LoudmouthMormon Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 12 hours ago, stemelbow said: So your position is that there never really were people who came from Israel to the new world? We all just assumed the text said as much? Or are you suggesting there is no reason to think the text says people genetically related to Lehi or Ishmael or mulek and co lived beyond 400AD? I think your position fits nicely in the it is exceedingly unlikely that happened category. My position is that a closer reading of the book itself makes it blindingly, obviously, overwhelmingly clear that nobody HAD to assume a literal genetic tie between BoM peoples and Native Americans in the first place. Like we all spent ~150 years assuming. And where we've got squat in the arena of prophetic utterances supporting belief that all NAs are direct biological descendants of seafaring Hebrews, we have quite a few prophetic and textual and historic bits of evidence supporting belief that the BoM is a literal history of literal peoples. I'm one of the whiter white guys out there. I've got a Scottish last name, and my family genealogy goes back numerous generations to just the English side of the Scottish border. When I do my DNA work, I belong to a haplotype with roots in the Middle East and North Africa. DNA is fascinating, but when considering BoM truth claims absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 1
LoudmouthMormon Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: 9 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: The study won’t make this claim because by default no one but members of the LDS church believe that there was a old world migration to the new world pre Columbus That is simply not true. Wikipedia has a rather substantial entry on various "pre-columbian contact" theories. See here: Ouch. Someone claiming familiarity with the science, who at first blush really sounds like someone who knows what they're talking about, makes a rookie mistake easily proven false by 3 minutes searching wikipedia? When the science isn't settled, credibility matters... 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 9 hours ago, Calm said: FD....From a quick skim ... A quick skim? Are you sure you didn't give it a quick squizz? Sorry! Couldn't resist!
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I really enjoyed the math here and the perspective. It seems this is entirely done backwards though for the question at hand (I'm not saying the results would be different). The question should be what is the chance that any of my descendants will have a detectable portion of my dna in x generations. And further, what percentage of my descendants will have that portion. Not sure if Southerton addresses this or not. Essentially the same, just direction one is looking imo. If one assumes it is even, nonrandom each time, it goes for each generation 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 etc. Once one get to the 20th generation you have 1/1048576...which appears to be outside the range of detection given by Southerton, correct? And 20 generations is only 500 years. Of course it won't be an even split every time or the same genes/markers passed on . For example, I am guessing from the way we look, Mom passed on more of her dad's DNA relating to the face and Dad passed on more of his dad's DNA but only to one kid very much. Everyone of Dad's kids but the one that looks most like his mom has got Dad's massive head, but only my son got it while my daughter takes small (My brothers seem more normal size save one out of a dozen). My kids look like a good mix but leaned towards their dad's side, my grandkids out of three one might be taking after my mom's dad, the other two look more like their Mom. As far as my family is concerned, my grandkids are probably quite light on the DNA of all, but maybe one of my grandparents. So pretty obvious some descendants have more than the postulated even split and some have less. And if you had fewer descendants to begin with ( two in my case) that is a lot higher chance of large parts of my particular combo disappearing quickly out of the population, especially with one not having any kids. Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm
stemelbow Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 22 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: My position is that a closer reading of the book itself makes it blindingly, obviously, overwhelmingly clear that nobody HAD to assume a literal genetic tie between BoM peoples and Native Americans in the first place. Like we all spent ~150 years assuming. And where we've got squat in the arena of prophetic utterances supporting belief that all NAs are direct biological descendants of seafaring Hebrews, we have quite a few prophetic and textual and historic bits of evidence supporting belief that the BoM is a literal history of literal peoples. I'm one of the whiter white guys out there. I've got a Scottish last name, and my family genealogy goes back numerous generations to just the English side of the Scottish border. When I do my DNA work, I belong to a haplotype with roots in the Middle East and North Africa. DNA is fascinating, but when considering BoM truth claims absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ok. I find your conclusions less convincing. I'm also probably not clear on what you mean by things like "literal genetic tie between BoM peoples and Native Americans". If a group of people came, as the BoM describes, to the Americas and there were already millions of people here some say, like Southerton, that it'd be near impossible to not be able to detect a genetic trace of such a thing. I don't know if that's a safe evaluation. I only know that's what is claimed. If it's not a safe one, I"d like to know. But I also remember reading Sapiens and it suggested there are traces of Neanderthal DNA found in modern humans. If so, that may say something. First such a finding suggests there were species intermixing. Second, the trace found suggests over tens of thousands of years, small incursions of one population into another can be detected. I have a feeling I have become acquainted with most of what might be considered, "textual and historic bits of evidence supporting belief that the BoM is a literal history" and i'd find that claim wanting. I do think the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is about as good as the church can do on this. The science doesn't support the claims of the book so we must hold out hope that the science is incomplete. I have no problem with that notion in theory. I do find it problematic though if concluding things like, "well the science is inconclusive". The problem is the science could be quite conclusive and we wouldn't know. You simply don't know what might have happened to give you traces of Middle Eastern or North African genetics. That doesn't mean the science is inconclusive.
