Hey all, so I've been out of the Mormon church for about 15 years now. I actually used to post on this board on a semi regular basis around the time I left the church, and I still visit to read the posts about once or month or so, but haven't posted in a long time. Unfortunately, like many of you, most of my family and some of my friends are still deeply entrenched in it. Recently on facebook a couple of videos touting DNA evidence and archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon have been making the rounds among my Mormon relatives and friends. Here's the link to the DNA evidence one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= and the link to the archeological evidence one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDdnWtVWre8 if anyone is interested in watching them. I watched them because I wanted to be prepared when the subject came up at the next family gathering (as it inevitably will). I can't remember the credentials of the guy who posted these videos (maybe a BYU professor). Anyway he says that Hebraic/Jewish DNA has been found among the Algonquin tribes. I googled this and couldn't find any links saying it was found among the Algonquins but there were several scientific articles stating that indeed Jewish DNA was found among the Cherokee tribe in North Carolina. Some of it could be traced to a Jewish trader who had lived among the Cherokee in, I believe, the early 1800s, but from what I could understand of the articles I read, some of it came from untraceable and older source. The archeological evidence video (done by the same guy) stated that in Mount Vernon Indiana at a place referred to as the Mann Hopewell site some evidence of lead smelting (I.e. furnaces and slag) had been found and archeologists had also found metal breastplates and helmets among the artifacts. I was able to document this in some archeology articles, but I wasn't able to document his claim of finding swords there. In fact, when I googled Mann Hopewell site and swords all I got was page after page of Mormon blogs with quotes from the BOM about swords and some blurbs about the Mann Hopewell site, none of which included the discovery of any weapons. Of course, the BYU guy said that the metal smelting and helmets and breastplates were proof of the Nephite civilization. The guy in the video also said the people (referred to by archeologists as the Hopewell tradition) who lived at this site flourished about 2,000 years ago and died out in, I believe, he said 400 A.D. which, of course, supports the BOM timeline. However, Wikipedia says this civilization flourished between 100 and 500 C.E. which would not support the BOM timeline. He makes other claims I also couldn't substantiate via google, but unsubstantiated or not I just know this is going to come up with my family. I know Mormons tendency to twist anything they can into 'proof' of their group delusion. I'm sure this is the same thing. I'm just looking for some facts from someone better informed than me to refute these claims. I did a brief search in the archives on this site and couldn't find anything. It looks like these youtube videos were posted this month, so maybe this just hasn't been discussed yet here. To me, this so called 'proof' really doesn't make a difference. Even if the LDS church was able to give me definitive proof that it was true, I still wouldn't go back. I've never been more miserable in my life than I was when I was a member and their new policy on homosexuality and the children of homosexuals only cemented my extreme distaste for the entire religion. I just want to have something intelligent and factual to say to rebut this to my family when it comes up in discussion but I'm too lazy to do the leg work and wanted to see if someone else here already had.

Yes, somebody has done the work, and no less than Simon Southerton has addressed Meldrum's nonsense in his blog:

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com

Here are two recent RFM threads on the subject...

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1756899

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1756825

And Cabdriver Confession Time: In a daring "reconnaisance raid" on a show Rodney Meldrum put on here last fall, I made two secret-not-sacred missions to the Southtown Expo Center--easy access on light rail, BTW--and even slipped inside on Friday night (they wanted me to buy a ticket on Saturday, and I opted out).

I'm in the middle of doing a write-up--complete with pictures I took--of the entire affair; drop me a note, SL_Cabbie@yahoo.com, and I'll send you a sample (loud laughter permitted).

Excellent! Thank you! I knew someone willing to do more than just a couple google searches would have already addressed this crap. Please do send me a sample! angfla@hotmail.com

I don't know anything about the particulars cited in this thread, but in general...

Most anyone who comes from older "European" ancestry, especially dating back approximately two thousand years ago, could POTENTIALLY possess "Jewish DNA" from Middle Eastern origins...from some areas (Spain, Portugal, southern France, westernmost China and the surrounding area) more likely...

...in other areas (Scandinavia, for example) of lesser likelihood...

...but regardless of the apparent "kind" of ancient and/or historical "European" ancestry, there is at least SOME chance of "Jewish DNA" occurring in most any "European" mix.

