The DNA Issue and The Book of Mormon again

Brackite · **Posted:** Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:26 pm

A Link to this Article from Interpreter was posted in the Celelestial Forum.

Is Decrypting the Genetic Legacy of America’s Indigenous Populations Key to the Historicity of the Book of Mormon?

But since there is a lot more traffic in the Terrestrial Forum, I decided to post the link to this Article here. And I also wanted for Dr. Simon Southerton to read this Article, and to get his opinion about it.

sock puppet · **Joined:** Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am **Posts:** 17063

I wonder if Schryver might study up on DNA and develop a cipher theory to decipher the DNA of America's indigenous populations.

Simon Southerton · **Posted:** Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:50 pm

I think we have another Limited Geography model. The Needle not in Haystack Model.

My favourite bit from the conclusion.

Quote:

Trying to reconstruct and identify the DNA of these Old World migrants in the Americas is not a task comparable to that of finding a needle in a haystack. With time and diligence, the needle eventually will be found. With the Nephite record, the needle was once there, and then through population demographic pressures, such as drift and perhaps some degree of natural selection, the needle may have been removed from the haystack — with some people convinced that it is still there and therefore should be found. Consequently, these critics, rather than accepting the fact that the needle was once there and now is lost, prefer to take the position that it was never there in the first place. These are two very distinctive conclusions based on the same observations. Stating that the DNA of Book of Mormon people has disappeared or not been detected through time, following very basic and widely accepted population genetics principles such as genetic drift and selection, is much different from claiming that Book of Mormon people never existed because we failed to recover their DNA in the American indigenous gene pool.

How on earth does this sort of stuff get past the editor. I won't be wasting my time responding. Its 40 pages long and is largely a rewrite of Perego's previous articles.

Tobin · **Posted:** Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:08 pm

I think the author of the article may be forgetting one small thing. It is not the job of the critics to prove the Book of Mormon is false. That should be the default position that anyone should take after all. However, if the proponents that the Book of Mormon is factually true wish to ever prove their case, then they will eventually have to demonstrate the Book of Mormon has a basis in fact. I don't think it is helpful to state that this can't be done as this article seems to be doing.

cognitiveharmony · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:45 pm **Posts:** 597

40 pages to say that none of the current DNA evidence supports the Book of Mormon narrative.....but that doesn't matter because absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. He tries to make it appear as if evidence isn't being found because they're either not looking for it specifically, or because it's disappeared entirely.....sounds eerily familiar. Even believers have to get sick of this at some point.

Tobin · **Posted:** Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:41 pm

cognitiveharmony wrote:

40 pages to say that none of the current DNA evidence supports the Book of Mormon narrative.....but that doesn't matter because absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. He tries to make it appear as if evidence isn't being found because they're either not looking for it specifically, or because it's disappeared entirely.....sounds eerily familiar. Even believers have to get sick of this at some point.

There is nothing wrong with stating the evidence hasn't been found yet. There are plenty of things to discover yet in our world and universe. The serious problem, as has been pointed out, is stating there is NO evidence. That is not a credible argument.

DrW · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:37 am

The biggest problem here is that the authors were forced to throw Joseph Smith, Zelph the White Lamanite Warrior, much of the the Book of Mormon itself, and more than 100 years of teaching by Mormon prophets of God under the bus in order to even set up the premise for this piece of obfuscation.

As a scientist and published author, Perego should be ashamed of himself.

Bazooka · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:53 am

I can't see where Ugo's article went through peer review....

SteelHead · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:18 am

Nephite DNA is there. We just haven't found it and don't even know what it looks like. Just like Nephite archeological artifacts.

Those Nephites. So good at hiding. It is almost like they never existed at all.

sock puppet · **Joined:** Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am **Posts:** 17063

DrW wrote:

As a scientist and published author, Perego should be ashamed of himself.

Lying for the Lord is one thing, Whoring one's self out intellectually speaking for the Lord is another.