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 9 hours ago, Calm said: FD....From a quick skim, this article talks about finding geographical origin, not specific ancestors. Am .I missing the connection? And is it claiming to be able to find the geopgraphical origin of every ancestor an individual has or something else? Added: As I said before, I am curious from a genealogical POV. Imagine instead of pouring through records, we ran someone's DNA, made a list of the DNA markers each specific ancestor had, and then linked people through shared markers....however, not sure how Global that would be given a parent can give a different set of markers to each kid. What if it is the nonoverlapping DNA markers that survives 30 generations? How would we connect past the siblings? The above mentioned study demonstrates that through DNA one can trace your family genealogy back to a region of origin. Or a male descendant can trace do a Y-DNA test to trace his male line back. This test will tie in with every known male ancestor. This test is invaluable when confronting a sticky family tree genealogy problem and can be used to advance your family line back should the paper trail end.
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 9 hours ago, 'aussieguy55 said: Hello are you from Australia? That is an aussie expression yes
rockpond Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 21 hours ago, sunstoned said: This is some good research and a valid response that you you have posted Smac. But with regards to what Simon stated: He is speaking about official church publications, such as lesson manuals and transcripts from conference talks. I guess you could also group South American Temple dedication prayers into this also. What is stated here is true. This is what is taught. Apologists obviously has a different spin on this as you post clearly indicates. But Apologists do not speak for the church, and if fact often discount the words of the prophets in order to try to make things fit with reality. Most chapel mormons do not keep up on the latest apologetic theories. They read the Engine and watch conference. The message they receive is often very different that what is found in the latest MI article. I agree... the actual text of the Book of Mormon (excluding introductory materials) makes no claim about a connection to today's Native American people but as a church we certainly did. It strikes me as revisionist history to pretend that both church leaders and members through official teachings, programs (Lamanite Placement Program, Lamanite Generation), and culture weren't making the claim that Native American populations are direct descendants of the Book of Mormon people. 1
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 51 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: Ouch. Someone claiming familiarity with the science, who at first blush really sounds like someone who knows what they're talking about, makes a rookie mistake easily proven false by 3 minutes searching wikipedia? When the science isn't settled, credibility matters... Cut and pasting pseudo-science links from Wikipedia disqualifies my opinions? Science is never settled, it is always pushing the envelope forward in an ever expanding push towards the truth. Unlike fixed dogma, it allows for the abandonment of once cherished truths when the evidence so dictates. While there will always be defusionists who do not want to give the indigenous peoples of America credit for their own technological and cultural advancements, instead passing that credit on to some yet unproven migration from the old world, but these cross pollination advocates are not taken seriously in the the scientific community.
