Dna Vs The Mesoamerican Limited Geography

[ALarson]

Here is the most recent blog entry from Simon Southerton.  I'm still reading it and trying to look up different sources that he includes.  I'd love to read others input and discussion on this as it is a topic that I'm currently very interested in.  

 

Here's the link:

 

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2014/02/lose-limited-geography.html

[thesometimesaint]

Here is the most recent blog entry from Simon Southerton.  I'm still reading it and trying to look up different sources that he includes.  I'd love to read others input and discussion on this as it is a topic that I'm currently very interested in.  

 

Here's the link:

 

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2014/02/lose-limited-geography.html

 

The Church makes no claim as to the DNA of the peoples in the Book of Mormon. Individual members are free to research and study to the best of their abilities as long as they make no claims to speak for the Church.

 

As to Mr. Southerton's claims. The Book of Mormon does not claim the Lehites were Jews, quite the opposite the Jews sought Lehi's death.

[Anteojito]

Lehi was from the tribe of Joseph so technically he would not have been a Jew (tribe of Juda), but since Joseph and Juda had the same dad, they would have DNA in common right?

[ALarson]

Wasn't Lehi a Jew of the tribe of Manasseh?

[Gray]

They're all Hebrews

[Anteojito]

Wasn't Lehi a Jew of the tribe of Manasseh?

Manasseh was one of Joseph's sons

[stemelbow]

meh....

 

It seems Southerton still assumes there is no possible way others weren't heavily mixed in by 46 B.C.  But after Jacob we get little history of the Nephites until Mosiah, and we get absolutely no history of the Lamanites.  It simply doesn't matter if later others suggest they are of pure Nephite blood or not.  They may not even know that.  They may be greatly mistaken.  It's possible many others crept into each society without much notice at all.  By 46 BC the actual DNA of the Nephite group could have been mostly made up of "other" DNA.  2,000 years later who knows what exactly went on with these people?  How could we possibly trace them without making large leaps of assumptions? 

 

I just think it's far harder to disprove things, as Southerton seems to have taken up the mantle to do, then to question if the assumptions put into the criticisms holds water.

[ALarson]

Manasseh was one of Joseph's sons

Agreed.  (I think we posted at the close to the same time....I wasn't responding to your post...).

[thesometimesaint]

meh....

 

It seems Southerton still assumes there is no possible way others weren't heavily mixed in by 46 B.C.  But after Jacob we get little history of the Nephites until Mosiah, and we get absolutely no history of the Lamanites.  It simply doesn't matter if later others suggest they are of pure Nephite blood or not.  They may not even know that.  They may be greatly mistaken.  It's possible many others crept into each society without much notice at all.  By 46 BC the actual DNA of the Nephite group could have been mostly made up of "other" DNA.  2,000 years later who knows what exactly went on with these people?  How could we possibly trace them without making large leaps of assumptions? 

 

I just think it's far harder to disprove things, as Southerton seems to have taken up the mantle to do, then to question if the assumptions put into the criticisms holds water.

 

IOW We don't know what to look for, where to look, or how to look for it. But Southerton, and his sycophants, want to demagogue the issue anyway. 

[ALarson]

IOW We don't know what to look for, where to look, or how to look for it. 

I honestly do not understand this type of reasoning.  

 

Why wouldn't we know where to look for these groups?  Are you saying it's because of the disagreements over the geography of the Book of Mormon?  But can't that at least be narrowed down to just a few possibilities?  Maybe I'm just very naive about all of this.

[thesometimesaint]

I honestly do not understand this type of reasoning.  

 

Why wouldn't we know where to look for these groups?  Are you saying it's because of the disagreements over the geography of the Book of Mormon?  But can't that at least be narrowed down to just a few possibilities?  Maybe I'm just very naive about all of this.

I wouldn't say you are naive. At best it would be like looking for a particular needle in a haystack sized stack of needles.

