|
|
|
|
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 2/12/2008 9:59:10 AM | Know what Paul...you talk all defensive of things we have all been speaking of here like it has not been addressed like of the Mound Builders. Or people were digging into them. I acknowledged all of that information in past posts.
I said it before Paul and I will re-word it for you again. You do not see the complications attached to your theories in trying to prove what a educated country the US was prior to 1830 to support all this reading material was so avalible that had been drafted and printed up about scientific/non-scientific discoveries concerning the natives of South/Central/North America that Smith would have had access to so he could get an idea to use his seventh grade education to write a book as no scholar of that day did from the same or different research material.
YOU are the one Paul who speaks volumes of the volumes of material that had been written about the American Natives that was accessible to Smith and anyone else prior to 1830 which he used to write the BOM from. YOU are the one believing this and perpetuates your own theory. YOU are the one that states that is how he did it. YOUR obvious problem is that you have a knack for not listing but one or two titles of the volumes of material that you claim existed. And then you insinuate the couple titles you mention Smith had to of read.
This is really simple in how to prove your theory but you continue to help those reading your posts to quickly see....you have no proof or even mediocre circumstantial evidence to back up your claim of where Smith got his information from. All you have to do is list a dozen titles or so of various publications that have relative information about what Smith wrote and your hot aired theory will permanently turn into actual fact! Why don't you want to do that????
I have even did extensive searches on my own to help you prove your theory true or to prove it on a somewhat factual point of where Smith could have gotten his information from and the titles and authors of that material. What you and others are trying so hard to prove is akin to those who are trying to prove that humans are responsible for global warming and it has nearly nothing to do with the earth and what happens to it naturally as it goes through various cycles of warm and cold eras. Like them...you are not going to find your proof.
You can point to this and mention that but the plain fact is that the written materials you claim existed then prior to 1830....99% of them don't apparently exist now. Neither you or I can list beyond a couple titles and authors that deal with any information of South/Central/North American natives and the great cultures they once were that existed in the New York/Palmyra areas.
Prove your point Paul....you have listeners.....we're waiting.....list your authors and titles prior to 1830 so we can go and verify what you claim is true! | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 2/12/2008 3:38:36 PM | I have already stated that I am done with you Montanan. I will ignore any further post from the wall that you are. You demand proof of everyone but never in any way back up your own claims. I have also already stated my own sources but you choose to ignore it.
Keep spewing out your bullshit hot air. I am done. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 2/12/2008 5:43:44 PM | Excellent post Paul!!!  I expected nothing less from you then a dramatic end.
By the way...our past posts in this thread were about where Smith got his information about the natives of this continent prior to 1830. I stated he had access to near nothing to write from as a resource that was in english print....apparently you forgot YOU WERE THE ONE THAT STATED THAT SMITH HAD ALL SORTS OF RESOURCE MATERIAL AT HIS GRASP TO USE......YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT PAUL....not I.
So I had rights to demand that you prove your point in this issue that you can't or won't.
Now that you cannot back up what your mouth has been flapping so un-elegantly about concerning all the pre-1830 english literature you claim was out there about mesoamerica you get all pissed at your own lack of facts to prove your own theories and resort to cussing!!!
To bad you couldn't of did the right thing and find the literature you claim exists....
 | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 2/12/2008 9:39:37 PM | A couple searchs for "history of publishing" and "history of books", and variations on this, turned up:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~knops/timetab2.html
Miscellaneous items of note...
1593 Philippines, The first book printed in Manilla: Doctrina Christiana
1626 Facsimile. first facsimile edition by Plantin, 16th century Martyrologium Hieronymianum (engraved on copper plates)
1643 Mazarin, First Mazarin bibliotheque opened for scientists and literary scholars
1661 Bible. first bible published in America by Samuel Green (John Eliot's Algonquin Indian version)
1690 Paper, first papermaking in America
1706 Franklin, Benjamin, d.1790, printer, publisher, statesman
1785 Oldest German used book business founded by Joseph Baer of Frankfurt
1787 Daguerre, Louis Jacq. Mande, d.1851, worked together with the inventor of photography, Niepce (d.1833) and developed daguerreotype process
1800 Congress. Library of Congress Washington founded
1804 Baxter, George (d. 1867). Patented letterpress process for color printing
1809 Thomas Frognell Dibdin (1776-1847) published 1809: THE BIBLIOMANIA; or, Book-Madness; containing some account of the History, Symptoms, and Cure of this Fatal Disease
1812 Cylinder Press, First built in Britain by Friedrich Konig
1825 Börsenverein der Deutsche Buchhandlung, Organization for German Booktrade, founded (those engaged in reprinting were excluded!)
