sam Posted August 19, 2016 Author Posted August 19, 2016 44 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: With the exception of maybe woven clothes (does the BoM claim that its characters were involved in woven clothe?) none of these items support Book of Mormon claims The Book of Mormon said they made fine twined linen and clothing.
Calm Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) 41 minutes ago, sam said: The highest concentrations of Haplo group x is found in Israel the second highest concentration of of Haplo group x is the Ojibwa Indians. The Great lake Indians have the highest concentrations of haplo group x. "In contrast with the distribution of haplogroups A to D, haplogroup X is found nearly exclusively in North American populations. Interestingly, it occurs at its highest frequencies among Algonkian-speaking groups such as the Ojibwa, with all four of the Amerindian sublineages being present with this population. This mtDNA lineage has also been detected in two pre-Columbian North American populations and may be present in a few ancient Brazilian samples. These data imply that haplogroup X was present in the New World long before Europeans first arrived in the New World. Indeed, in Amerindians haplogroup X ranges between 35,000 to 13,000 years old, depending on the number of founding haplotypes assumed to have been present in the ancestral population and whether RFLP or control region sequence data are used to make the estimates. Haplogroup X is now considered to be a fifth but minor founding mtDNA lineage in Native American populations." http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~tgschurr/pdf/Am Sci Article 2000.pdf Edited August 19, 2016 by Calm 4
Johnnie Cake Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Sam: Sorry to disappoint you but you've been deceived
sam Posted August 19, 2016 Author Posted August 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Calm said: "In contrast with the distribution of haplogroups A to D, haplogroup X is found nearly exclusively in North American populations. Interestingly, it occurs at its highest frequencies among Algonkian-speaking groups such as the Ojibwa, with all four of the Amerindian sublineages being present with this population. This mtDNA lineage has also been detected in two pre-Columbian North American populations and may be present in a few ancient Brazilian samples. These data imply that haplogroup X was present in the New World long before Europeans first arrived in the New World. Indeed, in Amerindians haplogroup X ranges between 35,000 to 13,000 years old, depending on the number of founding haplotypes assumed to have been present in the ancestral population and whether RFLP or control region sequence data are used to make the estimates. Haplogroup X is now considered to be a fifth but minor founding mtDNA lineage in Native American populations." http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~tgschurr/pdf/Am Sci Article 2000.pdf Hebrew like technology Hebrew culture and Hebrew like artifacts found in North America do not date between 13000 and 35000 years ago. Hebrew culture did not exist during that time. The dating is off. Here is a post that was made to Simon Sutherton. The reference you are using I extensively quote in the essay. You are right to say that Haplo group x is found in south Siberia or the Altain region of Siberia. The haplogroup x Altaian dna is the small yellow dot found in south Siberia on the Haplogroup x distribution map below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29#/media/File:Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG It’s worth pointing out the Altaian Haplogroup x dna is not related to the Native American Haplogroup x found in North America and it arrived after the Bering ice bridge was not crossable. These quotes come from the same article you use as a reference. “Third, the few Altaian (Derenko et al. 2001) and Siberian haplogroup X lineages are not related to the Native American cluster, and they are more likely explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia.” “It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences that constitute the distinctive X2a clade, a clade that lacks close relatives in the entire Old World, including Siberia.” “Haplogroup X is an exception to this pattern of limited geographical distribution. It is found, generally at low frequencies, in both West Eurasians and some northern groups of Native Americans but, intriguingly, it is absent in modern north Siberian and East Asian populations” Native American haplo group x is absent in Siberia and East Asia. In my unprofessional opinion that is a huge problem for the Bering ice bridge theory. In your book you state that dna disproves the Book of Mormon as false because Israeli dna is not found in Mesoamerica but Israeli dna is found in North America among Native Americans. The Druze of Galilee found in Israel have the highest concentration of haplo group x in the world which is also tied to Native Americans. The Ojibwa Native Americans have the second highest