Simon Southerton On Mormonstories

[cdowis]

del

Edited May 25, 2012 by cdowis

[dougtheavenger]

(I had to look up "historicity" but I'm not at all sure that Wikipedia described it with accuracy.) But your answer confuses me. Do you compartmentalize incidents described in the Bible from incidents described in the Book of Mormon? Was there no flood? Or is it the timeline you disparage?

When you talk DNA do you mean mtDNA?

The short answer to your first question is Yes. I am not particularly concerned with defending the historical accuracy of every story in the Bible. I am concerned with the historical accuracy of all stories in the Book of Mormon except for the Book of Ether which is a book of Jaredite history stuck into the BoM. Jaredite history books like American history books are subject to inaccuracies.

The answer to your second question is No. I do not mean MtDNA. I mean Y-chromosomes.

I will further add that my main objection to Southerton is that he rushed in prematurely and announced that DNA evidence support existing mainstream theories about the peopling of America. Southerton further showed bias, insisting for years that the X2 MtDNA lineage in American Indians was Post-Columbian admixture. We know now that it is not. Subsequent evidence casts serious doubts on the theories of the first human colonization of the Americas that prevailed before DNA technology came into play. Here is a short list of the problems with the mainstream theory.

1. The oldest strains of the Y-chromosome haplogroup, Q1a3, in Siberia go back 6,000 years (4500+-1500) at most using the "effective mutation rate" of 0.7/1000, and probably only 3,000 (1500+-1500) using observed mutation rates of 2.1/1000 (Weber & Wong).

2. Using observed Y-chromosome mutation rates it appears that most American Indians descend from one man who lived around 151 BC. (Underhill 1996)

3. The "effectvie mutation rate" for Y-chromosomes has met with serious failures in the field. Using this rate for Q in India indicates an entry date of between 34,000 and 75,000 years ago. However, the Q lineage is only 15,000 to 20,000 years old. Research by Brigitta Pakandorf on the Yakut expansion in Siberia found that using the "effective" rate gave a doubtful date of 3800 years ago for the Yakut expansion, but Yakuts speak a branch of Turkic that emerged only 1500 years ago. Pakendork was forced to use the fastest observed Y mutation rate of 2.8/1000 (Kayser) in order to get a date of 800 years that fit together with linquistic and historical data.

4. The one piece of hard evidence that supports an age for M3 of 10,000 years or more is a jawbone called "On Your Knees Caveman" that was found in a cave called "On Your Knees Cave". Because of laws passed by John McCain and friends, this jawbone was given into the custody of the nearest Native American tribe. A deal was cut for testing between the tribe and a group of scientists. After testing the bone was returned to the American Indians and buried in a location known only to them. The testing showed positive for M242 and M3. However, further testing would be reassuring because ancient remains have been known to give false readings. It appears that sometimes decay mimicks mutation.

5. Research into autosomal DNA showed th closest similarity between Siberian groups and American Indians that did not fit any other research. The Yakuts and Samoyeds are the most similar to American Indians in terms of autosomal DNA. This does not support other research. It only casts more confusion into the whole subject.

http://www.sjdimond....cient links.pdf

Edited May 25, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[ThePhy]

"And?"

I already made myself clear. And exactly what mistake did he make:

highest in rank

chief or head

a person taking a leading part

the head or director of a school

chief importance

Note that he did not use any of the following words:

majority, plurality, multitude.

In case you don't get it, principal has to do with leadership, rank -- qualitative terms. It has nothing to do with quantity, such as majority.

Again, where did McConkie make a mistake?

I guess we speak fundamentally different languages, even though we seem to be able to communicate this way.

When someone writes, they should always ask themselves if what they write will accurately convey the message they intend. The Book of Mormon is widely distributed, and the average Joe Blow is the reader. Take the phrase in question, but disguise it to eliminate any innate anti-Mormon bias – into something like “The red-tailed foxes are the principal ancestors of today’s brown foxes”. Ask 100 random people what that would tell them about the relationship of the red-tailed foxes and the brown foxes. Make it a multiple choice list if you like:

What did the word “principal” in the sentence about the foxes mean to you - were the red-tailed foxes the

a) highest in rank for

b) chief or head of

c) ones taking a leading part with

d) of chief importance to

or

e) the major biological lineage leading to

today’s brown foxes?

