Calm Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Senator said: Exactly, so why make the change? What is communicated differently by changing the wording? Quote Last year's change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," according to church spokesman Mark Tuttle. "The change will be included in the next edition of the Book of Mormon printed by the church." He said the introduction page in current LDS-produced books "was not part of the original text translated by Joseph Smith Jr.," adding it was written and published in 1981. The church declined comment on who wrote that version of the page.... Some observers have speculated the change was forced by the debate over DNA, but at least one LDS anthropologist said the change is welcome, although of minor consequence in the overall discussion regarding the Book of Mormon. It "eliminates a certain minor embarrassment in the use of language, that's all," said John L. Sorensen, professor emeritus of anthropology at Brigham Young University, adding it has no impact on the substance of the book itself. Sorensen's book, "An Ancient American setting for the Book of Mormon," outlines the "limited geography" theory and has become the definitive work to date on the topic among scholars. Its premise is that the book's characters lived within a fairly small region of Central America, rather than populating the entirety of North and South America, as some have speculated. He said several LDS scholars have noted for decades that the assumption about "principal ancestors" was inaccurate. The late Elder Richard L. Evans, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve from 1953 to 1971, described the Book of Mormon as "part of a record both sacred and secular of prophets and people, who (with supplementary groups), were among the ancestors of the American Indians." The description — approved by the church's First Presidency — was printed in a book titled "Religions of America," by Leo Rosten, which was first published in London in 1957 and subsequently reprinted in 1963 and 1975, Sorensen said. With questions among LDS scholars about its accuracy, why didn't the change come sooner? Sorensen said he believes it's simply "the principle of inertia." Such things are "not likely to be changed unless someone thinks there is something to be gained by making the change, or to be lost by not making the change." "I don't think it means very much for anyone," he said. "The assumptions may have been and may be in the minds of some that the previous phrasing had substance to it. As a matter of fact, it was a sheer accident of someone — probably (Elder) Bruce McConkie — regarding 'principal ancestors.' No one checked it or questioned it, so it was put in the introduction." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html?pg=all Posted this before, but maybe in another thread since there seems to be questions it could have answered if read. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 21 minutes ago, Senator said: Doesn't that go without saying? Just want to be sure you are clear on it.
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: Lehi either has living descendants or he doesn't. If he does the statistical probability of any one Native American being able to trace descent from Lehi is approaching 100%. I don't have enough math to work it out for myself, but fortunately there are very many clever people who do. What? That is absurd, no offense. No one can trace their lineage to Lehi from today. It's simply impossible with all of our modern tools for genealogical research. Who are these people who think they can trace someone to Lehi?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Calm said: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html?pg=all Posted this before, but maybe in another thread since there seems to be questions it could have answered if read. Seems clear to me. I don't know why the questions keep coming up and the misunderstandings persist.
ksfisher Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: I made this point in another thread but will repeat it here... Elder Anderson's "children of Lehi" comment raises questions about the Brethren's involvement with, review, and approval of the recent Gospel Topics essays. The essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon explains that there were many other people here at the time that Book of Mormon events took place. There were so many people that the essay concludes it is entirely possible that all traces of Lehite DNA have been eliminated. I find it hard to believe that someone familiar with this essay would have made the "children of Lehi" comment. You're really not addressing the math here. All Native Americans are descended from Lehi. It's statistically improbable that any Native American in that audience was not. It is possible for Lehi's DNA to have disappeared from the measurable record and still be millions of people who can trace their ancestry to him. Edited January 27, 2016 by ksfisher spelling 3
Calm Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: I made this point in another thread but will repeat it here... Elder Anderson's "children of Lehi" comment raises questions about the Brethren's involvement with, review, and approval of the recent Gospel Topics essays. The essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon explains that there were many other people here at the time that Book of Mormon events took place. There were so many people that the essay concludes it is entirely possible that all traces of Lehite DNA have been eliminated. I find it hard to believe that someone familiar with this essay would have made the "children of Lehi" comment. If I have no DNA from my great great great grandmother, does that mean she is no longer my great great great grandmother? I don't get the reasoning that once all DNA is lost from some individual, he is somehow removed from the list of ancestors. It comes across as either a lack of understanding of genealogy or biology. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That seems to be saying a lot. I'm not sure we can conclude that many people called Lamanites or Nephites at around Moroni's time could be identified as children of Lehi, let alone any living Native Americans today. Fewf! that's a stretch and a half. No, it's not a stretch at all. Have you read ksfisher's earlier post, specifically the mathematical likelihood that populations in a given area (such as the Americas) eventually intermarry and their descendants end up having common ancestors? In short, everyone now living today with European progenitors is descended from Charlamagne. If you don't understand why, consider the links in ksfisher's post.
