Flaw in LDS doctrine

[nutshell]

Soy, we all know about the Urim and Thummim, the point is she referred to these devices in a derogatory way and she avoids entering a legitimate debate when I ask her why she considers the use of such so outrageous.

 

[JillianMarie77]

Well, I didn't want to post again, but I find that I must because you're twisting the truth and my words.
What I am claiming is that Joseph Smith did not use "glasses and rocks in his hat" to translate. He used the Urim and Thummim. You might consider these to be one and the same because of your synonyms, but I do not.
Quit twisting things around.
Why don't you answer the question I asked previously? Why is it so outrageous to think God would have Joseph use a Urim and Thummim when similar objects were used by the priesthood in Old Testament times?

I'm not twisting things. As for OT folks using magic rocks and glasses - anything is possible. Civilizations all through time have used various tools for divination. I have a set of rocks that I use with Runes painted onto them. Frankly I don't think josephs rocks were any more or less magical than mine. The difference is I dont use mine to "translate" egyptian heiroglyphs falsely.

Now prior to your witch hunt here about my verbage we were discussing the science related to proving or disproving who the native americans are and where they fit in to the church's teachings.

Did you want to shift gears and talk about JS's "translations"?

By the way I did speak with my friend. She is compiling some information for me regarding that science and is considering joining up here to debate herself.

In the meantime I'm happy to debate other things with you.

 

[Squirt]

Jillian isn't making it up. From Richard Bushman's book "Rough Stone Rolling" - page 71-72 (Bushman is a member, by the way) - I'm transcribing all of this, so please excuse any typos:

I think we're all pretty much aware of the means by which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. I just don't happen to think that "magic" is quite the same thing as "divine intervention."

 

[Squirt]

Now prior to your witch hunt here about my verbage we were discussing the science related to proving or disproving who the native americans are and where they fit in to the church's teachings.

Prior to our "witch hunt," we were, in fact, talking about the origins of the Nephites and Lamanites. You might want to check back to see which poster is responsible for taking us off track. Hint: It's in Post #57.

 

[JillianMarie77]

I just don't happen to think that "magic" is quite the same thing as "divine intervention."

I dont think its different at all.

 

[JillianMarie77]

Prior to our "witch hunt," we were, in fact, talking about the origins of the Nephites and Lamanites. You might want to check back to see which poster is responsible for taking us off track.

It's pretty clear. We were talking about it and my point was and remains that the science doesn't support the BofM's claims. After saying this is when everyone got up in arms and decided it more fun to debate my choice of terms. My post was exactly on track.

Try again.

 

[nutshell]

I'm not twisting things. As for OT folks using magic rocks and glasses - anything is possible. Civilizations all through time have used various tools for divination. I have a set of rocks that I use with Runes painted onto them. Frankly I don't think josephs rocks were any more or less magical than mine. The difference is I dont use mine to "translate" egyptian heiroglyphs falsely.

What is that makes you believe his story is false?

Now prior to your witch hunt here about my verbage we were discussing the science related to proving or disproving who the native americans are and where they fit in to the church's teachings.

Did you want to shift gears and talk about JS's "translations"?

Frankly, I don't care what we talk about and there was no witch hunt - I only wished to clarify for the unknowing reader what you were referencing and how you were referencing it.

By the way I did speak with my friend. She is compiling some information for me regarding that science and is considering joining up here to debate herself.

May I ask who this friend is? You seem to mention her often. Is she a mentor of sorts?

In the meantime I'm happy to debate other things with you.[/quote]

And I you.


off topic: May I ask why you've switched religions several times. I sincerely want to know, but understand that it may be personal.

 

[JillianMarie77]

What is that makes you believe his story is false?

Lots of things. There it all started unraveling with the POGP. I'm sure you knwo what I"m talking about.

May I ask who this friend is? You seem to mention her often. Is she a mentor of sorts?

In some ways. She's a very smart girl. She's a scientist and knows all kinds of things that someone who never graduated highschool cant really understand without a slow talking through =) She's a liberal christian.

off topic: May I ask why you've switched religions several times. I sincerely want to know, but understand that it may be personal.

