ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 It was kept from the knowledge of other nations. There were no colonization efforts from overseas at the time. No Old World civilizations coming in force to explore, exploit, or conquer. The proviso is that those who would come to the land would be led by God. The Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites were. There may very well have been others. I expect there were.Then you disagree with what Holland states here (bolded part)? "The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfilment of God’s special purposes. With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first..."
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Hi calmoriah! That's very interesting. Have you had your DNA tested?You didn't answer my question, you first...Another one that doesn't need to be answered first...given that the Jewish line is through both sons and daughters, does anyone expect his DNA markers (if we had his to test which we don't) showing up in me? If yes, can you please explain why.PS: silly me, the Icelandic study is referenced in the church article...that's what I get for just skimming it. See footnote 24 for the reference.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 CFR please... I'll give you a link about autosomal DNA. If someone is genealogically related (such as Lehi and the Lamanites), they have to share genetic material such as autosomal DNA. http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Then you disagree with what Holland states here (bolded part)? "The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfilment of God’s special purposes. With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first..."So is this an argument not so much about DNA but about a limited or hemispheric geography?Do you agree that if Lehi's group encountered others here first and were a small group mixing with a larger one, the possibility of loss of DNA markers exist? (but your argument is that this is not what is claimed of the BoM by modern prophets)I don't think it helps to argue several issues at once because some may be agreed upon and others not and yet this may not be apparent in the conversation. Better to isolate the main issue...and deal with the arguments one at a time.
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) I'll give you a link about autosomal DNA. If someone is genealogically related (such as Lehi and the Lamanites), they have to share genetic material such as autosomal DNA. http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNACan you point to this claim...so far I have found this" You should also test your siblings because they will inherit part of your parents' DNA that you don't carry....Your uncles and aunts will inherit part of your grandparents' DNA that your parents don't have."If I didn't have any uncles or aunts, wouldn't this DNA of my grandparents be lost? If I didn't have siblings, what would happen to that DNA in my parents' descendants? Edited February 3, 2014 by calmoriah
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 Can you point to this claim...so far I have found this"Your uncles and aunts will inherit part of your grandparents' DNA that your parents don't have."If I didn't have any uncles or aunts, wouldn't this DNA be lost?The key words here are "part of". You'd still share genetic markers. If you had no uncles and aunts? Then you'd still inherit markers from your grandparents or parents showing a match for both.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Then you disagree with what Holland states here (bolded part)? "The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfilment of God’s special purposes. With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first..." I don't agree or disagree. I don't know. I would not be surprised if the Jaredites came first. I would have no problem with God leading other people there first. I also have no problem with the Jaredites being first and then there being a Bering Strait migration or some intrepid explorers being led by God across the ocean and settling there. There could be no other migrations. There might have been dozens. 1
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 ALarson, are you claiming that all ancestors will show up in someone's DNA? That is if we had the DNA from all greats of the 20th generation back, that we would be able to match each of the theoretically 2 to the 20th ancestors to that descendant? (theoretically because there are usually overlapping lines if one goes back some, such as both my husband and I share an ancestor so my children are 2 to the 6th minus 1 for that generation of grandparents if I have my math right).
cinepro Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) If I were trying to defend the Church's claims against "DNA" evidence, I wouldn't be worried about what current DNA testing can tell us. I would be worried about what DNA testing will be telling us 50 years from now. Does anyone think they can come up with a theory of Book of Mormon populations that can withstand the science of 2064, or 3014? Because as long as Book of Mormon apologetics is a dance with science, science will be the one leading, and the Church will be spending its time trying to keep up and not get their toes stepped on. And apologists will be forever looking at past statements (and essays on the Church website) and telling us how mistaken they were. Edited February 3, 2014 by cinepro 3
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The key words here are "part of". You'd still share genetic markers. If you had no uncles and aunts? Then you'd still inherit markers from your grandparents or parents showing a match for both.So going back 20 generations, I have markers from all my greats at that level in your belief?
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 So going back 20 generations, I have markers from all my greats at that level in your belief?It's not just my belief. That's been proven by the experts (who are way over my head but I do understand their conclusions).
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 If I were trying to defend the Church's claims against "DNA" evidence, I wouldn't be worried about what current DNA testing can tell us. I would be worried about what DNA testing will be telling us 50 years from now. Does anyone think they can come up with a theory of Book of Mormon populations that can withstand the science of 2064, or 3014? Because as long as Book of Mormon apologetics is a dance with science, science will be the one leading, and the Church will be spending it's time trying to keep up and not get their toes stepped on. And apologists will be forever looking at past statements (and essays on the Church website) and telling us how mistaken they were. Lot of truth here. They may have just touched the third rail.........
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 IMO, what it comes down to is who we believe the Lamanites are. We can either change what we've believed in the past (at least for me), or we can believe there are Lamanites alive today who were descendants of Lehi (to perform DNA testing on). It doesn't matter if we actually have Lehi's DNA....we've been told repeatedly that the Native Americans are Lehi's "sons and daughters" by past and current Prophets. They are available to run DNA tests on, right? Many are saying that they now believe these past statements by our leaders are wrong. If that's the case, then it makes sense that the DNA testing wouldn't show a match. I'm trying to come to terms with that reasoning. At least this is where I'm at. I'm going to discuss this again this evening with some church members and see where they're at now too.
