I enjoyed reading the comments both pro and con. What I get from this is a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind has already been made up, I am beginning to doubt everything. I have become a man of little or no faith.
"problem with theology" .. no, just a problem with the literal interpretation of the bible, Genesis in particular, which many dont have today of those that believe in the christian god... Slightly offtopic, you´ll eventually have to deny gravity if you.
Ontopic, DNA evidence shows that there was not a bottleneck with Noah as little as 4500 years or so ago. It´s just not possible for that much diversity to arise in such little time.
With all this Mormon intelligence, why not spend your time telling us where Zarahemla is? Show us ONE sword, ONE shield, or a singular explanation as to the spiritual need for the Book of Mormon, are not most if not all Mormon doctrines in the Pearl of Great Price or Doctrine and Covenants? We have information already on Joseph's peepstone, had i been Mormon, I would wonder, why the need for the Golden plates when the peepstone did the translating with the hat.
@nashaunconwell there are pictures of many south american swords. they are made of wood and edged with flint, in otherwords they can be stained by blood.
@michamus Too bad the BoM doesn't use the term steel throuhout the text. It switches to a CIMETER, and that is not a real English term. Because J. Smith , the PROPHET, didn't know what a Macuahitl was due to a very limited vocabulary when the PROPHET of the God of ISRAEL, AND ABRAHAM and MOSES translated the STICK of JOSEPH seen by Ezekiel.
"Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn with him." (Eth. 7:9.)
One more thing, please explain why the Book of Mormon has had thousands of changes since it was first written, such as taking out complete chapters, and changing names, and correcting horrible grammar (almost like 3rd grade writing skills, read one of the very first original BoM's!!! youll see), all the while the church claims that god wrote it word for word. The original BoM said that a black man who is righteous will turn white. Now it says the man will turn pure (racial controversy change).
Taking out complete chapters? Nothing was removed from Joseph Smith's original translation. And the "thousands of changes" mostly involved putting the original translation into chapters and verses, correcting spelling errors, etc. You would do better, sneedleout, if you stopped believing everything you read on the anti-Mormon web sites.
Also, why do people like you say that Joseph Smith died as a martyr, when the day he died in Carthage Jail, he had a smuggled gun with him and actually shot and killed two people while frantically trying to escape? Hmmm..... They leave that part out for some reason. If anyone doubts this, research it! And of course, if your looking for information about LDS history from LDS sites, you are only looking at a very edited version of the "truth".
its funny how fraudulent the so many things about the mormon church is that they have to constantly defend it. You cant really explain away any of the problems with the church without using a copout like "god works in mysterious ways", or "theres a reason for everything". Even if you can explain away the DNA problems, try explaining how the church recovered and verified the plates that Joe translated the Book of Abraham from. They don't let anyone see it anymore, because was found fraudulent.
The Book of Abraham. You clearly know nothing about it. The most prominent contemporary apologist for our church has published a large and widely available book (I have a copy brimming with full color photographs of all the found papyri) titled "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri"
I'd almost bet what you've read on the matter and I assure you that your perception of things with regard to The Book of Abraham is foundationally in error.
let me lay down some facts for you. PROVEN facts. The Book of Abraham translation was found in a museum with Joe's handwriting and signature. fact = the church took custody of the translation. The church had many egyptologists look at it and translate it. Every single egyptologist, even mormon professors have found it to be an egyptian burial scroll that has absolutely nothing to do with the book of abraham. Isn't it time to look behind the curtain and see what really is going on?
Stating something as a "PROVEN fact" does not make it so. "Many egyptologists"? Are you referring to Professor Dee Jay Nelson, the self-proclaimed world famous egyptologist? I know that he claimed to have translated it (he didn't, btw), and he was furthermore proven to be a charlatan and a fraud. The "school" he got his supposed degree from, doesn't even exist.
There is no DNA problem. DNA can neither prove, or disprove, the truth of the Book of Mormon. Besides which, my testimony of that book is not based on any physical evidence, but on study, prayer, and a witness from the Holy Ghost that it is true. Millions of other LDS could state the same thing. We know that a witness from the Holy Ghost is the highest form of "evidence" you can possibly have. There is no witness higher than that.
@michamus The book of ETHER is chronologically way before NEPHI. The composition of the book authors is not in chronological order. the word Steel is NOT real steel as we know it, but a weaker alloy, but again because Joseph Smith had a very weak vocabulary he thought steel was the closest thing to what it really was. Cureloms, and Curemoms? those aren't even english words either, but it was because the translation was from another land foreign to Joseph, he was forced to make up words.
So J Smith mistakenly called it steel, when it was really something else? Maybe his god's spirit should have impressed upon him the correct term.
Seems to me you have to dig pretty deep to explain these fantastic claims.
Let's make sure I have this right though:
J Smith saw an alloy, called it steel, but it was really some other alloy that you don't know the name of. You instead mention the names (Cureloms) of animals in the BoM that have yet to be shown to exist.
@michamus When ur only education away from your fathers' farm was only until 3rd grade, which is only BASIC reading, writing, and math. It is no wonder at all that Joseph had to make up words. It's also no wonder at all, that the church has made the text "politically correct" as our language has changed over the years.
Frankly scholars, and members of the church understand your concern, but the spirit of truth testifys that the BoM is God's word, and evidence is really a moot point.
Ah! Never mind the apparent inconsistencies, and factual mistakes. As long as you "feel good" about it, and call that good feeling "the spirit testifying the truth" then it's all good, right?
You realize this is equivalent to plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and shouting "I can't hear you!", right?
Seriously man, evidence is the only demonstrable thing we can go off of, and you're ever so eager to dismiss it once it becomes an inconvenience for you.
Apologist arguments are none to interesting to me. Simply saying, "well what was meant to be written..." is an age old argument, that fails to provide anything meaningful in examination of ancient texts.
All these hoops, and bending over backward just to keep from having to admit that the BoM contradicts what we observe in reality.
Then again, when a belief system praises "faith" over data, it's no wonder the data is quickly "explained" away.
@michamus Also I want to remind you of the hard times of the "farmer" in those days. Krakatao erupted and the winters that followed ruined the Smith family's crops as well as everyone else that lived during that time. Imagine the debt that accrued from failed crops?
In what way does this justify lying, and stealing? Seriously. You do realize J Smith had been in trouble with the law prior to his "being revealed" the location of the "seer stones".
Do you know what he was in trouble for? Selling seer stones for divination of treasure locations*. Fortunately for him though, he was young enough for the court to allow him to simply "disappear".
* Quinn (1987, p. 173); Bushman (2005, pp. 49–51); Persuitte (2000, pp. 33–53).
Ah, the argument from incredulity fallacy, with a dabble of argument from authority fallacy.
His standing in the church has zero effect on the veracity of his claims. Then again, the religious are notorious for being incapable of distinguishing the difference between believing something, and verifying it.
weston27a2, just an FYI. I consider simply giving a link in a comment, especially if that link is to something other than you're own video, to be rather blatant spamming, and spamming is one of the few things I delete and block for. If you want to comment some of you're own words or lay out a case go right a head, or if the reference to a website is part of a larger response by yourself then that's fine, but don't just put up general links with nothing else. You do it enough and I'll block you.
"Overlap"? "Bi-Chromosome DNA"?If the Asiatic Mitchondrial DNA Markers were based upon bi-chromosome DNA from the father & the mother, this would be correct. But the DNA evidence is NOT based upon bi-chromosome markers whatsoever. This is the flaw in your presentation. The DNA sudies are MITOCHONDRIAL: DNA that replicates from generation to generation in its ENTIRETY. The ratio of this DNA is ALWAYS 1:1.
What you present here is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the the DNA mitochondrial Asiatic data.
1. Mitochondrial DNA research has NOTHING to do with Y/male chromosomes, for the male chromosomes NEVER mix with the female's mitochondrial DNA, so this info is irrelevant to the issue.
2. Your family tree assumes that matriarchs only have one daughter to carry on mitochondrial DNA into future generations.
3. Your family tree also clearly shows an inverted triagular shape, unlike the Asiatic graph you present in part-2 of this series.
Ok. So I will have to do a video dedicated completely to overlapping, but I will use your video as a reference. I can't say it will be soon, but we'll see. =)
I suggest you hold off on making another video for HiveRadical until you better educate yourself. The mere fact that you are even considering creating a video exclusively on "overlapping" reveals that you are hen-pecking at subjects you still now little about. "Over-lapping" is irrelevant. But the fact that you can't see this reveals just how educated you really on the subject matter.
Over-lapping is irrelevant because bi-chomosome data is not even the issue.
1. These people that were said to have come hear from Israel are being said to have lived in a very small area (now), and where not widespead (according to the lead LDS apologists). Making overlapping WAY more true than in widespread populations.
2. There were VERY little interactions recorded of Lehi's group mixing with other groups.
4. I've heard the Noah theory. It makes no sense. We have DNA from ancient Jews, we KNOW what their DNA is.
Point 3. We know what Semetic DNA is from ancient people. Not just Israelites, but Egyptians, etc. Thank goodness for mummies, etc.
So we don't need to know anything about Noah. In fact, we don't even have to start with the supposition that the flood killed everyone in the world (but we can, and it still doesn't change much of my theory).
What we do know of DNA, which is enough to go back that far. Is that native americans are not Israelites.
My issue is not me not understanding the data or the facts or the methodology. It's an error in you not knowing what I'm getting at. You assume my overlapping means I don't understand that mtDNA remains constant, that's not what I'm referencing. I'm making another video detailing this error in your perception or failure in the clarity of my explanation. I assure you it is one of those two and NOT a lack in my understanding of the processes or facts of mtDNA.
Another consideration again, Joseph Smith still CLEARLY taught that modern Native American in the mid-west and throughout the US are of Lamanite decent. Was he wrong? These same Native American just a few generations later have to mitochondrial marker for the middle-east, but fro Asiatic peoples.
I am not dissmissing your presentation, but these issues MUST be considered. If JS was incorrect about Native American descent, this may cast doubt on other of his assertions, as well.
