A Very Limited Geography

[_Simon Belmont]

You'd look to the best qualified experts in the field that have no agenda--no dog in the hunt.

That immediately disqualifies Drs. Southerton and Murphy.

[_Morley]

Stem-- Thanks for the update. I appreciate your honesty and attempts at openness and understanding.

Wow, a nice comment. Thanks.

Sadly it seems only made to set up:

However, given your arguments and their resulting conclusions--and assuming that you did, indeed, read all of the referenced work in the thread--I do respectfully disagree with your (above) statement.

Or perhaps the way you read the data is just influenced by your bias.

That opinion is, of course, my bias.

Take care.

Kindness and generosity only goes so far around these parts. Take care.

No, it was not a set up. They were two distinct thoughts--carefully separated. The second point does not negate the first.

If you're going to embrace the criticism, please accept the compliment as well.

[_jon]

Simon,

You said Jesus created a Church 'hierarchy, guidelines and stuff'.
You posted a reference for when he called his Apostles, but I'm not seeing a Hierarchy - who was Prophet? What was his Church called? Who held the leadership positions beneath the Apostles? Were there Bishops and Melkezidick Priesthood holders?

Also you don't seem to have posted where it shows Him giving 'guidelines' nor 'stuff'.
I'm sure that's just an oversight on your part so please post them when you find the references...

[_Themis]

Hey all,

I havne't had much of a chance to show up here very much as of late. Every time I attempt to catch myself up on this thread i get interrupted and am diverted from the discussion with my real life. Dang life.

Anyway, i'm not so sure I'm all that interested to continue here. It seems I've been a bit misunderstood by many of the respondents and that's probably my fault more than anything. I can't quite put my finger on the communication errrors so for the sake of getting too concerned about each point I, for brevity's sake, will draw a few concluding remarks. And, for the sake of clarity I might just be silly enough to respond to any additional responses that come my way.

It seems to me looking back and trying to provide classifications for certain groups of people (like the ancient Israelites) in the past seems like a much easier activity then being able to answer for the genetic make-up of certain people in the past, even those who can be considered part of an ancient group (like Lehi). Yet in all of this we simply cannot pinpoint the genetic make-up of Lehi and co, for starters.

On top of that, we can't be sure there were not smaller populations of "others" introduced into the western hemisphere, appreciably, engulfed by the majority, genetically.

On top of that, the debate regarding the origin of the native Americans, themselves, rages on, albeit there are many agreed upon ideas and concepts, which I've conceded do not fit well with the Book of Mormon story.

On top of that, the debate concerning the genetic make-up of ancient Israelites also rages on, even though there are significant headways in terms of assuming great hegemony among jewish peoples.

These things tend to suggest in my mind, the questions still remain. The issues aren't resolved. While I get from a critical perspective the issue doesn't look good for LDS, I maintain, as do many LDS experts in the field, that there is considerable room for questioning the criticisms. There is considerable room for debate among many conclusions and assumptions. I simply can't see this as the open and shut case as has been attempted to be presented here by critics. Thus, i commented.

Other than that, I simply don't think there is much reason to quibble about some of the issues that were highlighted and argued in this thread. I'm not the only one in over his head on this issue, albeit I don't think I'm necessarily in over my head talking about this issue with most who have commented here.

One last clarification. My participation in this thread was meant to be one of clear questioning the assumptions by critics. It was not meant to be a ploy by me to get other believers to manufacture more hope in the LDS cause. I wished to explore the issue for my own benefit.

Thanks.

Here is the thread Runtu promised discussing one of the fair articles you were using. http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18075&p=450865#p450865

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

You said Jesus created a Church 'hierarchy, guidelines and stuff'.
You posted a reference for when he called his Apostles, but I'm not seeing a Hierarchy - who was Prophet? What was his Church called? Who held the leadership positions beneath the Apostles? Were there Bishops and Melkezidick Priesthood holders?