Let us know the score.

[blackstrap]

If,as post #202 indicates(part2),most Indians are decended from 1 man about 151BC,then that man would be the principal ancestor,no? And if he were a Lamanite,then what ?

[Thinking]

You seem to think that everything written or said by someone who claims to be a prophet must be absolutely correct. The church and its leaders have never claimed that, and yet that seems to be the artificial standard that critics of the church intend to hold it to. That's a very unrealistic attitude to have.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't excuse a church leader for an error (doctrinal or otherwise), then shout "bulls-eye" when he gets something right.

[ThePhy]

Southerton … his claim that Jewish heredity must be prevalent in today's descendants of native cultures if LDS claims concerning the Book of Mormon are true is basically flawed.

That is a distortion of what Southerton says about Jewish DNA in a couple of ways. First, he does not claim that it must be prevalent. He would be impressed if it were even at a minimum level to be reliably detected. And second, it is not Jewish DNA he finds lacking in Indians, it is that almost universally Indian DNA is Far Eastern DNA, not even from the Mideast locale at all.

Even if you disagree with him, at least accurately represent what Southerton really says.

[jwhitlock]

The only subjective circumstance I have discussed is the case of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon. The Mormon leaders are (as per what I have been told) the men through whom God dispenses knowledge for humanity at large. If God elects to leave something as important as the introduction to the Book of Mormon to be authored with an important detail wrong, then I wonder what the Leaders could ever talk about that we could trust as being inspired to be accurate.

This pretty much sums up your rationalization for telling us why we're wrong. Claim that something is so important that it must be totally accurate in all aspects, according to your interpretation, and then tell us that our leaders can't be trusted because you've found a "major" flaw in what they've written.

The strawman you've set up is that you'll decide what's important, and then you'll tell us how it's flawed and why it's unacceptable to view it any other way. The problem is, the introduction is not as important as the scripture. It was written according to McConkie's understanding at the time. The introduction is not the last word for any particular piece of doctrine; it's a summary. Whether or not it is perceived by you as inaccurate is irrelevant; we don't claim the introduction or the cross references or anything outside of the scripture itself to be canonized or binding.

Given everything you've posted, it is clear to me, at least, that you do expect absolute perfection out of LDS leaders in order for them to have any credibility whatsoever. If something is not totally correct in what they say, you'll ascribe the desired importance to it and then claim victory for "finding out" that LDS leaders aren't inspired at all and shouldn't be trusted - as you've so kindly noted above.

You're attacking based on a false premise. That's what Southerton is doing, and that's the same methodology you're demonstrating on this thread.

Edited May 25, 2012 by jwhitlock

[jwhitlock]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't excuse a church leader for an error (doctrinal or otherwise), then shout "bulls-eye" when he gets something right.

Then you misunderstand the flaw that is inherent in the claim being made.

Evidently, you subscribe to the "LDS leaders must be absolutely correct in everything they say or write, otherwise they aren't inspired in anything" rationalization. Is that correct?

[jwhitlock]

That is a distortion of what Southerton says about Jewish DNA in a couple of ways. First, he does not claim that it must be prevalent. He would be impressed if it were even at a minimum level to be reliably detected. And second, it is not Jewish DNA he finds lacking in Indians, it is that almost universally Indian DNA is Far Eastern DNA, not even from the Mideast locale at all.

Even if you disagree with him, at least accurately represent what Southerton really says.

Again, the only way that Southerton's claims can have any relevance is that a whole set of assumptions regarding Lehi and his group must be in place. Those assumptions are flawed - as is your statement above concerning current genetic makeup of American natives.

[Kevin Christensen]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't excuse a church leader for an error (doctrinal or otherwise), then shout "bulls-eye" when he gets something right.

Science does this all the time. The mistakes made along the way don't discredit science as a process. It's taken for granted that errors are part of the process but that the ongoing process takes care of the errors.