Historically, Jews got kicked out of places a great deal (and at least SOME Jews spread all over different parts of Eurasia in search of new homes)...and in addition, Jewish traders were (at least in the last two thousand years) all over that same landmass, constantly on the road, constantly moving around. Some of the DNA that those ancient and historical Jews possessed was passed on to non-Jewish descendants along the various routes.

Which means...once Europeans "discovered" the New World, at least some of those "discoverers" had---unknown to them---some ancient/historical Jewish DNA lurking within their cells.

When Old World discoverers mated with New World inhabitants, the offspring of those matings would, from that point forward, have "Jewish DNA."

It is not surprising that contemporary people, descended from Cherokee ancestors, might have "Jewish DNA," since (among many other things) the Cherokees are known for their inclusiveness in the non-Native Americans they brought into the tribe over the centuries.

If you look at Cherokee dances and pow-wows right now, a large percentage of those who are Cherokee (often enrolled members of the tribe) look very NON-"Native American...and are, instead, very "WASP-y" in appearance. The fact that their non-Native American ancestors could have passed on "Jewish DNA" to at least some of them is not surprising.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2016 05:08PM by Tevai.

> If you look at Cherokee dances and pow-wows right now, a large
> percentage of those who are Cherokee (often enrolled members of
> the tribe) look very NON-"Native American...and are, instead,
> very "WASP-y" in appearance.

Typically, those with Cherokee heritage are "lighter" than what most people assume an American Indian to be. This is a combination of genetics as well as the propensity for the Cherokee (who were one of the "Five Civilized Tribes" to intermingle with those of European origin.

I'm a registered Cherokee (my mom was 87.5% Cherokee), and I'm usually the "whitest" guy in the room.

"Semitic" or "Middle Eastern DNA," since their ancestry is the same. "Jewish DNA" in terms of mtDNA consists of a number of haplogroups that can be traced to the Arabian peninsula. I'm not sure about their presence in Egypt, but Egypt has always been a melting pot of people from different areas, and the Nubians who ruled Egypt in the 8th Century B.C. came from further south and were clearly of recent "African origin."

One Y-chromosome haplogroup that has been extensively studied is the "Cohen Marker," which was associated with Jewish and Hebrew rabbis. This particular one was found in a sub-Saharan population, confirming their oral traditions about Hebrew ancestry. Anyone want to Google that one up for the "rest of the story"? I'm buried on several projects...

Both Y-Chromosome--passed on from father-to-son--and mitochondrial DNA--passed on maternally--can only paint "broad pictures" of migration patterns, but they are extremely useful.

With the advent of much more powerful computers (the first computer I learned on had something like 64 kilobytes of RAM; the one I'm using now is thousands of times more powerful), it became possible to sequence "autosomal DNA" (found in the nucleus and subject to "genetic recombination") and identify individual genes as well as lengthy "sequences" of the four "nucleotide letters" (A,C,G,T). In mtDNA--found outside the nucleus--there are only 16,569 "letters," versus millions in nuclear DNA. It's easy to see why mtDNA was studied first; Y-chromosome strands are also "relatively short."

The issue of "genetic recombination" allows for some precision in determining how long certain genes--and the sequences that contain them--have been, in say, the New World.

If people of Middle Eastern descent had been in this hemisphere for more than 400 years or so, their autosomal DNA would've been subject to additional recombination, and the difference would've been readily apparent. The relevant sequences would've been "shorter" (genetic science involves "splitting" the chromosomes via different enzymes and "reading the letter" sequences), and because of the large numbers involved, the science of probability allows for the construction of "molecular clock" that is reasonably accurate.

No European sequences have been found that pre-date Columbus's voyage (or in pre-Columbian remains), and the percentages of Y-Chromosome and mtDNA sequences present in "Native American populations" are almost exactly what would be predicted by post-Columbian admixture.

The Book of Mormon is a 19th Century fraud, period.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Semitic" or "Middle Eastern DNA," since their
> ancestry is the same. "Jewish DNA" in terms of
> mtDNA consists of a number of haplogroups that can
> be traced to the Arabian peninsula. I'm not sure
> about their presence in Egypt, but Egypt has
> always been a melting pot of people from different
> areas, and the Nubians who ruled Egypt in the 8th
> Century B.C. came from further south and were
> clearly of recent "African origin."
>
> One Y-chromosome haplogroup that has been
> extensively studied is the "Cohen Marker," which
> was associated with Jewish and Hebrew rabbis.

