"Not A Trace"

[cdowis]

We need to get back on topic, or I will have the thread closed.

Anything else to contribute?

[cinepro]

I wouldn't flatter yourself. You aren't that important (even in your imagined "expertise" role) to be "angry" at.

Not to stretch this out, but I can't figure out why bookofmormontruth accuses jskains of offering an "OUTSIDE interpretations of our own scriptures"? Jskains is an LDS defender of the faith, right?

[bookofmormontruth]

Not to stretch this out, but I can't figure out why bookofmormontruth accuses jskains of offering an "OUTSIDE interpretations of our own scriptures"? Jskains is an LDS defender of the faith, right?

Yes, the same way that you are a "defender" of the faith.

Back to the OP.

[Nemesis]

You aren't fooling anyone. In your "superior" eyes, there is no "valid response".

As the wanna-be "expert", can we expect you to teach us more on our own doctrines? Can't wait!

You are already on suspension for the next week.

Nemesis

[Pahoran]

Implied direct descent in the text does not change, ever, not even by the time The Lord is dictating the relevant passages in the D&C. And adoption is for Gentiles only, not Israelites. You can cease with the disingenuous rebuttals.

What "disingenuous rebuttals" are you talking about?

I said nothing about "adoption." It is disingenuous for you to try to dismiss "adoption" as if that somehow addresses anything I wrote; it does not.

You were the one who introduced the notion of some "genetic identifier as given in scripture." The scriptues you have cited mention no "genetic identifier," and I seriously doubt you have any understanding of what that means. Perhaps you had better cease with the disingenuous assertions. Even better, perhaps you should not have brought up the subject of disingenuous argumentation, given that that is what you have relied upon throughout.

My meager understanding distinguishes between mitochondrial DNA, which is traceable down the ages, and the DNA passed on by the male, which disappears. Please increase my understanding. The daughters of Ishmael, the sisters of Nephi, would pass on their DNA markers to all their descendants, resulting in the DNA studies we hear of today. Without that distinction there would be no DNA tracking to be done. So, again, the Middle Eastern peoples, traceable to their ancient ancestors through their mothers, should retain some connection to "Israelites" - ancient Middle Easterners - descended from immigrants to the Americas; someone, somewhere, and there is no such connection before Columbus.

Thank you for admitting the meagerness of the understanding upon which you make your sweeping pronouncements.

Mitochondrial DNA is not part of your genes, and is passed down the maternal line. Your mtDNA is the same as your mother's, which was the same as her mother's, and so on back through the generations. If you trace your own family history back ten generations, it will identify 2046 direct ancestors, of whom 1024 are present in the tenth generation. MtDNA will be able to identify only one ancestor in each generation, for a grand total of ten.

The Y chromosome is passed down the paternal line. Your Y chromosome is the same as your father's, which was the same as his father's, and so on back through the generations. If you trace your own family history back ten generations, it will identify 2046 direct ancestors, of whom 1024 are present in the tenth generation. The Y chromosome will be able to identify only one ancestor in each generation, for a grand total of ten. Taken together with mtDNA, population geneticists can identify just two of your 1024 ancestors ten generations ago. The other 1022 ancestors are simply invisible to current DNA methods.

The fact is that you have received roughly equal genetic contributions from all of those 1024 ancestors, but population genetics can find only two of them. What are we to conclude from the fact that there is "not a trace" of your other 1022 ancestors? That they didn't exist?

Simon Southerton, the highly-touted Australian plant geneticist who left the Church and subsequently decided that DNA evidence was a useful line of attack against the Book of Mormon, actually admitted that a small Levantine incursion into the Mesoamerican gene pool circa 600BC would now be undetectable by the tools of population genetics. But in spite of that admission, there are some people who think the great DNA fiasco is still a useful line of attack against the Book of Mormon!

Regards,

Pahoran

[stemelbow]

I am suggesting that there is alot of work to be done.

On that, I fully agree with. Luckily for us LDS, it seems to me, we have that out in this conversation. As it is the actual studies we have at our disposal, from what I've seen, don't favor much in terms of the BoM story being credible.

[Questing Beast]

...

Mitochondrial DNA is not part of your genes, and is passed down the maternal line. Your mtDNA is the same as your mother's, which was the same as her mother's, and so on back through the generations. If you trace your own family history back ten generations, it will identify 2046 direct ancestors, of whom 1024 are present in the tenth generation. MtDNA will be able to identify only one ancestor in each generation, for a grand total of ten.

