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.

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

GZ Apples to oranges. Blood typing is defined by certain proteins, called antigens, on your red blood cells. DNA testing is based on a molecular level study that doesn’t get corrupted in the manner you described.

LOL! Shows how much you know, what happens if I take blood from an African, a Greek Guy and an American Indian, mix them together and then try to do a genetic analysis? (You get corrupted for results that's what) that was my point. If you start with a corrupted sample you will get corrupted results.

Now you are going to point out that we are not "mixing them in a test tube", great, I knew that, I was trying to give you an example that you could understand. Apparently I was unable to underestimate your intelligence.

DNA studies require a sample of DNA to start with and if the original sample was corrupted, then you will get corrupted results.

Let me give you Yet another example, let's say we start with a small group of people from Israel, then we marry in a larger group of Chinese people and wait several thousand years, keeping just this pool of DNA going. In several thousand years you will be unlikely to prove you had original DNA from Israel, it just get's worse as you kill off major groups who were preserving their heritage (like the Nephites) and darn near impossible if you start having large groups of people die off a few hundred years before you do your testing while being corrupted by still another group of DNA not from Israel.

DU 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 DU, still way off your written program, since you compare DNA to blood typing.

As a valid comparison on corruption of samples which you apparently are too obtuse to understand, just keep concentrating on minutia, maybe the big problems with your analysis will go away... (NOT!)

GZ You have yet to address the fact that the scientific community continues in these studies DUh. They meet the standard necessary to conduct and publish their research under the review of their peers.

ROTFLOL! Really? Simon Southerton is an example of this scientific community of people who assume the Book of Mormon says there is a pure enough sample to get a no? LOL!

GZ Where are the mormon apologists responses in these open publications? They are not there.

They are on a DVD published by FairLDS.org, and published by Fair on Youtube, but I guess you can continue to deny it if you don't actually go see it, maybe if you close your eyes really tight...

GZ Woodward at the mormon Sorensen Genetics labs do these same DNA testing and analysis, their results published in open peer reviewed papers and journals show that your little hoop is either fictitious or not difficult to deal with in the scientific world. Your little rant only goes to show your inability or unwillingness to look outside of your safe little box at reality.

Speaking of safe little boxes of reality, can you get good test results from garbage data?...(No, and The Sorenson lab has yet to get a valid result (According to their website) back past the 1700's for that reason...)

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

GZ I cited numerous studies, as recent as this year, show me where mormon DNA experts have open published that the 2009 study was flawed in this aspect (OOPs, mormon DNA experts were involved in that study).

Really, why didn't you link to them, I'd be interested in reading that. Oh yeah, you don't link, your word (edited after the fact) should be good enough... (LOL!)

DU 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.

GZ And where did these women come from.

PRECISELY the problem, the Book of Mormon adds tons of people with out telling us where they come from, unless you assume... wait, Good scientists don't do that.

GZ The bom documents that all that came to the new world in the Nephi era were from the vicinity of Israel, of semitic people groups.

More of the if I repeat this often enough people might just believe it? The Book of Mormon documents slaves joining the group, and does not tell their origin, probably not Jerusalem, and worse, they keep joining groups in the Americas who's origin is also not spelled out!

GZ They would be carrying common mtDNA.

Not if they are A) from different tribes of Israel, or B) include slave DNA from who knows where, or joined with people from outside of Israel.

GZ Since the native Americans, according to the bom, originated form this group, even if one woman carried something other than X, there would be an overwhelming abundance of X still.

Absolutely wrong, Nephi's Mother would pass her mtDNA down to her sons, but their children would be passing down the mtDNA of their wives (who'd genealogy we don't know past their Dad). Nephi's Children would have his Wife's mtDNA Laman and Lemual's would have the mtDNA of their wives. Not necessarily Hebrew, especially if there was more than one woman, like from the larger groups the Nephites and Lamanites met.

Try learning a bit about Mitochondrial DNA from the Sorenson institute. The green woman is your female from Jerusalem, the Grey people are everyone else, then you have a war... She dies.

DU One foreign women would not be able to produce enough mtDNA to so overwhelm the Amerindian population genetic base to eliminate evidences of semitic X.

That entirely depends on her and her offspring's reproductive success comparative to the success of the competing genomes. As for the non sex genes (Autosomal DNA), recombination upon reproduction means you randomly throw away on half of each parent's genome, this is where you run into statistics and math (this is not rocks, or counting with them, but complex formulas which is my territory) It is easy for a population that keeps having mass die offs to radically alter it's DNA record so that you can't really tell where they came from.

DU 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.

GZ Well DUH, DUh, I explained that several times now. So none of his predecessors interbred with Lamanites. Further a reflection on that white and delightsome aspect of mormonism.

DU 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 Every one of those groups had their alleged origin in the area of Israel and would have carried semitic DNA markers. No, your sites represent data presented before UFO conventions. LOL

Pulease, you don't have a clue what you are talking about, the Book of Mormon has many references to peoples that are not traced back to Israel or anywhere for that matter. Ether 1: 6

6 And on this wise do I give the account. He that wrote this record was Ether, and he was a descendant of Coriantor.

Who the Heck is Coriantor? Oh yeah, he was one of the descendents of the Guys that left Biblical lands at the time of the tower of Babel... That's gonna be some intereting DNA ya got there... The Full Geneology back to the Brother of Jared is listed here.
2 Ne. 3: 4

4 For behold, thou art the fruit of my loins; and I am a descendant of Joseph who was carried captive into Egypt. And great were the covenants of the Lord which he made unto Joseph.

Joseph, not Judah, Judah is what you have to compare with now, but you'd have to do deep studies to connect that, even if you had a pure Tribe of Joseph DNA person it'd be difficult.

Alma 17: 21

21 And thus Ammon was carried before the king who was over the land of Ishmael; and his name was Lamoni; and he was a descendant of Ishmael.

Remember Ishmael? The Friend of Lehi's who's geneology we don't know (More supposition required here...)

Ishmaels's wife, was she an Israelite? It's her mtDNA that Nephi's, Laman's and Lemual's children would be carrying, not Lehi's... First Nephi 16:7

7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife.

So, who was the mother of these daughters of Ishmael? What was her genealogy since that is what you want to track with your mtDNA tests, we simply don't know what MT DNA the descendants of Nephi, Laman and Lemual would look like, yet you want to claim conclusive proof, let's look at more of what the Book of Mormon actually says about descendants. Alma 54: 23

23 I am Ammoron, and a descendant of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem.

So we have descendants of a slave as part of the genetic makeup at a minimum here.

Mosiah 25: 2

2 Now there were not so many of the children of Nephi, or so many of those who were descendants of Nephi, as there were of the people of Zarahemla, who was a descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness.

