Posted on 02/14/2009 6:41:48 PM PST by restornu
Was Hebrew DNA recently found in American Indian populations in South America? According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.
But it probably has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon -- at least not directly.
For years several critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the lack of Hebrew DNA markers in living Native American populations is evidence the book can't be true. They say the book's description of ancient immigrations of Israelites is fictional.
"But," said Woodward, "as Hugh Nibley used to say, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' "
Critic Thomas Murphy, for example, wrote in one article about how the Cohen modal haplotype had been found in the Lemba clan in Africa. The Lemba clan's oral tradition claims it has Jewish ancestors.
Murphy then complained, "If the (Book of Mormon) documented actual Israelite migrations to the New World, then one would expect to find similar evidence to that found in a Lemba clan in one or more Native American populations. Such evidence, however, has not been forthcoming."
Until now.
So will Murphy and other critics use this new evidence of Hebrew DNA markers to prove the Book of Mormon is correct? Probably not. But neither should anyone else.
Why?
According to Woodward, the way critics have used DNA studies to attack the Book of Mormon is "clearly wrong." And it would be equally wrong to use similar DNA evidence to try to prove it.
This is because "not all DNA (evidence) is created equal," Woodward said.
According to Woodward, while forensic DNA (popularized in TV shows like "CSI") looks for the sections of DNA that vary greatly from individual to individual, the sections of DNA used for studying large groups are much smaller and do not change from individual to individual.
Studies using this second type of DNA yield differing levels of reliability or, as Woodward calls it, "resolution."
At a lower resolution the confidence in the results goes down. At higher resolution confidence goes up in the results.
Guess which level of resolution critics of the Book of Mormon use?
The critics' problem now is what they do with the low-resolution discovery of Hebrew DNA in American Indian populations.
For people who believe that the Book of Mormon is a true account, the problem is to resist the temptation to misuse this new discovery.
Woodward says that most likely, when higher-resolution tests are used, we will learn that the Hebrew DNA in native populations can be traced to conquistadors whose ancestors intermarried with Jewish people in Spain or even more modern migrations.
Ironically, it is the misuse of evidence that gave critics fuel to make their DNA arguments in the first place. According to Woodward, the critics are attacking the straw man that all American Indians are only descendants of the migrations described in the Book of Mormon and from no other source.
Although some Latter-day Saints have assumed this was the case, this is not a claim the Book of Mormon itself actually makes. Scholars have argued for more than 50 years that the book allows for the migrations meeting an existing population.
This completely undermines the critics' conclusions. They argue with evangelic zeal that the Book of Mormon demands that no other DNA came to America but from Book of Mormon groups.
Yet, one critic admitted to Woodward that he had never read the Book of Mormon.
Woodward also sees that it is essential to read the Book of Mormon story closely to understand what type of DNA the Book of Mormon people would have had. The Book of Mormon describes different migrations to the New World. The most prominent account is the 600-B.C. departure from Jerusalem of a small group led by a prophet named Lehi. But determining Lehi's DNA is difficult because the book claims he is not even Jewish, but a descendant of the biblical Joseph.
According to Woodward, even if you assume we knew what DNA to look for, finding DNA evidence of Book of Mormon people may be very difficult. When a small group of people intermarry into a large population, the DNA markers that might identify their descendants could entirely disappear -- even though their genealogical descendants could number in the millions.
This means it is possible that almost every American Indian alive today could be genealogically related to Lehi's family but still retain no identifiable DNA marker to prove it. In other words, you could be related genealogically to and perhaps even feel a spiritual kinship with an ancestor but still not have any vestige of his DNA.
Such are the vagaries, ambiguities and mysteries of the study of DNA.
So will we ever find DNA from Lehi's people? Woodward hopes so.
"I don't dismiss the possibility," said Woodward, "but the probability is pretty low."
Woodward speculated about it, imagining he were able to identify pieces of DNA that would be part of Lehi's gene pool. Then, imagine if a match was found in the Native American population.
But even then, Woodward would be cautious. "It could have been other people who share the same (DNA) markers," said Woodward about the imaginary scenario.
"It's an amazingly complex picture. To think that you can prove (group relationships) like you can use DNA to identify a (criminal) is not on the same scale of scientific inquiry."
Like the Book of Mormon itself, from records buried for centuries in the Hill Cumorah, genetic "proof" may remain hid up unto the Lord.
How is the padded room is there enough light and a cot and with the 3 hots!:)
________________________________________________
I can understand your anxiety...
How long did they say you would be in for ???
I’ll ask them to be gentle with you...
You poor frightened little thing...
My world of doing what I want to have out of marriage sex, of drinking booze when I want to, to swear any word I want to, to gamble, to be mean with those who disagree with me, to kick the cat, to be able to compare to justify my flaws.
_________________________________________________
No wonder you get mad at those of us who have led decent lives...
Oh gee it is worst than I thought seem ya run out of meds!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
And you are the one who admitted to “drinking booze when (you) wanted to”
Resty, I believe that would make YOU the self medicated one...
Leave the thread.
And this was available to a backwoods boy in the 1820s? . . . . Farm boys in America the 1820's did not get to learn much about the interior of Arabia, even if they had wanted to, and had the time to study.
Did a little more research. There are at least 10 maps of Arabia that would have been available to Smith or his inner circle of Rigdon, Crowdrey, Harris, and others. Seven of which have references to the area:
Niebuhr 1771 – A tribal area listed as Nehhm
Plinkerton 1813 Atlas – A tribal area listed as Nehem
Anville, 1794 atlas – A tribal area listed as Nehem
Bonne – 1785 atlas - A tribal area listed as Nagiah
Cary, 1804 atlas – Tribal area listed as Nehem
Clouet, 1787 De l’Arabie – area identified as Nagiah
Darton 1812 world atlas – tribal area listed as Nehem Haulan
These all differ from the mormon insisted name of nahom and are tribal regions, not specific locations. Thus there are plenty of opportunities for Smith and his inner circle to have had access to one of these maps.
