Yesterday, Paul Reeve, Associate Professor of History from the University of Utah told us that St. George was once more cosmopolitan in the early years.  It had more (raw numbers of) blacks, Chinese, Polynesians and Europeans in the early days of settlement until the past few decades.  It was a really interesting presentation.

I have been very interested to learn about new research websites.  In the afternoon, Rick Turley, Randy Olsen and Jeffrey Walker introduced the brand new Church History Library Beta Website.  Apparently it is brand new this week.  Turley said that they are in the process of digitizing millions of documents and photographs.  Some are already available and they hope that many will be available soon.  They encouraged us to make requests for digitization.  I checked out the website yesterday.  It is a beta website, and did go down for a few minutes yesterday, but I look forward to checking it out some more.  I just realized that all the items I saved on my e-shelf were erased because I did not log in.

They also showed us the Joseph Smith Papers website.  This website contains all the information found in the bound volumes, as well as new information not in the books.  Jeffrey Walker gave an entertaining introduction, and said we should all watch the 2:08 video on the home page since he is prominently featured there.  The room was packed with researchers.

This morning, I attended the inaugural Mormon Women’s History Initiative breakfast.  They have a Facebook page, as well as a website to assist those interested in studying women’s history.  It was here that I was able to talk to Richard Bushman.  When I told him I was a statistician, I was surprised that he started asking me questions!  He asked me if I followed Wordprint studies, and I was pleased to say that I have.  I told him to stop by my blog, so I’ll make it easy to find the items.  Here are a few posts on the topic.

• an in-depth review of Rebuttal to Jockers here on my website
• a shorter version of it at Wheat and Tares
• my first review of Wordprints in general
• I was bummed to see that the comments were removed from Mormon Matters about my review of the Jockers study.
• There were very interesting comments at Mormon Discussions.  Bruce Schaalje of BYU and Matt Criddle of Stanford went the rounds a bit.

Yesterday afternoon I attended a session called “Reading and Writing Southern Utah History.”  Brandon Metcalf of the Church History Department gave a history of the southern Utah historian James Bleak (pronounced Blake).  Curt Bench gave a delightful presentation on Juanita Brooks (he’s a big fan and a bibliophile), and George D Smith gave a history of apostle George A. Smith, for whom St George is named.  George A Smith was a cousin to Joseph Smith, and the grandfather of future prophet George Albert Smith.

This  morning, I was able to attend a great session on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  Ugo Perego was supposed to give a presentation called “‘Poisoned Springs?’  Scientific Testing of the More Recent Anthrax Theory.”  Perego wasn’t able to give the presentation because he was in Italy accepting an award, so the president of Soreneson Molecular Genealogy, Scott Woodward gave his presentation.  It was awesome.

As you may or may not know, the Fancher party was accused of poisoning a spring and causing cattle to die.  This was supposedly the cause of the Indians getting angry at the Fancher party and seeking their deaths.  However, historians have said they don’t believe there was any poison.  Perego looked at poisons and environmnetal explanations of the poisoned springs theory.  Strychnine and Arsenic were the two most common poisons available in 1857, but he doesn’t think it fits the descriptions.  Anthrax and Brucellosis seem more likely, with anthrax seeming to fit the descriptions best.

A young boy from Fillmore, Utah named Proctor Robison was known to have skinned a cow and died shortly thereafter in a manner similar to the descriptions of the Fancher party “poisonings”.  The Sorenson group asked for permission to exhume the body and see if there was evidence of anthrax in the boy’s death.  While they were able to positively identify the boy using DNA testing, the ground was very moist.  Anthrax has been known to leave dormant spores around for centuries in the right conditions.  If the boy did die of anthrax, the moist ground has erased any evidence of anthrax in his death.  I think it is a really interesting theory, and I was fascinated by the presentation.

Barbara Jones Brown discussed the Marvelous Flood of 1862 which devastated much of the area surrounding Mountain Meadows, and Richard Turley discussed John Wesley Powell’s interactions (for whom Lake Powell is named) in southern Utah.  Powell came in contact with John D Lee and others of MMM infamy.  It was a great session, and a packed house.

I’ll post more tomorrow.  Questions or comments?

The September Six refer to a group of 6 intellectuals that were disciplined by the church in 1993.

1. Lynne Whitesides*
2. Paul Toscano
3. Maxine Hanks
4. Lavina Anderson
5. Michael Quinn
6. Avraham Gileadi**

*Five of the six were excommunicated with Lynne Whitesides being the exception–she was disfellowshipped.

**Of the six disciplined, only Avraham Gileadi was rebaptized. Lindholm notes in the Introduction,

A conservative biblical scholar, Gileadi consistently refused to speak to the press following his excommunication, and he remains the only member of the September Six to be rebaptized and admitted back into the fold.  In keeping with this precedent, Gileadi did not respond to my interview request for this volume.

Lindholm also interviews 3 others who have been disciplined by the church since 1991:

• Margaret Toscano,
• her sister Janice Merrill Allred, and
• Thomas Murphy.

For balance, Lindholm interviews Donald Jessee, former employee of the LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department.

I really liked the book.  My only mild criticism was the fact that it is apparent these interviews occurred several years ago, but the book is just coming out now.  For example, the author asked every guest if they believed Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet, rather than Thomas S. Monson.  I asked the publisher why some of the material seemed dated, and he said it took quite some time to get permission from all of the people.  The last interview took place in 2004.

The most interesting topic to me (outside of the excommunications themselves) was learning about the Strengthening the Church Committee (SCMC).  I had never heard of it before.  In describing it, Lynne Whitesides said on page 6,

There is a Strengthening Church Members Committee that we didn’t know about at the time, a Gestapo-like group which press-clipped everything anyone said who might be considered an enemy of the Church, meaning one who disagreed with Church policy.

Footnote 4 on page 181 further clarifies this.