Our own scriptures (D&C 1) sets out the proper expectations of LDS leaders.

And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might beinstructed

And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent

And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

jwhitlock has gotten it exactly right.

As an exercise, while reading the Book of Alma, notice every place where Alma declares the sources of his knowledge and the authority of his statements. It should become clear that prophets are not sock puppets, not boxes with only one input (The Voice of God) and one output, (the Same).

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ThePhy]

… you'll decide what's important …

I don’t apologize for deciding what I think is important. You do the same, or else your brain is of no more use than a vegetable’s brain.

… and then you'll tell us how it's flawed and why it's unacceptable to view it any other way.

I will do as I have already done, I will try to make clear why I have come to the conclusions I have. Why do you want to portray that as a bad thing?

The problem is, the introduction is not as important as the scripture.

I am not laying the introduction to the Book of Mormon against the book itself as a comparison. I am saying that the introduction in and of itself, by virtue of its unique importance in introducing a sacred volume, is important.

It was written according to McConkie's understanding at the time.

Correct. But that understanding was flawed, yet that understanding was shared by almost all within Mormondom. And to correct that flaw God would not have had to speak in a booming voice to his Apostle, just inspire the minor wording adjustment that secular studies later dictated must be made. I don’t think I am being sacrilegious when I point out that it was secular science that forced the correction – a correction that God did not cause to be made prior to the error being included in the heading to a divine volume.

Whether or not it is perceived by you as inaccurate is irrelevant;…

But it’s not just me. Every soul on earth that read that heading was reading inaccurate information. Is that not relevant?

The fact that the Mormon Church made a change to eliminate the error shows someone in the church felt it was relevant. Your insistence that the erroneous introduction is a non-issue should have been directed towards your own Church.

… we don't claim the introduction or the cross references or anything outside of the scripture itself to be canonized or binding.

Not only are you saying it is not canonized, which I have not disputed, but you don’t think that it was important enough that we could trust it to be correct.

Is the standard by how you determine what is expected to be right or wrong defined strictly by whether it is within the canon itself?

… it is clear to me, at least, that you do expect absolute perfection out of LDS leaders in order for them to have any credibility whatsoever.

You have seen need to resort to this distortion of my position several times now. I have said several times that in many matters I think even God chuckles at what leaders say, because it is not something of particular import. But that flexibility on my part is not something you can sink your teeth into, so you fabricate this “demand perfection in all things” nonsense again and again. It is your integrity that is being compromised by you so doing.

[ThePhy]

Again, the only way that Southerton's claims can have any relevance is that a whole set of assumptions regarding Lehi and his group must be in place. Those assumptions are flawed - as is your statement above concerning current genetic makeup of American natives.

Of course he starts with assumptions, as does every scientist on earth. I was just pointing out that you misrepresented those assumptions.

[cdowis]

If,as post #202 indicates(part2),most Indians are decended from 1 man about 151BC,then that man would be the principal ancestor,no?

No., not according to the dictionary.

Wiki tells us

"In genetics, a founder mutation is a mutation that appears in the DNA of one or more individuals who are founders of a distinct population. Founder mutations initiate with changes that occur in the DNA and can get passed down to other generations."

He would be the "founder" of that particular DNA characteristic.

Edited May 25, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

I guess we speak fundamentally different languages, even though we seem to be able to communicate this way.

OK, so his statement is factually correct, and you demonstrate why it was necessary to modify that statement: to respond to the mindless attacks from those individuals who are ignorant of their own language.

It was a pleasure to educate you.

Edited May 25, 2012 by cdowis

[jwhitlock]

You have seen need to resort to this distortion of my position several times now. I have said several times that in many matters I think even God chuckles at what leaders say, because it is not something of particular import. But that flexibility on my part is not something you can sink your teeth into, so you fabricate this “demand perfection in all things” nonsense again and again. It is your integrity that is being compromised by you so doing.

Your posts are very clear in reflecting what I have described. You have claimed that the overall inspiration of LDS leadership should be doubted, because you have determined that God would never, under any circumstances, allow such an egregious error (as you position it) to make its way into the introduction to the Book of Mormon.