concentration of haplo group x. In the same article you reference it says that Iranians have more in common with Native Americans than Siberians or East Asians “We surveyed our Old World haplogroup X mtDNAs for the five diagnostic X2a mutations (table 2) and found a match only for the transition at np 12397 in a single X2* sequence from Iran. In a parsimony tree, this Iranian mtDNA would share a common ancestor with the Native American clade” Using your same reasoning the Book of Mormon is true and Native American Haplogroup x did not cross the bering is bridge because it is absent in Siberia and east Asia. Druze of Galilee article is date to 2008 https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Shlush-et-all-The%20Druze.pdf Native American Ojibwa haplo group x dna 26% http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377656/ Geneticist have also theorized that the Druze of Galilee is the refugium were haplo group x dispersed a perfect match for the bible and Book of Mormon. “An attractive hypothesis to explain this geographic concentration of lineages which diverged remotely within an ancient haplogroup (and which are not identified in other populations of the region) is that these Galilee Druze individuals represent the refugium of an ancestral group with high diversity and high frequency of haplogroup X, which was more prevalent in the region in antiquity, and from which the global diversity of X mtDNA haplogroup emerged” When it comes to dating Kennewick man a skeleton with Haplogroup x dna he dated to 9000 BP (7000BC) after several attempts. Kennwick man has been dated to 3750BC, 6410BC, 4130BC, and 6130BC. Those are some wide ranges. In my unprofessional and biased opinion the scientist based on their own biases kept dating Kennewick man until they got the date they wanted. Radio carbon dating is based on knowing how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere at the time there dating the specimen to and other variables. I frankly do not trust their variables. I believe the old world (Hebrew) language and culture and technology found among the Hopewell Adena and Native Americans is a better indication of age. Not to mention there is no dna evidence for a Bering Ice Bridge crossing not only for Haplo group x but other Haplo groups. See technology and Hebrew culture ties that I believe show correct dating. http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/c14memo.htm Technologyhttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-3/ Hebrew cultural tieshttps://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-4/ I believe that the solutrean and Bering ice bridge for the populating of the America continent to be false. But the solutrean has more dna evidence for it than the Bering ice bridge theory. But your right the majority of scientist consider the solutrean theory to be unacceptable. Here are some previously posted comments about radio carbon dating and holes in the Bering Ice Bridge theory. “Although hgs A, B, C, D, and X are the five founding mtDNA haplogroups in the Americas, previous studies have shown the near-absence of hgs B, C, and X in Paleo-Eskimos and Thule, as well as among present-day Inuit (25, 43–47).” Besides the dna evidence I’m using the Hebrew cultural ties and technology to prove the biblical timeline crossing. As far as the technology the woven cloth clothing, metallurgy, breastplates, and fortresses is confirmed by modern archaeological evidence. DNA evidence is also causing problems for the Bering Ice Bridge THEORY. It was first believed there was one migration 50000 thousand years ago. Then it changed to three migrations about 20000 thousand years ago and now scientist believe that haplo group x crossed (for which there is no evidence for) 13000 years ago. No they are adding more migrations than just three. “Therefore, an additional Paleo-Eskimo migration wave should be added to the three-wave hypothesis in explaining the peopling of the Americas” South America has Polynesian dna. So some scientist believe Polynesians sailed to South America. To say that they sailed to South America prior to 12000 bc would be absurd. South America has Australian dna but there is no Australian dna found in Asia or Siberia or the Near East. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/DNA-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/?no-ist
Calm Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Sam, from your link: "Critics will point out that Native American haplogroup X in North America is problematic it dates to between 11000-13000BC. Well before the Book of Mormon. This immediately disqualifies haplogroup X as DNA evidence of the Book of Mormon unless of course dating of Native American haplogroup X is incorrect. If critics are able to credibly explain away the Assyrian links and DNA evidence found in Iran then the dating of haplogroup X2a has a leg to stand on otherwise. Native American haplogroup X cannot be dated earlier then Assyrian culture which started around 3000BC." Is this what you believe is sufficiently addressing the dating issue?
