I mean, aside from the fact she is completely brainwashed. She said she watched some stuff on the History Channel about improvements in DNA testing, maternal/paternal differentiation and how while Western tribes seemed to come from Asia, Eastern indigenous peoples are showing Jewish DNA. I've asked her for links to the shows and some articles she says a mutual friend showed her and gotten nothing, although she is elderly and kind of forgetful. But she says all this with some triumph in her voice like "See, told you so." One of the things that convinced her to convert to Mormonism was the old legends she read about a "great white God." She felt this was proof the BoM was true and didn't bother to look into the dates or origins of these legends. She never bothered to verify her sources and it looks like she isn't this time. But why would she say the History Channel was broadcasting "new" information?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2015 09:10PM by CA girl.

"Why does my TBM mom think"

Sorry- but that's as far as I got. TBM's don't think, they believe.
If TBM's actually thought, they wouldn't be TBM's.
You can't apply rational logic to illogical people.

William Penn actually wrote that they looked like Jews. At least, that's what I read in the book 1492. anyone else see that?

Perhaps they have seen too many Mel Brooks movies or harken back to F Troop the television show.

But it seems like she it trying to quote "new discoveries" that disprove the idea indigenous tribes in the Americas all came from Asia. She seems to think improvements in DNA have showed the Jewish DNA in those on the Atlantic coast. Has anyone ever heard of a History Channel program (or anything) that might have given her this idea?

Yes. There was a History Channel show about Timothy Leary and the explosion of LSD use.

Its coming from claims about Haplogroup X. Wayne May, Rod Meldrum and a non-LDS named Donald Yates (he is not a scientist) are the ones pushing it. They are wrong but many LDS have only heard what they say and don't care to read the scientist's statements against this nonsense.

Simon Southerton has info about it on his blog.
http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/

And scientists who were misrepresented in the Lost Civilizations DVD spoke out about the DNA too.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_three_real_messages/

Also, LDS scientist Ugo Perego has peer reviewed published research about haplogroup X being part of the Paleoindian migrations long before Adam and Eve. The LDS DNA essay even says "arguments that some defenders of the Book of Mormon make based on DNA studies are also speculative. In short, DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon."
https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

The church does not support or back up the claim about Eastern tribes having Jewish DNA. Hope this helps.

She's probably watching "America Unearthed".

Considering the amount of garbage on the History Channel these days (Ancient Aliens, Bigfoot, Megasharks, etc.), they'd probably say anything no matter how unfounded to get ratings.

Yeah, I don't consider the History Channel to be the respected source my mom does but until she can show me what she is talking about, specifically, I can't respond to her claims. She is forgetful - she isn't just playing possum. That's why I hoped someone here might know what links she's talking about. Really good insights from everyone.

There are some crack-pot arguments that some genetic marker in one tribe of Cherokee, a group that has been mixed up genetically for over 180 years, is somehow "Jewish". The totality of DNA evidence tells us that the BoM is fiction, but TBM's will cling to any far fetched story they can latch onto.

It was probably this:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/cherokee-dna.htm

IDT the History Channel is exactly credible these days.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/lost-civilisations/the-lost-tribes-of-israel/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2015 09:42PM by Itzpapalotl.

Here we go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHNRf9H7nD4

I remember watching this when it came on and immediately felt the urge to throw something at the TV.

Thank you. I have all your links open on my computer at the same time, trying to figure this all out. I know the History Channel seems to be the Conspiracy Theory Channel now and that real DNA research easily disproves the strings my mom is grasping about but I'd like to know why she is so convinced there is proof outside the church that Lehi existed and populated the earth. Your stuff, and everyone else's, is a big help.

Send her to Brooklyn for a crash course in Judaism 101.

The Jewish neighborhoods there will set her straight in a New York heartbeat. With all the diversity among Jews, there is not one scintilla of truth to your mother's belief.

There is no DNA linking any Indian tribes to Jewish DNA. Nada.