We have a group larger than the group with Lehi, who intermarry with the Nephites, and all we know is their leader was a descendant of Mulek? We don't know where any of the rest of them came from, if they came over in one group, joined up with others once here, etc. This is the largest group of Women that we have listed, and we don't know if they were Hebrew ancestry, we don't know if they were slaves, we don't know. No self respecting Population Geneticist is going to hang his reputation on this assumption, and say he can prove the Book of Moron wrong.

Now, in light of all this (and I can pull more quotes from the Book of Mormon if needed), we have this quote:
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.

Which Godzilla tries to explain by saying Mormon was saying he only had Nephite blood. The assertion that this is a statement of purity from Lamanite blood makes no sense. Mormon would have simply stated that.
Lurkers, please note Nephi and Laman came over with the same group, both were full brothers, (sons of the same Father (Lehi) and Mother (Sariah). Both the Nephites and Lamanites Married in with other peoples, and Godzilla thinks this is a racist statement, saying his ancestors never intermarried with his brother's descendants.

The "Science" used to debunk the Book of moron might as well have been presented at the UFO convention Godzilla likes to talk about. On top of this he is rude rendering my nick as part of DUh. (which is really pathetic) To me this just indicates that's all he's got, rudeness, ignorance marketed as "scholarship" Guilt by Association, Red Herrings, and as I showed in my last post, he edits his and my words, thus editing history to try and make his points, last but not least, Godzilla posts these huge posts in hopes that people will just give up and not respond to him. (If you do respond and don't address every irrelavent detail, he can claim avoidance as yet another Red Herring.

Godzilla, Actually address the issue for once, If as I am saying the Book of Momron shows an intermarrying with lots of people from unknown places (possibly Asia and Siberia, the Book of Mormon does not say) then does any of these DNA Studies prove it wrong?

If the Book of Mormon indeed talks of genetic promiscuity by the party of Lehi once in America, can anything be proven genetically?

You will of course maintain that all these groups came from the Middle east and therefore can be traced back there, claim all you want, the book of Mormon, However, The Book of Mormon Addresses this too:

2 Nephi 1:5

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.

"and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord"... How frustrating it must be to be outsmarted by a backwoods farboy who died a hundred and fifty plus years ago. There is only one way Joseph could have dictated the Book of Mormon, and that is by the Gift and power of God and all the argumnets in Hell cannot bring it down once a man has God's word that it's true.

You know, I'm just going to snip this here, you have added so many Red Herrings that people may be losing track of the focus of this thread, DNA and the Book of Mormon, then you start using You keep messing with my name, which is Argumentum ad Hominem by changing my initials to DUh, and all it shows it hat you are ideologically bankrupt and have no way to fight back via legitimate means. so, I am going to cut off the rest of your post and my responses, and leave you with this. Prove the Book of Mormon says that all the People in the America's came from Jerusalem, or admit that you can't, on this hangs your whole argument about DNA and the Book of Mormon. Stop beating about the bush, you just look silly doing it.

Your knowledge and understanding of American History is on display and IMHO not impressive.

It is INTERESTING that you have brought this up...

In 1890, church president Wilford Woodruff had issued the initial Manifesto, in which he suspended the LDS Church's long-standing practice of plural marriage. However, after the Manifesto, it became clear that a number of church members, including members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, were continuing to enter into or solemnize polygamous marriages.^[2]^[3]^[4] Smith issued the Second Manifesto near the beginning of the Reed Smoot hearings, United States Congressional hearings into whether LDS Church Apostle Reed Smoot should be permitted to sit as a United States Senator from Utah; Smoot's opponents alleged that the LDS Church hierarchy's continued tolerance or encouragement of plural marriage should exclude Smoot from sitting in the Senate.

Announcement

The "Second Manifesto" was announced at the general conference of the church held on April 6, 1904. At a public meeting, Smith announced that he would like to read an "official statement" that he had prepared so that his words "may not be misunderstood or misquoted". Smith read:

Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.

JOSEPH F. SMITH,
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.^[5]

Francis M. Lyman, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, then presented the following resolution of endorsement, which was seconded by B.H. Roberts and accepted unanimously by those in attendance at the conference:

Resolved that we, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in General Conference assembled, hereby approve and endorse the statement and declaration of President Joseph F. Smith just made to this Conference concerning plural marriages, and will support the courts of the Church in the enforcement thereof.^[5]

Smith's official statement was later published in the Improvement Era, an official magazine of the church.^[1]

(from Wiki - our sometimes friend.)

The following is SCRIPTURE as defined by the LDS Organization®, based in Salt Lake City, Utah:

(I post it so it won't be alluded to or inferred to as to it's meaning)

1890: Manifesto (a statement denouncing polygamy)

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage...I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws..."
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President

The Mormon church Organization; based in Salt Lake City, does not practice Polygamy any more.

They decided to stop the practice for fear of losing all their worldly goods.

It was banned in 1890

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us.

(Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it.

(From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

What kind of 'Leadership' is THIS???

compared to...

Hebrews 11:35-40
35. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.
36. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.
37. They were stoned ; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated--
38. the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

or compared to...

Acts 4:19. But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.

So much for an 'Everlasting Covenant' that thundered out of Heaven!!!

Well; it DID last about 47 years!

GZ Lets examine what the issue is first, then I’ll pick apart your citation.

When you have nothing to present, picking at things is all you can do. Proceed

Smith was charged with a count of treasure seeking in 1826.

Actually, he was charged with being a disorderly person, which was a misdemeanor, "Treasure Seeking" was not illegal, and is not today, we would call it treasure hunting.

GZ Is the trial historically proven by the documents

If you have ever had any cause to participate in a criminal proceeding you would know that first, a hearing is held to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial a hearing cannot return a verdict, it can only decide to remand a person over for Trial or not.

GZ Are the documents authentic.

Which is a singularly difficult thing to prove, since many of these documents were not authenticated while they were still available, are not now available so we are forced to admit doubt both for and against their authenticity.

GZ It is well established that smith had a reputation for treasure seeking using a peep stone.

No one disputes that Joseph smith was charged by Josiah Stowell's sons for helping their father dig for treasure that he (Josiah Stowell) was convinced was on his land.

I must admit that as a teenager, if one of the people in the town had wanted to pay me (and well too) to dig on their land for treasure they thought was there, They could have paid me to dig for it, I guess I'm guilty too. LOL!

"Glass looking" is not part of the charge, even though it became the focus of the hearing.

GZ The fact that smith possessed and used “seer stones” for his translation of the bom further confirms the practice.

Seer Stones, namely a Urim and Thummim are Biblical and are therefore a "Christian", Aaron Wore them as part of his priestly garments, Eleazar was to use the Urim and Thummim (which are seer stones) to gain answers from God, Saul was frustrated when God would not answer him by the Urim and Thummim. The Bible approves of and records the use of Seer Stones. The question that should be being asked is why is there no such revelatory device in orthodox Christianity today?