The Y chromosome is passed down the paternal line. Your Y chromosome is the same as your father's, which was the same as his father's, and so on back through the generations. If you trace your own family history back ten generations, it will identify 2046 direct ancestors, of whom 1024 are present in the tenth generation. The Y chromosome will be able to identify only one ancestor in each generation, for a grand total of ten. Taken together with mtDNA, population geneticists can identify just two of your 1024 ancestors ten generations ago. The other 1022 ancestors are simply invisible to current DNA methods.

The fact is that you have received roughly equal genetic contributions from all of those 1024 ancestors, but population genetics can find only two of them. What are we to conclude from the fact that there is "not a trace" of your other 1022 ancestors? That they didn't exist?

I can't thank you enough for this lucid response. I am not being sarcastic in the least. When I said I have a "meager" knowledge of DNA tracking technology I am not dissembling. When I also state that the claims of geneticists show no evidence for "Israelite" DNA in Amerinds anciently, I am only repeating what I have read and been told. Without being a geneticist myself, or having an actively profound interest in the subject sufficient to drive me to read deeply, i.e. become self educated, I am at risk of repeating nonsense. It appears that MANY people have repeated a great deal of nonsense about DNA tracking into ancient times, and I have imbibed.

The way you have described it flies in the face of my assumptions this way: I was made to understand that MtDNA was a potent tracker because only MtDNA retains the same "code" as it were; all contribution by the male is altered by each succeeding generation. I don't pretend to know what that means technically; only that it works that way. Assuming this to be true, I have listened to the topic of DNA tracking of ancient peoples whenever the topic comes up. And until this post of yours, I had never heard that there is virtually no difference in the DNA for tracking purposes between males and females.

May I ask, where do you get your information on what you posted, and how do you know that it is to be trusted? It reads very differently from what little I have actually read on the subject; admittedly sometime ago, and I probably did not understand, when I thought that I did.

Simon Southerton, the highly-touted Australian plant geneticist who left the Church and subsequently decided that DNA evidence was a useful line of attack against the Book of Mormon, actually admitted that a small Levantine incursion into the Mesoamerican gene pool circa 600BC would now be undetectable by the tools of population genetics. But in spite of that admission, there are some people who think the great DNA fiasco is still a useful line of attack against the Book of Mormon!

Regards,

Pahoran

But you are not admitting the problematic statements of "the Lord" vis-a-vis the "Lamanites" in the lands surrounding where the Church was establishing itself; the very Amerinds that Joseph Smith and others went to and preached the gospel, making them aware of their Israelite ancestry, and revealing to them that the "promised land" had been given to their ancestors and their posterity forever, etc. The BoM clearly indicates a land devoid of inhabitants upon the arrival of the Lehites and Mulekites. (You can rehash the implied presence of "others" that are few and far between in the text itself, if you feel the need to do so. But that has already been brought out on the other thread that I started a few days ago.) But as the BoM is impossible without "others", then they were necessarily there before the Lehites ever arrived. I find the entire scenario proposed by Joseph Smith in the BoM, and "the Lord's" statements in the D&C, impossible to reconcile with reality: which is, that this "promised land" to Lehi's seed forever is anything but, if his seed amounts to nothing more than a drop in the genetic bucket. All trace of this so-called Israelite band disappears, and yet the indigenous peoples get to be called "Lamanites"? Who, then, are these people that the "Gentiles" must ally with in order to be spared destruction in the last days? If the Lamanites disappeared into the gene pool, then there are no "Lamanites" in the 1830s for the Lord to be talking about. Adoption into Israel is a one way street: the occasional righteous "other" gets the adoption into a clearly, lineally defined group of Israelite descendants: not a whole group getting to be called "Israelites" because less than three score people arrived in the American hemisphere, got absorbed by the indigenous population and disappeared....

[cdowis]

Questing beast,

You have clearly ignored our posts, both here and in the "other" thread.

I personally see no need in repeating myself.

[Questing Beast]

Questing beast,

You have clearly ignored our posts, both here and in the "other" thread.

I personally see no need in repeating myself.

Yes, I try to ignore withering scorn and sarcasm. You added not a jot of content to the discussion in your last post on the other thread....

[Robert F. Smith]

The BoM clearly indicates a land devoid of inhabitants upon the arrival of the Lehites and Mulekites.