Doctor Steuss Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 29 minutes ago, sam said: Book of Mormon mentions metal shields, head plates, metal jewelry and metal weapons. The Hopewell Indians had metal shields, head plates, metal jewelry and metal weapons. Their timeline is also is a match to the Book of Mormon. And that doesn’t even take into account all of the Hopewell temple sites that match Hebrew temples (like Nephi’s temple [which lasted until King Noah with no problem, and was then renovated], the various Lamanite temples in the land of Nephi, the temples that were in the land of Zarahemla, the temples in the lands northward, and the temple in the land Bountiful), the Synagogues, the palaces, the many towers, the roads and highways, prisons, markets, and gates. Oh wait… Hmm… Well, they had tents and houses. I guess that’s something. 3
Calm Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 This appears to be the best response as it specifically addresses claims like Meldrum and now McKane (sp?). Unfortunately it only posts the first page. Anyone read the rest of it?: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2055556315Z.00000000040
sam Posted August 19, 2016 Author Posted August 19, 2016 20 minutes ago, Calm said: "In contrast with the distribution of haplogroups A to D, haplogroup X is found nearly exclusively in North American populations. Interestingly, it occurs at its highest frequencies among Algonkian-speaking groups such as the Ojibwa, with all four of the Amerindian sublineages being present with this population. This mtDNA lineage has also been detected in two pre-Columbian North American populations and may be present in a few ancient Brazilian samples. These data imply that haplogroup X was present in the New World long before Europeans first arrived in the New World. Indeed, in Amerindians haplogroup X ranges between 35,000 to 13,000 years old, depending on the number of founding haplotypes assumed to have been present in the ancestral population and whether RFLP or control region sequence data are used to make the estimates. Haplogroup X is now considered to be a fifth but minor founding mtDNA lineage in Native American populations." http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~tgschurr/pdf/Am Sci Article 2000.pdf Hebrew like technology Hebrew culture and Hebrew like artifacts found in North America do not date between 13000 and 35000 years ago. Hebrew culture did not exist during that time. The dating is off. 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Sam, from your link: "Critics will point out that Native American haplogroup X in North America is problematic it dates to between 11000-13000BC. Well before the Book of Mormon. This immediately disqualifies haplogroup X as DNA evidence of the Book of Mormon unless of course dating of Native American haplogroup X is incorrect. If critics are able to credibly explain away the Assyrian links and DNA evidence found in Iran then the dating of haplogroup X2a has a leg to stand on otherwise. Native American haplogroup X cannot be dated earlier then Assyrian culture which started around 3000BC." Is this what you believe is sufficiently addressing the dating issue? Its more than just that its dna evidence. Native American haplo group x closest genetic link outside of North America is in Iran not asia. Native American haplo group x is not found in east and central asia nor is it found in Siberia going against the barren ice bridge theory. The northwest part of Iran was part of the Assyrian empire matching up with the Assyrian culture found among native Americans.
sam Posted August 19, 2016 Author Posted August 19, 2016 26 minutes ago, Calm said: "In contrast with the distribution of haplogroups A to D, haplogroup X is found nearly exclusively in North American populations. Interestingly, it occurs at its highest frequencies among Algonkian-speaking groups such as the Ojibwa, with all four of the Amerindian sublineages being present with this population. This mtDNA lineage has also been detected in two pre-Columbian North American populations and may be present in a few ancient Brazilian samples. These data imply that haplogroup X was present in the New World long before Europeans first arrived in the New World. Indeed, in Amerindians haplogroup X ranges between 35,000 to 13,000 years old, depending on the number of founding haplotypes assumed to have been present in the ancestral population and whether RFLP or control region sequence data are used to make the estimates. Haplogroup X is now considered to be a fifth but minor founding mtDNA lineage in Native American populations." http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~tgschurr/pdf/Am Sci Article 2000.pdf Hebrew like technology Hebrew culture and Hebrew like artifacts found in North America do not date between 13000 and 35000 years ago. Hebrew culture did not exist during that time. The dating is off. 13 minutes ago, Calm said: Sam, from your link: "Critics will point out that Native American haplogroup X in North America is problematic it dates to between 11000-13000BC. Well before the Book of Mormon. This immediately disqualifies haplogroup X as DNA evidence of the Book of Mormon unless of course dating of Native American haplogroup X is incorrect. If critics are able to credibly explain away the Assyrian links and DNA evidence found in Iran then the dating of haplogroup X2a has a leg to stand on otherwise. Native American haplogroup X cannot be dated earlier then Assyrian culture which started around 3000BC." Is this what you believe is sufficiently addressing the dating issue? In the link below is a section about Native American Hebrew like temples and temple practices. https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh-4/
sam Posted August 19, 2016 Author Posted August 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Calm said: The way the Church approaches DNA is appropriate: https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng "Basic principles of population genetics suggest the need for a more careful approach to the data. The conclusions of genetics, like those of any science, are tentative, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the origins of the native populations of the Americas. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples, and even if their genetic profile were known, there are sound scientific reasons that it might remain undetected. For these same reasons, arguments that some defenders of the Book of Mormon make based on DNA studies are also speculative. In short, DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon." Lehi was from Israel. Native Americans have dna from Israel its a match its that simple.
