" American Indian Ancestry Traced Back To Six Women"

[katherine the great]

Exactly. And when you factor in the understanding that "Lamanite" was a purely political designation (anyone not a Nephite is a "Lamanite") then you can start to make better sense of why many of us argue that it is entirely pointless to use DNA analysis to speak to any Book of Mormon-related topic.

That, I agree with. I don't believe for a moment that all Amerind people are genetically related to Lehi and I don't believe they have to be.

[katherine the great]

An interesting finding of the DNA research was the discovery of a full-blooded Amerindian who had a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.

They were both haplogroup X. X is included in the Native American founding female lineages. It is also found in low frequencies throughout Europe, but the groups diverged more than 12,000 years bp.

[William Schryver]

Wow. So, statistically speaking, we're probably all Lamanites? Sweet.

Only if we choose to fight against the Nephites. That's what makes a Lamanite. Haven't you ever read the Book of Mormon? Remember the Zoramites and the Amalekites? Both groups were, at one time, nominally "Nephites". But we read that they became Lamanites. They switched sides. Used to wear blue, but they changed to red. Kind of like Kyle Whittingham.

Maybe Church art depicts Lamanites and Nephites as bearded white men on horses not because they were bearded white men back then, but instead the artist is trying to tell all of us bearded white men today that we are Lamanites.

I'm only familiar with a single painting, by Arnold Friberg, that comes close to your description. One man riding on a horse. Maybe Arnold never read the Book of Mormon, either, since there is nothing in the passages to which the painting refers that would indicate that any Nephite ever rode a horse. In fact, there is no indication in the Book of Mormon that anyone ever rode a horse. Doesn't sound like a horse-oriented society to me.

But since your understanding of Book of Mormon history and LDS doctrine has been extensively informed by the paintings of Arnold Friberg, I guess I can understand why you are so far afield.

[Scott Lloyd]

That, I agree with. I don't believe for a moment that all Amerind people are genetically related to Lehi and I don't believe they have to be.

I, on the other hand, find it quite credible, based on the mathematical models cited here, and think it unnecessary to abandon conventional Mormon belief in this regard, whether or not one embraces a limited geography theory and the view that the Book of Mormon peoples were not the only ones to populate the Americas.

[Hobble Creek]

Thanks for the correction; I couldn't remember what the current thinking was.

"Current thinking"are the operative words here.

[cdowis]

They were both haplogroup X. X is included in the Native American founding female lineages. It is also found in low frequencies throughout Europe, but the groups diverged more than 12,000 years bp.

Not sure of your point.

I do understand the difference between a fact and {assertion/speculation/opinion}, so please give us a cogent response. If you are trying to tell us that the divergence bertween the woman and the Amerindian is greater than 12KYA, I would request proof *in this specific instance* rather than a generalized assertion.

As they say, the devil is in the details. So, if you wish to give an argument based on science, that demands specific proof in this specific case, rather than a broad generalization as some are wont to do.

PS, The BOM does hint at a Greek connection within the context of the migration of the Mulekites, so this is not a moot issue.

[Hobble Creek]

Exactly. And when you factor in the understanding that "Lamanite" was a purely political designation (anyone not a Nephite is a "Lamanite") then you can start to make better sense of why many of us argue that it is entirely pointless to use DNA analysis to speak to any Book of Mormon-related topic.

CFR that lamanite was only a political designation. What have you to support this nonsense? Sounds like a very recent invention to me. Do you think for one minute Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever indicated this in the slightest way? Nonsense CFR!

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow. So, statistically speaking, we're probably all Lamanites? Sweet.

Here Cinepro misstates the point in order to lampoon it, a specious form of argumentation. Is that the best you can do, Cinepro?

I didn't say "we're probably all Lamanites." What I said was that universal Lehite ancestry among indigenous peoples in the Americas is a credible scenario in view of mathematical models demonstrating the rapidity and totality with which a lineage can come to pervade a population.

So far, I've not seen anything by way of refutation of those models, only dogmatic denial.

[maklelan]

CFR that lamanite was only a political designation. What have you to support this nonsense? Sounds like a very recent invention to me. Do you think for one minute Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever indicated this in the slightest way? Nonsense CFR!