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 11 hours ago, Calm said: There is a difference between being able to go back so many years following some ancestors. I am curious if one goes back 1000, 5000, 10,000 years if one could pick out any ancestor and be guaranteed find traces of their DNA or if at some point, DNA gets dumped. We know that this happens with some of the DNA and thus previous limitations where a specific ancestor’s DNA could get lost as early as five to seven generations. With more DNA testable, perhaps this isn’t as big of a problem, but has it been completely removed? That is what I am curious about because it has a lot of implications for how people think about ancestry. Some people think dna can be a shortcut to doing genealogy as in finding all the connections through a biological dna direct line from each descendant to any shred ancestor, but even siblings dna can be significantly different, so it seems to me unlikely that this is possible. Can I just say that I sincerely appreciate your approach. While I appreciate that you probably come to this discussion with a particular point of view. You at least appear to approach this subject with an open mind and a sincere desire to find actual answers to this subjects questions.
subutai Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 Quote SMAC 97 First, this sounds like Southerton is talking about generalized teachings about the text of the Book of Mormon, rather than the text itself. Latter-day Saint apologists are, in the main, not fixated on so-called "Lamanite DNA." Critics (most notably Southerton and Murphy) have, I think, hung their hats almost exclusively on extra-textual arguments about the Book of Mormon (i.e. the Introduction's reference to "principal ancestors," culled comments from LDS leaders, etc.) Let me find some of those "culled comments" for you. Doctrine and Covenants Section 32:1-5 This the Lord speaking through Joseph Smith, speaking about the Lamanite Mission. Remember this is LDS cannon scripture. The lord is giving a specific people and place. Quote 1 And now concerning my servant aParley P. Pratt, behold, I say unto him that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel and blearn of me, and be meek and lowly of heart. 2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall ago with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the bLamanites. 3 And aZiba Peterson also shall go with them; and I myself will go with them and be in their bmidst; and I am their cadvocate with the Father, and nothing shall dprevail against them. 4 And they shall give aheed to that which is written, and pretend to no other brevelation; and they shall pray always that I may cunfold the same to their dunderstanding. 5 And they shall give heed unto these words and trifle not, and I will bless them. Amen. From the churches website on the subject LDS Study Manual: A Mission to the Lamanites - Quote Joseph Smith received another revelation, in which Peter Whitmer Jr. was called to accompany his brother-in-law Oliver Cowdery. The Lord directed him to “open thy mouth to declare my Gospel” and to “give heed unto the words & advice of thy Brother” who had been given power “to build my Church among thy Brethren the Laminates.”5 The following month, October 1830, Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson were also called to go “into the wilderness among the Lamanites.” To aid them in this challenging assignment, the Lord promised that He would “go with them and be in their midst.”6 Because of the Indian Removal Act passed in May 1830, the new territory for relocating American Indians was to be in present-day Kansas and Oklahoma. Thus, these missionaries to the Lamanites planned to go west from Independence, Missouri, into Indian Territory. Recently on the LDS gospel topic essay Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo the church pretty much legitimized as revelation an early 1831 revelation to joseph smith about polygamy that also again specified who and where Lamananite Women were. Quote The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time. From the FAIR page Initiation of the practice of plural marriage Quote Verily, verily, saith the Lord your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, ye can not discerne with your natural eyes, the design and the purpose of your Lord and your God, in bringing you thus far into the wilderness for a trial of your faith, and to be especial witnesses, to bear testimony of this land, upon which the Zion of God shall be built up in the last days, when it is redeemed. … t is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles. "The great and glorious principle of plural marriage was first revealed to Joseph Smith in 1831, but being forbidden to make it public, or to teach it as a doctrine of the Gospel, at that time, he confided the facts to only a very few of his intimate associates. Among them were Oliver Cowdery and Lyman E. Johnson, the latter confiding the fact to his traveling companion, Elder Orson Pratt, in the year 1832". Joseph F Smith LDS Prophet. This page from FAIR Mormonism and polygamy/Lamanites to become "white and delightsome" through polygamous marriage Although they argue against the validity of the revelation which is curious because of how it was accepted by the church with the gospel topic essay, and used by apologist Dr. Brian Hales extensively to show an earlier date for the beginnings of polygamy. So the revelation is valid if we are talking about polygamy but not valid when we mention Lamanites? Some strange logic. SMAC you can't casually discount what was said by a Prophet in the past without undercutting the current prophets authority today. Quote