BartBurk · **Joined:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:38 am **Posts:** 923

sock puppet wrote:

DrW wrote:

As a scientist and published author, Perego should be ashamed of himself.

Lying for the Lord is one thing, Whoring one's self out intellectually speaking for the Lord is another.

Perego is more of an expert on this than I am. So I am going to have to trust that he knows what he is talking about. And I'm an ex-Mormon. You can imagine that an active Mormon is going to accept what he has to say. Simon Southerton knows what he is talking about as well, but since he has already committed himself to being a critic the average LDS member is going to disregard him in favor of their own expert. This is not important for those of us who figured out the church was false before mtDNA even became an issue.

Bazooka · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:20 pm

I actually think the DNA issue is not an issue for members. They simply don't care. DNA could prove with 100% accuracy that any native American (north or south) came from a small superb of Moscow, and it wouldn't shake the testimonies of the 36% who still attend Church. People who show up on a Sunday aren't, for the most part, undecided about the Church because science hasn't found the Nephites yet. Their indecision and disaffection come from finding out the Book of Mormon contains passages that have no right being in there, or because women can't hold the Priesthood, or because they still feel bad about racial discrimination or because Joseph Smith was a Polygamist and the Church never told them that.

The DNA issue is a bigger issue for people like Ugo, which is why he wrote the article, to try and pacify his own discomfort.

Bazooka · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:33 pm

BREAKING NEWS

Nephites had a penchant for Coca Cola (known anciently as Curelom)

Quote:

We all know that sugary soda is a major contributor to obesity– a typical 20-ounce drink can have up to 18 teaspoons of sugar and more than 240 calories. What we didn’t know is that regular soda consumption might also destroy your DNA.

According to new research published in the American Journal of Public Health, people who drink more soda have shorter telomeres (bits of DNA that protect the ends of chromosomes in cells) in white blood cells. The affected telomeres have been associated with age-associated diseases including cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

The researchers calculated that drinking one 20-ounce soda every day was associated with 4.6 years of additional biological aging, similar to the effects of smoking, or the inverse effect of exercising, which reduces the effects of age.

“Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened sodas might influence disease development, not only by straining the body’s metabolic control of sugars, but also through accelerated cellular aging of tissues,” said Elissa Epel, professor of psychiatry at the University of California in San Francisco and senior author of the study. The finding was consistent regardless of age, race, income or education level.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/20/daily_s ... socialflow

GrandMoffTarkin · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:44 pm

Bazooka wrote:

I actually think the DNA issue is not an issue for members. They simply don't care. DNA could prove with 100% accuracy that any native American (north or south) came from a small superb of Moscow, and it wouldn't shake the testimonies of the 36% who still attend Church. People who show up on a Sunday aren't, for the most part, undecided about the Church because science hasn't found the Nephites yet. Their indecision and disaffection come from finding out the Book of Mormon contains passages that have no right being in there, or because women can't hold the Priesthood, or because they still feel bad about racial discrimination or because Joseph Smith was a Polygamist and the Church never told them that.

The DNA issue is a bigger issue for people like Ugo, which is why he wrote the article, to try and pacify his own discomfort.

Well, I think it is too easy for members to simply dismiss the science. They'll say that the science is never 100%, we're discovering more all the time, scientific conclusions change regularly, etc.

SteelHead · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:06 pm

I don't know how a Mormon scientist can reconcile discussing 17k year old Siberian migration DNA and Nephite DNA in the same article. The 7k year old earth and global flood seems to preclude Siberian land bridges.....

cognitiveharmony · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:45 pm **Posts:** 597

SteelHead wrote:

I don't know how a Mormon scientist can reconcile discussing 17k year old Siberian migration DNA and Nephite DNA in the same article. The 7k year old earth and global flood seems to preclude Siberian land bridges.....

I think guys like perego, DCP etc. may just have delusions of grandeur. They probably feel an emotional high every time they throw the prophets of the restoration under the bus and espouse their own "inspired" understanding of the truth as superior.