I have never taken the time to study DNA (even the "For Dummies" edition, if there is one ;) ), so much of what you are saying I don't understand.

What I DO understand, I'm pretty sure, is the "Cohen Marker" [the term makes absolute Jewish sense, though I have never heard it referred to in this exact way before], and I do (perhaps) know something about it from Chabad (I think)...Chabad is a way-on-the-Jewish-"right" group of Orthodox Jews.] I read an article a few months ago (which I did not print off)...

"Cohen" doesn't mean "rabbi"---it means PRIEST...as in the Jewish "priestly caste" (the ones who ran the Second Temple, etc.).

In Judaism, JUDAISM itself ("Who is a Jew?") is passed through the female line...and it doesn't matter "who" your father is...if your mother is a Jew, then so are YOU (by Jewish standards). [The Jewish legal definition of "who is a Jew?" is: someone born of a Jewish MOTHER...OR a convert to Judaism. Period. There are no other possibilities according to Jewish law.]

HOWEVER...Jewish "status" (Jewish "priest" or not???) is passed through the FATHER'S line ONLY, and on this point, it doesn't matter if your mother is born into a kohain line or not, because if your FATHER is not a kohain, then neither are you.

The relevant part of this, in answer to your post, is that Chabad (whose mission is to convert "Jews" into OBSERVANT Jews----they have absolutely no interest at all in anyone who is not already Jewish by THEIR standards) says that, when DNA studies are done on Jews in general, if they are non-observant or have not been associated with Judaism in any way for decades or their entire lifetimes, that those who are kohanim (Jewish "priests") DO have the marker, regardless of whether their families left Judaism centuries ago, and have been Christians or atheists ever since.

What is really interesting about this, assuming that what Chabad is saying is actually true, is that [male] kohanim have a seemingly endless list of females they cannot marry...they cannot marry converts to Judaism, nor divorced women, nor a "mamzer" [too difficult to explain here]...and the list goes on and on...

...and the reasoning behind this (all those centuries ago, when this was codified) was to keep the priestly line "pure." (Google "who can kohanim marry?" if you're interested in more detail.)

When I read the article, I thought it was really odd that random Jews (secular, atheist/agnostic, Catholics since the time of Luther or whatever...), who identified themselves [Jewishly] as kohanim, usually had DNA which proved that they were, indeed, of the "right" ancestral Jewish line.

"Anyone" (of any descent, and of either gender) can become a rabbi (assuming that they are Jewish according to Jewish law, and that they go through the long prep time required)...

...but only those who are "kohanim" are Jewish "priests."

[And it is important to know that many Jews have a surname of Cohen (or its variations), but are NOT kohanim. The surname "Cohen" means nothing when it comes to determining "who is of the Jewish priestly line"?]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2016 09:08PM by Tevai.

And the "rabbi vs. priest" distinction wasn't part of my MA Program (in English and creative writing). We were reading Portnoy instead...

However, the "Chabad" didn't exist until 1775 (per Wiki), and I found the following links easy enough via a Google search on "Cohen Marker":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/the_dna_chain_of_tradition.htm

>He considered a hypothesis: if the Kohanim are descendants of one man, they should have a common set of genetic markers--a common haplotype-- that of their common ancestor. In our case, Aharon HaKohen.

>A genetic marker is a variation in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA, known as a mutation. Mutations which occur within genes—a part of the DNA which codes for a protein—usually cause a malfunction or disease, and is lost due to selection in succeeding generations. However, mutations found in so-called “non-coding regions” of the DNA tend to persist.

What that means is that the "letter code" in the chain of "base molecules" is a strand of DNA, written, for example, as A-A-C-G-T-C-C-G-G-T-T-A, undergoes a "mutation" i.e.change, and after cell division, might be A-G-C-G-T-C-C-G-G-T-T-A...

The "non-coding regions" of DNA are those that "aren't genes" and don't "find expression" in the growth/metabolism of an organism (I know, I'm simplifying that one just a bit, folks; I'm hoping those "BYU sorts" won't try to "atone" for the "educational malpractice" they endured). If a mutation "isn't expressed," then there's no reason for nature to select for or against its presence in suceeding generations.