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I've read the study. It never makes this claim, anywhere, in any form. To the contrary, the authors of the study clearly acknowledge the possibility of pre-Columbian migrations of some kind when they state that they intentionally excluded data potentially originating from 'admixture events that occurred prior to colonial-era migrations'. What exactly do you think this phrase refers to? I honestly don't know where you're getting your conclusions from. I believe that you've over stated the methodology used by the authors of the study. They do not state, as you claim, that they "intentionally excluded data potentially originating from 'admixture events that occurred prior to colonial-era migrations' ". Your interpretation of the methodology suggests that all pre columbian admixture has been excluded from the study. This is NOT what the authors state. Instead they state clearly in their methodology that they Quote For the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, we further excluded individuals with ≤5% ancestry from X and individuals with date ≥ 30 generations to avoid admixture events that occurred prior to colonial-era migrations. The authors clearly state that they only excluded individuals with date ≥ 30 generations to avoid admixture events that occurred prior to colonial-era migrations while compiling a base measurement in their Wilcoxon rank sum test. This test is to establish a basis for measurement against the sample being measured. Think of it as a white canvas with multiple colours of droplets of paint on it. In order to measure the various colours being used on the canvas one needs to know what the blank white canvas originally looked like in order to assess the introduction of colours to the canvas. This is what the Wilcoxon rank sum test accomplishes for the authors...a base measurement from which to assess the data points being measured.
LoudmouthMormon Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: The science doesn't support the claims of the book so we must hold out hope that the science is incomplete. Not sure who is saying that. I'm ok saying "Science does hardly nothing to support the claims of the book". I don't hold out hope it will someday. I'm LDS because I believe God wants me to be one. The last time DNA was making a big hullaballoo, like two decades ago, I ran a fun thought experiment with church critics. Feel free to give your own answer if you like: Quote Here's a thought experiment: Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists announce they have found the grave of Lehi, the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, horse and elephant bones, steel swords, breastplates, and evidence of the massive battles talked about in the BoM. Let's say they unearth additional records that strongly support events described in the BoM - especially Christ's visit. If all this happened, would you believe Joseph Smith and the BoM are what they claim to be, and would you go to a mormon church and get baptized? --- Tchild2: “Problem is, that "tomorrow" never arrives, it exists as a hypothetical fantasy. What if Jesus came down and said that the Catholics had and always had the sole power to effect the ordinances of Christianity, would you then become Catholic, or whatever religion had their fantasy evidences and proofs materialize? "Tomorrow" is an artifice and construct of fantasy that doesn't exist, and never has with religious claims.” ---Sleepyhead: “The book of mormon being true doesn't automatically indicate that any of the reorganization chruches are true. Each step has to be looked at logically.” ---AZNative: “Let me know when they find Moroni's horse wrapped in the Title of Liberty, then we'll talk...”