtook him; Smith died - not peacefully as a lamb to the slaughter, but alternately fighting, and crying out pitifully like a coward.

Neither I, nor anybody else has anything to fear of Joseph Smith, his prophesies, threats, or any of the rubbish in the book of Mormon.

It only has negative impact on our eternal lives to the extent that we fail to ignore it completely as blasphemy and heresy.

The trial transcript (Joey’s glass-looking incident) has been multiply verified by a variety of examiners - many of whom had no “dog in the fight” other than scholarly interest, while the material presented on “fairmormon.org” (gee what a shock that a mormon advocacy website would be cited in this instance /s) does not even remotely qualify as objective.

Debunking a known and documented factual occurrence (in an arena - occultic affinity and personal involvement - for which there are ennumerable other stories about Joey-boy, including his own handwritten accounts...) is more easily done when you have a counter-source with reliable credentials, rather than an apologists dot org that consistently errs on the side of scrubbing and protecting the facade of the church and its arcane, hellish doctrines, and sanitizing the images of the likes of Smith and Young - two of the more successful snake-oil peddling scoundrels of the entire nineteenth century.

It appears glaringly obvious to many outside of the LDS circle that there is some heavy revision going on. Few are willing to accept that the portrait painted of them - steely-eyed, godly men of purpose and unswerving righteousness, given to prophesying amazing and wondrous things, all but turning water into wine...is anything other than a collection of fallacies and wishful embellishments.

I suppose that next you are going to deny that Joey boy was arrested in Missouri in 1838, on the basis of his and his followers inability to remain at peace with, or quit murmuring threats of violence (in order to obtain all of the land that their church funds would not otherwise purchase...) against the established locals?

My late great-grandfather, William Elijah - “Lij” (my mother’s mother’s father) passed away in 1965 at the age of 104. He used to tell of his father and his uncles, and their stories of dealings with the mormons in “Pioneer-Era” America.

His father and one uncle were “bootleggers” - before it was actually called bootlegging. They made mountain dew, AKA white lightning, AKA a bunch of other names, largely depending on the region...They (and some of their neighbors) also produced sourmash whiskey, corn liquor, and modest quantities of various berry wines, and he and his brother brought them to the mercantile intown.

Another uncle was the merchant who ran that mercantile where the early mormons came and went. The mormons were among their biggest buyers of these items, as well as purchasing prodigiously large amounts of tobacco.

Smith himself was often among the mormons visiting; they often bought on credit - so long as they were given credit, which Smith often badgered for. When he was refused, he would call down curses on that uncle, “prophesy” G_d’s judgment, and (often) failing the effect of those efforts, resort to direct threats of violence.

The last time they saw Smith’s band was the last time they (foolishly) extended them credit, and the amount of goods they absconded with nearly cost that uncle his mercantile business. Fortunately for him, the banks in town were understanding, having been victims themselves - to a lot of worthless $3 bills passed by the mormons.

Smith’s life of dissolution caught up to him in June of 1844, in Carthage, Iowa, where he was finally shot and put out of other people’s misery - but not before enjoying a fine dinner together with his brother Hyrum, Dr Richards, John Taylor, and other church men.

Taylor said of the wine Smith ordered after the dinner, “Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy and it was sent for to revive us.”

When the mob came for Smith and his cohorts, according to Taylor, Smith killed two men in the group (with the six-shooter smuggled into the jail to him by Cyrus H. Wheelock), and wounded another.

In his final moments, Smith went to the window of the jail and with upraised hands, began to give the Masonic cry of distress “Oh lord my G_d...” to brother masons in the mob, but fell from the window to his death before completing his call.

That is neither a Christlike “lamb to the slaughter”, nor a courageous procession to death. Clearly Smith intended to break out of jail with the pistol he readily accepted from Wheelock. The mob saw the Lord’s justice done, whether one believes Smith was killed by a gunshot, fell, was pushed, or jumped while wounded.

Had my great-grandfather’s father or uncles been there, I am sure they would have wished Joey boy “good riddance”.

A.A.C.

That is the heresy DU, the site was uncontrolled and no official investigation has been made.

Did you mean heresy or hearsay?

Once again, the Nibster identified it as a fraud.

Tell you what, you admit that Hugh Nibley was always right, and I'll go with your interpretation... I didn't think you would go with that. Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to insist that he was wrong on many other things, and insist that I say he was right on this one? Now I for example have never said he was right about everything, so I'm clean on the hypocrisy issue. I think he was wrong about this one and I think I know why.

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. . . . . .

So? how many things have you actually source on this thread (pot ... Kettle...)

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.

You know that the Los lunas stone is only one of many places htat paleo hebrew has been found in the Americas. I am not going to give up on this as an "evidence" There are many "evidences" of the Book of Mormon, are they conclusive proof? No. Will they convince scientists to sing Joseph smith's praises? Don't make me laugh, no really, I have a Cold and I'll start coughing again, don't make me laugh.

You said that was no evidence, there is, it's not "mainstream" or the Book of Mormon would be "mainstream". But the evidence exists, if that is what you are looking for. If you are looking for evidence against, you can find that too.