Well. Lets see. I was raised catholic. But it was half assed know what I mean? didn't really STUDY the doctrine but I knew I didn't really believe it. couldn't fathom a god that would toss his children into an oven and roast them for eternity for being naughty. So I became ANTI christian for a while. Looked superficially into paganism etc. Ended up rather agnostic. Then missionaries started stalking me (not really but I moved 4 different times and I had 2 different sets show up at each place!). They "caught" me at my aunts house. Hot summer dya, she felt bad for them. Offered them a glass of water. SHE made the appt for them to come back. *I* was there when they came back (babysitting). I had the first discussion. Tried to avoid them when they returned like I did all the other missionaries but ....they had these nice neat pat answers for each of my "issues" with christianity. It was a good fit in an otherwise scary and uncertain time in my life. After all they had the WHOLE truth right?

Long story short, after several years of faithful membreship, baptisms and blessings for my children, temple service, humanitarian aid, Storehouse and DI assignments, callings as RS teacher and Gospel Doctrine teacher things started to unravel as I stated above. I prayed, I fasted, I sought guidance in the temple, I attended church and all of my functions and callings well over a year after my "apostasy" thinking my testimony might come back if I tried hard enough and being rather unsure what to do about it being gone. It never came back.

So.....now I follow a Self centered path (not to be confused with selfish or self centered ).

And yes. THAT was the short version

 

[nutshell]

Lots of things. There it all started unraveling with the POGP. I'm sure you knwo what I"m talking about.

Yes, I'm aware of what you're talking about and I admit it's a tough one to reconcile. As with all things, it seems to come down to faith.

In some ways. She's a very smart girl. She's a scientist and knows all kinds of things that someone who never graduated highschool cant really understand without a slow talking through =) She's a liberal christian.

That's great. I have a mentor of sorts and I always feel so uplifted after my conversations with him even when he has to tear me down for being stupid. By the way, he's not LDS, he's Jewish.

Well. Lets see. I was raised catholic. But it was half assed know what I mean? didn't really STUDY the doctrine but I knew I didn't really believe it. couldn't fathom a god that would toss his children into an oven and roast them for eternity for being naughty. So I became ANTI christian for a while. Looked superficially into paganism etc. Ended up rather agnostic. Then missionaries started stalking me (not really but I moved 4 different times and I had 2 different sets show up at each place!). They "caught" me at my aunts house. Hot summer dya, she felt bad for them. Offered them a glass of water. SHE made the appt for them to come back. *I* was there when they came back (babysitting). I had the first discussion. Tried to avoid them when they returned like I did all the other missionaries but ....they had these nice neat pat answers for each of my "issues" with christianity. It was a good fit in an otherwise scary and uncertain time in my life. After all they had the WHOLE truth right?

Long story short, after several years of faithful membreship, baptisms and blessings for my children, temple service, humanitarian aid, Storehouse and DI assignments, callings as RS teacher and Gospel Doctrine teacher things started to unravel as I stated above. I prayed, I fasted, I sought guidance in the temple, I attended church and all of my functions and callings well over a year after my "apostasy" thinking my testimony might come back if I tried hard enough and being rather unsure what to do about it being gone. It never came back.

So.....now I follow a Self centered path (not to be confused with selfish or self centered ).

And yes. THAT was the short version

Thanks for the short version. Interesting how the missionaries always seemed to show up. If I may ask, how old were you when you joined and how long have you been "apostate?" Also, did you have your name removed from the records of the church and what was that process like? I've heard it's like twisting teeth to get it done, but I've also been in callings where I've seen the Bishop first hand pumping out letters to remove people's names.

 

[turk179]

Even if JillianMarie77 said the comment about magic rocks and glasses to me about my religion(we use magic things all the time) it still would have sounded sarcastic and antagonistic whether it was intended to or not.

Now back to the original topic. I am not sure whether or not this question was actually answered but I will post it again.........

Okay, I read it and I find nothing in your post that contradicts LDS beliefs. In fact, I think the information supports the concept that the Americas were populated by different groups at different times. Why can't one of these groups be the people the Book of Mormon speaks of?

and ask why not? I mean there really isn't any scientific evidence that disproves this 100% is there? So a lot of this would fall under faith which is the basis for most religions in the first place. Correct me if I am wrong. I am way out of my element here .

