Neanderthal DNA in modern non-Africans

[Abulafia]

I think that the idea that I have a little Neanderthal DNA in me is rather charming!

I don't think that it has any affect on the fact that we are the offspring of God. Neanderthal DNA is no less startling than 50,000 year old Cro Magnon man. If the one doesn't provide a "killing blow", then neither will the other.

The Garden of Eden story, along Adam and Eve, seems mostly allegory to me, with elements of fact, just as the Parable of the Good Samaritan does. Did this Good Samaritan actually exist and did the events Jesus described actually happen? I don't know, and much less care. The principle of the story is what is most important.

Nice to see you posting again, Mary!

Thanks Stargazer.

I agree that the Adam and Eve story is mostly allegory.

For me, it seems that the 'modern humans' from which we all descended were African, and thus in line with people living in hot climates would have had dark skin. That would then make (the allegorical) Adam and Eve, people of colour!

In terms of the past policies of the church with regard to people of colour, then I like to think nowadays that perhaps Brigham Young for instance was limited in his view of people of colour by a culture that regarded them as fit for slavery. Guilt, if nothing else would then relegate those 'slaves' to a position of 'sub-human' if you like. The irony, in my opinion, is that it is the white man whose DNA is mixed with an earlier'off-shoot of the 'homo' species, whilst the modern African is more purely 'homo sapien sapien'. (I'm not sure if I'm using the correct scientific terms here, but I hope you get my drift).

I wonder if there will come a time (if it hasn't happened already) when the church will come to see it as such, rather than any 'divine' intervention.

Of course from a contemporary 19th Century point of view, it may be that the doctrine/ideology helped the church survive and thrive, if you like, and humans (!) just hang on to ideas too long when they really should be letting go...

The church did get there in the end!!

Mary

[cdowis]

If there were Israelites in the New World, DNA would easily prove it. The only people that disagree seem to be Mormon Apologists, many of whom lack degrees, and more importantly an understanding, of genetics.

SECOND REQUEST

Please give us your samples of "Israelite" DNA from 600BCE, prior to the Babylonian Captivity. Since it is "easily proved", you should have no problem giving us that information, and the source of that sample.

Specifically the DNA of Lehi, et al.

Please dazzle us with your knowledge of genetics. I think you are full of hogwash, but surprise us.

[DarkScythe]

We need a Tardis. And we can prove or disapprove anything and everything.

[thesometimesaint]

Abulafia:

I don't believe we have near enough knowledge of the DNA of Adam and Eve to say one way or the other. But it wouldn't bother me a bit if they were.

BY seems to have had contradictory views on the Blacks.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/people/ethnic_cultures/the_peoples_of_utah/blacksinutahhistory.html

The correct term is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Considering how well the giving of the Priesthood to all worthy male members of the Church went(much rejoicing). Maybe the Lord thought the Saints could finally handle it.

[Abulafia]

Abulafia:

I don't believe we have near enough knowledge of the DNA of Adam and Eve to say one way or the other. But it wouldn't bother me a bit if they were.

BY seems to have had contradictory views on the Blacks.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/people/ethnic_cultures/the_peoples_of_utah/blacksinutahhistory.html

The correct term is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Considering how well the giving of the Priesthood to all worthy male members of the Church went(much rejoicing). Maybe the Lord thought the Saints could finally handle it.

Agreed, and I would absolutely love it if they were (The Adam and Eve thing). Thanks for the link, will check it out.

I think that with regard to the Saints (in Utah) finally being able to handle it. Yeah, sad but true.

Mary

[Abulafia]

Very interesting article Sometime Saint. Thanks.

[cdowis]

SECOND REQUEST

Please give us your samples of "Israelite" DNA from 600BCE, prior to the Babylonian Captivity. Since it is "easily proved", you should have no problem giving us that information, and the source of that sample.

Specifically the DNA of Lehi, et al.

Please dazzle us with your knowledge of genetics. I think you are full of hogwash, but surprise us.

Response: silence.

Once again, hissing and snarling, the antimormons slither back under their rock, awaiting their next victim.

[Pahoran]

What he actually says:

7. The bottleneck effect, genetic drift, and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes.

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.

Thank you for supporting my summary of Saint Simon's admission.

However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.

In his opinion; an opinion which has nothing to do with his scientific expertise as a plant geneticist -- which is his only claim to fame on this subject -- and everything to do with his anti-Mormon agenda.

Note that his non-expert view here is one that he must take, since by his own admission, his darling DNA dart fails to even hit the dart board otherwise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Thanks Stargazer.

