[when] Will Europe wake up? (Round 2)

[probablyHagoth7]

Poptart replied: "Who says they're not waking up?", with a link to Asatru/Asatro concepts.

A relevant quote from an Asatru site: "Asatro and other, less Northern Germanic variants of European polytheism (Greek Hellenism, etc) are the only indigenous and thus valid forms of religion / spirituality in the entirety of Europe and Asatro is also the oldest indigenous religion in the far north of Vinland, Canada and Grønland...."

Speaking of hoaxes:

The key problem is this: a large part of Asatru/Asatro, is based on Odinism/Wotanism, which is *not* at all indigenous to northern Europe....even though I like Wotansday/Wednesday as much as anybody.

Odin was a one-eyed man named Flavus, who was an early contemporary of the Sanhedrin of the NT, who like them was a quisling. Flavus fought to expand the Roman Empire into Germania at the expense of his own people's freedom, and was thereby a bought-and-paid-for traitor.

In exchange for Flavus' perfidy, Rome imposed a cult about him, under the name Odin (cognate with Adonai "lord") on the peoples of Germania...to secure his descendants' right to rule, thereby securing Rome's greater influence/control on Germania. It was a faith spread by the sword for that imperial purpose: Germanic peoples who refused to worship or sacrifice to Odin's/Flavus' image were slain.

If Roman-exported/imposed worship of the traitor Flavus somehow equates to "waking up," and is likewise claimed to be indigenous to northern Europe, we have a wee bit of a communication problem. 

                               

Edited April 21, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[halconero]

Eh, the only source I can find saying that Roman infiltrated a cult of Odin around Flavus is that one website. Considering that Germanic peoples originated in Scandinavia and migrated south in various waves and that we already have sources about Odin's existence by Tacitus I would say Occam's razor pretty definitively favours Wotanism having its roots in proto-Norse mythology.

Also, I would hesitate to attribute quisling status to Flavus, more so because nationalism and the notion of "peoples" wasn't really a thing up until the Late Renaissance/Early Modern Era.

The bigger argument to make is that something being indigenous somehow makes it valid. Human sacrifice and eating the hearts of the enemy is indigenous to certain areas of Mexico, yet that doesn't give it a premium on truth for Aztec-descended Mexicans. I know that this isn't your argument (acknowledging that it's Poptart's), but such notions that antiquated religions are somehow truer expressions of the culture or ethnicity of a region smacks of ultranationationalist or ethno-nationalist movements. The Roman Empire was Christian for over 1000 years. Christianity during that time period almost wholly Roman, and the Romans were just a Roman as their Jupiter-worshiping ancestors. Zen Buddhism is strongly tied to Japan, yet has its roots obviously in India. Does that mean the Japanese should ditch it in favour of Shinto? It's just a weird concept.

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Eh, the only source I can find saying that Roman infiltrated a cult of Odin around Flavus is that one website.

? And?

How does (initial) lone-oak testimony somehow equate to being false?  

A relevant quote about pioneering: "Whether you have pioneer ancestry or came into the Church only yesterday, you are a part of this whole grand picture of which those men and women dreamed...They laid the foundation. Ours is the duty to build on it." Gordon B. Hinckley.

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Considering that Germanic peoples originated in Scandinavia and migrated south...

Germanic peoples surfaced in northern Europe in precisely 58 BC, having just migrated northeast. (Not south.) If Germanic peoples originated in Europe prior to that, why no earlier mention of them? Especially when peoples descended from Scandinavia a couple of generations earlier and threatened Rome itself, why was there no mention of any of them being Germanic? 

Also, consider that the Germanic peoples since 58 BC have multiplied and spread throughout the world. In fulfillment of Israel's promise to his son Joseph. And the promise made to *his* sons Ephraim and Manasseh. And the promises made to their descendant Lehi, through *his* sons.

1 hour ago, halconero said:

...Considering....that we already have sources about Odin's existence by Tacitus

But we have no such sources.

Tacitus never once mentioned anyone called Wotan or Odin.)

Hercules? Yes. Mercury? Yes. Others? Yes.

But Odin? Not a peep.

 

For some intriguing reason, however, Tacitus did leave considerably more detail about Flavus and Flavus' brother than he (or any other Roman writer) did for any other Germanic chieftain (or god). The key question is, why?

