Native American use of Sacred Metal Tablets

[_Lemmie]

I think your source is mistaken. The genetic link between native Americans out side of North America is X2A'j and its in Iran no where else. See parsimony tree

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_X_mtDNA.shtml
[formatting is hard in cut and paste, if you don't mind I added some dashes so your quote matches the original format in the link]

X2
◦X2a'j
_◦X2a: found among Native North Americans
__◦X2a1
___◦X2a1a: found among the Sioux and Tanoan speakers
____◦X2a1a1
___◦X2a1b: found among the Ojibwe people
____◦X2a1b1
_____◦X2a1b1a
___◦X2a1c: found among the Ojibwe people
_◦X2a2: found in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland
◦X2j: found in North Africa

Where in the chart above does it show "X2A'j and its in Iran"?

Your own chart above agrees with my source and it does NOT support your assertion.

Because subhaplogroup X2a is not found in the Middle East and is not particularly closely related to the forms of haplogroup X that are found in that region, the haplogroup X data do not provide any evidence for a close biological relationship between Hopewell and Middle Eastern populations or any support for a direct migration from the Middle East to the Americas in pre-Columbian times.

[_Themis]

The epistemology is clear, as you have described it already, but there is a flaw in your description.
Because it is not just manifest by sensations. It is by manifestations in general, and they come according to the various spiritual gifts people have. Only at certain times are "sensations" the actual manifestations I speak of.

You miss what I mean by sensations. Everything we experience is either either a thought or sensory experience, and thought could be viewed as a sensory experience as well. All these so called manifestations are sensations of what ever kind the brain is experiencing. We then usually will try to interpret these experiences.

Trying to help people interpret their sensations is only the beginning of the process.

The problem is how one knows an interpretation is accurate. Teaching one how they should interpret certain sensory experiences is common in all the different religions, and they always teach an interpretation with their religion being the right one. The other problem is that the body looks to be capable of producing all these sensations/manifestations. Can we see, hear, touch, smell, taste things that are not really there? Of course.

The problem with synchronicity is that humans are always seeking patterns to everything we experience. This is an important trait, but highly prone to get wrong. Similar problems with dreams, deja-vu prophecy, etc. They are all great experiences, but we should be skeptical of our ability to think we are getting it right. You use the word science, so you should be able to explain it, quite specially, how one would know an interpretation is accurate.

by the way I have told you more then once I was a missionary, and a believing one, so no need for the insults. I respect Missionaries and church members, even if I may not agree with everything a person claims. That is why I ask questions to flesh out how one thinks something is accurate. Interesting how such an innocent activity can cause people to get their defenses up, but then many do not like to question how they know things.

So, as ex-Mormons, if you are going to properly address the issue of the Holy Ghost and how you don't believe it, you can't just address this by saying your old John-Dehlin-esque cliché that feelings are not good indicators of truth.

Technically I am not an ex-Mormon. Just not one who believes the main truth claims of the LDS church. I like to ask how we know interpretations of feelings/sensations/manifestations are true/accurate. Does it not make sense if you cannot explain, then you really don't know very well? I can do it with most sensations/feelings/manifestations. If I cannot, then I don't know if an interpretation is accurate.

[_Themis]

Your own chart above agrees with my source and it does NOT support your assertion.

There is a real impasse with bomgeography. He likes to use DNA science, but then asserts without evidence that they are all wrong about dating, and wildly wrong. I suspect he may be a YEC. This is why he will keep asserting the genetic connection is close in time, since humans have only been around for 6000 years. If one accepts the science which informs us the earth is billions of years, one has no problem accepting the science of how they date DNA. This science informs us the genetic relationships are 10's of thousands of years old. He won't spend some real time to understand how the science really works. That is not his interest.

[_tapirrider]

David McKane, you were mistaken to tell me that haplogroup x2a is found in Iran.

Tapir I disagree also haplo group x2a outside of North America is only found in Iran

Haplogroup x2a IS NOT found anywhere but in the Americas. Now it seems that you would rather call the work of scientists "mistaken" than deal with your own untruth. Why is that?

I think your source is mistaken. The genetic link between native Americans out side of North America is X2A'j and its in Iran no where else.

[_EdGoble]

You miss what I mean by sensations. Everything we experience is either either a thought or sensory experience, and thought could be viewed as a sensory experience as well. All these so called manifestations are sensations of what ever kind the brain is experiencing. We then usually will try to interpret these experiences.