Many of these are birthdates, but they all go to show an increasingly popular, refined, and growing publishing industry worldwide. By 1830, national and university libraries are fairly common, publishers are numerous, publishing associations exist, means of mass paper-making and mass-printing are in use, photo reproduction is part of this, color is part of this, and the printing of colored photo images follows soon after:
1857 John Pouncy's DORSETSHIRE PHOTOGRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED was the first book illustrated by photolithography, two volumes containing 79 plates in total
1841 paperback. First paperbacks by Tauchnitz Verlag Germany
So, by 1841, books are of such number and popularity that inexpensive paperbacks are worth publishing in place of what had previously been manuscript or hardcover.
It looks like reading material wasn't hard to find in the early 1800s.
So how about the history of Smith?
Random selections...
http://www.carm.org/lds/beginning.htm
After being accused of breaking some laws in Nauvoo (for destroying a printing press that was publishing harmful information on Mormonism)
Interesting that he was accused of destroying a PRINTING PRESS!
MORE interesting...
The translation was finally published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon.
If books and the ability to read were so rare, how the hell did he manage to PUBLISH the "bible" of a new religion in 1830? To do so, the infrastructure, price, and market had to exist and be within his means. If that's the case, it's quite likely his source material was too.
From http://www.historyofmormonism.com/coming_forth_book_mormon.html
Having obtained a copyright in June of 1829, Joseph Smith then sought to publish the Book of Mormon. E. B. Grandin, a publisher in Palmyra, New York, agreed to publish the book, but only if $3,000 dollars could be raised given the risky nature of the venture. Joseph further insisted that Grandin never be allowed to have the entire manuscript in his possession. A handwritten copy was made and each day several handwritten sheets were taken to the publisher where he set the type and printed the pages. At the end of the day, the sheets were returned to Joseph. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to raise the $3,000 dollars.
News of the forthcoming publication excited the local press and even made it into major newspapers in New York City. A local journalist named Abner Cole, writing under the pseudonym Obadiah Dogberry, stole some printed pages of the Book of Mormon and published them illegally in his newspaper along with mocking commentary. Joseph, who had the sole publishing rights, threatened legal action and the writer ceased.
aaaaaand...news of the new "bible" is published in the local newspaper.
And the source material?
from http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Cults/Mormon7/
I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters.
Pearl of Great Price…Joseph Smith-History 1: 64a
This claim is refuted by Professor Charles Anton (See Atachment), Anton confirmed meeting “Simple-hearted farmer” but saw the whole thing as a hoax to cheat the farmer (Martin Harris) of his money.
Emma gave birth to a son in the Summer of 1828, but his death a few hours later led her to depression. Oliver Cowdery replaced Emma as scribe and in 1830 the translation work was finally complete. Joseph Smith Jr., was now 24 years old. The Book of Mormon totaled 275,000 words. With the translation complete, the angel Moroni took the Golden-Tablets back into heaven.
Okay...so Smith says his translation is corroborated, and the one who corroborates says exactly the opposite. Then the source material disappears "back into heaven". Of note is signs of Smith's own education, when he speaks of "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic". Chaldaic and Assyriac? Did the angels tell him what he was translating, or did he have some knowledge of history?
The Book of Mormon was sent to the Palmyra printers, March 25th, 1830. The book was placed for sales in the Palmyra Bookstores. The Rochester Newspapers reviewed the book under the headlines: “Blashemy”!
For sale in local bookstores? Plural? So...reading material was readily available?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_history
Although traditional Christianity is likewise a history religion, few primary sources survive from two or three millennia ago. However, many biblical places, such as Jerusalem, Jericho, and Bethlehem, are acknowledged to exist by scholars of every religious belief, and the Assyrian and Babylonian empires are discussed in every ancient history text. The locations of Book of Mormon places, by contrast, are controverted even by Mormons, and the existence of those places is not acknowledged by any non-Mormon scholars
I can't show that specific literature was available to Smith. I haven't searched long enough online, and not at all offline. It would appear quite likely that extensive literature WAS available to him though. Regardless, his claims are completely unsupported anyway. Real-world evidence to support the Book of Mormon is lacking, even moreso than the Bible. The original plates to be translated by him went "back to heaven" and could never be confirmed by anyone. His friends and colleagues who supposedly helped in the translation are quite blatantly NOT unbiased witnesses. The only independant witness DENIED Smith's claims.
As religions go, it's been my experience that Mormonism seems to be one of the...nicer outgrowths of middle eastern monotheism. Insofar as evidenciary support though...if you believe this, I've got a wooden bridge in Thailand to sell you. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 2/13/2008 1:01:16 PM | For those that are/have been member that "think" doesn't apply...