Since the time I've but this on the internet there've been placed many more, and generally much more comprehensive, analysis addressing this theme. In my video I addressed a narrow point because it was one of the clearest ones in my view. If most or all of us either lack the dna of some of our ancestors OR lack definable traces to the DNA of most of our ancestors then it only follows that the very limited tests of mtDNA and y-chrom can only show a very small snap shot of what happened.
Yes, isn't it amazing how people can twist something that is so basic and simple into so many contortions that it almost makes no sense whatsoever. It's enough to give any rational, intelligent guy a headacke.
:-/
Like my grandmother used to say: "Every time a person bends or stretches the truth, it always ends up bouncing back into place."
Yes, but in the mean time, it's quite humorous to watch all of the funny shapes they can make out of truth. But it all comes out in the wash.
There's a good talk by statistician on the TEDtalksdirector channel wherein this statistician points out that statistically speaking humans almost always get statistics and probabilities wrong. He points this out in several cases. One of them has an expert witness in a court of law essentially condemning an innocent woman to jail because his poor understanding of statistics, despite his other strengths in scientific processes, were deficient. So a woman was accused of murdering two of her babies
Yes. You are correct. This is a perfect illustration of what we both are saying. Statistics are just that: statistics. Not 100%absolutes.
Don't let anyone tell you that Lamanite DNA doesn't exist just because it's "statistically impossible." Anything is possible. Anything. There might be .00076% chance that Lamaite DNA still exists somewhere within Native American mitichondria. We just haven't found it yet. But when we do, can I please be invited to your LDS vidication party? Pretty Please?
I get the feeling that you don't quite get it simply because of your statement here on "Native American mitochondria" The fact that you bring up finding it seems to speak to you not understanding that there doesn't need to be a spec of it for there to be lamanite DNA in some or all of the present Native Americans to say nothing of the disconnect between ancestors and actual genetic material.
Not true. But it is not my place to prove this to you. It is your place to verify what you just wrote. I suggest you seek out, not one, but at least three reputable, non-LDS affiliated PhDs from major universities like Yale, Harvard, or Oxford in the fields of microbiology, genetics, and anthropology, and discuss it with them. You can email them via the internet or subscribe to their research journals and stop turning to FARMS and its vested interest in preserving your religion. ~Rob
I have talked to geneticists outside of Church universities. I do read a great deal of things beyond the Church. I find this a funny accusation coming from you with the errors you made RE:the big crunch, and I pointed out. There was an instance a few years ago in which I was engaging a Theoretical Physcist, I read an article by one Mr Neil deGrasse Tyson, (this was before his NOVA fame) regarding Einstein. This man sounded his triumphal cry and said that
Steven Hawking, one of the foremost contemporary Cosmologists, disagrees with you about the Big Crunch. There are many theories regarding its validity among Cosmologists, yet as of now, no definitive proof either way. When I am faced with tangible evidence that shows the Big Cruch will not occur, then I will gladly revise my opinion and open myself up to a more complete picture of the universe based upon the data. This is more than I can say for you regarding the mtDNA data on Native Americans.
The fact that the universe is accelerating apart (not simply drifting) is demonstrable fact. Where do you see the a hithertofore unknown force decelerating and then reversing this into contraction?
Cosmologists are divided on the issue because you are correct, there is demonstrated facts that support it. However, there are also demonstrated facts that support the Big Cruch. Steven Hawking, the so-called foremost "guru" on cosmology presents a solid case for the Big Crunch, but for now, Cosmologists are still divided. If feel good about the Big Crunch. In fact, I've even asked God and felt the "burning in my bosom." But if I am shown to be wrong, I will accept the fact and embrace...
he had connections to Mr Tyson and he wrote him to confirm that I, the 'uneducated' and the 'indoctrinated' 'with an agenda' was clearly not understanding what Mr Tyson was saying in his paper. After some time he finally swallowed crow and said that he was wrong. I happened to obtain the correspondence between this man and Mr. Tyson and it demonstrated clearly that I was right. This bright scientist that worked at one time for Boeing and
at the time was far and away the most versed of all the voices of science in that particular forum, he was wrong and the Mormon kid that he talk down to actually understood a scientific paper better than this degree filled and experience laden 'man of science.' So you can believe what you wish about myself and my condition, I just assure you that you generally, and fundamentally, are incorrect in your conclusions thus far.
But to this expert and the Jury that condemned this woman and put her into a prison where she was subjected to real criminals who also believed she'd killed two of her own infants it was quite strait forward and basic and simple. They'd looked at the statistics and probability and felt it was all quite clear. But as your grandmother use to say "Every time...it always ends up bouncing...into place." Many times people mistake their perception of a static position to mean it's already bounced.
Wow! I'm glad you got all of that out in your last 5 replies. Must've been quite cathartic.
Interestingly enough, you have just managed to change the topic from mtDNA evidence into several others that have NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.
Yes, mitochondrial DNA is passed on only through the mitochondria of the female ovum. This is one way Genetic Anthropologists can determine the age and origin of the human species because it is been statistically show the average length of time mutations occur within the DNA. Counting the mutations between races, then multiplying that time mentioned is a good indicator as to the age of the species. DNA extracted from human fossils have cooberated...
...the ages of those fossils that had been previously dated through carbon-testing (or the half-life disitingration of carbon molecules. Two seperate methods of date analysis: carbon and DNA, both separately arriving at the same rough estimate of the fossils. These fossils show that humans were arouds several hundred thousand years before Christianities Adam & Eve (7 thousand years ago according to LDS & Christian theology.) I bring this up because you are using DNA data to support your ...
...your hypothesis. Do you also agree with that same method when used to show the age of the human species? How about how mitochondrial DNA marker from humans are also shown to break off with other primates at specific periods throughout earth's history? No offese intended, but you are referring to Mitochondrial DNA markers quite often in your presentation, so you must them accept the validity of this method. Do you also support this method when it does not support other Christian Beliefs?
There's really not a great deal of detail given as to what the actual process of creation consisted of. The difference between the LDS faith and a vast number of Christians is that our doctrine only states firmly that Adam and Eve were the first Man and Woman, the first Humans, the first of our species, to be placed on the Earth. Not knowing all the details combined with the fact that the details of science not being super firmly set either leaves a great deal of room for them to coincide.
Oh Hive. I took the time to read all of the replies you've posted, and in spite of your utter denial of it, you are completely incorrect in so many ways, and on so many topics, that I can't even begin to respond to you appropriately. ...and it isn't really my job to give you all of the information you have askewed and twisted to shape around your dogma. The information is out there. The truth is, you can't handle the truth. You fight it at every corner and over-shadow it with your religion.
Whenever I come upon someone that says they can't even begin to respond, or that it isn't their job, it sounds rather like a cop out. When I have been wrong, even on a massive level, people have been able to demonstrate it without covering everything, or even most of the things. When you claim a target is so so massive and you can't or wont even begin to demonstrate it it rather sounds like those holding positions that, when asking them questions the only response they can give
I totally disagree with every so-called "scientific point" you have tried to twist and reshape in your presentation. The reason I don't even know where to respond is because you are so entrenched in your religion that you refuse to objectively look at facts and data. A person like this can never see reason, not because it isn't obvious, but because they refuse to see it.
Your objectivity is so clouded that even you are unable to see it. It's pointless to intelligently discuss issues with you.
is that you're not looking hard enough or deep enough or working enough. It's like professor Harold Hill's "think system." I don't care if you embarrass me, if you lay bare to the world all I have done wrong. I invite it! I'd like to be shown where and how and why I'm wrong, but it's a little hard when every source you've mentioned to me, that I've started into, is riddled with problems from the get go, it's hard for me to continue through
the massive regimine with discrepancies between things you say and things I know to be otherwise, not by farms or fair or the Church, but through present day science. When you can't even deal with explaining why you include the Big Crunch in one your view of the Universe, even when it's been demonstrated to be a long since outdated theory, it's a bit hard for me to believe you on this. Your claims of me
being wrong 'in so many ways' on 'so many topics' strikes me as an excuse for you to not respond. And I call your bluff. Whether it's your 'job' or not you engaged, you made the claims, if you can't even begin to demonstrate your positions and statements, if you're unwilling to support your assertions, then why did you even bother to mention them in the first place? So until I find someone that's willing to either actually point out the
problems or point me to viable sources for such, I'll just have to sit tight and continue on as I have been, never having been given a chance by you because it wasn't 'your job' I have little choice but to see your claims as Harold Hill like claims. You can continue to sell your band equipment and uniforms and music sheets, if it's all functional it all matters very little if you can't or won't provide competent and responsive and beyond the text book demonstrations.
Frustrating, I'm sure, I just lost two comments and I assume HR is asleep.
Here goes.
You and I grew up when an argument against the Book of Mormon's historicity was a racist notion of the IQ of Indigenous Americans.
A dentist studying a dental anomaly in skulls from from North to South America found a dental anomaly that bolstered the paradigm of universal descent from ancient hunters with the anomaly. It seems this group must have been very ancient. I'm still not quite getting it.
I don't care if people who know me well recognize me by stumbling across me here. What I more want to avoid is someone who knows me via YouTube recognizing me while looking for me if I do not want to know them, or have them know me.
In short I'd like to have some say on who knows what about me coming from the side of the openness of the internet. If they know me well outside the internet then I think I either know, or can know, enough about them to eliminate any one sidedness in cognizance.
I always hope some day that a Mormon missionary (former or current) will come to my house knocking doors, evangelizing the neighborhood I am in, or maybe just bumping into them on the street and maybe they will say "hey, aren't you the guy that had all of those priesthood videos on youtube?"..
And I will say "yeah".
And I hope they will say "Can you explain to me why there was only ever 1 High Priest at any given time in Biblical history". And I will say "yes, lets sit down"..
And don't take this as too harsh an insult. I really don't have anything against you as an individual. But even the LDS church has now changed the opening paragraph to reflect what science has uncovered (in a limited capacity of course)
They didn't change any part of the canonized text, merely a paragraph explaining the text. The text, like the chapter headings, was never part of the original text.