According to Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the Strengthening Church Members Committee is a “clipping service” that “pores over newspapers and other publications and identifies members accused of crimes, preaching false doctrine, criticizing leadership or other problems.  That information is forwarded on to the person’s bishop or stake president, who is charged with helping them overcome problems and stay active in the Church.”  Quoted in “News: Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy,” Sunstone 92 (November 1993): 69.  The First Presidency further clarified the nature and history of the Strengthening Church Members Committee when it stated, “This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics.  It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.”  Quoted in “News: Church Defends Keeping Files on Members,” Sunstone 88 (August 1992): 63.  Many of those called in for investigatory interviews or discipline have claimed that this committee is responsible for compiling incriminating evidence against targeted members.

Here is what Donald Jessee, former employee of LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department said when asked about the committee.  From page 217-220,

Donald:  It ‘s a committee that seeks information that, in time, if the proper action is taken, does just that–it can strengthen Church members through proper discipline.

Philip:  How so?  Many excommunicants have claimed that it collected files on them in preparation for potential disciplinary courts.

Donald:  They do it by caring about members of the Church.  Discipline is designed to help members who have gone astray.  The Church from its beginning has gathered anti-Mormon literature and derogatory or false information about the Church.  If the source of this information comes from Church members of record, then action is taken.  The Church must be aware of its critics and enemies.  Again, Church leaders must keep the Church morally clean and ethically straight.

Philip:  Should academics avoid publishing research if it could be understood as contradicting the Church’s position on a given topic?

Donald:  Members can publish whatever they want.  There’s no censorship.  It depends on the context and the person’s motives in doing what has been done.  If a BYU professor, whose salary is paid with Church funds and who has signed an honor code of conduct to keep university rules, then publicly goes out and violates them, then that person is subject to discipline, but he or she is free to speak about any issue he or she wants to….

Philip:  What about those topics not yet given much attention by Church leaders?  Do members have free reign on those topics?  Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for doing genetic research that the Mormon Church had yet to conduct.  How much freedom is one afforded on such controversial but relatively unaddressed topics?  Mother in Heaven is another example of a controversial topic upon which people have published and been punished for doing so.

Donald:  Well, in the case of Murphy, he says that because of DNA he has proven that the Book of Mormon is not true.  How does he know?  There were other groups of people here in America before Lehi arrived here….How could DNA prove or disprove the truthfulness of a book brought here under the hand of God?…

I do not know anything regarding those who have been disciplined for publishing on the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven.  Chances are they presented their ideas in a way that ran counter to true religion and to the Church and its teachings.  Speculation on such matters can lead members astray and destroy faith in God the Father.  Praying to a Mother in Heaven is not a true doctrine, no matter how it is defined or presented.  It undermines faith in the true process of offering prayers, which is to pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Christ.

Members can believe anything they want.  Church members may believe they have a Mother in Heaven, but to go out teaching that we ought to pray to her, or that we give details about her when both the prophets and the scriptures are silent–this violates the teachings of the Church…

If Church members go to their friends and start talking about practicing plural marriage, they are not in harmony with the Church.  Yes, there are some things where common sense says, “Don’t discuss it in private or in public.”  Otherwise, hey, I’ve got the freedom to think anything I want, but I need to be careful that I’m not trying to represent the Church with my point of view or convince others that a certain doctrine or practice represents true religion or is what the issue or is what the Church teaches.  As an individual, I can speculate all I want on any issue or topic as long as I keep to myself those matters that are not in harmony with truth and the Church and its teachings.

If I am a prominent or well thought of member of the Church, and I present a paper in the name of religious freedom that one might consider worshiping idols, I can expect Church discipline.  That doctrine is contrary to true religion and the teachings of God.  To bring up controversial topics in meetings such as sacrament meeting, Sunday School, priesthood meeting, Relief Society, etc., could raise questions and jeopardize one’s standing in the Church…

Philip:  Yet Janice Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for her insistence on publishing a clearly speculative paper entitled, “Toward a Theology of God the Mother.”⁴ Why was she disciplined for asserting her opinion?

Donald:  I believe I have already established the fact that I can’t comment on Church discipline, as that is confidential and would violate privacy issues.  As a member of the church, I don’t know.  I wasn’t involved there and don’t know the facts.  Such a doctrine has not been revealed through a living prophet, and it is not appropriate to be a member of the Church and teach to others in any setting doctrines or practices that run counter to true religion and the Church and its teachings, such as practicing plural marriage or other theories that are not mainstream teachings of the living prophets.

I really thought Whitesides “Gestapo-like” comment was a wild exaggeration, but after hearing what Jessee had to say, I’m not so sure.  According to Wikipedia,

The committee was formed during the administration of church President Ezra Taft Benson,[1] soon after Benson became president in 1985.[2]

The existence of the committee became known in 1991, when a 1990 church memo from general authority Glenn L. Pace referencing the committee was published by an anti-Mormon ministry.^[3] The committee was one of the subjects discussed in the 1992 Sunstone Symposium in talks by Lavina Fielding Anderson and Eugene England (then a BYU professor) on August 6, 1992. Soon thereafter, the Salt Lake Tribune published news stories on the subject (Tribune, August 8, 1992 and August 15, 1992). England came to regret his impulsive comments and apologized to all parties individually.^[4]

In response to this public discourse, the LDS Church spokesman Don LeFevre acknowledged the existence of the committee.^[5] LeFevre said that the committee “receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that ‘conceivably could do harm to the church’”, then the committee will “pass the information along to the person’s ecclesiastical leader.” According to LeFevre, however, “the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties.” Discipline is “entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders.”^[6]

After reading all this, I wonder how much the apostles monitor blogs.  I find it a little ironic that President Benson started it.  He was quite a conspiracy theoriest, as I mentioned in my post about his anti-Communist rhetoric.  I keep hearing in different settings that the church is much more open now, but I’m not so sure.  For example, at a recent conference at BYU, professor Ronald Esplin said this is one of the best environments to study church history since the “Camelot” era of the 1970s.