Also you don't seem to have posted where it shows Him giving 'guidelines' nor 'stuff'.
I'm sure that's just an oversight on your part so please post them when you find the references...

Heirarchy = Prophet?

I should inform the CEO of my company!

Jesus' teachings are guidelines. How can you deny that?

[_jon]

Simon,

You said Jesus created a Church 'hierarchy, guidelines and stuff'.
You posted a reference for when he called his Apostles, but I'm not seeing a Hierarchy - who was Prophet? What was his Church called? Who held the leadership positions beneath the Apostles? Were there Bishops and Melkezidick Priesthood holders?

Also you don't seem to have posted where it shows Him giving 'guidelines' nor 'stuff'.
I'm sure that's just an oversight on your part so please post them when you find the references...

Heirarchy = Prophet?

I should inform the CEO of my company!

Jesus' teachings are guidelines. How can you deny that?

So, the 'Church' Jesus set up:
1. Didn't have a Leader after He was crucified
2. Didn't have a name
3. Used the stories He told as Church operating guidelines
4. Had no other Church roles other than Apostle

Perhaps you are reading the parts that Mormon's believe may not have been translated correctly...

[_ludwigm]

Heirarchy = Prophet?

We have observed the birth of a new word.
heirarchy
System of leadership.
The new leaders are the heirs, descendants or kinsfolks of old ones.
See the Kim family in North Korea.
See the Smith family in Utah.

[_Chap]

Heirarchy = Prophet?

We have observed the birth of a new word.
heirarchy
System of leadership.
The new leaders are the heirs, descendants or kinsfolks of old ones.
See the Kim family in North Korea.
See the Smith family in Utah.

Naughty Ludwig! You can't expect native speakers of English to spell words in their own language consistently. I am sure that it says somewhere in the Constitution that we have the right to spell 'hierarchy' as 'heirarchy' and 'atheist' as 'athiest' if we want to. Otherwise why do people keep doing it?

But 'heirarchy' as a descriptor for the Kims and Smiths? That's nice, and may be an example of a random linguistic mutation that ends up exhibiting a high degree of Darwinian fitness!

[_Brackite]

In the last few weeks I have heard apologists and relatives of mine summarily dismiss the DNA-Book of Mormon issue. Oh that problem was solved years ago. Get over it.

Why me (Mormon Discussions)
“My gosh, I forgot about Simon. I remember his rise to antimormon king. Everywhere on the antimormon circuit he was being lauded. His DNA article had antimormons cheering and doing hand stands. The postmormons were going ape crap over him.

But...then he faded from view and his DNA theory fell flat.”

Relative

“I thought that after the D&A (sic) thing had been proved wrong you would have stopped criticizing the Church so publicly”.


At the risk (well certainty) of being accused of leaving the church but not being able to leave it alone, here's a little update.

Since church approved (but unofficial) apologists now virtually all sing to the Limited Geography song sheet, I thought I would see what the DNA situation currently looks like in Mesoamerica. Some excellent papers have been published in the last couple of years that have focussed on this region.

The mitochondrial (maternal) DNA lineages have now been published for 1,164 native Mesoamericans from 30 populations ranging from Central Mexico down to Cost Rica. About 99.6% of their maternal lineages belong to the four major lineages (A, B, C or D) which are derived from Asia. Only eleven Mesoamericans possessed a mtDNA lineage that didn’t originate in Asia. Of the eleven non-Asian lineages, three were African L lineages, and three were not fully characterised.

The remaining five lineages included two H lineages, one U, one J and one T lineage. These lineages are found in European populations in the following frequencies: lineage H (54%), lineage U (16%), lineage J (10%) and lineage T (8%). By comparing these 5 lineages to the thousands of mtDNA sequences in global databases, exact matches were found for the U and T lineages among individuals from Western Europe, namely Spain, Portugal and Poland. Meanwhile, the most abundant female lineages in Middle Eastern populations are lineage K (32%) followed by lineage H (26%). Given that African lineages were detected and the exact matches with Portuguese lineages, it looks very likely that these “other” lineages originated from post Columbus admixture with African and European colonists. Similar levels of admixture have been observed in several other Native American populations, particularly in eastern North America, which was impacted more heavily after first contact.

