Jaradites meet the Siberians?

[aussieguy55]

https://www.livescience.com/62531-native-american-founder-population.html

"

The Americas are a big place, but the Native American group that first settled it was small — just about 250 people, according to a new genetic study.

These people, known as a founding group because they "founded" the first population, migrated from Siberia to the Americas by about 15,000 years ago, said study co-lead researcher Nelson Fagundes, a professor in the Department of Genetics at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, in Brazil."

Do LDS accept a universal flood ?  What dates do LDS  believe  the Jaradites arrived?

 

 

[Calm]

LDS teachings in manuals and conference have been all universal flood, but many LDS interpret it more as local (massive local, but still not globe covering, instead the "known world") 

Jaredites are usually dated to 2500-2200 BC and associated with the Tower of Babel, but there is some debate whether that was original to the Jaredites record or assumed and added.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Jaredites

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/09/book-of-mormon-chronology-chart?lang=eng

Elder Widtsoe in his Evidences and Reconciliations expressed the possibility the worldwide flood might have consisted in having a thin coating of rain on mountains and floods on lower areas, but I am not sure if he considered higher altitudes where it would not rain and wind prevented any ice buildup.

Traditionally LDS teachings have followed some other faiths' interpretations where the earth was geologically divided after the flood rather than it being a social division.  Some day I will pin down when this became a popular interpretation.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Calm

[strappinglad]

15000 years +/- how many years? If I were to say that they came 14000 years ago , would that be tolerated? A lot can happen in 1000 years. Anything of import happen since 1066 ?

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

https://www.livescience.com/62531-native-american-founder-population.html

"

The Americas are a big place, but the Native American group that first settled it was small — just about 250 people, according to a new genetic study.

These people, known as a founding group because they "founded" the first population, migrated from Siberia to the Americas by about 15,000 years ago, said study co-lead researcher Nelson Fagundes, a professor in the Department of Genetics at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, in Brazil."

Do LDS accept a universal flood ?  What dates do LDS  believe  the Jaradites arrived?

I believe that study to be wrong. I believe the Americas were first occupied by men circa 22,000-25000 BC. 

Some LDS believe in a global flood, and some such as myself believe the story to be hyperbole, much like that found elsewhere in the Bible. 

Jaredites arrived 2200 - 2000 BC, and occupied a less populated area of the Americas.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe that study to be wrong. I believe the Americas were first occupied by men circa 22,000-25000 BC. 

Some LDS believe in a global flood, and some such as myself believe the story to be hyperbole, much like that found elsewhere in the Bible. 

Jaredites arrived 2200 - 2000 BC, and occupied a less populated area of the Americas.

Yup.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/science/25archeo.html

[Rajah Manchou]

On 7/29/2018 at 8:44 AM, aussieguy55 said:

What dates do LDS  believe the Jaradites arrived?

Geneticists propose three migratory waves into the Americas:
(Source)

1. The first major migration started about 16,000 years before present (YBP) and rapidly spread across North and South America. We refer to the descendants of this migration as First Americans.
2. The second, Paleo-Eskimo, migration associated with the Saqqaq and Dorset archaeological cultures, which are part of the Arctic Small Tool tradition, took place about 4,800 YBP, long after the Bering land bridge had been inundated
3. The third wave associated with the Thule culture occurred at about 1,000 YBP and gave rise to modern Yupik in Chukotka and Alaska and to Inuit throughout the American Arctic.

The Jaredite migration from would be closest in time the second migratory wave, around 4800 years ago. This is the wave that would eventually bring the Na-Dene (eg, Navajo) to Arizona/Utah.

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Geneticists propose three migratory waves into the Americas:
(Source)

1. The first major migration started about 16,000 years before present (YBP) and rapidly spread across North and South America. We refer to the descendants of this migration as First Americans.
2. The second, Paleo-Eskimo, migration associated with the Saqqaq and Dorset archaeological cultures, which are part of the Arctic Small Tool tradition, took place about 4,800 YBP, long after the Bering land bridge had been inundated
3. The third wave associated with the Thule culture occurred at about 1,000 YBP and gave rise to modern Yupik in Chukotka and Alaska and to Inuit throughout the American Arctic.

The Jaredite migration from would be closest in time the second migratory wave, around 4800 years ago. This is the wave that would eventually bring the Na-Dene (eg, Navajo) to Arizona/Utah.

You doubt the preclovis' existence or the tentative dating of the material culture's remnants?

[Rajah Manchou]

18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You doubt the preclovis' existence or the tentative dating of the material culture's remnants?

Not really. The case for it is getting much stronger. I expect earlier dates of the Australo-Melanesian component will be found.