However, discipline for intellectuals still seems to occur.   The Wikipedia article mentions that in 2004, the committee put together a dossier on Grant Palmer, author of Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.  (Palmer was disfellowshipped.)  In the introduction, Lindholm notes on page xii, that excommunications of academics has continued beyond the notorious 1993 September Six (formatting changed)

• In 1994, Professor David Wright of Brandeis University and editor Brent Metcalf were excommunicated for their scripture studies in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:  Explorations in Critical Methodology
• In 1995, author Janice Allred was excommunicated for her writings about Mother in Heaven.
• In 2000, Professor Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for her theological reflections, and
• in 2002, Professor Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for his anthropological work on Mormonism.
• In addition, many other unnamed intellectuals were called into disciplinary interviews that did not result in excommunication.

I know Simon Southerton resigned under pressure from the church following his publication of information on DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Last week, I learned that John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and StayLDS was summoned to a meeting with his Stake President.  He said the meeting went well, and solicited comments to his website.  From my point of view, it bears a lot of parallels with Lynne Whitesides experience in 1993.  John has recently been interviewed on ABC and other news organizations.  Lynne was called in to talk to her bishop following an interview with Chris Vanocur on Channel 4, KTVX.  Here’s what Lynne said on page 4,

In May when my bishop called me to come in to talk, I thought, “Wow…this is great.  Maybe the system does work.  maybe this church really is a place where I can get comfortable.”  I was very excited.  I left early from my feminism class up at teh University of Utah to meet with him.  When I walked in, he was with his two counselors, all in suits, and I’m thinking, “Wow, they really want me back at church.  This is great!”  I sat down, and Virgil Merrill, the bishop, said, “Elder Loren C. Dunn has asked us to meet with you to see if we need to take any ecclesiastical action against you.”

I started to laugh and couldn’t stop.  ”Give me a minute,” I said, “I thought you called m in here because you cared about me.  Let me just have a quick moment to adjust.”  Their faces…you could see that what I has said shocked them, but then we had a lovely talk.  It was not confrontational at all; it was amazing.  At the end, Virgil said he was going to tell Dunn that I was fine.  So, when I received the summons letter I was shocked.

Philip:  Your bishop gave you no warning at all that you were going to be tried by a church court?

Lynne:  No, nothing.  When I found out, I called Lavinia [Fielding Anderson] immediately….We also wrote a letter to the bishop saying that if he went through with the church court, then we were going to let the media know.  Virgil wrote back saying that he wanted to hold it.  He didn’t realize what he was getting into.  He didn’t realize how much press coverage it was going to get.  We heard through the grapevine, he was getting pressure from [Boyd K.] Packer² and other leaders to excommunicate me.

Philip:  Can you elaborate on “the grapevine”?

Lynne:  One of the bishopric counselors involved in my court was relate3d toa  reporter I knew.  Both were at a barbecue once, and the counselor told the reporter, not thinking it would ever get back to me, that they were getting pressure from Church leaders to “do something” about Lynne Whitesides.  Well, it did get back to me, and I knew this going into the trial.

Well, I’ve already quoted quite a bit from the book.  Let me end with a quick summary of things the church apparently doesn’t like us discussing:

• Lynne Whitesides was disfellowshipped for “why I thought it was all right to pray to a female diety.”
• Paul Toscano was excommunicated for defending his wife Margaret.  Basically Margaret was the real target.  To save her, Paul blasted church leaders and was excommunicated for insubordination.  (I’ll discuss Margaret in a bit.)
• Maxine Hanks was excommunicated for her book Women and Authority.
• Lavina Fielding Anderson was excommunicated for documenting ecclesiastical abuse in the Church.
• Michael Quinn was excommunicated for writing a chapter in Hanks book, Women and Authority, and for a Sunstone presentation in 1992 called “150 Years of Truth and Consequences in Mormon History.”
• Janice Merrill Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.
• Margaret  Merrill Toscano was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.  (Note Janice and Margaret are sisters.)
• Thomas Murphy was “nearly excommunicated in December 2002, proceedings halted indefinitely on February 23, 2003.”  Murphy wrote about DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Wikipedia says, “on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.^[3]“

This book is very timely for me.  I have wanted to get more involved in church history.  I also want to maintain good standing int he church.  Lindholm quotes Armaund Mauss in the introduction.  Mauss is a retired Mormon sociologist from Washington State University.  From page xxii

Even the most careful and diplomatic comments will not be much appreciated by many Church leaders, perhaps by most Church leaders, whether general or local.  We have to understand that much going in.  Do not expect to appear on the short list for bishop or Relief Society president if you have been regularly commenting on local or general Church matters.  If prominent Church positions are important to you, keep quiet.  If you’re going to speak up, whether in oral or written media, first cultivate thick skin, then abandon your aspirations for important Church callings; you shouldn’t have them anyway.  Finally, don’t whine when you’re passed over or looked upon with some suspicion.³⁷

Footnote 45 quotes Mauss as saying,

I have come to feel increasingly marginal to the Mormon community during my adult life, at least in a social and intellectual sense, despite my continuing and conscientious participation in church activity (including leadership) and despite my own deep personal faith in the religion itself.

Lindholm goes on to say on page xxiii that

Mormonism is not alone in its desire to censor.  Most Christian traditions–Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike–have a long history of disciplining vocal dissent,⁴² which is a practice supported by a rather strong biblical basis.⁴³.  The LDS Church, however, is different in that its leaders actively discipline select members in order to sustain the appearance of doctrinal purity for the sake of the Church’s integrity and public image.⁴⁴

What do you make of this church discipline?  Do you have any advice for me?

Also, the conversation veered off the road on my Malay post, going into the space-time continuum.  So, since I like to compartmentalize things, I thought I’d open up a new post where space-time continuum, advanced civilizations, etc can be talked about.  So, this is basically a science post where you can post anything to do with science vs religion.  I don’t care about threadjacking here, as long as it shows some reference to science.  I do want to pull a quote from Nachminides, as we start this discussion.  I posted this previously on my DNA post:

“Although writing more than 700 years ago, [Rabbi Moses] Nachmanides’ message is even more clear and relevant today.  His writings directed the person of faith to realize that there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.  Our challenge is to continually study and investigate both realms, with the realization that apparent conflicts are merely artifacts of temporary incomplete understanding in one or both realms.  This avoidance of intellectual pride, allows the person of traditional religious faith to work comfortably within the framework of rigorous scientific hypothesis and empiricism.  This is also in keeping with the rationalist approach in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.”

