LOL, hey I love cans of worms, sometimes. I kind of know Southerton through a foundation we both belong to. Never met him in person, just have exchanged posts on the foundation's bulletin board. Interesting that he had been inactive for over 7 years and they suddenly decided to haul him in. I have some friends whose husbands either currently are or recently have been in a bishopric. They all said they've never seen inactives hauled in for a church court, and even with active members they rarely excommunicate for sexual conduct unless the person was in a high profile leadership position in the church at the time of the offense. Usually the most they will do to a regular joe member is maybe disfellowship them, they said. I'm told that the handbook used by bishoprics says that a church court MUST be convened for apostasy and MAY be convened for sexual misconduct. However, I've never been a bishop and seen the handbook myself so I'm just going on what friends' husbands have told me. I'm still not sure why Southerton didn't just officially resign his membership a while ago. But from what I've gotten from his postings he was actually wanting the LDS church to bring up apostasy charges against him. He thought if he could get ex-ed on charges of apostasy that it would make the LDS church have to face the music a bit when it comes to science and the BOM. I think his motives were actually honorable for the most part. He just wants people to see the truth about things and then if they choose to stay members they are doing so knowing all the facts instead of having a lot of facts repressed because they might not be considered "faith promoting." Having read a number of original journals and letters written by those involved with the LDS church's beginnings myself, I will say that what the church puts forth as official history to its members and what these journals and letters say about the same dates and events - well often the 2 just don't match up. For scholars, this is a big deal - they are all about having unedited facts to make decisions from and think that everyone wants or needs this, when in reality everyone doesn't actually want or need that. But for me these things are not worth getting into arguments about because like, whatever. I've spent a good deal of my life studying various religious philosophies and histories and the conclusions I've come to are that all religions are man made. There is no one church that is any better than another or has any more of an "in" with a God than any other. But even though they are man made, they CAN be institutions that do a lot of good in society through sponsoring community service and encouraging their members to be charitable. And they tend to be good social organizations for people. I think if everyone truly understood what basic Christian values (and I think even basic Islamic values are peaceful and tolerant) really are, we wouldn't have people thinking they are superior and thinking their way is the only way and everyone else is an evil sinner. There would be more tolerance and acceptance in the world. So I really don't care what religion (if any) someone wants to believe in, they are all made up as far as I'm concerned, but so what? If believing in a personal God and a religion helps someone else feel they have more purpose or meaning in their life, I really don't see the harm. I don't personally need that but I wouldn't make fun of someone who does just as I hope someone else wouldn't make fun of my need to not have more than 2 people sharing a bathroom, absurd as that comparison may be to some. I just care whether someone is a nice, good, honest person who respects the laws of the land, doesn't try to hurt other people and respects others' rights to their own beliefs. I think Pope John Paul II had a good approach to religion and science. I can't remember what he said exactly, I think Rich may have posted it a while back. Maybe he can repost it. I hope the new pope will continue to advance what Pope John Paul II started. Back to DNA, I am actually participating in that worldwide genographic project sponsored by National Geographic, IBM, & the Waitt Family Foundation. https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ The story is my great-grandmother (mom's dad's mom) was an Algonquin Indian princess who was adopted by a white family as a child back in the mid 1800s. The pictures we have of her, she definitely looks Native American, so does my Grandpa. And we have some of the Native American traits on my mom's side of the family, primarily the almond shaped eyes. I and some of my cousins often got asked if we were part Asian as teens (when we were younger and thinner). Anyhow, no one is 100% certain this story is true, or if Grandpa was just pulling everyone's leg. So I decided to see if any of my deep ancestry comes back as Asian (since we know the Native Americans tested thus far show deep ancestry from Asia). Hopefully my DNA is not dilluted enough already for those markers to be picked up by this project if they are there at all. We've been lamenting that we can't get ahold of either my great-grandma's or my grandfather's DNA to send in for testing as they'd be much closer to the pure source, but my grandpa would be 135 if he were still alive. And there's some "pontificating" for you. Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote: --- Patrick Wiggins wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7801

Not to open up a can-of-worms in this Utah astronomy listserv, apparently that other major local religion has an analogous problem with differences between faith-based beliefs and scientific fact - http://sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2915347 - Canopus56(Kurt) --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

OK. I still am not totally sure how that works. I wondered about the mitochondrial DNA since the supposed Native American blood goes through me, my mom, her dad, then his mom. For some reason I got the impression that the mitochondrial stuff might trace back through me, my mom, her mom, etc. down that line. But that doesn't make a lot of sense either, since it would leave out my mom's dad's side. I need to read more about genetics so I understand this stuff better. They had me send 2 samples, I should read the book they sent with my kit more carefully, maybe that would help. Or maybe if someone here has studied that part of genetics they could enlighten me when they have time. I just read an interesting tidbit in the August National Mensa Bulletin. They have a bit from Science Now online, May 24, 2005. "Americas Peopled by One Tribe?" (PLoS biology online) Experts think the American continents were first populated around 14,000 years ago. But who did it? And, how many of them were there? Using DNA samples from modern Native Americans and Asians, a new computer model suggests a founding group as small as 210 people with only 70 breeding individuals. These numbers make many researchers skeptical, because such a small group would have been in danger of extinction. Also, studies based on blood markers suggest a breeding population of 100 to 1,000 individuals in the founding group. Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote: Remember that mitochondrial DNA is passed-on unchanged through the female line- you should be able to get a definitive answer. --- South Jordan Mom wrote:

Hopefully my DNA is not dilluted enough already for those markers to be picked up by this project if they are there at all.

____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page