You are overlooking a major civilization which preceded the arrival of those Mulekites and Lehites -- the Jaredites -- who disappear at about the same time as the great Olmec civilization, one survivor showing up in Zarahemla (the Mulekite capital). The rise and fall of the Lehites (who unite with Zarahemla) is also coterminous with the archeological rise and fall of the Mixe-Zoque civilization in Chiapas, Mexico, along the Grijalva River (Sidon River?). Further south, on the Guatemala plateau, you have the Lamanites who are likely to be generally identified with local Maya peoples.

That outside elite groups should rule in various foreign capitals is not only clearly the case in Zarahemla, but was a major feature of Maya and Teotihuacano cultures right down to the time of the Conquistadores and beyond.

the BoM is impossible without "others", then they were necessarily there before the Lehites ever arrived.

Correct. The only reason why one has no choice in applying these strictures to the Book of Mormon is that distances described within the text require a very limited geography. If other descriptors were contained in the text, then one could apply other distances and geographical sizes. These demands are scientific and mechanical in nature, as are the requirements that Book of Mormon civilizations be literate, highly advanced, and with temples and large populations. This is only the case in Mesoamerica.

Moreover, descriptions of total destruction and extinction are to be read the same way they are in the Bible -- as hyperbole, exaggeration for effect. Civilizations certainly end, but there are always survivors and refugees.

I find the entire scenario proposed by Joseph Smith in the BoM, and "the Lord's" statements in the D&C, impossible to reconcile with reality: which is, that this "promised land" to Lehi's seed forever is anything but, if his seed amounts to nothing more than a drop in the genetic bucket. All trace of this so-called Israelite band disappears, and yet the indigenous peoples get to be called "Lamanites"? Who, then, are these people that the "Gentiles" must ally with in order to be spared destruction in the last days? If the Lamanites disappeared into the gene pool, then there are no "Lamanites" in the 1830s for the Lord to be talking about. Adoption into Israel is a one way street: the occasional righteous "other" gets the adoption into a clearly, lineally defined group of Israelite descendants: not a whole group getting to be called "Israelites" because less than three score people arrived in the American hemisphere, got absorbed by the indigenous population and disappeared....

Of course you do, Beast. But then you do want to be consistent with your previous posts. Right?

[Questing Beast]

...

Of course you do, Beast. But then you do want to be consistent with your previous posts. Right?

A religious paradigm becomes an intensely complex thing over time. If the actual "contents" are not complex, the thoughts and emotions underlying beliefs certainly are. My paradigm is simple to explain. But my reasons for dumping the complexity of Judeo-Christianity are not simple. I don't have to worry about consistency since I don't have to remember anything I have said: I've never said anything in violation of my paradigm or the causes behind it.

It is complicated. Over many years of study the paradigm shifts, either toward stronger belief in the subject of Church history and doctrine, or away from it. Facts are joined to spiritual experiences. They cannot be kept separate. Anyone who tries to believe when the facts say otherwise is lying to himself. Anyone who becomes an unbeliever admits it sooner or later. And anyone who continues to believe when faced with facts that fly in the face of that belief is the possessor of a particular "gift of the Spirit", the capacity to believe.

I never noticed that gift by itself. If I've ever possessed a particular gift it is the gift of knowing by study. That's what I have trusted in. Knowing by study means accepting facts in evidence regardless of what facts you've believed before. It helps to have a believing heart: which I define as a trust in truth being good and therefore always leading the seeker to good things.

Because study gives a holistic view of history it follows that to be true to that view one must accept the BEST interpretation of the facts in evidence. This is a dreadfully cumbersome and time-consuming method at arriving with a historical and religious paradigm.

So far, my theory is that all religions are manmade and always have been: that men cannot refrain from constructing their histories (and scriptures) to suit their beliefs which define their agendas. There has never been a people or a religion that did not do this. Therefore, we cannot really know what occurred in ancient times; we can't even get "the story" straight in our own time! Revisionists will present their "truth" and list their sources. And the various "truths" will battle for disciples until the world ends.

As there is no way to determine by empirical means who is right and who is less right, the individual is fully justified in choosing any religion over another or none at all. The ONLY ethic that "God" will hold every soul to without exception is personal honesty. You cannot lie to yourself and make that an excuse for anything. "Never lie to yourself" should be the baseline mantra of every person. And since I hold to that above all other ethics, it follows that my paradigm is the most honest one I can conceive of.

