I was pleased to see two "friends of RFM" featured extensively here; the information is only a "bit dated" because of advances in computer technology and the ability to sequence autosomal--i.e nuclear--DNA further, "filling in the gaps" in detailing the origins of Native Americans. One bit of "anthopological nitpicking" with the "East Asian orgins" claim: Central Asia around Siberia, Mongolia, and the Lake Baikal region offers the strongest evidence as well as being the locale where 24,000 year old DNA from the Ma'lta Boy was found. The autosomal DNA from that individual showed connections with both Native Americans and Europeans; what clearly happened was the original group "split," and part of them merged with other ancestors of Native Americans, moved north, and then east into North America via the Begingia land bridge. Their "relatives" headed in the other direction and helped populate Europe.

Our own Simon Southerton (Simon in Oz) is featured; he will be presenting at this fall's Exmormon Conference, and another is Thomas Murphy whom I'm happy to report finished his PhD in anthropology years ago, teaches in Washington State, and occasionally puts in an appearance here as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GF_SxbPLb0

The LDS "apologist camp" is divided into two groups arguing the issue of where BOM events took place. A group made up largely of BYU "scholars" claims a Mesoamerican location; that idea originated with John L. Sorenson who realized Central America is the only area in this hemisphere with an original written language. The other group uses the "Heartland Model" and insists on a Great Lakes setting. The video points out this is doubtless where Joseph Smith and other BOM authors insisted events occurred; there are some nice selections from D&C offering strong evidence for that POV.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2017 01:59PM by SL Cabbie.

Thanks for posting this. it is dated, but it is still profound.

Southerton's book "Losing a Lost Tribe" was big to me in my de-conversion.

https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Lost-Tribe-Native-Americans/dp/1560851813

It's interesting how these molecular biologists tell of their cognitive dissonance upon studying the research. Simon Southerton was a bishop. He spent two weeks with two competing ideas in his head before science won out. I suppose it's like the scene in "Storks" when Pigeon Toady's mind is blown.

I tell everyone that all humans came from Africa just to watch their heads explode.

Two words: Ugo Perego.


Since Honest TBM hasn't straightened out all the anti's out on this subject, I thought I'd jump in.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Despite being a bit dated, it's got an extremely clear and easy-to-understand description of just what DNA testing is testing.
Nice :)

I liked the one statement by the kid doing his anthropology PhD about apologists who try to say "oh, the Lehi group was tiny, and didn't make much if any DNA mark on the already-here masses of people":

"This approach tries to confirm Joseph Smith's prophetic ability by denying his prophecies."

Yep, it does.

If Winston Smith worked at the Ministry of Mormon:


"...the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

"...the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

"...the Lamanites, as of yet undiscovered ancestors of the American Indians."

"...the Lamanites, mythical ancestors of the American Indians."

"We have always been at war with the Lamanites."

The scholars theory is a bunch of dishonest crap and goes completely counter to the prevalent historical theory that started in the 1820s. The foundations of what I call the Moroni Theory starts with the assumption that Moroni was an honest Angel who wasn't super clueless. About the only way anyone could honestly accept the scholars' group theory would be to first claim that Moroni was very dishonest or he was simply a very clueless individual. The scholars who pursue this anti-Moroni theory that SLCabbie mentions that Sorenson & others promote without first looking at Moroni in full context are not being honest scholars and 2 Ne 9:34 is a scripture I'd like to see put on their epithets.

I personally do not believe in the Heartland Model. However if you want to know what I personally believe in then you need to come hear my monologue in F&T meeting. It's my monthly opportunity to open my mouth and for words to just flow on out to the congregation for quite a long drivel uninterrupted unless the Bishop or other leader turns off the mic before I finish. I'll certainly try to speak up so you can hear my words above the flow of tears, grumbling of unfed tummies due to fasting, and the rustling of toys/things by the children in the chapel.

Here I try to say things the way they have to be said by anyone honestly defending the wondrous gospel. To claim the Church is true is to believe that its leaders are always trying to be super honest/transparent on everything and that they have been consistently preaching the never changing eternal doctrines of an unchanging Heavenly Father. That's why whenever investigators and others honestly seeking the truth do some research and come away thinking "wow this Church is so super honest and transparent about everything" then they really will start to have the beginnings of faith/hope that the Church could actually be true. If people ever get the idea that the Church may have ever been anything but completely honest/transparent then doubts will creep in and all the honest people will eventually flee from the Church in their hearts/minds & possibly even with their feet. That's why its so vital for the missionaries, Bishops, and all the chain-of-command up to the top to so quickly/thoroughly answer all sincere questions with super transparent honesty and not in any way that would cause people to needlessly have doubts about the sacred "continuing revelation" doctrine :)

Great video. After watching it I found this gem from the Deseret News:

"He (Brant Gardner) said neither Murphy nor Southerton understood that LDS scientists have known "for 50 years" about DNA evidence linking American Indians to Asian ancestry rather than Hebrew blood. "For some reason, these two men think this shocked us. It's been something we've been dealing with for a very, very long time."

They don't claim it's incorrect, just that they've known about the problem for a long time. Pure insanity. By the way, Brant Gardner is a software consultant.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695221057/DNA-claims-rebutted-on-Book-of-Mormon.html

Right... The date on this one is 2007; subtract 50 years and you come up with 1957, only four years after Watson and Crick identified the "double helix" structure for DNA. They didn't win the Nobel Prize until 1962...

Sequencing the DNA "code" didn't really become possible until the development of SNP's (enzymes that "cut" the molecule chain at a given nucleotide) and the advent of super-computers capable of performing the analysis--using probability theory, which, because of the huge numbers involved, is quite precise, in order to sequence the DNA and the human genome. That work began in the late 90's...

/rerun old one-liner

Apologies to Disraeli, but there are liars, damned liars, and then there are LDS apologists...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2017 06:34PM by SL Cabbie.

That's funny. When I saw the 50 years statement my eyes about rolled out of my head. I didn't know the specifics, but I thoughtt, "There's no f-ing way they knew about DNA "problems" at that time. Nobody did."

I n addition to the blatant lie, it's hilarious they tried to claim he moral high ground by claiming "we already knew that", as if that alleviates he problem at hand.

even the wind blows away MORmON idiocy in ways that MORmONS never saw coming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV1NYP60274