 

The Church claims no specific location for the Book of Mormon events. What the Church says is it happened somewhere in the America's. That's a pretty big hemisphere.

 

I personally believe it was in Mesoamerica. But; We have some that believe it was in the finger lakes region of upstate New York. We have some that it was in the Mound Builders area of Ohio. We have some that believe it was in the Amazon basin of Brazil. We have some that believe it was the Inca's of South America. Some believe it was the entirety of the American Continents. Lord only knows where else some members believe it was, because I sure don't.

[teddyaware]

The Church makes no claim as to the DNA of the peoples in the Book of Mormon. Individual members are free to research and study to the best of their abilities as long as they make no claims to speak for the Church.

 

As to Mr. Southerton's claims. The Book of Mormon does not claim the Lehites were Jews, quite the opposite the Jews sought Lehi's death.

Are you saying the Jews of the Bible would never kill other Jews but only prophets from the other tribes of Israel? The Lord's crucifixion alone refutes this idea. Perhaps I missed your point?

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying the Jews of the Bible would never kill other Jews but only prophets from the other tribes of Israel? The Lord's crucifixion alone refutes this idea. Perhaps I missed your point?

 

I think you misunderstood the Jews weren't particular which prophet they persecuted.

[Tiki]

Here is the most recent blog entry from Simon Southerton.  I'm still reading it and trying to look up different sources that he includes.  I'd love to read others input and discussion on this as it is a topic that I'm currently very interested in.  

 

Here's the link:

 

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2014/02/lose-limited-geography.html

Southerton, who is of no significance, arguing against a fallacy, the LGT, leads to nowhere.

All the DNA statements made by LGT apologists were in defense of their LGT, which is a fallacy.

The LGT apologists believe Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about when it came to geography, which Southerton would also agree with, since Southerton is an apostate.

[erdoch]

Southerton of course fails to point out the limitations of the Hellenthal "Genetic Atlas" study. As has been mentioned on this board before, the FAQ of the website accompanying this study states: "Problems become trickier if (1) more than one admixture event took place in the ancestry of a sample, (2) the contribution of a source population was very small (below 5%), (3) if the admixture was old and (4) if the admixing sources were very similar. More details are presented in the supplement of our paper." 

 

#1-3 (though not #4) are arguably very relevant in considering Book of Mormon historicity. 

 

I think Southerton raises an important question for synchronizing the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerican history however: "The Maya were already well on the road to developing complex civilisations by 800BCE. Why would they hand over the reigns to a small band of Semites who they vastly outnumbered? Why would they adopt Lehite names, and familial hatreds and carry on a pointless 1000 year-long brotherly feud?"

 

According to the Sorenson model, Kaminaljuyu was the city of Nephi and thus likely the area where Nephi reigned as king - and Lamanites later conquered. Kaminaljuyu's history fits nicely with the Book of Mormon - its apogee as the greatest city of the southern Maya area during the Miraflores period 400-100 BC fits the Book of Mormon exactly. But it would not have been an insignificant city by the time Lehi arrived ca. 587 BC - so how indeed did the Nephi become king over the area and how indeed did the Lamanites gain ascendancy over yet others? I'm not sure if any LDS scholars or apologists have addressed this point directly - perhaps because the answer is, we simply don't know. John L. Sorenson, in Mormon's Codex p. 563, only briefly states: "The tiny but culturally more advanced Nephite lineage would have dominated the locals they [sic] as they encountered, following a Mesoamerican pattern in which intruding lineages of foreigners become lords over local people." 

 

If anybody has any proposals concerning this specific point I'd be interested. Perhaps Brant Gardner will address the question in his upcoming book?

[thesometimesaint]

I think it was a much smaller introduction. Twenty people at best. With about half of that group quickly intermarrying with the indigenous population. The genetic Nephites would have quite quickly disappeared till it was purely a religio-political designation like Christian American.

[knowone]

Wasn't Lehi a Jew of the tribe of Manasseh?