YMMV, but it had better not....

[shalamabobbi]

As there is no way to determine by empirical means who is right and who is less right,

That's why purely empirical means is insufficient to arrive at the truth with regard to religious claims..

Each must become a "prophet" is his/her own right..

God will take into account what each person knows or doesn't know by way of personal revelation. But one can prevent that possibility from occuring by failing to bring their life into harmony with the commandments manifested by their personal conscience.

"Never lie to yourself" should be the baseline mantra of every person.

And IF that is what a person in fact does, in following their conscience, they won't be found lacking when judged. That is the best anyone can do.

[cdowis]

Because study gives a holistic view of history it follows that to be true to that view one must accept the BEST interpretation of the facts in evidence. This is a dreadfully cumbersome and time-consuming method at arriving with a historical and religious paradigm.

So far, my theory is that all religions are manmade and always have been: that men cannot refrain from constructing their histories (and scriptures) to suit their beliefs which define their agendas.

And your study has clearly lead you to the conclusion that JS was the author of the BOM.

But you have tied yourself so closely to that conclusion that you cannot allow contrary facts to spoil your comfortable position. I pointed out a verse where Nephi tells us that there was ox and domesticated goats, and you found it so uncomfortable that you cannot even admit that JS, as a farmer, would know that an ox is not a wild forest animal, and you shut your eyes to "goats and wild goats".

You proclaim that you follow the facts, but your actions are otherwise.

I see this so often. Someone gives an intellectual reason for leaving the church. It nearly happened to me.

It is not so much belief and faith..... but patience. A knowledge that our mind can fool us. One day that reason goes away, new scientific discoveries, looking at our old assumptions, maturity. But we are stuck with our disbelief, and so our mind searches for other excuses. Or we simply ignore the evidence before us that we were wrong.

There are many who are upset with my posts, it's because I mock their smugness, the sense of intellectual superiority, when it is very clear that we are all equals in intelligence and knowledge.

The difference is that we do not throw away our salvation for a mess of pottage.

Edited June 15, 2011 by cdowis

[Questing Beast]

And your study has clearly lead you to the conclusion that JS was the author of the BOM.

"Clearly", I am going to quibble over your use of that word. Nothing about the origins of Mormonism is "clear".

But you have tied yourself so closely to that conclusion that you cannot allow contrary facts to spoil your comfortable position.

"Comfortable"! Not even a little bit.

I pointed out a verse where Nephi tells us that there was ox and domesticated goats, and you found it so uncomfortable that you cannot even admit that JS, as a farmer, would know that an ox is not a wild forest animal, and you shut your eyes to "goats and wild goats".

Had you merely pointed this out, and left off with the snide delivery, I would have said then what I will say now:

Joseph Smith can be a farmer involved with "oxen and cows and goats" and still not be versed in the correct, specific terminology of the wild varieties. It doesn't matter. "The goat and the wild goat" refers to different species; the kind that is domesticated and the kind that is hunted in the wilderness. Obviously not all varieties of goat were domesticated by the Lehites. And of the bovines that they found in the forests/wilderness, they domesticated both oxen and cows. The picture given us by the text of 1 Nephi is a wilderness, a forestland, devoid of human beings. The BoM never specifically mentions "others". They are only implied, and the asserted activities of the Lehites make "others" absolutely necessary in order for the BoM to keep from being relegated to the status of a badly conceived fantasy.

You proclaim that you follow the facts, but your actions are otherwise.

You mean my words are otherwise. You don't know my actions.

I see this so often. Someone gives an intellectual reason for leaving the church. It nearly happened to me.

I haven't left the Church. Tonight, in fact, I go to the stake presidency to get the second half of my temple recommend interview.

As I have said many times already, when we write in response to what others have said we are writing/responding FIRST to ourselves; we are talking to ourselves. In other words, Hugh Nibley was fighting his whole life against a strong impulse to disbelieve.

It is not so much belief and faith..... but patience. A knowledge that our mind can fool us. One day that reason goes away, new scientific discoveries, looking at our old assumptions, maturity. But we are stuck with our disbelief, and so our mind searches for other excuses. Or we simply ignore the evidence before us that we were wrong.