Johnnie Cake Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Quote Sam: Lehi was from Israel. Native Americans have dna from Israel its a match its that simple. I give up... but remember I was the first to tell you that you've been deceived...don't invest your life savings
sam Posted August 19, 2016 Author Posted August 19, 2016 35 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I give up... but remember I was the first to tell you that you've been deceived...don't invest your life savings lol
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted August 19, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) Sigh. Regarding the statement that a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon has been somehow disproved to the point that we should all just shut up and go away and trust our faith to what gets posted on this or that amateur blog, the correlating that one of another North American proposal has been definitively proved, reveals that the Sam does not yet understand how science works. Quote In the sciences the [paradigm] testing situation never consists, as puzzle-solving does, simply in the comparison of a single paradigm with nature. Instead, testing occurs as part of the competition between two rival paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific community. (Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 145) Quote So claims that his or that has been definitively proven or falsified, demonstrate naivety and should be recognized as such Quote The proponents of competing paradigms are always at least slightly at cross purposes. Neither side will grant all the non-empirical assumptions that the other needs in order to make its case. . . . The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs. Paradigms cannot be proven because: 1) Future discoveries may conflict with present theory and 2) Another theory may explain present evidence equally well. Paradigm cannot be falsified because: "a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses.” Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 99. All paradigm debates involve deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved," and should consider some non-circular means of deciding "Which paradigm is better?" Which problems do I think are most significant to have solved for New World Book of Mormon geography? A comprehensive accounting for the 600 plus statements in the Book of Mormon that describe geography and which must all fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. Sorenson's Source Book, Mormon's Map, and John Clark's model, and subsequent reviews of many candidate proposals strike me as the best places to start in defining the internal requirements. I see no reason to bother with proposals that do not take this work seriously. It happens that some readings based on the internal map and references will likely change once a person begins comparing the internal correlation to a specific cultural setting. This is consistent with Nephi's comment about Jewish culture in 2 Nephi 25. This is because our modern conceptions may be anachronistic, and we can't know whether a particular cultural setting will make a difference in our reading until we try it. A good example of this would be Brant's and Larry Poulson's converging discussions of directions. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/bomdirections.html I'm also persuaded by Larry Poulson's approach to the Sidon as having many more references to work with than things like narrow neck or Cumorah/Ramah, though those elements need to fit. Quote Although the narrow (small) neck is only mentioned three times in the Book of Mormon, it has been the primary focus of attempts to define the geographic location of the Book of Mormon lands. This narrow focus has resulted in numerous possible locations being proposed with, in many cases, little attention to whether surrounding geography is consistent with the text of the Book of Mormon. The river Sidon , however, occurs 37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least six different geographical locations. Using satellite maps, a 3D satellite mapping program and the text of the Book of Mormon, the geography of the Americas was analyzed in an attempt to find unique areas that correlate with the textual descriptions of the river Sidon. The following comparison with the Grijalva River is the result of that investigation. I want to see the rise and fall of the right kinds of civilizations at the right times and in the proper relationship with one another. This happens to be one of John Clark's issues with several candidate geographies. Volcanic activity at the right time and place for the descriptions in 3 Nephi. The use of cement in cities in the right time and place relative to the river, the cultures, and the volcanos. A narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the sea east to the sea west that divides the Lamanite and Nephite territories and includes the source of not only the Sidon, but also accounts for how Limhi's explorers get lost, and what they see when they travel and return, thinking they had found Zarahemla. Literacy Things that I don't see as particularly important in establishing geography. DNA. Quote An interesting study reported in the June 2003 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics leads me to believe that it is possible for Book of Mormon peoples to be ancestors of modern Native Americans and yet not be easily detected using traditional Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests. This study, conducted by a group of scientists from a company called deCODE Genetics, used the extensive genealogies of people from Iceland combined with probably the most massive population study ever performed. They traced the matrilineal and patrilineal ancestry of all 131,060 Icelanders born after 1972 back to two cohorts of ancestors, one born between 1848 and 1892 and the