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) It's not just my belief. That's been proven by the experts (who are way over my head but I do understand their conclusions).Please give me a reference as this appears not to agree." The further back you go, the smaller the percentage of autosomal DNA you will have inherited from each individual in that generation, and the chance element means that the amount of DNA you inherit from your different ancestors is very variable. The All My Ancestry test will reveal your recent ancestral mix - showing the percentage of your autosomal DNA that has come from different continents."http://www.irelandsdna.com/products/all-my-ancestryIf the farther back I go, the smaller the percentage, eventually it seems likely to me some ancestors go missing as I believe was shown in the Icelandic study. Edited February 3, 2014 by calmoriah
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 IMO, what it comes down to is who we believe the Lamanites are. We can either change what we've believed in the past (at least for me), or we can believe there are Lamanites alive today who were descendants of Lehi (to perform DNA testing on). It doesn't matter if we actually have Lehi's DNA....we've been told repeatedly that the Native Americans are Lehi's "sons and daughters" by past and current Prophets. They are available to run DNA tests on, right? Many are saying that they now believe these past statements by our leaders are wrong. If that's the case, then it makes sense that the DNA testing wouldn't show a match. I'm trying to come to terms with that reasoning. At least this is where I'm at. I'm going to discuss this again this evening with some church members and see where they're at now too.I am not sure I understand...a match to what if we don't have Lehi's DNA?
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 If I were trying to defend the Church's claims against "DNA" evidence, I wouldn't be worried about what current DNA testing can tell us. I would be worried about what DNA testing will be telling us 50 years from now. Does anyone think they can come up with a theory of Book of Mormon populations that can withstand the science of 2064, or 3014? Because as long as Book of Mormon apologetics is a dance with science, science will be the one leading, and the Church will be spending it's time trying to keep up and not get their toes stepped on. And apologists will be forever looking at past statements (and essays on the Church website) and telling us how mistaken they were. How else does the science evolve without questioning our conclusions today? 1
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 IMO, what it comes down to is who we believe the Lamanites are. We can either change what we've believed in the past (at least for me), or we can believe there are Lamanites alive today who were descendants of Lehi (to perform DNA testing on). It doesn't matter if we actually have Lehi's DNA....we've been told repeatedly that the Native Americans are Lehi's "sons and daughters" by past and current Prophets. They are available to run DNA tests on, right? Many are saying that they now believe these past statements by our leaders are wrong. If that's the case, then it makes sense that the DNA testing wouldn't show a match. I'm trying to come to terms with that reasoning. At least this is where I'm at. I'm going to discuss this again this evening with some church members and see where they're at now too. It would be pretty funny if Lehi's DNA was none other than resembling what is expected of Ancient Far easterners.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 I am not sure I understand...a match to what if we don't have Lehi's DNA?If we are to believe our Prophets, we do have Lehi's DNA in the living Native Americans. We have been told over and over again that the Indians or Native Americans are "sons and daughters of Lehi" and are those "people in the Book of Mormon".
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 So going back 20 generations, I have markers from all my greats at that level in your belief? You probably (though not certainly) do but the certainty grows less with each generation you go back. It also becomes less likely that we can identify what those markers are. If your 20th great grandfather had Jewish markers it would be something of a toss up whether we could tell. Most of our tracing of ethnicity comes from DNA mutations that were passed down. They are distinctive and help to track population groups. They do tend to be overwhelmed by time if you are interbreeding with a more numerous group with different markers. 1
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 You probably (though not certainly) do but the certainty grows less with each generation you go back. It also becomes less likely that we can identify what those markers are. If your 20th great grandfather had Jewish markers it would be something of a toss up whether we could tell. Most of our tracing of ethnicity comes from DNA mutations that were passed down. They are distinctive and help to track population groups. They do tend to be overwhelmed by time if you are interbreeding with a more numerous group with different marker Do you have an example in mind? That is interesting sounding.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 If we are to believe our Prophets, we do have Lehi's DNA in the living Native Americans. We have been told over and over again that the Indians or Native Americans are "sons and daughters of Lehi" and are those "people in the Book of Mormon". (Bangs head against wall repeatedly) I am not taking the name of the Lord in vain. This is an actual prayer. The prophets have NEVER said we have Lehi's DNA in his descendants. More specifically that we have the DNA carrying the mutation we use to identify haplogroups. No prophetic promise that the DNA would be guided by God to preserve Jewish markers in their junk DNA. They said they were descendants. That's it. Finito. 1
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 If I were trying to defend the Church's claims against "DNA" evidence, I wouldn't be worried about what current DNA testing can tell us. I would be worried about what DNA testing will be telling us 50 years from now. Way ahead of you. Calling it. Cureloms are Enochians who came back to earth to have children with the Jaredites. Lamanites have curelom DNA.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Do you have an example in mind? That is interesting sounding. Look up haplogroups to start. Those are the groupings usually used to trace migration patterns. For more reading there are three main tracking types Y- chromosome DNA (paternal), mitochondrial DNA (maternal) and Autosomal DNA tests. If you have some spare cash you can get the tests done by mail.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) The prophets have NEVER said we have Lehi's DNA in his descendants. You need a prophet to tell you this? Seriously? It's not enough that we have quote after quote from Prophets telling us the Indians and Native Americans are descendants of Lehi...."Sons and daughters of Lehi"? Are you saying that unless the Prophets specifically tell us that Lehi's "sons and daughters" have his DNA, they magically or miraculously won't have it? Wow....ok. Edited February 3, 2014 by ALarson
Recommended Posts