That process is always a two-way street; toward belief or away from it toward a different belief. We always believe something. The more we learn the more complicated it gets. I have respect for anyone who remains open to learning, no matter what that might be. And I have other feelings for people who simply deny, shout even, and refuse to listen to anything that looks the least bit confrontational.

There are many who are upset with my posts, it's because I mock their smugness, the sense of intellectual superiority, when it is very clear that we are all equals in intelligence and knowledge.

The difference is that we do not throw away our salvation for a mess of pottage.

It was your mockery that I reacted to before, not the contents. You are not mocking here, and you draw me out.

If you are determined to never lie to yourself then you have nothing to fear. No matter how long the course takes you, the outcome is going to be a good one. If, on the other hand, you ARE one of those who never wanted any of it to be true in the first place, i.e. you are a disbeliever, then that is what you will be looking for and you will leave the Church, perhaps all religion, and resort to your true nature. Some people really do have to stuff themselves with pottage and wallow in the mire and rant and kick against the pricks before they will come to themselves and see the truth about "God" and why they exist. Nothing anyone can say will divert them from this destiny if it is the only way that they will learn what Joy is and is not.

We are not all "equals" in intelligence and knowledge. Not at any time. It is the comparing to others that is counter-productive. The only comparison should be to yourself. The parable of The Talents illustrates this clearly: no matter how many or few your talents, if you magnify them that's all that counts: if you have all the talent in the world and do nothing with it, you are a miserable failure until you repent; and the person with one lowly talent who perfects it is light years ahead of the mega-talented person who does nothing....

[cinepro]

Oh so phrases like "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," can only be used fill in gaps by desperate LDS trying to justify failed DNA evidence.... In reality, they should be ignored?

JMS

Actually jskains, Jacob 1 does more damage to the "others" argument than you might have seen.

Here is what it says:

Jacob 1:13

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.

Read Jacob 1:13 very slowly. Read each word. What is it saying?

Jacob is giving an inventory of the population in the land. He is describing the different groups of people. What are the different groups?

- Nephites

- Jacobites

- Josephites

- Zoramites

- Lamanites

- Lemuelites

- Ishmaelites

That is it. Those are the groups of people. Some are good guys, some are bad guys.

Then, in verse 14, he is saying that instead of distinguishing between the different groups of bad guys (the Lamanites and the Lemuelites), for the sake of brevity he's just going to call them "Lamanites". And the good guys are just going to be "Nephites".

But in this inventory of tribes, there is no "other" group. All the people are part of groups that trace themselves back to on of the original Lehites.

You can, of course, take the idea of "others" and force that into the text ("Oh, the 'others' were part of the different Lehite groups by this time so they wouldn't be mentioned separately") but that's different than the book actually providing evidence for the "others"; it's actually doing the opposite.

[cdowis]

Actually jskains, Jacob 1 does more damage to the "others" argument than you might have seen.

How interesting. Let's see what you got.

Here is what it says:

Read Jacob 1:13 very slowly. Read each word. What is it saying?

Just a moment. Gotta put on some chapstick.

Jacob is giving an inventory of the population in the land. He is describing the different groups of people. What are the different groups?

Hmm.. very clever, but I detect a tiny flaw in your analysis.

Let's take a look at that word "group". Is one person a group. How about two.

We have one person by the name of Zoram. Can you tell us about his wife? Was it a Nephite, and if so does a Nephite wife count in the Nephites, or as a Zoramite.

What if he marries an "other". What group does she now belong in. And her relatives who join with them within the same village and closely associate with Zoram and his wife. Indeed, it is very possible that Zoram married several wives, with their associated families. So we now have a "Zoram" group, not consisting of one individual, but many wives and their associated "other" families.

That is the flaw in your logic. You are ignoring the fact that individual and entire families can be ADOPTED into a family, can associate with one group or another, and call themselves according to the head person of that group.

Zoram and his families and relatives decide to become friendly to the Nephites, so they are now Nephites, as Jacob tells us. The individual guy Zoram, his "other" relatives now become the Zoramites, and then Nephites.

But wait.. it gets even worse.

Jacob tells us that the Lamanites significantly outnumber the Nephites. How is that possible if the Nephites are practicing polygamy, and the Lamanites have one wife. Where are those "many" Lamanites coming from relative to the Nephites? And if they have many wars, who are the warriors -- small children? Because they have been more successful in having the others, adults and their families, to join together with them. Thru alliances they formally become known as Lamanites and there are lots of them. More than those polygamous Nephites.

