More heartland evidence from early church leaders

[larsenb]

The problem with your idea is that the areal extent of the actual Heartland Model (at least to my understanding), is that it takes place in a much, much broader area than one circumscribed by 100 X 60 miles.

Well... I'm not a believer that the Mississippi is the river Sidon. In fact, I don't really give a hoot how the descriptive geography in the BoM does, or does not fit in the current geography of Michigan/Ohio/Great Lakes area. Suffice for me the anecdotal evidence of the DNA, Hopewell mounds and archeological sites, Hill Cumorah and early proclamations from Joseph Smith and others.

Regarding your "anecdotal evidence of DNS", here is what Dr. Ugo Perego thinks about Meldrum's use of X haplogroup data (found at http://bmaf.org/node/632 ), with a preface by the BMAF folks:

DNA Statement by Book of Mormon Archaeology Forum

Please, don't fall for the DNA "evidence" being promoted by some members of the Church. We believe in the Book of Mormon with all our being, but we also believe when we use science to prove something, then we should consult the experts and follow basic scientific methods. The Church (approved by the First Presidency on LDS.org) has just released a statement about using DNA to promote a Book of Mormon agenda:

Much as critics and defenders of the Book of Mormon would like to use DNA studies to support their views, the evidence is simply inconclusive. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples. Even if such information were known, processes such as population bottleneck, genetic drift, and post-Columbian immigration from West Eurasia make it unlikely that their DNA could be detected today. https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-morm ... s?lang=eng : Book of Mormon and DNA Studies www.lds.org

From Ugo Perego, PhD

There is a video circulating widely on the internet about NEW INCREDIBLE DNA EVIDENCE in favor of the Book of Mormon. I want everyone to know that I do not support the views presented in this video (here is the link on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADM3RY ... e=youtu.be).

I personally believe the Book of Mormon to be sacred scripture, but not based on genetic evidence.

It is my opinion that the presenter in this video (Rod Meldrum) is oversimplifying and stretching complex scientific data to fit its own view and purposes. This is dangerous because some people might actually believe in what he is saying and take for granted his conclusions. I have listened to Rod Meldrum in the past and spoke with him on several occasions. I have also tried to explain to him the mistakes with his approach, but to no avail.

Here are in a short few points the main problems with the information presented in this video:


1. Lineage (haplogroup) X in the America is an unusual marker, but there is absolutely no evidence to link it to Book of Mormon people.


2. As far as science has been able to determine to date, lineage X has been in the Americas probably long before Book of Mormon times (based on both carbon dating and the molecular clock).


3. It is not true that the first four lineages in the Americas prior to the discovery of haplogroup X are identical to lineages found in Asia. They are related with each other, but the ones in the Americas have their own unique characteristics.


4. Likewise, lineage X in Northern North America has its own unique characteristics and it is not found anywhere else in the world. The one in the Americas is know has lineage X2a.


5. There are other lineage X's in the world (Europe, North Africa, Middle East and Asia) but none of them is the same as their American counterpart X2a.


6. It is not true that lineage X was identified in the Americas in 2003. Data on a fifth lineage in the America has been widely published since 1991.


7. All the DNA that has been talked about in this video is referred to a genetic molecule known as mitochondrial DNA that is transmitted exclusively along the unbroken maternal line. This means that this approach cannot be easily used to determine the genetic ancestry of male lineages such as those described in this video and in the Book of Mormon. In other words, this is not the DNA we would expect to find today from Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Lehi, Nephi, etc.


8. The LDS Church does not support DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. Here is something more official found on the LDS.org website:https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-morm ... na-studies…
There is much more to it but this should be sufficient for now. It is too early to know for sure what the actual relationship of lineage X in the Americas with the Old World is and we need to be careful to jump at any conclusions at this time."

HLers ignore this advice from a working PhD geneticist, who is also LDS, at their peril or detriment, imho. His use of this data is simply another 'force-fit' by him to 'prove' his CONUS Heartland model . . . . . among many other force-fits.

