Any genetic evidence found of Lehi's migration to America?

[River Morgan2]

Several years ago, spouse and I gave each other two kinds of genetic tests for Christmas. One of the companies even keeps updating our ancestry as more information is gathered. The science in this area fascinates me. For example, we now know that one of Spouse's sub-haplogroups migrated to what is now present-day England in Neolithic times.

Because of my interest in this area, I have always tried to find scientific genetic evidence of the migration from the Middle East to the Americas that is "documented" in the Book of Mormon. The result? Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The church can't pretend this one never happened, like was done by changing "WHITE and delightsome" to "PURE and delightsome" and pretending that's the way it always was.

Is there a scientific discovery I missed? Has the church started some kind of song and dance on this I don't know about? Can you catch me up on what's going on with this subject?

Thanks in advance,
River

[Hagoth]

Zip. Zilch. Nada.

And not even Zelph!

Is there a scientific discovery I missed? Has the church started some kind of song and dance on this I don't know about? Can you catch me up on what's going on with this subject?

Not one scrap of evidence. Mormons and some of their apologists hold up traces of Near Eastern ancestry in the genomes of individuals like the Anzick Child (Montana) and Kennewick Man (Washington) as evidence of Lehites. The problem is that Anzick died 12,700 years ago and Kennewick died 9,000 years ago. Not only are the two related genetically to each other, but they are both related to 12,000 year old human remains found in Yucatan, and all of them can be linked to the remains of ancient Siberians from 24,000 ago. It seems pretty obvious that haplotype got to the Americas a LONG time ago by way of the Eurasian overland route, not recently in wooden submarines from the Middle East.

Another problem is that Joseph Smith identified the bones of Nephites in Ohio, but there is no evidence from that region that supports the BoM in any way.

These days LDS apologetics is pretty much about trying to convince you that the Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, and Jaredites were such small and insignificant populations that they left no trace at all, and were specifically targeted and eliminated by disease. Oh and also created no genetic or archaeological footprint before their demise. The same goes for their domesticated plants and animals. The Heartland guys are still pushing Haplotype X, but they seem to be merely ignoring the other half of the evidence to market their conferences and DVDs.

If you have way too much time on your hands you can read my detailed response to the DNA Gospel Topics essay: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tz7 ... sp=sharing

[jfro18]

Not one scrap of evidence. Mormons and some of their apologists hold up traces of Near Eastern ancestry in the genomes of individuals like the Anzick Child (Montana) and Kennewick Man (Washington) as evidence of Lehites. The problem is that Anzick died 12,700 years ago and Kennewick died 9,000 years ago. Not only are the two related genetically to each other, but they are both related to 12,000 year old human remains found in Yucatan, and all of them can be linked to the remains of ancient Siberians from 24,000 ago. It seems pretty obvious that haplotype got to the Americas a LONG time ago by way of the Eurasian overland route, not recently in wooden submarines from the Middle East.

This is really the problem with apologetics - they take a cafeteria approach to the evidence, taking what helps and ignoring what doesn't. And it works if the people they're talking to aren't going to dig deeper, but the moment they do it's over.

And Hagoth is wrong, because I was told about a lot of evidence in the recent FAIR Mormon TITS video on DNA, so there's that.

But read Hagoth's essay - it's one of the first detailed things I read on DNA and it was information overload but really helped to understand the problems that face the church's claims with regards to the Book of Mormon.

[River Morgan2]

Hagoth, I read your very excellent dissection of the Book of Mormon gospel topic essay. You decimated it!

At one point you called it a juggling act and I laughed out loud.

This essay is Exhibit A for the hypothesis that the essays weren't meant to solve the problems encountered in each topic. They were provided so that True Blue Mormons could point to them and say, "See? There is no real problem because The Brethren have spoken!" LDS people weren't expected to actually read the essays and they didn't.

So it falls to people like you to point out the often ridiculous inconsistencies. You have fulfilled that function admirably and I bow to the Master.

River

[moksha]

In making this admission the church has opened many more holes that will now have to be patched. It not only requires a complete reinterpretation of the Book of Mormon that is contrary to what we have all been taught, but it is also devastating to a literal belief in the Biblical timeline, the flood of Noah, and the Eden story since the historical inhabitants of the Americas arrived long before those events.