Now let's get back to the basics. How many individuals came with Lehi, et al, across the ocean? And that group divides itself into **two groups. Now imagine that tiny group with their now married children are listening to Jacob. How many are there in that audience are husbands, and their wives?

Jacob certainly gives me the impression that he is speaking to a large group, but maybe that's just me. Maybe there are only five or ten, and somehow each of them were able to find ten or twenty women to marry from among the Nephites.

snip

But in this inventory of tribes, there is no "other" group. All the people are part of groups that trace themselves back to on of the original Lehites.

You are making the unproven assumtion that a Zoramite was directly descended from Zoram, etc. A group is an affiliation which may or may not be directly related by blood.

They are **adopted** into that group.

You can, of course, take the idea of "others" and force that into the text ("Oh, the 'others' were part of the different Lehite groups by this time so they wouldn't be mentioned separately") but that's different than the book actually providing evidence for the "others"; it's actually doing the opposite.

Or you can blindly ignore that "others" are required throughout the text of the BOM, and the archeology of the region. You ignore the law of adoption.

Edited June 15, 2011 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

It would be easier if you used the quote feature as intended. Your interlinear comments do not show up when we reply to your messages.

cdowis sed:

> We have one person by the name of Zoram. Can you

> tell us about his wife? Was it a Nephite, and if

> so does a Nephite wife count in the Nephites,

> or as a Zoramite.

We don't know how many wives Zoram had, but we do know his first (Nephite) wife was Nephi's cousin.

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.

Lehi

Edited June 15, 2011 by LeSellers

[cinepro]

We have one person by the name of Zoram. Can you tell us about his wife? Was it a Nephite, and if so does a Nephite wife count in the Nephites, or as a Zoramite.

What if he marries an "other". What group does she now belong in. And her relatives who join with them within the same village and closely associate with Zoram and his wife. Indeed, it is very possible that Zoram married several wives, with their associated families. So we now have a "Zoram" group, not consisting of one individual, but many wives and their associated "other" families.

You are ignoring the fact that individual and entire families can be ADOPTED into a family, can associate with one group or another, and call themselves according to the head person of that group.

Zoram and his families and relatives decide to become friendly to the Nephites, so they are now Nephites, as Jacob tells us. The individual guy Zoram, his "other" relatives now become the Zoramites, and then Nephites.

Jacob tells us that the Lamanites significantly outnumber the Nephites. How is that possible if the Nephites are practicing polygamy, and the Lamanites have one wife. Where are those "many" Lamanites coming from relative to the Nephites? And if they have many wars, who are the warriors -- small children? Because they have been more successful in having the others, adults and their families, to join together with them. Thru alliances they formally become known as Lamanites and there are lots of them. More than those polygamous Nephites.

Now let's get back to the basics. How many individuals came with Lehi, et al, across the ocean? And that group divides itself into **two groups. Now imagine that tiny group with their now married children are listening to Jacob. How many are there in that audience are husbands, and their wives?

Jacob certainly gives me the impression that he is speaking to a large group, but maybe that's just me. Maybe there are only five or ten, and somehow each of them were able to find ten or twenty women to marry from among the Nephites.

You are making the unproven assumtion that a Zoramite was directly descended from Zoram, etc. A group is an affiliation which may or may not be directly related by blood.

I'm more than willing to allow your interpretation to stand against my reading. Especially if we're willing to be judged based on the number of "assumptions".

Or you can blindly ignore that "others" are required throughout the text of the BOM, and the archeology of the region. You ignore the law of adoption.

Being "required throughout the text" and the "archaeology of the region" (which region was this again?) isn't the same as being mentioned in the text.

Edited June 15, 2011 by cinepro

[cdowis]

Being "required throughout the text" and the "archaeology of the region" (which region was this again?) isn't the same as being mentioned in the text.

OK, specifically Nephi observed ox and non-wild (domesticated) goats when they landed. That sounds pretty explicit to me.

We need to remember that the large plates were used to record a detailed history, and such historical details were forbidden on the small plates. Thus, we only find hints and oblique references, but domesticated animals is pretty explicit.

[dougtheavenger]

On anther thread, someone posted:

I responded:

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

No Trace? .. I don't think so

1. Q1a3a is a Y-chromosome haplogroup found in the Middle East, India and Europe and also found in many American Indians; about 30% in the US (Hammmer 2005). This haplogroup has not been detected in East Asia or any other part of Asia that would support the Asian-Only theory of Native American origins.