Yes but if it was truly divinly inspired then why have to change it? Could it be they are just covering up the fact Smith was wrong about Native American origins. If not why have to change it?
You missed what I was saying. The part that was changed was not a part of the canon, that is it was not part of the original plates, nor what was given by Jospeh Smith, it was a portion included in printed copies of the book by way of explanation as to what was in the book. It's akin to changing some of the wording in the letter at the beginning of the King James Bible. It's merely altering something that was only meant to be an explanation RATHER than altering something that is the actual book
Wow Hive, you're really stretching it in this video. I wouldn't expect you to fight any less vigorously to protect your religion, but come on . . . honestly . . . find a group of scientists who would agree with what you're presenting. This, though in defense for your religious convictions, is ridiculous. I do like some of your videos, though.
I've watched that video already. There will always be someone there (including a scientist) to say that you can't use DNA testing to this extent (but of course you can)DNA testing speaks for itself, the data is there and the majority of scientific researchers agree with DNA testing. Why is it so hard for you to just simply say you don't know? Maybe you were mistaken about Mormonism. I'm just saying you have to view you religion in a different light ( I, sadly, was LDS at one point) Good people:)
Give me specific issues with the arguments presented. Surely you must know that they are not arguing the accuracy or validity of DNA. They're simply demonstrating the real constraints of present knowledge. Please give specific points, specific counter points. If their presentation is wrong or flawed then it should be a simple matter to specifically point out where they state something that's wrong OR where they specifically use erroneous logic.
Taking up spamming slu2com? You could at least link it to a vid that showed arguments that hadn't been shown to be either irrelevant or straw men arguments.
And spamming is one thing I generally don't care much for.
I made a few lengthly posts on your videos. Totally original, totally in regards to your particular video, and totally for you.
Yet, you removed these comments apparently. Particularly how you don't fully express the overlapping of testing multiple strands, multiple tribes, and many many genotypes.
You only slightly delve into it, and make a very vague reference to the idea. In the end you try to make it appear as if testing was only done on one strand. Very disingenious.
I'm happy to report that not only amI, and was I, certain that I'd not deleted any of your comments, I've done a quick check and have located the described posts. You gave them about two weeks ago. And while I don't address the issue directly in response to those specific posts of yours I HAVE
...addressed them in other points of dialog within the context of my YT channel. Given enough time I'm rather confident I could find, and point out, said instances--furthering the embarrassment brought on yourself via these accusations.
I do hope you'll withdraw the label "Very disingenuous" you've given me.
Im glad to hear that you have not deleted my posts. However, I can not find a few of them still. Maybe I have overlooked them?
People have accused me of removing their posts in the past, when I haven't. So maybe it's a YouTube thing.
However I disagree about your discussion of overlapping. Like I said, you vaguely touched on the idea, but it the majority the time spent on your videos you continue to only address tests done on 1 sample only.
Hive said allready that he did simplified version and that there's more comprehensive dna study videos available by others, so try to chalenge them if you wanna go beyond the simple analysis. Anyway, if your dna claims would be true as you claim, it would also disproove the bible, so open your eyes.
viably traceable through certain genealogical lines.
The point being ultimately that just because you can't find traces with present genetic tests doesn't mean there's not a genetic heritage. It also qualifies the migration patterns discerned through mitochondrial DNA markers. All this because mtDNA only follows maternal lineages so they are limited to the amount of human migratory history they can tell us.
Ok, you still didn't answer my original question, but anyway. That being said, you would still expect to see a certain percentage of people tested that have the mtDNA of their Near Eastern ancestors. Even if the original population was very small, due to a war, you would still expect to see a percentage of people tested to show relatedness to people of the Near East. Does the LDS church believe that ALL of the people of Near Eastern decent died in the battles with the "Asiatics" or only some?
Not really. If you talk to an actual geneticist you will actually see that the statistics favor a minority, and even a single being, from founding populations as being very likely to eventually dominate the whole of future populations, that's why Mitochondrial Eve despite the fact that there were likely a great many other women that were alive before and during her child age years are not represented in Mitochondrial lines, not represented at all.
First of all, nice Donkey Kong music. Secondly, and sorry if I missed it elsewhere, but where did you get your degree in genetics? Last but not least, your argument appears flawed. If you start with one man and woman, and follow their Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA down through the generations, you will begin to have multiple copies of each floating around in the population.
In genetics you can take all people presently and trace their Mitochondrial DNA (different from Nucleic DNA--it being the majority of DNA in the nucleus of cells and mitochondrial DNA being very very small by comparision) all people can genetically be traced, through their mtDNA (short for Mitochondrial DNA) to this woman termed Mitochondrial Eve. The reason she is relevant to our discussion is that even though we are all related to her we all can, and likely do, have genetic information
that comes from women that were contemporaries of Mitochondrial Eve but have genetic information in their genome that Mitochondrial Eve did not have.
The point being that the means of tracing descent, while accurate for what they trace, can only give us two firm lines of descent, that of the strictly Maternal and that of the strictly Patriarchal. And just because we can trace everyone's y-chrom (male) and mt-DNA (female) genetics doesn't mean that we don't have genetic elements that
those 'founders' (by founders I mean those who's DNA, in these lineage tests, are the ones who dominated to the extent that they are literally the father and mother of all presently living)didn't have. So there may have been many other women living at the time of Mitochondrial Eve that had DNA she didn't have, yet their DNA could still be present, and likely is still present. The only thing is that it was passed on in a part of the genome that's not easily or even
Suggestion: For your next video, just save everyone some time and stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!" You have been told by many people much more intelligent than yourself that your analogy is based on nonsense, just like the words of your prophets.
Ahhh... the authoritarianism of presumed intellectual supremacy. "Why don't you just fall in line?" Can you tell me why, if intellectual supremacy is your soup du jour, why is there no great list of geneticists coming out and explicitly saying that there's no possible way any Book of Mormon scenario could be true? Why is the list given here by funnrun only populated by anthropologists, a microbiologist, and a professor of anatomy and embryology? Them being
LDS is irrelevant, but their other titles are likewise because it's genetics we're talking about in this argument, not anthropology, not microbiology, not anatomy and not embryology.
Why, when I'm talking here with Hive Radical, do I feel like I'm trying to tell Bush and Cheney that Iraq has no WMD's? facts be damned. These kinds of people are going to believe whateve nonsense they want.
The thing that makes it so revealing "GodLumps" is to see what is presently your only subscription here on youtube--TheUtahnite. You have no idea how happy it makes me to have you put on the airs you do of superiority, and for you to try and lump me with those who cling to WMD arguments. Because if anything ever screamed hypocritical and illogical sucking of rancid and untenable, and by you unquestioned heed to, diatribes against Mormonism u couldn't have picked a better first subscription here.
The Book of Mormon can't stand on it's own. The Book of Mormon has to be changed or the Church will fall. So how true is that? Many of the Church top minds are coming to grips with Joe and his book. The Church puts people like you out there to defend Joe, but you can't stand up to the likes of Grant Palmer, and Simon Southerton, who are very smart & good Men who want the truth and are not interested in Money & Power over the believers
Simon Southerton, a man who gets on by taking a stand in a field of science he does not specialize in against a faith he's apostatized from in a video done by an organization that's built around funneling money to those that can put on airs against it's pet object of scorn, the LDS Church. You go and put your trust in men who were/barely are, members of the Church who have great and grand degrees. I'm going to believe in the truth, in what I've actually seen in the words of actual geneticists
funnrun-if you think the statement by Brigham Young was a racist statement then I cannot see how you cannot see the statement by Christ to not also be such. I mean calling a woman and her people 'dogs.' If you keep running with the likes of GodLumps you'll find yourself having to forsake the same things they have forsaken, namely a belief in Christ as God. Just look in the favorites section on GodLump's channel. Accept these arguments against us and you do in any belief you may have.
The only way you can defend Joe is to drag the Bible down to the Mud and Make excuses for his perverted way of thinking. The Same with the Racist Brigham Young. The bible is very clear about people like you, Joe, Brigham Young and the rest of the False prophets that preach LDS.The same is true about DNA, Archaeological Evidence, so many excuses but the Facts are clear, There is NO Trace of these People or their Cities, NONE! You can't even show, One Weapon, One Shield, One Bone! NOTHING!
The Official position of the LDS is one of defense, excuse after excuse after excuse. Excuses for Joe and his Sex drive, Excuses for Brigham Young Racism, Excuses for the Many false prophecy Joe & Brigham Young said and wrote, Excuse for the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, Excuses for Archaeological Evidence and DNA Evidence, Excuses for the many bright and most faithful Leaders that have turned on your Church, and on & on & on. Blind faith is your friend not Joe..
The book of Mormon is true because (insert excuses here) and Joe had sex with so many woman because (insert excuses here) and the reason Brigham Young hated Blacks is because (insert excuses here), Now the Archaeological Evidence & DNA Evidence does not show the truth because (insert excuses here).
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind..Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."(Journal of Discourses,Vol.7,page 290)
All these Men listed below are bright & very educated Men & former LDS members and they have something to say to you. Are you interested in what they have to say about DNA? And if not why not? Are they Dummys? Or could it might be they have some truth. I have more bright & very educated Men who say you are wrong if you would like?
Can't you net a single geneticist for your list? Or are you stuck with just anthropologists and a microbiologist? Their positions are as relevant as the position of the one time BYU professor physicist that joined up with 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
The strength of an argument lies not in the credentials of those proclaiming it, but in it's actual strength when tested independent of the credentials, or lack thereof, of those who test it.
As we move into 2008 the Mormon Leaders have, and is changing words in the book of Mormon to reflect modern DNA evidence, just as they did in 1972 when some of their Leaders put aside their hatred of blacks, and just as "some" did about plural Marriage in 1890
A Prophet is more than a teacher, he receives relation from God, so God must have been wrong on these issues
They changed words in something outside of the cannon of the Book. They didn't touch the book itself.
Do you feel Peter's vision was just an opportunistic alteration/changing of the mind of God for a Jewish sect that had about run out of potential converts amongst the Jews?