So, Bishop Rick, before you get started on Evolution/Creation, please read this blog post from S Faux, Biblical Genesis Corresponds with Evolution. I’m no expert, but Faux is an LDS professor at a university in the midwest.  I think he presents a pretty compelling argument, especially for those like you who view the creation story as non-literal.

For those wanting to discuss space-time continuum, feel free to continue the discussion here.  (I want to quote Doc Brown from Back to the Future, “1.21 jigga-watts!!!  He mispronounces it badly, it should be giga-watts.)  Perhaps we need a flux capacitor to truly understand all the implications of the Theory of Relativity.  Star Trek handles time travel pretty well too, and can go back or forward in time relatively easily.  Of course, don’t forget Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure!  Someone mentioned that people don’t go into the future, but I think that is because we have no idea what needs fixing in the future.  It’s much easier to look on the past and fix that instead.

Anyway, I think science and religion ARE compatible, but sometimes it is hard to see how.

Let me give a brief background on Israel, and the Lost Tribes of Israel.  We all remember that the Kingdom of Israel was a united kingdom under David and Solomon.  After Solomon’s death, the kingdom split into a northern kingdom called the Kingdom of Israel, containing the 10 tribes, and a southern kingdom called the Kingdom of Judah, containing Jerusalem and the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and part of Joseph.  The tribe of Levi (also referred to as Kohanim) was the priestly tribe, and did not receive a land of inheritance, and was sprinkled throughout the northern and southern kingdoms to take care of religious matters.  Around 700 BC, the Assyrians invaded the Northern Kingdom.  Isaiah prophesied that if the southern Kingdom turned to God, they would be protected.  100 years later, during the life of Lehi and Jeremiah, the Babylonians took over the Assyrian territory, and took control over the Southern Kingdom as well.

The video has some really interesting claims about the lost tribes, and the Lemba, a black African tribe claiming to be Jewish.  Scholars seem to be split as to whether the lost tribes will ever be found.  Here are two different schools of thought.  The first comes from a scholar who believes the lost tribes could still exist.  The DVD refers to the term “diaspora.”  When the tribes were scattered (or dispersed), they had to learn to live their religion without a temple, so this scattering is called the diaspora.  Note this traditional Jewish dress they wear.

I also want to mention that the show’s host is Josh Bernstein.  He has some Jewish ancestry, studied archaeology in New York, and has a home in the four corners region of Utah.  He is quite an outdoorsman, and loves to do crazy stunts in his own life, and in the show.  He is both the narrator, and interviewer.  I even got a kick out of it when he uncovered a scorpion, and said, “that’s much bigger than they are in Utah.”

The DVD discusses various lost tribe claims.  Quoting from the video,

People have claimed to have found lost tribes all over the world, from Siberia to Australia.  Some of the first Europeans who landed in the Americas, assumed the natives were lost tribes, and even tried to communicate with them in Hebrew.  Historian Hillel Halkin has written a book [Across the Sabbath River] about the lost tribes, and thinks that they could still exist today.

Bernstein, “Why are you so passionate about the lost tribes of Israel?”

Halkin, “The lost tribe myth really is through Jewish eyes among other things, a story of tough Jews.  Living still like the Jews biblical ancestors:  independent, warrior-like, fearless, all the things that Jews in the diaspora, over the ages generally were not.

Bernstein, “Was this the first Jewish diaspora?”

Halkin, “Yes, We have some archaeological evidence, besides Assyrian inscriptions, to show that these Israelites were deported to various parts o the Assyrian Empire.  But after that, they disappear from history.”

Bernstein, “What’s the big deal with being a lost tribe?  What is the attraction for these people to claim ‘I was one of the lost tribes of Israel’?”

Halkin, “Well the big deal you have to understand is not so much that people are claiming to be lost tribes, but the fact that the Christian and the Jewish world have been looking for hundreds or even thousands of years, for the lost tribes.  It’s the search for the lost tribes that is the historically fascinating phenomenon.”

Contrasted by this view is another scholar.

Israel Finkelstein [Archaeologist, Te l Aviv University] believes that when they Assyrians conquered this land, they wiped out all the leadership of the tribes of Israel.  The populations was either killed or assimilated into other parts of the Assyrian Empire.  He doesn’t believe they could be found today.

…Bernstein, “What happens then to the rulers of the northern kingdom when the Assyrians come in and take over?”

Finkelstein, “The rulers were deported.  We don’t know whether all of them, part of them, most of them, many of them, we don’t have this kind of information, neither from the Bible nor from the Assyrians texts, nor from archeology.  Archaeology cannot speak about a person.  But most of this population probably assimilated in Mesopotamia.”

Bernstein, “So the people who are on a quest to find the lost tribes and recover them and bring them back to Israel, they would only have to travel as far as Mesopotamia?”

Finkelstein, “I don’t think that you can travel anywhere, and look for the lost tribes.  I mean I make a distinction between what we know from archeology, history, and so on, and all sorts of popular ideas of going this way or that way, and finding a lost tribe.  There’s no need whatsoever to go around the world, in my opinion, and look for lost tribes.”

So, let’s talk about the Lemba, who claim to be one of the lost tribes of Israel, just as Lehi and his descendants claim.  What I found so interesting was the fact that the first part of the journey follows the same route that Mormons believe Lehi followed, along the frankincense trail in Saudi Arabia.  The difference is that once they got to Yemen, Lehi and his group turned east, while the Lemba seem to have stayed in Yemen for a time, before heading south across the Red Sea through Africa.  Here is a map of the Lemba’s proposed route.

The Lemba’s story goes like this:  Thousands of years ago, they were forced out of Israel, and settled in a

Proposed route of Lemba

place called Sena, which is believed to be the present day Yemen.  There they lived as traders and craftsmen, until war, or natural disaster pushed them across the Red Sea and into Africa.  Then began a slow migration south.  Along the way, according to the Lemba, they built great stone cities.  It’s a claim that has fascinated archaeologists.  Why?  Because the ruins of ancient stone cities still exist in southern Africa today.”…

To help me make sense of it, I’ve asked historian Dr. Magdel Le Roux [University of South Africa, Pretoria] to come with me to the site.  She’s been studying the Lemba for years and has just published a book on the similarities between their social customs, and those of the Old Testament Israelites.

