How do Mormons reconcile American Indian origins?

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Is this not the "apologetics board?" Is this not where I'm supposed to discuss such issues? If you want me to start an original thread on this, then fine I will. I just assumed I was following the natural flow of the conversation. If you would like to discuss this issue, I would like to know your thoughts. If you think this is better left to a new thread, then I will start one. But please at least give me the benefit of the doubt before hurling personal attacks.

This is firstly, a board, and it has rules. No derailing threads, even your own. There is a certain amount of leeway if you are perhaps coming back to it, but for the moment you just appear to be through discussing the OP.

You are claiming Mormons base their faith on subjective emotions, not knowledge. Of course emotional experiences can occur in any religion and are not a reasonable basis for faith. But trying to avoid make sense of certain phenomena as being other that what it appears doesn't fall inline with the scientific method, the phenomena seems to be a bit more than feelings.

Our faith deliberately invites experimentation and to make judgments on reasonable, rational grounds, particularly in regard with when we talk about the manifestation of the Spirit. But we have a heavy emphasis on intellectual processes and multiple means of validation. We can see how multiple facts and records and principles agree and fit together, giving increased intellectual harmony through the added knowledge that has been gained by applying what we "know".

Just because the results may not be shared, which it would be thus "proven" as per the scientific method dictates, its still rational to believe the unshared results, via the application of the scientific method.

For example, lets take something that is considered unscientific and superstitious. Finding water via a divining rod for example, and lets say I had a success of 8-10. I fail to reproduce my results across the board nor are others to be able to reproduce my results. Pray-tell, why should I be inclined to dismiss my own very tangible experiences? And if I know others, people I trust, claim to do the same thing, even routinely? What am I to make of that?

[AntiCitizen]

Here is a geneticists blog. Discussing the haplogroups of American Cherokees. You will note not only Haplogroups A,B,C,D, and X but several other anomalous mt DNA. You will also see what I was explaining to you in bold. You cannot determine when the haplogroup of mt DNA was introduced to the Native Americans. It could be 12,000 years ago or 2600 years ago. You can only determine it's place of origin as fact.

Source: http://www.dnaconsul...n_the_Cherokee/

Thanks for the interesting read. But I still do not see any plausible indication that haplogroup X could be 2,000 years old. The whole method of dating relies on the mean mutation rate for mtDNA. Though hardly accurate to the nearest year, I still have yet to see any indication that it could be off by a whole factor of 10. The Eshleman paper is very frank about the uncertainty for Haplogroup X, but the uncertainty range lies within 12,000 - 30,000 years ago. This is still far off from the 2,000 years you would need to even get off the ground. You would then need to explain how a haplogroup found primarily in the Cherokee is a plausible candidate for the Nephites/Lamanites, given that most LDS scholars consider Central America as the most plausible location in terms of geography and civilizations.

[AntiCitizen]

So you think that every religious belief can be explained either by socialisation or by sensory hallucination. That would mean that, if a man was brought up in an atheist family, and never came in contact with religion, and had perfect mental health, he would never, ever have a spiritual experience, and could never, ever develop a belief in a supreme being.

If you're comfortable with that idea, then I don't think you should expect any more discussion on the topic, should you? You expect every LDS here to be deceived, deceptive or hallucinating, so it's hardly a worthy crowd with which to reason, is it?

Please see the new threat I posted for clarification.

[handys003]

Thanks for the interesting read. But I still do not see any plausible indication that Haplogroup X could be 2,000 years old. The whole method of dating relies on the mean mutation rate for mt DNA. Though hardly accurate to the nearest year, I still have yet to see any indication that it could be off by a whole factor of 10. The Eshleman paper is very frank about the uncertainty for Haplogroup X, but the uncertainty range lies within 12,000 - 30,000 years ago. This is still far off from the 2,000 years you would need to even get off the ground. You would then need to explain how a Haplogroup found primarily in the Cherokee is a plausible candidate for the Nephites/Lamanites, given that most LDS scholars consider Central America as the most plausible location in terms of geography and civilizations.