Listen your self, it's right at 2:03 into the Video . . .
The native pronounces is Nihm DU. Surpisingly close to the tribal area name Nehem and agrees with Vogel’s investigation (Vogel, Dan, 2004, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet). The Yemen archaeologist pronounces it Nehhem. Again, this agrees with maps of the region. IN hebrew, the consonants "NHM" are pronounced as written, it should be pronounced with the H as hard, not soft (this is what we find in the hebrew "nahom" to be sorry"). So the sound would be like "ch" as in Scottish "loch" and we should expect to read of a bom placename of "Nachom, not "Nahom." The Book of Mormon placename doesn't fit the Hebrew word "to be sorry". However, as the video goes, the meaning shifts from “consolation” (hebrew) to “stone cutting” -
The South Arabian root NHM has to do with stone cutting whereas the Hebrew root has to do with consolation. See Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 636—37; and Joan Copeland Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect, Harvard Semitic Series No. 25 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982), 296.
So mormons interprete the word to mean sorrow, the locals say it means stone cutting. Nephi sez it was already named that word and it meant sorrow. Aparently Nephi didn’t talk to the locals or they would have given him a different story of the words pronunciation and meaning. Once again, mormons shooting arrow, drawing circle.
GZ Dissmissial a priori, by all equal application of archaeological practice, there should be tons of evidence. Where is it? DU sez check the UFO websites.
I dunno, did you edit something out?
Probably you – as you have done in the past in great abundance. But you missed a UFO website to support your claims. The man behind the Yemen discovery is Australian apologist Warren Aston and his wife Michaela. Why is it that when you dig a little deeper into the background of LDS apologists you find crackpots at almost every turn? Warren Aston runs a travel agency that conducts tours to Arabia. He is also an internationally recognized expert on UFOs!!
Aston speaking at UFO Symposium
Aston describing a UFO encounter in a DVD sold at International UFO Congress ufocongressstore.com Aston describing a UFO encounter in a DVD sold at International UFO Congress
Sorry, there is a Rain Forrest, and they talk about Tropical vegetation... read them and weep, or in this case Watchem and weep "Nephi's Bountiful in Arabia: The Book of Mormon" Talks about what I am saying. then again, since you are willing to edit what you have said, you will never admit to being wrong, reality is I guess for you truly what you make of it. (LOL!)
Then you had better deal honestly with your science DUh. The video does not use the words rain forest at all. The term tropical monsoon forest and yes, tropical vegitation is used as well. Real rainforests receive 80+ inches of precipitation per year. If one looks at the video, what is readily apparent are the lack of significant trees, trees large enough in size to permit the construction of boats large enough to sail the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Tropical plants are present in the form of various types of palms, and are shown in the lower canyons and gullies. Other vegitation is limited to brush, there are no hard woods present to build a boat with. Palm trees are not the kind of material to build large boats with for transoceanic voyages.
Well, there's one out behind my house, it's a big orange streak on the mountain... How much Iron do you need to make tools to cut down trees and shape the wood?
LOL, wow, a big orange streak on a mountain = an iron ore deposit. ROTFLAICGU, did the little green men tell you that? Nephi brought no tools, so how is he going to 1) dig the ore if he could find it and 2) work the product before, during and after smelting – use his bare hands?
Um, I'm not a Geologist, but doesn't that depend on how much Iron you are looking for? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can get iron from dirt if you want to work hard enough.
Fair enough, take your average dirt; you’d probably need a hundred tons (or more) of dirt to extract a pound of iron (small axe head). Get the picture.
Really, why? I'm not here to convert you, we were talking about DNA evidence, how does Iron ore deposits relate to DNA and how a corrupted sample means a corrupted result, oh yeah, that would be if we were having a logical conversation, sorry, I almost forgot who I was talking to here.
You were defending Bountiful – not me.
Ohhh Kaaaay, Bountiful is not a Desert, remember? You may be a the worlds foremost geologist, but you seem to have missed a few facts on the way to disproving Naholm and Bountiful.
DU, you are over your head and drowning again.
Now, Bountiful is small enough that Nephi could have left and gone to the desert for the ore, and he could have melted it over a charcoal fire.
I’m sure the camels were happy about that. Your problem is iron melts at 2800 °F, far too hot for a charcoal fire. Why don’t you goe and get enough of your orange dirt and see how successful your method is.
He didn't need a smelter unless he was trying to make Steel. Knowing that in Jerusalem, the Copper and Bronze of today were also referred to as steel, it could have been any metal (I know this offends your sense of exactness, but that's history for you, people were not as exact back then in their knowledge of metals).
No, just confirms you lack of knowledge of what is claimed by the bom.
“And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.”
- 2 Nephi 5:15
Now if it were a simple translation issue the bronze/steel confusion from the KJV could be resolved. However, absent the origional plates, Nephi separates each of these metals apart from each other. You're the Geologist, is it possible to find metals (copper, nickel, iron, etc) in a setting like Bountiful and the surrounding mountains (Nephi said God showed him where to go in the mountains to find the ore, to Molten into tools.) ! Nephi 17: 7-11,
Oh is it? Evidence of those ores in mineable concentrations in a desert region would leave very clear remains of both the mining activity itself, as well as the ore processing and smelting. North Oman is a well known bronze age source of copper, but the area around so-called Bountiful was anything but in regards to minable metals.
Nephi used a bellows that he made from the skins of animals to blow on the Fire to make it hotter and he made tools to make a ship.
Bellows are incapable of raising the temperature to 2800 deg F DU.
So you re telling me that you couldn't make something? He had all the gear they had been using to travel, he wasn't starting with his bare hands.
FWIW, without the right tools, he would be starting with his bare hands.