1 hour ago, halconero said:

...I would say Occam's razor pretty definitively favors Wotanism having its roots in proto-Norse mythology.

"Pretty definitively favors..."? How so?

You were mistaken about what Tacitus said. And I am confident you're equally mistaken about Germanic origins.

While I respect your right to believe as you wish, human nature being what it is, and imperialism being what it is, and with ancient Roman writers outright acknowledging that their Empire intentionally meddled with the culture of northern Europe, Wotanism is instead nothing more than imported emperor worship.

Occam is in my camp. :0)

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Also, I would hesitate to attribute quisling status to Flavus, more so because nationalism and the notion of "peoples" wasn't really a thing up until the Late Renaissance/Early Modern Era.

As to quisling status, even a cursory read of Tatitus' account clearly illustrates how Flavus'  brother and mother both called Flavus an outright traitor.

And if the notion of peoples and nations wasn't really a thing until the modern era, then Daniel and John the Revelator were deeply confused to repeatedly use such equivalent phrases anciently.  The very notion that nationalism is a modern invention....is nothing more than a modern assertion/invention. That errant claim is lost on peoples millennia ago (including Nephites) who gave their lives to defend their peoples/nations.

1 hour ago, halconero said:

..the bigger argument....Zen Buddhism is strongly tied to Japan, yet has its roots obviously in India. Does that mean the Japanese should ditch it in favour of Shinto?...

No. I have nowhere claimed that a faith being indigenous gives it lesser or greater importance (pun intended).

So you've fashioned a lovely strawman there. Refrain: 

 ;0)

I was instead responding to the irony of Asatru's stance that errantly claims to be indigenous to northern Europe, and that likewise errantly claims that only *other* faiths were imposed upon northern Europe....and that errantly claims that such claims (whether true or not) somehow make it a superior faith for such peoples...when instead, the core element of Asatru (Wotanism) was imposed upon northern Europe...through Roman force....and is *not* indigenous at all.

I was merely disassembling their errant claim to being a superior faith for that region. Not positing a counter-maxim.

So nowhere have I claimed the point you feel the need to debate. As such, please divert such debate to followers of Asatru who happen make that errant claim. Fair 'nuf?

I do appreciate your comments here, even though I don't agree with them.

If I were to posit a counter-maxim, it would be that one would do well to honor their father and mother (ancestors) by honoring/embracing the faith of one's ancestors...unless/until one happens to come across a greater faith that one's ancestors never had the privilege to appreciate. And even then, one should honor/respect the good intents of one's forefathers, and the best portions of one's forefathers' faith(s).

Edited April 21, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[The Nehor]

Another hoax. Is this the start of a trend?

[probablyHagoth7]

What trend are you envisioning?

Edited April 21, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

The hoax I was referring to is Wotanism...imposed anciently upon northern Europe.

I was referring to the hoax that that ever happened that you are promulgating.

[probablyHagoth7]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was referring to the hoax that that ever happened that you are promulgating.

"Are promulgating?" No. I would have added a mea culpa and corrected that mistake, and was in the process of doing so, when the thread was suddenly closed.

Does one such flaw every few thousand posts justify labeling it a trend? Or merit overlooking/discarding the core point of the discussion?

I don't mind fielding correction, and actually appreciate such, but am intrigued/concerned that some are more interested in dwelling on a past honest mistake than addressing the larger question/hope of the OP...of a region soon awakening.

I repeat the gist of that initial post:

"...what/when will be Europe's tipping point?"

(Tipping point...the eventual combined effect of small things.)  Brings to mind this counsel from Liberty Jail:

"Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things."

: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/123.15?lang=eng#p14

Edited April 21, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

"Are promulgating?" No. I would have added a mea culpa and corrected that mistake, and was in the process of doing so, when the thread was suddenly closed.

Does one such flaw every few thousand posts justify labeling it a trend? Or merit overlooking/discarding the core point of the discussion?

I don't mind fielding correction, and actually appreciate such, but am intrigued/concerned that some are more interested in dwelling on a past honest mistake than addressing the larger question/hope of the OP...of a region soon awakening.