other between 1742 and 1798.6 Examining the same Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers used in other genetic studies, these 131,060 Icelanders “revealed highly positively skewed distributions of descendants to ancestors, with the vast majority of potential ancestors contributing one or no descendants and a minority of ancestors contributing large numbers of descendants.”7 In other words, the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed and yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors. To the point at hand, if many documented ancestors of 150 years ago cannot be linked to their descendants through Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests from modern Iceland, then it certainly seems possible that the people who are reported in the Book of Mormon to have migrated to the Americas over 2,600 years ago might not have left genetic signatures that are detectable today. John Butler, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=6 Random artifacts. A random blade or shield or ruin or pile of dirt or bone could be just that, random. Something like this, however, should at least raise eyebrows and generate comment. http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF Regarding the ever popular horses and steel and such, I don't regard them as nearly as important as the bigger items such as the river, the civilizations, the cement cites, and the volcanos on the simple grounds that the big items ought to be much easier to find. Comparatively little digging has been done in Mesoamerica, relative to known sites, and I do not suppose that most of the digging has been done in the kinds of locations that a person might want to bury horses or cureloms and cumons. And horse bone by itself may not tell me much, but the right river should explain a great deal, and, as Larry Poulson shows, it actually does explain a great deal when considered in light of specific stories in the text. http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf Nor do I find Zelph of interest because Zelph does not appear in the Book of Mormon, nor do I see the references to Lamanites in the D&C and among early saints of interest or key because by Jacob's time in the Book of Mormon, still first generation, the term stopped referring to lineage and became any political, unfriendlies who are "not us." And the way I read the Book of Mormon I see mixing with others even before the Nephi and company leave in 2 Nephi 5. Nor do I find the use of "Cumorah" as a name by some LDS compelling because names can go just about anywhere, (we have Bountiful in Arabia, near the Narrow Neck, and just north of Salt Lake City.) Despite the same name, the settings are easily distinguished by those who pay attention to descriptions. And it was the description in the text that got people looking for a candidate Cumorah in Mesoamerica. Plus, I don't look to authority figures or tradition because D&C 1 expressly tells me to expect that errors will be made manifest, and Alma distinguishes between the things he learned from study, from angels, and from his best guess and opinion. As a check against using the standards and assumptions of one paradigm in rejecting another (that is, they must be wrong because they are not us, not orthodox), I always refer to Kuhn's citation of values of problem definition, experimental results on key issues, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness (seeing things that a person would never would see unless they tried out the new paradigm), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. I see the work by Sorenson, Gardner, Wirth, Clark, Wright, and many others are being testable, accurate on the what I see as key issues, far more comprehensive and coherent than their rivals, impressively fruitful, simple, and promising. That does not prove that the Heartlanders are wrong, but frankly, I'm not staying up late at night worrying that they'll find a good place to ford the Mississippi or remnants of a volcano or two in New York, nor a cement city some distance north of Palmyra. Just saying. Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Edited August 20, 2016 by Kevin Christensen 10
ERayR Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 5 hours ago, sam said: For all the meso American apologist please stop endorsing the meso American model. It's been proven false. In North America you have artifacts of metal shields, head plates, woven cloth clothing, Hebrew and old world culture, dna , matching Book of Mormon timelines, etc that matches in North American. Your interpretation of the data and your opinion are noted. I just don't feel like turning my thinking over to you yet, but keep trying.
ERayR Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 4 hours ago, sam said: The purpose of this post was to show the meso American apologist are doing more harm than good. All these post about the Book of Mormon being fiction could not be more wrong. There are a large number of artifacts, dna evidence, etc supporting the Book of Mormon but its in North America. Is your name Rod?
ERayR Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 4 hours ago, sam said: I don't care what the church says about physical artifact and dna evidence. They don't need to prove the Book of Mormon is historical the spirit does that. But the facts are, artifacts and dna evidence match up in North America. So does the churches only Hill Cumorah visitor center where the last battles of the Nephites and Lamanites took place. In a 1980's (roughly) seminary Book of Mormon the church used Meso-American art and artifact pictures in it. Good Enough for me.
Danzo Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 2 hours ago, sam said: Lehi was from Israel. Native Americans have dna from Israel its a match its that simple. And these Native Americans who lived in the great lakes area never migrated and never married people who migrated.