[sunstoned]

Science moves forward with discoveries and traditional religion retreats. That is the pattern that we have seen for the last 200 years.  The facts are that modern, verifiable science, has verified that humans have lived and evolved on this earth for hundreds of thousands of years.  The idea of the family of man starting only 6000 years ago is laughable. Evolution is a fact.  Another fact is that there was no global flood. The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming.  The same with the idea of a confounding of human languages within the time frame of recorded history (tower of babel).  This is ridiculous.  The apologetic response to these things are embarrassing. The apologetic pretzel logic is so ridiculous that no scientific journal will touch it. So Mormons and other fundies create their own publications and self peer review.  

It is time for the church to stop trying to defend the un-defensible and to concede the physical and historical  to science.  The chuch should focus solely on the spritural nature of mankind (much like the Catholics have done). Let the Bible and the BoM be framed as spiritual guides for us and not some type of history text book.

Edited July 30, 2018 by sunstoned
spelling edits

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Science moves forward with discoveries and traditional religion retreats. That is the pattern that we have seen for the last 200 years.  The facts are that modern, verifiable science, has verified that humans have lived and evolved on this earth for hundreds of thousands of years.  The idea of the family of man starting only 6000 years ago is laughable. Evolution is a fact.  Another fact is that there was no global flood. The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming.  The same with the idea of a confounding of human languages within the time frame of recorded history (tower of babel).  This is ridiculous.  The apologetic response to these things are embarrassing. The apologetic pretzel logic is so ridiculous that no scientific journal will touch it. So Mormons and other fundies create their own publications and self peer review.  

It is time for the church to stop trying to defend the un-defensible and to concede the physical and historical  to science.  The chuch should focus solely on the spritural nature of mankind (much like the Catholics have done). Let the Bible and the BoM be framed as spiritual guides for us and not some type of history text book.

There is no need to keep this fundamentalist approach, philosophy for the last 150 years at least has found a rational niche for religion.

We just need to get Mormons to read philosophy.

We are still stuck with the phrase "philosophies of men mingled with scripture". We just need to understand that even scripture is a philosophy of men if it is written by a human hand.

Its purpose is different than science.

If we would just accept that all this nonsense would stop.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Science moves forward with discoveries and traditional religion retreats. That is the pattern that we have seen for the last 200 years.  The facts are that modern, verifiable science, has verified that humans have lived and evolved on this earth for hundreds of thousands of years.  The idea of the family of man starting only 6000 years ago is laughable. Evolution is a fact.  Another fact is that there was no global flood. The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming.  The same with the idea of a confounding of human languages within the time frame of recorded history (tower of babel).  This is ridiculous.  The apologetic response to these things are embarrassing. The apologetic pretzel logic is so ridiculous that no scientific journal will touch it. So Mormons and other fundies create their own publications and self peer review.  

It is time for the church to stop trying to defend the un-defensible and to concede the physical and historical  to science.  The chuch should focus solely on the spritural nature of mankind (much like the Catholics have done). Let the Bible and the BoM be framed as spiritual guides for us and not some type of history text book.

The less creditable the religious narrative is, the more likely people will move away from religion.  Whether any church continues to hang on to those long held beliefs is entirely up to them.  It doesn't mean that people will completely ignore the evidence science continues to document.

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no need to keep this fundamentalist approach, philosophy for the last 150 years at least has found a rational niche for religion.

We just need to get Mormons to read philosophy.

We are still stuck with the phrase "philosophies of men mingled with scripture". We just need to understand that even scripture is a philosophy of men if it is written by a human hand.

Its purpose is different than science.

If we would just accept that all this nonsense would stop.

I totally agree.  There would be an adjustment period, but after that we would be rid of the limitations of fundamentalism. 

[strappinglad]

Yes, science , the absolute height of knowledge and moral purity. It never leads one down the wrong path and even if it does it is self - correcting....except when it isn't. There is evidence of fudged results, faked results, retractions of papers, some of which were quoted by others to build up the strength of papers, improper peer review , and other possibly unethical behaviors. Contrary to public perception, scientists are human too, and suffer from all the flaws of humanity including greed, desire for fame, professional jealousy . They are just as much in need of a moral compass/guidebook as the rest of us.

Be careful when relying on the arm of flesh. Many of the ' absolute ' theories of the past have been overturned. In my youth I was told that Neanderthals were brutes living in caves and were a precursor to modern man. Now it is accepted that they were quite sophisticated and could interbreed with homosapiens, which in my naïve high school science meant they were the same species. Just when I was getting used to the idea that Pluto was no longer a planet, some want it put back. Now eggs are good for me. How firm a foundation indeed.

https://retractionwatch.com/

[FearlessFixxer]

On 7/28/2018 at 7:36 PM, Calm said:

LDS teachings in manuals and conference have been all universal flood, but many LDS interpret it more as local (massive local, but still not globe covering, instead the "known world") 

1

So god sent a rainbow and promised there would never be another local flood??

[Calm]

10 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

So god sent a rainbow and promised there would never be another local flood??

I suspect those who believe in a local flood don't believe rainbows didn't exist before Noah.