I used to be Mormon and I'm giving my two cents anyway... Hehe!
Mormons are nice people, but that's all. According to the work of Jesus and the whole reason Christianity even exists, they are totally missing the mark:
* Mormons worship the family unit, not Jesus.
* Christianity says that Christ "atoned" for our sins on the cross which He died on. Mormons say the atonement was made in the Garden of Gethsemane, not on the cross.
*Mormons say that you have to work for your salvation, "Salvation comes ONLY after you have done ALL YOU CAN DO YOURSELF." The truth is: Salvation is a FREE GIFT from God, and there is NOTHING you can do to get yourself into heaven.
If you know anything about Christianity, Mormonism and Islam, you will find out that there are some striking resemblences between Mormonism and Islam. (no offense to our Muslim brothers and sisters...hehe!)
Anyhow, I just watched a show about Mormons Monday and Tuesday of this week, and everytime they spoke to Mormons and interviewed them (at their house) they never spoke the name of Jesus. They only harped on how great it will be when they meet their family in heaven and become gods.
But we are commanded to love them regarless of what they believe.  | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 2/13/2008 3:35:54 PM | Cool post Huston :).
FrogO, you covered a lot of ground and then some. So I'll do my best to stick with the topic at hand of Smith and his resource material that you addressed.
My point about the material that Paul and others assume was so avalible for Smith to just go and find and read of to get his ideas from for the writing BOM just did not exist as they wish it did.
I am not speaking of any english information that could be found about the eastern and plains Indians written prior to 1830 of North America. That information is still with us. It has been re-copied and republished. But in that material you will find little to few ideas for the BOM that Smith could have gotten his thoughts from.
The material that Smith needed to really get a good grip on for the ideas of the story the BOM is about in my opinion would have had to of come from material about Mesoamerica...South and Central America, that had been written and then later translated from the popular languages that some of that some or most of his information may have been from which was mainly Spanish, then French and German.
The problem with finding english translations of Mesoamerica information written prior to 1830 is exactly that. English translations were a problem to find because so few existed! In 1830 very, very few translations about Mesoamerica were in english. Crash and Paul mentioned one and I found one more. And Paul would like to believe that Smith had access to them.
I collect old books. I like to read them to see where the train of thought was in the old days about anything. One book I have is a hard back edition containing half a year of monthly periodicles of Peterson's Fashion Magazine. This is a 1854 printed edition. It speaks of ladies fashions of course. But it also has editor's chat of then present happenings and going on's and they did book reviews. There are over 500 pages in that tiny type you almost need a magnifying glass to read with. Not on a single section is history discussed. Not American history, European history or history of any country. My point is that history was not as popular then as it has became now. But we think it was because it is with us.
If Paul had did some reading of the material he gave a link to that Crash also gave a link to and actually read some of the the english translation of Diaz's two volumes he would have noted that Diaz(SP?) had spoke of his traveling and what happened and that was about it. He did describe the natives he met and some of the things they did and their actions but he did not go into the history and social and economic and inventiveness of those Natives he came into contact with. His two volumes were mostly about him. So there was not much info in his writings to write a story like the BOM.
So the question that has remained since it was asked is where did his resource material come from if it did not come from gold plates? Some feel it all came from the Spalding manuscript. I read some of it that has been re-translated. There was the original copy that Spalding wrote and then two others. One that the Mormon church published and one that the RLDS church published. Though there are some similarities in the way they were written and composed from the then english that was spoke and wrote in the then Palmyra/New york areas, all other story simularities end there. Names, places, descriptions, etc., are extremely different. It is noted that Spalding leaned lightly on the KJV language whereas Smith leaned heavily on it's usage. It is also wondered who got their information from who as Ridgon and Campbell were friends prior to Ridgon becoming a Mormon. Both Campbell and Smith knew Ridgon prior to his Mormon conversion. Smith had spoke of things he said an angel had told him about concerning the inhabitants of this continent to many people he knew for years prior to his printing the BOM. Did Campbell hear the stories repeatedly spoken and passed around and based his manuscript on those stories? It's a possibility. Did Smith get his basic info from Spaldings manuscript? It's a possibility. They may have influenced each other to produce what they wrote! No one knows for sure.
What is known and what cannot be explained by fact is how a young guy with a 7th grade education became the author of a book that no time before or anytime afterwards has been replicated to any degree. There has not been a single genius of any intellect degree that has brought forth another work that can be compared to the content of the BOM. Thats not my opinion...that is a fact. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 2/14/2008 11:53:12 PM | Ok....so lets hit a different area that is actually known to many but they might not see the possible comparisons for what Smith claimed of two different migrations of people coming to the Americas and how so many say it's a fairy tale.