Godzilla, you start mixing stuff in such a way as to make it difficult to know what you are quoting and what is commentary, so I will cut out what I think is quotation, if I get commentary, next time may I suggest you use use <Blockquote> and </Blockquote> to indent your quotations, oh, and a Link to the source helps too

GZ The first point is that your source never denies that smith was taken to court.

Neither do I deny that Joseph smith was taken to court (Yet another straw man?) Let me make this easy for you Joseph Smith was taken to court many times in his life time, 1826 was one such time he was charged by those opposed to his religious views with something to make him look bad. It's an old old trick used by Satan many times...

FYI, Jesus was taken to Court, Tried and Convicted, so?

GZ It spends much time misdirecting one’s attention to some questionable aspects of the history, but never denies it. Even Cowdrey in the mormon propaganda mouthpiece Messenger and Advocate, affirms the trial took place.

Oliver Cowdry confirms that Joseph was taken to court, So? We don't deny that. As for the Questionable nature of the evidence, you keep bringing up the "questionable nature" of the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, And then you come here and that's bad? Either evidence is evaluated with the good and the Bad, or you are committing the Fallacy of Ignoring the counter evidence. Godzilla, I have been, and still am asserting that you Ignore counter evidence, and therefore IMHO, you are not credible. Why are we even talking about this? IMHO we are widely ranging out into Stones in the Arizona desert, and into Hearings in 1826, because the DNA evidence this thread was supposed to be about is not going well for your side. Why? The Book of Mormon Documents many Groups joining the Groups from Jerusalem, The wars and additions of untraceable genetic material makes any kind of actual scientific "proving of the Book of Mormon false" a statistical impossibility. Thus you wander off into including other dubious methods of slinging mud at the church. This method of Dissipating the topic is known as Plurium Interrogationum, this Fallacy of asking many questions at once, is not considered a valid method of debate, and would get you thrown out of a debate society, stick to the question Namely, can you get a valid result from a DNA test that starts with a corrupted DNA sample?

I am going to skip a bunch of your quotation, and just link to the source<--SNip-->

GZ As DU likes to cite absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and in this case the circumstantial evidence continues to confirm the account.

LOL! Have you not been arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? LOL, Now you want to flip your whole argument around? This is funny, I'm pulling a link from this post to my cache!

Hearings (Which can't render a verdict) came first, then a trial. Only felony trials were recorded. so we have a purported recording of a Trial that was held without a prior hearing, for a misdemeanor which would not have been recorded on a paper that was reportedly torn from the ledger and carried to Utah and later obtained by anti Mormons, but only after the death of the person who "tore the paper from the ledger", the Document was never reunited with the ledger it was supposedly torn from to have the page tear compared, paper compared, etc. Yet, you want this as well as other documents that were removed from their historical setting and taken to Cambridge for analysis and had to have court action to force the return of these now possibly tainted documents. And you want to talk about this as proof of something? Can we go back to talking about the Los Lunas stone which at least is still where it was and has not been in the private possession of people who's intentions are suspect.

This is funny, your standard of evidence for any supposed evidence against Mormons or Joseph is nonexistent, while your standard for evidence supporting Mormonism and Joseph Smith is unapproachable in real life.

Lets assume for a moment that I came up with a document, say from professor Anthon that had been torn from his ledger, brought to Utah, kept secret until the person who tore it out of his ledger died, published it and had images of it posted, the4n claimed the original was now lost without any forensic analysis being done to authenticate it and I wanted wanted to use this document in our debate... Is there anyone here who actually thinks you would allow this document to be entered into evidence without a complaint? ROTFLOL!

Your post is a better example of bias than anything I could possibly come up with. Truth truly is stranger than fiction.

GZ Regarding DU’s last bleats

DU Godzilla, any comments on this "evidence" that was tampered with? Do you want to present it at a UFO convention even?

GZ Your FAIR source is already on record in admitting the documents are authentic and nothing has been proven to be tampered with. So until you can prove tampering (and document handling is not evidence of tampering DU), then your assertion doesn’t hold water.

That is an interesting opinion, the facts of the matter however are quite different, the actual site has this to say about some of the documents you are talking abou tusing to document this "trial":

The actions of Walters and Poffarl compromised the documents. By having the documents removed and only returned under threat of a lawsuit by the County, it opened the possibility that they could be forged documents. They are generally considered to be authentic, but now there is always room for doubt

Now for the "nothing has been proven to be tampered with" logic, LOL! You have not proven that the Los Lunas stone was tampered with, and you have not proven that the Book of Mormon is not true... The list of things not proven is literally endless. You present this as a logical argument? Are you serious? ROTFLOL!

Either the Los Lunas stone is "generally considered to be authentic, but now there is always room for doubt", or these arguments get tossed out too. Logic does not bend to your will, you can't have it both ways Godzilla!

GZ The mormon church has had them in their possession since 2005, there is has been ample opportunity for them to examine these documents and identify if they have been tampered with or are spurious. When will mormon central get around to that? (crickets).

Again from the Site, I linked earlier:

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

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

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

Again (and as usual) you are at variance with reality.

DU So you have a manufactured document, it's not the first time (Mark Hoffman) they never did find all of Hofmann's "forgeries"...

GZ Stick with slumming at UFO sites DUh and read your articles more closely.

Stick with debating people who don't (or can't) read the actual sources. Or better, stay with those who already agree with you and will not question your sources or your methodology. (advice goes both ways)

GZ The FAIR article does not come to the conclusion that this is a manufactured document. Infact, a mormon, Ron Jackson, attempted to forge Stowell’s signature to the Neely bill based upon a copy from UTLM, and was hoisted by his own petards.

Again, take your own advice, the charge as issued by the UTLM is that Ron Jackson altered the Bill to be a charge against Josiah Stowell, not Joseph Smith, the alleged alteration was not a signature.

I also note that Ron Jackson mentions Mark Hoffman as having some involvement, although I am not clear how that was supposed to happen.

DU As for those documents proving a trial, Joseph was arrested many times, as was Martin Luther.

GZ Luther was never arrested for treasure seeking only to later use the same item – a seer stone to allegedly write an 18th century work of fiction.

The Book of Mormon was never claimed to be a work of fiction.

I personally (as a capitalist) am a treasure seeking individual, and as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am also seeking to lay up treasures in heaven. "Treasure Seeking" is not, nor was it then a crime. The Charges were (depending on the record you want to look at) Being a "disorderly person" or a "Vagrant without means of support" or a misdemeanor (Judge Neely's record) Being a disorderly person was similar to being a Vagrant, and it is strange that Joseph smith was charged with this since he was employed by Josiah Stowell... The Charge being Brought by Josiah Stowell's sons one of whom took exception to his father being interested in the Church who later became a Methodist minister of some note int he area renowned for his willingness to take legal action against any he perceived to be a threat to the church, well, this begins to look more and more like the stuff Martin Luther had to put up with.

GZ Contrary to your purpose, your source has proven smith was tried and convicted of treasure seeking.

