No Mention Of "lamanites" In New Dna Essay?

[Johnnie Cake]

I liked this part of the article and find it refreshingly true:

 

"At the present time, scientific consensus holds that the vast majority of Native Americans belong to sub-branches of the Y-chromosome haplogroups C and Q¹⁴ and the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups A, B, C, D, and X, all of which are predominantly East Asian.¹⁵ But the picture is not entirely clear. Continuing studies provide new insights, and some challenge previous conclusions. For example, a 2013 study states that as much as one-third of Native American DNA originated anciently in Europe or West Asia and was likely introduced into the gene pool before the earliest migration to the Americas.¹⁶ This study paints a more complex picture than is suggested by the prevailing opinion that all Native American DNA is essentially East Asian."

 

The more I"ve considered this topic over the years, the more I realize its far too difficult to nail down direct connections.  What in modern peoples would we expect to see to draw a direct connection to Lehi?  How would we know?

What the writers of this part of the article clearly had to know but failed to disclose because it conflicted with LDS doctrine was that the early common European/west Asian DNA was from a common ancestor 24,000 years ago. The real question is why they would not be honest and share this information

[The Nehor]

What the writers of this part of the article clearly had to know but failed to disclose because it conflicted with LDS doctrine was that the early common European/west Asian DNA was from a common ancestor 24,000 years ago. The real question is why they would not be honest and share this information

 

Nope, definitely not the real question. It is just not relevant to the article.

 

I shudder to imagine the duplicity that goes on in your mind that you so easily imagine duplicity without cause in others.

[Johnnie Cake]

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.

This is only a problem if the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be...fortunately the church has 50 years before 2064 to prepare its members to view the book as metaphor, allegory and fiction

[Johnnie Cake]

Nope, definitely not the real question. It is just not relevant to the article.

I shudder to imagine the duplicity that goes on in your mind that you so easily imagine duplicity without cause in others.

. Then why conveniently fail to mention it unless of course they wanted to leave essay readers the false impression that Amerindians got their euro DNA as a result of having descended through Lehi , which would be utterly false given the 24,000 year old timeline Edited February 4, 2014 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

. Then why conveniently fail to mention it?

 

Allow me to bold the answer for you so you can catch it this time:

 

It is just not relevant to the article.

[JulieM]

Nope, definitely not the real question. It is just not relevant to the article.

 

I shudder to imagine the duplicity that goes on in your mind that you so easily imagine duplicity without cause in others.

Why can't you just discuss this without the personal insults? That does nothing for your credibility and I lose interest in reading anything you post.

[JulieM]

. Then why conveniently fail to mention it unless of course they wanted to leave essay readers the false impression that Amerindians got their euro DNA as a result of having descended through Lehi , which would be utterly false given the 24,000 year old timeline

Precisely. Anything to confuse the reader since most members here and elsewhere truly do not understand these DNA findings and what they prove about the Book of Mormon. I found this latest essay to be very deceptive.

[Johnnie Cake]

Its just not relevant to the article:

.

Not relevant? Why wouldn't information the does not support LDS claims not be relevant? Oh that's right...we wouldn't want to give members information that doesn't support LDS claims...that may cause thinking, cognitive dissonance and loss of belief. Information can be scary...we wouldn't want to share information...so let's leave the readers with a false impression

And if it's not relevant why did the writing committee even include the misleading, half truth information about euro Amerindian DNA in the essay without disclosing the full truth? Unless their purpose was to misinform and leave a false impression...

Edited February 4, 2014 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

.Not relevant? Why wouldn't information the does not support LDS claims not be relevant? Oh that's right...we wouldn't want to give members information that doesn't support LDS claims...that may cause thinking, cognitive dissonance and loss of belief. Information can be scary...we wouldn't want to share information...so let's leave the readers with a false impression

 

No, I meant "not relevant" as in "irrelevant". You know, not pertinent to what is being discussed. Perhaps this will help:

 

http://bit.ly/WZ3Adh

[The Nehor]

Why can't you just discuss this without the personal insults?

 

Boring.

 

Precisely. Anything to confuse the reader since most members here and elsewhere truly do not understand these DNA findings and what they prove about the Book of Mormon. I found this latest essay to be very deceptive.