I have dona bit of metal work, not a lot, but it was fun, I melted ore in a ceramic dish and scraped off the dross, I have made molds out of clay and poured metal into them, I could have made an Adz and and Axe and some stuff given a little time and some ore. I'm not drowning, you are always rushing to your preconceived conclusion and trying to drag everyone with you, sorry we won't go.
LOL, you melted ore in a ceramic dish LOL. It takes a lot more than that to get metal LOL. Now try it using the materials on hand at the time. Make yourself an axe DU, woops, gotta get a lot of wood in order to melt all that dirt to get the pound of potentially workable iron, woops, no axe to cut the wood with, LOL.
Actually, I supplied three maybe that's why you butchered the preceding section, losing all the links...
No, your links left some to be deserved, I tried to follow up based upon the titles highlighted.
Kind of like the anti's on Freerepublic? when it comes to research, I get stuff from websites, you have even linked to them, LOL!
It was your links I was tring to follow. Chapman is a mormon group DUh not an anti, BTW
This is a particularly funny comment coming as it does about DNA studies in which the person saying he has disproved the Book of Mormon did no studies of his own, he just reinterpreted other people's data, hey, I guess it's the cheaper way to come to a preconceived conclusion.
Gee, ‘ol Woodward at Sorenson Genetics Inst., a mormon, conducts the studies as part of a team utilizing the DNA data his institute has collected over the years (you must have skipped over that part) which totally refutes Crandall (who BTW, was reinterpreting someone else’s data – tsk tsk), LOL. Like you when it comes to our religion, right?
I’m still waiting to be shown to be incorrect on mormon doctrine by you.
Kind of like the Guy that did his DNA research by ... Well, you know where I'm going with that. This thread is supposed to be about DNA, I know I keep bringing it back to the pesky topic, but it's funny how no matter how far afield you drag us, the arguments you bring to bear still apply to Simon Southerton, isn't it.
Your memory must be slipping again, lack of O2 from drowning too much here. I have cited at least three or more works by independent researchers (including those working for the Sorenson Genetics Inst.) that have repudiated Crandall’s reinterpreted research by Rosenberg. Selective memory on the fundamentals of the argument is borderling intellectual dishonesty DU. What independent research or study outside FARMS have you set forth in your defense (crickets. . . crickets . . . . crickets . . . crickets).
GZ This is the kind of source spoken of by Sorenson:
I'll skip your quote since it's just an ad homonym attack on Mormons (suprise!)
ROFLAICGU. Lurkers, the Sorenson quote was given by the Sorenson of FARM/Maxwell Institute of BYU / Mormon fame! In it Sorenson scolded the faith promoting mormon science. The creator of the vanishing geography theory. A leading mormon making an ad homonym attack on other mormons. How deliciously void intellectually. The horses as a tapir argument was only brought up by others (I have never argued that) to show how sometimes when describing an animal people would use one they were familiar with to describe one they were not, a visual "tastes like Chicken" kind of a thing.
But these horse/tapir arguers are the mormon apologists themselves, LOL. Horses were VERY common in Israel 600 BC DU. And as the simple phot comparison shows, even a kid can see the difference.
Why would anyone need to do that if there were real horses in the US?
Denial, you’re not in Egypt any more DU, you in the flow of your own apologetic – a mile wide and half inch deep and sinking fast.
You are a bit behind the times, fairLDS has put this video on you tube :Horses and The Book of Mormon.
Again, only more muddle from a faith promoting rumor site. Where are the independent journal articles that address horses exist in the Americas 600 BC to 400 AD? Still waiting (crickets. . . . crickets)
This is sooooo Funny Coming from you Guys! Ya Got this Guy Simon Southerton who left the church (having an affair while Faculty at BYU is not a resume enhancement...) then goes outside his area of expertise and writes a book that Co-opts other peoples DNA studies (for other things) and reinterprets their data to "disprove" the Book of Mormon,
Fellow Freepers and lurkers. Please notice that DU is not below an homonym attacks. But just how accurate is his information? For starters Southerton was not facility at BYU, he lives in Australia. Secondly, allegations of a sexual affair associated with excomunication are standard fair with mormons. Thirdly, he left the church in 1998, published the book in 2004 and only later and in 2005 (after being a non attender for 7 years) was excommunicated. The charge of adultry was never sustained.
Keith Crandall, an actual Population Geneticist? Well, He finds out this guy, Simon Southerton, is using his work, and may make him look bad.
The great Crandall who also uses other peoples work, or rather misuses it, (Rosenberg) and is shown to be inept when follow independent studies (Wang and the one involving the Sorensen Genetics Inst.).
Now, if horses were in the America's in 10,000 BC, when did they leave? (we don't know yet)
They didn’t leave DU, they went extinct along with many other species at the time. Bottom line is that they were not around at bom times.
Let's see, so far in this post you have linked to three whole sites, one about horses not being around when the Spaniards got here (A point that is not in dispute) and a couple of Archeology sites that show horses were here, but 10,000 years ago. So how does your including those sites do anything? It muddies the water that is all.
Being dishonest with the lurkers again DU. I could go back and contine to repost and repost and repost like you do – or I can trust the readers with being able to follow back. Your best seem to link to UFO websites.
GZ We are not talking about a spiritual truth here DU, we are talking about a book that claims to document the history and origins of the native americans 600 BC – 400 AD. Paul made the solid connection – that if Jesus did not rise from the dead (a statement of fact) then our faith (spiritual truth) is in vain.
Yes, Paul made that statement, but it was a spiritual statement, not a provable fact. Jesus did indeed rise from the tomb, Jesus did indeed teach, and eat and heal the sick after he rose from the dead and then Jesus rose up into the heavens and there is no archeological proof of that, or that he did any of the other things either.