"Treasure seeking" was not a crime. Many came to America to "find their fortune" being a Vagrant was a crime. Being a vagrant was a misdemeanor, and would have had first a hearing, than a trial which if convicted would have resulted in expulsion from the area, and possibly a fine Joseph received neither, but was admonished to leave lest other charges be brought by the Stowell boys.

IMHO your rendition of the facts and your continual seeking to multiply the charges and questions beyond the scope of the discussion about DNA can be understood as the desperate acts of a man frantically throwing spaghetti at the wall just hoping that either his opponent will tire of sweeping it up, or that something (anything) will stick.

Unfortunately for you, the facts of the matter are the DNA of American Indians cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, Slanders against Joseph Smith cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, indeed casting aspersions on archeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon cannot disprove it. The Book of Mormon was indeed translated by Joseph Smith from an Ancient record of a God fearing people on this the American Continent, Jesus Christ did in very fact visit with them, and bring his Gospel to these "Other Sheep" as spoken of in the Bible and The Church of Jesus Christ is the Modern Church restored as the prophesied int eh Bible in these the latter days. Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood as the Bible requires and you cannot disprove it. I know this all to be true because the God of Abraham and of Isaac, and of Jacob has testified to me that it is true and he cannot lie for he is a God of truth.

You will redoubtably continue to taunt and ridicule, you will almost surely reject my testimony here, but that will not stop it from being true.

It truly is hard for you to kick against the pricks...

I didn't realize you guys had such tender feelings about it...

My warnings are to the innocent lurkers that may be lured into taking the "challenge".

Some of THEM may not be as thick-skinned to personal attacks as most of us are. As to bad reputations, the reputation of mormonism is getting murkier by the day, and whining about persecution as in the following article isn't helping.

The Publicity Dilemma

SALT LAKE CITY 9 March 2009 Like other large faith groups, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes finds itself on the receiving end of attention from Hollywood or Broadway, television series or books, and the news media. Sometimes depictions of the Church and its people are quite accurate. Sometimes the images are false or play to stereotypes. Occasionally, they are in appallingly bad taste.

As Catholics, Jews and Muslims have known for centuries, such attention is inevitable once an institution or faith group reaches a size or prominence sufficient to attract notice. Yet Latter-day Saints – sometimes known as Mormons - still wonder whether and how they should respond when news or entertainment media insensitively trivialize or misrepresent sacred beliefs or practices.

Church members are about to face that question again. Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creators and HBO executives assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons. However, Internet references to Big Love indicate that more and more Mormon themes are now being woven into the show and that the characters are often unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous. And according to TV Guide, it now seems the show’s writers are to depict what they understand to be sacred temple ceremonies.

Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding. Last week some Church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which, like HBO, is owned by Time Warner. Certainly such a boycott by hundreds of thousands of computer-savvy Latter-day Saints could have an economic impact on the company. Individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series. As Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Robert D. Hales of the Council of the Twelve Apostles have both said recently, when expressing themselves in the public arena, Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness.

Not only is this the model that Jesus Christ taught and demonstrated in his own life, but it also reflects the reality of the strength and maturity of Church members today. As someone recently said, “This isn’t 1830, and there aren’t just six of us anymore.” In other words, with a global membership of thirteen and a half million there is no need to feel defensive when the Church is moving forward so rapidly. The Church’s strength is in its faithful members in 170-plus countries, and there is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long-term negative effect on the Church.

Examples:

During the Mitt Romney election campaign for the presidency of the United States, commentator Lawrence O’Donnell hurled abuse at the Church in a television moment that became known among many Church members as “the O’Donnell rant.” Today, his statements are remembered only as a testament to intolerance and ignorance. They had no effect on the Church that can be measured.
When the comedy writers for South Park produced a gross portrayal of Church history, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable. But once again it inflicted no perceptible or lasting damage to a church that is growing by at least a quarter of a million new members every year.
When an independent film company produced a grossly distorted version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre two years ago, the Church ignored it. Perhaps partly as a result of that refusal to engender the controversy that the producers hoped for, the movie flopped at the box office and lost millions.
In recent months, some gay activists have barraged the media with accusations about “hateful” attitudes of Latter-day Saints in supporting Proposition 8 in California, which maintained the traditional definition of marriage. They even organized a protest march around the Salt Lake Temple. Again, the Church has refused to be goaded into a Mormons versus gays battle and has simply stated its position in tones that are reasonable and respectful. Meanwhile, missionary work and Church members in California remain as robust and vibrant as ever, and support for the Church has come from many unexpected quarters — including some former critics and other churches.

Now comes another series of Big Love, and despite earlier assurances from HBO it once again blurs the distinctions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices. Such things say much more about the insensitivities of writers, producers and TV executives than they say about Latter-day Saints.

If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

DNA studies require a sample of DNA to start with and if the original sample was corrupted, then you will get corrupted results.

Nor that you over estimate your intelligence DU. Which of the thousands and thousands of samples that have been collected been “contaminated”? Cite the report (crickets).

Let me give you Yet another example, let's say we start with a small group of people from Israel, then we marry in a larger group of Chinese people and wait several thousand years, keeping just this pool of DNA going. In several thousand years you will be unlikely to prove you had original DNA from Israel, it just get's worse as you kill off major groups who were preserving their heritage (like the Nephites) and darn near impossible if you start having large groups of people die off a few hundred years before you do your testing while being corrupted by still another group of DNA not from Israel.

So you are going to deny your prophets now. Your prophets and apostles have taught since the beginning that the Amerindians are direct descendants of lehi. Or are you going to admit that your missionaries have been lying to Amerindians (as well as Polynesians too) all these years. That is what your scenario does – it makes a liar out of your prophet. Who speaks for the inspiration of God – professors in BYU now?

As a valid comparison on corruption of samples which you apparently are too obtuse to understand, just keep concentrating on minutia, maybe the big problems with your analysis will go away... (NOT!)

You were the one making the claim that dna studies = blood typing.

ROTFLOL! Really? Simon Southerton is an example of this scientific community of people who assume the Book of Mormon says there is a pure enough sample to get a no? LOL!

You really have a fixation on him don’t you. I have cited numerous other papers by other scientists, pointed you to the Nat’l Geo Society Genome project. Lurkers will note that Du is incapable of citing anything outside of the apologetics faith rumor mill or UFO sites. Even this “contaminated DNA” (which really shows ignorance in the transmission of DNA markers now widely used in science) didn’t stop Crandall and others in doing the work with the Lemba tribe – a group of Jews identified by genetic markers to be Jews – an exact parallel that DU is in denial of.

They are on a DVD published by FairLDS.org, and published by Fair on Youtube, but I guess you can continue to deny it if you don't actually go see it, maybe if you close your eyes really tight...