Josh Bernstein, “There are specific parallels between the religious practices of Lemba today and the religious practices of ancient Israel?”

Le Roux, “Definitely.  They’ve got remnants of an ancient type of Israelite religious practices, so in a way they concert this very special ancient type of…

Bernstein, “an old school religion”

Le Roux, “yes”

Bernstein, “But how do they maintain their religious identity?  How’d they keep it intact for so many years in this long journey from Israel down to South Africa?”

Le Roux, “That’s a good question.  I think it’s by means of oral tradition.  By keeping themselves seperate from other groups.  They lived with other peoples, moving with them, migrating down with them.  That’s one of the characteristics that they keep their culture.  They just live it.”

The Lemba claim to have built many stone cities along the way, especially in Zimbabwe and South Africa.  The show quotes a few scholars who believe they have found some of these cities, and show archaeological links between Yeme, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.  While there is no archaeological evidence tying the Lemba directly to Israel, they exhibit some amazing social, musical, and religious practices that seem quite related to ancient Judaism.  The most interesting part of the show was the discussion of DNA tests which seem to indicate a Middle Eastern origin.

I guess what is interesting about the Lemba is that they have a similar story to the people of Lehi, but 100 years prior.  The DNA issue in the americas has led many Mormon scholars to take the position that the Nephites were an insignificant population genetically, and that DNA cannot be traced because of their minority status.  However, the case of the Lemba shows that semitic origins can be traced among a small minority population.  Even though they look strikingly similar to the Venda and Bantu tribes, they have a different DNA makeup than these other indigenous African tribes.

If the Lemba’s claim is true, the proof should be in their blood.  It’s now possible to trace the Lemba’s ancestry through their DNA, and that’s just what scientists in South Africa have done.  I’m going back to the Lemba’s current homeland to find out the truth behind this fascinating mystery.

…

That’s why I’ve come to Johannesburg.  The scientists here at the National Health Laboratory Services have screened in the genetic profiles of the Lemba, and their neighboring tribes, the Venda, and the Bantu.  They’ve come up with some revealing conclusions.

Dr Trefor Jenkins [lead geneticist in the study of the Lemba for the last 20 years from University of Witwatersrand], “I heard of the Lemba many years ago….I didn’t really have much interest in pursuing their actual identity until a friend, who had been studying the Lemba, had detected some Jewish influences in the music of the Lemba.”

Bernstein, “So their music actually differs from the people around them, and that brought you in to study the genetics.”

Jenkins, “Yes.

Bernstein, “So the genetic data doesn’t say that the Lemba are Jewish, as much as it says they have Semitic origins.”

Jenkins, “Yes, that’s how we put it.  What we were saying was that there is a non-African contribution to the gene pool of the Lemba, which is not evident in the peoples amongst whom they live in that part of the world.”

Bernstein, “You mentioned non-African influences.  If someone didn’t have genetic data, or the testing available, how could you determine if one group is Jewish, or not?”

Jenkins, “I distrust relying on morphological features to categorize populations.”

Bernstein, “So if someone couldn’t say, ‘he looks Jewish, she looks Jewish, he’s not Jewish, she’s not Jewish’, that wouldn’t have any bearing on the issue of Semitic origins.”

Jenkins, “I don’t think so….”

Dr Jenkins believes that DNA always trumps appearances, and the Lemba’s claim to Jewish ancestry may indeed have some genetic support.  Not only is their DNA very different from their neighbors, but according to his colleague, Dr Himla Soodyall [Geneticist, University of Witwatersrand], it may have a non-African, even Jewish connection.

…

Soodyall , “this is the very interesting thing-that the South African Lemba have a particular y-chromosome pattern or lineage that’s common in people who identify as the Kohanim, or the Jewish priests.”

In the Jewish tradition, the Kohanim are part of the priestly caste.  Amazingly, scientists have isolated a strand of DNA that is strongly associated with the Kohanim.  It’s called the Cohen Modal Haplotype, and it’s almost exclusive to Jews who claim the priestly heritage-almost exclusive.  The Cohen Modal Haplotype has been found among the priestly caste of the Lemba.

Soodyall , “The observation that the Cohen pattern was commonest in that one particular group is something that begs exploration.”

This link supports the Lemba’s oral history and the archaeological clues we’ve seen, in the places they say they’ve lived.  But Himla is quick to point out the limitations of genetic science.

Soodyall, “Now in terms of whether the Lemba are Jewish-of course they have the Cohen Modal Haplotype-or not, is something that science cannot address.  Because cultural identity is a social construct.  No genetic data is going to tell you that are Jewish, or that are Hindu, or that you are Christian, or any religious denomination.”

Himla tells me that the presence of the Cohen Modal Haplotype can’t tell us anything about the Lemba religion.  But just as remarkably, it can tell us where their ancestors came from, and it’s not in Africa.

Soodyall, “There is this interesting genetic information showing us that some of the original founders did come from other parts of the world, other than Africa.  From our data, I would put my money on saying that it’s the Middle East.”

Himla is convinced that the ancestors did indeed come from the Middle East.

I remember that there is a theory claiming that the BoM took place in Africa.  Now I know that FARMS considered it laughable, but as I look at the map above, there do seem to be some significantly sized lakes and seas along the Lemba route.  The BoM also talks about the Lamanites were a “dark and loathsome people.”  Now, if the Lamanites had intermarried with an indigenous population like the Lemba did, then the “dark” part becomes a very interesting description for this people (though the “loathsome” part is obviously racially charged.)

Now I’m not claiming the Lemba are the Lamanites, but don’t you think that this opens up some possibilities for the Book of Mormon?  Perhaps we really need to consider some really radical settings for the BoM.  What do you think?

Book of Mormon geography is one of my favorite topics, and it’s been a while since I talked about it.  Wouldn’t it be cool to find some archaeological evidence?  There are over 100 theories concerning Book of Mormon geography.  Since they can’t all be correct, obviously, some scientists are digging in the wrong place.  Let’s review some of the theories again.