 

not at all.  especially when the new dna evidence shows that the modern day jews are not from the tribe of judah, but that they are mostly converts.  the word jew did not even exist until around 580bc, when they returned to israel.  thats when the torah was invented & modern judaism.  thats why jesus kept saying many times in the new testament 'you are not my sheep'. & it shows this mix up as well in the old testament when judahs blood line was shown to have 2 lines right in the middle of jacobs blessing.  one child was born first with a crimson thread, but the 2nd child was born first.  this, in my opinion shows that juddah is just as lost as the other tribes.  in my opinion, the 2 known tribes are simion & benjamin & Jesus is of benjamin.  thats the irony when they placed the marker 'king of the jews' on the cross for him.  the irony being that neither the modern day jews or Jesus were jews, i.e. from judah.  somewhere i read once, that Jehovah promised to keep benjamin with judah, so that there would always be a tiny light with them.

 

so saying any tribe is jew is a misnomer.  check out the book, the thirteenth tribe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe

 

or the invention of the jewish people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People

 

these are modern day jews pointing out the dna evidence that shows that modern day 'jews' have as much hebrew blood as most everyone on earth.  this would be a big surprise, that Jesus is doing, so that we all are part of the 12 tribes of israel.

 

there is a big anti-zionism movement happening in israel because people are tired of the lies of who they are.  most modern day jews are almost certainly ashkenazi jews...who were converts.  then 2 theories after this.  that the ashkenazi jews are from esau, which became the edomites which converted OR that they are from herods people (king herod & the baby killings) who converted.

 

the only evidence i know specifically done with dna & natives are the apaches had blood drawn & dna sequenced.  the results were that they only contained 3% 'jewish' blood, which was within the boundary of jewish blood mixing in after columbus.  the dna experts, alas, are not experts in the history of israel, so they used the term 'jew' generically, not understanding that the baseline for jewish ancestory is, in itself, incorrect.

 

i suspect everyone has a minimum of %3 hebrew blood. 

[Calm]

Calling volgadon.

[Brant Gardner]

I think Southerton raises an important question for synchronizing the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerican history however: "The Maya were already well on the road to developing complex civilisations by 800BCE. Why would they hand over the reigns to a small band of Semites who they vastly outnumbered? Why would they adopt Lehite names, and familial hatreds and carry on a pointless 1000 year-long brotherly feud?"

 

 

If anybody has any proposals concerning this specific point I'd be interested. Perhaps Brant Gardner will address the question in his upcoming book?

 

 

I just saw this. First, Southerton makes the mistake of assuming that Nephites must be equal to Maya at all times. That is certainly incorrect. With a smaller group entering a larger group, one does not expect a vast change in the overall material culture, nor to the entire group that is called Maya (much like having Brigham and the the early Saints in Utah didn't alter anything in the rest of the US, even though they spoke the same language). 

 

The next issue is where I differ from Sorenson. I don't think Nephites dominated anyone. There weren't enough of them. However, I think that there were some economic reasons for affiliating with Nephi and accepting his leadership (and I do think that the economics were more important than politics at the early stage). This "domination" that might be claimed because Nephi was made king applied to a single city, not the entire people who were understood as Maya. So Southerton's argument is based on misunderstanding the nature of the actual historical issue or any information on how groups might merge.

[knowone]

Here is the most recent blog entry from Simon Southerton.  I'm still reading it and trying to look up different sources that he includes.  I'd love to read others input and discussion on this as it is a topic that I'm currently very interested in.  

 

Here's the link:

 

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2014/02/lose-limited-geography.html

 

i read the first part, but cant read further.  its simply that there were many peoples brought to the new world.  just look at modern tv shows on history channel.  they are playing ancient aliens & america unearthed like crazy these days.  simply put, there is hard eviddence the early gauls, sumerians, vikings, italians, etc, etc were populated in america.  the bom only deals with 3 or 4 groups of people out of the dozens that were led here.  even joseph smith had a vision of a room of many records of peoples, as well as the search for the tayos cave in ecuador that had hundreds of plates, crystal implements & animal statues by the score.