This is not a real publication DU, and I know the lurkers out there are smart enough to see through the obfuscation. They are afraid to publish outside of their echo chamber where other professionals in the field can critically review their work. American Journal of Human Genetics, American Journal of Anthropology and others are just waiting for them to publish their studies with them. A DVD or youtube is not a scientific reviewed publication DU – and you know that they are cowards to have their works peer-reviewed.

Speaking of safe little boxes of reality, can you get good test results from garbage data?...(No, and The Sorenson lab has yet to get a valid result (According to their website) back past the 1700's for that reason...)

Apples to oranges DU, the lack of success you are claiming are regarding an individual basis, not larger scale people groups. However, you continue to fail to read the entire article. The failure was due to the lady (Wilson’s) own genealogy research. Sorenson Lab found the mtDNA match for her across the Atlantic in Africa. Once again, your proof actually PROVES the methodology – not denies it.

Really, why didn't you link to them, I'd be interested in reading that. Oh yeah, you don't link, your word (edited after the fact) should be good enough... (LOL!)

Lurkers will notice the dishonesty here. However, I’ll post these again.

The Bauu Institute
Am J Hum Genet. 2003 November; 73(5): 1178–1190.
Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 1, 13 January 2009, Pages 1-8
Genetic Variation and Population Structure in Native Americans
National Geographic Genome Project
Other books -

Crawford, Michael H. (2001). The Origins of Native Americans: Evidence from Anthropological Genetics . Cambridge University Press.

Crawford, Michael H. (2006). Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods, and Applications . Cambridge University Press.

Jones, Peter N. (2004). American Indian mtDNA, Y Chromosome Genetic Data, and the Peopling of North America . Bauu Press.

Powell, Joseph F. (2005). The First Americans: Race, Evolution and the Origin of Native Americans . Cambridge University Press.

Wells, Spencer. (2004). The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey . Random House.

PRECISELY the problem, the Book of Mormon adds tons of people with out telling us where they come from, unless you assume... wait, Good scientists don't do that.

Once again, DU misrepresents the bom.. all of the peoples he has cited in the past have their origin in either Jerusalem of the middle east in general and would carry DNA markers characteristic of the region

More of the if I repeat this often enough people might just believe it? The Book of Mormon documents slaves joining the group, and does not tell their origin, probably not Jerusalem, and worse, they keep joining groups in the Americas who's origin is also not spelled out!

So you are telling me that Joseph Smith is a liar then in his own hand.

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).

Not if they are A) from different tribes of Israel, or B) include slave DNA from who knows where, or joined with people from outside of Israel.

The men of Israel would carry the Y chromosome of Abraham as his descendant, and the few slaves (provide numbers DU) would not overwhelm Lehi’s family

Absolutely wrong, Nephi's Mother would pass her mtDNA down to her sons, but their children would be passing down the mtDNA of their wives (who'd genealogy we don't know past their Dad).

How laughable DU – show everyone you are drowning once again in your ignorance of the subject. The mtDNA would follow down and be promulgated by every daughter and not affected by the men (that is why it is mtDNA). Lurkers are invited to go to the Nat’l Geo Genome site listed above and see how this works – since DU doesn’t want to accurately present it inspite of having access to it over numerous times.

Try learning a bit about Mitochondrial DNA from the Sorenson institute. The green woman is your female from Jerusalem, the Grey people are everyone else, then you have a war... She dies.

Once again, DUh is unable to grasp the concept of the haplogroups that are associated with the regional setting of Israel. The video at the link is on an individual basis – looking at it at a microscopic level. Population genetics look at the haplogroups, which for Israelis is group X..

Pulease, you don't have a clue what you are talking about, the Book of Mormon has many references to peoples that are not traced back to Israel or anywhere for that matter. Ether 1: 6 6 And on this wise do I give the account. He that wrote this record was Ether, and he was a descendant of Coriantor.

That Ether was a descendent of Coriantor ends when they were all killed in the final battle of annihilation. Or are your calling your prophets a liar again?

Joseph, not Judah, Judah is what you have to compare with now, but you'd have to do deep studies to connect that, even if you had a pure Tribe of Joseph DNA person it'd be difficult.

Joseph carries the Y Chromosone of Abraham as well as Jacob – pure as it gets

Ishmaels's wife, was she an Israelite? It's her mtDNA that Nephi's, Laman's and Lemual's children would be carrying, not Lehi's... First Nephi 16:7

The Y chromosones would be passed. Nothings says that the women were not Israelites, but even so, they carried the middle eastern haplogroup X. Or are you calling your prophets a liar again?
Spencer W. Kimball quoted in The Ensign of July 1971, pp. 7ff saying,
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. (p. 7) … There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled—you, the Lamanites—when you are righteous. You are of royal blood, the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Lehi

Your assertions have been refuted over and over again so far. Lurkers will note that population group studies show the movements of people groups like those in the middle east and Israel over history. The Lemba tribe is a prime example of the capabilities of it being done. DUh want to hide the people of the bom in a postage stamp sized area in central America, an act that makes his prophets and leaders out to be liars and worse. Please checkout my links above, as it puts the science involved into better perspective and shows the hollowness of DU’s failed and flawed arguments.

Lurkers, please note Nephi and Laman came over with the same group, both were full brothers, (sons of the same Father (Lehi) and Mother (Sariah). Both the Nephites and Lamanites Married in with other peoples, and Godzilla thinks this is a racist statement, saying his ancestors never intermarried with his brother's descendants.

What do the prophets and leaders say about the descendants of Lehi?

Elder Gene R. Cook (First Quorum of the Seventy
My family and I are presently living in South America among the Lamanites — the children of Lehi, the people of the Book of Mormon, a people of great promise. For a number of years we have been witnesses to spiritual miracles among that people. (Gene R. Cook, “Miracles among the Lamanites,” Ensign, Nov. 1980, 67.)

The redemption of the Lamanite as a remnant of scattered Israel, in accordance with Book of Mormon prophecy, is one of the vital responsibilities and opportunities of the restored church
As the gospel is taught in various nations of the Americas and on the Pacific islands, missionary programs for Lamanite and mestizo segments of the population might well be adapted to the language and the ethnic position of the descendants of Father Lehi in each nation. Missionary work in Bolivia, for instance, is done in Spanish and in two Indian languages, Quechua and Aymará (“What Is a Lamanite?” Ensign, Sept. 1972, 62ff).

Spencer W. Kimball
With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea. (page 7)
There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled—you, the Lamanites—when you are righteous. You are of royal blood, the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Lehi (“Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971, p. 10)

The "Science" used to debunk the Book of moron might as well have been presented at the UFO convention Godzilla likes to talk about. On top of this he is rude rendering my nick as part of DUh. (which is really pathetic) To me this just indicates that's all he's got, rudeness, ignorance marketed as "scholarship" Guilt by Association, Red Herrings, and as I showed in my last post, he edits his and my words, thus editing history to try and make his points, last but not least, Godzilla posts these huge posts in hopes that people will just give up and not respond to him. (If you do respond and don't address every irrelavent detail, he can claim avoidance as yet another Red Herring.