Wrong again, Paul is reciting eyewitness testamony. Peter in Acts challenges the people who were eyewitnesses to the events of the cruxifiction. The jewish leadership’s response shows the same. And the archaeological proof is in the documents those eyewitnesses wrote and were preserved to tell of those events. We can find Pilate’s palace, the Roman facilities, the features of Jerusalem and Israel that Jesus refrenced and lived in – all within an archaeological context. The method of cruxifiction, whips, scourges, etc used on Christ have been found from the same era. The temple existed, the list can go on. Where are the pavement stones Jesus stood on here in America DU? You show me those and I’ll be silenced.
The Smithsonian will never certify Jesus as a resurected being. There are no scientific peer reviews of papers proving Jesus is the Son of God. These are spiritually discerned truths. I believe that God ordained that it be that way for a reason. You may believe what you wish.
What the Smithsonian does show is that the Bible contains a history that has been tested and proved by archaeology again and again. Lurkers will not DU is sluffing off his attack on the Bible by grossly misquoting a letter from the Smithsonian that actually showed they believe and use the Bible in their archaeological studies – something they do not recognize the bom for. They cannot prove the supernatural, but they can show that where testable, the bible’s story is reliable. Where are the dozens of cities occupied by an advanced hebraic civilization that practiced Christianity in the New world hundreds of years before Christ? (crickets)
I have testified here of direct communication from God just as Paul testified of his direct observation of Jesus' resurrection.
Paul was an eyewitness of the risen Savior, you are not – significant difference DU. You cannot hold a candle to Paul’s testimony.
GZ That document is already been invalidated by the 2009 findings that included the Sorenson genetic institute. The fact that you don’t bother to examine further (dusty journal of Genetics) shows just how shallow you efforts are. I’ve found and linked plenty of peer reviewed documents and studies, and they continually show mormon interpretation to be wrong.
Garbage in Garbage out, remember? I don't have to look at the output of a program if I know garbage data was fed to it, even if the program works flawlessly you still get garbage out.
Well, that’s what happens when you keep sticking your head in the sand DU. You still will not face up to the fact that a mormon organization – Sorenson labs – completely refudiated Crandall’s assertion of Hebrew DNA in central america. Garbage in – faith promoting articles from non professional publications like FARMS/Maxwell, FAIR, et al. Garbage out – No DNA evidence, lalalalalalalala, not listening lalalalala.
I don't have to waste time chasing down and disproving every study you come up with because the data is not there to start with. That is what Keith Crandall had to say about Scott Southerton and his DNA recycling of data it's just not possible to prove the negative with the Book of Mormon by it's own tenets because the Book of Mormon does not claim a purely middle eastern group.
Sigh, This is the report that DU refuses to read and evaluate while trying to castigate me for so called ignoring is fluff youtube pieces. This is the science DU must refuse to face among others for his proofs of mormonism to exist.
All the "studies" you quote to me, can't get past the erroneous assumption that the Book of Mormon claims a genetically pure group, and since it does not do that they all fall apart, no matter what their methodology.
You see lurkers, because DU allows the garbage in from FARMS apologists, real science continues on to map the movement of man via genetic markers around the world. A genetically pure group isn’t necessary to successfully identify heritage. The Lemba project showed that to be true for a people separated by the same amount of time that Nephi/Lehi and others were separated from Israel.
Then you add to that the fact that most of them are assuming that DNA from the tribe of Joseph and DNA from the tribe of Judah will match well you just don't have a leg to stand on, though it's funny to watch you try.
See, just as you have no grasp of geology, you have no grasp of this science either. If you had bothered to read this independent report. you would have found that the Hebrew DNA Crandall said was there (funny, Crandall refuting you on not being able to ID Hebrew DNA) has been accounted for by the expanded study. What Crandall was trying to put forth as Hebrew DNA just vanished into thin air. But DU wants to continue feeding his mind garbage
No you want to tell me that you know what he was focusing on while doing his research and there is really no way for you to have the foggiest idea.
No, he took part to create this apologetic video, and if he was so blind as not to see that it was to be for propaganda purposes, he was naive. Otherwise, he is being dishonest with the state of the science – see the 2009 study linked above.
GZ What Middle Eastern haplotype is he talking about DU, did you pay that much attention? mtDNA X. As I pointed out earlier he references (and misrepresents) Rosenberg’s 2005 study for his evidence.
Are you an expert? Do you know he is misrepresenting DNA evidence by interpreting it? How would you know, you are a geologist...
As a scientist, I am a lot closer to understanding the interpretations than a computer programmer. With that said, where are Crandall’s writings in open, independent journals regarding the mormon in america DNA issues and defending his interpretations of Rosenberg’s 2005 study (Crandall not do his on work – the scandal). The cookies are within reach for even you DU, if you will spend the time outside of FARMS. and as I keep pointing out, it does no matter if you find DNA from New York City, the Sample was not purely from the Middle east and they keep diluting their Middle eastern DNA as they went.
And this same Crandall the great has already worked on the Lemba study, totally disproving your assertions.
GA This was known and available to him by a 2003 study stating the same.
and he knew it was irrelevant all the time, I'm sure he has more studies than you or I have available to us, since that is his profession, but since they started with a garbage sample that is all they could come out with.
Mind reading for him now? I must have missed the part where he referenced that study in his video segment and said it was irrelevant.
Speaking of Obtuse, do you understand that if you include people of an unknown origin in you population and then continue to add in people of an unknown genetic origin for hundreds and then Thousands of years, you get an unpredictable genetic result?
Lurkers, what DU continues in is a defense of the limited geography theorie’s primary method for accounting for the total lack of any middle eastern DNA markers in the americas. This teeeeeeeny tiny little group finds a hollow in the midst of pre-existing pre-Colombian tribes and the DNA markers are either absorbed or killed off. However, to do this DU (and his FARMS heros), must actually teach that what mormonism’s Presidents and Apostles have taught for the history of mormonism is wrong – that the amerindians here did not descend from hebrews. President Spencer W. Kimball wrote: The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people. (“Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971, p. 7)
Their first prophet, on the authority of the angel confirmed this to him - When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed I had not been asleep, … all at once the room was illuminated above the brightness of the sun an angel appeared before me … he said unto me I am a messenger sent from God, be faithful and keep his commandments in all things, he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham (The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, Journal, 1832-1842, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, copyright 1992 Corporation of the President, pp. 69-70, emphasis added).