Well, only a political designation is pushing it a little, but primarily a political designation is shown by the Book of Mormon. Jacob 1:14:

I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi

Alma 54:23â??24:

I am Ammoron, and a descendant of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem. And behold now, I am a bold Lamanite

Heleman 11:24:

there were a certain number of the dissenters from the people of Nephi, who had some years before gone over unto the Lamanites, and taken upon themselves the name of Lamanites, and also a certain number who were real descendants of the Lamanites

The Book of Mormon usually clarifies when someone is an actual Lamanite, but most of the time it's a cultural designation.

Alma 24:28â??29:

Now the greatest number of those of the Lamanites who slew so many of their brethren were Amalekites and Amulonites, the greatest number of whom were after the aorder of the bNehors. Now, among those who joined the people of the Lord, there were anone who were Amalekites or Amulonites, or who were of the order of Nehor, but they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

[jwhitlock]

So far, I've not seen anything by way of refutation of those models, only dogmatic denial.

I agree. I am surprised that so many DNA studies are taking place without considering the models and the possibilities they represent. It would appear that could have a significant impact on how genetic mixing is perceived.

[jwhitlock]

CFR that lamanite was only a political designation. What have you to support this nonsense? Sounds like a very recent invention to me. Do you think for one minute Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever indicated this in the slightest way? Nonsense CFR!

The Book of Mormon itself expresses it that way.

Jacob 1:13-14

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

Sounds like a political / structural designation to me.

[cdowis]

CFR that lamanite was only a political designation. snip Nonsense CFR!

Just curious. Have you actually read the LDS version of the BOM?

Or just the cartoon version as published by the antis. (see my previous posts on this version)

[William Schryver]

CFR that lamanite was only a political designation. What have you to support this nonsense? Sounds like a very recent invention to me. Do you think for one minute Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever indicated this in the slightest way? Nonsense CFR!

Actually, I'm quite certain that neither Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young ever even thought about this. I don't believe either one of them was much of a student of the Book of Mormon.

Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon is quite clear on this point: the term "Lamanite", by the time of the second generation, was a purely political designation. Jacob (as cited above) is the first to inform us how the term will be used. Later, we read of Amalekites and Zoramites (former Nephites) "becoming" Lamanites (read Alma 43 - 46), and even later we read:

4 Nephi

19 And it came to pass that Nephi, he that kept this last record, (and he kept it upon the plates of Nephi) died, and his son Amos kept it in his stead; and he kept it upon the plates of Nephi also.

20 And he kept it eighty and four years, and there was still peace in the land, save it were a small part of the people who had revolted from the church and taken upon them the name of Lamanites; therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land.

It's all quite beyond dispute, actually.

[SilverKnight]

Studies like this really make a mess of the whole Adam and Eve story.

Just about everything makes a mess of the Adam & Eve story.

[Hobble Creek]

The Book of Mormon itself expresses it that way.

Jacob 1:13-14

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

Sounds like a political / structural designation to me.

I definitely stand corrected on that point. Excuse me while I wipe a little of this egg off my face.

Yet I am still failing to see how that leaves any wriggle room that any of those listed as being called Lamanites could have came from crossings of the land bridge. Nor how that in any way negates the application of DNA study to "any" topic of the BOM. That is quite a a stretch.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yet I am still failing to see how that leaves any wriggle room that any of those listed as being called Lamanites could have came from crossings of the land bridge. Nor how that in any way negates the application of DNA study to "any" topic of the BOM. That is quite a a stretch.

What are you talking about? I think you should clarify your position a little.

[cdowis]

I definitely stand corrected on that point. Excuse me while I wipe a little of this egg off my face.

It is obvious which version of the BOM you are referring to.

Yet I am still failing to see how that leaves any wriggle room that any of those listed as being called Lamanites could have came from crossings of the land bridge. Nor how that in any way negates the application of DNA study to "any" topic of the BOM. That is quite a a stretch.

Again, please reference your questions to the LDS version of the BOM. The antimormon version is hopeless. No mention of land bridge at all.