OK... you have won me over to the indeterminate location of the Book of Mormon.
I took it on faith when first introduced to it in 1976, received a powerful confirmation that it is true, accepted the Gospel and was baptised.
Ever since I have had a mild curiosity of where it took place, thinking the Mayas were the decendents of the Lamanites. Until I went to Mexico and traveled extensively and concluded for my self that this wasn't the area of the BoM.

I guess we'll know when we visit the libraries in the heavens...

I'm not trying to win you over to anything. But I think that Heartlanders who assign a lot of importance to Meldrum's use of the X haplogroup data should listen to a real geneticist regarding how Meldrum is misusing this data.

And I do hope you keep your focus on your powerful witness of the Book of Mormon. That is real and of utmost importance, imho.

[davedan]

Meldrum is not misusing haplogroup X. The salutrean theory is bunk.

MiT published in Science that mitochondrial Eve lived as soon as 4000 years ago taking into account non-random mating.

It is known that c14 dating is incorrect due to contamination by old carbon from limestone.

[larsenb]

Meldrum is not misusing haplogroup X. The salutrean theory is bunk.

MiT published in Science that mitochondrial Eve lived as soon as 4000 years ago taking into account non-random mating.

It is known that c14 dating is incorrect due to contamination by old carbon from limestone.

But how is Meldrum not misusing haplogroup X? Care to explain? Now if Meldrum has rebutted Perego and shown him to be wrong , here is your chance to share his rebuttal. I'll certainly read it.

And can you supply a link to the MIT article published in Science that establishes that "mitochondrial Eve lived as [late] as 4,000 years ago taking into account non-random mating"? Sounds fascinating. But the earliest date for a 'mitochondrial Eve' that I've heard about, lived roughly over 100,000 years BP. Seriously, share the article.

Now, it is known that RC dating of shells from shell fish and perhaps other sea-dwelling carcasses, is thrown off by what is known as 'dead carbon'. This is carbon that gets repeatedly recycled in the oceans and is devoid of C14 (which has long-gone because of radioactive decay). But C14 is created anew in the upper atmosphere and is incorporated in most land-based birds. plants and animals, etc. Any variation of atmospheric C14 through time is corrected for by other dating methods and even known historical dates and tree rings.

Please reply. If you have good data/information. I certainly want to look at it and peruse it.

[kittycat51]

Archaeologists and historians have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that a great battle occurred at The Hill Cumorrah site where a million people were supposed to have been killed. No bones, weapons or anything that you would expect to find from a great battle has been found in or around the area.

Years ago I read parts of a book written in the mid 1800's. (I wish I could remember what it was called) It talked about in the early part of the country's history (U.S.) that hundreds of mounds were found all over the heartland. (containing human remains) There was also great evidence of a highly intelligent civilization that had previous lived here in the U.S. There were many high ranking people in both politics as well as known explorers that did not want the colonists to think that the Indians were ANYTHING other than savages. Much of that evidence was destroyed.

[kittycat51]

Archaeologists and historians have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that a great battle occurred at The Hill Cumorrah site where a million people were supposed to have been killed. No bones, weapons or anything that you would expect to find from a great battle has been found in or around the area.

Years ago I read parts of a book written in the mid 1800's. (I wish I could remember what it was called) It talked about in the early part of the country's history (U.S.) that hundreds of mounds were found all over the heartland. (containing human remains) There was also great evidence of a highly intelligent civilization that had previous lived here in the U.S. There were many high ranking people in both politics as well as known explorers that did not want the colonists to think that the Indians were ANYTHING other than savages. Much of that evidence was destroyed.

This was not the book I was talking about but fascinating none the less. It is called "Antiquities of the State of New York by E.G. Squier 1851". It focuses on the "mound builders" in the state of New York but also compares it to what was found in the Mississippi valley. You can read it here. https://archive.org/details/antiquities ... ch/page/n1