I agree that the Adam and Eve story is mostly allegory.

For me, it seems that the 'modern humans' from which we all descended were African, and thus in line with people living in hot climates would have had dark skin. That would then make (the allegorical) Adam and Eve, people of colour!

In terms of the past policies of the church with regard to people of colour, then I like to think nowadays that perhaps Brigham Young for instance was limited in his view of people of colour by a culture that regarded them as fit for slavery. Guilt, if nothing else would then relegate those 'slaves' to a position of 'sub-human' if you like. The irony, in my opinion, is that it is the white man whose DNA is mixed with an earlier'off-shoot of the 'homo' species, whilst the modern African is more purely 'homo sapien sapien'. (I'm not sure if I'm using the correct scientific terms here, but I hope you get my drift).

I wonder if there will come a time (if it hasn't happened already) when the church will come to see it as such, rather than any 'divine' intervention.

Of course from a contemporary 19th Century point of view, it may be that the doctrine/ideology helped the church survive and thrive, if you like, and humans (!) just hang on to ideas too long when they really should be letting go...

The church did get there in the end!!

Mary

It's so nice to be patronised by an anonymous opiner. Tell us, Mary, just so we can know: what have you accomplished in your entire lifetime that might compare with what Brigham Young accomplished in any one year of his adult life?

I'd just like to know how it is that you manage to look down upon him from such a magnificently great height.

Regards,

Pahoran

[semlogo]

It's so nice to be patronised by an anonymous opiner. Tell us, Mary, just so we can know: what have you accomplished in your entire lifetime that might compare with what Brigham Young accomplished in any one year of his adult life?

I'd just like to know how it is that you manage to look down upon him from such a magnificently great height.

Regards,

Pahoran

How was that patronizing?

[Pahoran]

How was that patronizing?

Did you read her post?

Perhaps Brigham Young for instance was limited in his view of people of colour by a culture that regarded them as fit for slavery. Guilt, if nothing else would then relegate those 'slaves' to a position of 'sub-human' if you like.

Poor Brigham! "Limited in his view" and driven by "guilt" to "relegate those 'slaves' to a position of 'sub-human' if you like."

How is that not patronising?

It's also counterfactual. While various participants here frequently demonstrate that they regard believing Latter-day Saints as Untermenschen, Brigham explicitly taught that black people were our brothers and sisters, and that slave-holders would be judged for mistreating them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Knee jerk reaction, side with the anti Mormons

We kill ourselves that way.

[semlogo]

Did you read her post?

Poor Brigham! "Limited in his view" and driven by "guilt" to "relegate those 'slaves' to a position of 'sub-human' if you like."

How is that not patronising?

It's also counterfactual. While various participants here frequently demonstrate that they regard believing Latter-day Saints as Untermenschen, Brigham explicitly taught that black people were our brothers and sisters, and that slave-holders would be judged for mistreating them.

Regards,

Pahoran

Are you saying Brigham was unlimited in his views? Or that he didn't have some racist opinions? I thought the standard explanation for BY's racist views about black people was indeed that he was limited in his views. When did that change?

[semlogo]

Knee jerk reaction, side with the anti Mormons

We kill ourselves that way.

I believe it was Pahoran who exhibited a knee-jerk reaction. Abulafia's opinion is right in line with many LDS apologetic responses to BY's statements on race, including my own.

[Pahoran]

Are you saying Brigham was unlimited in his views? Or that he didn't have some racist opinions? I thought the standard explanation for BY's racist views about black people was indeed that he was limited in his views. When did that change?

You're not paying attention.

The issue is not that Brigham's views were "unlimited"; the fact is that everyone has "limited views."

You do. I do. Brigham did.

And Mary does.

The issue I have raised is that Mary's views, constrained as they are by her superficial late-20th century education, and unquestioningly conforming to 21st century mores, are no less "limited" than Brigham's. The unevidenced "guilt" she projects into his mind tells us nothing at all about him, and marks her as an amateur mind-reader lacking in insight.

Therefore, sneering about Brigham's "limited views" is a meaningless exercise in self-congratulation.

Mary imagines herself superior to Brigham because her views unquestioningly conform to the assumptions of her culture, while he, by contrast, challenged many of the assumptions of his. His "mistake" was in not challenging the assumptions that matter to Mary.

And I object to her baseless assumptions of superiority.

Regards,

Pahoran

[semlogo]

You're not paying attention.

The issue is not that Brigham's views were "unlimited"; the fact is that everyone has "limited views."