The whole DNA issue has been discussed in excruciating detail in multiple threads. Is this all you have to contribute, something more than "this is quite a stretch"?

[katherine the great]

Not sure of your point.

I do understand the difference between a fact and {assertion/speculation/opinion}, so please give us a cogent response. If you are trying to tell us that the divergence bertween the woman and the Amerindian is greater than 12KYA, I would request proof *in this specific instance* rather than a generalized assertion.

As they say, the devil is in the details. So, if you wish to give an argument based on science, that demands specific proof in this specific case, rather than a broad generalization as some are wont to do.

PS, The BOM does hint at a Greek connection within the context of the migration of the Mulekites, so this is not a moot issue.

Why do you say "we" and "us"? I was responding specifically to "thee" and "thy" post. You can do your own research if you think you know so much about European vs. Amerind X.

[Hobble Creek]

You are quite unworthy of engaging in a discussion. Do you know what a Strawman is? Nevermind, not interested in your attacks.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Studies like this really make a mess of the whole Adam and Eve story.

Interesting how the anti's jump all over the BoM DNA and completely ignore any other DNA pre-dating 6,000 years.

[katherine the great]

You are quite unworthy of engaging in a discussion. Do you know what a Strawman is? Nevermind, not interested in your attacks.

Is this to me? Since you are relatively new, I won't blast you. Yeah, we all have bad days. I was trying to type on my phone, and it's very hard to write detailed posts on it.

Just for your 411--I'm active LDS and not anti in any way, shape or form. I've spent several years studying population genetics and, of course, being LDS, Native American DNA is very intriguing to me. My objection to CDowis' posting the information on the Native American woman and the Greek woman is that it is misleading when engaging in a discussion that involves the Book of Mormon. If we accept at face value the FACT that both women tested are shown to belong to Mt Haplo X, then we also have to accept the fact that there are enough differences in the groups for scientists to estimate their divergence at greater than 12,000 years. These are not "wild speculations." This is very LOW end of the estimates. Some are as high as 35,000 years bp. There have also been studies done on ancient American remains of X, and they are shown to be the same as the modern populations in America (which differ from the European examples, but they clearly share a common ancestor in much more recent history than to other haplogroups.) The biggest question is whether or not the ancestors of these people came to the Americas through the Western route or maybe actually from Europe by an unknown Eastern route. The other possibility is that they walked through Siberia through generations and that any descendants who may have stayed in Siberia died out. It has been found in small frequencies in Mongolia, but I haven't heard if it is a type of "intermediate" X that would point towards an Eastern migration.

My opinion is that none of this disproves the Book of Mormon. What is does is show that the Americas were already heavily populated when the Lehites arrived, and (I think) that there was immediate intermarriage with the people who predated them by thousands of years. The current biological information does not support (and IMO disproves) the idea that the Lehites or Jaredites were anywhere near the first people in the Americas. It doesn't mean that they weren't here or that they don't have descendants still living.

[SolarPowered]

That, I agree with. I don't believe for a moment that all Amerind people are genetically related to Lehi and I don't believe they have to be.

To put a concrete face on this: We know from archeology that there was trade going on throughout the Americas. All it takes is, say, one trader from Lamanite lands deciding to put down roots in the Ohio area to start "Lamanite ancestry" in that area. Heck, he doesn't even have to settle there--traders are famous for sowing "wild oats." That ancestry will quickly (in terms of centuries) spread throughout the area by way of village-to-village intermarriage.

There was of course far more than "one" trader traveling around. And even a single trader may well sow wild oats in many places throughout the areas he traveled in. ("The sailor with a 'girl in every port'" principle.)

This dynamic is on top of the "legitimate" drift of lineage as women intermarry between villages. Over the course of centuries, this movement can spread lineages over hundreds and thousands of miles.

I think it is a virtual certainty that essentially all native Americans have Lehi among their ancestors.

[Hobble Creek]

Is this to me? Since you are relatively new, I won't blast you. Yeah, we all have bad days. I was trying to type on my phone, and it's very hard to write detailed posts on it.