/impersonating a science teacher voice off

All you need to know is there are zero, repeat zero, Konahim markers among Native Americans that can't be explained by post-Columbian contact. The same is true of "so-called Jewish DNA." BTW, Simon Southerton tried to correspond with Joe "Sitting Owl" White, and he concluded the guy was a headcase who was in orbit before Sputnik. And his "Central Band of Cherokees" is not a federally recognized tribe, either.

http://theonefeather.com/2010/08/no-recognition-for-central-band-of-cherokees/

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,110133,110231

You're free to engage in religiouspeak, but I generally speak in science, even when I'm speaking history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2016 10:21PM by SL Cabbie.

Someone had better call National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

The 24,000 year old arm bone doesn't support Biblical timelines at all.

But the BoM people werent' the ONLY people in the New World, now. They were just some of the people. Please try to keep up.

Throw out a fact and the Mormon story will change to accomodate the new fact. Someone should throw out fake facts, like cops do, and watch TSCC incorporate those too. Oh, wait, already happened, re Mark Hoffman.

Mormons use this National Geographic article to claim that American Indians share DNA with West Eurasia so it proves the Book of Mormon is true. They ignore the 24,000 year old ancestry. If they were being honest but still trying to explain the Book of Mormon, they would have to admit that non-Book of Mormon people in the Americas already had that genetic relationship, long before Lehi came along. In fact even before Adam. But TBMs won't admit that. They only see in this article what they want to see.

I'm not here to prove the Book of Mormon true, just to point out that there is not a consensus in your theories.

There is a consensus among scientists. Just not the one you want it to be.

"I'm not here to prove the Book of Mormon true, just to point out that there is not a consensus in your theories."

But the National Geographic article you cited doesn't refute the basic facts about the origins and diffusion of human life that we've already known for decades, and it doesn't support the Book of Mormon story in the least.

We already know that human life originated in deep dark Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago, and began migrating northwards and eastwards more than 50k years ago. Ancient Siberians are descended from our African progenitors, so it's no big surprise to find West Eurasian DNA strains among some native Americans.

I suggest that you watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nf5LttChaw

No, but it just goes to show that not all genetic evidence fits the consortium of 5 Ph.D. holder's (and others) longstanding theories on American aboriginal origins. It is also irresponsible to make claims about absolute dating based on radioactive isotope decay for anything older than @4000BCE because it just isn't that accurate and there are too many variables that have to align to make it so. It could be 2000BCE or 20,000BCE. It's good for a reference in age comparisons and that's about it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1106_031106_firstamericans.html

It is responsible to use radiocarbon dating and it is incredibly accurate at 24,000 years ago. Only nutcases hold to the 6,000 year ago accuracy claims. And in truth, the National Geographic article made more sensation than was really there. Scientists have suspected for quite some time that there was more ancient ancestral mixing than evidence had supported. All this finding did was provided evidence for that.

Yeah well, it's not until you can prove that the creation of radioactive isotopes is constant, which it isn't.

I happen to find this site in doing some research on a completely unrelated genetics topic and was intrigued. It's like a therapy session of jilted girls who found out their boyfriends would rather go to the game than see a chick flick and so to show them, they told them they weren't going to prom with them and the boys found other dates. "Please tell me what a jerk my boyfriend is because I may have to talk to his mother" is the same as asking "please give me internet information from a biased source (whose credentials are not verifiable) because I have to argue with my relatives and tell them how dumb they are."

its was entertaining, though expected. I'll just go take my unverifiable masters (sorry, it's no Ph.D.) in molecular biology and 20 years of studying linguistics and ancient American because there's nothing I can learn here of any importance other than making wine out of sour grapes.

toodles

Like I said, only nutcases disregard radiocarbon dating past 6,000 years ago. And when it comes to the DNA, the mutation rate using the molecular clock concurs with radiocarbon dating. Mormons would be far better off staying away from archaeology, DNA and radiocarbon and simply holding to Moroni's promise in Moroni 10:3-5. If the Holy Ghost can't give you enough truth, you sure won't gain any more by twisting science to fit your story.

Javasport wrote:

"I'll just go take my unverifiable masters (sorry, it's no Ph.D.) in molecular biology and 20 years of studying linguistics and ancient American"

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it."