President Gordon B. Hinckley - The Cochabamba Bolivia Temple was dedicated by President Gordon B. Hinckley in four sessions on 30 April 2000. In his dedicatory prayer, President Hinckley said: “This nation is named for Simón Bolívar, the great liberator of much of South America, who died the year Thy restored Church was organized. May the incomparable principle of democracy be preserved forever in this republic. We remember before Thee the sons and daughters of Father Lehi. Wilt Thou keep Thine ancient promises in their behalf. Lift from their shoulders the burdens of poverty and cause the shackles of darkness to fall from their eyes. May they rise to the glories of the past. May they recognize their Redeemer and be faithful and true Saints of the Most High.” (Remarks at the dedication of the Cochabamba, Bolivia temple, reported in “News of the Church,” Ensign, July, 2000, p. 74)
Mormons – who is telling you the truth? If it is the Prophet – then FARMS is lying about the inability to find middle eastern (even hebrew) DNA markers in the amerindian population of the Americas. If FARMS is correct, then the mormon church is lying to Amerindians and Polynesians in saying, since the mormon church’s inception through today, in saying that they are descendants of Lehi – a Hebrew from Jerusalem. DU, you who speak of spiritual truth being superior to physical truth – who is telling you the truth? For them to save the bom from science, they must reject the clear pronouncements of every church president from Smith to the present. Geologists who argue with population geneticists about DNA studies are as reliable as population Geneticists who try to tell geologists about rock formations, get it?
Or computer programmers who get their faith enhancement tails from UFO sites and think you can wrought iron with your bare hands.
Again, this is not backed up by the Book of Mormon, they keep meeting groups of people, they have slaves who have married in, they keep diluting their DNA signature and all the wishing and insisting that it's not so is just denial of reality.
Yawn, Lemba tribe is the key stone example of your fallacy DU. Genetic markers are inherited and are passed down and are traceable. That’s the procedure used with the Lemba tribe DU – practical application on a real group of people over the same time frame.
DU Now all your Halpo type X crap . . . . .
My testimony is not based on science, my testimony is based on God's word to me. That has never been and will never be endangered by any anti Mormon.
See, you challenge me for my sources, I present to you the independent sources and you simply call it crap when it directly refutes what you want to hear – your garbage DU. No, your testimony is based upon a subjective experience based upon the word of a man who spun a yarn about the origins of the Amerindians being descendend from Hebrews. That man wrote a book that claimed to be the truth of history here. Nephi never existed, Lehi never existed, the bom cities never existed. If NHM is mormonism keystone archaeological find, there should be similar finds a million times over here in the Americas.
I have tested it and found truth for I started with a testimony of the Bible and an Open mind, you seem to have prejudged and then sought support for your conclusions.
Prejudged? Who called independent science studies crap? Not me. BH Roberts examined the bom with an open mind – and concluded that it was a work of fiction.
The Picture archeologists have of the Americas will have more shocks and more changes, eventually, they will be more in line with the Book of Mormon, I can wait.
The Smithsonian and Nat’l Geographic statements still haven’t changed. The Ensign is not a scientific journal- - when will they do a write up in a real publication?
Just like they have been jumping all over to start using the Bible as an accurate historical reference...
Seems like they are as this Smithsonian Letter attests. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testiment, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be are are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological works.
Now I could repost the Smithsonian letter regarding the bom, but it is also associated with the other letter linked above.
Well, if that's what you are determined to find, and you illegitimately dismiss all evidence to the contrary, then that is what you will conclude and I think you have demonstrated that methodology here very well.
I’ve not dismissed good science as crap, you have not provided any thing that could be legitimally as evidence – unless you believe in UFO’s.
Tell me, did the Smithsonian's rejection of the Bible as a "historical document" remove one iota of your faith in it?
Oh, spin time again. You put that out in an attempt to silence the informed criticism of the Smithsonian Inst regarding the bom and while the Bible is a religious document, as the Smithsonian clearly states, it is also an accurate historical document – something that the bom cannot claim.
they don't try to support or destroy religions, they just study archeology.
No, as they stated above they use the Bible to study archaelogy too, the bom just collects dust in the religion section.
As to the statement about the Book of Mormon by the Smithsonian, I guess were in Good company…. "As usual your scholarship is shoddy and the whole letter can be found here." . . . Of course it can be found there I linked you to it!
Lurkers will note that DU’s link is http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0403lead.asp
My link to the full letter and not just their hack of it is
http://csnradio.com/tema/misc/SmithsonianLetter.pdf
Anyone can tell that DU’s link is not the same as mine – a little intellectual honesty DU.
You edit posts you drop links and you then act like you "Found" incriminating evidence that I didn't do the research from the very links I provide and "call me on it" and then to top it all off, you want to start invoking "if this were a court of law" if it were, you'd be doing time for contempt for this!
The court of public opinion can read. Is DU’s link the same as mine? Or is DU now trying to change the standards where I have to re-link all of his links in my posts rather than letting the reader follow the thread backward. I have yet to see you do the same on my links. The court doesn’t like whinning.
As to your quoting from the letter, have you looked at the entire letter about the Book of Mormon? Did you give a link? LOL!
Lurkers will go back and see that I commented that the Smithsonian’s Statement regarding the bom was also to be found at the same link, just scroll down. I have also linked and reproduced the statement on this thread. You are just wasting electrons with your protestations.
First, it's Scimitar, there's no "Y", second, that's nice logic, if it held water you'd have something ...
Wow, spelling critic now. Is that all the substance you have left?
What I Actually said Was:
Readly available by following the thread. You must think the people here are ignorant.
