ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 This has been my understanding. It does not appear to be ALarson's and I am hoping he provides some documentation why or corrects my understanding of what he is claiming...I have not been able to find it in the references he has provided so far. Nehor stated:They do tend to be overwhelmed by time if you are interbreeding with a more numerous group with different markers. The key word here is "overwhelmed" (which is true). But they definitely DO NOT disappear. Of course descendant's DNA will not be identical. But, if someone is genealogically related they must share genetic material and most especially autosomal DNA. I don't know what else to tell you other than what I've learned through my own research, calmoriah. I find this subject to be very confusing but I do know enough to know that your DNA cannot completely change to be entirely different from one of your ancestors. With all the Native Americans to test, there would have been matches somewhere to show Jewish ancestry if they truly were descendants of Lehi.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) I was reading over the newest essay released by the church newsroom and realized they don't even use the word "Lamanites" in it. Why not? I'm struggling with this newest essay but I'm the first to admit that I have not extensively read up on all of the DNA issues with the Book of Mormon. I'm trying to become more knowledgeable about this subject. Wasn't the Book of Mormon written FOR the Lamanites? (Quote below is from the title page of the Book of Mormon): But if I understand what is in this essay, it states that the "the Book of Mormon peoples" are basically unidentifiable and that we really have no chance of figuring out who they are. Why not use the word "Lamanites" at all in this essay? Especially when it states that's exactly who the Book of Mormon was written for (along with Jew and Gentile)? I have other questions, but that's one I'd like to discuss and get some input on from others here.I've noticed a trend in recent years to get away from the term Lamanites to designate Book of Mormon peoples. When referring to those who descended from Lamanites (or the mixture of Lamanites and Nephites) "children of Lehi" or "descendants of Lehi" are just as accurate in their designation and avoid the potential negative connotation of Lamanites. The Book of Mormon uses terminology written from the perspective of prophets and writers who were looking ahead toward the fulfillment of prophecies. We today have a different perspective and word our messages accordingly. I don't get why you have a problem with that. Edited February 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
David T Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I've noticed a trend in recent years to get away from the term Lamanites to designate Book of Mormon peoples. "Children of Lehi" or "descendants of Lehi" are just as accurate in their designation and avoid the potential negative connotation of Lamanites. The Book of Mormon uses terminology written from the perspective of prophets and writers who were looking ahead toward the fulfillment of prophecies. We today have a different perspective and word our messages accordingly. I don't get why you have a problem with that. And again, by the end of the Book of Mormon, the terms 'Nephite' and 'Lamanite' had nothing to do with genetic lineage. They were markers of one's place in a covenant lineage. One was a child of Lehi just as one can be a child of Abraham, Moses, and Christ. 2
MichelleD Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I've noticed a trend in recent years to get away from the term Lamanites to designate Book of Mormon peoples. When referring to those who descended from Lamanites (or the mixture of Lamanites and Nephites) "Children of Lehi" or "descendants of Lehi" are just as accurate in their designation and avoid the potential negative connotation of Lamanites. The Book of Mormon uses terminology written from the perspective of prophets and writers who were looking ahead toward the fulfillment of prophecies. We today have a different perspective and word our messages accordingly. I don't get why you have a problem with that.I see no reason for not using the term "Lamanite" and I also wonder why it was left out of the essay. I know of several members of the church who proudly say that they are a Lamanite. It was used in the Book of Mormon and by most all of our past leaders and prophets. Why the need to change that now?
cinepro Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 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. I suspect if past Church leaders had known about the future of DNA testing and what it would (and wouldn't) tell us, they probably would have said even less. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) I see no reason for not using the term "Lamanite" and I also wonder why it was left out of the essay.I just gave you a reason: In the minds of some, it carries a negative connotation. I know of several members of the church who proudly say that they are a Lamanite. It was used in the Book of Mormon and by most all of our past leaders and prophets. Why the need to change that now? I personally don't have a problem with people using that term, if that's their preference. But by the same token, I don't see a valid reason for getting into a snit if others prefer to use some other equally accurate or more accurate term. As for being proud of one's heritage, isn't there just as much reason to be proud of being descended from Lehi as there is for being proud of being descended from Laman? Edited February 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 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.No. No. No. No. No. No. No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The tracking we use is predominantly by haplogroup. That portion of the DNA does not survive. They do not have Lehi's DNA. They have tiny bits and pieces of it if that.I was pointing out that the prophets never said Lehi's DNA would be obvious which is why I specifically said that it would not have the markers.