The myth became a legend with the legend that was Joe Smith.

And we all know where that came from. Not DNA.

Here is the other problem I see, after watching and reading the links. The tribe most convinced they have Jewish ancestry, a small, not-federally-recognized Cherokee band, use their light skin as "proof" they descended from Jewish settlers at some point. However, any "Jewish" blood left after the imaginary massacre at the end of the Book of Mormon, would have belonged to DARK skinned peoples. The BoM is VERY clear all the "white and delightsome" people were wiped out to the last man, woman and child. So not only did the DNA results come back for this particular group of Cherokee as being NOT Jewish, the lightness of their skin would have been an argument against being descendants of Lehi - if you want to trip up Mormons with their own fairy tale.

I think the tribe you are talking about is known as the "Central Band of Cherokee". They are completely fake. These two BIA links spell it out. And Larry Echo Hawk, who was the BIA official whose signature is on the document is now an LDS General Authority, something you might point out to your mother.

http://www.indianaffairs.gov/cs/groups/mywcsp/documents/text/idc010309.pdf

http://bia.gov/cs/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc017585.pdf

This is your Mom's brain.

(Shows an uncracked egg)


This is your Mom's brain on Mormonism.

(Cracks the egg into a sizzling hot frying pan)


Any more questions?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2015 10:42PM by sonoma.

Here are a couple of prior threads about the Cherokee, mentioned above.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1455677
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1495042

Those Cherokee, however, are in Colorado; I don't know why your mom is fixated on the Eastern US.

You might remind your mom that the profits have never distinguished between western and eastern tribes. Does she still think of Kimball as a profit? Spencer said they were all Lamanites – east, west, wherever – and all came from Jerusalem. If she accepts SWK, then she can't go against him and use the east-west issue as an excuse.

"Now the Lamanites number about 60 million; they are in all of the states of America, from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand." ("Of Royal Blood," July 1971 Ensign, p. 7)


He also said it during General Conference (AKA "scripture for our time"):

Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, October 1959, p. 60:

"When Columbus came, your tribes had covered the islands of the Pacific and the Americas from Tierra del Fuego to Point Barrow. Every school child is familiar with that period of history when your more recent ancestors were pushed from the Appalachians to the Sierras, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. All know about the four hundred year 'battle of America,' wherein a disunited multitude of small Indian tribal nations retreated constantly with much bloodshed to far corners, and then on reservations in areas unwanted."

But the Cherokee were originally based in South Eastern USA before they were forced to walk the Trail of Tears.

http://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/trail-of-tears

While members of tribes are spread throughout the US these days, I think the Utes were primarily located in what is now known as the San Luis Valley.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2015 11:18PM by Itzpapalotl.

The link Itzpapalotl gave ties to the Central Band of Cherokee that are in Tennessee. The Colorado situation is different.

This link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHNRf9H7nD4

Here's an article from '03 about the Cherokee-Jewish ancestry link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/848921/posts

Here's another informative article.

http://peopleofonefire.com/southeastern_native_americans_with_jewish_dna.html

So CA Girl's mom is correct that there are NAs with Jewish heritage, but misguided about when that heritage entered that gene pool.

This subject kinda reminds me of my HS English teacher that was adamant there were blue eyed, blond Natives in the North East tribes from Vikings landing and marrying various members of the tribes. The concept is also explored in Madeline L'Engle's, A Swiftly Tilting Planet, but I don't hear too much about this idea and I'm unsure how accurate it is. Anyone else heard of this?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2015 11:37PM by Itzpapalotl.

Truly fascinating material, Itzpapalotl...

Thank you!!!

:)

The first link is about the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory. It is a fake group.
https://news.artnet.com/people/artist-accused-of-posing-as-native-american-312974

I didn't know how long this claim (aside from the Mormons and other whackos) had been going around so it was an eyebrow raiser to see one from '03 and I hadn't heard of this group in MO before. For some reason, people love claiming NA heritage, but they don't seem to want to bear the problems nor deal with the issues that plague NAs. It's just a way to make themselves feel "exotic."