"Sometimes what you find on the table is what you brought with you" -- Chinese Proverb

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

Lets see, I asked about your specific objections to the Decalogue stone:

You talk about a cave
You talk about a site in Canada
You judge his morality
You argue that it's possible that he might have known phonecian script
You complain about Greek symbols on the Decalogue stone (finally we get to the stone in question)
You complain about modern Hebrew punctuation (the dots between words I assume)
You call your suppositions facts

So you finally have two objections that are not just smoke and mirrors, the dots to separate words have been found in other period documents you might want to review The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon. Let me give you a quote from this as an opener:

The Lachish letters were written on potsherds just before the Babylonians came and destroyed Jerusalem around 600 B.C. They were discovered in 1938 by J.L. Starkey. These letters are an excellent control text for the opening scenes of the BofM. They have been virtually ignored by critics since their contribution to the BofM's authenticity is some of the most *powerful* available. It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.

please note the Lachish letters also speak of a prophet of God who was sought by the military having left his home and fled into the wilderness (sound familiar? It should)

GZ: 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

A) I said Probably and alter (the speculation was clear) B) The pyramids are not a "controlled site" and you don't seem to deny they exist. What is it Anti Mormons wanting "controlled sites" and "per reviews" all the time? Life is messy.

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

GZ: 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.
That's what I said, there is no evidence that he did... Wait, you agreed with me in an argumentative fashion,that means you left out the word not, got it... Proof read man proof read!

Please explain why when it's read in Hebrew (palo of course) it's the ten commandments...

DU 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)

GZ 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.

Sorry, I've had this conversation so many times, I'm sorry, I'll wait for you to say your part next time... Don't get angry, nobody likes a sulky debater.

GZ 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

Because the people examining the site said they "appeared to be from the same period" I have not actually seen the sit myself, you?

Silly Rabbit, tricks are for kids Pictures, Images and Photos

DU LOL! The old "I know something you don't know" debate tactic, I remember that... from third grade...

GZ 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

Wait, Wait! Was this the part where I hold an envelope up to my forehead and tell you what you are thinking?

Silly Rabbit mind reading tricks are forbidden on the forums. If you want to see if I know something, you are going to have to ask me.

DU The stone exists, it is of ancient manufacture,

GZ 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.

Hugh Nibley is not God. I think he's wrong. Hibben was not there long enough to have refaced and re-carved the stone, he did some really stupid things, but he just didn't have time to forge the inscription.

let's get a bit of information about the site:
From Some background information on the history of the Inscription Rock

People were already aware of the inscription when New Mexico became a territory in 1850, but no one could read it back then, mainly because the old-Hebrew or Phoenician alphabet in which this rock is inscribed was mostly unknown among scholars or archaeologists at that time. The site is located some few miles west of the small New Mexican town of Los Lunas, about an hour's car drive south of Albuquerque. The inscription is carved into the flat face of a large boulder resting on the north-eastern side of the so-called Hidden Mountain. Local Indians told the then landowner Franz Huning in 1871 that the monument predated their tribes coming to the area.

So we have Indians having come to the area and finding the rock there, we have the Indians telling Franz Huning about it in 1871 and according to one story I read, Franz took a rubbing and sent it to the Smithsonian, the link I had is no longer working, and I am unable to find another source, so... Either which way he knew about it and owned the land, so that places a definitive date for the rock's carving to exist then, if not before (since the Indians claimed it was there before they came to the area.

And Godlike productions has the following on it's site:

I hope you all find this as fascinating and intriguing as I do. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of these ancient rock writings-hebrew inscriptions- in the deserts and mountains of our beautiful country. This new website has just begun....much, much more is coming and more photographs will be added as they are discovered.

Sadly anti Mormons who think there is something there have also been at work:

The Decalogue stone was found on the land of the great Huning family, descendants of the successful merchant Franz Huning.

Franz had emigrated to New Mexico from Germany in 1849. He worked as a cowboy along the Santa Fe Trail until he settled in Albuquerque.

In 1880, the same year the railroad arrived, Franz Huning invested in real estate (gaining a land grant which included the "Mystery Mtn." and environs, after inquiring with the land office a dusty cowpoke having been shown the "Mystery Stone" by a local tribesman while with the RR nearby who said it pre-dated the arrival of the tribes here) and he operated a flour mill while starting his Highland Addition east of the railroad between Copper and Lead in addition to his downtown mercantile store, becoming a very wealthy man. He lived in a mansion on a street named after himself in an eccentric miniature castle like the ones he left behind in Germany.

The Huning Ranch lands sign is the first thing you see headin outa town West, and his family's restaurants are well known.
When his Grandson first saw the stone in 1930 as he reported later at a very old age; "It was 2/3rds covered in Lichen and half buried in a drift of concreted dirt"

The first 2 millenia or so were "great" to it, the next 2 centuries were "good" (just not much recognition) then the last 2 decades saw it's exposure by the media and it was "fair" (getting well noticed by a few scholarlies removing a few pieces and at least by several writers and fringe), but the last 2 years have been dis-satisfactorily "poor" as it has been struck a repeated blow by vandalism.

What you see is having been covered in roofing Tar and scrubbed with solvent using wire-brushes, and been bashed badly with a pick-axe.

Some anti Mormons don't fall ideologically far from Mark Hoffman, who not content to disbelieve, or tell others why he disbelieved, started forging documents to discredit the church (some of which are still in circulation) when his "scheme" started to go bad, he started blowing people up with car bombs to slow the investigation. That ended when one of his bombs went off prematurely. Unfortunately, in religious wars as with normal war, truth is often the first casualty. In this case someone doesn't want the stone to be identified as Hebrew so badly they are willing to destroy it as if that will change the truth.

