Posted by:
BS simone
(
)
Date: October 21, 2015 05:54AM
Now for some links discussing the topic instead of the fantasy that some people here have. If you notice, they don't really have anything to do with people's from 1000 years ago, more like several thousand years ago.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fossil-indicates-eurasian-roots-for-native-americans/2013/11/20/2777ac24-51fa-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.htmlhttp://themindunleashed.org/2014/08/dna-analysis-shows-native-american-genealogy-one-unique-world.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2759684/Europe-s-family-tree-THIRD-branch-Link-genetic-connection-Modern-Europeans-Native-Americans.htmlhttp://www.amren.com/news/2013/10/ancient-dna-links-native-americans-with-europe/This is where the reasons come from...but if you notice, this study doesn't have anything to do with your Mormon or your anti-Mormon fantasies. This deals with science...
This science (as opposed to the antimormon hate or Mormon fantacism) has NO opinion on a religious item, and instead pushes ideas supporting an Asian to North America migration several thousand years ago (as opposed to a thousand years ago).
However, I have seen some Mormons using this as a validation of sorts. It really has nothing to do with that though. Despite that, this area of study is probably what they are referring to.
I suppose it could have gotten further heat in regards to Mormonism due to a particular Anti-Mormon botanist who was using the BoM DNA study to basically try to do scientific hits on these studies as well.
Though unrelated, when this area of study was brought up by some rather staunch AntiMormons (one botanist that I know of in particular) their ignorance on the subject (probably because he was a botanist rather than someone in the field) was shown. It was brought up because in their attempt to disprove the BoM, they were in fact trying to invalidate decades of research in this field as well...despite the fact that it has NOTHING to do with Mormons and the anti-Mormon quibbles! They were distinctly trying to discredit the entire field and decades of study with the single (and flawed I might add, the sample group was FAR too small in regards to the conclusions, at least in regards to the Eurasia migration theories that they were contending with) DNA study that is typically associated with the BoM and the Native American Jewish ideas.
And they were a BOTANIST at the end of it all. That's the first reference I think I ran across in regards to Mormons and these studies. I was not impressed with them (even if they are antimormon it's still part of this entire Mormon theology ideology being pushed or not pushed rather than actual SCIENCE) trying to do the connection with something so obviously UNCONNNECTED.
However, the damage is done, and so some Mormons try to use these DNA studies to support their hypothesis (which is impossible unless the BoM started over 5000-10000 years ago). I think this is the most likely set of articles that the OP's relative was probably referring to as it's the one which many Mormons may feel has the most scientific "evidence" to support them. (don't know about the history channel, don't know what documentaries from them are or are not showing). There have been some items in National Geographic, and yes there have been some Mormons who try to connect this to their beliefs there as well, at least in the comments. Note, that this has no relation and as far as I know the scientists will not say this has anything to do with Mormonism. Furthermore, it does NOT support the BoM claims, nor have anything really related (and some probably are stumped with confusion as to WHY this conversation even comes up in regards to the Mormons). Here's the National Geographic article.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/Anways, what it boils down to is that this has NOTHING to do with your BoM. Any attempt to do that is basically ignoring the science of it and science in general. If people feel it attributes to the BoM, then that's up to them. If they feel it means the BoM is not true, that's up to them. However, the science is not related to those times and dates and neither supports nor does not support any of those ideas, beliefs, faiths, or religions. It is unrelated.
If one needs to rely on science to boost superstition or their own beliefs...perhaps they need to reflect on whether they really have faith in those beliefs, or why they have those beliefs in the first place. If I recall, religion is a matter of faith, NOT science or facts. In fact, Christianity itself points to the idea that faith is in things that you cannot see. You have to believe bereft of facts.
In general, that's how religion works (whether you religion is of Mormonism, anti-Mormonism, fanatical Atheism, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim...etc...I don't include Agnostics or normal atheists as a religion because in truth they aren't trying to push a belief system and really don't factor it into real life...though fanatical Atheists seem to treat their belief in no deity as a religion)...just like most don't care whether Greek deities were real or not, and take it as mythology. If you rely on facts and science, it's not religion, it's something else.
Anways, sorry about my rant against religion (and specifically the religious beliefs of some of those here) and those who try to use science to back up their beliefs. I'm not one that supports the science and religious ideologies mixing as I think it brings about bias and flawed views in science itself. From your description however, it fit with the study (which dates back a few years) and what I've seen some Mormons (and anti-Mormons) trying to connect it to (despite the study having NOTHING that I think supports or doesn't support either side).
I'm back to my lurking of your board now. I figured that I knew exactly what items your relative was probably referring to (as many Mormons try to use it as a counter to the discussion of DNA and the BoM in regards to their religion which has been brought up myriads of times, because these articles are more recent..despite this line of study being FAR older and having a far greater scientific weight in regards to the history of it). It is stronger scientifically than anything dealing with the Cherokee as far as I know...but as I said...in truth, it's unrelated and the scientists behind it have NOTHING to do with a BoM agenda or anything to that. This deals with events before even the Bible (well, those who claim it's starts 6000 years ago) has it's start. It's called science...deal with it. (and now I'll get flamed, but I probably asked for it. Science on a religion board rarely gets well received, and my views are probably NOT welcome here...this is why I lurk).