It's also why I advocate Indigenous/Native People's cultural education in schools. Too many people have inane misconceptions about the various tribes. At best, they're romanticized as the noble savages, have their cultures appropriated, and turned into a profit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2015 10:34AM by Itzpapalotl.

It's because of this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6nHtEYdy2I

What has you mom been smoking? I want some....

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,110133,110133#msg-110133

Simon Southerton even chimed in on this one (and he's on my short "Christmas List" of some "hard copy" information I picked up at Rod Meldrum's "FIRM Foundation" roadshow a few weeks ago. Definite "loud laughter" stuff).

Here's a Deseret article from 2008 that aspires to link DNA of South American Indians to Jewish DNA.

And then tries to make the leap from that to BoM Indians.

Listen to the mopologists as they write, "To think that you can prove (group relationships) like you can use DNA to identify a (criminal) is not on the same scale of scientific inquiry."Like the Book of Mormon itself, from records buried for centuries in the Hill Cumorah, genetic "proof" may remain hid up unto the Lord." (Yeah, sure, right, not.) http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705383620/Hebrew-DNA-found-in-South-America.html?pg=all

They try to make DNA evidence out to be a pseudo science, when it is anything but.

I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned the Solutrean Hypothesis, which was pushed by some very reputable scientists. Based on a few cultural links and Haplogroup X, it claimed a migration from Western Europe to Eastern North America about 25,000 years ago.

The 25,000 years is never mentioned by Mormons claiming an ancient migration. Some details of the hypothesis are a bit far-fetched, and it appears to be discredited. But Haplogroup X remains, and Mormons including Rod Meldrum continue to spin fantasies based on its existence.

It's that skinny genes argument again.

Now for some links discussing the topic instead of the fantasy that some people here have. If you notice, they don't really have anything to do with people's from 1000 years ago, more like several thousand years ago.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fossil-indicates-eurasian-roots-for-native-americans/2013/11/20/2777ac24-51fa-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/08/dna-analysis-shows-native-american-genealogy-one-unique-world.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2759684/Europe-s-family-tree-THIRD-branch-Link-genetic-connection-Modern-Europeans-Native-Americans.html

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/10/ancient-dna-links-native-americans-with-europe/

This is where the reasons come from...but if you notice, this study doesn't have anything to do with your Mormon or your anti-Mormon fantasies. This deals with science...

This science (as opposed to the antimormon hate or Mormon fantacism) has NO opinion on a religious item, and instead pushes ideas supporting an Asian to North America migration several thousand years ago (as opposed to a thousand years ago).

However, I have seen some Mormons using this as a validation of sorts. It really has nothing to do with that though. Despite that, this area of study is probably what they are referring to.

I suppose it could have gotten further heat in regards to Mormonism due to a particular Anti-Mormon botanist who was using the BoM DNA study to basically try to do scientific hits on these studies as well.

Though unrelated, when this area of study was brought up by some rather staunch AntiMormons (one botanist that I know of in particular) their ignorance on the subject (probably because he was a botanist rather than someone in the field) was shown. It was brought up because in their attempt to disprove the BoM, they were in fact trying to invalidate decades of research in this field as well...despite the fact that it has NOTHING to do with Mormons and the anti-Mormon quibbles! They were distinctly trying to discredit the entire field and decades of study with the single (and flawed I might add, the sample group was FAR too small in regards to the conclusions, at least in regards to the Eurasia migration theories that they were contending with) DNA study that is typically associated with the BoM and the Native American Jewish ideas.

And they were a BOTANIST at the end of it all. That's the first reference I think I ran across in regards to Mormons and these studies. I was not impressed with them (even if they are antimormon it's still part of this entire Mormon theology ideology being pushed or not pushed rather than actual SCIENCE) trying to do the connection with something so obviously UNCONNNECTED.