mfbukowski Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 5 hours ago, sam said: Book of Mormon mentions metal shields, head plates, metal jewelry and metal weapons. The Hopewell Indians had metal shields, head plates, metal jewelry and metal weapons. Their timeline is also is a match to the Book of Mormon. I could use a mental shield myself some days
mfbukowski Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Sigh. Regarding the statement that a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon has been somehow disproved to the point that we should all just shut up and go away and trust our faith to what gets posted on this or that amateur blog, the correlating that one of another North American proposal has been definitively proved, reveals that the Sam does not yet understand how science works. So claims that his or that has been definitively proven or falsified, demonstrate naivety and should be recognized as such Paradigms cannot be proven because: 1) Future discoveries may conflict with present theory and 2) Another theory may explain present evidence equally well. Paradigm cannot be falsified because: "a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses.” Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 99. All paradigm debates involve deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved," and should consider some non-circular means of deciding "Which paradigm is better?" Which problems do I think are most significant to have solved for New World Book of Mormon geography? A comprehensive accounting for the 600 plus statements in the Book of Mormon that describe geography and which must all fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. Sorenson's Source Book, Mormon's Map, and John Clark's model, and subsequent reviews of many candidate proposals strike me as the best places to start in defining the internal requirements. I see no reason to bother with proposals that do not take this work seriously. It happens that some readings based on the internal map and references will likely change once a person begins comparing the internal correlation to a specific cultural setting. This is consistent with Nephi's comment about Jewish culture in 2 Nephi 25. This is because our modern conceptions may be anachronistic, and we can't know whether a particular cultural setting will make a different in our reading until we try it. A good example of this would be Brant's and Larry Poulson's converging discussions of directions. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/bomdirections.html I'm also persuaded by Larry Poulson's approach to the Sidon as having many more references to work with than things like narrow neck or Cumorah/Ramah, though those elements need to fit. I want to see the rise and fall of the right kinds of civilizations at the right times and in the proper relationship with one another. This happens to be one of John Clark's issues with several candidate geographies. Volcanic activity at the right time and place for the descriptions in 3 Nephi. The use of cement in cities in the right time and place relative to the river, the cultures, and the volcanos. A narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the sea east to the sea west that divides the Lamanite and Nephite territories and includes the source of not only the Sidon, but also accounts for how Limhi's explorers get lost, and what they see when they travel and return, thinking they had found Zarahemla. Literacy Things that I don't see as particularly important in establishing geography. DNA. John Butler, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=6 Random artifacts. A random blade or shield or ruin or pile of dirt or bone could be just that, random. Something like this, however, should at least raise eyebrows and generate comment. http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF Regarding the ever popular horses and steel and such, I don't regard them as nearly as important as the bigger items such as the river, the civilizations, the cement cites, and the volcanos on the simple grounds that the big items ought to be much easier to find. Comparatively little digging has been done in Mesoamerica, relative to known sites, and I do not suppose that most of the digging has been done in the kinds of locations that a person might want to bury horses or cureloms and cumons. And horse bone by itself may not tell me much, but the right river should explain a great deal, and, as Larry Poulson shows, it actually does explain a great deal when considered in light of specific stories in the text. http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf Nor do I find Zelph of interest because Zelph does not appear in the Book of Mormon, nor do I see the references to Lamanites in the D&C and among early saints of interest or key because by Jacob's time in the Book of Mormon, still first generation, the term stopped referring to lineage and became any political, unfriendlies who are "not us." And the way I read the Book of Mormon I see mixing with others even before the Nephi and company leave in 2 Nephi 5. Nor do I find the use of "Cumorah" as a name by some LDS compelling because names can go just about anywhere, (we have Bountiful in Arabia, near the Narrow Neck, and just north of Salt Lake City.) Despite the same name, the settings are easily distinguished by those who pay attention to descriptions. And it was the description in the text that got people looking for a candidate Cumorah in Mesoamerica. Plus, I don't look to authority figures or tradition because D&C 1 expressly tells me to expect that errors will be made manifest, and Alma distinguishes between the things he learned from study, from angels, and from his best guess and opinion. As a check against using the standards and assumptions of one paradigm in rejecting another (that is, they must be wrong because they are not us, not orthodox), I always refer to Kuhn's citation of values of problem definition, experimental results on key issues, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness (seeing things that a person would never would see unless they tried out the new paradigm), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. I see the work by Sorenson, Gardner, Wirth, Clark, Wright, and many others are being testable, accurate on the what I see as key issues, far more comprehensive and coherent than their rivals, impressively fruitful, simple, and promising. That does not prove that the Heartlanders are wrong, but frankly, I'm not staying up late at night worrying that they'll find a good place to ford the Mississippi or remnants of a volcano or two in New York, nor a cement city some distance north of Palmyra. Just saying. Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Bless you I don't know where you get the patience 4