Some metal working is not all metal working. You are claiming steel working by asking for evidence of Smelting and it is never claimed in the Book of Mormon, they do say they used the sword of Laban to make more like it (that can mean copies made of anything, even copper like I said)
DU will probably whine about my cut, just follow the link back if you are interested. A piece of wood with obsidian chips embedded is not the same as what the Hebrews would have identified as a sword. Or now are you saying steel is now obsidian?
What is it with you and Guilt by Association? So, they talk about other things, are you denying that they have found this Guy clad in copper armor? No you instead try to impeach them by other cases they have testified in, you are the one who wants to act like this is a trial, do you understand that such behavior in a court would get me a mistrial and you likely disbarred?
Garbage in – garbage out DU, that’s your motto. They try to legitimize obvious frauds, their endorsement of other evidence is also questionable. Stick with programming, you are losing in the court as credabilty is evaluated there every day.
I am not trying to limit myself to the Smithsonian, I am not trying to disprove every objection to Mormonism that you can bring up, I don't have to, you were going to show us proof that the DNA in American Indians "proved the Book of Mormon Wrong" and instead you want to now add Burrows Cave into the mix? If this were a court of law I would be objecting to the court on the grounds of relevance and unless you could prove DNA was found in Burrows cave my objection would be upheld!
ROTFLAICGU, if a source endorses UFOs and then tries to claim scientific authenticity for their work outside of standard channels of scientific publication it is legitimate to question its truthfulness. If someone endorses frauds also endorses another item, it is more than legit to view that item as suspect in absence of real scientific study.
Again, relevance your honor? Must a Chariot have wheels? Chariots in ancient days also were what we now call litters a platform carried by men. as For wheeled chariots, Miniatures made of clay have been found the full sized ones made of wood rotted too fast to be found in modern times.
LOL, if carried by people, it was called a litter. By definition a chariot was a horse drawn wheeled carriage. While there are toys with wheels, it was never used in the Americas and its use was limited to the old world in pre colombian times
There are tons of roads, and judging by the state of the road in front of my house, they don't last long, but in South and central America there are tons of roads...
Did you go to my links and see the images of horses? The Carvings? No? I guess that's why you dropped that as a requirement for horses... LOL!
Yes I did DU, once again, where are the real scientific studies to justify your interpretations?
Since you have just established that Steel in The Hebrew woild have meant Bronze at that age, obviously the other references to "steel" could also mean bronze, and since you pointed out that the use of copper in America was already proven, and since we have a full set of Copper armor, well, are swords out of the question? If there were no swords, why would he wear the armor? (you should stick to rocks, you are dying here)
You just said that a piece of wood with obsidian in it was a steel sword? Secondly, the copper used was native copper, not mined, not smelted, pounded out cold. Secondly, there is a big difference between copper and bronze – requiring knowledge of adding tin and other elements. You don’t get those other elements by pounding out native copper.
What, with your taxonomy? Of course not! The Book of Mormon does talk about the Jaridites and others that they met here.
All killed except for Coriantumr, unless you want to make you prophets out to be liars.
. . It's not a dodge, it's what we have always believed, your quote mining not withstanding and it's what the Book of Mormon says.
President Hinckley recognized the Book of Mormon heritage of his listeners in Lima: “As I look into your faces, I think of Father Lehi, whose sons and daughters you are. I think he must be shedding tears today, tears of love and gratitude. … This is but the beginning of the work in Peru. This work of the Almighty will go on and grow and grow.” (“God’s Holy Work” in Peru, in “News of the Church,” Ensign, Feb. 1997, 73). Who do you believe, your prophet or BYU scholars?
Perhaps you should reavisit the meaning of the word Theory...
I use the current mormonite verbage. Perhaps they should change it to mythology.
You may try to decide between theories if you wish, but the Jaridites who came to the americas at the time of the Tower of Babel, clearly predate the people of Lehi.
And killed each other off, so none were left.
I know you are having fun saying Nothing, but I have no idea what you are looking for, and Joseph smith did not say Chile..
"Lehi and his company…landed on the continent of South America, in Chili [sic], thirty degrees, south latitude" (Richards, Little, p. 272). This view was accepted by Orson Pratt and printed in the footnotes to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon.
Godzilla is only one reason why you can't prove the Book of Momron wrong with DNA.
Many migratory groups came to the Americas, but none was as important as the three mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The blood of these people flows in the veins of the Blackfoot and the Blood Indians of Alberta, Canada; in the Navajo and the Apache of the American Southwest; the Inca of western South America; the Aztec of Mexico; the Maya of Guatemala; and in other Native American groups in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific islands. These choice native people recognize the truth of the Book of Mormon, which was recorded for them by their own ancestors. (“The Book of Mormon: A Sacred Ancient Record,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, p. 30ff). If this pronouncement by mormon leaders is correct, middle eastern (hebrew DNA) markers should be found in abundance – the Lemba study more than adequately proved the DNA technology and methdology are more than adequate to prove. Either they did as your leaders say above, or your leaders are liars and have been lying to native Americans for over a hundred years. Postage stamp limited geography theory must disprove the leaders.
You only quote the parts where they do tell you Genealogy, and leave out the slaves and other people in the group.
Lurkers will note that I addressed the slave issue at least twice now. Mormon leaders view these slaves as being from the middle east and would still carry identifiable DNA markers. As the minority, it would be highly unlikely they would be able to overwhelm BOTH Y and mtDNA markers.
You have shown me that you make the following assumptions: Slaves have the same genes as their masters When a group comes over and the Leader has a specific genetic line all the people coming with him have the same genetic line. When a people joins the group, and we are not told their geneology, they are from jerusalem. no-one joined the group without being talked about
These are provably false, all of these assumptions are bad assumptions and the results of a DNA study based on them is bound to be bad as well.