2. R1b and R1a are two of the most common Y-lineages in Europe. About 13% of Native American males who believe themselves to be entirely of pre-Columbian ancestry have Y-chromosome belonging to this haplogroup. Furthermore this Native American R more closely resembles West Eurasian R than Siberian R. In fact there are some close matches in the Eastern Mediterranean. (Zegura 2004)

3. There is a high ratio or Near Eastern Y-chromosome in Latino populations that is not easy to explain. In Nicaragua, the "white" lineages have a ratio of 2 to 1 with respect to Ice Age European lineages (R1a, R1b, and I) and Near Eastern lineages (J and E1b1b) as compared to 4 to 1 in Spain. Near Eastern Lineages entered Europe in the late stone age when farmers from the Near East introduced agriculture. These Near Eastern Y-chromosomes comprize 50% of males in Greece and decline as one goes West and North in Europe. In Spain they are about 20%. In addition to these stone age agriculturalists, Near Eastern Y lineages in Spain include descendants of Jews converted to Christianity and Phoenician colonists.

Note: Maternal lineages in Europe (MtDNA) are much the same accross the continent. They consist of seven clades (H)elena, (T)ara, (K)atrina, (X)ena, (V)elda, (J)asmine, and (U)rsula.

Edited June 16, 2011 by dougtheavenger

[cinepro]

OK, specifically Nephi observed ox and non-wild (domesticated) goats when they landed. That sounds pretty explicit to me.

Nephi says they found ox and domesticated goats. Does that mean I need to invent existing native populations that are not actually mentioned, or is it more logical to assume these were left over from the Jaredites, who are specifically mentioned as having these animals?

16 And the Lord began again to take the curse from off the land, and the house of Emer did prosper exceedingly under the reign of Emer; and in the space of sixty and two years they had become exceedingly strong, insomuch that they became exceedingly rich—

17 Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things;

18 And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man.

19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

Ether 9

[cdowis]

Nephi says they found ox and domesticated goats. Does that mean I need to invent existing native populations that are not actually mentioned, or is it more logical to assume these were left over from the Jaredites, who are specifically mentioned as having these animals?

Of course, and I think they were many colonies of Jaredites scattered around, including after the destruction of the Jaredite nation.

The myth is that America was completely empty when Lehi landed. You seem to agree that this myth has been refuted, regardless of who actually lived here. Jaredites, and asians lived here prior to Lehi's landing.

Nephi does not identify them, and archeologists can only surmise their identity, so that question is unanswered.

Edited June 16, 2011 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

Nephi says they found ox and domesticated goats. Does that mean I need to invent existing native populations that are not actually mentioned, or is it more logical to assume these were left over from the Jaredites, who are specifically mentioned as having these animals?

Well, since the Jaredites were still alive when Nephi wrote about domesticated animals, you are free to take your pick.

Furthermore, it is not entirely settled that the Jaredites were wiped off the face of the earth c. 200 BC. So the animals the Nephites saw were not necessarly "left over", no matter when they saw them.

Lehi

[cinepro]

Of course, and I think they were many colonies of Jaredites scattered around, including after the destruction of the Jaredite nation.

The myth is that America was completely empty when Lehi landed. You seem to agree that this myth has been refuted, regardless of who actually lived here.

Nephi does not identify them, and archeologists can only surmise their identity, so that question is unanswered.

The problem is whether or not the Book of Mormon allows for non Jaredite, Mulekite or Lehite people. On the surface, it doesn't (which is how it has been taught by Joseph Smith and the Church for the last 180 years).

Obviously, if you feel compelled to believe in the "others" you can dig as deep as you need to make an argument. But that's what being an apologist is all about.

But if you think that Nephi saying he saw the same domesticated animals that we are told the Jaredites had previously is some sort of indicator that there were others, the argument for "others" is obviously far flimsier than I had previously thought.

Edited June 16, 2011 by cinepro

[LeSellers]

But if you think that Nephi saying he saw the same domesticated animals that we are told the Jaredites had previously is some sort of indicator that there were others, the argument for "others" is obviously far flimsier than I had previously thought.

It wasn't that the Jaredites had had them "previously": they had them right then, when Nephi saw them and worte of them.

When do you imiagine that Ether lived, anyway?

Lehi

Edited June 16, 2011 by LeSellers