From what I cited:

The many interrelationships noted above reinforce the conclusion that this is a faithful cross-section of a population. No such mix could have resulted from post-1492 European gene flow into the Cherokee Nation. So where do our non-European, non-Indian-appearing elements come from? The level of Haplogroup T in the Cherokee (26.9%) approximates the percentage for Egypt (25%), one of the only lands where T attains a major position among the various mitochondrial lineages. In Egypt, T is three times what it is in Europe. Haplogroup U in our sample is about the same as the Middle East in general. Its frequency is similar to that of Turkey and Greece. J has a frequency not unlike Europe (a little less than 10%). The only other place on earth where X is found at an elevated level apart from other American Indian groups like the Ojibwe is among the Druze in the Hills of Galilee in northern Israel and Lebanon. The work of Shlush et al. (2009) demonstrates that this region was in fact the center of the worldwide diffusion of haplogroup X.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2324201/

BackgroundPhylogenetic mitochondrial DNA haplogroups are highly partitioned across global geographic regions. A unique exception is the X Haplogroup, which has a widespread global distribution without major regions of distinct localization.Principal FindingsWe have examined mitochondrial DNA sequence variation together with Y-chromosome-based Haplogroup structure among the Druze, a religious minority with a unique socio-demographic history residing in the Near East. We observed a striking overall pattern of heterogeneous parental origins, consistent with Druze oral tradition, together with both a high frequency and a high diversity of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) X Haplogroup within a confined regional subpopulation. Furthermore demographic modeling indicated low migration rates with nearby populations.ConclusionsThese findings were enabled through the use of a paternal kindred based sampling approach, and suggest that the Galilee Druze represent a population isolate, and that the combination of a high frequency and diversity of the mtDNA X Haplogroup signifies a phylogenetic refugium, providing a sample snapshot of the genetic landscape of the Near East prior to the modern age.

Haplogroup X is further divided into two subclades. Subhaplogroup X1 was found to be largely restricted to the Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations of northern Africa and the neighboring areas, suggesting a possible geographic diffusion of X1 along the coast of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Subhaplogroup X2 is characterized by a much wider geographic range, but at the same time by very low frequencies in the populations of the regions where it is found[4]. No population or geographic region has been identified to date, in which Haplogroup X and its major subhaplogroups are found at both high frequency and high diversity, which could provide a potential clue as to their geographic origin. Here we suggest that the Druze population of northern Israel may represent just such a population.

The Druze population has a unique historical, social and demographic structure, which is closely connected with their religion. The contemporary Druze population constitutes a small minority in four countries of the Near East: Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan. In total, the estimated population number is fewer than 1,000,000 in the Near East and fewer than 100,000 in the Druze Diaspora. The Israeli Druze population is estimated at 150,000, and is distributed over three geographical subregions: the Carmel, the Galilee, and the Golan Heights. It has been postulated according to historical records that the origin of the Druze in each of these regions is different.

The Druze are an Arabic Semitic tribe with Haplo X. The same people whose descendants are the same of Israel. Once again get the 12000 fallacy out of your head. It is supposition bordering a very stretched theory borderline hypothesis. Your only equating Cherokee as the only ones with Haplo x. The other people in S. America were also confirmed with Haplo X. The Haplogroup X is not based on age only a region of origin.

[volgadon]

I get along very well with the Druze, my family home is down the road from a major population centre of theirs.

That study is interesting, becuase according to history and tradition, a large percentage of the Druze were Kurds and Persians.

[handys003]

I get along very well with the Druze, my family home is down the road from a major population centre of theirs.

That study is interesting, becuase according to history and tradition, a large percentage of the Druze were Kurds and Persians.

So since your Israeli then what ancient cultures in your opinion make up the Hebrews of the Old Testament?

[cdowis]

Thanks for the interesting read. But I still do not see any plausible indication that haplogroup X could be 2,000 years old. The whole method of dating relies on the mean mutation rate for mtDNA. Though hardly accurate to the nearest year, I still have yet to see any indication that it could be off by a whole factor of 10. The Eshleman paper is very frank about the uncertainty for Haplogroup X, but the uncertainty range lies within 12,000 - 30,000 years ago.

That dating makes the whole discussion of the BOM and the Bible moot, since that would pre-date Adam himself. You can accept that date, and there is no more discussion of any topic regarding Christianity and Judaism.

No further discussion is necessary on any topic at all in this forum and we can simply shut it down.