mfbukowski Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Sigh. Regarding the statement that a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon has been somehow disproved to the point that we should all just shut up and go away and trust our faith to what gets posted on this or that amateur blog, the correlating that one of another North American proposal has been definitively proved, reveals that the Sam does not yet understand how science works. So claims that his or that has been definitively proven or falsified, demonstrate naivety and should be recognized as such Paradigms cannot be proven because: 1) Future discoveries may conflict with present theory and 2) Another theory may explain present evidence equally well. Paradigm cannot be falsified because: "a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses.” Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 99. All paradigm debates involve deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved," and should consider some non-circular means of deciding "Which paradigm is better?" Which problems do I think are most significant to have solved for New World Book of Mormon geography? A comprehensive accounting for the 600 plus statements in the Book of Mormon that describe geography and which must all fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. Sorenson's Source Book, Mormon's Map, and John Clark's model, and subsequent reviews of many candidate proposals strike me as the best places to start in defining the internal requirements. I see no reason to bother with proposals that do not take this work seriously. It happens that some readings based on the internal map and references will likely change once a person begins comparing the internal correlation to a specific cultural setting. This is consistent with Nephi's comment about Jewish culture in 2 Nephi 25. This is because our modern conceptions may be anachronistic, and we can't know whether a particular cultural setting will make a different in our reading until we try it. A good example of this would be Brant's and Larry Poulson's converging discussions of directions. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/bomdirections.html I'm also persuaded by Larry Poulson's approach to the Sidon as having many more references to work with than things like narrow neck or Cumorah/Ramah, though those elements need to fit. I want to see the rise and fall of the right kinds of civilizations at the right times and in the proper relationship with one another. This happens to be one of John Clark's issues with several candidate geographies. Volcanic activity at the right time and place for the descriptions in 3 Nephi. The use of cement in cities in the right time and place relative to the river, the cultures, and the volcanos. A narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the sea east to the sea west that divides the Lamanite and Nephite territories and includes the source of not only the Sidon, but also accounts for how Limhi's explorers get lost, and what they see when they travel and return, thinking they had found Zarahemla. Literacy Things that I don't see as particularly important in establishing geography. DNA. John Butler, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=6 Random artifacts. A random blade or shield or ruin or pile of dirt or bone could be just that, random. Something like this, however, should at least raise eyebrows and generate comment. http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF Regarding the ever popular horses and steel and such, I don't regard them as nearly as important as the bigger items such as the river, the civilizations, the cement cites, and the volcanos on the simple grounds that the big items ought to be much easier to find. Comparatively little digging has been done in Mesoamerica, relative to known sites, and I do not suppose that most of the digging has been done in the kinds of locations that a person might want to bury horses or cureloms and cumons. And horse bone by itself may not tell me much, but the right river should explain a great deal, and, as Larry Poulson shows, it actually does explain a great deal when considered in light of specific stories in the text. http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf Nor do I find Zelph of interest because Zelph does not appear in the Book of Mormon, nor do I see the references to Lamanites in the D&C and among early saints of interest or key because by Jacob's time in the Book of Mormon, still first generation, the term stopped referring to lineage and became any political, unfriendlies who are "not us." And the way I read the Book of Mormon I see mixing with others even before the Nephi and company leave in 2 Nephi 5. Nor do I find the use of "Cumorah" as a name by some LDS compelling because names can go just about anywhere, (we have Bountiful in Arabia, near the Narrow Neck, and just north of Salt Lake City.) Despite the same name, the settings are easily distinguished by those who pay attention to descriptions. And it was the description in the text that got people looking for a candidate Cumorah in Mesoamerica. Plus, I don't look to authority figures or tradition because D&C 1 expressly tells me to expect that errors will be made manifest, and Alma distinguishes between the things he learned from study, from angels, and from his best guess and opinion. As a check against using the standards and assumptions of one paradigm in rejecting another (that is, they must be wrong because they are not us, not orthodox), I always refer to Kuhn's citation of values of problem definition, experimental results on key issues, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness (seeing things that a person would never would see unless they tried out the new paradigm), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. I see the work by Sorenson, Gardner, Wirth, Clark, Wright, and many others are being testable, accurate on the what I see as key issues, far more comprehensive and coherent than their rivals, impressively fruitful, simple, and promising. That does not prove that the Heartlanders are wrong, but frankly, I'm not staying up late at night worrying that they'll find a good place to ford the Mississippi or remnants of a volcano or two in New York, nor a cement city some distance north of Palmyra. Just saying. Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Kevin This is not a response to this post but you need to read this individual if you have never come across his work http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_josmith.htm Thanks Mark