 

[Bishka]

Even if JillianMarie77 said the comment about magic rocks and glasses to me about my religion(we use magic things all the time) it still would have sounded sarcastic and antagonistic whether it was intended to or not.

Now back to the original topic. I am not sure whether or not this question was actually answered but I will post it again.........
and ask why not? I mean there really isn't any scientific evidence that disproves this 100% is there? So a lot of this would fall under faith which is the basis for most religions in the first place. Correct me if I am wrong. I am way out of my element here .

Exactly. We aren't debating the LDS faith here, Buttons* specifically asked about the Nephites and the Lamanites. Jillian we aren't saying your religion is false, could we please get back to the OP? Thanks.

 

[Squirt]

Try again.

Give me one good reason why I should "try again." Do you really see this conversation as going anywhere? I know I certainly don't. I've been contributing on this forum long enough to know that there are a handful of individuals whose posts aren't worth the time it takes me to read them. I'm done.

 

[Squirt]

So a lot of this would fall under faith which is the basis for most religions in the first place. Correct me if I am wrong. I am way out of my element here .

You're not wrong. You're 100% correct. Some people require scientifically verifiable evidence before they are willing to accept something as true. That's fine. I have no problem with this. I just don't like the implication that I am stupid or naive because I can accept certain things on faith.

 

[zabugle]

IF (as the BoM indicates) the Lehites freely intermarried with a numerically superior group of castoff Jaredites, and if (as anthopological and paleolinguistics indicates) the Jaredites were of Asian extraction, then science would barely find a drops of Mid-East DNA. However, as the data supplied about haplogroup X indicates, they have found such drops.

How do you explain the strong presence of haplogroup X in Siberia, for example? There we ought to see a the strongest tendency toward Asiatic DNA, but instead we find one of the strongest populations of the Mid-Eastern haplogroup X.

The strong presence of a haplogroup X in Siberia would be exactly what was expected for a Beringia migration. It being found in the Mid-East is no surprise either, as all human migration past through the area in the current migration model. However what the article cited shows is that there is no haplogroup X in Siberia. This would be a good argument, couple with the limited area of the haplogroup X in North America, for your geographically limited Lamanite migration hypothesis if not for one important detail - timeline. Brown et al found a coalesence (point of common origin) which puts the origin of the X haplotype in the Americas at the latest 12,000 years ago. With the Lamanites making their journey around 600 BC we have a discrepancy of 8,500 years.

This is the conclusion of Brown et al:

"In conclusion, we have described the occurrence, variation
within, and population distribution of haplogroup
X mtDNAs in Native Americans. This haplogroup appears,
on the basis of archaeological data, to be pre-
Columbian and may have arrived in the Americas either
12,000–17,000 years ago or 23,000–36,000 years ago.
Haplogroup X is remarkable in that it has not been
found in Asians, including Siberians, suggesting that it
may have come to the Americas via a Eurasian migration.
However, a more extensive survey of Asian
mtDNAs, as well as additional characterization of European
and Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs,
will be necessary to fully deduce the origin of haplogroup
X in North America."

Not suprisingly in the 8 years since this article was published more research has been done. The X haplogroup has been found in Siberia, although it appears to come from a more recent gene flow from Europe or the Mid-East than the migration to the Americas. Reidla et al in 2003 found a coalesence for the X haplogroup in the Americas at no later than 11,000 years ago, concurring with the previous finding.

The origin of the X haplogroup inthe Americas remains a mystery. Some argue for a European trans-atlantic migration, but the lack of other European haplotypes in the native Amerrican population makes that unlikely. Others argue that considering the low frequency of the haplotype in the American population it is not surprising that it would have disappeared from Asia. Whatever the answer, and it will continue to be pursued, no one disputes a prehistoric origin of the X haplogroup in the Americas, predating setting of the Lamanite story by several thousand years.