The problem is how one knows an interpretation is accurate. Teaching one how they should interpret certain sensory experiences is common in all the different religions, and they always teach an interpretation with their religion being the right one. The other problem is that the body looks to be capable of producing all these sensations/manifestations. Can we see, hear, touch, smell, taste things that are not really there? Of course.

The problem with synchronicity is that humans are always seeking patterns everything we experience. This is an important trait, but highly prone to get wrong. Similar problems with dreams, deja-vu prophecy, etc. They are all great experiences, but we should be skeptical of our ability to think we are getting it right. You use the word science, so you should be able to explain it, quite specially, how one would know an interpretation is accurate.

by the way I have told you more then once I was a missionary, and a believing one, so no need for the insults. I respect Missionaries and church members, even if I may not agree with everything a person claims. That is why I ask questions to flesh out how one thinks something is accurate. Interesting how such an innocent activity can cause people to get their defenses up, but then many do not like to question how they know things.

Technically I am not an ex-Mormon. Just not one who believes the main truth claims of the LDS church. I like to ask how we know interpretations of feelings/sensations/manifestations are true/accurate. Does it not make sense if you cannot explain, then you really don't know very well? I can do it with most sensations/feelings/manifestations. If I cannot, then I don't know if an interpretation is accurate.

I have never been the least impressed by people that maintain their Church membership, but who divorce themselves either from loyalty to the brethren, or from belief in general, who deconstruct their reality, when they have been commanded not to do that kind of thing, but they have been commanded to keep on track until the perfect day, and a mental deconstruction manifests a lack of desire or willingness to enduring to the end in a state of faith and belief. Sorry, but I'm unimpressed by the fact that you are still a member of the Church technically. You have divorced yourself from spiritual communication by engaging in what you are doing. You can choose to deconstruct anything you want to logically, and yes, it is a logical pathway if you want it to be. Indeed, it is true that the logic pathway does indeed lead where you say it does if it weren't for other information that you don't consider information, but I do. And yes, again, it is a choice I make to consider it information that I have. Everybody has this choice. Do you think that I am innocent enough to not know my mental choices that I could engage in if I wanted to? Your thought process on this is not news to me. I don't need to choose to engage it. I can acknowledge that it is rational from a secular point of view. It does mean however that I deliberately choose not to engage in it, because I'm on track for the long haul in this thing.

It was a mistake for me to use the word "science" with regard to this subject. I did it without enough thought. It was something that I used in a sense of imprecision, without meaning that it is secular in some way, or that it resides in some secular domain of some sort. In this sense, what I really meant was to say that it is a certain spiritual realm of inquiry.

There are so many people that I waste time talking to on message boards that think that I owe them secular proof for ontological things, which I don't. It always devolves back to that. Go tell God that you want proof of something ontological, like Korihor or Sherem, and if he doesn't give it to you, that's his problem, not mine. That's his realm over which he is in control, not me. These things come according to his will, not mine.

You are a sly one to try to explain away reality, if you want to, but it never changes. It is the same old tune. It doesn't change the choices that I continue to make. I am comfortable with this existence where I'm at. Let's just put it this way. The ultimate proof, as I have said before, quite a number of times on message boards, is when the veil is lifted and you have a Brother of Jared experience, and this is only offered on his timetable under appropriate conditions where you have fully submitted to all of his requirements. The separation between those that get this and those that do not are those that choose to continue in spite of the types of words used by those that make a choice to deconstruct their reality. I'm willing to go the distance till I get there, and not deconstruct what is happening in my mind as you have. You see, this is the problem. Just because your words have a certain logic doesn't mean that I have to put stock in them, and yes, it revolves around the free agency for me to make that choice, in spite of you and your words. The logic of your words in a secular setting doesn't prove the ontological reality behind them. They are just words, not proof. They are logic without ontological proof one way or another. If I allow myself to do as you, then it will no longer be faith, but a Korihor-esque explaining away of faith. The fundamental problem with this conversation is you think that just because you can logically deconstruct something in a way that *feels* good to you doesn't guarantee that your subjective deconstruction is real. And you talk about feelings. Well, apparently you *feel* more comfortable with the state you find yourself in than trying to maintain a state of faith. The fact that your thought process is secular means nothing about the fact that you choose it because of what you feel. When people's "shelf collapses," it is not because they are forced into it, but because they no longer *feel* good about trying to believe, and they are searching for some comfortable place, and the only place that they can find is the path of non-belief. I can empathize with it, as it is pain, and I empathize with pain regardless of the cause. However, I don't sympathize with people that have made a choice to not be faithful, regardless of their claimed reason for it. People stand responsible no matter what they claim forced them into something. An alcoholic is responsible for his own choices, regardless of how hard his life is. The fact that I'm overweight is my own choice, and nothing forced me to overeat, in spite of my anxiety caused by day to day stress, and eventually I will choose to lose it, I hope. But if I die because of it, then it will be sad, but nobody can be blamed but me, and people can be sad for me, but it is the result of the choice, and I alone stand responsible.