Have you read about the Olmecs? The Maya's were once considered the parent culture of Mesoamerica. In around the late 19th century it was found a different culture was a bit older. The Olmecs. By the time the 20th century was kicking in scientists were having a problem with their discovery of the Olmecs.
Stellas/monuments had always been found of what were considered very important individuals within that society the stella/monument represented in Mesoamerica.
The stellas of the Olmecs that were found were specifically African in looks. They all had flattened noses and thick lips. Do a search on Olmecs and you will see them. The professors loving to dig in the earth believe these reliefs are of Olmec kings.
Now today it is known that the Olmec culture was large and wide spread and existed as far back as 1500 BCE.
Though this is a great find this culture...African in nature most scientist agree, a large group will not discuss much of their origin because that means delving into an explantion of how Africans around 1500 BCE got to Mesoamerica and established a great culture with most all the accomplishments of any old world culture of that time era.
The tie in here is that Smith wrote a book claiming two seperate migrations of people came from the old world to the new world and no one believed him when alive and people still don't believe him now of that possibility.
Smith claimed the Indians here were of Jewish descent. For those who have read of dna, you would know there is no real trace of jewish blood in natives on this continent. Their is a trace of something but it has many pro and con as to what it is.
Anyway, I don't believe Smith was privy as to how many different natives had came to this continent on purpose or accident and mixed their blood with the natives. So even if it was shown through a discovery that Israelites had came to this continent, dna would only prove sex among the different ethnic groups over hundreds to thousands of years thinned any of that 'dna' evidence to survive. Here is the point of this paragraph.....we have proof that Africans came and settled in South and Central America for over a 1000 years. Anyone know of any African dna being discovered in American natives today and the bones of there ancestors? I have heard of none, yet science has very much proved they were here for a long time.
Once again my point for those interested....because dna is not able prove that a certain ethnic group lived in a certain area of the world, that does not mean they did not exist there, especially when science has shown physical proof that they were there. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 2/15/2008 12:11:26 AM | Actually mitochondrial DNA evidence would be able to conclusively prove one way or another with a simple blood test whether or not there were any markers for people from Africa or the Middle East in someone from the New World and do it without worry of it being "thinned" in any way due to mixture of descendants.
Either the marker would be there or it would not be. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 2/15/2008 10:19:30 AM | The following is from the Encyclopedia Smithsonian titled...Paleoamerican Origins.
Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia. Naturally, generations of conflict, intermarriage, disease, and famine would influence the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans. Further work with mtDNA, nuclear DNA (which is more representative of the entire genome), and Y-chromosome data, the male-transmitted complement of mtDNA, will permit better estimates of the genetic similarities between Old and New World groups and help to determine when they would have shared a common ancestor. "
Markers are still a tough thing to validate even in our day and age. We are still decades from being able to present a blood sample and knowing the exact specifics of who your ancestors were and where they came from.
As I said science has proved that Africans were in Mesoamerica 2000+ years ago yet you hear nothing of a dna marker attesting to it in the dna research done on living natives and ancient skeletons. I have found no info about it. I also note in reading dna material for any markers after the land bridge theory are non-existant. The dna markers of native Mesoamericans are all dated prior to the land bridge crossing theory with exception of the haplogroup X-factor that shows a European dna ancestory strain dating before any other markers. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/1/2008 8:56:19 AM | CRASH 1967... You're on the ball mate. You're wasting your time though. The Mormons aren't going to accept that their faith is built upon a bed of lies. They can be quite a conceited bunch. Hasn't your experience of them proved that? Speak out against the Mormon cult and you'll be branded an 'Anti-Mormon'. Write about the reasons why you can't accept their faith as complete truth and your words will be declared 'Anti-Mormon Literature'. You will have been prompted by the Devil to speak out against God's truth and you will be judged to have malicious intent. Do they see you as a poor unfortunate who is living life without the blessing of truth? Nope, they treat you with scorn. You don't have the truth but they do and they are going to achieve Celestial grace and become Gods themselves and that's really all that matters at the end of the day. They will reach this degree of glory through obedience and through 'Good deeds'. Obedience and good deeds in order to attain a selfish goal. They decide to perform good deeds in order to show and prove their love for God and to be in his favour. They find the concept that a true Love of God is all that a Soul needs to have and that 'Good deeds' are a natural product of that Love. That such deeds are selfless rather than contrived actions to earn personal glorification.