'He [Moroni] told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76).
Sounds pretty clear to me that the "prophet" was wrong.
You are suffering from exactly the simplification the critics who yell about DNA hope you will. I don't question any of the DNA evidence, I merely point out the limited scope of all the presently collected evidence.
'The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17).
"Lamanites share a royal heritage. I should like to address my remarks to you, our kinsmen of the isles of the sea and the Americas. Millions of you have blood relatively unmixed with gentile nations."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 596
With millions of them, as the prophet asserts, why hasn't a single one been found in all the DNA studies? Not one!
What do you mean? I understand DNA testing pretty well, having studied biochemistry in college where we did DNA testing. I have also been using DNA test results in my genealogy to trace paternal and maternal lines. If the "Lamanites" were real, and really came to the Americas from Israel, their Y and M dna would still be around in all their offspring and could easily be spotted if they were of a Jewish haplotype. I think you may be a bit confused.
"their Y and M dna would still be around in all their offspring"
This statement is simply wrong. You do not have the Y chrom DNA of 3 out of 4 of your grandfathers (unless there are some skeletons in the closets of your family tree). And where do you propose we'd get the mt-DNA samples of Sariah or of the daughters of Ishmael? You have a comprehensive collection of hair from all the women of Jerusalem circa 600 BC?
Whose y and m dna do you think you have?? You have your paternal great-great-great-great-grandfather's, and you have your maternal great-great-great-great-great grandmother's. It still exists largely unchanged!
Ancient hair samples are unnecessary. Ethnically Jewish people have a unique haplotype that is nothing like the Asian haplotype in native Americans.
This still totally fails to realize that only two lines are tracable in this largely unchanged piece, that means that they need only a single ancestor, in the right place, to cut off the patriarchal line and only a single one in the right place to cut off the matriarchal line. Go back enough generations and it's not that hard to have a scenario in which an entire branch of either mtDNA or y-chrom can be eliminated completely. This doesn't change the make-up of the ancestry, merely the evidence.
You really don't get it. If they were a successful race as the Church leaders have indicated they are in the quotes I provided down below, the lines would still exist today. They don't, and I will go so far as to say they never did. It's a false story. No genetic line. No archaeological remains. No influence on the language. It's a myth I would love to believe, as it cost me my faith, but better to live in reality than live someone else's lie. Take care.
Successful? You did read the Book of Mormon, right? Is success merely having a remnant survive? The word "remnant" is a strong theme to describe those who survived from one generation to the next. You need just one generation to cut off some strain of evidence permanently. If successful means they merely survive, then YES they were 'successful' but their lineage has been chronically described in terms of a small remnant being reduced every few years through the pride cycle and such set backs.
"The Nephites suffered extinction about 400 A.D., but the Lamanites lived on in their degraded course, and are today extant upon the land as the American Indians."
- Apostle James Talmage, Apostle, Jesus the Christ, 23rd ed., p. 49
The Church has no official stance beyond stating that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and are the parents of all humans who have lived from their time to present.
Claiming that anyone who has a problem with the notion that they are descended from Adam and Eve, and the survivors of the flood do not have a problem with theology, they have a problem with Biblical literalism. These are very different things.
The Smithsonian Institution: No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian Archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book."
Have contributors to 'Nature,' the peer-reviewed science journal, ever used the Bible in any way as a scientific guide? I mean the book details the creation of all life.
The Smithsonian Institution: The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
Most archaeological evidence remotely supporting aspects of the Bible was not discovered 'till the last century. Does that then make all those who believed previously, without the evidence, wrong? How many Mideast archeologists can you find me that believe the Bible is literally true?
Archaeologists have found evidence of the Bible, you can't say that bout the Book of Mormon. My faith is backed by Archaeologists findings of cities and People in the Bible and you can't say that about the Book of Mormon. Archaeologists CAN NOT find any evidence of The Lamanites and the Nephites. Why won't the LDS Church excavate the "Hill Camorah and show the World the archaeological evidence? Because there is nothing there. You have blind faith,
Mormons do have a certain claim that is hard to dismiss. What about the civilizations in Central America? I have been to those ruins and a huge civilization lived there. I don't know if Mormons claim that but it does seem fishy that people would cross a land/ice bridge and travel 5000 miles to start a huge civilization in central America. My point is that it is absurd to say what you said and not give respect to this notion just because you don't want it to be true.
You can't say that about the book of Mormon because there is NO Trace of these People or their Cities, NONE! You can't even show , One Weapon , One Shield, One Bone! NOTHING!How in the World can it be true in anyway? It simply can't no matter how much blind faith you have in it.
Faith on it's own is worthless if it's in a Lie or in something that is not real! Our Faith is backed by Archaeological Evidence and DNA Evidence that shows the People & Cities in the Bible to be part of History, and proves to the believer that their faith is not blind.
The Archaeological Evidence & DNA Evidence proves the people & Cities in the Bible
were real. That Evidence backs up my faith!
The Archaeological Evidence & DNA Evidence does not prove the people & the Cities in the Book of Mormon were real. The lack Evidence destroys my faith
I will make you a promise. If you study the real history and archeology of the Bible all your life, and if your faith is always dependent on that evidence, your faith in the Bible will fail before you die.
Given the DNA evidence and the fact that the Lamanites would have had to travel over 8000 miles by boat over open ocean to reach Central America, it's pretty obvious that Native Americans and Polynesians are not from Israel.
Yours is an argument based on probablitity, in that you are implying that they just haven't tested the right people, no?
Roman Empire? What does that have to do with this discussion. It would seem though, that if the Lamanites ever existed the evidence would have been found. So far no genetic, archaeological, linguistic, or any other kind of evidence suggesting Hebrew peoples has been found.
Mine isn't based on probability as you posit it. It's based on the fact that there are scenarios in which probability in tests of present Native Americans would be irrelevant because of the inherent limitations of the lineages they can speak on.
I enjoyed reading the comments both pro and con. What I get from this is a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind has already been made up, I am beginning to doubt everything. I have become a man of little or no faith.
thebigcougar 9 months ago
Your believing in the literal biblical flood indicates to me that your standards for evidence is much, much lower than mine.
Therefore I can conclude that you are willing to believe in very silly things as long as they support your beliefs.
Remember, Atheists don't believe in Mormonism just as much as Christians don't
sagarat 9 months ago
"problem with theology" .. no, just a problem with the literal interpretation of the bible, Genesis in particular, which many dont have today of those that believe in the christian god... Slightly offtopic, you´ll eventually have to deny gravity if you.
Ontopic, DNA evidence shows that there was not a bottleneck with Noah as little as 4500 years or so ago. It´s just not possible for that much diversity to arise in such little time.
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor if you...think the universe is 10k years old..dunno why that got cut out. Check out CDK007´s videos on that.
Korkzor 1 year ago
Wow! This must be a comedy video. Brilliant!
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Wonderful vid thanks for making it.
trappedhere2 2 years ago
With all this Mormon intelligence, why not spend your time telling us where Zarahemla is? Show us ONE sword, ONE shield, or a singular explanation as to the spiritual need for the Book of Mormon, are not most if not all Mormon doctrines in the Pearl of Great Price or Doctrine and Covenants? We have information already on Joseph's peepstone, had i been Mormon, I would wonder, why the need for the Golden plates when the peepstone did the translating with the hat.
nashaunconwell 2 years ago
@nashaunconwell there are pictures of many south american swords. they are made of wood and edged with flint, in otherwords they can be stained by blood.
trappedhere2 2 years ago
@trappedhere2
Too bad the BoM speaks of Steel, not wood ;)
michamus 1 year ago
@michamus Too bad the BoM doesn't use the term steel throuhout the text. It switches to a CIMETER, and that is not a real English term. Because J. Smith , the PROPHET, didn't know what a Macuahitl was due to a very limited vocabulary when the PROPHET of the God of ISRAEL, AND ABRAHAM and MOSES translated the STICK of JOSEPH seen by Ezekiel.
LDS4Life71 10 months ago
@LDS4Life71
"Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn with him." (Eth. 7:9.)
michamus 10 months ago
One more thing, please explain why the Book of Mormon has had thousands of changes since it was first written, such as taking out complete chapters, and changing names, and correcting horrible grammar (almost like 3rd grade writing skills, read one of the very first original BoM's!!! youll see), all the while the church claims that god wrote it word for word. The original BoM said that a black man who is righteous will turn white. Now it says the man will turn pure (racial controversy change).
sneedledout 2 years ago
Taking out complete chapters? Nothing was removed from Joseph Smith's original translation. And the "thousands of changes" mostly involved putting the original translation into chapters and verses, correcting spelling errors, etc. You would do better, sneedleout, if you stopped believing everything you read on the anti-Mormon web sites.
JediMormon 2 years ago
Also, why do people like you say that Joseph Smith died as a martyr, when the day he died in Carthage Jail, he had a smuggled gun with him and actually shot and killed two people while frantically trying to escape? Hmmm..... They leave that part out for some reason. If anyone doubts this, research it! And of course, if your looking for information about LDS history from LDS sites, you are only looking at a very edited version of the "truth".
sneedledout 2 years ago
its funny how fraudulent the so many things about the mormon church is that they have to constantly defend it. You cant really explain away any of the problems with the church without using a copout like "god works in mysterious ways", or "theres a reason for everything". Even if you can explain away the DNA problems, try explaining how the church recovered and verified the plates that Joe translated the Book of Abraham from. They don't let anyone see it anymore, because was found fraudulent.
sneedledout 2 years ago
The Book of Abraham. You clearly know nothing about it. The most prominent contemporary apologist for our church has published a large and widely available book (I have a copy brimming with full color photographs of all the found papyri) titled "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri"
I'd almost bet what you've read on the matter and I assure you that your perception of things with regard to The Book of Abraham is foundationally in error.