Remarkable, it would be laughable if it weren’t so dishonestly presented. The sampling of publications and articles I’ve posted above and earlier are not the kinds of things presented at UFO conventions. However, it is documented history that DU looks to such sources for confirmation of his faith. His editing of my posts and links are history too, but lurkers are smart enough to be able to follow the links backward.

Godzilla, Actually address the issue for once, If as I am saying the Book of Momron shows an intermarrying with lots of people from unknown places (possibly Asia and Siberia, the Book of Mormon does not say) then does any of these DNA Studies prove it wrong?

DU, your prophets are calling your interpretation of the bom a lie. Even former president Hinkley said in this regard - “I sense a great spirit of gratitude for this new temple,” remarked President Hinckley. “The Saints have waited a very, very long time.” He continued: “It has been a very interesting thing to see the descendants of Father Lehi in the congregations that have gathered in the temple. So very many of these people have the blood of Lehi in their veins, and it is just an intriguing thing to see their tremendous response and their tremendous interest.” (Remarks at the dedication of the Guayaquil, Ecuador temple, reported in “News of the Church,” Ensign, Oct. 1999, p. 74)

Who is lying DU and who speaks for the spiritual truth you claim supersedes science fact? Is is your prophets or professors and apologists at BYU? 150+ years of mormon teaching have the Amerindians being descendants of Lehi and Israel. The bom does not say otherwise, only the professors at BYU trying to salvage their vanishing geography theory.

So, if smith is correct, then the boys at byu are lying, for smith wrote:

Well, DUh, looks like smith outsmarted the boys at byu as well.

Seer Stones, namely a Urim and Thummim are Biblical and are therefore a "Christian", Aaron Wore them as part of his priestly garments, Eleazar was to use the Urim and Thummim (which are seer stones) to gain answers from God, Saul was frustrated when God would not answer him by the Urim and Thummim. The Bible approves of and records the use of Seer Stones. The question that should be being asked is why is there no such revelatory device in orthodox Christianity today?

They were never placed in a hat to interpret a non-existent set of golden plates. The were also not used by Israel to hunt buried treasures across the countryside.

Neither do I deny that Joseph smith was taken to court (Yet another straw man?) Let me make this easy for you Joseph Smith was taken to court many times in his life time, 1826 was one such time he was charged by those opposed to his religious views with something to make him look bad. It's an old old trick used by Satan many times...

There is absolutely nothing in any record which links his arrest and trial in 1826 to his religious views. According to mornonite history, he didn’t receive the plates until 1827 after using the seer stone..

FYI, Jesus was taken to Court, Tried and Convicted, so?

Smith was an occultist, not the Son of God.

Oliver Cowdry confirms that Joseph was taken to court, So? We don't deny that. As for the Questionable nature of the evidence,

Wow, a big change in your song DU, may be a two note johnnie now.

Godzilla, I have been, and still am asserting that you Ignore counter evidence, and therefore IMHO, you are not credible.

DU, du, du, as stated from your link - Scholars are expected to examine all of the evidence and come to a conclusion. Thus, a one-sided lack of objectivity is a cardinal scholarly sin. This is why scholars should listen to others in their field even when—in fact, especially when—they disagree. It is only when scholars have heard and weighed all of the evidence, and considered all of the arguments, that they can come to an objective conclusion.

I have not denied there is a rock with writing in NM that is in a foreign language. However, I have shown that there is substantial other data and interpretation that does not support your little interpretation. I have fulfilled the criteria noted, you refuse to address the other evidence, only doing your little one note Johnny routine. Nib’s and FARMS agree with me for once (well they are like a broken clock, correct twice a day). Your supplemental support again goes to UFO sites, how credible does that make you LOL>

I am going to skip a bunch of your quotation, and just link to the source<--SNip-->

Lurkers will note here that DU practices what he earlier vilified me for – cutting up my posts.

LOL! Have you not been arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? LOL, Now you want to flip your whole argument around? This is funny, I'm pulling a link from this post to my cache!

Except when the contrary evidence is overwhelming and to the contrary.

Lets assume for a moment that I came up with a document, say from professor Anthon that had been torn from his ledger, brought to Utah, kept secret until the person who tore it out of his ledger died, published it and had images of it posted, the4n claimed the original was now lost without any forensic analysis being done to authenticate it and I wanted wanted to use this document in our debate... Is there anyone here who actually thinks you would allow this document to be entered into evidence without a complaint? ROTFLOL!

When you prove that the document has been forged, then you can make the claim. Current evidence still indicates it is a valid document

Now for the "nothing has been proven to be tampered with" logic, LOL! You have not proven that the Los Lunas stone was tampered with, and you have not proven that the Book of Mormon is not true...

And neither can you show that it wasn’t tampered with. Those who have the knowledge and capabilities to evaluate the stone have shown it to be discredited and a fraud, including lds inc. Lessee, where are the armor, cities, an advanced metallurgical culture in pre colombinan America, since your prophets and teachings show the lands were all over the hemisphere and the Amerindians descended from Lehi and Abraham.

Stick with debating people who don't (or can't) read the actual sources. Or better, stay with those who already agree with you and will not question your sources or your methodology. (advice goes both ways)

DU, the world would not have realized that you slum around UFO websites for mormon faith enhancement if I hadn’t read your sources. Apart from your flawed attempts to use the Sorenson Labs website to prove the bom while ignoring all the other independent studies - well lurkers, have his responses been that of reading my sources or relying upon mormon echo chamber apologists for your faith enhancement and listening to their lies about what your prophets and church have taught for the last 150+ years.

Again, take your own advice, the charge as issued by the UTLM is that Ron Jackson altered the Bill to be a charge against Josiah Stowell, not Joseph Smith, the alleged alteration was not a signature.

Jackson’s assertion was that the bill with Smith’s name was the forgery, it turns out the one he produced was the forgery. BTW, concerning authencity issues, the back of the UTLM document is a certificate of authencity- fancy that

The Book of Mormon was never claimed to be a work of fiction.

No, smith wasn’t that stupid. But that doesn’t change the facts – it is a work of fiction – an interpretation that is also shared by BH Roberts.

I personally (as a capitalist) am a treasure seeking individual, and as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am also seeking to lay up treasures in heaven. "Treasure Seeking" is not, nor was it then a crime.

Yet the bill clearly states – The Glass Looker – as cause.

"Treasure seeking" was not a crime.

Swindling an old man claiming to have occultic powers to see and find buried treasure is

Unfortunately for you, the facts of the matter are the DNA of American Indians cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, Slanders against Joseph Smith cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, indeed casting aspersions on archeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon cannot disprove it.