Speak out against the Mormons and they will not see you as someone who wishes to help them. Your heart may be filled with compassion and pity for the way their Church has crippled their experience of life but they will see you as a conspiring man. Their 'Word of wisdom' has told of your coming. You will be a conspiring man and you will strengthen positive testimony of the truth of the WOW.
Bottom line is, let them believe whatever they like. They trust and believe in lies but they won't be punished eternally for being deceived during their time on earth and, to them, their lives will be happy.
So the book of Abe isn't what Joseph declared it to be. How was he expected to know that, instead of the BOA, those scrolls were actually embalming instructions? He couldn't read Egyptian! Poor young fella. 
Look at the pic in the Book of Abre... sorry... embalming instructions... You'll see the pots beneath the table... filled with salt ready to be the containers foe the bodies internal organs. See the bird flying away with the spirit of the dead soul... see the bunch of sweet smelling herbs, there to mask the stench of the corpse.
Abraham?.. Nah!.. But they won't accept anything else. Even when you prove it.
Rusty  | |
|
| |
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/1/2008 7:24:31 PM | The fervor with which you anti's attack us only builds our faith. It always astounds me how people can have such hatred towards us, almost as if they are being driven by some supernatural force....
Even if we are wrong, what are the fruits of living the teachings of the church? Citizens who love, serve and care about one another. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/1/2008 10:18:12 PM | Well, way to prove the point of spiritual mans post brett. Nicely done. I guess if blind obediance and the eradication of critical thinking are the fruits then they are not fruits I would choose to partake of.
Montanan - You missed the mark, again. Fiddler was talking about Middle Eastern decent, not European which is what you referenced, but its obviouse your not into looking at things objectively..... | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/1/2008 11:47:46 PM | Just for you Crash I'll post the Fiddler's post so you can understand what I addressed in response to it...
"Actually mitochondrial DNA evidence would be able to conclusively prove one way or another with a simple blood test whether or not there were any markers for people from Africa or the Middle East in someone from the New World and do it without worry of it being "thinned" in any way due to mixture of descendants.
Either the marker would be there or it would not be."
....the Fiddler if you noted in his post was addressing possible markers of "old world" humans in the dna of "new world humans". It was his thought that the marker of such a connection, should be there and being "thinned out" was not a possibility in his opinion.
If you read what I posted.... "Naturally, generations of conflict, intermarriage, disease, and famine would influence the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans." ....you would have noted the above which explains why dna markers are hard to find in some groups of people who have come into contact with many other races and ethnic groups.
As I listed for an example earlier I will state it again. Archaeology and anthropology to name a couple have proved a large population of Africans populated South and Central America, obviously copulating with the natural natives of those areas. They can't yet show how they got there but they know they existed. There are stellas of these people. But.....have you ever heard of any African DNA markers in ancient Mesoamerican natives? No. And you won't untill DNA research will probably, eventually, find a near invisible marker with some future DNA invention that can see any DNA marker there is to see. But that time is not here.
We can't prove ancient Mesoamerican's have a Jewish DNA marker anymore then we can prove ancient Mesoamerican natives have a African DNA marker though we at least have proof that Africans were here prior to 2000 AD. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/2/2008 1:32:19 AM |
Though this is a great find this culture...African in nature most scientist agree
Argumentum ad numerum fallacy, which happens to incorporate an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy when it doesn't so much as name ONE such scientist. If this were the view of "most scientists", then it would probably be well known and not in need of support, AND it would be easy to provide that support. That such "Africans" established a significant culture in the Americas would be all the more surprising, since they basically never did at home in Africa!
I have heard of none, yet science has very much proved they were here for a long time.
I have yet to see any such "proof".
The presence of Africans in the Americas is a combined cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and a non sequitur fallacy. There is no proof. There is assumption based upon circumstancial evidence which does not actually show a cause and effect relationship. Broad noses on stelae is not proof of anything other than someone carved broad noses on stelae. You don't know who carved it, what his model was, why he carved it that way...the nose could be African, fanciful, or just the trait of one well-known person. You're forcing evidence into a preconceived conclusion for which there is no actual evidence and no reason to expect any. Africans tended to lack methods of overseas travel relative to cultures in other regions.
And you won't untill DNA research will probably, eventually, find a near invisible marker with some future DNA invention that can see any DNA marker there is to see.