I repeat the gist of that initial post:

"...what/when will be Europe's tipping point?"

(Tipping point...the eventual combined effect of small things.)  Brings to mind this counsel from Liberty Jail:

"Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things."

: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/123.15?lang=eng#p14

I meant your crazy theory about Odin in this thread. Two hoaxes. Since they come in threes you are going to need a good one for a strong ending of the trilogy.

[probablyHagoth7]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I meant your crazy theory about Odin in this thread. Two hoaxes. Since they come in threes you are going to need a good one for a strong ending of the trilogy.

If you insist on an actual hoax, your mother was a hamster. (We actually bought one this week. Is it her?) The fellowship is now complete.

 

Seriously (for the briefest of moments), in what way is the Odin/Flavus correlation crazy? 

Edited April 21, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

If you insist on an actual hoax, your mother was a hamster. (We actually bought one this week. Is it her?) The fellowship is now complete.

 

Seriously (for the briefest of moments), in what way is the Odin/Flavus correlation crazy? 

That historians and scholars do not buy it and there is evidence of Wotanism predating this supposed Roman plot.

Edited April 21, 2017 by The Nehor

[probablyHagoth7]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

... this supposed Roman plot.

When it comes to the issue of Roman politics,, the phrase "Roman plot" is beyond redundant.

"Byzantine politics" have their root in the source from which that Eastern portion of the Empire sprang, the main Roman Empire.

Ancient Roman writers gloated when the Roman Empire succeeded through intrigue (instead of war) in getting Germanic people to do the Empire's bidding. 

The Odin/Flavus connection is simply a logical/reasonable extension of that reality.

Edited April 22, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[halconero]

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

? And?

How does (initial) lone-oak testimony somehow equate to being false?  

It makes it suspect. 

1) The Beowfulf Institute isn't an actual institute.

2) The multiple other sources showing proto-Germanic worship predating the connect-the-dots game the author plays are stronger and far more numerous. I don't claim it's false. I claim it's the more unlikely explanation.

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

A relevant quote about pioneering: "Whether you have pioneer ancestry or came into the Church only yesterday, you are a part of this whole grand picture of which those men and women dreamed...They laid the foundation. Ours is the duty to build on it." Gordon B. Hinckley.

Please explain. Maybe it was the long work night but this one flew over my head. I need some coffee (and by that I mean hot chocolate).

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Germanic peoples surfaced in northern Europe in precisely 58 BC, having just migrated northeast. (Not south.) If Germanic peoples originated in Europe prior to that, why no earlier mention of them? Especially when peoples descended from Scandinavia a couple of generations earlier and threatened Rome itself, why was there no mention of any of them being Germanic? 

Also, consider that the Germanic peoples since 58 BC have multiplied and spread throughout the world. In fulfillment of Israel's promise to his son Joseph. And the promise made to *his* sons Ephraim and Manasseh. And the promises made to their descendant Lehi, through *his* sons.

But we have no such sources.

What? Gaius Marius was fighting the Cimbri and Teutoni prior to the date you stated. If you wanna go waaaaaaay back then yeah, they originated in modern day Ukraine and made their way to modern day Germany, but that's way before. We have material culture of proto-Germanic peoples on the Danish peninsula and southern Sweden dating back to about 1500 BC.

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Tacitus never once mentioned anyone called Wotan or Odin.)

Hercules? Yes. Mercury? Yes. Others? Yes.

But Odin? Not a peep.

That's because the Romans had a practice of giving the names of their gods to the gods of other cultures if they were similar enough in duty and function. The most popular being Zeus and Jupiter, but it happened with Phoenician, Armenian, Gaulish, Pict, and Ibero-Gaulish gods too. In other words, if it talked, walked, and acted like a Roman god it they gave it that Roman god's name. It just so happened that they identified proto-Thor and proto-Odin with Hercules and Mercury. It's similar to how Venezuela got it's name being "Little Venice." The sailors under Amerigo Vespucci saw the people there living on stilt houses and were like "cool, it's like Venice."

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

 

For some intriguing reason, however, Tacitus did leave considerably more detail about Flavus and Flavus' brother than he (or any other Roman writer) did for any other Germanic chieftain (or god). The key question is, why?

"Pretty definitively favors..."? How so?