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 With all the Native Americans to test, there would have been matches somewhere to show Jewish ancestry if they truly were descendants of Lehi.Then the Icelandic study was wrong in demonstrating the loss of the DNA in the current population of known ancestors? (if I understand it correctly)
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I just gave you a reason: In the minds of some, it carries a negative connotation. As can be demonstrated by doing a search on "lamanite" and "racist"....
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I suspect if past Church leaders had known about the future of DNA testing and what it would (and wouldn't) tell us, they probably would have said even less. More likely they would have said more, actually. If they new the science like it is known now they'd have been far ahead of where they were. They probably would have been able to glean more information from Heavenly Father as He tried to get the numbskulls to understand his point.
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 A friend has pointed me towards a blog that appears so far to deal specifically with the question of how likely DNA will show up in descendants:http://gcbias.org/2013/11/04/how-much-of-your-genome-do-you-inherit-from-a-particular-ancestor/I will be reading for awhile as the blog seems to be rather informative about DNA research and what it can and cannot tell us. 1
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 Then the Icelandic study was wrong in demonstrating the loss of the DNA in the current population of known ancestors? (if I understand it correctly)Can you point me to this study? I looked at the essay and footnotes, but I'm missing it somehow and would love to read it. Thanks!
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) I was reading over the newest essay released by the church newsroom and realized they don't even use the word "Lamanites" in it. Why not?I'm struggling with this newest essay but I'm the first to admit that I have not extensively read up on all of the DNA issues with the Book of Mormon. I'm trying to become more knowledgeable about this subject.Wasn't the Book of Mormon written FOR the Lamanites?(Quote below is from the title page of the Book of Mormon):But if I understand what is in this essay, it states that the "the Book of Mormon peoples" are basically unidentifiable and that we really have no chance of figuring out who they are. Why not use the word "Lamanites" at all in this essay? Especially when it states that's exactly who the Book of Mormon was written for (along with Jew and Gentile)? I have other questions, but that's one I'd like to discuss and get some input on from others here.This is a big deal, the narrative under which the Church has been built upon is now changing??? Keep in mind that the title page was also taught as being a translation. Edited February 3, 2014 by Bill “Papa” Lee
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Nehor stated:They do tend to be overwhelmed by time if you are interbreeding with a more numerous group with different markers. The key word here is "overwhelmed" (which is true). But they definitely DO NOT disappear. Of course descendant's DNA will not be identical. But, if someone is genealogically related they must share genetic material and most especially autosomal DNA. I don't know what else to tell you other than what I've learned through my own research, calmoriah. I find this subject to be very confusing but I do know enough to know that your DNA cannot completely change to be entirely different from one of your ancestors. With all the Native Americans to test, there would have been matches somewhere to show Jewish ancestry if they truly were descendants of Lehi.By overwhelmed I meant it would be unidentifiable. We are all mutts. Ethnic groups have uniformity in a few areas of DNA. It is true there probably is some DNA identical to Lehi's but the reality is that in autosomal DNA we have about a snowball's chance in hell of finding it after 2600 years. That assumes we know what to look for. We don't. With haplogroup tracking we do. Autosomal gives diminishing returns. It works well within a few generations but after over 2,000 years of recombining genes there is no way. You can find similarities which indicate a potential relationship.Commercial tests offer to detect cousin relationships. Out to about third cousins the chance of detecting a cousin is high. At about fourth cousin the chance of picking up a relationship drops to about 50/50 and falls from there. Any idea what kind of cousin relationship you are looking for now? 86th or 87th cousin from my back of the napkin calculation.This is why most studies of genetic drift in the long term (Lehi qualifies) focus on Y and Mitochondrial DNA and the haplogroups you can pull from them. Unfortunately haplogroups tend to disappear if it is a small populations intermarrying with a larger one. 1
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I suspect if past Church leaders had known about the future of DNA testing and what it would (and wouldn't) tell us, they probably would have said even less.Maybe but I doubt it. It is not a loss yet. Genetic tracking like this is still in it's infancy. I expect we will see more of this later.