You do. I do. Brigham did.

And Mary does.

The issue I have raised is that Mary's views, constrained as they are by her superficial late-20th century education, and unquestioningly conforming to 21st century mores, are no less "limited" than Brigham's. The unevidenced "guilt" she projects into his mind tells us nothing at all about him, and marks her as an amateur mind-reader lacking in insight.

Therefore, sneering about Brigham's "limited views" is a meaningless exercise in self-congratulation.

Mary imagines herself superior to Brigham because her views unquestioningly conform to the assumptions of her culture, while he, by contrast, challenged many of the assumptions of his. His "mistake" was in not challenging the assumptions that matter to Mary.

And I object to her baseless assumptions of superiority.

Regards,

Pahoran

Who says she was sneering? I don't think she came across as sneering or superior at all. I think perhaps you're being too defensive.

Respectfully,

Semlogo

[Pahoran]

Who says she was sneering? I don't think she came across as sneering or superior at all. I think perhaps you're being too defensive.

Respectfully,

Semlogo

Of course you do.

But just as a matter of interest, Semlogo, what do you think the purpose of this thread is? What relevance does Neanderthal DNA really have to Mormon things at all? Take another look at the OP, and then tell me, with a straight face if you please, that you can't possibly imagine why anyone might think that Mary introduced it with the intent of sequeing into yet another race-baiting thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

So, because someone else might possibly be wrong, you are definitely right?

Of course; that's exactly what I was arguing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

[A]re there religious and political implications?

It has and should have no implications for US immigration policy.

It has and should have no implications for LDS doctrine, practices or policies.

It has and should have no implications for LDS plastic arts.

It has and should have no implications for LDS performance arts.

Here's a speculation on the "evidence" as valid as any other: The gentle Neanderthalers fled the brutal extermination policies of the racially pure African blacks, accompanied by their "Anglo" friends, who valiantly fought a rearguard action using their technological innovations (spears, slings and atlatls). These friends tried their best to save the Neanderthaler remnant, even intermarrying to try to save the bloodlines, alas! too little, too late, as the Eurasian cousins had already dwindled, leaving too few Neanderthalers or half-breed Neanderthalers to preserve them in the world.

The vicious racists in Africa were ultimately successful in their wars of extermination.

USU "Doesn't think there's anything useful for religion or politics here" 78

[semlogo]

Of course you do.

But just as a matter of interest, Semlogo, what do you think the purpose of this thread is? What relevance does Neanderthal DNA really have to Mormon things at all? Take another look at the OP, and then tell me, with a straight face if you please, that you can't possibly imagine why anyone might think that Mary introduced it with the intent of sequeing into yet another race-baiting thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

I think that if you always assume the worst about people, it will negatively color all your relationships.

[Jeff K.]

Or we can assume based on a pattern that some people tend to follow a specific path and it would be foolish to presume they would suddenly change their stripes when the context of what is asked and how it is asked repeatedly follows the same model.

[semlogo]

Or we can assume based on a pattern that some people tend to follow a specific path and it would be foolish to presume they would suddenly change their stripes when the context of what is asked and how it is asked repeatedly follows the same model.

Based on a pattern of similar assumptions? Sounds like a convenient way of demonizing people you don't like. Let people speak for themselves and their motives. It's not ethical to assign motives for people that they may or may not have.

[Jeff K.]

Based on a pattern of similar assumptions? Sounds like a convenient way of demonizing people you don't like. Let people speak for themselves and their motives. It's not ethical to assign motives for people that they may or may not have.

Anything can be a convenient way of demonizing people, except when its true. One would have to be completely ignorant of context and the world around them to presume for example that those with a proclivity for attacking the church suddenly stopped without expectation. After being hit once or twice, people learn to flinch, not because they are demonizing, but because they know what to expect. We note the patterns and we wait for the next slap. But feel free and follow your own pattern.

[semlogo]

Anything can be a convenient way of demonizing people, except when its true. One would have to be completely ignorant of context and the world around them to presume for example that those with a proclivity for attacking the church suddenly stopped without expectation. After being hit once or twice, people learn to flinch, not because they are demonizing, but because they know what to expect. We note the patterns and we wait for the next slap. But feel free and follow your own pattern.

I find it especially inconsistent that after you just got done attacking her character (with no evidence, by the way), you would also claim victim status in the same breath.

She is capable of speaking for herself - I am sure she does not need you as a spokesman. Neither of us really knows her.

[Jeff K.]

Then why are you here?