[Kevin Christensen]

The meta narrative here reminds me of Nibley's 1980 talk:

Quote

To recapitulate, religion has no plot. Science has no plot. This means that Joseph Smith is the only entry. He, at least, has given us a picture. But is it a convincing picture? The fact is, we have never looked at it closely! We have drawn back from that assignment, preferring to save a lot of trouble and take sides with the traditional schools.

The stories of the garden of Eden and the Flood have always furnished unbelievers with their best ammunition against believers, because they are the easiest to visualize, popularize, and satirize of any Bible accounts. Everyone has seen a garden and been caught in a pouring rain. It requires no effort of imagination for a six-year-old to convert concise and straightforward Sunday-school recitals into the vivid images that will stay with him for the rest of his life. These stories retain the form of the nursery tales they assume in the imaginations of small children, to be defended by grownups who refuse to distinguish between childlike faith and thinking as a child when it is time to “put away childish things.” (1 Corinthians 13:11.) It is equally easy and deceptive to fall into adolescent disillusionment and with one’s emancipated teachers to smile tolerantly at the simple gullibility of bygone days, while passing stern moral judgment on the savage old God who damns Adam for eating the fruit he put in his way and, overreacting with impetuous violence, wipes out Noah’s neighbors simply for making fun of his boat-building on a fine summer’s day.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=997

From the same talk, this:

Quote

The earliest Abraham books are supposed to be autobiographies, and the story told from his point of view makes perfectly good sense. So with Noah in the ark. From where he was, “the whole earth” (Genesis 8:9) was covered with water as far as he could see; after things had quieted down for 150 days and the ark ground to a halt, it was still three months before he could see any mountaintops. But what were conditions in other parts of the world? If Noah knew that, he would not have sent forth messenger birds to explore. The flood as he described it is what he saw of it. “He sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground.” (Genesis 8:8.) Couldn’t he see for himself? Not where the dove went. It was not until seven days later that he sent it out again; and after flying all day, the bird came back with a green leaf fetched from afar; “so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.” (Genesis 8:11.) Still he waited another seven days. When the dove did not return, Noah had his answer. In some distant place, trees were bearing and there was birdfood to be found. But not where Noah was. All that time he had not dared to open up.

Note that the author does not fall into the literary trap of telling where the birds went and what they saw. That became a standard theme of early Oriental literature, faithfully reflected in the classical stories of the sea-eagle and the hoopoe. All Noah tells us is what he saw of the birds and the flood. The rain continued at least in spots, for there was that magnificent rainbow. Why do Christians insist on calling it the first rainbow, just because it is the first mentioned? Who says that water drops did not refract light until that day? Well, my old Sunday School teacher, for one, used to say it. The rainbow, like the sunrise, is strictly the product of a point of view, for which the beholder must stand in a particular place while it is raining in another particular place and the sun is in a third particular place, if he is to see it at all. It is a lesson in relativity.

And this:

Quote

Speaking of Noah, God promised Enoch “that he [God] would call upon the children of Noah; and he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed [Enoch’s through Noah] should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; and the Lord said: Blessed is he through whose seed Messiah shall come.” (Moses 7:51—53.) Methuselah boasted about his line as something special. (Moses 8:2—3.) Why special if it included the whole human race? These blessings have no meaning if all the people of the earth and all the nations are the seed of Noah and Enoch. What other line could the Messiah come through?

For a survey of a range of LDS approaches to the Flood stories, see Duane Jefferies,

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/134-27-45.pdf

And one of Nibley's last essay's "Abraham's Temple Drama" sets our creation accounts in the context of ancient temple dramas everywhere in the ancient world, showing that they are in fact, not histories, but dramatic enactments (Nibley points out where stage directions are included), deliberately symbolic.

Sure, it's fun to criticize naive literalism and fundamentalists, but if you want to come across as better informed rather than just differently ignorant, it would help to discuss the best readings, rather than to just set one's self up against the worst.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=995

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Sure, it's fun to criticize naive literalism and fundamentalists, but if you want to come across as better informed rather than just differently ignorant, it would help to discuss the best readings, rather than to just set one's self up against the worst.

Thank you for this.  Pointing out straw man arguments is an unalloyed good.

[aussieguy55]

My brother's local Lutheran pastor told him he had he DNA checked  and there was some neanderthal there. Seeley over on Biologos.org  discusses local flood theory.https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-flood-not-global-barely-local-mostly-theological-pt-1

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-flood-not-global-barely-local-mostly-theological-pt-2

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-flood-not-global-barely-local-mostly-theological-pt-3    

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/seely_babel_wtj.pdf

 

 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

My brother's local Lutheran pastor told him he had he DNA checked  and there was some neanderthal there.

Did he say whether he now includes it on his resume?

[Okrahomer]

27 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Did he say whether he now includes it on his resume?

I’ll wager he leans toward primitive Christianity.