In 1991, John Sorensen of BYU, the “dean” of Book of Mormon geography, created a book called “The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book“.  (It is hard to find because it has no ISBN #, but can be purchased at the BYU Bookstore as well as some bookstores specializing on obscure Mormon books.)  I reviewed the theories.  I grouped them into basic categories, and discovered a 7^th category when Last Lemming posted a comment at my blog about an African theory.  Here they are:

(1)   Internal Theories. These are maps which just read the BOM and ignore where they might have occurred, but try to figure out rough distances, and major landmarks that the true map must exhibit. This is a good starting point for “real-world” maps to compare themselves to.  Any scholar should probably start here first.

(2)   Hemispheric Models. Mormons originally thought that the Book of Mormon peoples covered the entire North and South America. Most serious scholars now doubt this, but many church members probably still believe this today.

(3)   Central America Models. The bulk of “mormon approved” scholars support this general theory. While there are disagreements about where the “narrow neck of land” exists, such as Panama, Mexico, Guatemala, etc, these theories can be lumped into this category.  This is the theory that is most accepted by Mormon Scholars.

(4)   South America Models. Joseph Smith is reported to have said that Lehi landed 30 degrees South of the equator, in what would be modern day Chile. There are several theories that try to confirm this, and most people who support this group of theories believe that most of South America was under water, and that the continent rose up during the major earthquakes mentioned in the BOM during Christ’s crucifixion in the Old World.

(5)   The Great Lakes Theories. This proposes that since the golden plates were found in NY, the BOM lands must be nearby, and proposes that the Great Lakes were the Sea East, West, etc.  This theory has recently received a boost from people like Rodney Meldrum, and is making some inroads into Mormon thought.

The book is now close to 20 years old.  Since it was published, a flood of new theories have been created.  The following 2 theories are some of the most radical.

(6) The African Theory by Embaye Melekin.  The link to this theory on my blog no longer works, but Michael Ash wrote a review of this theory in 2001.  Melekin claims that his book titled, “Manifestations mysteries revealed,” has proven “beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Book of Mormon is an African book and about Africans. . . . My book will change the church and the belief of the Mormons drastically.” Well Melekin didn’t change Ash’s opinion, and I don’t give this theory much credence.

(7) The Malay Theory. This theory says it would have been much easier for Nephi to travel a 4000 mile journey to the Malay Peninsula than a 16000 mile journey in open seas to the Americas. The author notes better language similarities, better DNA evidence, and other evidences to support his ideas, while clearly noting that he is not sure how the plates got to NY.

One need only look Wikipedia to see the common problems with all the American theories.  (Important note-look at the top of the article-there are many messages at the top of the article stating that the findings in the entry are highly disputed, so use that information as you will.)  Here’s a brief listing of problems with theories 2-5.  Archaeological evidence has failed to produce many of the following animals and plants existed during the Book of Mormon period:

• Horses
• Elephants
• Cattle and cows
• Sheep
• Goats
• Swine
• Barley and wheat

Additionally, Native Americans were much more primitive than is mentioned in the Book of Mormon-there were no chariots, or even wheeled vehicles in the Americas, and iron was not used for weapons.  Iron ore has been discovered in Peru, but its purpose was primarily for body paint.  Here are some other problems:

• Chariots or wheeled vehicles
• Steel and iron
• Metal swords, which had “rusted”
• Cimiters
• System of exchange based on measures of precious metals
• Silk
• Knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages

DNA seems to be another problem.  I did a post last July on a book I read called “DNA and Tradition:  The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews“, by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman.  Jewish DNA has been a relatively important topic in the scientific community, and a gene has been discovered, called the Cohen gene which seems to date back to the time of Aaron and Moses.  This Cohen gene theoretically represents the Levite tribe, of which Moses and Aaron were a part of.  Medically, the Cohen gene has been linked to neurological problems.  In my talk with Ann (What’s the difference between Arabs and Persians?), she acknowledged that Jews do carry some unique genetic traits.

So, lest anyone think I’m advocating the position that the Book of Mormon is archaeologically unsound, let’s look at the Bible for a minute. I did a post which tries to show the good and bad news of Biblical Archaeology.  There is no evidence that Jews existed prior to about 700 BC.  That means that there is no archaeological evidence of Moses, Saul, Joseph, Adam, Eve, Job, Abraham, Noah, and everyone who pre-dates 700 BC.  Some scholars go so far as to claim that the Exodus never happened.  There is an inscription about David in the Tel Dan stele, which seems to indicate that a King David may have existed, but scholars are split as to the veracity of this claim.  There is even a lack of contemporary evidence that Christ existed, though the writings after his crucifixion certainly add a significant amount of credible evidence that Christ probably existed.  Either way, science will never be able to prove he was resurrected, which is a fundamental tenet of all Christianity.

So my point is that the Bible and the Book of Mormon’s primary value are in their religious and spiritual validity, not necessarily scientific validity.  Certainly the Bible has more archaeological evidence than the Book of Mormon, but there are many archaeological questions for both books.

Does lack of evidence prove these people did not exist?  No, we are only a discovery away from proving the skeptics wrong.  Can a spiritual person still be a scientist?  Yes, according to Maimonides, a rabbi who wrote 700 years ago.  A quote from DNA and Tradition:  The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews says,

“His writings directed the person of faith to realize that there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.  Our challenge is to continually study and investigate both realms, with the realization that apparent conflicts are merely artifacts of temporary incomplete understanding in one or both realms.  This avoidance of intellectual pride, allows the person of traditional religious faith to work comfortably within the framework of rigorous scientific hypothesis and empiricism.  This is also in keeping with the rationalist approach in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.”

So, what if the Book of Mormon is true, but like the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, we’re “digging in the wrong place?”  I decided to look at one of the radically different geography theories-the Malay theory by Ralph Olsen.  I discovered it in the footnotes of the Wikipedia article on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.  He even has his own section here.  The footnotes list a link to a Sunstone article he did.  (You must open the attachment with the free Adobe Reader.)