 

we also know the promise the Lord gave, that insomuch as they would keep His commandments, He would protect them.  it is mentioned both nephites & lamanites became wicked, nephites were destroyed then there were the lamanites which we have no record of religious speaking.  we do however have archeological records of them being destroyed by vikings in the norrtheast, by the aztecs in the southwest & about a dozen other different ways one could imagine.

 

during all my search in science, physics & archeology, i know i would never find evidence of God.  which is what He promised.  but i always found it interesting that i continue to find how He covered up his mysterious works.  in this case, he knew dna would come along, so he had other peoples mix in at an early time with the ancients in america as well as destroy the wicked before columbus came.  simple

Edited March 4, 2014 by knowone

[erdoch]

I just saw this. First, Southerton makes the mistake of assuming that Nephites must be equal to Maya at all times. That is certainly incorrect. With a smaller group entering a larger group, one does not expect a vast change in the overall material culture, nor to the entire group that is called Maya (much like having Brigham and the the early Saints in Utah didn't alter anything in the rest of the US, even though they spoke the same language). 

 

The next issue is where I differ from Sorenson. I don't think Nephites dominated anyone. There weren't enough of them. However, I think that there were some economic reasons for affiliating with Nephi and accepting his leadership (and I do think that the economics were more important than politics at the early stage). This "domination" that might be claimed because Nephi was made king applied to a single city, not the entire people who were understood as Maya. So Southerton's argument is based on misunderstanding the nature of the actual historical issue or any information on how groups might merge.

 

Thanks for the response. Of course, I recognize that Southerton is exaggerating and that nobody (or nobody serious) is proposing equating all Mayans with the Nephites. My question was focused more specifically on Kaminaljuyu, which Sorenson assumes was the city of Nephi but which was already well developed by the time Nephi arrived. 

 

So I assume you don't see the city of Nephi as equivalent (though perhaps near to) the city of Kaminaljuyu? Do you see Kaminaljuyu as being dominated by Nephites anytime after Nephi (before the Zarahemla period) or by the Lamanites? (It seems to me that it fits as Lamanite territory by the time of King Lamoni and his father). 

[canard78]

I think you misunderstood the Jews weren't particular which prophet they persecuted.

But you used the persecution as an implication he wasn't Jewish: "quite the opposite" you said. Is someone in 600BC who is of the tribe of Judah "quote the opposite" of someone in the tribe of Joseph of the same era? Would they have genetic similarities or would their DNA profile be "quite the opposite?"

[thesometimesaint]

But you used the persecution as an implication he wasn't Jewish: "quite the opposite" you said. Is someone in 600BC who is of the tribe of Judah "quote the opposite" of someone in the tribe of Joseph of the same era? Would they have genetic similarities or would their DNA profile be "quite the opposite?"

 

He wasn't from the tribe of Judah. We have no way of knowing what if any DNA correspondence there is between the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Joseph some five hundred years later with Lehi. Even assuming there was a correspondence the Jews weren't known for their tender mercies to prophets.

[DaddyB]

Here is the most recent blog entry from Simon Southerton.  I'm still reading it and trying to look up different sources that he includes.  I'd love to read others input and discussion on this as it is a topic that I'm currently very interested in.  

 

Here's the link:

 

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2014/02/lose-limited-geography.html

I think the main problem here is the source DNA that is supposed to be a sampling of what had to be Lehi DNA to make any argument valid. Actually, if you study the movements of the scattering of the Israelites from Lehi's time, The best geographical possibility for those genes would be from Asia, the very place Southerton claims the DNA comes from. Too much focus is on the DNA of ancient Americans, when it should be on what we should be comparing it to. I like the way this issue is summed up on the Mormon Challenges video. Check out the description below as well. http://mormonchallenges.org/book-of-mormon-11-no-jewish-dna/