Again, a faulty preconceived view without evidence. No future "DNA invention" is necessary. Genes are hard-wired: where one goes, many go. Markers are easy to define and find. The ones we have are sufficient, and the only need for extra markers, is to refine the detail of studies [random variation in one marker will add some "error" to results, but if you have ten markers, the amount of error drops drastically, resulting in better "detail"]. They're not found because they're not there. They would be easy to find in at least one cultural population. I doubt that MtDNA would ever provide such evidence, although it would normally be a good choice. The reason being, I have zero expectation of African MEN travelling across the Atlantic...but men would be more likely to put to sea than women. Only a direct female line of descent will show a MtDNA relationship. If ever there is no female heir...the MtDNA will vanish from the population in a generation or so. The alternative is Y-chromosome markers. Again, easy to study and not revealed thus far. I don't know if any Y-chromosome studies on the region have been done, but I doubt they'll yield any African ties regardless...at least none that aren't recent. Markers won't be diluted. They are selected as markers partly because they are stable and tend to spread through a population or die out entirely.
There has not been a single genius of any intellect degree that has brought forth another work that can be compared to the content of the BOM. Thats not my opinion...that is a fact.
Fact? BS! Most definitely opinion. For the sake of making a clear argument, I will take your statement to mean, more or less "The BOM is an incomparable work of genius". Fair enough? If so, then on the surface of it...the statement is perhaps reasonable...if you only go by the literal possibilities of the words. However, exactly WHY is it "incomparable"? What makes it "genius"? Undefined and fairly emotional terms aren't useful for establishing "fact".
The first variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia
I was already aware of five lineages in the Americas. Please not the last word in the quote. It is not "Europe", but "the combined landmass of "Eurasia". The westernmost MtDNA lineage is traced to western Asia, to a region northeast of the Black Sea. This is a region of basically Asian ancestry, and Mongols have historically extended as far west as Hungary [Hun-gary, after the invading Huns, not to be confused with the WW1 British use of "Hun" to refer to Austro-Hungarians, and thus "Germans"]. There is a tendency towards dark hair and eyes and generally asiatic features in parts of eastern Europe as a result. Similarly, in Kazakhstan, blue eyes and blonde hair, plus Caucasian features show up in otherwise asiatic populations. This is a consequence of being at the margin of the ancestral Caucasian population, plus the Greek conquest as far as Afghanistan, and the ongoing trade routes of the Silk Road. All New World markers I have seen traced [5], have traced to regions north and east of the Himalaya, in Mongoloid populations. Ancient skeletons which show more "European" traits are not really surprising. One of the groups compared to are the Ainu. The Ainu, despite their appearances, are aboriginal Asians. Asians are a derivative of a more broad Caucasian, who in turn are a derivative of Africans, and all of that has taken place in only the last 100000 years. An American migration 40000 years ago would be unlikely to resemble modern Asians, even though the gene pool would be the same. Even 20000 years ago could be a big difference. Even an actual "European" origin that old might still be "Asian", in that the closest living relatives would actually be in Asia rather than Europe. It's just a case that those Asians would ALSO trace their origins to Europe. Basically, tracing to Europe doesn't actually mean a close relationship with any modern European population. The "X" factor was shown to exist in Europe, not to originate there.
Small point:
We are still decades from being able to present a blood sample
Not a likely technique. Human [red] blood cells lack nuclei. There will be no nuclear DNA and no Y-chromosome markers. Saliva, hair, skin, and semen samples are more usual sources, the last one being especially rich in DNA! Projects now underway with support of National Geographic are compiling and comparing DNA samples or markers from any person who wishes to contribute. The sampling kits can be purchased at places like Future Shop [an electronics superstore chain, similar to places like Best Buy and Circuit City] | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/2/2008 6:59:21 AM | "Well, way to prove the point of spiritual mans post brett. Nicely done. I guess if blind obediance and the eradication of critical thinking are the fruits then they are not fruits I would choose to partake of."
I'm not going to engage in pointless debate with people who have no interest in coming to understand why and what we believe. I do not obey because I am blind, I obey because I can see.
Just as the Apostle Paul taught:
1 Cor. 2: 14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
We can engage "critical thinking" or whatever other euphemism you wish to label your hostility with and the end result will be the same.
If the words of Paul are true, no amount of logic will convert a man.
"Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/2/2008 8:59:26 AM | As is often the case when someone jumps into a thread, you've probably missed the fact that I was (and technically still am, according to their books, since they won't take my name off of the records to help keep their numbers up for General Conference propaganda) a Mormon Brett so I do know what you believe and how "the church" works. But I will agree, faith is important, for it is the still small voice within me that tells me to RUN in relation to anything related to Mormonism and the dulling of the mind that must accompany such a belief system. Indeed, it is when there are things that show that the church is messeded up or the JS was a complet fake and one chooses to ignore them and cling to what they think is right then this is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of blind faith, and you still use logic in your argument with your quotes from Paul to cling to your false belief. Kinda seems contradictory doesn't it?