You were mistaken about what Tacitus said. And I am confident you're equally mistaken about Germanic origins.

Nah. I read the Imperial History of Rome not too long ago. Not only does his description of Mercury line up with Odin, but material culture favours the development of Odin-worship long before Flavus comes along.

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

While I respect your right to believe as you wish, human nature being what it is, and imperialism being what it is, and with ancient Roman writers outright acknowledging that their Empire intentionally meddled with the culture of northern Europe, Wotanism is instead nothing more than imported emperor worship.

Occam is in my camp. :0)

As to quisling status, even a cursory read of Tatitus' account clearly illustrates how Flavus'  brother and mother both called Flavus an outright traitor.

And if the notion of peoples and nations wasn't really a thing until the modern era, then Daniel and John the Revelator were deeply confused to repeatedly use such equivalent phrases anciently.  The very notion that nationalism is a modern invention....is nothing more than a modern assertion/invention. That errant claim is lost on peoples millennia ago (including Nephites) who gave their lives to defend their peoples/nations.

No. I have nowhere claimed that a faith being indigenous gives it lesser or greater importance (pun intended).

So you've fashioned a lovely strawman there. Refrain: 

 ;0)

I was instead responding to the irony of Asatru's stance that errantly claims to be indigenous to northern Europe, and that likewise errantly claims that only *other* faiths were imposed upon northern Europe....and that errantly claims that such claims (whether true or not) somehow make it a superior faith for such peoples...when instead, the core element of Asatru (Wotanism) was imposed upon northern Europe...through Roman force....and is *not* indigenous at all.

I was merely disassembling their errant claim to being a superior faith for that region. Not positing a counter-maxim.

So nowhere have I claimed the point you feel the need to debate. As such, please divert such debate to followers of Asatru who happen make that errant claim. Fair 'nuf?

I do appreciate your comments here, even though I don't agree with them.

If I were to posit a counter-maxim, it would be that one would do well to honor their father and mother (ancestors) by honoring/embracing the faith of one's ancestors...unless/until one happens to come across a greater faith that one's ancestors never had the privilege to appreciate. And even then, one should honor/respect the good intents of one's forefathers, and the best portions of one's forefathers' faith(s).

I'm just going to wrap this sucker up by noting that I specifically said "I know that this isn't your argument (acknowledging that it's Poptart's)." Chill. I'm not attacking you.

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

When it comes to the Roman politics,, the phrase "Roman plot" is beyond redundant.

"Byzantine politics" have their root in the source from which that Eastern portion of the Empire sprang, the main Roman Empire.

Ancient Roman writers gloated when the Roman Empire succeeded through intrigue (instead of war) in getting Germanic people to do the Empire's bidding. 

The Odin/Flavus connection is simply a logical/reasonable extension of that reality.

It would be possible (not sure about reasonable) if there was not evidence of Odin worship before the supposed plot.

By this logic you can argue that Constantine invented Christianity from scratch to unify the Roman Empire. You just have to ignore a lot of historical evidence that it was already there.

[probablyHagoth7]

 

3 hours ago, halconero said:

1) The Beowfulf Institute isn't an actual institute.

A variant no-true-Scotsman fallacy.  May we defer instead to Merriam-Webster's plain English?

Institute

(verb): 

1. 1:  to establish in a position or office

2. 2a :  to originate and get established :  organize :  to set going :  inaugurate instituting an investigation

(noun):

something that is instituted: such as (1) :  an elementary principle recognized as authoritative (2) institutes plural :  a collection of such principles and precepts; especially :  a legal compendium :  an organization for the promotion of a cause :  association a research institute institute for the blind :  an educational institution and especially one devoted to technical fields :  a usually brief intensive course of instruction on selected topics relating to a particular field an urban studies institute

Quick questions:

1. Does that little website originate, get established, organize, set going, and/or inaugurate investigation into early north-European heritage?
2. Does it initiate and/or provide one or more elementary principles from authoritative (historical/cultural) sources? 
3. Is it an organization for the promotion of a cause? 
4. Is it a research and/or educational institution? 
5. As part of the latter, does it provide a brief intensive course of instruction on selected topics relating to a particular field? 

(The answer in each instance is yes.)