If you had read your articles, you would have seen that it was an abridgment, not the full citation.

An abridgment almost identical to the one on the Tel Dan Stone? ROTFLOL! Right,I almost forgot to add in that support, thanks!

Secondly, there are plenty of other evidences that this stone is fraudulent, some already posted here.
There is plenty of evidence against many true things if you look hard enough, so?

Ancient proto-Hebrew did not use Greek Characters DU – that is a not so subtle clue right off the bat.

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

If it was perfect Hebrew, it would support the Book of Momron even less. Hebrew Scholars think it is almost blasphemy for someone to alter the spelling of the law, but if that was how you wrote everything... Even the flaws back it up.

Is it possible Godzilla, that Hugh Nibley realizing that the stone weighing 80 tons (and therefore unmovable to a museum)) would be a target if he "authenticated" it? As it has gained in notoriety, it has been vandalized...

As far as unaltered other inscription – again the burden of proof is in your corner. I know you'd like to think that, but I have no intention of proving anything to you "beyond a shadow of a doubt", you are the prosecuting attorney here, I am merely the defense. I have testified that I received a witness from God, but putting the Book of Mormon to The Test. You claim I am wrong, and are supposed to be proving me wrong. You said I had not a shred of evidence to back me up. I don't need to prove my case I merely need to make others curious enough to ask God, for that is my purpose. Prove the church wrong if you can, but only God can prove it true. Lurkers, Read my Testimonay, Put the Church to The Test, Know for yourselves and all this petty bickering will not matter to you, I so testify in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost.

What level of control to the site has there been since 1930? Prove via archaeological journal that these writings are unaltered as you claim. There goes you unimpeachable evidence once again.

The only unimpeachable evidence in this world comes from God.

Again, I never thought I could convince you, I am presenting what there is, your acceptance, or rejection is not my problem. There are other stones, I chose to talk about this one, The DNA (which is what this htread is supposed to be about remember?) has not worked out for you because the Book of Mormon does not say what you assumed it said. There is no DNA evidence that can prove the Book of Mormon wrong by it's own tenets. That I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to reasonable people. That IMHO is why you wanted to wave the red herring of archeological evidence, that, again IMHO, is why we are not discussing DNA, because you can't defend your position, so you change the subject. Please explain to us again how Moroni meant he had no Lamanite Blood when the said he was a "pure descendant of Lehi" Even though Nephi and Laman were full brothers.

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

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

You can find them Here right next to tours in Jerusalem and Israel...

DU 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?

GZ 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.

LOL! The church has been at it longer than you have (personally) so compare to them you are the newcomer. (unless you are now going to say you represent some church or the other)

Mormons have never dissed the Bible, it's one of our canonized standard works.

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

GZ 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.

Sometimes, sometimes the answer comes in other ways, God is not limited and his answers are always perfectly delivered. If you had read my testimony, you would know that my witness was not a warm and fuzzy experience, but much more specific than that.

DU 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. GZ 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

Gosh, you mean you want my posts to be longer? (I think I speak for everyone when I say God forbid!

How do you know Hugh Nibley would have had anything else available to him? How do you know he wasn't saying that and the church does not talk about the stone to protect it? How do you know I am not truthful when you accuse me of a lie?

GZ Yes I know of the “geologist’s” estimate, but that is only a WAG and not anything I would bet my professional credential on.

DU Why not? You go out on slimmer limbs here...

GZ 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.

Please present your credentials as an archeologist, or we'll all just have to take you for an internet braggart on the "I know more than you do" comment.

I don't have to prove the dates, the inscription was there (as witness by Indians and people who had seen it before 1850, the man who bought the land knew it was there 1871 no-one could have read or written the script before about 1940 so unless Hibben completely struck the rock face and resurfaced the stone and carved his "imperfect" Hebrew inscription, (I have seen an estimate for the, it would take about a year with the tools Hibben had) then it is genuine. Can you prove that he did that?

DU 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.

GZ As pointed out earlier, the insertion of vowels is not proof, as there are 25 different combinations.

Precisely my point! So even if Joseph had access to a map of the interior of Arabia (that would have shown this not on the map place, yeah right) and he cold find this nowhere place NHM rendering it Nahom is a an additional one in 25 shot which he nailed. How many bulls eyes does it take to become "interesting to you" Go watch the Video again pay close attention at 2:03 when the native is saying the name, it's Nahom.

GZ It sounded like Nihm.

Pardon me, but you have a some faith stuck in your ears...

GZ 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.

Lurkers, if I may be so bold as to suggest an action, go watch the Video, then decide for yourselves.

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

GZ 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.

Then find me one, just one other location on the map that fits, find me another "Bountiful" that fits. Let me know when you have given up trying. Your Shoot an arrow and draw a target analogy would have us believe that there are many such places, show me one, just one. (the argument used to be "there is no such place".) GZ 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.

Proper shmoper, a flat earth argument if I ever heard one.

GZ Still want to see evidence that bountiful could supply the proper timber for an oceanic vessel as well as iron. Um it has tropical rain forests -- Forests = Trees.
As for Iron, you have to dig for that, and It would not take much to make a few tools, that much can be found almost anywhere there are mountains and bluffs.