In the Sunstone article, he lists his mailing address, so I wrote him a letter.  Ralph Olsen is a retired chemistry professor at Montana State University, with research interests in plants, soils, and microbes.  I asked him why he picked Malay as a possible Book of Mormon location, and he cited several reasons:

(1)    The peninsula is North-south, unlike Sorenson’s east-west orientation

(2)    The problems with animals go away.  Elephants, sheep, horses, etc. all date to the proper time period

(3)    The civilization dates to the proper time period, and has had chariots, iron, silk, etc

(4)    There was a dark-skinned people pre-existing on the peninsula.  If they intermarried with the Lamanites, (while the Nephites did not intermarry) that would explain the “dark and loathsome” comment in the Book of Mormon

(5)    The oceanic travel makes more sense

(6) Alma 63: 5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an ^aexceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land ^bBountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the ^cnarrow neck which led into the land northward.

a.       Traditional Mormon scholars seem to support the idea that Hagoth travelled eastward and populated the Pacific Islands (such as Hawaii, Tonga, etc),

b.      Scholarly consensus indicates that Native Americans came from Asia, hopped across the Pacific Islands (such as Hawaii, Tonga, etc), before arriving in the Americas.  Olsen’s theory seems to be backed up by more scientists

(7)    DNA evidence seems to be better.  I blogged previously about the 12 Tribes of Israel.  As we know from the Book of Mormon, Nephi and Lehi were from the tribe of Manasseh.  Unrelated to this theory, a Jewish documentary filmmaker named Simcha Jacobovici has made the claim that the tribe of Manasseh may be located in the Malay Peninsula in his film “Quest for the Lost Tribes”, which I blogged about previously.

a.       While not endorsing the Malay Theory, Simon Southerton commented on my blog that “I’m not aware of any DNA evidence from South East Asia linking populations there with the Middle East. South East Asia has been heavily populated for tens of thousands of years, with large civilizations. It is possible that Jewish sailors colonized parts of Asia though.”

I know Southerton gets a lot of flak from FARMS and FAIR for his DNA studies.  I know Rodney Meldrum is making some claims that Cohen DNA has been found in the Americas.  However, Southerton says that Meldrum’s work is based on old genetic tests, and is no longer valid.  Southerton’s rebuttal is found here.

Unrelated to this theory, a Jewish documentary filmmaker named Simcha Jacobovici has made the claim that the tribe of Manasseh may be located in the Malay Peninsula in his film “Quest for the Lost Tribes”, which I blogged about previously.  Jacobovici mentions that when Babylon invaded Israel and scattered them in 600 BC, that some of the tribes were taken across land to Malay.  This could seemingly explain how the Mulekites got there, and why the Nephites (who travelled by boat) couldn’t understand them.

There is also a legend in Malay stating that some shipwrecked Jewish people landed there, possibly indicating the Nephites landing there. As we know from the Book of Mormon, Nephi and Lehi were from the tribe of Manasseh.  Jacobovici states in his film that some of the local citizens in Malay claim to be from the Tribe of Manasseh.

Olsen has written a short book called “A More Promising Land of Promise”, which is available for purchase on his own website.  He also sent me a much longer, unpublished manuscript, which goes into further detail, than his published book.  He encourages people to critique his work, so if you have problems with his theories, be kind, but please express them.  My biggest problems with the theory are:

(1)    How did the plates get to New York?  Olsen admits that he doesn’t know-possibly a miracle?  But he also points out that Sorensen doesn’t adequately explain how the 200 lb plates moved from Guatemala 3000 miles north to NY without a wheeled vehicle.

(2)    If the Book of Mormon lands are in Asia, then Joseph’s account that the Book of Mormon contains a record of the inhabitants of the American continent, then Malay is clearly not.  Joseph Smith History 1:34 “[Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.”

a.       Olsen’s argument emphasizes it differently, instead emphasizing “and the source from whence they sprang.” He says the Source is the Malay Peninsula, and that is how to overcome this apparent discrepancy. I can see his point, but I know that is not a traditional understanding of that scripture, and I’m not sure I buy it.

So, what do you think?  Do you have any other major problems with the theory?  Is there anything you like about the theory?

I’m a grad student working on some genetic studies (one of my many jobs).  As part of the genetic study we are doing, we have our study participants tell us their race.  In medical studies, different treatments can affect different races quite dramatically.

I’m designing a database to capture the information for the study.  Many people don’t identify as just one race.  Some are multi-racial, and even put percentages on their forms, such as 50% white, 25% hispanic, 25% black.  So, I was asking questions about how to properly capture the data.

I learned that there are 5 basic races:  White (Caucausian), Black, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander.  As I have discussed on this blog before, genetic studies show that Native Americans are related to Asian peoples.  Simon Southerton seems to have shown that peoples migrated across the Bering Strait, and settled the americas.  But according to one of the genetic specialists (I’ll call her Ann) in my office, there is still a big enough difference between Native Americans to separate them from Asians.  Same goes for Pacific Islanders.

It seems that many people often refer to the Jewish race, or the Arab race.  In some of our previous posts, we talked about the “Cohen” gene, which is a distinguishing gene among people of Jewish descent.  So I asked Ann what race Jews were, and she said “Caucasian.”  She said there is some interesting distinguishing characteristics of Jews, but not so much to call them a separate race.  I asked about Arabs?  “Caucasian.”  Ok, what about people from India?  “Caucasian.”  This one really surprised me (as if the others ones didn’t.)  I would have suspected India Indians to be Asian, but that is wrong.

Hispanic is the truly confusing one, because there are black hispanics, and white hispanics.  If a person is a black hispanic, genetically they are black.  Otherwise, they are Caucasian.

I was truly intrigued to learn all of this.  Then to top it off, I discovered Ann was from Iran.  (She told me it is pronounced ear-ron, not eye-ran, so I will endeavor to pronounce it properly from this point forward.)  Now, I just couldn’t resist asking more questions.

I told her that I had heard that Iranians are not Arabs, and that I never really understood that.  To me, it always seemed like anyone from the Middle East was an Arab.  If Iranians are not Arabs, what are they, and what distinguishes an Arab?