Oh and as far as "There has not been a single genius of any intellect degree that has brought forth another work that can be compared to the content of the BOM. Thats not my opinion...that is a fact."
I would point to the Urantia book which FAR surpases the BOM in any way you want to even think of, plus there is nobody calling themself a prophet to control others or forcing you to kick down 10% of your cash so you can think of yourself as a good "Urantian". | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/2/2008 9:28:19 AM | Well Crash, it isn't my position to judge you, you are entitled to believe what you will. Why not depart in peace? As always, we stand with open arms to receive you in brotherly kindness should you seek to return.
There are many belief systems I do not agree with, but I don't rail against them nor seek to destroy them. If my beliefs are truly of God, it will show in my conduct and I need not resort to negativity to put down others. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/2/2008 9:34:00 AM | I used to have a pretty fair opinion of the LDS until I visited Hawai'i. I grew up in Oahu and had been exposed to the church, but as an adult I recognised the ugliness of what they had done to the Polynesian people.
If you want an opinion on LDS, ask a Hawai'ian. Ask them about living on the "res" and how hard it is to get housing there. Ask them what percent Hawai'ian you have to be to get the housing. Ask them what happens if they don't have a baby within a YEAR of moving in. OH and then ask them what percentage of Oahu is owned by LDS. I didn't see any homeless 'saints' out there, just poor hawai'ians and vets.
The answers to these questions would disgust you, I'm sure.
My opinion of the LDS? Thanks but no thanks. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/2/2008 10:43:28 PM | Here is link for you to go visit Frogo, not a lot of good ones on the web as of yet. This one mentions people, academics, times, places, etc. http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Skeletal.htm
Below is just one of those interesting sites that hold your attention because of the obvious time and effort it took to put it together.
http://www.nok-benin.co.uk/prev-articles/olmec_1.htm
My point Frogo is the same as before...there is more circumstantial evidence that of all ethnic groups, Africans had a hand in the developement of the Olmec culture then other notable ethinc cultures. The collosal heads are thought to represent kings of the culture like the other later dated stellas of the kings of the Mayas and Aztecs. The heads have an amazing likeness to the ethnic group of Africa predating AD. The heads do not have a likeness for any other known ethnic group predating AD. So if you wish to ignore that strong evidence...it's your choice. But if you know of a culture that predates Ad that those heads resemble from the areas of Asia or Europe or near either of the poles, A lot of people with doctorates would love to see your strong evidence.
In response to your dna rebute you should remember there are many variables that can affect the mutation rate of mtDNA, including the possibility that mtDNA is not always inherited through maternal lines. In fact recent studies show that paternal mtDNA on rare occasions can enter an egg during fertilization and alter the maternal mtDNA. That would drastically affect the mutation rate and throw off date estimates and origins. Then you also have the fact that when a woman has only boys or no children at all, her dna history literally ends. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/2/2008 11:35:04 PM | Then you also have the fact that when a woman has only boys or no children at all, her dna history literally ends.
Yes, I noted that. I'm also aware of the possibility of paternal MtDNA, but that is something which would have to happen EVERY time there was no female heir. One of the reasons MtDNA is used is because its mutation rate is considered to be constant. The mitochondrial genome is not human and is effectively disconnected from human selective pressures. They reproduce entirely within the cell and if they happen to change in any appreciable way, the host cell is likely to die. Basically, MtDNA can only identify the source of the last common female ancestor. If paternal MtDNA is in the mix, then it will only trace back to the last common "female" ancestor...who is actually male...so it traces to his mother. One generation difference, and in most cases, the same gene pool. This:
"That would drastically affect the mutation rate and throw off date estimates and origins"
is false. It could throw the clock off, and it could throw off the timing, but it likely would not. It would only have a significant effect if the paternal MtDNA came from a drastically different gene pool than the mother - separated by a large number of generations.
there is more circumstantial evidence that of all ethnic groups, Africans had a hand in the developement of the Olmec culture then other notable ethinc cultures.
That's assuming ANY outside culture had an influence. And it's still an assumption based only on circumstance, and not any actual evidence. No evidence of Africans developing such a culture at home. No evidence of seafaring Africans, no African genes...You've got big noses. Beyond that, I don't think we have much evidence at all of exactly what ethnic groups existed either in tropical America OR subsaharan Africa more than 2000 years ago. I could well be wrong on that, but I don't think there is any significant data to compare.
A lot of people with doctorates would love to see your strong evidence
A lot of people with doctorates are more likely to apply maximum parsimony and seek explanations consistant with evidence, rather than create explanations based on superficial circumstance and no other support.
edit
I just looked at the first link. I see some evidence, but don't find it compelling at this point. The number of scholars involved is quite small and most of the ideas apparently haven't been touched in more than 30 years.