HiveRadical 2 years ago 2
let me lay down some facts for you. PROVEN facts. The Book of Abraham translation was found in a museum with Joe's handwriting and signature. fact = the church took custody of the translation. The church had many egyptologists look at it and translate it. Every single egyptologist, even mormon professors have found it to be an egyptian burial scroll that has absolutely nothing to do with the book of abraham. Isn't it time to look behind the curtain and see what really is going on?
sneedledout 2 years ago
Stating something as a "PROVEN fact" does not make it so. "Many egyptologists"? Are you referring to Professor Dee Jay Nelson, the self-proclaimed world famous egyptologist? I know that he claimed to have translated it (he didn't, btw), and he was furthermore proven to be a charlatan and a fraud. The "school" he got his supposed degree from, doesn't even exist.
JediMormon 2 years ago
There is no DNA problem. DNA can neither prove, or disprove, the truth of the Book of Mormon. Besides which, my testimony of that book is not based on any physical evidence, but on study, prayer, and a witness from the Holy Ghost that it is true. Millions of other LDS could state the same thing. We know that a witness from the Holy Ghost is the highest form of "evidence" you can possibly have. There is no witness higher than that.
JediMormon 2 years ago
@JediMormon
Really? So the Mt-DNA showing Native Americans to be Asian descent, rather than Jewish decent doesn't disprove the BoM?
"Never mind the man behind the curtain."
michamus 1 year ago
@michamus The book of ETHER is chronologically way before NEPHI. The composition of the book authors is not in chronological order. the word Steel is NOT real steel as we know it, but a weaker alloy, but again because Joseph Smith had a very weak vocabulary he thought steel was the closest thing to what it really was. Cureloms, and Curemoms? those aren't even english words either, but it was because the translation was from another land foreign to Joseph, he was forced to make up words.
LDS4Life71 10 months ago
@LDS4Life71
So J Smith mistakenly called it steel, when it was really something else? Maybe his god's spirit should have impressed upon him the correct term.
Seems to me you have to dig pretty deep to explain these fantastic claims.
Let's make sure I have this right though:
J Smith saw an alloy, called it steel, but it was really some other alloy that you don't know the name of. You instead mention the names (Cureloms) of animals in the BoM that have yet to be shown to exist.
michamus 10 months ago
@michamus When ur only education away from your fathers' farm was only until 3rd grade, which is only BASIC reading, writing, and math. It is no wonder at all that Joseph had to make up words. It's also no wonder at all, that the church has made the text "politically correct" as our language has changed over the years.
Frankly scholars, and members of the church understand your concern, but the spirit of truth testifys that the BoM is God's word, and evidence is really a moot point.
LDS4Life71 10 months ago
@LDS4Life71
Ah! Never mind the apparent inconsistencies, and factual mistakes. As long as you "feel good" about it, and call that good feeling "the spirit testifying the truth" then it's all good, right?
You realize this is equivalent to plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and shouting "I can't hear you!", right?
Seriously man, evidence is the only demonstrable thing we can go off of, and you're ever so eager to dismiss it once it becomes an inconvenience for you.
michamus 10 months ago
@michamus Swords and "Cimeters" in the Book of Mormon
Matthew Roper
Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume - 8, Issue - 1, Pages: 34-43
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1999
You really ought to take the time to read the article, because it explains what is meant in the text.
LDS4Life71 10 months ago
@LDS4Life71
I've read it before.
Apologist arguments are none to interesting to me. Simply saying, "well what was meant to be written..." is an age old argument, that fails to provide anything meaningful in examination of ancient texts.
All these hoops, and bending over backward just to keep from having to admit that the BoM contradicts what we observe in reality.
Then again, when a belief system praises "faith" over data, it's no wonder the data is quickly "explained" away.
michamus 10 months ago
@michamus Also I want to remind you of the hard times of the "farmer" in those days. Krakatao erupted and the winters that followed ruined the Smith family's crops as well as everyone else that lived during that time. Imagine the debt that accrued from failed crops?
LDS4Life71 10 months ago
@LDS4Life71
In what way does this justify lying, and stealing? Seriously. You do realize J Smith had been in trouble with the law prior to his "being revealed" the location of the "seer stones".
Do you know what he was in trouble for? Selling seer stones for divination of treasure locations*. Fortunately for him though, he was young enough for the court to allow him to simply "disappear".
* Quinn (1987, p. 173); Bushman (2005, pp. 49–51); Persuitte (2000, pp. 33–53).
michamus 10 months ago
@michamus Quinn is not a good member. I would choose another source.
LDS4Life71 10 months ago
@LDS4Life71
Ah, the argument from incredulity fallacy, with a dabble of argument from authority fallacy.
His standing in the church has zero effect on the veracity of his claims. Then again, the religious are notorious for being incapable of distinguishing the difference between believing something, and verifying it.
michamus 10 months ago
The claim that Native Americans are descendants of the Jews is patently absurd.
What self-respecting "Jewish" Indian would have sold Manhattan for a mere 25 bucks??
Outlaw1257 2 years ago
Hehe. Great music from Donkey Kong SNES!
benfirst 3 years ago
weston27a2, just an FYI. I consider simply giving a link in a comment, especially if that link is to something other than you're own video, to be rather blatant spamming, and spamming is one of the few things I delete and block for. If you want to comment some of you're own words or lay out a case go right a head, or if the reference to a website is part of a larger response by yourself then that's fine, but don't just put up general links with nothing else. You do it enough and I'll block you.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I thought your explanation was really good Hive. Thanks for the efforts.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
"Overlap"? "Bi-Chromosome DNA"?If the Asiatic Mitchondrial DNA Markers were based upon bi-chromosome DNA from the father & the mother, this would be correct. But the DNA evidence is NOT based upon bi-chromosome markers whatsoever. This is the flaw in your presentation. The DNA sudies are MITOCHONDRIAL: DNA that replicates from generation to generation in its ENTIRETY. The ratio of this DNA is ALWAYS 1:1.
What you present here is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the the DNA mitochondrial Asiatic data.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
Regarding your Family Tree graph:
1. Mitochondrial DNA research has NOTHING to do with Y/male chromosomes, for the male chromosomes NEVER mix with the female's mitochondrial DNA, so this info is irrelevant to the issue.
2. Your family tree assumes that matriarchs only have one daughter to carry on mitochondrial DNA into future generations.
3. Your family tree also clearly shows an inverted triagular shape, unlike the Asiatic graph you present in part-2 of this series.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
Ok. So I will have to do a video dedicated completely to overlapping, but I will use your video as a reference. I can't say it will be soon, but we'll see. =)
slu2com 3 years ago
I suggest you hold off on making another video for HiveRadical until you better educate yourself. The mere fact that you are even considering creating a video exclusively on "overlapping" reveals that you are hen-pecking at subjects you still now little about. "Over-lapping" is irrelevant. But the fact that you can't see this reveals just how educated you really on the subject matter.
Over-lapping is irrelevant because bi-chomosome data is not even the issue.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
Trust me, I've heard all of the apologists solutions to fixing the DNA problem with Mormonism.
I've heard "you can't trace back to Noah, so nothing else matters". I've heard HiveRadicals explainations.
First, overlapping is ABSOLUTELY relevant, especially considering HiveRadicals very narrow explaination of the subject.
His video makes it look like DNA is so unreliable because of how many generations gets missed in mtDNA.
But that is untrue with overlapping.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
First addressing the overlapping.
1. These people that were said to have come hear from Israel are being said to have lived in a very small area (now), and where not widespead (according to the lead LDS apologists). Making overlapping WAY more true than in widespread populations.
2. There were VERY little interactions recorded of Lehi's group mixing with other groups.
4. I've heard the Noah theory. It makes no sense. We have DNA from ancient Jews, we KNOW what their DNA is.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Sorry, I went to point 4, before point 3.
Point 3. We know what Semetic DNA is from ancient people. Not just Israelites, but Egyptians, etc. Thank goodness for mummies, etc.
So we don't need to know anything about Noah. In fact, we don't even have to start with the supposition that the flood killed everyone in the world (but we can, and it still doesn't change much of my theory).
What we do know of DNA, which is enough to go back that far. Is that native americans are not Israelites.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
My issue is not me not understanding the data or the facts or the methodology. It's an error in you not knowing what I'm getting at. You assume my overlapping means I don't understand that mtDNA remains constant, that's not what I'm referencing. I'm making another video detailing this error in your perception or failure in the clarity of my explanation. I assure you it is one of those two and NOT a lack in my understanding of the processes or facts of mtDNA.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Another consideration again, Joseph Smith still CLEARLY taught that modern Native American in the mid-west and throughout the US are of Lamanite decent. Was he wrong? These same Native American just a few generations later have to mitochondrial marker for the middle-east, but fro Asiatic peoples.
I am not dissmissing your presentation, but these issues MUST be considered. If JS was incorrect about Native American descent, this may cast doubt on other of his assertions, as well.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
Since the time I've but this on the internet there've been placed many more, and generally much more comprehensive, analysis addressing this theme. In my video I addressed a narrow point because it was one of the clearest ones in my view. If most or all of us either lack the dna of some of our ancestors OR lack definable traces to the DNA of most of our ancestors then it only follows that the very limited tests of mtDNA and y-chrom can only show a very small snap shot of what happened.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Yes, isn't it amazing how people can twist something that is so basic and simple into so many contortions that it almost makes no sense whatsoever. It's enough to give any rational, intelligent guy a headacke.
:-/
Like my grandmother used to say: "Every time a person bends or stretches the truth, it always ends up bouncing back into place."
Yes, but in the mean time, it's quite humorous to watch all of the funny shapes they can make out of truth. But it all comes out in the wash.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
There's a good talk by statistician on the TEDtalksdirector channel wherein this statistician points out that statistically speaking humans almost always get statistics and probabilities wrong. He points this out in several cases. One of them has an expert witness in a court of law essentially condemning an innocent woman to jail because his poor understanding of statistics, despite his other strengths in scientific processes, were deficient. So a woman was accused of murdering two of her babies
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Yes. You are correct. This is a perfect illustration of what we both are saying. Statistics are just that: statistics. Not 100%absolutes.