Prove that there isn't any...

DU there is evidence of Horses in the ancient Americas.

GZ 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. Sigh, My father once told me "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.", Read'em and weep from a site called "Horses and The Book of Mormon" which is the first site that comes up when you search on horses in ancient Americas, Google, sometimes if just keeps people from looking silly, in this case nope!

FYI, look at a few more sites they all say the same thing, it's been confirmed even by "Archeologists" the horse was here before the Spanish brought some.

You will find some frantic sites claiming silly things like "700 BC is not 600BC so they were gone by then", and the like which is exactly what we would expect from the flat earthers.

GZ 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

As if science is just a means to the end of discrediting the Book of Mormon... A truly flat earth attitude. (we know the earth is flat, we just have to discredit all evidence to the contrary to prove it!) If you know a spiritual truth, then you don't have to "prove" it to anyone else, you already know it, it's called faith (I believe you would call that being an in-dwelling faither, which I am).

DU Yep, the Video was produced I think a couple of years after he joined the church..

GZ And you claim I don’t watch these things.

Or at least the anti sites (I can find some where this is mentioned, can't you?)

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

GZ Where in the non-mormon world is this report.

I don't know, presumably in some dusty journal of Genetics. I do know that FAIR has publicized it rather extensively, and you can buy a book which contains a copy of the report, here: Book of Mormon and New World DNA.

Of course that is if you don't mind supporting FAIR... >;-)

GZ Consistent, perhaps, but consistently wrong.

Says the layman of the Scientist who specializes in the field...

GZ Crandall diverted the focus, thus losing the forest because of the trees.

Pray tell, just how you know what Keith Crandall's focus was, we are all ears, is that you miss Cleo?

GZ 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

Keith did not say he had found Jewish DNA, he said if that's what you are looking for, then this is your most likely group. Go listen to the Video!

part 1 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
part 2 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
Part 3 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA

What he did say is that you don't have a pure sample to start with, they didn't stay genetically conservative in their marriages, so proving a negative is impossible!

Now all your Halpo type X crap I admit right here and right now it does not prove the Book of Mormon to be true. I do not believe anyone will ever prove the Book of Mormon true with archeology. God wants people to have to ask HIM! Get it?

GZ Book of Mormon anticipates modern Mesoamerican archeology.
Drinking the koolaid again. From the Smithsonian, their standard answer.

If you go back and look, I posted an excerpt from an article called Is the Book of Mormon really an ancient book?" and indented the text like this:

Book of Mormon anticipates modern Mesoamerican archeology. (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.
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."

(From the Book of Mormon, Alma 49:18-20)
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.

Anti Momorns keep asking me "where are the cities?, where are the artifacts? Where's the beef? Well, here is a patty of ground chuck, deny all you want, it does not matter it's still true whether or not you believe, deny at your eternal peril.

As to the statement about the Book of Mormon by the Smithsonian, I guess were in Good company... The Bible—‘it’s not historical’ contains these quotes:

‘The Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah’s flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions:
‘ … Many people ask if the Biblical flood actually took place, i.e. a flood which literally covered the entire earth and wiped out all living things except those which managed to board the ark?
‘The occurrence of a flood story in both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as in other folk traditions, does hint that there may have been enormous flooding of river valleys in a far distant time. However, thus far, after literally hundreds of archeological excavations at different times in the Near East, no all-encompassing flood stratum has ever been found.’

They also make the statement that the bible is a religious and not a historical document

Oh well!

GZ 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)

OK, Let's take apart your broadside of weaponry terms:

Swords: who said the swords were made of metal, or that if they were that they were going to be of "stainless steel"?
FromSwords and "Cimeters" in the Book of Mormon

When the Spanish conquistadors faced Mesoamerican armies in the early sixteenth century, without hesitation they called the most fearsome type of native weapon espada, "sword." The Aztec name was macuahuitl (pronounced "mah-kwah-weetl") or macana. When the indomitable Bernal DÃaz, one of Cortez's companions in his conquest of central Mexico, saw the macuahuitl at work in the hands of the enemy, he reported that "their swords, which were as long as broadswords, were made of flint which cut worse [i.e., more sharply] than a knife, and the blades were so set that one could neither break them nor pull them out."
armor: as anyone who has played Dungeons and dragons will tell you not all armor is plate mail. That said, Ancient American Antiquities And Artifacts Mound builders buried with their mounds have been found people buried in Copper plate mail, complete with copper helmets. This most certainly counts as "armor". (BTW, they also bound copper axeheads, arrow heads, etc.
Chariots: get real, there is little to no chance of finding the remains a wooden chariot after centuries. (it took hundreds of years of looking to prove they were in Israel, and we knew where to look!)
Steel Bows: Nephi's steel bow was from Jerusalem, remember? The Bible also refers to Steel bows from the same era Bible and Book of Mormon Steel.(has references to the Bible steel bows)
Helmets: Did I mention that the Guy wearing armor also had a helmet (<Ancient American Antiquities And Artifacts) I can get more, but do your own homework.