3 hours ago, halconero said:

2) The multiple other sources showing proto-Germanic worship predating the connect-the-dots game the author plays are stronger and far more numerous. I don't claim it's false. I claim it's the more unlikely explanation.......Not only does his description of Mercury line up with Odin, but material culture favours the development of Odin-worship long before Flavus comes along.

You're presuming an either/or argument, as is Nehor.

I'm not. False dichotomy.

I'll address your parallel concern when I address his.

3 hours ago, halconero said:

What? Gaius Marius was fighting the Cimbri and Teutoni prior to the date you stated.

Yes. And I intentionally alluded to that very thing earlier.

So we're agreed that different peoples with different names lived in the north prior to the appearance of those we now call Germans. 

That doesn't mean the Cimbri and Teutoni were Germanic, any more than it means I'm a Ute Indian. 

(Many assert that the Cimbri and Teutones were instead Celtic.)

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[The Nehor]

Did you write this book?

[probablyHagoth7]

8 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm just going to wrap this sucker up by noting that I specifically said "I know that this isn't your argument (acknowledging that it's Poptart's)." Chill. I'm not attacking you.

Understood now.

In my quick scan of a long paragraph, I happened to overlook that earlier clarification. Apologies for the oversight.

[probablyHagoth7]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Did you write this book?

Yes. 

Edited April 22, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Yes. 

Then I will charitably limit my response to saying I disagree with the reasoning you use in the book and your interpretation of the evidence you present.

I appreciate you are trying to present a traveling mortal Jesus or Ten Tribes visitation but I do not think you make it plausible based on this evidence. I am not saying it did not happen; just that the evidence is insufficient.

[probablyHagoth7]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It would be possible (not sure about reasonable) if there was not evidence of Odin worship before the supposed plot.

How about we check to see if we can *get* sure about reasonable?

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

By this logic you can argue that Constantine invented Christianity from scratch to unify the Roman Empire. You just have to ignore a lot of historical evidence that it was already there.

Your exaggerated premise, has an important point.

Do similar (though adapted) forms of worship mean there was *no* continuity?

We agree that the answer is no. As in most things, there is some continuity.

That said, your specific example allowed for extensive adaptation of those earlier forms of worship to suit the ego and/or political expediency of king and kingdom.

Which is what faiths and political powers do repeatedly. In later centuries, the Roman Catholic church followed suit. So when it encountered a popular pagan spring or some other location important to the people's faith, the church simply appropriated and adapted the location. They would dedicate the pagan site to a Christian saint, and build a church there, or chop down a sacred tree and use its wood to build an adjacent church...as an intentional draw to keep people returning.

A  site combining burial mounds and pagan/Christian runestones with a later christian church.

I believe something very similar happened with Flavus/Odin and that *some* preexisting lore predated him but was repurposed into a newly minted god (Odin/Flavus) in the northern pantheon...a legend intentionally fashioned with such renown that future rulers would claim descent from him. Note that in contrast to what you and Hal seem to be asserting, there was considerable change in the tradition. By way of example,  the earliest Roman accounts make no mention of Germanic peoples claiming descent from Mercury, but later generations deemed it fashionable (and crucial to job security) to claim descent from Odin.

There were other changes, but that should suffice for initial discussion.

Edited April 22, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then I will charitably limit my response to saying I disagree with the reasoning you use in the book and your interpretation of the evidence you present.

I appreciate you are trying to present a traveling mortal Jesus or Ten Tribes visitation but I do not think you make it plausible based on this evidence. I am not saying it did not happen; just that the evidence is insufficient.

1. Feel free to be forthright about where you feel the evidence and/or reasoning are weak. I consider *that* level of specific input more charitable than silence.

2. I make no case for a traveling mortal Jesus. I instead believe he visited northern Europe as a resurrected being, immediately after visiting Nephites in the Americas...to whom he said he yet had other sheep....  

3. Insufficient to do what? Convince someone? I'm OK w/that, and will let such things simply infer/suggest, and allow the Spirit to confirm, if need be

Edited April 22, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/21/2017 at 10:34 AM, probablyHagoth7 said:

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

Germanic peoples surfaced in northern Europe in precisely 58 BC, having just migrated northeast. (Not south.) If Germanic peoples originated in Europe prior to that, why no earlier mention of them? Especially when peoples descended from Scandinavia a couple of generations earlier and threatened Rome itself, why was there no mention of any of them being Germanic? 