Or we can assume that this dating is faulty, and continue our discussion. Otherwise we have nothing to talk about.

[Bunk]

That dating makes the whole discussion of the BOM and the Bible moot, since that would pre-date Adam himself. You can accept that date, and there is no more discussion of any topic regarding Christianity and Judaism.

No further discussion is necessary on any topic at all in this forum and we can simply shut it down.

Or we can assume that this dating is faulty, and continue our discussion. Otherwise we have nothing to talk about.

cdowis, now that's black and white thinking.

There are other ways to approach the conflict. There are many people who believe in the Book of Mormon and/or the Bible who reconcile their scriptures to the fact that all dating methods place the earth and human beings much older than claimed by pre-scientific scripture. For example, BYU professors in the department of biology are such people. I have also noticed there are a number of these people on this very Mormon apologetics board.

But, I guess if you are saying you aren't one of those people, then no further discussion is necessary on any topic with you.

[volgadon]

So since your Israeli then what ancient cultures in your opinion make up the Hebrews of the Old Testament?

Probably a bit of everyone in the region, as even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals. I don't believe that there is such a thing as racial purity

[cdowis]

cdowis, now that's black and white thinking.

There are other ways to approach the conflict. There are many people who believe in the Book of Mormon and/or the Bible who reconcile their scriptures to the fact that all dating methods place the earth and human beings much older than claimed by pre-scientific scripture. For example, BYU professors in the department of biology are such people. I have also noticed there are a number of these people on this very Mormon apologetics board.

But, I guess if you are saying you aren't one of those people, then no further discussion is necessary on any topic with you.

It is a fundamental assumption in this forum. You might as well argue that the BOM is false because God does not exist. End of discussion.

We are not at BYU, and this is not a class in biology, genetics, etc. In an academic forum, I have no problem using these numbers BUT on this forum, anyone who argues using 12kya as a foundation of their argument is violating the basic assumption of this discussion group.

That takes out not only the BOM but all of the scriptures as well, and the discussion is at an end -- there is nothing to talk about. This is a fundamental assumption of this forum that there are no humans prior to Adam, UNLESS you want to open that specific topic and "disprove" the scriptures overall with that argument.

And don't tell me what I can and cannot accept until you know me better.

[Palador]

Am I the only one who thinks that the whole DNA issue is really a red herring?

The whole problem with tracing one's geneology through mtDNA is that it only represents one line out of many.

Consider this.

Mitrochondrial DNA is passed through from the mother's line, and is only passed down through the generations from mother to daughter. So, the mitrochondrial DNA represents 1/2 of my parent's generation. But, with each generation, the representation gets exponentially smaller. Thus, for my grandparent's generation, it would be 1/4 representation. For my great-grandparents, 1/8th. And for the next generation, 1/16th. So on and so forth.

Using the rule of thumb that each generation is 30 years (just using this as an average), and considering that Lehi landed here in the Americas around 2600 years ago, that would put about 86 generations between the present day and Lehi's generation. That would be 2 to the 86th power. Or more accurately, 1 over 2 to the 86th power. Most calculators can't figure that one out.

Thus, the problem with using Haplop groups to trace ancestory alone is problematic, as it can only can trace only a single line of ancestors, where there are literally thousands and thousands of lines the further back goes back.

[katherine the great]

Thus, the problem with using Haplop groups to trace ancestory alone is problematic, as it can only can trace only a single line of ancestors, where there are literally thousands and thousands of lines the further back goes back.

This type of DNA science is extremely useful to understand population genetics. It most certainly is almost completely useless for forensics or to trace recent ancestry, but it is very useful in understanding the origins of large groups of people and determining some genetic relationships. For instance, out of thousands of modern Native American people and ancient American remains tested, only five MT DNA haplogroups keep popping up--A,B,C,D, and X. It cannot exclude any particular ancestor but it can tell us who they definitely are related to. My MT DNA says I share a common ancestor with the Cheddar man in England. It doesn't tell me that I am related to my father.

[Palador]

This type of DNA science is extremely useful to understand population genetics. It most certainly is almost completely useless for forensics or to trace recent ancestry, but it is very useful in understanding the origins of large groups of people and determining some genetic relationships. For instance, out of thousands of modern Native American people and ancient American remains tested, only five MT DNA haplogroups keep popping up--A,B,C,D, and X. It cannot exclude any particular ancestor but it can tell us who they definitely are related to. My MT DNA says I share a common ancestor with the Cheddar man in England. It doesn't tell me that I am related to my father.