Scientists are also able to determine when this admixture occurred. That is, they can estimate approximately how many years ago the European or African DNA entered a Native American’s family tree. They do this using high throughput DNA technology to track the inheritance of nuclear DNA markers. The major population groups (Eurasians, American Indians, Africans) have thousands of unique nuclear DNA markers that allow detection of their nuclear DNA. This same technology was used to determine that most of us (Eurasians) have a small proportion of Neanderthal nuclear DNA in our genomes. The nuclear DNA of yet another ancient hominid, Denisovans, was recently found to be present in Melanesians.

Scientists recently used this approach to determine the time when European or African DNA entered the family trees of Mesoamericans. It was found to be in about the last 500 years. While the vast majority of the DNA of Mesoamerican Indians is derived from Asian ancestors, the remaining small proportion of non-Asian DNA appears to have entered their family trees since the arrival of Columbus. So even in Mesoamerica, the only reasonable location for the Book of Mormon lands, according to most apologists, the descendants of Book of Mormon groups continue to escape detection.

Yet apologists continue to pretend that the science fits perfectly with a “correct” or “serious” interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

“If we forego traditions and folk-assumptions about the Book of Mormon and apply the methods of modern science and scholarship to what the Book of Mormon actually says and does not say, we find that the book paints a picture which is amazingly similar in many ways to the same picture painted by New World experts about the ancient cultures during Book of Mormon times” (Michael Ash, Mormon Times 25 April 2011)

I don’t know what New World picture Ash is looking at.

Science has revealed that Mesoamerica was colonized about 15,000 years ago by people who had walked across Beringia from Siberia. By about 10,000 years ago these people had begun domesticating maize, beans, and other crops and had begun to establish large sedentary populations. By 600 BC any group arriving in the New World would have immediately encountered vast numbers of Native Americans, particularly in Mesoamerica where the earliest civilizations emerged. These were civilizations that arose completely independently of Old World civilizations.

I stand by what I said seven years ago.

“Ten centuries ago a handful of Norse sailors slipped into Newfoundland, established small colonies, traded with local natives, then sailed back into the fog of history. In spite of the small scale of their settlements and the brevity of their stay, unequivocal evidence of their presence has been found. Just six centuries earlier the Book of Mormon tells us, a climactic battle between fair-skinned Nephites and dark-skinned Lamanites ended a millennial dominion by a literate, Christian, Bronze Age civilization with a population numbering in the millions. Decades of serious and honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed. No Semitic languages, no Israelites speaking these languages, no swords or steel to make them. They remain a great civilization vanished without a trace, the people along with their genes” (Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church, 2004)

Hi Simon Southerton,

Thanks, For This Great Thread That You Produced Here! I do have three questions for you here. My first question to you is how come three of the non-Asian mtDNA lineages were not able to be fully characterized? My second question to you is, May I get a link to these recent studies? My third question to you is are you going to update your Book, ‘Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church:’ since a lot of recent information about Native Americans and their DNA have come out, since the Year of 2004? Take Care!

[_Simon Belmont]

So, the 'Church' Jesus set up:
1. Didn't have a Leader after He was crucified

Now you're adding conditions that don't meet any definition of "Church." Three of the apostles took leadership roles, as well.

2. Didn't have a name

Where does it say churches have to have names?

3. Used the stories He told as Church operating guidelines

Yup. Teachings, stories, parables, the beatitudes, examples, miracles.

4. Had no other Church roles other than Apostle

Apostle, Son of God

Perhaps you are reading the parts that Mormon's believe may not have been translated correctly...

Perhaps you are ignorant to the brink of disability?