Also, consider that the Germanic peoples since 58 BC have multiplied and spread throughout the world. In fulfillment of Israel's promise to his son Joseph.

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

You might want to consult the ancient DNA (aDNA) studies discussed by Johannes Krause, with respect to present day Europeans, Mar 19, 2015,

 .

[probablyHagoth7]

On 4/22/2017 at 8:01 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to consult the ancient DNA (aDNA) studies discussed by Johannes Krause, with respect to present day Europeans, Mar 19, 2015,

Thank you. About half way through it so far, and enjoying it very much.

Edited April 25, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

On 4/22/2017 at 8:01 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to consult the ancient DNA (aDNA) studies discussed by Johannes Krause, with respect to present day Europeans, Mar 19, 2015,

Hmm. 

I finished reviewing it earlier today. Although interesting, what part of that content did you feel was relevant to the OP...or to subsequent discussion?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Hmm. 

I finished reviewing it earlier today. Although interesting, what part of that content did you feel was relevant to the OP...or to subsequent discussion?

You may have noticed that his principal component analysis of ancient DNA shows three populations contribute to modern European DNA:  hunter-gatherer indigenous population, early European farmers from the Near East, and ancient North Europeans from Siberia (at around 7,000 years ago), but with a complete replacement of central Europeans by a warrior, pastoralist culture from the Pontic & Black Sea area (at around 4,500 years ago), and probably the source of Indo-European language.

All of that long before the date of 58 BC, which you mention -- long after the modern European population has already been well-established.

[probablyHagoth7]

On 4/25/2017 at 0:58 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You may have noticed that his principal component analysis of ancient DNA shows three populations contribute to modern European DNA:  

....and probably the source of Indo-European language.

All of that long before the date of 58 BC, which you mention -- long after the modern European population has already been well-established.

Thanks for sharing/clarifying Robert. Are you asserting that based on Johannes' initial DNA study, that it is thereby more reasonable & faithful to conclude that Nephites never set foot in Europe? If so, I respectfully object. 

1. Johannes spoke of generalities drawn from a DNA sampling of only 100 ancient remains. For me and my house, a sampling that small, in a region that large, in a span of time that long, isn't anywhere near as conclusive as some might prefer (or assume). 

2. Johannes said very little about DNA outliers, and nothing of early DNA findings beyond the scope of his 100 samples.

3. As to the Indo-European language family, a surprisingly large portion of the vocabulary of the Germanic languages (including English) is not of Indo-European origin, even though the Germanic languages were categorized as Indo-European. (Linguists are still scratching their heads as to where much of that vocabulary originated.) And the groupings of such supposedly-orphan words fall into categories such as nautical technology, agriculture, warfare, government, and family....things that ancient Nephites just happened to have been quite adept at, which aligns with the repeated assertion in north-European origin accounts (and mythology) that attest to a cultural infusion into ancient northern Europe from a seafaring people across the ocean. And their origin accounts/chronologies place that arrival during the century before Christ, aligning precisely with eyewitness testimony from ancient contemporaries such as Julius Caesar and Cicero. 

For such reasons and more, I'm respectfully not buying what you seem to be selling...that an initial absence of supporting DNA evidence (from a surprisingly small sampling) from a lone, nascent research discipline is somehow supposed to be accepted as conclusive evidence of Nephite absence.

Given the long period of time (thousands of years) that Johannes' ancient DNA samples claim to represent, a chronological distribution suggests that less than 10% of his small sampling relates to the specific period in question (after 60 BC).  If that's sufficiently accurate for purposes of initial discussion, by buying into your apparent assertion, you and others would be drawing sweeping conclusions from fewer than ten samples, not even a full quorum. Meanwhile, with reams of all the other available evidence, including Nephite & latter-day prophecy, which is the more reasonable / faithful conclusion? That Nephites died out in the Americas centuries ago? Or that a remnant was initially scattered to the four corners of the earth?

Or have I misunderstood your meaning/intent?

Edited April 26, 2017 by probablyHagoth7