DrW · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:09 pm

SteelHead wrote:

I don't know how a Mormon scientist can reconcile discussing 17k year old Siberian migration DNA and Nephite DNA in the same article. The 7k year old earth and global flood seems to preclude Siberian land bridges.....

Yep.

As mentioned up-thread, setting up the basic premise of the article requires throwing large portions of the Book of Mormon under the bus in a vein and misguided attempt to "save" the rest.

Once the authors admit, or in this case boldly claim, that large portions of the Book of Mormon are not true, it is difficult to then claim that other parts are true, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Considering that the Book of Mormon claims to be second witness for Christ, and that the authors have freely admitted that the witness has lied on the stand, its "testimony" should be ignored.

In fact, given the evidence, the witness should probably be prosecuted for perjury.

cognitiveharmony · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:45 pm **Posts:** 597

Water Dog wrote:

DrW wrote:

The biggest problem here is that the authors were forced to throw Joseph Smith, Zelph the White Lamanite Warrior, much of the the Book of Mormon itself, and more than 100 years of teaching by Mormon prophets of God under the bus in order to even set up the premise for this piece of obfuscation.

As a scientist and published author, Perego should be ashamed of himself.

To be honest I don't see how it's obfuscation. I can understand how one would arrive at this conclusion, but it assumes a context that isn't supported historically. To be specific, if the Book of Mormon is to be approached objectively, it must be considered outside the context of the modern LDS Church's influence and all the bias that comes with it. For instance, unlike the modern church, Joseph Smith never preached the doctrine of the infallible prophet. It's reasonable to consider the possibility that Joseph Smith didn't know what the heck he was talking about as far as the population dynamics of the Americas are concerned. Just because he received a revelation, doesn't mean he understood that revelation.

What's the purpose of receiving a revelation from God that doesn't actually reveal anything to you? If it was meant for someone else, why not reveal it to the person that can understand it and it makes sense to?

GrandMoffTarkin · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:31 am

Water Dog wrote:

DrW wrote:

The biggest problem here is that the authors were forced to throw Joseph Smith, Zelph the White Lamanite Warrior, much of the the Book of Mormon itself, and more than 100 years of teaching by Mormon prophets of God under the bus in order to even set up the premise for this piece of obfuscation.

As a scientist and published author, Perego should be ashamed of himself.

To be honest I don't see how it's obfuscation. I can understand how one would arrive at this conclusion, but it assumes a context that isn't supported historically. To be specific, if the Book of Mormon is to be approached objectively, it must be considered outside the context of the modern LDS Church's influence and all the bias that comes with it. For instance, unlike the modern church, Joseph Smith never preached the doctrine of the infallible prophet. It's reasonable to consider the possibility that Joseph Smith didn't know what the heck he was talking about as far as the population dynamics of the Americas are concerned. Just because he received a revelation, doesn't mean he understood that revelation.

So are you saying that Joseph "translated" the Book of Mormon wrong? Or did he make up that Moroni said that it contains a history of the inhabitants of this continent? I'm confused as to what Joseph's understanding or not about revelation has to do with the clear indication from Moroni that it took place in America and the clear indication from the book itself that the Lamanites would still be around to hear the gospel in the latter days...

Perhaps it was just a bad example on your part.

What is the use of having revelation if part of the time prophets are just giving opinion and other times they are wrong because the didn't understand the revelation? If individual members have to constantly pray to determine if something said by a prophet was: (a) personal opinion; (b) based on a real revelation but misunderstood by the prophet; or (c) based on revelation but properly understood by the prophet, I daresay that there is not much point of having prophets.

mentalgymnast · **Joined:** Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm **Posts:** 8155

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:

What is the use of having revelation if part of the time prophets are just giving opinion and other times they are wrong because the didn't understand the revelation? If individual members have to constantly pray to determine if something said by a prophet was: (a) personal opinion; (b) based on a real revelation but misunderstood by the prophet; or (c) based on revelation but properly understood by the prophet, I daresay that there is not much point of having prophets.