Calm Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Quote What? That is absurd, no offense. No one can trace their lineage to Lehi from today. It's simply impossible with all of our modern tools for genealogical research. Since I am of European heritage in all my lines, I can pretty much guarantee I am a descendant of Charlemagne. However, if my genealogy doesn't go back that far, does that mean it is inappropriate to assume that I am a 'child of Charlemagne'? If a Jew did not have knowledge of his genealogical line all the way back, would you tell him Judah (or whomever held that tribal role if Judah if you are skeptical about the Bible) was not his ancestor? Edited January 27, 2016 by Calm 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: If I have no DNA from my great great great grandmother, does that mean she is no longer my great great great grandmother? I don't get the reasoning that once all DNA is lost from some individual, he is somehow removed from the list of ancestors. It comes across as either a lack of understanding of genealogy or biology. Or both.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, rockpond said: I made this point in another thread but will repeat it here... Elder Anderson's "children of Lehi" comment raises questions about the Brethren's involvement with, review, and approval of the recent Gospel Topics essays. The essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon explains that there were many other people here at the time that Book of Mormon events took place. There were so many people that the essay concludes it is entirely possible that all traces of Lehite DNA have been eliminated. I find it hard to believe that someone familiar with this essay would have made the "children of Lehi" comment. You have yet to engage the mathematical probability that after a sufficient number of generations, everyone living in a given area will have the same common ancestor (the everyone-is-descended-from-Charlamagne mode). Why do you neglect to do so? Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, ksfisher said: You're really not addressing the math here. All Native Americans are descended from Lehi. It's statistically improbable that any Native American in that audience was not. It is possible for Lehi's DNA to have disappeared from the measurable record and still be millions of people who can trace their ancestry to him. Please CFR on your claim that "it's statistically improbable that any Native American in that audience was not" a descendant of Lehi.
ksfisher Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What? That is absurd, no offense. No one can trace their lineage to Lehi from today. It's simply impossible with all of our modern tools for genealogical research. Who are these people who think they can trace someone to Lehi? Of course I'm not meaning trace in a pedigree chart sense. Perhaps the word was ill chosen.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Please CFR on your claim that "it's statistically improbable that any Native American in that audience was not" a descendant of Lehi. How about you first address the links that have already been posted by ksfisher, which you seem steadfastly determined not to even consider, let alone understand. Edited to add: Here they are again: https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/302497/ Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 7 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Of course I'm not meaning trace in a pedigree chart sense. Perhaps the word was ill chosen. Lineage exists whether or not it can be traced on a pedigree chart. We all come from somewhere, genealogically speaking.
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Just want to be sure you are clear on it. Could you possibly be any more condescending???
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: No, it's not a stretch at all. Have you read ksfisher's earlier post, specifically the mathematical likelihood that populations in a given area (such as the Americas) eventually intermarry and their descendants end up having common ancestors? In short, everyone now living today with European progenitors is descended from Charlamagne. If you don't understand why, consider the links in ksfisher's post. Hey Scott...no kfisher's links don't say anything about Native American populations and the likelihood of the different tribes having people in it that come from Lehi, at least not that I saw. It's quite possible that Native American people inter-married or mixed just like Europeans,sure, but it's also possible they did not. It's just a big ol' stretch to make these comparisons and then conclude NAs today are descendants of Lehi.