 

And as we can see you hurl insults too. You cloak it by attacking people (the writers of this article) who are not here to defend themselves. Not sure if that makes you sneaky or cowardly. Help me out here.

[Johnnie Cake]

No, I meant "not relevant" as in "irrelevant". You know, not pertinent to what is being discussed. Perhaps this will help:

 

http://bit.ly/WZ3Adh

Then WHY did they include the fact in their essay but not tell the full story thus leaving a false impression?

[Robert F. Smith]

They are scattered and maybe no one has tried yet........Eh?

 

There is a tribe of ethnically black Africans who have claimed for years that they were desendants of the Jews and they were tested a couple of years ago and they came through with flying colors. They had heavy Jewish markers even though they are as black as any African you have ever seen. The DNA testing proved that they were indeed of Jewish descent.

 

Here's a link:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html

 

 

Actually, Israelite blood seems easy to find..........if it's there in the first place.........

Excellent point, PaleGuy.

However, there was a question and then an answer from Nehor:

Why not test THEIR DNA?

The Nehor said:

To compare to what exactly?

Edited February 4, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[The Nehor]

Then WHY did they include the fact in their essay but not tell the full story thus leaving a false impression?

 

No false impression. They stated that the Native Americans belonged to certain haplogroups. The evidence is that they do in fact come from certain haplogroups. If you can come away from that with a false impression it is probably a personal problem.

 

Of course the essay could have included more information such as the believed date the haplogroup originated in, various other haplogroups and what areas of the world they are mostly located in, a primer on the different kinds of genetic testing along with the strengths and weaknesses of each, how to tie it to genealogy studies, etc.

 

Of course if we had I have little doubt that you would have accused the Church of trying to confuse the issue with too much technical information and claimed it was an attempt at obfuscation. Nothing we do makes you happy and we like it that way.

[Johnnie Cake]

Of course the essay could have included more information such as the believed date the haplogroup originated in, various other haplogroups and what areas of the world they are mostly located in

Thank you...we're in agreement...I guess miracles do exist...

Edited February 4, 2014 by Johnnie Cake

[bdouglas]

I went on a Lamanite mission. I ate up all of those Spencer Kimball quotes and similar stuff. I was working with the pure blood of Israel. Then came the DNA testing––all of that. I was mildly troubled––but only for maybe five minutes. Lehi was promised that a "remnant" of his seed would survive. What is a remnant? A very small piece, a tiny bit––so tiny, in fact, that trying to locate it among extremely selective DNA markers 2,600 years later might be next to impossible.

[Palerider]

Excellent point, PaleGuy.

However, there was a question and then an answer from Nehor:

 

Hey Robertolini,

 

Since Jews are a part of the house of Israel (as the church claims "Lamanites" to be), I'm assuming (and I think there are genetic markers for semitic branches of ancestory IIRC) one could test for those semitic markers that would definitely be different than mongolian asian which is where the majority of Native Americans show their descent.

 

The real problem here as I see it is the huge amount of backpeddling the church has had to do in order to make their present theory work.

 

One literally (once again, as with priesthood ban, plural marrriage,etc.) has to discard all of the previous teachings of prophets (after all they're only human) that have already been quoted here regarding the singular Lamanite/Nephite colonization of the Americas and do a one-and-a-half intellectual loopdi-loop in suddenly seeing the Nephite and Lamanite populations as sooooo itybity that we can hardly even tell they were ever here. Aside from all those temples they built in Central and South America.

 

While at the same time we have to now believe (as science shows) that there were tons of people here when Lehi arrived, so much so, that no one in the BofM even thought to mention running into them.

 

Interesting that there is quite the discourse on the discovery of the people of Zarahemla by Mosiah, but no mention whatsoever of the discovery of a huge population of Native Americans already possessing the land.

 

Makes it really tough to believe you know? Really tough..........   

Edited February 4, 2014 by Palerider

[The Nehor]

Thank you...we're in agreement...