That's the strawman you have set up. It's false. It's disingenuous. And I think my analysis of your agenda is probably fairly accurate.

My integrity, as far as I'm concerned, is intact.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is the "Wiley and Sons" what prompted the mods message?

I am sure you are trolling us. This is lame.

[jwhitlock]

Of course he starts with assumptions, as does every scientist on earth. I was just pointing out that you misrepresented those assumptions.

No misrepresentation at all. I've noted that for Southerton's claims to have any relevancy, he must assume Lehi and his group were the only people here. His own reliance on urban legend, as he phrases it himself, as the foundation of his faith indicates where that assumption was coming from.

Unfortunately for him, he was chasing something that wasn't accurate. And despite attempts of enemies of the church on this thread to continue to portray urban legend as official church doctrine, it still isn't accurate.

It's been fun to see the rationalizations provided by you and others and Southerton for your attacks on the church. As far as I'm concerned, they have been thoroughly and credibly debunked. You may (and most likely will) continue to dismiss that out of hand; however, trying to make tenuous connections with the flood, or cast doubt on church leader's inspiration with the arguments shown on this thread have been rather ridiculous. If that's the best that you all have when it comes to attacking the church via DNA research, then I daresay we don't have much to worry about in that area.

[jwhitlock]

jwhitlock has gotten it exactly right.

Well, evidently there's a first time for everything...

Kevin, I enjoy your insights on things. You're one of a number of people who post here who I really enjoy reading. And to top it all off, you're a fellow Pennsylvanian!

[jwhitlock]

"And?"

I already made myself clear. And exactly what mistake did he make:

highest in rank

chief or head

a person taking a leading part

the head or director of a school

chief importance

Note that he did not use any of the following words:

majority, plurality, multitude.

In case you don't get it, principal has to do with leadership, rank -- qualitative terms. It has nothing to do with quantity, such as majority.

Again, where did McConkie make a mistake?

I think this was an excellent point, and well worth considering.

Edited May 25, 2012 by jwhitlock

[ThePhy]

Your posts are very clear in reflecting what I have described. You have claimed that the overall inspiration of LDS leadership should be doubted, because you have determined that God would never, under any circumstances, allow such an egregious error (as you position it) to make its way into the introduction to the Book of Mormon.

Your penchant for rephrasing what I say into extremes is not something I would expect from a faithful Mormon. Nor do I see much percentage in answering the same extreme distortion of my position over and over again. Maybe you enjoy it, but I see important issues that far transcend this fluff. I have made my point enough times and clearly enough that I am willing to leave the stage to you alone on this issue. I trust the readers who are interested can carefully read the exchange for themselves and determine whether or not you were accurately representing my position.

My integrity, as far as I'm concerned, is intact.

I feel the same about what I have said. But more important is what the judgment of non-involved readers tells them.

[Craig Paxton]

Southerton's conclusions have been pretty well debunked.

Ummm...still waiting for your CFR...going on three days now...guessing it won't be forthcoming...

I would sincerely suggest that you listen to all three hours of Simon’s Mormon Stories podcast, very enlightening and read his book...then you might be in a better position to know what exactly it is that he has claimed.

As I noted earlier, Mormon apologetics has moved closer to Simon's position since his book was published then away from it...because that is where the evidence points...there is no evidence of Israelite DNA among the indigenous populations of America, zero, zilch, none. And YES science does know what ancient Israelite DNA looks like…it’s just not found in the Pre-Columbian American populations. http://en.wikipedia....f_Oriental_Jews or for a good layman read http://www.thedailyb...s-children.html

In the time prior to Southerton’s book it was a popular assumption among believers that the new emerging DNA science would confirm Book of Mormon claims. Southerton’s book helped dispel this myth. But fortunately for LDS apologists…the door was left open for a much more nuanced approach to an invisible Nephite footprint…one much more limited and restricted than was understood or commonly believed within the church at the time.

