web 2.0 - what does it really mean?

Great video production out of Kansas State University, put together from professor wesch.

So what is a web 2.0 all about? Content and text. I love opening part of the video, showing the power of digital text...and hypertext. We;'ve never been in shortage of text - just look at the size of any city library, not to mention the library of congress. But the information age began wehn it became available in digital format.

Indian DNA links to 6 'founding mothers'

I wish I had time to be a DNA scientist. I find the subject of DNA and the Book of Mormon very interesting. Maybe because I am a complete laymen when it comes to DNA science, there is not much mystery for me on the subject. In a previous blog (http://mormonfactor.blogspot.com/2007/12/devon.html), I told of how God changed the Laminite skin color and appearance (according to the Book of Mormon, published in 1830). My position, God is an all powerful glorified being. God being the Creator of DNA, can play with it the way my son plays with Lego blocks. When he changed the skin color of the Lamanites, he was changing their DNA. The Jewish blood line died with the last Nephite, Moroni. It's obviously not that easy to many people. If you search "Book of Mormon and DNA" in Google, there are about 1.5 Million links on the subject. I have read many of them, and many are by Mormon Detractors. They try and use DNA science to prove Mormonism wrong. One of those blogs used this article ( http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-03/14/content_6535507.htm ). I read the article five months ago when it came out. If you don't give it much thought, you might think it does NOT support the the Book of Mormon; however, I would beg to differ since this article does nothing but support the Book of Mormon. Let me show you why!

At college we studied the American, Central, and South American tribes. My professor said many of his Mormon friends think they came from Israel. He went on to say that this of course was wrong, and not supported by science. He said they are from Asia, and got to the America's by a land bridge from Russia to Alaska.

If you ever watch the great TV show "Deadliest Catch" on the Discovery Channel, the area in question is the vast ocean that these boats fish Crab out of. This area is known in science as "Beringia" a believed land that is now submerged between Russia and Alaska.
Well back to the point of this. The Indian Mothers DNA article talks about Mitochondria DNA. Below are paragraphs from the article:

"This DNA is found in the mitochondria, the power plants of cells. Unlike the DNA found in the nucleus, mitochondrial DNA is passed along only by the mother. So it follows a lineage that connects a person to his or her mother, then the mother's mother, and so on."

The article goes on to say this also: "The six founding mothers apparently did not live in Asia because the DNA signatures they left behind aren't found there, so they probably lived in Beringia, a now-submerged land bridge that stretched to North America.”

This study first proves that the American Indians DID NOT COME FROM ASIA. This should have been the headline of this article. Obviously it was not, because someone had an agenda. So where does this mitochondria DNA scientist think American Indian Mothers came from? He believes they came from a (so-called and unproven) submerged land between Russia and Alaska called "Beringia". Then he wants you to believe they came from a people that probably (having no evidence whatsoever) lived there. There is more proof that supports the America's were populated by Jewish blood (Aka Lehi's Family), then some made-up civilization that might have lived on some made-up submerged land bridge.

It takes more faith to believe in the people of "Beringia" then the Lamanites and Nephites. For all my LDS friends. When you ask someone where the American Indians came from—and your neighbor, co-worker, friend, and or Professors say they came from Asia... Please tell them about this article and that mitochondria DNA, has prove that theory wrong.

I find it fascinating, the American Indians, Central, and South Americans all have this unique mitochondria DNA signature. It aslo happens to be the same people that the Book of Mormon claim, descend from Lamanites. The same people that the Book of Mormon states had there skin color and appearance changed by God. I obviously believe God had to change there DNA, to change there skin color, and appearance. If I understand this article correctly, this mitochondria DNA is found in no other people, especially not Asians! If you ask me, this unique mitochondria DNA is God's fingerprints from his work with the Lamanites.

The second point that this article talks about the 6 American Indian DNA mothers which go back 18,000 to 21,000 years ago. This is too old for them to be related to Lehi's family. This number was arrived by the statistics of how often the Mitochondria DNA mutates, then developing a formula. Using that formula they go backwards until they get to the 6 DNA mothers spoken about. This is one formula to use, if you base it on the assumptions of science. Instead, if you started with a different hypothesis, that being of course the Lamanites when they had their skin color changed... this formula is useless, and has no effects on the belief of the Book of Mormon.

Devo

Hugh Hewitt on Missionary Service

Yesterday 8/7/08, I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show. There was a quote from Sen. Barrack Obama on why he was running for President. Obama said he believed "America was not as great as it used to be". Obama wants to be the one to restore America to it's former greatness. It's hard to know what Obama meant by that statement. What was this hay day for America that has passed. He hardly ever gives an example of his views. Obama's and my ideas of what makes America great, have to be complete opposites. I only wonder what time was America great to Obama. Was America better back in the 1950's before the civil rights laws where passed. I would think he must have been thinking of Ronald Reagan's America, a "shinning city upon the hill". Chances are he doesn't look to Reagan as an example of American greatness. He might have been thinking of Clinton's 90's, but he spent the whole primary ripping on it's success.