Since the only point of contention was your lamebrained accusation of sinister motives I can only assume that being in agreement means you are withdrawing said lamebrained accusation. Good for you. I think an email apologizing to the writer apologizing for your slander would be in good taste don't you?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Doubt does plague some members, who might be afraid to inquire too closely, but they are the same people as those non-Mormons who are afraid of science and its imagined consequences.  In actual fact, scientific research has enhanced belief in LDS theology and Scripture in virtually every area of inquiry in the past century or so of discovery.   We are in an enviably strong position on scientific verification of the full range of LDS assertions.

 

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.

The only so-called "apologists" who will be worried about past statements and essays on LDS Church websites will be those silly billies who believe in infalllibility, which is essentially anathema to Mormonism and always has been.  There are those LDS members who are emotionally predisposed to the need for absolutes and lack of any doubt, but they are few in number and typically immature.  Legalism gives them a false sense of security.

[Robert F. Smith]

Lot of truth here. They may have just touched the third rail.........

Just the opposite seems to me to be the case, but then, well, you know, I've been looking at all this research over the past half-century of my own experience, along with the half-century earlier, and have found marked progress in scientific knowledge validating the Mormon position across the broad range.

 

I do encounter quite a but of wishful thinking in the negative camp, but not much of substance.

[Johnnie Cake]

Since the only point of contention was your lamebrained accusation of sinister motives I can only assume that being in agreement means you are withdrawing said lamebrained accusation. Good for you. I think an email apologizing to the writer apologizing for your slander would be in good taste don't you?

My bad...For a moment I thought a nice person had actually taken over your body...oh well...guess you exercised him out...welcome back Nehor

Edited February 4, 2014 by Johnnie Cake

[Robert F. Smith]

But what then, how do you interpret this? 

 

Quote

2 Nephi 1:8-9 "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

 

...............................................  

You might want to ask how the land was empty (whole continent?) when the Jaredites and Mulekites were both living somewhere in the land (region, continent?) when II Ne 1 was being composed.  More importantly:  How does one do accurate and proper exegesis of a Scriptural text?  Answer:  Same way you interpret any non-scriptural text.

[Johnnie Cake]

Doubt does plague some members, who might be afraid to inquire too closely, but they are the same people as those non-Mormons who are afraid of science and its imagined consequences.  In actual fact, scientific research has enhanced belief in LDS theology and Scripture in virtually every area of inquiry in the past century or so of discovery.   We are in an enviably strong position on scientific verification of the full range of LDS assertions.

 

The only so-called "apologists" who will be worried about past statements and essays on LDS Church websites will be those silly billies who believe in infalllibility, which is essentially anathema to Mormonism and always has been.  There are those LDS members who are emotionally predisposed to the need for absolutes and lack of any doubt, but they are few in number and typically immature.  Legalism gives them a false sense of security.

Robert,

Could you remind us what all of that Mormon supporting science is again?

[Robert F. Smith]

"It's obvious to anyone who reads the BOM that the peoples there lived among others, and probably were a semi-distinct people, but over the centuries, interbred with those other people."

 

I disagree. I think if one were to read the BofM without the outside influence of revisionist apologists, one would come to the conclusion that the Lamanites and Nephites (and possibly one lonely mulekite) were the only civilizations existing in the Americas.

You left out the Jaredites, who had a great civilization somewhere in the Americas for thousands of years.  Some people even identify them with the Olmec.

 

The problem of how to read such a text also comes up when reading and interpreting the Bible.  Professional biblical scholars tend to come up with readings not apparent at all to the lay readers, even when not basing their conclusions on archeology or documents from neighboring cultures.  Grant Hardy and Brant Gardner seem similarly able to tease out far more information of significance from the Book of Mormon text than your average Joe Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

Nobody has tried? Your kidding right? DNA is tested in every cultural group all over the world. No Israelite blood found. 

I believe the link I just gave you proves that false.

Correct, PaleOne.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Palerider]

Just the opposite seems to me to be the case, but then, well, you know, I've been looking at all this research over the past half-century of my own experience, along with the half-century earlier, and have found marked progress in scientific knowledge validating the Mormon position across the broad range.

 

I do encounter quite a but of wishful thinking in the negative camp, but not much of substance.

 

Lots of soaring generalities here Robertolini. I'd like to see "all this research" done by numerous non-mormon scientists that validate the Mormon position. I almost feel the sun rising........