Don't let anyone tell you that Lamanite DNA doesn't exist just because it's "statistically impossible." Anything is possible. Anything. There might be .00076% chance that Lamaite DNA still exists somewhere within Native American mitichondria. We just haven't found it yet. But when we do, can I please be invited to your LDS vidication party? Pretty Please?
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
I get the feeling that you don't quite get it simply because of your statement here on "Native American mitochondria" The fact that you bring up finding it seems to speak to you not understanding that there doesn't need to be a spec of it for there to be lamanite DNA in some or all of the present Native Americans to say nothing of the disconnect between ancestors and actual genetic material.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Not true. But it is not my place to prove this to you. It is your place to verify what you just wrote. I suggest you seek out, not one, but at least three reputable, non-LDS affiliated PhDs from major universities like Yale, Harvard, or Oxford in the fields of microbiology, genetics, and anthropology, and discuss it with them. You can email them via the internet or subscribe to their research journals and stop turning to FARMS and its vested interest in preserving your religion. ~Rob
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
I have talked to geneticists outside of Church universities. I do read a great deal of things beyond the Church. I find this a funny accusation coming from you with the errors you made RE:the big crunch, and I pointed out. There was an instance a few years ago in which I was engaging a Theoretical Physcist, I read an article by one Mr Neil deGrasse Tyson, (this was before his NOVA fame) regarding Einstein. This man sounded his triumphal cry and said that
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Steven Hawking, one of the foremost contemporary Cosmologists, disagrees with you about the Big Crunch. There are many theories regarding its validity among Cosmologists, yet as of now, no definitive proof either way. When I am faced with tangible evidence that shows the Big Cruch will not occur, then I will gladly revise my opinion and open myself up to a more complete picture of the universe based upon the data. This is more than I can say for you regarding the mtDNA data on Native Americans.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
The fact that the universe is accelerating apart (not simply drifting) is demonstrable fact. Where do you see the a hithertofore unknown force decelerating and then reversing this into contraction?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Cosmologists are divided on the issue because you are correct, there is demonstrated facts that support it. However, there are also demonstrated facts that support the Big Cruch. Steven Hawking, the so-called foremost "guru" on cosmology presents a solid case for the Big Crunch, but for now, Cosmologists are still divided. If feel good about the Big Crunch. In fact, I've even asked God and felt the "burning in my bosom." But if I am shown to be wrong, I will accept the fact and embrace...
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
...a higher truth of reality and the univers. Are you willing to do the same with the mtDNA findings? So far, apparently not.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
he had connections to Mr Tyson and he wrote him to confirm that I, the 'uneducated' and the 'indoctrinated' 'with an agenda' was clearly not understanding what Mr Tyson was saying in his paper. After some time he finally swallowed crow and said that he was wrong. I happened to obtain the correspondence between this man and Mr. Tyson and it demonstrated clearly that I was right. This bright scientist that worked at one time for Boeing and
HiveRadical 3 years ago
at the time was far and away the most versed of all the voices of science in that particular forum, he was wrong and the Mormon kid that he talk down to actually understood a scientific paper better than this degree filled and experience laden 'man of science.' So you can believe what you wish about myself and my condition, I just assure you that you generally, and fundamentally, are incorrect in your conclusions thus far.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
But to this expert and the Jury that condemned this woman and put her into a prison where she was subjected to real criminals who also believed she'd killed two of her own infants it was quite strait forward and basic and simple. They'd looked at the statistics and probability and felt it was all quite clear. But as your grandmother use to say "Every time...it always ends up bouncing...into place." Many times people mistake their perception of a static position to mean it's already bounced.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
But the problem with reconciliatory tensions between truth and the present state is that tension is not always perceivable.
But you are right, it all comes out in the wash--just hope you're not one that's thrown the baby out with the wash water.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Wow! I'm glad you got all of that out in your last 5 replies. Must've been quite cathartic.
Interestingly enough, you have just managed to change the topic from mtDNA evidence into several others that have NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
Yes, mitochondrial DNA is passed on only through the mitochondria of the female ovum. This is one way Genetic Anthropologists can determine the age and origin of the human species because it is been statistically show the average length of time mutations occur within the DNA. Counting the mutations between races, then multiplying that time mentioned is a good indicator as to the age of the species. DNA extracted from human fossils have cooberated...
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
...the ages of those fossils that had been previously dated through carbon-testing (or the half-life disitingration of carbon molecules. Two seperate methods of date analysis: carbon and DNA, both separately arriving at the same rough estimate of the fossils. These fossils show that humans were arouds several hundred thousand years before Christianities Adam & Eve (7 thousand years ago according to LDS & Christian theology.) I bring this up because you are using DNA data to support your ...
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
...your hypothesis. Do you also agree with that same method when used to show the age of the human species? How about how mitochondrial DNA marker from humans are also shown to break off with other primates at specific periods throughout earth's history? No offese intended, but you are referring to Mitochondrial DNA markers quite often in your presentation, so you must them accept the validity of this method. Do you also support this method when it does not support other Christian Beliefs?
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
There's really not a great deal of detail given as to what the actual process of creation consisted of. The difference between the LDS faith and a vast number of Christians is that our doctrine only states firmly that Adam and Eve were the first Man and Woman, the first Humans, the first of our species, to be placed on the Earth. Not knowing all the details combined with the fact that the details of science not being super firmly set either leaves a great deal of room for them to coincide.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Oh Hive. I took the time to read all of the replies you've posted, and in spite of your utter denial of it, you are completely incorrect in so many ways, and on so many topics, that I can't even begin to respond to you appropriately. ...and it isn't really my job to give you all of the information you have askewed and twisted to shape around your dogma. The information is out there. The truth is, you can't handle the truth. You fight it at every corner and over-shadow it with your religion.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
Whenever I come upon someone that says they can't even begin to respond, or that it isn't their job, it sounds rather like a cop out. When I have been wrong, even on a massive level, people have been able to demonstrate it without covering everything, or even most of the things. When you claim a target is so so massive and you can't or wont even begin to demonstrate it it rather sounds like those holding positions that, when asking them questions the only response they can give
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I totally disagree with every so-called "scientific point" you have tried to twist and reshape in your presentation. The reason I don't even know where to respond is because you are so entrenched in your religion that you refuse to objectively look at facts and data. A person like this can never see reason, not because it isn't obvious, but because they refuse to see it.
Your objectivity is so clouded that even you are unable to see it. It's pointless to intelligently discuss issues with you.
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
is that you're not looking hard enough or deep enough or working enough. It's like professor Harold Hill's "think system." I don't care if you embarrass me, if you lay bare to the world all I have done wrong. I invite it! I'd like to be shown where and how and why I'm wrong, but it's a little hard when every source you've mentioned to me, that I've started into, is riddled with problems from the get go, it's hard for me to continue through
HiveRadical 3 years ago
the massive regimine with discrepancies between things you say and things I know to be otherwise, not by farms or fair or the Church, but through present day science. When you can't even deal with explaining why you include the Big Crunch in one your view of the Universe, even when it's been demonstrated to be a long since outdated theory, it's a bit hard for me to believe you on this. Your claims of me
HiveRadical 3 years ago
being wrong 'in so many ways' on 'so many topics' strikes me as an excuse for you to not respond. And I call your bluff. Whether it's your 'job' or not you engaged, you made the claims, if you can't even begin to demonstrate your positions and statements, if you're unwilling to support your assertions, then why did you even bother to mention them in the first place? So until I find someone that's willing to either actually point out the
HiveRadical 3 years ago
problems or point me to viable sources for such, I'll just have to sit tight and continue on as I have been, never having been given a chance by you because it wasn't 'your job' I have little choice but to see your claims as Harold Hill like claims. You can continue to sell your band equipment and uniforms and music sheets, if it's all functional it all matters very little if you can't or won't provide competent and responsive and beyond the text book demonstrations.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
COOL MUSIC INTRO. :-)
GentleSoul1970 3 years ago
"Um, just a little joke."
LOL
EverASurprise 3 years ago
Frustrating, I'm sure, I just lost two comments and I assume HR is asleep.
Here goes.
You and I grew up when an argument against the Book of Mormon's historicity was a racist notion of the IQ of Indigenous Americans.
A dentist studying a dental anomaly in skulls from from North to South America found a dental anomaly that bolstered the paradigm of universal descent from ancient hunters with the anomaly. It seems this group must have been very ancient. I'm still not quite getting it.
DadsBlueAngel 3 years ago
If you want people who know you well to not
recognize you, you'd better work on the
distortion. I'm still kicking. My best friend
joined the Church--didn't say a word to me
ahead of time. I was peeved.
Kathleen
DadsBlueAngel 3 years ago
I don't care if people who know me well recognize me by stumbling across me here. What I more want to avoid is someone who knows me via YouTube recognizing me while looking for me if I do not want to know them, or have them know me.
In short I'd like to have some say on who knows what about me coming from the side of the openness of the internet. If they know me well outside the internet then I think I either know, or can know, enough about them to eliminate any one sidedness in cognizance.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I always hope some day that a Mormon missionary (former or current) will come to my house knocking doors, evangelizing the neighborhood I am in, or maybe just bumping into them on the street and maybe they will say "hey, aren't you the guy that had all of those priesthood videos on youtube?"..
And I will say "yeah".
And I hope they will say "Can you explain to me why there was only ever 1 High Priest at any given time in Biblical history". And I will say "yes, lets sit down"..
LOL
slu2com 3 years ago
And don't take this as too harsh an insult. I really don't have anything against you as an individual. But even the LDS church has now changed the opening paragraph to reflect what science has uncovered (in a limited capacity of course)
Benjaminblackwell 3 years ago
They didn't change any part of the canonized text, merely a paragraph explaining the text. The text, like the chapter headings, was never part of the original text.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Yes but if it was truly divinly inspired then why have to change it? Could it be they are just covering up the fact Smith was wrong about Native American origins. If not why have to change it?
mystynight 3 years ago
You missed what I was saying. The part that was changed was not a part of the canon, that is it was not part of the original plates, nor what was given by Jospeh Smith, it was a portion included in printed copies of the book by way of explanation as to what was in the book. It's akin to changing some of the wording in the letter at the beginning of the King James Bible. It's merely altering something that was only meant to be an explanation RATHER than altering something that is the actual book
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Wow Hive, you're really stretching it in this video. I wouldn't expect you to fight any less vigorously to protect your religion, but come on . . . honestly . . . find a group of scientists who would agree with what you're presenting. This, though in defense for your religious convictions, is ridiculous. I do like some of your videos, though.