Popular Post Brant Gardner Posted August 20, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 20, 2016 Sam, thank you for your concern for me, but I think I'll stick with the research I have done. I have also taken a look at the evidence that you are presenting. We might discuss it, but first would have to agree on some ground rules. For example, I would insist that we use reputable geneticists, archaeologists, and historians. I would insist that we only use information that can be authenticated and defended. We are dealing with a very long tradition of finding Hebrew language/culture/artifacts in North America that preceded the founding of the church, and was adopted and defended by early church members--nevertheless, it was fanciful and has no actual history behind it. You provided some "evidence." First was metallurgy. That is not quite correct as a description of authentic Native American metal working. It was pounded copper. There is no indication of smelting, and the only "slag" that has been found as not been found in controlled digs--nor in ways that allow it to be dated. In other words, it could be modern and there is no way modern slag demonstrates Book of Mormon smelting. The copper also is imported from lands outside of the Hopewell/Nephi area, which contradicts the Book of Mormon's description that the metal they used was found where they lived. As for metal swords, there are no authentic swords. There are tales of swords (and these come from the times when "interesting" stories were told--which have never been corroborated). There are pictures of swords--which are either all late or forgeries, from what I have seen. None from contexts or with dates. The DNA "evidence" you are citing is not only old, it has been debunked--not just about dating, but the very thesis behind it that the X2A had any connection to the Middle East. The New World strain does not, and the science telling us that is at least a decade old. You are citing data that begin in 1998 and has been appropriated, but never updated. There is currently no accepted Hebrew cultural material among Native Americans. There were tales, again from the early to late 1800's that asserted that there were, but those were not authentic reports. I have read the current LDS literature you are referencing, and I have read a fair amount about the archaeological reconstructions for the Hopewell. I can confidently say that there is no accepted archaeological evidence that lends any support to placing the Book of Mormon in that location. You can suggest that the archaeologists are wrong, but the evidence in the dirt that can stand up to scientific investigation does not support that correlation. So, I do appreciate you thinking of me, but I'll stick with a theory that doesn't require me to toss out all of modern science, archaeology, and history in order to accept it. 11
mfbukowski Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 I found this interesting sentence on the home page of sam's favorite site: Quote You shouldn’t expect that Mormon Bandwagon will present new, peer-reviewed findings or even completely accurate information regarding the Mormon church. Clear proof that the site is true! https://mormonbandwagon.com/about/
cdowis Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said: The DNA "evidence" you are citing is not only old, it has been debunked--not just about dating, but the very thesis behind it that the X2A had any connection to the Middle East. The New World strain does not, and the science telling us that is at least a decade old. You are citing data that begin in 1998 and has been appropriated, but never updated. "Debunked" is a very interesting word. It basically indicates absolute proof that a factual assertion is false. You debunk a factual analysis, but debunking an opinion or interpretation of facts is a different matter. While not an expert in genetics, I have spoken to them about the haplogroup X issue. If I am correct the original source of the native american haplogroup X has not been identified, so your "debunking" is rather optimistic. Until that founder group is identified, your debunking is, to be polite, baloney. A few points to consider: 1. We do not know the DNA characteristics of Lehi, and possibly others who came with him are BOM peoples who came to the New World. 2. A few years ago, the Discovery channel reported some DNA research which discovered that a woman from Greece and a pure Native American had a common ancestor. It is interesting to note that the name "Timothy" is found in the text of the BOM. I spoke with Nibley and he suggested that it may have been Greek merchants who carried Mulek and his group to the Americas. 3. Among several potential sources of haplogroup X is the Druze who inhabit the Middle East. I personally think that the haplogroup X remains an open issue so, in ten years or so, it is possible that you may have to come back and correct yourself. If you can indeed debunk my opinion on the matter, I welcome your feedback. Edited August 20, 2016 by cdowis
Robert F. Smith Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 9 hours ago, sam said: Lehi was from Israel. Native Americans have dna from Israel its a match its that simple. You might want to read http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/dna2.html . 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 1 hour ago, cdowis said: ..................................... 1. We do not know the DNA characteristics of Lehi, and possibly others who came with him are BOM peoples who came to the New World.................... .............................. Actually we do have a pretty good idea what the DNA of Israelites fleeing the Middle East would be like, just as we do in order to establish Jewish genetic relationships with the Lemba tribe of Venda, South Africa, as well as with the B'nei Israel of India. Descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram should fit within appropriate genetic relationships -- especially if we find some ancient DNA to test.
Recommended Posts