Then you continue to call smith a liar in regards to the origins of the Amerindians. Proof of an arrest and trial (which you now say happened) is not slander, the fact that he was an occultic divinatiator in 1826 – six years after he alledgedly saw God face to face is kinda hard to face isn’t it DUh?

The Book of Mormon was indeed translated by Joseph Smith from an Ancient record of a God fearing people on this the American Continent,

And the Amerindians are the descendants of Lehi, by the hand of that same Smith

Jesus Christ did in very fact visit with them, and bring his Gospel to these "Other Sheep" as spoken of in the Bible

So show me the cities? Where are they? Where is the evidence of a Jewish/Christian culture in the so-called midst of all these heathen (who possessed a substantial culture and writing of their own).

and The Church of Jesus Christ is the Modern Church restored as the prophesied int eh Bible in these the latter days.

From a false prophet – how many prophecies did not come to pass from this guy???

Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood as the Bible requires and you cannot disprove it.

LOL, now smitty is the equivalent of Jesus Christ – whom Heb 9:16 is referring too. That is at best blasphemous and at worst a deliberate lie.

And in conclusion DU has to pucker up his testimony. A common response when all else has failed. It is a common practice in conjunction with Ignoring the Counterevidence.

DU It is totally illogical for you or anyone to think you know what was in Joseph's mind. However, since Joseph had every expectation that in a court of law he would be exonerated there is no reason to break out of jail and run out to the waiting mob (file this in the you have got to be kidding file!)

GZ Yet you take it upon yourself to know what was in Joey's mind.

Joseph said if he could just make it to trial he would be acquitted, and the Mob knew this. He had threats from the Mob continually, this is all documented. This is not mind reading, but you are asserting that a man given a single pistol (a pepperbox) which was designed for self defense as it was not reloadable or reliable is going to break out of a Jail where he is "safe" into the open where a mob of men armed with rifles have been threatening to kill him on sight. Are you out of your mind? Wait, I withdraw the question... Your posts stand as evidence enough no need to invoke the fifth amendment.

GZ DUh, he was in custody, I see a lot of guns smuggled into our jails today - gotta support the 2d amendment.

and you see a lot of jails like the one in Carthage in use today <Sarc>

GZ On June 27th, 200 armed men stormed the jail. The jailer saw the mob and told Smith. Smith, assuming they were the Nauvoo Legion, told the jailer they were coming to rescue him

LOL! Reading comprehension? Joseph never said the Mob was coming to rescue him.

Joesph did send a letter to a lawyer, which the Mob sought to take from his messenger by force. Joseph Smith's Death

Almon W. Babbitt took the letter and left the jail. He handed it to Jones, with directions to take it to Quincy forthwith. The guard being aware of the letter, told the mob that, "old Joe" had sent orders to raise the Nauvoo Legion to come and rescue him. The mob gathered around Jones, and demanded the letter; some of them wanted to take it from him by force, and said that Jones should not get out of Carthage alive, as a dozen men had started off with their rifles to waylay him in the woods. Having previously ordered his horse, Jones took advantage of their disagreement, and started off at full speed. He, by mistake, took the Warsaw road, and so avoided the men who were lying in wait for him. When he emerged on the prairie, he saw the Governor and his posse, whereupon he left the Warsaw road for the Nauvoo road.

I assume, the Source of this Quote being the UTLM you will not dispute the error of your statement as evidenced by their site... Since they are anti Mormon as well...

ROTFLOL! anti's who can't shoot straight, LOL! Our bestist friends.!.!.!

GZ First and foremost – what charges was he in jail for – being a mormon or because he unlawfully ordered the destruction of the Smith-critical Nauvoo Expositor and committed the capital offense of treason by declaring martial law. It was the latter DUh.

He was charged with Treason, and with competent representation would have been acquitted, which is one of the reasons the Mob tried to keep his lawyer from visiting him in jail (the link above talks about this, also from the UTLM.

Face it Godzilla, when it comes To Joseph Smith and Nauvoo, a guy who grew up there will know a bit more about it than you will from misreading anti sites. The UTLM, at least has his Martyrdom right, even though they don't call it that.

GZ Did he willingly or did he fight his death? Was it for his religion or because he was leader of a rebellion

Did the Christians in the Lion's den fight for their lives because they would not renounce Jesus? If I am asked by a Muslim if I am a Christian and I say yes even though he has a gun to my head and then I try to take it do I lose my status as a myrter? You place such fine lines on things to try to keep your perspective from crumbling, it's really funny to watch.

GZ Right, arrested for treason and ordering the destruction of a newspaper printing press. The General’s religion was secondary importance to him at the time. He was intent upon building a theocracy and had even been crowned king.

Sigh, the City Council ordered the Destruction of the press, according to the best legal advice they had at their disposal it was legal to do so. Not only was there a three day deliberation, but Mormon presses were routinely destroyed by mobs and anti momrons. Tit for Tat was more common then than now.

GZ Martyr comes from the Greek to witness (martys). The act of witnessing is called martyia in the Greek and signifies a legal testimony. Because of the fact at the time of the apostles and the patristic fathers that the act of giving testimony of Christ resulted in death and often an ignoble death, the term "martyr" began to be synonymous with death because of being a Christian.

Joseph's final words were... "Oh Lord, my God!". Also from the UTLM, same article (come on this isn't even fun anymore, can't you get anything right?

GZ Was Joseph killed as a direct result of his testimony of Christ and the Church?

Yes, he was for if he had recanted his faith they would have let him go.

GZ Smith was not asked to renounce his faith or die.

I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true. . . . I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it. Hmm, Joseph knew why he was persecuted. Are you honestly saying that if he had been as you claim a philandering crook and story teller, but had not claimed to restore the church of Jesus Christ to the earth you would be here decrying his name still? Again, you're just not credible, your statements fall of their own weight.

GZ No, joey was jailed because he destroyed a printing press of a paper that divulged his polygamous acts and declared martial law.

Mormon presses were routinely destroyed by anti Mormons, none of them was sot by a mob of Mormons.

Martial law was declared during Hurricane Katrina, among many other times by Government officials, none of them to my knowledge was shot by a mob for it.

GZ This together with the atrocities that the Mormon's took part in, in the killing of innocents in Missouri and the rise of the political and physical threat from the Nauvoo legion etc, the locals could be construed as acting out of fear for their lives.

LOL! Do you even know who you are talking to? I count Govoner Boggs (reluctantly) in my pedigree!

The Missourians were the murdering thieving lot they killed Mormons by the wagon load, some Mormons got tired of being slaughtered and fought back. It was a war and a war in which My ancestors abused the power of government and violated the Constitution of the United States of America to persicute a religion.

You display no knowledge of the "Mormon Wars". I Know all about them, I grew up in the area, remember? We used to drive around Missouri because the Extermination order was still in effect until about 1972.