I'm not saying that such science is completely useless, but I am questioning the usefulness of the science in the question of "Is the Book of Mormon true?" I think it would be helpful to note that when Lehi and his family crossed over to the Americas, they were a fairly small group (About six breeding couples total, eight if you include Jacob and Joseph). Include the Mulekites, which were also probably a small group (after several generations, they were still in one city), and you might have a mixture of two small groups of people. Problem is that if there was a large group of people there, and there was already a large group of indigenious people present. This means that with such a small group of people from so long ago, it'd be a miracle (and an unlikely probability so low that it might as well never happen) to find any DNA markers from any of them.

I'm not question the usefulness of said science, just questioning the vadility of it in this debate. It seems to me that the DNA science does neither to support the Book of Mormon, nor does it go against the Book of Mormon. Or, as I called it earlier, a red herring.

[katherine the great]

I'm not question the usefulness of said science, just questioning the vadility of it in this debate. It seems to me that the DNA science does neither to support the Book of Mormon, nor does it go against the Book of Mormon. Or, as I called it earlier, a red herring.

It is only useful to convince people of it's "falseness" if they believe that the Book of Mormon people were the only (or first) people in the Americas.

[katherine the great]

It is a fundamental assumption in this forum. You might as well argue that the BOM is false because God does not exist. End of discussion.

Uh, no it isn't. It is not a fundamental assumption and it is not the end of the discussion.

[Darth J]

It is a fundamental assumption in this forum. You might as well argue that the BOM is false because God does not exist. End of discussion.

We are not at BYU, and this is not a class in biology, genetics, etc. In an academic forum, I have no problem using these numbers BUT on this forum, anyone who argues using 12kya as a foundation of their argument is violating the basic assumption of this discussion group.

That takes out not only the BOM but all of the scriptures as well, and the discussion is at an end -- there is nothing to talk about. This is a fundamental assumption of this forum that there are no humans prior to Adam, UNLESS you want to open that specific topic and "disprove" the scriptures overall with that argument.

And don't tell me what I can and cannot accept until you know me better.

Who besides you decided that this was a fundamental assumption--or an assumption at all--of this forum?

And who besides you decided on the further assumption that we have to divorce secular knowledge from religious knowledge?

Side note (not necessarily directed at cdowis): has anyone noticed how many "young Earth" Mormons are fans of James E. Talmage (Jesus the Christ, et al.? Does this suggest that they are not familiar with Elder Talmage's beliefs?

[cinepro]

That takes out not only the BOM but all of the scriptures as well, and the discussion is at an end -- there is nothing to talk about. This is a fundamental assumption of this forum that there are no humans prior to Adam, UNLESS you want to open that specific topic and "disprove" the scriptures overall with that argument.

And don't tell me what I can and cannot accept until you know me better.

Just so we're clear, cdowis, how far back are you willing to go?

Do you subscribe to the common date of ~4000 BC for the Fall of Adam (and the start of humanity as we know it), or is there some other date?

[handys003]

Who besides you decided that this was a fundamental assumption--or an assumption at all--of this forum?

And who besides you decided on the further assumption that we have to divorce secular knowledge from religious knowledge?

Side note (not necessarily directed at cdowis): has anyone noticed how many "young Earth" Mormons are fans of James E. Talmage (Jesus the Christ, et al.? Does this suggest that they are not familiar with Elder Talmage's beliefs?

I think you are misreading what cd is implying. His argument is toward AnitCitizen and his stance toward my assertion that Haplo X cannot be multi generational in migration. That Anti assertion toward myself that the Haplogroup X proves nothing except that they only could be from descendants 12,000 years old make the argument for BoM DNA ludicrous. cd is implying that taking a time stance on migratory patterns is fallacy based on age only. Therefore if you take the stance of 12000 years you might as well toss out the whole scriptures as meaningless as we are only supposed to be 5000 years old.

[cdowis]

Who besides you decided that this was a fundamental assumption--or an assumption at all--of this forum?