Or really. Live in Jerusalem their lives, claim heritage of Abraham and just happen to come from Jerusalem – Walks like a duck, quack like a duck, it probably is a duck. Your argument still a hollow strawman. Your prophets from Smith to today have pronounced that all native american are descendants of Lehi. Who speaks for the faith – the prophet or the scholars at BYU?
Jacob had two wives, Rachel an Leah. . . . . blah, blah, blah…… So much for tha mtDNA argument (again).
mtDNA would still be traced farther back towards the common maternal ancestor and be of the identified groups. Since we are dealing with peoples who remained within a common ancestral area, as well as common intermarraige between families, the pool would be considered conservative. While your little example fails to account for Y chromosonal markers as distinctive as mtDNA. Go back to the Genome project site linked earlier, and you will see the fallacy of your argument.
Then you top that with the Jaridites,
All killed off
Mulekites
Descendant of King Zedekiah, a jew
and people of Zarahemla,
Jews who left Jerusalem about the same time as Lehi (bom never says why they got there first). . . . . and you have to ask, OK, the People of Zarahemla, they talked about them because that was the first group and it was larger than them.
The were fellow Jews from Jerusalem – unless the bom is lying
The Jaridites were mostly killed off,
Incorrect, everyone is killed except Coriantumr. One survivor hardly makes some
Then when you realize that for those groups all you know about thtem is the Geneology of their leaders, well no one interested in the truth wiould ignore that.
All from Jerusalem – descendants of Abraham.
. . . and you kill them off, leaving the Lamanites as the genetic survivors and we don't even know how many groups or where they came from joined them. Now, just to make sure there is no way to trace things, you add in the modern genetic promiscuity and then mass die off when white people come to the Americas and what do you have? you have an impossible genetic trail that cannot prove anything in the negative, because you have a depleted, corrupted and insufficient sample.
… Not only the southwest Indians, but Lamanites in general, are facing an open door to education, culture, refinement, progress, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Church has spent its millions in Hawaii and New Zealand and other islands to provide schools for the young Lehites. Surely no descendants need go now without an education, and schools (Spencer W. Kimball, "The Day of the Lamanites," Improvement Era, Dec. 1960, pp. 922-923, 925, emphasis added). Who again it telling the truth? Your leaders who claim that these people are descendants of Lehi (clearly jewish), or the boys from BYU.
Lurkers will note that Godzilla has never even admitted the possiblity that the DNA might not be pure even though the Book of Mormon clearly indicates it. LOL!
Lurkers, we will see who wears the pants in mormonism. Does the prophet who says all amerindians are descendants of Lehi, or the scholars down town at BYU.
Your article Begs the question of whether or not the DNA is pure enough to obtian a significant result.
Once again, DNA purity is only an issue for the lab. Aparently the DNA was pure enough for geneticists to follow the lineage of the Lemba back to Israel. DU only rejects evaluation of the evidence to the contrary because it is just that – contrary.
READ MY LIPS, I DON'T CARE WHERE THE BACTERIA CAME FROM IN THE BODY. The DNA of Gastrointestinal DNA suffers from the same problems of evidence as DNA. It's not relevant unles and until you can establish that there was a "pure" sample according to the Book of Mormon (and that's not what it says).
Lurkers see here a real example of a closed mind and an overdose of garbage in from FARMS because of being ignorant of examining the issue
Let me make it simple for you, even if you come up with a test that saya the Indians migrated from Mars (which explains why no one is there now) and it's iron clad becasue you found tha spaceship, and translated the Martian records, it won't prove the Book of Momron wrong because the Book of Mormon says there were people here when they got here and people continued to arrive and join them once they were here. It literally does not matter what evidence you come up with at that point becasue the Book of mormon doies not claim Jwerusalem was the only source for people on the contenent, it never has.
Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, Lesson 40: “Then Will I Gather Them In”, Purpose, p. 177ff, copyright 2004 Intellectual Reserve — The Savior prophesies of the temporal gathering of the house of Israel. Have a class member read 3 Nephi 16:16 and 3 Nephi 20:14 aloud. According to these verses, what specific promise did the Lord extend to the Nephites? (They would be given the lands of the Americas as an inheritance. See also 2 Nephi 1:5–7.)” emphasis added.
When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed I had not been asleep, … all at once the room was illuminated above the brightness of the sun an angel appeared before me … he said unto me I am a messenger sent from God, be faithful and keep his commandments in all things, he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham/B> (The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, Journal, 1832-1842, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, copyright 1992 Corporation of the President, pp. 69-70, emphasis added).
According to noted Mormon sociologist and historian Armand L. Mauss,
Since the very founding of the church in 1830, Mormons had believed that North American Indians were Lamanites, described by the Book of Mormon as literal Israelites, the seed of Abraham, who would flock to the church as lost sheep responding to the voice of the true Shepherd of Israel and would actually take the initiative in building a New Jerusalem on the American continent. (Armand L. Mauss, All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, University of Illinois Press, 1993, p. 115.)
Sounds like your model does not square up with what your leaders continue to proclaim DU. Your leaders say something completely different. I think the burden of proof is on you. Your leaders say that the amerindians are descended from the lamanites, who in turn were descendants of Lehi.
Joseph Smith in 1834 and the revelation he received about Zelph also speaks to the location of Book of Mormon lands.
On the top of the mound were stones which presented the appearance of three altars having been erected one above the other, according to the ancient order; and the remains of bones were strewn over the surface of the ground. The brethren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs retained the arrow. The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms: and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my [Joseph Smith's] understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or, at least, in part - one of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites. (History of the Church, 2:79-80; June 3, 1834). 
Where Was Zelph Killed?
According to the History of the Church 2:78-79 Zelph was found buried in a high mound (above the tops of the trees) on the banks of the Illinois River in the State of Illinois. This is not far from present day Florence, Illinois, which is about 75-100 miles north of St. Louis, where route 100 crosses the Illinois River. The mound that Joseph Smith dug into on June 2, 1834 is still there and is one of about 35 bluff top mounds covering about a mile along the river. Archaeologists estimate that it dates from between 50 BC and 50 AD, based upon the style of the artifacts found in it and the age of nearby mounds which have been radiocarbon dated from 50 BC to 250 AD. This dating alone raises significant questions about Zelph's involvement in any Hill Cumorah battles, but this is a different subject.