Hugh Hewitt's response to this quote was to point out how America was still great. The first example he brought up was Mormon Missionary's. He went on to explain how earlier that day, he had met two LDS return Missionary's. He spoke in praise of how tens of thousands of Missionary's every year leave their homes. He was impressed that they choose to go help strangers around the world. He was obviously very impressed by these return Missionary's in their early 20's. I was impressed that his first example of why America is still great was, Mormon Missionary's. Hugh went on to give other examples, and they were all good too. I am thank full those two return Missionary's served a mission, and spoke of the experience to Hugh. Our Missionary's are truly our ambassador's to the world.

Archaeological Evidence

Well my 6 months of mourning are over. My predictions for Mitt in California Primary were so off, I have decided to never predict anything dealing with politics again. I have little hope of Mitt becoming the next Vice President. I decided to move on, put my shoulder to the wheel, and begin to Blog. I love to write about Mormonism, and pop culture. So it's time for me to get back to it.

I was listing to one of my favorite mediums of pop culture, Talk Radio the other day. I don't like to argue a point here without a clear quote from what was said. But I was driving the freeway, and I could not write it down, so please forgive me. It was on the Michael Medved program. The conversation was on Obama, and the Rev. Wright controversy. The conversation was something along this line. How could somebody be involved in a church for 10 years, and not know what the pastor was saying.... especially when those words were against your principals.

So a gentleman calls up, and tells Michael Medved that he(Michael Medved) supported Mitt Romney in the primaries( Michael Medved really supported John McCain, One of the few who did. He did not support Mitt. Though He did have very kind words for Romney sometimes! ). He said support for Mitt, was not that much different then support for Obama. The man went on to say, the reason they are similar is because of all the Archaeological Evidence that has been found that contradicts Mormonism. His point, someone that belives that nonsense( LDS faith, in the face of new "archaeological Evidence), should not be taken serious as a candidate. WOW, I was blown away, I really wanted to know what he was thinking. Of course Michael Medved, being a devout Jew... Is not the best person to defend Mormonism. Sadly, Michael did not ask the man for a example of this "Archaeological Evidence". The statement just went as a cheap shot to the doctrine of the Mormon church.

The man did not say Biblical, DNA, Carbon Dating, Astrological, or Geothermal Evidence...... All of which might have given him more credibility. He choose to say modern "Archaeological Evidence" proved Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, and thus the LDS faith wrong.

This is the kind of thing that just strengthens my testimony of Joseph Smith, and the truth fullness of the Book of Mormon. Joseph writes of a vast civilisation in South America and publishes it to the world in 1830. He did NOT write that this civilization was at the North Pole, South Pole. That would have lead in time to "Archaeological Evidence" against his writings. He wrote instead of a vast civilization in South America. An area that in 1830, to a twenty five year old boy in New York, was not much more foreign and extreme as the North Pole is to us today. I know many of his detractors would say, a poor farm boy in New York had plenty of information about the ancient civilizations in South America. I would take issue with that assumption, but lets just say he new EVERYTHING!!! that had been discovered, written, spoken, and known about the ancient civilizations in South America in 1830. The discovery's since 1830 in South America are amazing. They are certainly "Archaeological Evidence" supporting the Book of Mormon, not detracting from it. One of the most popular is Peru's Machu Picchu, found in 1911.

Machu Picchu was found eighty one years after the Book of Mormon was published. I am researching all the discovery's in South America since the year 1830. They are vast, and amazing! I am sure some people are not impressed by Joseph Smiths prophetic vision of ancient civilizations in South America. I do say this, if the discovery's since 1830 where not in his favor, we would hear about it from them everyday. It's bad enough, that when he was prophetic, we still hear "Archaeological Evidence" proves him wrong. All this in the face of such incredible Archaeological Evidence in his favor, makes you only wonder about his detractors motives.

MITT ROMNEY Wins California Primary 2/4/2008

The Mormon Factor predicts Mitt Romney will win California tomorrow, on Super Tuesday. As you can see, I have posted todays Real Clear Politics.com polling average and polls. I am blogging to show that Romney is predicted to lose the California primary tomorrow. However, I think the reason Romney will win tomorrow is because of the "Mormon Factor".

Where being Mormon has hurt Romney in the East Coast Primaries, the "Mormon Factor" has helped him as he has moved toward western states, such as Nevada (which was credited to Romney because of the "Mormon Factor"). On the same side, I would also place Romney in that category when it comes to the votes in Wyoming since it is right next to Utah and Idaho. For many, California, being on the left coast, is not seen as a Mormon strong hold. However, in a Republican Primary, there is definitely a "Mormon Factor" in California. As you can see, I have listed my numbers below with my predictions.

California:

1. 750,000 Mormons in California.

2. 1/3 of them are under 18, so we have 495,000 left over

3. 75% are Conservative, so we have 375,000 left over

4. 75% of the Conservatives will vote for Romney, leaves 278,437 (others for McCain, Ron Paul)

6. 65% of whom will actually turn out to vote, that leaves 180,984 votes for Romney.

In a national election, 180,984 votes would not normally mean much. However, in a tight Republican Primary, in California, it will make a big difference. In Nevada, the population is 8% Mormon. That eight percent, is actually 20% of the total vote in Nevada. Because of a strong civic duty, preached by the Mormon faith, Mormons vote at a much higher rate than the national average. I believe because of this, The "Mormon Factor" will push Mitt to a 5% win in California.

Devo
info@mormonfactor.com