The second link, I just started looking at. So far, I am amused, but definitely not impressed. The first paragraph is already embroiled in additional unsupported claims as a basis for African Olmecs. Thought I'd comment while I still have edit time. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/4/2008 11:54:14 PM | One thing you can tell the "elders", which the Bible states must be men who have been good fathers and have kept their houses in order, who are 18 year old kids who get pounded for two years straight the truth. this is their way of indoctrinating their young people into their religion forever.
Back to telling one thing to the elders: Why would God allow a prophet named Smith only 100 years ago to start a new religion with a new book separate of God's word? Why wouldn't God allow this new religion to be around all of the last 2000 years if it was from Him? To deny all people your religion these last 1900 years means it can not be from God and would not make sense.
I'll take my bow now, thank you.. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/5/2008 11:28:58 AM | The following comes from Khazaria.com under the title Jewish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries. The following is from that article..."What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East, and that studies that take into account mtDNA show that many Jewish populations are related to neighboring non-Jewish groups maternally. All existing studies fail to compare modern Jewish populations' DNA to ancient Judean DNA and medieval Khazarian DNA, but in the absence of old DNA, comparisons with living populations appear to be adequate to trace geographic roots."
I have read many articles now by professors on DNA from the web and the common agreement is that for geographical info, dna is adequate at the present time. But for anything else dealing with human ancestry, DNA is in it's baby stages and is very unreliable. These professors all seem to agree that comparing ancient DNA to modern DNA is not a reliable thing unless one of them is lucky enough for a situation like the iceman and the school teacher in Europe.
I personally don't see science connecting any ancient Jewish DNA to ancient Mesoamerican DNA except for taking the very bones of both (which has not been done in a large volume scale for adequate data) and making DNA comparisons. They have compared modern to modern and that will obviously prove nothing except some geographical data which it has.
At this time there is no evidence to prove or not prove a connection.
Of the Olmecs, as it stands right now from evidence on the web, there is more circumstantial evidence supporting an African influence within the ancient Olmec culture then any other. But there are no facts.
I read the Urantia Crash. No one has claimed authorship. We don't know if it is the product of a single person or several minds. People are guessing but that is all. Still, it is nothing like the BOM and most of it deals with the realms outside of the earth's atmosphere.
The reason I state the BOM is a work of genius, even if it is the product of other written materials, is that a guy barely out of his teens with a undisputed 7th grade education turned into a literary genius within months to produce a book that tens of millions would read and millions would claim to be true! It is a work that would be the starting point of a religion that has grown by leaps and bounds and has never stopped growing. It took roots in eastern USA and now is the heart of a world wide religion.
Name me one single person who with a grade school education wrote a book of comparable nature and has had the same effects on the world after that author was long dead and buried.
For Tadsong...you should consider the fact that every time God raised a prophet, (like in the ot) each one introduced "new material" that had not been written before and many who read and believed in the old words of God were not keen on recieving anything "new" even if it was from God. They liked the "old stuff." Need an example? Read the first four books of the NT to see what happened when God himself brought "New material" that was instantly rejected by most jews and read what happened to the 12 apostles who were also showing this "new material". They were rejected to their deaths. In the begining and up to their deaths there was a small minority of Jews who accepted this "new material" from Christ and the apostles and other desciples. | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/7/2008 12:12:06 PM | i would like to add a little bit as i have been investigating the mormon faith.
the mormons believe that it was gods plan for adam and eve to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge, it meant that us humans would then know good from evil..
if you actually read the book of genesis, these were satans words to eve not gods word, the mormons twist the word of god and at one point even believed that adam was god. (one of the man made prophets revelated this)
I have been investigating the faith, because the missionaries and the people seemed nice, but the deeper i dug, the more ugly the picture of them became, and i feel so sorry for the mormons as they are being decieved and controlled in the cruellest way.
and as for what goes on in the temple, well its beyond belief, of course the mormons cant comment on that for fear of getting their throat cut. Whoever heard of a religeon having secret rituals that you had to pay 10 percent of you wages to engage in and witness? | |
|
| What is it with the Mormon thing
Posted: 3/7/2008 3:37:49 PM | Next time they show up on your doorstep engage them in a conversation about the joys of masturbation.... They won't EVER come back.
Also discovered that asking the 2 hotties from the local whacko Baptist outfit about virgin sacrifices etc gets you put on their shitlist & then THEY won't come back
Jehovahs Halfwaits haven't been back since I threatened to bleed on em...
I've discovered that a simple "**** off" doesn't work, hence the other tactics. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