However, the damage is done, and so some Mormons try to use these DNA studies to support their hypothesis (which is impossible unless the BoM started over 5000-10000 years ago). I think this is the most likely set of articles that the OP's relative was probably referring to as it's the one which many Mormons may feel has the most scientific "evidence" to support them. (don't know about the history channel, don't know what documentaries from them are or are not showing). There have been some items in National Geographic, and yes there have been some Mormons who try to connect this to their beliefs there as well, at least in the comments. Note, that this has no relation and as far as I know the scientists will not say this has anything to do with Mormonism. Furthermore, it does NOT support the BoM claims, nor have anything really related (and some probably are stumped with confusion as to WHY this conversation even comes up in regards to the Mormons). Here's the National Geographic article.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/


Anways, what it boils down to is that this has NOTHING to do with your BoM. Any attempt to do that is basically ignoring the science of it and science in general. If people feel it attributes to the BoM, then that's up to them. If they feel it means the BoM is not true, that's up to them. However, the science is not related to those times and dates and neither supports nor does not support any of those ideas, beliefs, faiths, or religions. It is unrelated.

If one needs to rely on science to boost superstition or their own beliefs...perhaps they need to reflect on whether they really have faith in those beliefs, or why they have those beliefs in the first place. If I recall, religion is a matter of faith, NOT science or facts. In fact, Christianity itself points to the idea that faith is in things that you cannot see. You have to believe bereft of facts.

In general, that's how religion works (whether you religion is of Mormonism, anti-Mormonism, fanatical Atheism, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim...etc...I don't include Agnostics or normal atheists as a religion because in truth they aren't trying to push a belief system and really don't factor it into real life...though fanatical Atheists seem to treat their belief in no deity as a religion)...just like most don't care whether Greek deities were real or not, and take it as mythology. If you rely on facts and science, it's not religion, it's something else.

Anways, sorry about my rant against religion (and specifically the religious beliefs of some of those here) and those who try to use science to back up their beliefs. I'm not one that supports the science and religious ideologies mixing as I think it brings about bias and flawed views in science itself. From your description however, it fit with the study (which dates back a few years) and what I've seen some Mormons (and anti-Mormons) trying to connect it to (despite the study having NOTHING that I think supports or doesn't support either side).

I'm back to my lurking of your board now. I figured that I knew exactly what items your relative was probably referring to (as many Mormons try to use it as a counter to the discussion of DNA and the BoM in regards to their religion which has been brought up myriads of times, because these articles are more recent..despite this line of study being FAR older and having a far greater scientific weight in regards to the history of it). It is stronger scientifically than anything dealing with the Cherokee as far as I know...but as I said...in truth, it's unrelated and the scientists behind it have NOTHING to do with a BoM agenda or anything to that. This deals with events before even the Bible (well, those who claim it's starts 6000 years ago) has it's start. It's called science...deal with it. (and now I'll get flamed, but I probably asked for it. Science on a religion board rarely gets well received, and my views are probably NOT welcome here...this is why I lurk).

Some points about this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHNRf9H7nD4

1) The Bat Creek Stone is a known fraudulent artifact.

The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in Tennessee?
Tennessee Anthropologist
Vol. XVI, No. 1, Spring 1991
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/bat1.html

The Bat Creek Fraud: A Final Statement
Tennessee Anthropologist Vol. XVIII, No. 2, Fall 1993
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/bat2.html

The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed
American Antiquity Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 2004), pp. 761-769
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/batcreekfraud.pdf

2) The Central Band of Cherokee is a fake tribe, see the links I posted on my previous comment.

3) Haplogroup X claims of Jewish migrations to ancient America were demolished when Kennewick Man (predates Adam and Eve) was found to have Haplogroup X.

The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/pdf/nature14625.pdf

Its just Pre-Columbian Trans-Oceanic theories. I personally love to study them. Possibility of hebrew migration, minimal. Others moreso