The "last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites" allegedly occurred in 385 AD (Mormon 6:1-15) at Hill Cumorah. If Hill Cumorah was in the Mexico-Guatemala-Honduras area then Zelph would have had to travel roughly 1,800 miles one way to return to the spot where the Mormons found his bones. If Hill Cumorah is near Palmyra, NY, the travel distance would be over 700 miles. While over 700 miles is a long distance in the days of traveling by foot, it is more reasonable than 1,800 miles.
How likely is it that a man who got an arrow between his ribs at Hill Cumorah in the Mexico-Guatemala-Honduras areas, or the Palmyra, NY area, would then travel roughly 1,800 or 700 miles to die? No, the bones of the man Joseph Smith dug up must have been killed near where Smith found him. It does not seem likely that Zelph's friends or comrades carried him to the banks of the Illinois River. They would be looking out for their own lives. Moreover, according to Mormon 6:15 and 8:2, the Nephites as they escaped went southward, not northward from Mexico-Guatemala-Honduras to the banks of the Illinois River roughly 1,800 miles away.
Mormon apostle and historian Joseph Fielding Smith in his book Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, pages 232-243 also relates the history about Zelph and provides additional evidence why the Book of Mormon lands are in the continental United States. In addition he says that the Hill Cumorah located in New York State, near Palmyra, NY, is the place where the great extermination battle (Mormon 6:9-15, 8:2-3) took place.
While there is evidence that Joseph Smith later also gave other locations for Book of Mormon lands (Kenneth W. Godfrey, BYU Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2, page 48), none of this sets aside Smith's clear statements allegedly made by the power of God. As a reminder, the following was said, "The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians;....." by the "commandment of God," "revealed to the Prophet Joseph," "made known to Joseph," "that God was so mindful of us as to show these things to His servant. Brother Joseph had inquired of the Lord, and it was made known in a vision" all of which placed Zelph and Book of Mormon lands in the continental United States. While Smith might have changed his mind, there is no evidence that God did.
Why is it so many Mormons (like FARMS) try to place Book of Mormon lands in the Mexico-Guatemala-Honduras area while Joseph Smith by the power of God said they were in the continental United States?
Even dust wouldn’t collect there!
The location of the lands of the Book of Mormon have become very well known in this day and age.
They resided in the very fertile if not completely sane of one Joseph Smith.
BTW how many prophesies can a prophet make that prove to be in error before he loses his status? I mean can a “prophet” be wrong say 50% of the time and still be revered as an oracle of the mind of God? At what point can one making such claims be considered a con artist instead of a “prophet”...
The more I see these REPUBLICAN protestors it shows for some reason it just has to be, it just has to be so that LIBERALISM is not true it can’t be, no no it can’t be!
Placemark
When Joseph Smith sent Oliver Cowdery on a mission to the Indians, he said (speaking as god): “And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them...” (D&C 28:8). The terminology is reaffirmed in D&C 32:3 when Joseph Smith said (again, speaking as god): “And that which I have appointed unto him is that he [Parley P. Pratt] shall go with my servants Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.” In D&C 54:8, Joseph Smith (speaking as the Mormon god) says the “borders of the Lamanites” are near the “land of Missouri”. True, Joseph never said ALL the American Indians are Lamanites, but he spoke in language giving the impression that he believed they were primarily of Lamanite descent. I
n one of his accounts of the church’s early history, Joseph Smith described a visit from Moroni. In that story, Joseph Smith said: “He [Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants ...” (Joseph Smith 2:34).
Perhaps Moroni meant only “some” of the inhabitants. But that is not what he said. Perhaps he meant only “part” of the continent. But that is not what he said. The matter-of-fact way that Moroni describes the Book of Mormon as being “... an account of the former inhabitants of this continent...” seems to imply that most, if not all, of the American Indians have Lamanite blood in them.
Brigham Young was no less consistent in calling the American Indians Lamanites. According to Brigham Young: “There is a curse on these aborigines of our country who roam the plains, and are so wild that you cannot tame them. They are of the House of Israel; they once had the Gospel delivered to them, they had the oracles of truth; Jesus came and administered to them after his resurrection, and they received and delighted in the Gospel until the fourth generation when they turned away and became so wicked that God cursed them with this dark and benighted and loathsome condition.” [Quoted from Discourses of Brigham Young, compiled by John A. Widtsoe, pages 122, 123.]
Considering the statements from Mormon scriptures, coupled with the consistent references by Mormon prophets, seers, and revelators, your argument seems unlikely. At the very least, Mormon scripture and inferences from Mormon prophets suggest that the Book of Mormon be evaluated from the position that most (if not all) of the Amerindians are descendants of the Lamanites. I add that Kimball said, “You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your islands. There are probably sixty million of you on the two continents and on the Pacific Islands, all related by blood ties. The Lord calls you Lamanites, a name which has a pleasant ring, for many of the grandest people ever to live upon the earth were so called. In a limited sense, the name signifies the descendants of Laman and Lemuel, sons of your first American parent, Lehi; but you undoubtedly possess also the blood of the other sons, Sam, Nephi, and Jacob. And you likely have some Jewish blood from Mulek, son of Zedekiah, king of Judah. The name Lamanite distinguishes you from other peoples. It is not a name of derision or embarrassment, but one of which to be very proud.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.596)
http://www.lds-mormon.com/lam-ind.shtml
Was 615 meant for me?
Oh?
I'll bet no MORMON on these threads can point out just where this 'fullness' is to be found in the BoM!
Although SOMEone may try to tell us to 'study it for ourselves'.
There you go with the half-trufs agin’.
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.