Benjaminblackwell 3 years ago
Plug in the following to YouTube's search and watch the vid that corresponds with it--
"Does DNA evidence refute the Book of Mormon"
It states far better than I have the issues with using DNA to disprove Mormonism.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I've watched that video already. There will always be someone there (including a scientist) to say that you can't use DNA testing to this extent (but of course you can)DNA testing speaks for itself, the data is there and the majority of scientific researchers agree with DNA testing. Why is it so hard for you to just simply say you don't know? Maybe you were mistaken about Mormonism. I'm just saying you have to view you religion in a different light ( I, sadly, was LDS at one point) Good people:)
Benjaminblackwell 3 years ago
Give me specific issues with the arguments presented. Surely you must know that they are not arguing the accuracy or validity of DNA. They're simply demonstrating the real constraints of present knowledge. Please give specific points, specific counter points. If their presentation is wrong or flawed then it should be a simple matter to specifically point out where they state something that's wrong OR where they specifically use erroneous logic.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
wow!lol...i hope this makes you sleep better at night!
dmacsdg 3 years ago
It has no effect, one way or the other, on my sleep. Does it for you?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
not at all!
dmacsdg 3 years ago
"Critics & the Book of Mormon"
youtube. com/watch?v=ksXbyIW-0T4
slu2com 3 years ago
Taking up spamming slu2com? You could at least link it to a vid that showed arguments that hadn't been shown to be either irrelevant or straw men arguments.
And spamming is one thing I generally don't care much for.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I made a few lengthly posts on your videos. Totally original, totally in regards to your particular video, and totally for you.
Yet, you removed these comments apparently. Particularly how you don't fully express the overlapping of testing multiple strands, multiple tribes, and many many genotypes.
You only slightly delve into it, and make a very vague reference to the idea. In the end you try to make it appear as if testing was only done on one strand. Very disingenious.
slu2com 3 years ago
I've not removed any of your comments.
And I do address overlapping.
And I do not make it appear as if testing was done on only one strand.
I assure you, again, that I've not removed any of your posts.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I'm happy to report that not only amI, and was I, certain that I'd not deleted any of your comments, I've done a quick check and have located the described posts. You gave them about two weeks ago. And while I don't address the issue directly in response to those specific posts of yours I HAVE
HiveRadical 3 years ago
...addressed them in other points of dialog within the context of my YT channel. Given enough time I'm rather confident I could find, and point out, said instances--furthering the embarrassment brought on yourself via these accusations.
I do hope you'll withdraw the label "Very disingenuous" you've given me.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Im glad to hear that you have not deleted my posts. However, I can not find a few of them still. Maybe I have overlooked them?
People have accused me of removing their posts in the past, when I haven't. So maybe it's a YouTube thing.
However I disagree about your discussion of overlapping. Like I said, you vaguely touched on the idea, but it the majority the time spent on your videos you continue to only address tests done on 1 sample only.
There was many many samples analyzed though
slu2com 3 years ago
like you would be a dna specialist, hahahah.
Hive said allready that he did simplified version and that there's more comprehensive dna study videos available by others, so try to chalenge them if you wanna go beyond the simple analysis. Anyway, if your dna claims would be true as you claim, it would also disproove the bible, so open your eyes.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
"like you would be a dna specialist, hahahah."
Seriously Jarkko, do you REALLY need a degree to realize the capacity of overlapping?
Are you SERIOUS?
"Anyway, if your dna claims would be true as you claim, it would also disproove the bible, so open your eyes."
Ok, Im ready for that video to come out. Please explain that one to me!
slu2com 3 years ago
continued from discussion on Mitochondrial Eve--
viably traceable through certain genealogical lines.
The point being ultimately that just because you can't find traces with present genetic tests doesn't mean there's not a genetic heritage. It also qualifies the migration patterns discerned through mitochondrial DNA markers. All this because mtDNA only follows maternal lineages so they are limited to the amount of human migratory history they can tell us.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Ok, you still didn't answer my original question, but anyway. That being said, you would still expect to see a certain percentage of people tested that have the mtDNA of their Near Eastern ancestors. Even if the original population was very small, due to a war, you would still expect to see a percentage of people tested to show relatedness to people of the Near East. Does the LDS church believe that ALL of the people of Near Eastern decent died in the battles with the "Asiatics" or only some?
Davydude7 3 years ago
Not really. If you talk to an actual geneticist you will actually see that the statistics favor a minority, and even a single being, from founding populations as being very likely to eventually dominate the whole of future populations, that's why Mitochondrial Eve despite the fact that there were likely a great many other women that were alive before and during her child age years are not represented in Mitochondrial lines, not represented at all.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I meant to say "child bearing years" NOT "child age years" though there were likely a significant number of women then also.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
So in your view, who was the minority?
Davydude7 3 years ago
First of all, nice Donkey Kong music. Secondly, and sorry if I missed it elsewhere, but where did you get your degree in genetics? Last but not least, your argument appears flawed. If you start with one man and woman, and follow their Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA down through the generations, you will begin to have multiple copies of each floating around in the population.
Davydude7 3 years ago
How much do you know about Mitochondrial Eve?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
? you didn't answer my question. What do you mean by mitochondrial eve?
Davydude7 3 years ago
In genetics you can take all people presently and trace their Mitochondrial DNA (different from Nucleic DNA--it being the majority of DNA in the nucleus of cells and mitochondrial DNA being very very small by comparision) all people can genetically be traced, through their mtDNA (short for Mitochondrial DNA) to this woman termed Mitochondrial Eve. The reason she is relevant to our discussion is that even though we are all related to her we all can, and likely do, have genetic information
HiveRadical 3 years ago
that comes from women that were contemporaries of Mitochondrial Eve but have genetic information in their genome that Mitochondrial Eve did not have.
The point being that the means of tracing descent, while accurate for what they trace, can only give us two firm lines of descent, that of the strictly Maternal and that of the strictly Patriarchal. And just because we can trace everyone's y-chrom (male) and mt-DNA (female) genetics doesn't mean that we don't have genetic elements that
HiveRadical 3 years ago
those 'founders' (by founders I mean those who's DNA, in these lineage tests, are the ones who dominated to the extent that they are literally the father and mother of all presently living)didn't have. So there may have been many other women living at the time of Mitochondrial Eve that had DNA she didn't have, yet their DNA could still be present, and likely is still present. The only thing is that it was passed on in a part of the genome that's not easily or even
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Suggestion: For your next video, just save everyone some time and stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!" You have been told by many people much more intelligent than yourself that your analogy is based on nonsense, just like the words of your prophets.
GodLumps 3 years ago
Ahhh... the authoritarianism of presumed intellectual supremacy. "Why don't you just fall in line?" Can you tell me why, if intellectual supremacy is your soup du jour, why is there no great list of geneticists coming out and explicitly saying that there's no possible way any Book of Mormon scenario could be true? Why is the list given here by funnrun only populated by anthropologists, a microbiologist, and a professor of anatomy and embryology? Them being
HiveRadical 3 years ago
LDS is irrelevant, but their other titles are likewise because it's genetics we're talking about in this argument, not anthropology, not microbiology, not anatomy and not embryology.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Why, when I'm talking here with Hive Radical, do I feel like I'm trying to tell Bush and Cheney that Iraq has no WMD's? facts be damned. These kinds of people are going to believe whateve nonsense they want.
GodLumps 3 years ago
The thing that makes it so revealing "GodLumps" is to see what is presently your only subscription here on youtube--TheUtahnite. You have no idea how happy it makes me to have you put on the airs you do of superiority, and for you to try and lump me with those who cling to WMD arguments. Because if anything ever screamed hypocritical and illogical sucking of rancid and untenable, and by you unquestioned heed to, diatribes against Mormonism u couldn't have picked a better first subscription here.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
yawn....
GodLumps 3 years ago
LOL
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I'm not surprised you would resort to insults!
It kinda goes hand in hand with LDS.
It's got to be hard running around defending a man like Joe!
funnrun 3 years ago
I state the truth. If you take such as 'insults' then that's your problem, not something wrong with what I've stated.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
The Book of Mormon can't stand on it's own. The Book of Mormon has to be changed or the Church will fall. So how true is that? Many of the Church top minds are coming to grips with Joe and his book. The Church puts people like you out there to defend Joe, but you can't stand up to the likes of Grant Palmer, and Simon Southerton, who are very smart & good Men who want the truth and are not interested in Money & Power over the believers
funnrun 3 years ago
Simon Southerton, a man who gets on by taking a stand in a field of science he does not specialize in against a faith he's apostatized from in a video done by an organization that's built around funneling money to those that can put on airs against it's pet object of scorn, the LDS Church. You go and put your trust in men who were/barely are, members of the Church who have great and grand degrees. I'm going to believe in the truth, in what I've actually seen in the words of actual geneticists
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Do worry, I used to insults from LDS like you, that is all you have.
funnrun 3 years ago
funnrun-if you think the statement by Brigham Young was a racist statement then I cannot see how you cannot see the statement by Christ to not also be such. I mean calling a woman and her people 'dogs.' If you keep running with the likes of GodLumps you'll find yourself having to forsake the same things they have forsaken, namely a belief in Christ as God. Just look in the favorites section on GodLump's channel. Accept these arguments against us and you do in any belief you may have.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
The only way you can defend Joe is to drag the Bible down to the Mud and Make excuses for his perverted way of thinking. The Same with the Racist Brigham Young. The bible is very clear about people like you, Joe, Brigham Young and the rest of the False prophets that preach LDS.The same is true about DNA, Archaeological Evidence, so many excuses but the Facts are clear, There is NO Trace of these People or their Cities, NONE! You can't even show, One Weapon, One Shield, One Bone! NOTHING!
funnrun 3 years ago
The Official position of the LDS is one of defense, excuse after excuse after excuse. Excuses for Joe and his Sex drive, Excuses for Brigham Young Racism, Excuses for the Many false prophecy Joe & Brigham Young said and wrote, Excuse for the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, Excuses for Archaeological Evidence and DNA Evidence, Excuses for the many bright and most faithful Leaders that have turned on your Church, and on & on & on. Blind faith is your friend not Joe..
funnrun 3 years ago
The book of Mormon is true because (insert excuses here) and Joe had sex with so many woman because (insert excuses here) and the reason Brigham Young hated Blacks is because (insert excuses here), Now the Archaeological Evidence & DNA Evidence does not show the truth because (insert excuses here).