Buzzard Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Lot of truth here. They may have just touched the third rail.........Double edged sword. What will they say when lo and behold, they can identify a genetic marker from the Levant in 50 years?
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Can you point me to this study? I looked at the essay and footnotes, but I'm missing it somehow and would love to read it. Thanks!Remind me tonight if I haven't done it yet…too hard to do a decent search on my ipad...
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 Remind me tonight if I haven't done it yet…too hard to do a decent search on my ipad...No problem. Thanks!
Derl Sanderson Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Can you point me to this study? I looked at the essay and footnotes, but I'm missing it somehow and would love to read it. The actual study is here:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180299/ It is cited as a footnote in an essay by John Butler in support of the notion that DNA markers, can, indeed be lost. That essay is here:http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=6 It is one of a collection of essays by LDS scholars on the subject of DNA and the BOM that has been in print for 6 years now. I would certainly recommend its reading before making any final decisions about whether or not to knot your shorts on the whole DNA thing. You can get it for $13.46 on Amazon, or the entire collection can be had for free here (thanks to the money-grubbing, pray-and-pay Mormons at BYU):http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/the-book-of-mormon-and-dna-research/
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 The actual study is here:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180299/ It is cited as a footnote in an essay by John Butler in support of the notion that DNA markers, can, indeed be lost. That essay is here:http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=6 It is one of a collection of essays by LDS scholars on the subject of DNA and the BOM that has been in print for 6 years now. I would certainly recommend its reading before making any final decisions about whether or not to knot your shorts on the whole DNA thing. You can get it for $13.46 on Amazon, or the entire collection can be had for free here (thanks to the money-grubbing, pray-and-pay Mormons at BYU):http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/the-book-of-mormon-and-dna-research/Thank you Derl. I'll look these up and read them. (And, no knots in my shorts....I no longer believe that the Book of Mormon is historically factual, but I do believe it is inspired scripture...so the DNA stuff is interesting and only confirms what I already believed.)
Nemesis Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Stay on topic and stop board nannying or people will start getting banned from the thread.Nemesis
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The actual study is here:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180299/ It is cited as a footnote in an essay by John Butler in support of the notion that DNA markers, can, indeed be lost. That essay is here:http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=6 It is one of a collection of essays by LDS scholars on the subject of DNA and the BOM that has been in print for 6 years now. I would certainly recommend its reading before making any final decisions about whether or not to knot your shorts on the whole DNA thing. You can get it for $13.46 on Amazon, or the entire collection can be had for free here (thanks to the money-grubbing, pray-and-pay Mormons at BYU):http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/the-book-of-mormon-and-dna-research/Bless you…I have company showing up sometime tomorrow and have bathrooms to clean...
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Double edged sword. What will they say when lo and behold, they can identify a genetic marker from the Levant in 50 years? And that would be a problem because? 1
theplains Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 No, because knowing there are Lamanites does not mean you know which are which. D&C 32:2 says, "And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites". D&C 54:8,"And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites". They knew who the Lamanites were otherwise they would not know where to go or be able toidentify a geographic region. The word "Nephite" might also disappear from an essay too so as not to bring attention to themissing "Lamanite". Regards,Jim
The Nehor Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 D&C 32:2 says, "And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites". D&C 54:8,"And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites". They knew who the Lamanites were otherwise they would not know where to go or be able toidentify a geographic region. The word "Nephite" might also disappear from an essay too so as not to bring attention to themissing "Lamanite". Regards,Jim I am not trying to limit the term. I think it can be applied to every native American. I also suspect that virtually all native Americans are descended from Lehi to a greater or lesser degree.
Recommended Posts