Why is this important? Aren’t we all seeking the truth? Well I hope we are. Simon’s book helped dispel the belief held by the general LDS population that the Native American population were the principal descendants of Lehi. Isn’t it a good thing that believers are coming to understand that Lamanites descended from an Asian founding population and that Lehi’s impact, if any, was undetectable?

That is all he has claimed…that there is no evidence of Israelite forefathers/mothers among Native American populations…and this is what the science supports…It’s what LDS apologist admit and isn’t this something we can all agree on? With this additional information individual members can deternine whether they can continue to believe in the book or not.

Oh...and I'm still waiting for an apology...from someone...you know who you are...its ok to admit that you were wrong...

Edited May 25, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Mark Beesley]

I am sure you are trolling us. This is lame.

And it only took 11 Forum pages to figure that out. Sometimes we (speaking of the Board as a whole and not individually) can be rather slow in picking up on the stench of Troll dung.

[ThePhy]

The short answer to your first question is

…

http://www.sjdimond....cient links.pdf

Doug, though we probably differ on our opinions on Mormon theology, I still want to thank you for taking the time to post one of the more polite and, at the same time, technically relevant posts I have seen in this thread. You have given me something well worth digging into.

[thesometimesaint]

Craig Paxton:

Ummm...still waiting for your CFR...going on three days now...guessing it won't be forthcoming...

I would sincerely suggest that you listen to all three hours of Simon’s Mormon Stories podcast, very enlightening and read his book...then you might be in a better position to know what exactly it is that he has claimed.

As I noted earlier, Mormon apologetics has moved closer to Simon's position since his book was published then away from it...because that is where the evidence points...there is no evidence of Israelite DNA among the indigenous populations of America, zero, zilch, none. And YES science does know what ancient Israelite DNA looks like…it’s just not found in the Pre-Columbian American populations. http://en.wikipedia....f_Oriental_Jews or for a good layman read http://www.thedailyb...s-children.html

In the time prior to Southerton’s book it was a popular assumption among believers that the new emerging DNA science would confirm Book of Mormon claims. Southerton’s book helped dispel this myth. But fortunately for LDS apologists…the door was left open for a much more nuanced approach to an invisible Nephite footprint…one much more limited and restricted than was understood or commonly believed within the church at the time.

Why is this important? Aren’t we all seeking the truth? Well I hope we are. Simon’s book helped dispel the belief held by the general LDS population that the Native American population were the principal descendants of Lehi. Isn’t it a good thing that believers are coming to understand that so the called Lamanites descended from an Asian founding population and that Lehi’s impact, if any, was undetectable?

That is all he has claimed…that there is no evidence of Israelite forefathers/mothersamong Native American populations…and this is what the science supports…It’s what LDS apologist admit and isn’t this something we can all agree on?

Oh...and I'm still waiting for an apology...from someone...you know who you are...its ok to admit that you were wrong...

The CFR has been answered. You just don't like the answer.

I guess if you like strawmen it is entertaining. But enlightening hardly.

Unfortunately we have no clue as to what Lehite DNA looks like.

The jury is still out on the BoM population dynamics, and Southerton knows it.

Truth is fine, but personally I'm more interested in facts. I'm really not responsible for what someone else believes no matter how popular the idea is. I've never believed that there were no others in the Americas when Lehi and his family landed. Further Southerton had nothing to do with that belief. This subject is about as important as since the Bible doesn't mention Australia the Chinese didn't exist. Talk about strawmen.

You tell me. We're Vikings here before we discovered they were?

You are stretching here. All that the BoM claims is that a small group of less than 20 individuals migrated to what is now the Americas. That is it. What if any particular Lehi identifiable DNA would survive after nearly 3000 years of intermarriage is at this time unknowable.

[bcuzbcuz]

2. Using observed Y-chromosome mutation rates it appears that most American Indians descend from one man who lived around 151 BC. (Underhill 1996)

I totally agree with another poster here that the respect and quality of your replies is greatly appreciated.

I have followed your replies to other posts, among others, those listed in the "the Guardian". Again, I see your replies as courteous and detailed. I wonder, though, if you have read Underhill's article, http://hum-molgen.org/NewsGen/11-2000/000009.html "Adam and Eve Probably Never Met"?