There you go. I did it for you.
funnrun 3 years ago
Brigham Young:
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind..Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."(Journal of Discourses,Vol.7,page 290)
funnrun 3 years ago
25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Please tell us all about your Education?
All these Men listed below are bright & very educated Men & former LDS members and they have something to say to you. Are you interested in what they have to say about DNA? And if not why not? Are they Dummys? Or could it might be they have some truth. I have more bright & very educated Men who say you are wrong if you would like?
funnrun 3 years ago
Can't you net a single geneticist for your list? Or are you stuck with just anthropologists and a microbiologist? Their positions are as relevant as the position of the one time BYU professor physicist that joined up with 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
The strength of an argument lies not in the credentials of those proclaiming it, but in it's actual strength when tested independent of the credentials, or lack thereof, of those who test it.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
As we move into 2008 the Mormon Leaders have, and is changing words in the book of Mormon to reflect modern DNA evidence, just as they did in 1972 when some of their Leaders put aside their hatred of blacks, and just as "some" did about plural Marriage in 1890
A Prophet is more than a teacher, he receives relation from God, so God must have been wrong on these issues
funnrun 3 years ago
They changed words in something outside of the cannon of the Book. They didn't touch the book itself.
Do you feel Peter's vision was just an opportunistic alteration/changing of the mind of God for a Jewish sect that had about run out of potential converts amongst the Jews?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
'He [Moroni] told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76).
Sounds pretty clear to me that the "prophet" was wrong.
GodLumps 4 years ago
You are suffering from exactly the simplification the critics who yell about DNA hope you will. I don't question any of the DNA evidence, I merely point out the limited scope of all the presently collected evidence.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
'The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17).
GodLumps 4 years ago
DNA evidence doesn't disprove any of this.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
"Lamanites share a royal heritage. I should like to address my remarks to you, our kinsmen of the isles of the sea and the Americas. Millions of you have blood relatively unmixed with gentile nations."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 596
With millions of them, as the prophet asserts, why hasn't a single one been found in all the DNA studies? Not one!
GodLumps 4 years ago
You do not seem to understand what the DNA tests can and cannot show.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
What do you mean? I understand DNA testing pretty well, having studied biochemistry in college where we did DNA testing. I have also been using DNA test results in my genealogy to trace paternal and maternal lines. If the "Lamanites" were real, and really came to the Americas from Israel, their Y and M dna would still be around in all their offspring and could easily be spotted if they were of a Jewish haplotype. I think you may be a bit confused.
GodLumps 4 years ago
"their Y and M dna would still be around in all their offspring"
This statement is simply wrong. You do not have the Y chrom DNA of 3 out of 4 of your grandfathers (unless there are some skeletons in the closets of your family tree). And where do you propose we'd get the mt-DNA samples of Sariah or of the daughters of Ishmael? You have a comprehensive collection of hair from all the women of Jerusalem circa 600 BC?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Whose y and m dna do you think you have?? You have your paternal great-great-great-great-grandfather's, and you have your maternal great-great-great-great-great grandmother's. It still exists largely unchanged!
Ancient hair samples are unnecessary. Ethnically Jewish people have a unique haplotype that is nothing like the Asian haplotype in native Americans.
GodLumps 4 years ago
This still totally fails to realize that only two lines are tracable in this largely unchanged piece, that means that they need only a single ancestor, in the right place, to cut off the patriarchal line and only a single one in the right place to cut off the matriarchal line. Go back enough generations and it's not that hard to have a scenario in which an entire branch of either mtDNA or y-chrom can be eliminated completely. This doesn't change the make-up of the ancestry, merely the evidence.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
You really don't get it. If they were a successful race as the Church leaders have indicated they are in the quotes I provided down below, the lines would still exist today. They don't, and I will go so far as to say they never did. It's a false story. No genetic line. No archaeological remains. No influence on the language. It's a myth I would love to believe, as it cost me my faith, but better to live in reality than live someone else's lie. Take care.
GodLumps 4 years ago
Successful? You did read the Book of Mormon, right? Is success merely having a remnant survive? The word "remnant" is a strong theme to describe those who survived from one generation to the next. You need just one generation to cut off some strain of evidence permanently. If successful means they merely survive, then YES they were 'successful' but their lineage has been chronically described in terms of a small remnant being reduced every few years through the pride cycle and such set backs.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
How many grandfathers do you have? 4?! Wow, thats awesome. As far as i can tell you can only have 2. No wonder your argument doesn't make sense.
Davydude7 3 years ago
"The Nephites suffered extinction about 400 A.D., but the Lamanites lived on in their degraded course, and are today extant upon the land as the American Indians."
- Apostle James Talmage, Apostle, Jesus the Christ, 23rd ed., p. 49
GodLumps 4 years ago
HiveRadical,
Thanks for doing your video.
Are Mormons young earth creationists? According to the church, how old is the earth? Just curious.
GodLumps 4 years ago
The Church has no official stance beyond stating that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and are the parents of all humans who have lived from their time to present.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Claiming that anyone who has a problem with the notion that they are descended from Adam and Eve, and the survivors of the flood do not have a problem with theology, they have a problem with Biblical literalism. These are very different things.
Underclass82 4 years ago
If you remove enough literalism from the Bible the theology you have is no longer the theology taught by those who created the Bible.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
The Smithsonian Institution: No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
funnrun 4 years ago
"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian Archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book."
funnrun 4 years ago
Have contributors to 'Nature,' the peer-reviewed science journal, ever used the Bible in any way as a scientific guide? I mean the book details the creation of all life.
Do you believe in the Bible funnrun?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
yes the bible.
funnrun 4 years ago
The Smithsonian Institution: The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
funnrun 4 years ago
This is irrelevant.You rely on false assumptions about the Book of Mormon and it's historical narrative.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
The Smithsonian Institution:
Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
funnrun 4 years ago
The Smithsonian Institution:
Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
funnrun 4 years ago
There's nothing conclusive on metallurgy.
Metallurgy, like DNA, is an issue that our critics uses generally accepted, but false, notions about the nature of it.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Archaeologists have found evidence of the Bible, you can't say that bout the Book of Mormon.
You have blind faith, My faith is backed by Archaeologists findings of cities in the Bible.
funnrun 4 years ago
Most archaeological evidence remotely supporting aspects of the Bible was not discovered 'till the last century. Does that then make all those who believed previously, without the evidence, wrong? How many Mideast archeologists can you find me that believe the Bible is literally true?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Archaeologists have found evidence of the Bible, you can't say that bout the Book of Mormon. My faith is backed by Archaeologists findings of cities and People in the Bible and you can't say that about the Book of Mormon. Archaeologists CAN NOT find any evidence of The Lamanites and the Nephites. Why won't the LDS Church excavate the "Hill Camorah and show the World the archaeological evidence? Because there is nothing there. You have blind faith,
funnrun 4 years ago
Mormons do have a certain claim that is hard to dismiss. What about the civilizations in Central America? I have been to those ruins and a huge civilization lived there. I don't know if Mormons claim that but it does seem fishy that people would cross a land/ice bridge and travel 5000 miles to start a huge civilization in central America. My point is that it is absurd to say what you said and not give respect to this notion just because you don't want it to be true.
readyjojoy 4 years ago
You can't say that about the book of Mormon because there is NO Trace of these People or their Cities, NONE! You can't even show , One Weapon , One Shield, One Bone! NOTHING!How in the World can it be true in anyway? It simply can't no matter how much blind faith you have in it.
funnrun 4 years ago
Faith on it's own is worthless if it's in a Lie or in something that is not real! Our Faith is backed by Archaeological Evidence and DNA Evidence that shows the People & Cities in the Bible to be part of History, and proves to the believer that their faith is not blind.
funnrun 4 years ago
The Archaeological Evidence & DNA Evidence proves the people & Cities in the Bible
were real. That Evidence backs up my faith!
The Archaeological Evidence & DNA Evidence does not prove the people & the Cities in the Book of Mormon were real. The lack Evidence destroys my faith
funnrun 4 years ago
funrun,
I will make you a promise. If you study the real history and archeology of the Bible all your life, and if your faith is always dependent on that evidence, your faith in the Bible will fail before you die.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Given the DNA evidence and the fact that the Lamanites would have had to travel over 8000 miles by boat over open ocean to reach Central America, it's pretty obvious that Native Americans and Polynesians are not from Israel.
GodLumps 4 years ago
This is an argument based on probability?
BTW, there wasn't the designation of "Lamanite" until the migration had already reached the Americas.
You may be interested to know that parts of the US have evidence of visitations from elements of the Roman Empire.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Yours is an argument based on probablitity, in that you are implying that they just haven't tested the right people, no?
Roman Empire? What does that have to do with this discussion. It would seem though, that if the Lamanites ever existed the evidence would have been found. So far no genetic, archaeological, linguistic, or any other kind of evidence suggesting Hebrew peoples has been found.
GodLumps 4 years ago
Mine isn't based on probability as you posit it. It's based on the fact that there are scenarios in which probability in tests of present Native Americans would be irrelevant because of the inherent limitations of the lineages they can speak on.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Jesus taught Morality and Lived Morality!
Joe taught Morality and lived like a Whore!
Apostle Paul said "If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that we have preached let him be accursed."
You figure it out!
funnrun 3 years ago