Calm Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Please CFR on your claim that "it's statistically improbable that any Native American in that audience was not" a descendant of Lehi. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/abs/nature02842.html Quote These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors. If some of the Native Americans today are descendants of Lehi (an ancestor from around 2600 years ago), then there is a high probability save for those in the rare cases of extreme isolation up to recent times, that any Native American is a descendant of Lehi, with or without his DNA being traceable. Also: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/07/charlemagnes-dna-and-our-universal-royalty/ Quote If you look at the ancestry of a living population of people, he concluded, you’ll eventually find a common ancestor of all of them. That’s not to say that a single mythical woman somehow produced every European by magically laying a clutch of eggs. All this means is that as you move back through time, sooner or later some of the lines in the genealogy will cross, meeting at a single person. As you go back further in time, more of those lines cross as you encounter more common ancestors of the living population. And then something really interesting happens. There comes a point at which, Chang wrote, “all individuals who have any descendants among the present-day individuals are actually ancestors of all present-day individuals.”... Even within the past thousand years, Ralph and Coop found, people on opposite sides of the continent share a lot of segments in common–so many, in fact, that it’s statistically impossible for them to have gotten them all from a single ancestor. Instead, someone in Turkey and someone in England have to share a lot of ancestors. In fact, as Chang suspected, the only way to explain the DNA is to conclude that everyone who lived a thousand years ago who has any descendants today is an ancestor of every European. Charlemagne for everyone! The same would hold for a person in the Americas (minus recent immigrants) for American (hemisphere, not country) ancestors. Edited January 27, 2016 by Calm 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Senator said: Could you possibly be any more condescending??? Wasn't trying to be. Just want to make sure we're on the same page about your personal opinion not being binding on others.
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 17 minutes ago, Calm said: Since I am of European heritage in all my lines, I can pretty much guarantee I am a descendant of Charlemagne. However, if my genealogy doesn't go back that far, does that mean it is inappropriate to assume that I am a 'child of Charlemagne'? If a Jew did not have knowledge of his genealogical line all the way back, would you tell him Judah (or whomever held that tribal role if Judah if you are skeptical about the Bible) was not his ancestor? It's probably not a wise comparison to make since we don't quite have the same type of data for Native Americans when it comes to genealogy as we do with Europeans. It's a stretch we should not engage in.
ksfisher Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Please CFR on your claim that "it's statistically improbable that any Native American in that audience was not" a descendant of Lehi. See my post on the first page, I believe it's the fifth. The are also numerous other articles on the web. While none of them apply directly to this particular genealogy (which I pointed out), the same math can be applied. It's not a guarantee of descent, but a measure of probability.
rockpond Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 24 minutes ago, ksfisher said: All Native Americans are descended from Lehi. From where do you draw this conclusion?
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: How about you first address the links that have already been posted by ksfisher, which you seem steadfastly determined not to even consider, let alone understand. Edited to add: Here they are again: https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/302497/ I'm not sure what more to say, Scott. In one of them there articles it says, "The same process works going forward in time; in essence every one of us who has children and whose line does not go extinct is suspended at the center of an immense genetic hourglass" We simply don't know particular lines. The reason why they use Charlemagne as an example? Because he's European and we've traced line, at least through genealogy back to him. We simply can't make the stretch regarding Lehi because we don't have data to suggest his line did not die out. I would grant, given Lehi, his line probably didn't die out. But we don't know that. We can't trace anyone back to Lehi, that's for sure. Edited January 27, 2016 by stemelbow
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Wasn't trying to be. Just want to make sure we're on the same page about your personal opinion not being binding on others. Whether trying or not, you were. C'mon....Scott you really thought, that I might have been thinking my opinion on an obscure message board should be binding on all here as well as the church? Some how I doubt that.
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 17 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Of course I'm not meaning trace in a pedigree chart sense. Perhaps the word was ill chosen. That helps. Not sure what you meant by trace. As it turns out, in genealogy, people can trace their line back to Charlemagne, so the example in your article works well. But no one can trace back to Lehi. We simply can't make the same assumptions.
rockpond Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 27 minutes ago, Calm said: If I have no DNA from my great great great grandmother, does that mean she is no longer my great great great grandmother? I don't get the reasoning that once all DNA is lost from some individual, he is somehow removed from the list of ancestors. It comes across as either a lack of understanding of genealogy or biology. If she is your biological ggg grandmother, you do share some DNA with her.
Recommended Posts