So, Swords, armor, chariots, Nephi's steel bow, helmets all either verified, or explained. poof, so much for your "objections". Lurkers, this is an excellent example of how anti Mormons throw up "challenges" to the Book of Mormon. they like to throw a bunch of spaghetti at the fridge and see if anything sticks (As if it's our job to answer their every off topic question) However, there is only one real, valid test for the Book of Mormon, and that is to ask God. I have been accused on this thread of lying. On other threads the anti's have been accused of lying. You can't trust either of us, but you can trust God. Put the Book of Mormon to The test to know for sure, then you can just ignore us, or join in for the fun of it.

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

GZ 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 <--Snip-->

Godzilla, I'll explain it again, and I'll use small words this time.

The -- Book -- of -- Mormon -- does -- not -- say -- the -- party -- that -- came -- over -- with -- Lehi -- were -- here -- alone.

The -- Book -- of -- Mormon -- says -- they -- met -- people -- who -- outnumbered -- them -- and -- they -- joined -- with -- them.

The -- Book -- of -- Mormon -- does -- not -- say -- where -- these -- other -- people -- came -- from.

Do -- you -- understand -- English?

Therefore, who cares about the gastrointestinal parasites of petrified poo? Capisce? 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.

GZ An act of dismissal a priori DU, poor form.

No, I addressed it. Even if the DNA study says exactly what you say it does about the origin of the bacteria in the poo, since the Book of Mormon does not say they were the only ones here, unless you found a sign saying "Nephi's personal outhouse" with a date of 600BC on it, then it does not matter, because it's not proof. (although such a sign would be proof I'd love to see for many reasons, chuckle.)

GZ 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.

as I said, all such DNA studies rely on erroneous assumptions of a pure sample and genetic conservatism, neither of which are in the Book of Mormon.

GZ 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?

LOL! Let's not get into discussing where we think each other is "ignorant" or we'll both be posting in a vacuum.

OK, so some dogs migrated here with some people who came from Siberia. I have no problem with that, maybe those were the people of Zarahemla... (now do you see your problem with proving this false?)

You know this is already turning into an opus nobody but you and I and loyal fans will read, so I'm going to tell a story.

When I was on my mission (in Taiwan) I had an elder who was convinced that if I would just let him "off the leash" that he could logically prove the church was true to the Chinese people.

Finally, we were visiting an old man who IMHO was never going to join, but he liked to have Americans come visit.

It was a rainy day, we had a three hours before our next appointment, which was in the neighborhood... I turned to the elderly gentleman and said in Taiwanese (which my companion did not speak) My companion thinks he can explain religion with logic, would you mind teaching him? He responded that he would be honored.

So I looked over at my companion, and said "OK, convince him, I'll even help with vocabulary when you need it."

My companion launched into a complex and lengthy "logical" explanation designed to let him follow his bread crumbs back back after he got the person to agree with him on a "Logical" question.

Failing time and again to get the response he wanted, he got down to "Two plus two equals four, right?" And the Chinese guy said "most of the time", my companion went "What?" and the Chinese guy said "Well so far it has, but you never know about next time"...

At which point my companion looked at me and said "You Knew! I spent all this time and you Knew!"

I dropped finally into English and said to him "Chinese people believe that conflicting truths can all be true, because we humans will never have all the data."

Back in Chinese, I told him he apparently had to learn for himself, and the Chinese guy said, "All such truths must be learned for your self".

(I'm going to use the word "you" in an all inclusive sense for all anti Mormons and everyone who opposes a religion)

You see, you can argue that my faith is wrong all you want, but you can never win, it's my faith, not yours. when it comes to religion, either only one is right, or all are wrong, but most people come to a more Chinese philosophy, as long as you are doing good by my book...

You will always look bad, just like American missionaries of every denomination looked bad to the Chinese people while trying to "prove" Christianity true. The only real conversion comes from the inside, not the outside, don't you understand that? You will never win this "fight" because it's about what I believe. You lost before you began.

My advice to you is; Go and testify of what you believe, you'll have more fun, you'll convert more people, and you will not look so funny to people who look at you kind of like they look at a rabid dog, afraid to get too close in case it's catchy.

I'm going to end this response prematurely on this note in hopes that you'll "Get it". I'll also point out to you if you are thinking "I'm doing this for the lurkers!" LOL! I get two or three FM per year from people who joined after watching a few of these threads, and I have Freepers who FM me with comments because they like to watch you guys tie yourselves in knots like this... what do you get that from Lurkers? anything? are they even interested, or are all the people who send you stuff people who started on your side or were already convinced when they found your thread? Think about this, all antis of every faith.

Go with God and Go ask God.

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

That would be a change of pace.

GZ 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.

The blood typing was an example of a corrupted source, which you have never addressed.

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

Science and faith mixed, sounds like a perfect recipe for a flat earth convention!

GZ 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).

I will address your DNA issues as soon as you address the corrupted and diluted DNA that I have pointed out until then your conclusions are moot.

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

As I stated earlier, the DNA tests only matter if you start with a clean sample, and keep it clean as you go, they didn't do either.

DU 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"?

GZ 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.

LOL! You always call every one shallow, I just wish we could all be as "deep" as you, LOL!

OK, let's talk Mitochondria, it's only passed by women to all their children (male and female) and it only is a good trace if you don't add other women from outside the group being traced, oops Well there goes that one.