--- Oceanblue: “OK, BoM is true and Joseph was a fallen prophet. Power went to his head. Something like that. Saul, anyone?” -- Agnostimorm: "If something like what you describe happenned I would be thrilled to accept such a thing." -- "If God were a real being and he corresponded to the many things reported about him by Christians, it is likely I would not want anything to do with him." -- FormerLDS: "Honestly, I don't think it would change my opinion about the LDS organization. With respect to seeing archaeological evidence, and believing, think about this: Have you ever seen the a devil cast out of a man? Certainly, that would be very convincing evidence. Have you ever personally witnessed prophecy? That too would be very convincing evidence. Have you ever seen wonderful works? Yet more evidence that might convince one to believe. All of these and more are done in the name of Jesus Christ by those who accepted a false gospel (Matt 7:22). Therefore, evidence can be very misleading where the truth of the gospel is concerned. How much cyanide kills? Likewise, a gospel that is 99.99% grace and .001% works will send a man's soul to the lake of fire for eternity, regardless the "evidence". The only gospel that will save is Believe WITHOUT works." -- Cinepro: "I'm still baptized, but it would certainly change the direction I'm heading." -- Roman: "Never because your little drama would never happen" -- Oprichnik (LDS): "It's in the Christian world's best interest that that scenerio not occur. Their agency would evaporate in a heartbeat." -- JustCurious: "Well anyone who would not would be a fool..." -- A Random Catholic: "As I said the first time Wunna posted that scenario, if it happened, I would almost certainly seek to be baptized. I would retain a pretty liberal view of the origin of the Book of Abraham and tend to believe that there's a degree of Old Testament hyperbole at work in that "2,230,000 dead Nephites" bit, but apart from that, I would accept the CoJCoLDS as being exactly what it claims to be and gratefully submit myself to its leadership." -- BAMMER: "I've already given my life over to the Lord and been reborn through faith. I confess Him daily. And I would never accept anything or anyone that taught another gospel. Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Ga 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. The BOM teaches that by grace man is saved "after all he can do." This means he works or qualifies himself for God's grace after a lifetime of efforts. This is a damnable lie and lies in direct opposition to the Gospel of Christ. So in a nutshell, I wouldn't care if an angel of light came and held plates in front of my face - if they taught another gospel, they are accursed." -- Jimbo: "First of all, IF any of those things happened, it would be quite remarkable indeed and I would be more than willing to look at the evidence. If it held up, everyone would have to admit that. However, the fact remains than none of those things have happened and it is noteworthy that they have not." -- Joe Schmoe: "An emphatic YES!" -- Tchild2: "Are you kidding? If the Book of Mormon is proved historical, the next line of defense for the critics, exmo's and anti's is the "fallen prophet" stance either with Joseph Smith, or that Brigham Young did not authoritatively recieve the prophet mantle and the priesthood keys after J.S. and the thus the church no longer has the authority to act in God's name, or something else polemic and unproveable. What else would we do with our time if not on these boards trying to prove the other person wrong? I don't want the party to end, do you? :)" 1
stemelbow Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 15 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: Not sure who is saying that. I'm ok saying "Science does hardly nothing to support the claims of the book". I don't hold out hope it will someday. I'm LDS because I believe God wants me to be one. The last time DNA was making a big hullaballoo, like two decades ago, I ran a fun thought experiment with church critics. Feel free to give your own answer if you like: SOunds good. Quote Here's a thought experiment: Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists announce they have found the grave of Lehi, the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, horse and elephant bones, steel swords, breastplates, and evidence of the massive battles talked about in the BoM. Let's say they unearth additional records that strongly support events described in the BoM - especially Christ's visit. If all this happened, would you believe Joseph Smith and the BoM are what they claim to be, and would you go to a mormon church and get baptized? Beats me. I didn't really stop my participation in the Church because of the BoM historicity issues. Before I left I had already concluded the story was likely lacking any historic significance--it was scripture mostly because the church said so, but the inspiration in it was sparse. So I doubt, given your hypothetical, that I'd go running back to Church, but such findings would be wildly interesting and the subsequent discussions would be wildly entertaining.
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: False. We have plenty of evidence of disappearance of DNA from populations, which is why we need actual skeletal remains to test. I fail to recognize your point? Are you trying to apply the founders effect to the conclusion of this study?
