Comments about ‘DNA tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants’

So let me see if I have grasped the Mormon view on this.

DNA science is believed in and supported when you are trying to trace Joseph Smith's descendants, but it is hopelessly flawed when it shows that American Indians were NOT (Hebrew) Lamanites?

Is that about it?

The article is flawed in that it omits descriptions of the source DNA for Buell and Hancock. If we are offered, say a single g-g-grandson of Oiver Buell as the source of the Y-chromosome used for comparison, then the only thing proven is that individual is not a descendant of Joseph Smith. If, on the other hand, Olver Buell had two sons, and direct male descendants of each were shown to have identical DNA sequences different from Smith descedants (I accept the proof of JS's Y-chromosome), then that would constitute strong proof.

Joseph Smith said he wasn't a polygamist. Emma said he wasn't a polygamist. His sons said he wasn't a polygamist. Maybe they were telling the truth. Now there are five more reasons to believe him:
Mosiah Hancock
Oliver Buell
Moroni Llewellyn Pratt
Zebulon Jacobs
Orrison Smith

I recently left the RLDS that Smith's direct descendants are with and this happens. It's enough to make me wonder if I made a mistake leaving the RLDS. I probably won't go back though.

ZEBULON JACOBS was the clerk of the Joseph Rawlins wagon train of 1868. (one of the last wagon trains carrying pioneers to Utah before the railroad was completed in 1869) My grandparents, Isaac and Ruth Blair and their children (including my father, Albert Edward Blair, age 2 at the time) were on that wagon train. I have been interested in Zeb Jacob's history since becoming aware of these facts of his life. I never dreamed Joseph Smith was thought to be his biological father until reading about the DNA testing in the Deseret News. I'm glad his actual paternity has been cleared up.
(signed) Ken Blair. I am the youngest known son of any original Utah Pioneer. (age 74 at this writing, Nov. 16, 2007) kghblair@yahoo.com

response to "Anonymous 5:38 a.m. Nov.11,2007",

Joe publicly denied his participation in polygamy, which was illegal in the US stemming from English common law since the time of King Edward I, and thereafter specified in state law (eg: Sec 121, Revised Laws of Illinois 1833). Yet there's way too much evidence from multiple first hand collaborative sources to believe his denials. My favorite denial was Joe's response to the indictment initiated by William Law on May 23,1844 in Carthage of adultery and bigamy, specifically referencing his marriage to 15 year old $8000aire Maria Lawrence(wife#27 -- Brodie). Joe replied 3 days later "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one." (Maybe in his mind he wasn't lying. 7!=27 after all...)

AoF 12
We believe in being subject to _rulers_... in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law -- except when it hinders our semi-fearless /leader /Lt.General /Mayor /Judge /King-of-the-Kingdom-of-God /apostle /first elder/ prophet /seer /revelator /Master Mason /and so forth in personally benefiting sexually, economically, socially & politically thru mormonism + bigamy.
See also AoF #13.

My understanding about DNA is that the further back in time you go the less accurate it is. Josesph Smith is less back in time than the people of the Book of Mormon so yes it is reasonable to assume DNA about Joseph Smith is more reasonable. For all you Evangelicals who howl and scream than DNA proves the Book of Mormon false does not it also prove your views on the Bible as false since it proves Adam was not the first man? DNA says humans have been around way before Adam. I am sick of the inconsistency of Evangelicals. Mormons may be wrong about some things but SO ARE EVANGELICALS. We need to stop giving Evangelicals and Protestants a free ride. They too have made mistakes.

Y-DNA is very useful in identifying a person's paternal ancestry, but ONLY the paternal ancestry. A man's Y chromosome will match his father's, his father's father's, and so on. However, the Y DNA reveals only 1/16th of one's ancestry in the 4th generation back (i.e., ancestors born around 1845 for the average person born in 1960), 1/256th of one's ancestry in the eighth generation (i.e., those born about 1730), 1/4096ths of the 12th generation (i.e., those born about 1615), 1/65,536th of the 16th generation, and so forth. Thus, to expect Y DNA testing to explain a substantial part of one's ancestry back 1500 or 2000 years is folly (to say nothing of mutations or societal upheavals where men are killed off en masse and their women taken by the conquerors).

Where Joseph Smith is concerned, and one is tracking descent purely in the male line, the Y DNA clears up some issues that had been confused for a very long time. It's nice to see at least some of Fawn Brodie's ravings firmly and finally shredded.