She told me that they refer to themselves as Persians.  I had a college professor who had told me he was Persian, and when I asked him where that was, he said “Iraq.”  So, I asked her if Iraqi’s were also Persians.  She was surprised to hear me tell her than an Iraqi claimed to be Persian, but then decided that it was possible, and then gave me a history lesson.

Persia was once much larger than it is now, and was centered in Iran.  Around 600 AD, the Arabs from Saudi Arabia expanded their kingdom and conquered Persia, converting everyone to Islam.  (Prior to that, the Persian religion was Zoroastrianism.)  Even though the Persians converted to Islam, they never liked the Arab rulers, and a few hundred years later, overthrew them and installed their own kings.

I asked about the differences between Sunni and Shiite (or Shia) muslims.  Shia muslims follow a direct lineage through to the prophet Muhammed.  Sunni’s believe that clerics do not have to be genetically related to Muhammed.  The Sunni line is larger than Shia.  Iran is really the only nation primarily Shia.  Iraq and Sadaam Hussein were ruled by the minority Sunni, but it appears that the Shiite majority is taking control of the government, so there could be a 2nd Shiite nation.  Most other Middle Eastern countries are Sunni.  Perhaps Persia is coming back into existence!

Anyway, Ann told me that Iranians hate to be referred to as Arabs, and identify much more with Europeans.  She told me that Afghanis feel the same way.  She said she knew Americans had a hard time telling the difference, but that people in that part of the world can easily tell the difference between a Persian and an Arab.

Ann has been in America for about a year.  Prior to that, she lived in France.  She said she really liked Utah, and culturally, felt that Utah was quite similar to Iran.  She said families are very important in Iran, and very important in Utah.  She said France was much more secular, and the people weren’t as nice.  (I’ve vacationed in France, and didn’t think they were very nice either.)

Anyway, it was a truly fascinating conversation!  I actually knew a little about Zoroastrianism.  For example,  the star at Jesus birth was discovered by the Wise Men from the East.  Some scholars believe that the Wise Men believed in Zoroastrianism.  (I plan a topic on this as we get closer to Christmas–it is a fascinating topic to me.)  Ann was surprised to hear this.  I also know that there is a mountain in Saudi Arabia called Jebel-Musa which means Mount of Moses.  Some muslim and christian scholars believe that this may be the true location of Mount Sinai, and I think there is some pretty intriguing evidence to support that claim.  (Ann didn’t know that either.)  Anyway, I plan some future posts on that topic as well.

So, did anyone know the difference between a Persian and an Arab?  Do you have any other interesting things to add?

In the introduction to the book, there are several interesting quotes, and he quotes from a book written by Rabbi Moses Maimonides (1135 – 1204 ) called Guide for the Perplexed, which examines the issues of being a religious scientist.

Of course I find some interesting parallels between this jew, looking of the lost tribes, and mormons, looking for the Lamanites.  And it seems my science vs religion, and DNA posts are getting the most comments lately, so I thought I’d tie these topics together.

Here are some interesting quotes from the book.

“Albert Einstein is quoted as having stated that if you cannot explain something to your grandmother, then you probably don’t really understand it….”

“Although writing more than 700 years ago, [Rabbi Moses] Nachmanides’ message is even more clear and relevant today.  His writings directed the person of faith to realize that there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.  Our challenge is to continually study and investigate both realms, with the realization that apparent conflicts are merely artifacts of temporary incomplete understanding in one or both realms.  This avoidance of intellectual pride, allows the person of traditional religious faith to work comfortably within the framework of rigorous scientific hypothesis and empiricism.  This is also in keeping with the rationalist approach in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.”

I plan future topics on Rabbi Kleiman’s DNA analysis of the Cohen gene, and will note that as I quickly skimmed through the book, he does mention “Mormans” claims to the tribe of Manasseh in the Book of Mormon.  As I just started the book, I’m not sure if his analysis is positive, negative, or neutral, but I look forward to reading chapter 5, which more fully addresses this topic.

I’ll stop here for now, and ask for opinions regarding “intellectual pride.” Anybody agree/disagree with any of these rabbis?

But here’s some thoughts anyway. First of all, finding any sort of Hebrew DNA anywhere in the Americas certainly gives critics of the Book of Mormon pause, as it directly refutes some of their arguments. But how important is this discovery?

Let’s talk about the name Cohen first. As I learned from Quest for the Lost Tribes, the name Cohen represents the Tribe of Levi. This is the priesthood tribe. As we go back to the 12 Tribes of Israel, remember that the Tribe of Levi was given no land of inheritance, but was instead granted the priesthood to administer among the other tribes.

Simcha Jacobovichi claims to have found a group of Cohens in Northern Africa, and as the Mormon Times article states, the Lemba Tribe in Southern Africa may be related to this Cohen DNA. (For more info on the Lemba tribe in Africa, you can download an episode of Digging for the Truth for just $2. It is a truly fascinating episode. It took me about an hour to download it on DSL. I liked the episode so much, I purchased seasons 1 and 2 on DVD.)

Anyway, the point is that Lehi was from the Tribe of Manasseh, not Levi. So, while the DNA is Hebrew, it is from the wrong tribe as far as the Book of Mormon is concerned. Will the correct tribe be found someday? Time will tell. If they can find Levi, perhaps they will find Mannaseh at a later date……

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Nephi Project Newsletter

12 May 2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hebrew DNA found in American Indian populations in South America?

Just as George is preparing for his Book of Mormon research expedition to Peru and Bolivia, Scott R. Woodward, executive director of the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation has announced that a DNA marker called “Cohen modal haplotype” has been found in native people in Columbia, Brazil and Bolivia.

Why is this important?

Although Woodward warns about using DNA as evidence for or against the Book of Mormon, it is the first time a Hebrew specific DNA marker has been discovered among native people in the New World.

We encourage you to learn more about this discovery at:

http://mormontimes.com/DB_index.php?id=1064

Keep Exploring,

George Potter & Timothy Sedor   ]]> http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/05/13/hebrew-dna-found-in-south-america/feed/ 15