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9837837

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14574647

http://www.tracegenetics.com/Eshlemanetal2003.pdf

ETA: Direct links

 

[JillianMarie77]

The strong presence of a haplogroup X in Siberia would be exactly what was expected for a Beringia migration. It being found in the Mid-East is no surprise either, as all human migration past through the area in the current migration model. However what the article cited shows is that there is no haplogroup X in Siberia. This would be a good argument, couple with the limited area of the haplogroup X in North America, for your geographically limited Lamanite migration hypothesis if not for one important detail - timeline. Brown et al found a coalesence (point of common origin) which puts the origin of the X haplotype in the Americas at the latest 12,000 years ago. With the Lamanites making their journey around 600 BC we have a discrepancy of 8,500 years.
This is the conclusion of Brown et al:
"In conclusion, we have described the occurrence, variation
within, and population distribution of haplogroup
X mtDNAs in Native Americans. This haplogroup appears,
on the basis of archaeological data, to be pre-
Columbian and may have arrived in the Americas either
12,000–17,000 years ago or 23,000–36,000 years ago.
Haplogroup X is remarkable in that it has not been
found in Asians, including Siberians, suggesting that it
may have come to the Americas via a Eurasian migration.
However, a more extensive survey of Asian
mtDNAs, as well as additional characterization of European
and Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs,
will be necessary to fully deduce the origin of haplogroup
X in North America."
Not suprisingly in the 8 years since this article was published more research has been done. The X haplogroup has been found in Siberia, although it appears to come from a more recent gene flow from Europe or the Mid-East than the migration to the Americas. Reidla et al in 2003 found a coalesence for the X haplogroup in the Americas at no later than 11,000 years ago, concurring with the previous finding.
The origin of the X haplogroup inthe Americas remains a mystery. Some argue for a European trans-atlantic migration, but the lack of other European haplotypes in the native Amerrican population makes that unlikely. Others argue that considering the low frequency of the haplotype in the American population it is not surprising that it would have disappeared from Asia. Whatever the answer, and it will continue to be pursued, no one disputes a prehistoric origin of the X haplogroup in the Americas, predating setting of the Lamanite story by several thousand years.
pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9837837
pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14574647
tracegenetics.com/Eshlemanetal2003.pdf
Sorry about the cut and paste links. This being my first post I apparently can't link other urls.

Told ya'll she was a smart girl =)

I think you'll find this fun, if not a little irritating (format not people).

 

[DeepShadow]

[/lurk]All well and good; I have comments on all this after my research symposium, but in the mean time, would anyone mind answering my other questions?[lurk]

 

[DeepShadow]

First, Zabugle, let me say thank you for your level of scholarship on this issue, quoting authoritative source data rather than simply parroting secondhand data. Frubals for it, and may I do as well in response. Hopfully if we get your frubals up high enough, you'll be able to paste links to all this juicy data!

The strong presence of a haplogroup X in Siberia would be exactly what was expected for a Beringia migration.

How so? I can see how, considering that "all human migration past (sic) through [the Mid-East]...in the current migration model" the presence of haplogroup X in Siberia would not refute a Beringia migration, but I can't see how it's "exactly what was expected for a Beringia migration."

However what the article cited shows is that there is no haplogroup X in Siberia.

I wasn't referring to the cited article. I merely asked why haplogroup X has been discovered in Siberia, which it has.

This would be a good argument, couple with the limited area of the haplogroup X in North America, for your geographically limited Lamanite migration hypothesis if not for one important detail - timeline. Brown et al found a coalesence (point of common origin) which puts the origin of the X haplotype in the Americas at the latest 12,000 years ago. With the Lamanites making their journey around 600 BC we have a discrepancy of 8,500 years.

A discrepancy that was based on mutation rates many times slower than modern humans, which rates have been challenged in subsequent reports (Parsons et al., 1997; see also Ivanov et al., 1996; Denver, 2000; Howell et al., 1996; Pitman, 2003). When these other mutation rates are applied, the emergence of haplogroup X in the new world falls into the ballpark of a Lehite migration. Based on that, your statement that "no one disputes a prehistoric origin of the X haplogroup in the Americas, predating setting of the Lamanite story by several thousand years," is simply not true.

Now does anyone have any answers to my questions? Specifically, how do you explain the presence of colophons and chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?