As to the purity, LOL! After Christ came, everyone became lighter skinned until some went and took up the old oaths, so he could have had some Lamanite blood and been white. Saying that he was a "Pure descendant of Lehi" can only mean it was possible not to be a descendant of Lehi, or a partial descendant.

DU 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"?

GZ Once again, off script and floundering.

What is that? Is that supposed to make me mad? LOL! I am never "on script" I do all my writing on my own and don't rely on anti sites to feed me issues.

GZ The Bom and mormon teaching say that the continent was empty for Nephi, et al.

You said htat before, I debunked it before. The book of Mormon says the exact opposite, there were people here when they got here, and Nephi knew more would come.

Lurkers, you don't have to wonder, Get a Book of Momron and look it up yourself.

GZ There was no larger group for them to join.

One of the First groups they found was the people of Zarahemla: Omni 1:14

14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.

They continued to meet other peoples and it was not even remarked on most of the time, this being a spiritual record.

GZ 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. I have read your posts, and lost braincells thereby.

Let's take the slaves issue (which alone could make it a corrupted sample) Let's try a few examples of slavery:

A) the Good old USofA way back before any of us was born there were slaves in the south, of course they would have the same DNA as us because they were living in the same area, wait, no they don't...

B) Joseph in the Bible was a slave in Egypt for a while, so of course he would have... No that does not work either.

With the exception of Africa, I know of no place that was enslaving their own people at that point in history (600 BC) Most slaves came from "elsewhere".

So Zoram being a slave could have been African, or Asian, or whatever and bingo corrupted genome. My point is since you don't know, you can't prove a negative.

DU 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?

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

I'm sorry which is it, science or religion? Of yeah, flat Earthers think they are the same thing. So once it's proven by science, it's OK with the faith, I got it.

Cart Before the Horse Pictures, Images and Photos

DU 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.)

GZ 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.

Godzilla, before you can even hope to address the results of a test, you must first asses what you are trying to find, which is the DNA that went on the trip, and if you don't know what even some of that DNA was, well you don't know waht to look of and will not even know if you find it.

Until the issue of who's DNA started toward America is resolved and DNA results is a case of having the cart before the horse. I truly understand you desire to skip to the end and declare us wrong, but to do so without crossing all your I's and dotting all your T's well you end up looking like the metaphor I just mixed for your amusement.

<--Skipping all the Irrelevant DNA studies that can't be useful because we did not start at the beginning -->

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

It's not "Yeh Buts", but "So whats" The results you are getting are consistent with what I would expect from what I read in the Book of Mormon, Hence, the So what? factor.

GZ Once again, DU shows he is very shallow in his argument once he gets off script.

Now I know why these get so long... you wast a lot of time getting personal... (and no, I am not going to report you, i think it detracts from your argument, please, keep doing it.)

GZ Genetic population studies do not need pure ancestry

You know, I'd love to see you convince a real population Geneticist of that. (Hey we can find whatever you want in your DNA for a little extra... LOL!)

GZ but follows the very traceable mtDNA (passed by women, yet present in men) and Y chromosomal sequences (passed by men).

Someone needs a refresher course on DNA, read this --> complex genetic testing involving autosomal DNA: The Mitochondria DNA would only be preserved intact if there were no women from outside the Group included. There were such women from the very beginning.

GZ 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 may be a racist, and you might consider this to be a valid interpretation, to me it makes no sense, ergo you are grasping at straws. Let's review the Exact verse this is from:
3 Ne. 5: 20

20 I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi. I have reason to bless my God and my Savior Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, (and no one knew it save it were himself and those whom he brought out of that land) and that he hath given me and my people so much knowledge unto the salvation of our souls.

This does not seem to be a time for Racism, this colophon is a time to point out that he is a genetic descendant of Israel and to thank God for that.

DU 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"?

GZ Once again, off script and floundering.

Once again, you just can't help but make it personal, LOL! GZ The Bom and mormon teaching say that the continent was empty for Nephi, et al.

That is completely false.

GZ There was no larger group for them to join.

The people of Zarahemla who's ancestry we don't know...

GZ If DU bothers to read any of the posts, DNA population studies deal with regional sources (ethnic groups having the same genetic identity) and how those people migrated out from them.

Let's test that shall we, I live in Utah, therefore If I migrate to New York you'll be able to trace me back to Utah by my neighbors. Let's see, I came originally from the mid west, My next door neighbor comes from Wyoming, and on the other side Peru. I don't think this is going to work out very well.

Let me try: can you hear me now? Pictures, Images and Photos

can you hear me now? Pictures, Images and Photos

DNA population studies deal with cohesive populations (ethnic groups having the same Identity) and how those people keep their identity when physically moved to a new location by being genetically conservative.

Yeah, that would work, except that's not what we have, slaves are not always, or even often of the same genetic ethnic groups as the slave owner. Can you hear me now?

GZ All of the peoples listed in the bom came from the same region.

This is precisely the Flaw that invalidates the whole DNA to prove you wrong scenario, we don't know that, we have slaves and their daughters marrying in right at the beginning of the departure. GZ 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.

Actually, that is not true. If you assume the America's was completely unpopulated, and no-one else came from anywhere else... Then maybe you'll find something recognizable, maybe. But since the Book of Mormon says there were other people (several times in fact) and they just keep adding them in, and since we know the vikings had an outpost here for a while and the Spaniards and the Europeans were happily married into the Indian population I submit that you have no evidence supporting a genetically conservative people, and since the Book of Mormon lists some descendants of Ishmael, Mormons colophon staing that he was a pure descendant of Lehi makes more sense as a genetic statement than as a racist comment.