My apologies for the cause of confusion here. My post you refer to was not directed towards you, but to cdowis. The posts I have seen of katherine the great have all been level headed and polite. I had not noticed that a quote of cdowis wwas not in my reply this error was due to cdowis placing his coments within the quote box for myself.

Just for your 411--I'm active LDS and not anti in any way, shape or form. I've spent several years studying population genetics and, of course, being LDS, Native American DNA is very intriguing to me. My objection to CDowis' posting the information on the Native American woman and the Greek woman is that it is misleading when engaging in a discussion that involves the Book of Mormon. If we accept at face value the FACT that both women tested are shown to belong to Mt Haplo X, then we also have to accept the fact that there are enough differences in the groups for scientists to estimate their divergence at greater than 12,000 years. These are not "wild speculations." This is very LOW end of the estimates. Some are as high as 35,000 years bp. There have also been studies done on ancient American remains of X, and they are shown to be the same as the modern populations in America (which differ from the European examples, but they clearly share a common ancestor in much more recent history than to other haplogroups.) The biggest question is whether or not the ancestors of these people came to the Americas through the Western route or maybe actually from Europe by an unknown Eastern route. The other possibility is that they walked through Siberia through generations and that any descendants who may have stayed in Siberia died out. It has been found in small frequencies in Mongolia, but I haven't heard if it is a type of "intermediate" X that would point towards an Eastern migration.

My opinion is that none of this disproves the Book of Mormon. What is does is show that the Americas were already heavily populated when the Lehites arrived, and (I think) that there was immediate intermarriage with the people who predated them by thousands of years. The current biological information does not support (and IMO disproves) the idea that the Lehites or Jaredites were anywhere near the first people in the Americas. It doesn't mean that they weren't here or that they don't have descendants still living.

A well presented viewpoint. I do not quite entirely disagree, only for the most part.

[cdowis]

My objection to CDowis' posting the information on the Native American woman and the Greek woman is that it is misleading when engaging in a discussion that involves the Book of Mormon.

Interesting. Let's see what you got.

If we accept at face value the FACT that both women tested are shown to belong to Mt Haplo X, then we also have to accept the fact that there are enough differences in the groups for scientists to estimate their divergence at greater than 12,000 years. These are not "wild speculations." This is very LOW end of the estimates. Some are as high as 35,000 years bp.

Presumably you read my post. Are you willing to answer my question on applying this research on an individual vs groups? Perhaps a class in statistics 101 would be helpful.

There have also been studies done on ancient American remains of X, and they are shown to be the same as the modern populations in America (which differ from the European examples, but they clearly share a common ancestor in much more recent history than to other haplogroups.) The biggest question is whether or not the ancestors of these people came to the Americas through the Western route or maybe actually from Europe by an unknown Eastern route. The other possibility is that they walked through Siberia through generations and that any descendants who may have stayed in Siberia died out.

Another possibility is that for this individual pairing, it was a Greek who came to the Americas with the Mulekites, which is also not "wild speculation" nor does it contradict the research you mentioned.

Again, may I suggest that you get a basic grasp of statistics, as it applies to groups vs individual data points. It would really help you in this discussion, sice you appear to have some difficulty in differentiating between mere speculation and "wild" speculation.

You might also consider the sampling size issue in such research. Modern Amerindians do not represent the total gene pool in ancient America. Do I need to elaborate?

[katherine the great]

"Another possibility is that for this individual pairing, it was a Greek who came to the Americas with the Mulekites, which is also not "wild speculation" nor does it contradict the research you mentioned."

Oh come on! Why would there be reason to think that this particular pairing would be any different than the already established haplogroup X? Yes, there is a Native American woman who shares a common ancestor with a Greek woman, but she isn't from a different haplogroup than is already represented in the Americas and is shown to have a divergence date far earlier than the range of the Mulekites. The study doesn't say that she was from a different subclade than other American X, so there's no reason to think that she is. If she were, that would be big news and would have been reported. Now, if she were from haplogroup U4 (completely unknown in Native Americans) , THAT would be something to make an issue out of. I think it would be incredibly cool if this were evidence of a Mulekite connection, but it isn't and it's dishonest to try to represent it as such.