I'm willing to keep going. And at some point the veil is torn and I see the Savior before me. If my mortality is consumed until I have proven myself of this, then I would rather suspend deconstruction of this reality than engage in it, because the end result is the promised result. The end result of what you engage in is also the promised result for that. And it certainly does not end well, or end in an experience with the Savior that is a positive one.

Just because there seems to be logic in your words doesn't mean that my freedom of choice needs to be engaged in engaging in that same deconstruction.

This is all about a deliberate, carefully constructed reality based on choices to engage in certain choices about what to deliberately believe, in spite of the fact that I could deliberately deconstruct it. And because of those choices, the manifestations continue, and I find joy in them. That much is based on feeling, and that is good enough for me. Sorry that you have deconstructed your faith and destroyed your track you were on. You did this, and you stand responsible. You were not forced by any ontological proof for or against it, and even in the face of evidence, nothing forces your choices. You engage in whatever you choose. And don't accuse me of engaging in insults again, because I am simply stating things plainly.

[_Maksutov]

Very disappointed in your response, Ed.

[_tapirrider]

There is a real impasse with bomgeography. He likes to use DNA science, but then asserts without evidence that they are all wrong about dating, and wildly wrong. I suspect he may be a YEC. This is why he will keep asserting the genetic connection is close in time, since humans have only been around for 6000 years. If one accepts the science which informs us the earth is billions of years, one has no problem accepting the science of how they date DNA. This science informs us the genetic relationships are 10's of thousands of years old. He won't spend some real time to understand how the science really works. That is not his interest.

Strongly agree Themis.

For anyone reading this thread who is interested in what the scientists are saying, here is the link to Dr. Jennifer Raff and Dr. Deborah Bolnick's recent published article about the very topic that David McKane is twisting and distorting concerning Iran.

Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas? A Critical Re-Evaluation
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... 0000000040

Specifically, this quote from the above linked study leave's David's argument without any foundation:

To differentiate between a Solutrean and Beringian
source for X2a, one must look instead at the phylogeography
of the most recent ancestors of X2a (Figure 1).
X2a’j is the clade that unites X2a and its nearest sister
clade, X2j (Fernandes et al. 2012; Reidla et al. 2003).
The geographic distribution of X2a’j haplotypes —
especially those with some of the defining mutations
for X2a (indicating that they belong to the lineage
that led to X2a) — would be informative to this question,
but no contemporary or ancient individuals
belonging to these lineages have been identified, with
the possible exception of one individual from Iran
with the X2a’j defining transition at mitochondrial
nucleotide position 12397. However, because this transition
has been observed in other haplogroups and is
known to occur recurrently, it is unclear if this
Iranian individual belongs to the X2a’j lineage or
not (Reidla et al. 2003). X2a’s sister clade, X2j, is
also extremely rare, being found in just a few contemporary
individuals from Iran and Egypt (Fernandes
et al. 2012). It is possible that the common ancestor
of X2a and X2j originated there, but without identifying
more individuals bearing X2j or X2a’j lineages,
any inferences about the geographic origins of X2a’j
or X2a are very tenuous.



This link is for a podcast that featured Dr. Jennifer Raff discussing the above published article.
http://www.archaeologypodcastnetwork.co ... ntasies/50

Here is a breakdown of the podcast:

12:20 begins haplogroup x, lost civilizations dvd mentioned, Jennifer explains why it is not correct

17:30 explains why people began speculating that haplogroup x was a marker of migrations from Europe or the Middle east, she explains why this is now known to be wrong.

18:40 mentions the molecular clock and how non-scientists still try to argue about it

19:00 Jennifer mentions that haplogroup x2a shares a last common ancestor with other x2s at about 14,000 years, x2 itself common ancestor is about 22,000 years ago.

19:20 Ken Feder points out that the molecular clock estimates fall in the ballpark of the archaeological record from radiocarbon dating.

20:30 discusses how many of the ancient skeletons found in North America have been genetically sequenced.