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 2 hours ago, subutai said: SMAC you can't casually discount what was said by a Prophet in the past without undercutting the current prophets authority today. There is no basis for presuming infallibility for any of them, so I am not sure how this is a relevant issue.
smac97 Posted January 14, 2020 Author Posted January 14, 2020 2 hours ago, subutai said: Let me find some of those "culled comments" for you. ... I'm aware of these. 2 hours ago, subutai said: This page from FAIR Mormonism and polygamy/Lamanites to become "white and delightsome" through polygamous marriage Although they argue against the validity of the revelation It's an important consideration. 2 hours ago, subutai said: which is curious because of how it was accepted by the church with the gospel topic essay, Could you clarify what you are saying here? 2 hours ago, subutai said: and used by apologist Dr. Brian Hales extensively to show an earlier date for the beginnings of polygamy. Again, couls you clarify what you are saying? 2 hours ago, subutai said: So the revelation is valid if we are talking about polygamy Who has said this? 2 hours ago, subutai said: but not valid when we mention Lamanites? Some strange logic. I'm not following your logic. I hope you will clarify. 2 hours ago, subutai said: SMAC you can't casually discount what was said by a Prophet in the past without undercutting the current prophets authority today. Where have I "casually discount{ed} what was said by a Prophet in the past"? Thanks, -Smac
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 Mr. Smac, Can you at least acknowledge that the arguments put forth in the LDS DNA essay (which you so elegantly cut and pasted in your OP) are in serious need of an update in order to address advancements in Genentic science which has rendered the apologetic arguments in the essays moot?
smac97 Posted January 14, 2020 Author Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Mr. Smac, Can you at least acknowledge that the arguments put forth in the LDS DNA essay (which you so elegantly cut and pasted in your OP) are in serious need of an update in order to address advancements in Genentic science which has rendered the apologetic arguments in the essays moot? If such mootness has occurred, sure. "If." And perhaps an update would be appropriate even without a showing of mootness. I'm quite open to that, too. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 14, 2020 by smac97
Thinking Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 Apologists love to criticize Southerton and his books, yet it wasn't until after the release of Losing a Lost Tribe that principal was changed to among in the Book of Mormon introduction. 1
rockpond Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Thinking said: Apologists love to criticize Southerton and his books, yet it wasn't until after the release of Losing a Lost Tribe that principal was changed to among in the Book of Mormon introduction. It can (and likely will) be argued that no causal relationship between Southerton's book and the change to the BoM introduction exists. But it seems that much of the positive change that has come about in the Church over the past couple decades has followed, and fallen in line with, critiques by those outside the leadership of the church. Edited January 14, 2020 by rockpond 1
LoudmouthMormon Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Quote Here's a thought experiment: Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists announce they have found the grave of Lehi, the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, horse and elephant bones, steel swords, breastplates, and evidence of the massive battles talked about in the BoM. Let's say they unearth additional records that strongly support events described in the BoM - especially Christ's visit. If all this happened, would you believe Joseph Smith and the BoM are what they claim to be, and would you go to a mormon church and get baptized? Beats me. I didn't really stop my participation in the Church because of the BoM historicity issues. Before I left I had already concluded the story was likely lacking any historic significance--it was scripture mostly because the church said so, but the inspiration in it was sparse. So I doubt, given your hypothetical, that I'd go running back to Church, but such findings would be wildly interesting and the subsequent discussions would be wildly entertaining. Thanks for the input. I find such answers from folks critical of my faith fascinating, and hardly rare.
Bob Crockett Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 25 minutes ago, Thinking said: Apologists love to criticize Southerton and his books, yet it wasn't until after the release of Losing a Lost Tribe that principal was changed to among in the Book of Mormon introduction. True and confounding that is.
2BizE Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 Native Americans having Jewish ancestry is as likely as the flat earth theory. I mean, the earth could be flat, right?
Thinking Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 14 hours ago, Calm said: There is a difference between being able to go back so many years following some ancestors. I am curious if one goes back 1000, 5000, 10,000 years if one could pick out any ancestor and be guaranteed find traces of their DNA or if at some point, DNA gets dumped. We are not talking about a single ancestor when talking about the possibility of finding Lamanite DNA.
Recommended Posts