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

GZ 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.

I.. I look Deep really, stop calling me shallow you big, you big bully you Bwahhhaa!

LOL! I think the amount of links and evidence I include in my posts and the amount of links and evidence you include in your posts speaks for itself.

DU LOL! Can you prove any of that? No. I didn't say that everyone who was doing genetic research 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.)

GZ 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.

Can you please point me to the "Common Mormon Dictionary"? LOL!
Anti Mormons are people who oppose the church, not just people who said something bad about us once or twice. Some times people say things about us that are not flattering, but are true. They are not anti Mormons, the pope for example has said things that are unflattering about Mormons, he has also said some nice things, he's not an anti Mormon.

The researchers who don't bother to get involved in religious wars are smart in that they will never live down the scorn of the side they don't agree with.

Let's take Keith Crandall, In this very thread you have impugned his integrity because of his findings, do you think you;ll get over that in five years?, ten? Twenty? If things hold true to form antis will be cursing his name until and unless he leaves the church and fights against it, then all will be forgiven by the antis and he will be their darling.

DU 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.

GZ Ah yes, the old bom didn't really mean what it said ploy.

Actually, the Book of Mormon means exactly what it says, but not if you pick one scripture out of a chapter and ignore the ones around it, speaking of selective Citations...

GZ Once again there is total silence regarding interactions with these others.

You know, it's not as if it was written as a "historical document" it's a spiritual record, but it does talk about finding other groups like the people of Zarahemla for example.

GZ 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 others The fact that your interpretation doesn't hold water to what Smith taught (something about the original intent of the author)

LOL! Like you would know the original intent of the author, you think Joseph smith was the author, LOL! (do you know what a begging the question is?), that and calling your suppositions facts is just funny, please keep it amusing!

Let's broaden our scriptural scope a bit (again, I know Lurkers, I know)
@ Nephi 1:5-11

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
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.
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom 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 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 Lord—having 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 promise—behold, 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 just shall rest upon them.
11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.

Now, Godzilla, I took your advice and added Color to the Quote, See the text in red? Yeah, put verse 9 in that context (five comes before nine in the book and in counting) thus we see (that's a bit of Book o fmomron Lingo) that the context of 2 Nephi verse nine is that nations will not "know" of this land, but that peoples from many countries will come here being led by the lord, and that this group comes from Jerusalem.

Can you hear me now? Do I need to speak more slowly? Again?

GZ 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.

Tower of Babel which was when? Before Jacob was born, surely you are not going to say he would have the DNA of people he might or might not be related to...

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

15 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.

GZ Hint, hint DU, they would have the same genetic make up as Nephi - vs 9 thing again.

Hint Hint Godzilla, are you willing to stake your professional reputation on that? We just don't know, we can assume, but it throws the results of any DNA test into doubt. The group that came with Lehi included a slave and his descendants, what makes you think the people of Zarahemla had pure DNA? Because it works for what you are trying to accomplish? Nice try... You keep demanding unbroken chains of evidence for proofs for the Book of Mormon, don't you think you should demand the same for proof against?

This is precisely why I originally cited you for an Appeal to Ignorance, you see, your premise here seems to be that since we don't know, we can assume it is the way anti's want it to be..., and we just can't. That was the whole point of Keith Crandall's paper. You can't prove the Book ofmormons false by it's own Tenets with DNA because there is too much ambiguity in where the people who populate the book come from, thus you just can't prove the negative. The positive on the other hand is still possible to prove, it just has not been. Again, Keith says that they Mayans are where you should start looking if you want to find that proof positive (which I personally believe will never happen) And again just to come completely full circle "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -- Hugh Nibley (who is not infallible) GZ Who also came from the region of Israel - wow fancy that.

Mulek was indeed from Israel, as a son of Zedikiah, we can even be sure of his geneology, his companions on the trip, the people he picked up along the way... Well more questions marks I'm afraid.

you see, in order to prove a negative, you have to eliminate all positives, not just one, to prove a positive, all I have to do is have one positive. God answered and said it was his word. That's good enough for me. I'll stake not just my professional reputation, but my eternal salvation on God's word, you?

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

GZ stayed white and delightsome.

You are still going with the racism thing even after all the other people who he could have been related to? LOL! Well you're persistent if not smart!

GZ 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.

It's not blindness, as soon as you have parties of people from differing times and of differing ancestry, some you are only told the leader's ancestry, you just don't have enough to perform a reliable genetic study from. Turn it around, if I had to "assume" as much data as you "assume" here to get a positive, you'd rightfully be laughing me out of town. Pleas keep it up, you look silly insisting that Rocks were forged but bloodlines that are undocumented are pure, it's funny actually.

GZ 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.

Gosh, I'm sorry, the book of Mormon wasn't written in a way that makes it easy to discredit, maybe it was written for spiritual reasons...

DU 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.

GZ Way off your script again, a new race was not created

Then why did you say it was, go back and look, I was responding to you saying the Lamanites were a race...

GZ what genetic differences were there between the two groups - none, both were Jews.