Bah, it's not worth shouting into deaf ears. Truly does the Bible say "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not: Which is the inspiration of the English Proverb "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Penned in 1546 By John Heywood, another ancestor of mine... GZ What DU fails to list are scriptures that tell Christians to judge – we are called to Judge righteous judgment (John 7:24)

Yes, you are to discern you are to judge courses of action and decide which angels to follow, decisions of legality, yes, sure. Judging means souls? that is not for you or I that is for the master, and you are not him.

GZ We are to identify and judge false teachers and prophets (Mt 24:11, 24; Mk 13:22; Acts 13:6; 2 Pet 2:1).

Very well, I identify you as a false teacher and as a false prophet. Happy?

GZ As a mormon who is improperly uses Matthew 7:1 DU is himself guilty of the very sin he is accusing the Christian?

First, I did not "improperly use Matt 7:1" you will find that usage common among all Christendom, Second, I am a Christian, Jesus told me so.

GZ Certainly the DU believes that his position is correct (that people should not speak out against Mormonism), but what right does he then have to tell others that what they are doing is also wrong.

Similarly, I believe you think your position is correct, that damning men to hell for following the Bible and the Book of Mormon together is a Christlike endeavor. As fro right to tell men what they are doing is wrong, I have been galled to warn my brtherin! I would be a poor follower of Christ indeed if I shrank from telling all men everywhere to repent! What amazes me is that ant Mormons claim to be Christian yet discourage others from Praying to God to Find out if a Book that purports to be his word is really from him and instead tall their fellow men to rely on them! That to me is incredible!

GZ Is this not passing judgment? Indeed this is a certain contradiction, and if his interpretation of Matthew 7:1 is correct, then there is condemnation falling right back on DU’s head. I have judged no man here, I have spoken the word of God as he gives it to me. I have made mistakes and made poor use at times of his word, however, I have never said anyone was damned, nor have I condemned anyone, instead, I invite men to come away from their false beliefs and come unto the light and life that is Christ Jesus. Thus I labor in my poor way for My savior, My Lord, My God.

GZ Fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that Moses’ first wife was still alive at the time. Remember, Moses was well over 80 at this time and Zipporah was very old as well. To say otherwise is an assumption not supported in the Bible.

Ohhh Kaaay, So the Bible does not say "Moses Was Polygamous", LOL! Then again it does not say "Moses was not polygamous" God does not seem to think it's worth talking about, the wives only come up when they become part of the story. Don't you thihnk it's odd that if only having one wife were that important God would have them write in that Zipporah had died? Well he didn't as for Zipporah being old, so? Is It OK to marry a second (or third) wife if your first one (or two) gets old? The only reason we even know about "The Ethiopian Woman" is because Miriam (Moses sister) didn't like her and was cursed with Leprosy. It's also interesting to note that God talks of how a Prophet is called (an it fits Joseph Smith's experiences to a "T". Numbers 12:6-8. BTW, Miriam who was Moses' older sister is still around, and she is the one who put him in the rushes, and you are claiming that Zipporah, who would have been much younger than Moses must be dead, or Moses would not have married another woman, interesting assumption there FRiend.

GZ If knowledge is power, your generator is out of fuel.

How drole, have you hear this one when they were handing out brains you thought they said Trains and took one out of state... Boy this stuff reminds me of second grade, that's the last time I heard these two "witticisms" may they not be recalled to memory again for a similar length of time.

GZ You continue to promulgate a lie concerning the translation and context of the scriptural passage. It is clear to Greek scholars that mia is an cardinal number.

You know, i don't speak Greek, but I can read. When I go to the Google Search I linked you to, I find all sorts of "Scholars" you claim don't exist debating the meaning of Mia Gune, and they don't all fall on one side of the issue (which was my point, it's open for debate) and since you posted no links yourself, I must conclude that you were willing to go on your word alone only because you could not find anything to support you. Admittedly that is an assumption, but hey you keep insisting that Absence of Evidence is evidence od absence. There fore using your logic, the absence of evidence presented by you is proof that you have no evidence.

AHHHH! It's fun Being me, you know? Well, I guess you wouldn't

GZ Your link championing your cause argues it is an indefinite article.

So one link wasn't enough? Why didn't you say so!

Husbandofonewife.pdf
One Wife In Timothy 3 and Titus 1
One of my favorite pages, this Guy is not a Momron, but as a "Christain", he makes us look pretty tame Objections to Polygamy from Christians
Here is a quote from this Guy's page:

1) The ‘Adam and Eve’ Defence
...
One wife was enough for Adam to start with. We don’t know if he took any more wives because the Bible doesn’t say. Another way of looking at it would be to say that in the beginning Adam married every woman that was available. The Bible does not draw a one man/one woman rule from Adam and Eve, so why should we? We could just as easily form a rule to marry all available women, but we would be very busy, and the rule just as valid.

This Guy may be a bit nuts, but I like the spunk with which he attacks a thorny issue!

I'm gonna snip out a bunch of dry comentary that is posted withoutht the benefit of support <--Snip-->

GZ No, it is apparent that this scholarly document has erred in the consistent application of the use of mia in this passage.

I'm So happy you have put this issue to rest, I mean now that the Great Godzilla (A Greek Speaking Dinasaur) has spoken, who could possibly have anything more to say (chuckle)

GZ Finally, his application (husband of a wife) fails to recognize that even as an indefinite article, the word still carries the concept of one, as his earlier examples prove.

Godzilla, Paul was an educated man, please explain why he did this: 1 timothy 3:1-7

It's good to desire to be a bishop.

We interrupt this listing of qualifications to make a doctrinal statement, "Polygamy is wrong." Carry on with listing of Qualifications for Bishops.
Bishops must be Viligent.
Bishops must be sober.
Bishops must have Good behavior.
Bishops must be Hospitable.
Bishops must be a good teacher.
Bishops must not be a drunk.
Bishops must not be a striker.
Bishops must not be Greedy.
Bishops must be Patient.
Bishops must Not be a brawler.
Bishops must not be covetous.
Bishops must be able to rule his house well.
Bishops must be able to rule his Children (so he can run God's church.)
Bishops must not be a novice.
Bishops must not be Proud.
Bishops must be of good report of non members.

Does this "structure" (I use the term loosely) seem like something Paul a highly educated man would use?

Now let's look at how I see these same scriptures: 1 timothy 3:1-7

It's good to desire to be a bishop.
Bishops must be Married.
Bishops must be Viligent.
Bishops must be sober.
Bishops must have Good behavior.
Bishops must be Hospitable.
Bishops must be a good teacher.
Bishops must not be a drunk.
Bishops must not be a striker.
Bishops must not be Greedy.
Bishops must be Patient.
Bishops must Not be a brawler.
Bishops must not be covetous.
Bishops must be able to rule his house well.
Bishops must be able to rule his Children (so he can run God's church.)
Bishops must not be a novice.
Bishops must not be Proud.
Bishops must be of good report of non members.

I think Context is an important thing, and "in context" your interpretation is just silly.

Have a day...

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.