Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cdowis

  1. edit ii:

    Haplogroup X diverged from hapologroup N, which diverged into X1 and X2 30,000 years ago. I think this is a case where we have to make sure we're talking about the right X.

    I think I need you to prove that dating. It's called "scientific baloney". I know this because of my discussion with Dr. Brown who said that these dates are based on "assumptions".

    But that was over a decade ago, so let's see your proof.

  2. You need to read the articles more carefully

    1. "stated that their maternal grandmother had been born in the area considered for this study."

    Let's see, that accounts for 100-200 years out of how many thousands of years? The issue is the direction of migration. Is it not possible that these individuals migrated back from the Americas. We note the small population with this characteristic, so counter-migration is certainly a possibility.

    2. But here is the killer:

    "One of these X mtDNAs (ALT16) also harbored a 215G variant (table 1) that has not been observed in either American Indian or European X haplotypes. It should also be noted that none of the Altaian X mtDNAs harbored the 225A variant, which is a marker for a major part of haplogroup X (Brown et al. 1998)."

    As they say, "The glove doesn't fit, you cannot convict." This is not the same haplogroup x found in the Americas.

    Indeed the author of the study indicated that more research was needed to find the actual haplogroup x contributors.

    Most antimormons miss that point. I corresponded to a PhD in genetics who was boasting about how they had found the source of haplogoup X. When I pointed this tiny defect in her logic, her silence was stunning.

    They are unable to prove the direction of migration (outside of grandmother), nor can they demonstrate that this variant is the source for the haplogroup X in the Americas.

    3. Finally, I see no mention of the Druze haplogroup x. Dr. Brown mentioned that possibility in a phone interview. Of course this was excluded, since the Druze are in the middle east, and not europe. This is known as sampling bias. "There is no possibility that the middle east is the source of the haplogroup x, so we will ignore it."

    I have been discussing this topic for almost ten years. Welcome to the discussion.

    • Upvote 1
  3. Comparing Judah to Joseph in terms of DNA, we have to remember Joseph married an Egyptian princess, rather than a close relative. I would suppose that Lehi's DNA would have some significant differences compared to the modern Jews.

    "No trace" does not know what he is looking for.

  4. On anther thread, someone posted:

    And don't forget the implications of the LGT, which says that the Lamanites were absorbed into the larger existing population of Asian immigrants, so that there is no trace of their DNA today.

    I responded:

    So say some, but I do not agree with the "no trace". This has been discussed endlessly under the DNA threads. We have the haplogroup X, for example, which cannot be explained by the asian connection. And how does the asian connection explain the native american who has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.

    Finally, we do not know the DNA characteristics of Lehi, et al. They have only used DNA from the tribe of Judah, not Joseph. And we have not even touched on sampling error through selective sampling.

    I think "no trace" not only oversimplifies, but is inaccurate.

    Any thoughtful ideas here. Is "no trace" accurate?

  5. Bottom line:

    1. There is no change, only clarification.

    2. Any worthy person who did not have an opportunity to be sealed in the temple here in this life will have this opportunity in the next life. The ordinance itself is done in the temple.

    3. An individual can accept or reject any ordinance, including sealing.

    4. Many of these details ("what if") have not been revealed, beyond what is taught in GP.

  6. Men used to have dead single women sealed to them in those early years. There are examples of it with Joseph Smith and I've seen various other leaders do the same. I know of one stake president who had a couple of single cousins sealed to him, for example. This was pretty much stopped, probably around the time adoption to a leader stopped.

    It is still possible, but, according to a temple president, both the man and the woman should be deceased.

  7. Perhaps this has already been discussed, but I think this is an important point.

    The DVD is based on a false premise, "The Bible vs the Book of Mormon". And these are two teams playing on the field of archeology.

    But let me ask the scorekeeper one simple question: if we find no archeological evidence for Moses or Israelites living in ancient Egypt, does that make the Bible "less true"? If the time line of the creation of the universe does not fit what science tells us, is the Bible less true.

    But does the BOM pass the test, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Does it bring one closer to Christ, a second witness of His resurrection and the Gospel as proclaimed by Christ.

    The producers present archeology as the model for judging spriritual matters, as if to say that we should use physics and astronomy to judge the Bible.

    Are we going to place our salvation into the hands of science and archeology, either for the Bible or the BOM?

    • Upvote 2
  8. We had a situation in our stake where the ward boundary of one ward "didn't make sense". The decision on changing the boundaries was made by a special committee, not one person (stake president). Of course he had to approve the final product. I assume that it was also approved by the church as well.

    So the SP may consider forming a group of individuals within the stake to take on this task.

  9. As one grows older, and becomes more experienced, there are important lessons that we need to learn. Here are a few that I think are important, and perhaps you can add to that list.

    I take personal responsibility. Don't blame others.

    What goes around, comes around. How I treat others will someday come back to me.

    Duty to my family, my religion, and my employer.