22:00 begins discussing Solutrean and Clovis first hypothesis'.

26:00 mentions haplogroup x claims of influx from Europe (Meldrum)

27:20 Jennifer explains what her paper was a response to

28:00 the problem is that the lineages in Europe are not ancestral to the American lineages. They are cousins, not ancestral.

32:00 discusses what evidence would be needed to support a European migration and that it is not found.

32:40 points out that Kennewick man is the oldest haplogroup x found in the Americas and his location puts him in line with the current models of the peopling of the Americas.

33:00 No evidence that haplogroup x trickled in from Europe.

34:00 Ken points out that the great lakes distribution of haplogroup x is claimed by some to be evidence of a European migration but it is silly because that location is almost center in the land mass of North America so does not support an East coast arrival. Jennifer then mentions that it could support an interior land migration through Beringia instead of a sea coast migration.

34:45 Ken points out that x originated in Eurasia and migrations made it into europe, other migrations made it to the Americas. Jennifer concurs but points out that was very ancient, long before the migrations into America.

36:00 haplogroup x is not a european group, it's younger lineages are what is found in the numerous world locations.

36:38 haplogroup x does not prove white supremacy, it is not even a european haplogroup to begin with. the white european gene pool didn't even evolve until about 8,000 years ago.

37:30 we don't see any of the pre-columbian genes from europe in the americas.

38:00 Ken points out how white supremists take the science claims of solutrean and twist it into the racist claims. the scientists aren't promoting racism, it is the fringe groups that twist it.

39:00 Ken points out the difference between science hypothesis that could be wrong and the crazy claims of fringe folks.


40:20 important to make the distinction between legitimate scientists and racists.

40:40 the racism is by trying to insert pre-columbian europeans into american indian history.

40:45 the people saying it are not necessarily racist but what they are proposing and claiming is.

43:15 Ken points out that the claims of white people coming in to ancient america are recent, even a current member of the us house of representatives recently made a claim that white europeans are superior. Ken points out that this nonsense and BS needs to be stopped.

44:40 talks about home genetic tests and the claims of being 26% native american.

46:00 mentions Kim Tallbear's work about these claims and white people trying to appropriate American Indian culture.

46:40 mentions Deborah Bolnick's work on these false claims too.

47:25 Jennifer explains the problems with these claims in terms of the DNA.

49:00 ancestry is not identity. the tests don't really tell you who you are.

49:30 points out that this is very important for American Indians because of the admixtures and conquest but their current dna is not who they really are. trying to give a current marker to claim who they are is not valid. also those who are trying to get tribal affiliation through genetics is wrong because you have to be part of the tribal community. you can't just take a dna test and claim that American Indian is your identity.

51:30 DNA can't break a person down to a specific tribe.

52:40 Ken points out those who say "gee, you don't look Indian" and why this is wrong.

[_EdGoble]

Very disappointed in your response, Ed.

And how would you have me improve my response?

[_Maksutov]

Very disappointed in your response, Ed.

And how would you have me improve my response?

I suppose you would have to be a different person.

Your response shows me that you value loyalty and obedience above integrity. That is very disappointing.

[_EdGoble]

I suppose you would have to be a different person.

Your response shows me that you value loyalty and obedience above integrity. That is very disappointing.

Let's go down this road for a bit. That's pretty interesting charge you are making there. The fact that I talk about these things openly says a lot about my authenticity. You may think that somehow my loyalty and obedience is detrimental to my overall standing of integrity in the logical realm.

However there are other types of integrity. Let's talk about authenticity of heart in the purpose one is engaged in, and the integrity of keeping promises, and integrity of fulfilling duties, not just some overblown notion of integrity the way you see it, and that you think that it is dishonest to not conclude what you have concluded. Actually, keeping covenants made in the temple, and not divulging what one ought not is considered a type of integrity. Keeping one's word when one makes covenants that one will keep promises made to the fathers to do their temple work is a type of integrity.

What is the weightier matter here? That is always the question.

Do I hold to an extreme version of integrity as you see it that would make me authentic, or do I keep my temple covenants and does that make me truly authentic? Do I keep the promises made to my fathers by doing their temple work and that makes me authentic, or do I leave the Church because prophets make mistakes, and I ought to make a stand that would result in my breaking of covenants? What is it that truly makes me authentic? Well, in the ancient world, it was the keeping of promises and oaths that was the type of integrity that they held to.

The choice of what type of integrity is of more weight is clear in these matters.