And who besides you decided on the further assumption that we have to divorce secular knowledge from religious knowledge?

Side note (not necessarily directed at cdowis): has anyone noticed how many "young Earth" Mormons are fans of James E. Talmage (Jesus the Christ, et al.? Does this suggest that they are not familiar with Elder Talmage's beliefs?

This has absolutely nothing to do with "young earth". It has to do with Adam and when he left the Garden of Eden. Are you suggesting that Mormons accept the idea that the Adam of the Bible lived several hundred thousand years ago? Please give me a reference to such a doctrine from Talmage or any other LDS leader.

I think I can speak for the church that Adam left the Garden less than ten thousand years ago -- the seven thousand years or dispensations, and this forum is based on that assumption. Of course you can question that assumption, but it should be discussed as a separate topic, and not pretend that we can accept such dating for humanity.

[cdowis]

Just so we're clear, cdowis, how far back are you willing to go?

Do you subscribe to the common date of ~4000 BC for the Fall of Adam (and the start of humanity as we know it), or is there some other date?

The LDS church teaches that this earth will have a total of seven dispensations, each one lasting approximately one thousand years. When Adam left the Garden of Eden, that was the beginning of the first dispensation.

You can do the math yourself.

But that has nothing to do with the physical age of the earth itself. It was created prior to Adam, and that date could extend several billion years.

That should make things crystal clear.

[cdowis]

Uh, no it isn't. It is not a fundamental assumption and it is not the end of the discussion.

OK, *you* give us the approximate date when Adam left the Garden of Eden, and give us that reference from LDS sources.

CFR from LDS sources, pleeze, if you do not agree with my statement. Otherwise, any older dating throws out the scriptures as a source of our faith.

We have no common ground for discussion unless you acknowledgethat the scriptures are the foundation of OUR religion, even if you disagree with them.

I anxiously await your LDS sources, katherine the great, for the dating of those events in the scriptures. You were clear and defiant, so let's see what you got.

[Bunk]

Thanks guys for helping out with this stubborn individual. When he (?) insisted this forum presupposes a single dogmatic interpretation of scripture, I thought I was in the wrong place.

[katherine the great]

OK, *you* give us the approximate date when Adam left the Garden of Eden, and give us that reference from LDS sources.

CFR from LDS sources, pleeze, if you do not agree with my statement. Otherwise, any older dating throws out the scriptures as a source of our faith, and that is indeed the end of discussion if we cannot agree that the scriptures are the foundation of our faith.

I anxiously await your sources, katherine the great.

It only throws out the scriptures for steadfast scriptural literalists. I have no idea when Adam left the garden or if the "person" Adam is even the same entity as the Adam who represents all mankind in the creation story. I do accept that Adam and Eve are the first human beings who are important to our spirituality and that God made His first covenant with them. I believe that God reveals his word to us through science just as he does through religion. I am an active LDS person and I don't accept your assumption that there is nothing to talk about before 4000 bc. or that human beings don't predate that time period. If you read the posts on this board, you will find that I am far from the only LDS person who does not accept a 4000 bc date as the time of the first human beings. Please list YOUR sources that all threads on this board must use the most common LDS assumptions as their basis of discussion.

[cdowis]

It only throws out the scriptures for steadfast scriptural literalists.

OK, but that is how the LDS church generally take the scriptures. Perhaps you can start a thread, or even another forum where Mormons can give a lose, non-literal view of those scriptures.

But for our forum, we accept a real, literal Adam, and accept that he left the Garden less than ten thousand years ago. You need to at least accept that is the fundamental assumption on this forum, even if you disagree with it.

snip

Please list YOUR sources that all threads on this board must use the most common LDS assumptions as their basis of discussion.

katherine, in case you have not noticed, this is an LDS forum. You will have to take my word on it.

[cdowis]

Thanks guys for helping out with this stubborn individual.

I appreciate your kind remarks. I am indeed stubborn and single minded when it comes to the scriptures and LDS doctrine.

I confess it. Adam was a literal person, the literal first human being who left the Garden less than ten thousand years ago and that is a fundamental doctrine of the LDS church.

You probably find that very annoying, and I welcome your disagreement with me here in this forum. You are indeed in the right place and I only ask that you recognize what LDS believe and do not believe.