Javasport Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone had better call National Geographic.
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/13
> 1120-science-native-american-people-migration-sibe
> ria-genetics/

This is a truly fascinating article, Javasport...I read it a few minutes ago and have been mentally jousting with the implications, which---from the viewpoint of someone from the Americas---are both startling and significant.

Thank you!!!

:) :) :)

Here:Ugo Perego writes:

It is my opinion that the presenter in this video (Rod Meldrum) is oversimplifying and stretching complex scientific data to fit its own view and purposes. This is dangerous because some people might actually believe in what he is saying and take for granted his conclusions. I have listened to Rod Meldrum in the past and spoke with him on several occasions. I have also tried to explain to him the mistakes with his approach, but to no avail. Here are in a short few points the main problems with the information presented in this video:
1. Lineage (haplogroup) X in the America is an unusual marker, but there is absolutely no evidence to link it to Book of Mormon people.
2. As far as science has been able to determine to date, lineage X has been in the Americas probably long before Book of Mormon times (based on both carbon dating and the molecular clock).
3. It is not true that the first four lineages in the Americas prior to the discovery of haplogroup X are identical to lineages found in Asia. They are related with each other, but the ones in the Americas have their own unique characteristics.
4. Likewise, lineage X in Northern North America has its own unique characteristics and it is not found anywhere else in the world. The one in the Americas is know has lineage X2a.
5. There are other lineage X's in the world (Europe, North Africa, Middle East and Asia) but none of them is the same as their American counterpart X2a.
6. It is not true that lineage X was identified in the Americas in 2003. Data on a fifth lineage in the America has been widely published since 1991.
7. All the DNA that has been talked about in this video is referred to a genetic molecule known as mitochondrial DNA that is transmitted exclusively along the unbroken maternal line. This means that this approach cannot be easily used to determine the genetic ancestry of male lineages such as those described in this video and in the Book of Mormon. In other words, this is not the DNA we would expect to find today from Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Lehi, Nephi, etc.
8. The LDS Church does not support DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. Here is something more official found on the LDS.org website:https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies…
There is much more to it but this should be sufficient for now. It is too early to know for sure what the actual relationship of lineage X in the Americas with the Old World is and we need to be careful to jump at any conclusions at this time.

>As far as science has been able to determine to date, lineage X has been in the Americas probably long before Book of Mormon times (based on both carbon dating and the molecular clock).

With Eske Willerslev's sequencing of the mtDNA of "Kennewick Man" and placing it squarely in Haplogroup X2a, that word "probably" can be changed to "certainly." Kennewick Man was C-14 dated to around 9,000 years ago.

Oregonboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here:Ugo Perego writes:
>
> It is my opinion that the presenter in this video.....

Hi Oregonboy...could you please post a source for this quote? Ta heaps.

Feel free, BTW, to spread any rumors you want about me among the faithful (although one untrue one about my teaching days really raised my road rage level), particularly if you want to say something like,"Do you really think that guy's a cabdriver?"

Hey, at the last Exmormon Conference no less than John Dehlin asked me, "Are you really a cabdriver?"

Actually, I'm a committee of five PhD's at the University of Utah; we had six, but one of them passed away...

Okay, a thanks to Simon Southerton for this one, lifted from his latest blog entry:

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies

Simon's latest also goes after Meldrum's crapola:

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com

Trade between Europeans and the Cherokee was established by the late 1600s.

"The trade was mainly deerskins, raw material for the booming European leather industry, in exchange for European technology "trade goods", such as iron and steel tools (kettles, knives, etc.), firearms, gunpowder, and ammunition. In 1705, traders complained that their business had been lost and replaced by Indian slave trade instigated by Governor James Moore of South Carolina."

"A small-scale trading system was established with Virginia in the late 17th century. In the 1690s, the Cherokee had founded a much stronger and important trade relationship with the colony of South Carolina, based in Charles Town."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_history

Charleston and Savannah were the major southern port cities from which trade sprang. The trade route from the coast running northwest into Cherokee country is known as the Unicoi Turnpike, and was first mentioned in 1682:

http://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com/ang/Unicoi_Turnpike

European Jewish merchants along with English and Scotchmen traded and intermarried with the Indians 300+- years ago, so it's not surprising that traces of Jewish DNA can be found among modern-day Cherokee.

My wife started watching this drivel. So now I am tagging and following for future reference. Thank you for all your hard work finding links and posting them here for me(us here at RfM).