I'm going to quote from a blogpost I was reading yesterday.

Quote:

...it doesn’t have the feel of a question that’s meant to be used as a question. It feels, instead, like the kind of question you’re meant to ask when you already know the answer. It feels inherently rhetorical. It feels like the kind of question a missionary is supposed to ask Mr. Brown, a Boolean question meant to force a binary response.
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... of-christ/

This "what is a prophet" question keeps coming up. And if a prophet doesn't fit strictly within the preconceived parameters/notions of a construct/creation which has been put in place by one who is thinking along binary lines of thought, then well, the prophet is not a prophet.

What if the purpose/function of a prophet varies depending on the time and place...the people...the doctrine already revealed...etc.? There seem to be those that would pigeonhole say, President Monson, into the same "restorationist" mode of operation/revelation that Joseph Smith functioned within.

Also, I haven't read through this whole thread (trying to spend less time in these parts), but here's a quote that might be looked at again if it hasn't already been referenced:

Quote:

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.
Brigham Young, (May 14, 1871) Journal of Discourses 14:116.

I'd guess Brother Brigham had read the scriptures which seem to dictate a very young earth. I'd guess Talmage and Co. had/have also. That didn't seem to prohibit them looking at a very old earth. And if you have a very old earth it seems to make sense that humans, in one form or another, have been around a very long time. Fact is (from the perspective of faith) we're only interested in the sons and daughters of Adam/Eve. The "Fall" and "Atonement" seem to apply only to them.

Regards,
MG

cognitiveharmony · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:45 pm **Posts:** 597

mentalgymnast wrote:

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:

What is the use of having revelation if part of the time prophets are just giving opinion and other times they are wrong because the didn't understand the revelation? If individual members have to constantly pray to determine if something said by a prophet was: (a) personal opinion; (b) based on a real revelation but misunderstood by the prophet; or (c) based on revelation but properly understood by the prophet, I daresay that there is not much point of having prophets.

I'm going to quote from a blogpost I was reading yesterday.

Quote:

...it doesn’t have the feel of a question that’s meant to be used as a question. It feels, instead, like the kind of question you’re meant to ask when you already know the answer. It feels inherently rhetorical. It feels like the kind of question a missionary is supposed to ask Mr. Brown, a Boolean question meant to force a binary response.
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... of-christ/

This "what is a prophet" question keeps coming up. And if a prophet doesn't fit strictly within the preconceived parameters/notions of a construct/creation which has been put in place by one who is thinking along binary lines of thought, then well, the prophet is not a prophet.

What if the purpose/function of a prophet varies depending on the time and place...the people...the doctrine already revealed...etc.? There seem to be those that would pigeonhole say, President Monson, into the same "restorationist" mode of operation/revelation that Joseph Smith functioned within.

Also, I haven't read through this whole thread (trying to spend less time in these parts), but here's a quote that might be looked at again if it hasn't already been referenced:

Quote:

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.
Brigham Young, (May 14, 1871) Journal of Discourses 14:116.

I'd guess Brother Brigham had read the scriptures which seem to dictate a very young earth. I'd guess Talmage and Co. had/have also. That didn't seem to prohibit them looking at a very old earth. And if you have a very old earth it seems to make sense that humans, in one form or another, have been around a very long time. Fact is (from the perspective of faith) we're only interested in the sons and daughters of Adam/Eve. The "Fall" and "Atonement" seem to apply only to them.

Regards,
MG

Hey MG, your response to the comment didn't actually respond in any meaningful way. He was saying that if you can never know whether a revelation given to a prophet actually means what it says or not, what's the purpose of having a prophet? Brigham's statement only supports this premise and answers nothing. I'd like to see more context to the quote also, it may very well be that he claims that revelation HAS been given on the subject so the only way to know the truth is through revelation....which in reality was yet again another false revelation.

The DNA Issue and The Book of Mormon again

Who is online