 

[zabugle]

First, Zabugle, let me say thank you for your level of scholarship on this issue, quoting authoritative source data rather than simply parroting secondhand data. Frubals for it, and may I do as well in response. Hopfully if we get your frubals up high enough, you'll be able to paste links to all this juicy data!

Thank you. I've edited my OP to include direct links. I hope you had no trouble cutting and pasting them before.

How so? I can see how, considering that "all human migration past (sic) through [the Mid-East]...in the current migration model" the presence of haplogroup X in Siberia would not refute a Beringia migration, but I can't see how it's "exactly what was expected for a Beringia migration."

Because the east side of the Bering strait is Siberia. As a population expands we should expect to see a genetic "trail" through all the areas in passed through. The entire ancestral population didn't just march straight from the Middle East through Central Asia and Siberia and across the ice bridge. Rather they expanded slowly and only parts of the population moved on. Leaving others behind to populate each area.

OTOH, the Lamminite hypothesis is a one time migration directly from the Arabian peninsula to the Americas. No "trail" is expected. Though one would expect to find the X haplogroup in populations on the western coast of central America where the Lammintes were likely to land, rather than in the northern populations where it is found.

I wasn't referring to the cited article. I merely asked why haplogroup X has been discovered in Siberia, which it has.

Since you didn't cite any source of your own, I assumed you were misinterpreting the data. My apologies.

A discrepancy that was based on mutation rates many times slower than modern humans, which rates have been challenged in subsequent reports (Parsons et al., 1997; see also Ivanov et al., 1996; Denver, 2000; Howell et al., 1996; Pitman, 2003).

It was a little work to track down your citations based on the limited information you supplied. This is what I found. I hope they are the right ones. I've included both abstracts and full articles when available. Many of the full articles may be unaccessible for most people, but the abstracts should be viewable by all.

Parsons et al., 1997:
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10877702&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_docsum
Full article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5473/1931a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=288&firstpage=1931&resourcetype=HWCIT

This is actually a comment refuting the evidence for recombination in a previous paper, and does not support a higher mutation rate.

Ivanov et al., 1996:
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8630496&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Full article not available online as it is too old.

Though interesting (I love the Russian royal family stuff), it is hard to see how this study of a single mutation in one family has a broad implication for large scale population studies. Do you have details from the full article you'd like to share?

Denver, 2000:
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8751850&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Full article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5488/2342

This is a study showed a much higher mutation rate in C. Elegans (worms). The authors suggests that it might have implications in humans as well. It would be interesting to see a study that applies such a mutation rate to human mitochondrial studies. Are you aware of one that does? I don't think we can be sure that the study I cited from three years later doesn't take such anamolies into account.

Howell et al., 1996:
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8751850&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Full article not available online as it is too old.

Again, do you have some evidence that these complication to the mutation rate are not being taken into account by studies published 8 years later? The study I cited gives a very large range of possible coalesence. 11,000 years at the extreme late end of the range. Does the full article give a much later coalesence of the X haplogroup, or the American haplogroups in general?

Pitman, 2003:

I can't find this article. I would be interested to see it, as it is much more current than the other ones provided. It would be really interested if this study looks finds a coalesence of the X haplotgroup at ~2500 years, which is what the Lammanite hypothesis would predict.

When these other mutation rates are applied, the emergence of haplogroup X in the new world falls into the ballpark of a Lehite migration. Based on that, your statement that "no one disputes a prehistoric origin of the X haplogroup in the Americas, predating setting of the Lamanite story by several thousand years," is simply not true.

None of the articles you cited give a coalesence time of the X haplogroup. It is impossible to tell from them alone what the implications are for the coalesence if the X haplogroup, or any haplogroup in the Americas. If I am missing something in one of these articles, please point it out. Otherwise, unless you have an article that does apply these mutation rates to the X haplogroup in the new world, I will stand by my statement.

Now does anyone have any answers to my questions? Specifically, how do you explain the presence of colophons and chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?

Personally I'd rather resolve this issue first, then maybe we can move on to the other evidence you have. Of course you will have to give more details, as I have no idea what you are talking about.