  10. You lack of understanding of scripture is showing. But I believe this conversation has been done before.

    Mormons will always defend the adultery of Joseph Smith in any way they can, is the final outcome of it every time.

    I can only pray the enlightened people of Milan will be led to truth, with good chances they will be, as the people of Milan have never been known to take "all is well" for an answer to anything.

    We have shown remarkable patience with your comments, considering the history of your own religion. I find your comments astonishing, when there is so much that we can discuss on the history of the orthodox church.

    But the rules of this forum preclude such a discussion, but give it some thought the next time you make such unwise comments. Do you really propose that these youth leave the LDS church to join the Catholic church? We can certainly do some comparisons.

    Anyway, it is clear that you know little about the history of your own church. May I suggest that you spend some time checking out the internet on your church before tossing stones at the LDS church.

  11. I want to make a suggestion, that I believe is consistent with the counsel of the Area Presidency.

    I woould hold a fireside for the YSA, as follows.


    Thank you for coming. I am sure that there are some things that concern you as you look on the internet. On of the challanges of being a member of Christ's church, we face the opposition of those who make every attempt to destroy our faith. You can draw your own conclusion on what motivates them to do this.

    Every day we are faced with decisions, and I want to talk to your about some questions that you and you alone can answer.

    Before we start discussing this thing that concerns you, let's get back to the basics. Every individual will face these two questions, these decisions, in this life or in the next.

    1. Is the BOM the word of God?

    2. Was Joseph Smith chosen by God to be His living prophet?

    Now we get down to another very important question -- does the Lord say and do things that we do not understand.

    Is it sometimes necessary for us to do things such as paying a tenth of our income to the church, keeping the Sabbath day holy, etc that may not make sense but we trust the Lord that we need to do what He tells us. etc...

    Even for us who have been in the temple, there are many thing which we do not understand. And we realize that we will not understand them until we go into the next life.

    And sealing as husband and wife for eternity is something that we will not truly understand until we pass into immortality, until we go beyond the veil. But let's be patient and see if we can get a glimpse.

    We often think of the temple sealing as "marriage" -- a man and woman are married in the temple. We put the temporal marriage, husband and wife in this life, alongside the eternal relationship. And normally that is true.

    However it is possible for two people to be sealed together who were never married. This is possible, and has been done. For example, after the death of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, several women were sealed to these prophets vicariously.

    We can see that a woman can be sealed to a man where there was no marital relationship. In the early days of the church this was more common than today.

    I think I have given you enough infomation for you to make up your own mind. Draw your own conclusion on how the Prophet Joseph Smith behaved in a very difficult situation, under the commandment of the Lord. The Lord gave Joseph Smith a difficult commandment, and whether you have the faith that he behaved honorably while following that instruction.

    You decide to follow the prophet, or whether you will be influenced by those who desire to destroy your faith.

    • Upvote 1
  12. What is a "lie". That is the fundamental question.

    The legal system has long experience with this question, perjury. So we take an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth".

    So, for example, if we quote Tom Jones, but if we quote him out of context, if we leave out certain words and phrases, we are clearly "lying" even though everything we said was truth. But we distort the meaning of his words by selectively leaving out those important words and phrases.

    1. "There have been no Book of Mormon cities discovered by archeologists." This is true, but it is also a lie. Less than 1% of the potential archeological sites have been excavated, virtually all of the names of the cities that have been excavated are unknown, so we do not have a basis for matching them with BOM names.

    2. "There are no Nephite/Lamanite artifacts found." It is true, that this is a lie. At the present time there are hundreds, thousands of artifacts, but there is no known method to identify whether an artifact is Nephite, or something else. One could contend that there are many BOM artifacts in the museums, but we cannot identify them.

    3. "We find no evidence of Hebrew culture in the Americas." Another truthful lie. The BOM tells us that we are not looking for "Jews" or Hebrews, but Nephites and Lamanites. It is clear that they were not speaking the Hebrew language, for example. The records from the BOM time period are almost non-existant, and culture and religion are found primarily in written records.

    4. "There is no evidence of Christianity." Well, the BOM tells us that for the majority of the time, for the majority of the inhabitants, they were not Christians. We find exactly on the ground what the BOM tells us. And how do we identify Christian artifacts -- statues of Mary, the cross? Perhaps in mesoamerica, the Christian icons included serpents.

    It is not a matter of giving more information, but the very structure of the statements that they give. They give "true" lies. They can claim that everything they say is the truth. But a court of law would not be fooled by the half truths and deceptions.

    Only the naive and those ignorant of the facts are deceived.

    • Upvote 2
  13. Brant,

    I am very thirsty and someone gives me a nice cold glass of water. But after some investigation, I notice that the glass also contains a deadly poison. When I complain (I really am thirsty), they suggest that they *could* dilute the poison in the glass, but it would take two or three gallons of water. The glass is just not big enough.

    Sorry, but we can't do that.

    I wonder why this person insists that it is impossible. The solution is so obvious.

  • Create New...