Actually, that's another part of the problem, none of them were Jews, the Jews are one of the twelve tribes of Israel, they were descendants of Judah, Lehi was a descendant of Joseph Through Manasseh, Joseph had a different mother then Judah (see your section on Mitochondrial DNA), and while Leah and Rachel were sisters, it would have only mattered to have Rachel married off first if she was from the first wife, and Leah from the Second. There is the distinct possibility that Leah and Rachel had differing Mitochondrial DNA and therefore their descendants would have differing DNA too. Now you are going to argue that Polygamy was not that common, or bad or something, Jacob was given both sisters to be his wife by their father, who actually set the whole thing up, and worse Leah got one week before Rachel joined the family. So obviously they did not have the problems we do with polygamy, I mean come on DAD set up both daughters with the same guy one week apart!

Again, the only reason it would have mattered is if they were of different mothers so the DNA thing. Now you have Joseph who is from Rachel and Judah who is from Leah. This complicates the whole DNA identification nes pas?

Hopefully now you can see why I can say, I don't think this will ever be proven.

GZ 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

Sigh, it's not a spin, it's truth, just because you are from the middle east, does not mean you will have Jewish DNA, or all the Arabs would insist on blood transfusions and Gene therapy "now dang it NOW!"

As for the Indians not being descendants, they are, just not direct - Exclusive, or Pure descendants, so?

GZ 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

So if I take your paper and present it at a UFO convention, you are less credible? You are more shallow than I thought.

GZ 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.

Ammoron is a descendant of Zoram, who was pressed into service in at jerusalem, great, and who might his ancestry be? We don't know.

Mulek - was a descendant of the house of Abraham, and his entourage? We don't know.

DU 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 besmirching his reputation by saying that he is now compromised because of his (new) faith.

GZ 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.

Why? Why would a scientist with everything to lose and nothing to gain ignore such evidence? Because after a careful analysis of the Book of Mormon, he determined that no DNA test could prove it wrong, that's why.

GZ 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).

OK, you are a Geologist, if I tried to use some of your work to disagree with you about the probability of an oil deposit under a hill and you come along and look at my data and laugh out loud while saying there is no way there is oil there that's solid granite, and I disagree, who's gonna look silly?

I would. Southerton is a plant biologist for crying out loud he is as out of his depth with Popluation Genetics as I would be geology, quoting him is just like quoting from a UFO convention!

GZ 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).

So what? If you can't nail down that the group had a pure sample, you can't prove anything but a positive, the negative just has to many explanations.
GZ Whether or not his new found faith created a zeal that overroad his common sense and common practices of science, only he can answer.

Only Scott Southerton's New found faith and new found zeal overrode his common sense and common practice of science in disregarding the need for a pure sample and conservative genetic practices. (see how this cuts both ways, besides it's another Appeal to Ignorance...)

GZ But his treatment of the data was clearly flawed.

Yeah! Go get Him you geologist you! Wow, I wish I was an actor so I could comment on politics, or a Geologist so I could comment on DNA studies! (laughter echos)

DU 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.

GZ An appeal to authority is a flawed methodology to apply to Occam's razor.

Um, an Appeal to Authority is basically where the argument is made that an authority has already reviewed the case and decided, so there is no need to investigate further, it is meant to end discussion. I did not do that.

What I just did was more of an appeal to common sense.

GZ Occam's razor is based upon the burden of proof and the simplest answer that evidence points to.

Really? and here I thought the definition was "the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity."

It seems to me that you apply a lot of assumptions to get to a negative result on the DNA to prove the Book of Mormon wrong, hence Occam's razor keeps cutting you when you try to use it.

GZ Mormonism has no evidence, nada, zero, zilch as the studies and reports I've posted show.

Yet, I post hings that do show evidence, thus some exists, you just are not accepting it, which is perfectly OK with me. The problem is then you insist the reality bend to your opinion, and if just does not do that.

GZ 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.

LOL! When Genetic studies by a Population Geneticist are questions by a plant biologist as part of the argument against the Book of Mormon, the anti Mormons are truly bankrupt.

See how easy it is to spout platitudes?

Let's recap: until someone can show the genealogy of every one in all the groups that joined with Lehi back to someone in the house of Israel, then the sample is possibly corrupted.

An uncorrupted sample is required for a negative proof against the Book of Mormon to eliminate the possibility of error.

A genetic sample from the house of Joseph (not Judah) is required to compare with the genetics of the descendants of Lehi in order to prove a negative.

Anti morons don't have any of the above, they have flawed studies that are based on their assumptions about the Book of Mormon, which are just not true.

Now let's hit some of the things we have talked about. There are several stones in the USA which bear engravings that when translated as early (paleo) Hebrew render as an abridgment of the ten commandments. There are places that match the descriptions of fortifications built by Nephites, there are fossilized bones of horses, there are places in the interior of Arabia that match closely with the places described by the Book of Mormon. The Lachish Letters are an Archeological proof for the Book of Mormon that is amazing in it's exactness of the description of the events in Jerusalem in 600 BC. I could go on, but logical people will see that pattern.

Anti Mormons ridicule and dismiss evidence after evidence and after dismissing all the evidence legitimately or otherwise, they declare "there is no evidence" as if the act of making that declaration will make it so.

Such actions are IMHO truly pathetic.

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.