The Church could always say, "These are fun mythologies and together it adds to our belief in the divine".

[Hagoth]

Hagoth, I read your very excellent dissection of the Book of Mormon gospel topic essay. You decimated it!

Thank you, River. Lemme know if you want to see my Book of Abraham essay response.

[River Morgan2]

Thank you, River. Lemme know if you want to see my Book of Abraham essay response.

Oh yes! Please!

[hmb]

This is really the problem with apologetics - they take a cafeteria approach to the evidence, taking what helps and ignoring what doesn't. And it works if the people they're talking to aren't going to dig deeper, but the moment they do it's over.

This is pretty much the approach of anyone trying to sell a product. Ignore the negative and push the positive. When I taught school, I always did a lesson on reading graphs. I would show 2 images of the same graph with the same data, but displayed differently. I would point out to pay attention to the vertical axis and horizontal axis. One graph looked nearly flat while the other appeared to show massive growth. It would lead to all kinds of "buyer beware" discussions. I would teach this stuff while believing the church crap. Kind of embarrassing now.

[Hagoth]

Thank you, River. Lemme know if you want to see my Book of Abraham essay response.

Oh yes! Please!

You are a glutton for punishment.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Log ... sp=sharing

[River Morgan2]

Thank you, River. Lemme know if you want to see my Book of Abraham essay response.

Oh yes! Please!

You are a glutton for punishment.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Log ... sp=sharing

That was FASCINATING! Once again I place my hands together and bow to the Master.

River

[River Morgan2]

Hagoth, if you ever decide to dissect another gospel topic essay, please let us know! Or at least shoot me a PM, okay?

River

[Hagoth]

Hagoth, if you ever decide to dissect another gospel topic essay, please let us know! Or at least shoot me a PM, okay?

River

I PMed you.

[River Morgan2]

Hagoth, if you ever decide to dissect another gospel topic essay, please let us know! Or at least shoot me a PM, okay?

River

I PMed you.

[moksha]

Hagoth, if you ever decide to dissect another gospel topic essay, please let us know! Or at least shoot me a PM, okay?

River

River, does the idea of hearing Hagoth on the Radio Free Mormon podcast sound appealing to you? It sounds appealing to me. Unheralded scholars like Hagoth and Kerry Shirts would add a lot to our understanding.

[River Morgan2]

Hagoth, if you ever decide to dissect another gospel topic essay, please let us know! Or at least shoot me a PM, okay?

River

River, does the idea of hearing Hagoth on the Radio Free Mormon podcast sound appealing to you? It sounds appealing to me. Unheralded scholars like Hagoth and Kerry Shirts would add a lot to our understanding.

You're right, moksha, I think they would be very helpful! If there is any interest from them, anyway. No pressure.

I knew Hagoth was a great guy, but I had no idea he was so erudite.

River

[Hagoth]

I had no idea he was so erudite.

Ne'erudite more like it.

[River Morgan2]

I had no idea he was so erudite.

Ne'erudite more like it.

[w2mz]

Hagoth, if you ever decide to dissect another gospel topic essay, please let us know! Or at least shoot me a PM, okay?

River

River, does the idea of hearing Hagoth on the Radio Free Mormon podcast sound appealing to you? It sounds appealing to me. Unheralded scholars like Hagoth and Kerry Shirts would add a lot to our understanding.

I absolutely agree! This would be epic!

[Keewon]

These days LDS apologetics is pretty much about trying to convince you that the Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, and Jaredites were such small and insignificant populations that they left no trace at all, and were specifically targeted and eliminated by disease.

The apologists certainly seem to have a tendency to confuse "vast evidence discrediting X" with "not much evidence in support of X". There is no sparsity of evidence, and certainly no ambiguity as the apologists seem to imply. The overall picture is abundantly clear.

[Just This Guy]

Earlier this year, RFM had an interview with a Geneticist from Australia. They went into a lot of detail about the science of genetics and how things would look if the BOM were what was claimed.

I really enjoyed this episode. Major credit to Dr. Simon Southerton for being able to take a very complex field like genetics and break it down to a level that the lay person can easily understand.

https://radiofreemormon.org/2021/01/rad ... of-mormon/

If you are interested in the BOM and genetics, this is very good to understand exactly WHY science proves the BOM is bogus.