Any genetic evidence for Mormonism?

[Paul_G]

No, not absolute proof. A universal negative can not be proven at all. It is merely evidence. As time goes on, though, and genetic science gives more insight into the the relationships of ancient peoples, it becomes more compelling that the Book of Mormon records events that never really happened. The Mormon Church will have to spin this error somehow, but that’s been done before. The Millerites, instead of admitting they were wrong after Jesus did not return on their schedule (1874) came out of the debacle as the Seventh Day Adventist. Then Jehovah Witnesses said Jesus would return in 1914, then with in a generation of 1914, then soon. There are even some who spun the disappointment to a secret return of Jesus to explain why we are still here posting away.

I am just curious as time goes on how Mormon leaders will respond to genetic evidence.

Can you point me to any Genetic research with the aim of studying the validity of the stories found within the Book of Mormon? To my knowledge no such work has been done. It is not good science to use the research results on one thesis to support a similar but related one.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

But the discussion here is not about cultural artifacts, it is about DNA evidence. These are very different things.

Tell that to Chris Wa, I responded to the question posed to me.
Paul

 

[Jerusha]

Are you familiar with Simon Southerton’s “Losing a Lost Tribe”? That is the basic text for DNA and the Book of Mormon. None was found.

 

[pnewton]

Can you point me to any Genetic research with the aim of studying the validity of the stories found within the Book of Mormon?

Not that I know of. That is why I asked the original question. A universal negative may not be provable, but the presence of Semitic genes in native Americans should be. As the science of genetics ages and data accrues, I would think that the people of the Book of Mormon should be proven, that is, if the story was true.

 

[Chris-WA]

Yes, we knew it was Egypt, that there were mummies, buildings, artefacts, etc. We knew they were Egyptian because there was a continuance known history of the area. How ever we did not know anything of the culture. Culture is not in the things, but what people do with the things - This we had no knowledge of. If we had just stumbled on to all the things you noted without any prior knowledge of them, and no rosetta stone we would not have any knowledge what so ever about this lost culture and would be left to speculate as to their meaning.

I’m sorry, but that’s just not correct. Archeologists can tell a lot of things about a culture from the objects they find, especially from the art. Saying that we would have no knowledge whatsoever about their culture were it not for finding the Rosetta stone is simply not true.

The point of this little discussion we’re having over the lasts couple of posts is this–you are correct in saying that lack of proof does not abolutely prove something did not exist, but at some point one has to inject some reasonableness into the process and gradually make your way towards a reasonable conclusion. To this date, and not for lack of looking, nothing has been found in support of the existence of the BoM peoples. No city, no building, no art, no writing, no place names–nothing. And now DNA science has forced the LDS church to admit that the Lamanites are not necessarily the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. But it’s worse than that–DNA science is gradually working its way (and is probably already there) to showing that Native Americans share no genetic markers whatsoever with people from ancient Palestine. So now BoM supporters have a real issue here to deal with. How can it be that the BoM claims of its peoples’ origins are true if Native Americans have no genetic connection to ancient Israel?

Yes, the lack of evidence does not prove a negative, but reasonableness demands that as time goes on, and no trace of the BoM peoples are found (even though LDS research groups are continually looking), and what point does one admit that they never existed, but are merely the imagination of the BoM author(s)?

I firmly believe that science and religion are compatible, and that good science will lead to some truths found within Christianity. The historical validity of the bible is a great example of how science does gradually work its way toward proving certain historical elements found in the bible. Science will never prove that Christ was resurrected–certain basic Christian beliefs like that totally depend upon faith. But unlike the bible, the BoM has absolutely no scientific support whatsoever of any kind. What happened to all those people? Did they leave nothing behind in evidence of their existence? Where is their writing, their language, their cities, their artifacts? How could they write a 600 page BoM, but leave no other writing behind whatsover to show they ever existed? For the thinking Mormon, this should cause some concern.

 

[Paul_G]

I’m sorry, but that’s just not correct. Archeologists can tell a lot of things about a culture from the objects they find, especially from the art. Saying that we would have no knowledge whatsoever about their culture were it not for finding the Rosetta stone is simply not true.

Only the expressions of culture are conveyed by such things, not the heart, mind, knowledge, beliefs, or reasons for beliefs.

The point of this little discussion we’re having over the lasts couple of posts is this–you are correct in saying that lack of proof does not abolutely prove something did not exist, but at some point one has to inject some reasonableness into the process and gradually make your way towards a reasonable conclusion. To this date, and not for lack of looking, nothing has been found in support of the existence of the BoM peoples. No city, no building, no art, no writing, no place names–nothing. And now DNA science has forced the LDS church to admit that the Lamanites are not necessarily the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. But it’s worse than that–DNA science is gradually working its way (and is probably already there) to showing that Native Americans share no genetic markers whatsoever with people from ancient Palestine. So now BoM supporters have a real issue here to deal with. How can it be that the BoM claims of its peoples’ origins are true if Native Americans have no genetic connection to ancient Israel?

To test any scientific hypothesis, we must determine if the controls of the research are valid. For example would modern Jewish genes be the base line to compare against Native American genes. If so we must determine the probability that they are representative of ancient Jewish genes. I think with all the upheavals in Jewish population movements from 600BC till now, I’m not sure this can be established. So what we are left with is withdrawing bits and pieces of information that may support your position, from studies designed to test an unrelated thesis. This is not good science, but it is good for polemics.

Yes, the lack of evidence does not prove a negative, but reasonableness demands that as time goes on, and no trace of the BoM peoples are found (even though LDS research groups are continually looking), and what point does one admit that they never existed, but are merely the imagination of the BoM author(s)?

When that person’s faith fails them.

I firmly believe that science and religion are compatible,

Sometimes

and that good science will lead to some truths found within Christianity.

I agree

The historical validity of the bible is a great example of how science does gradually work its way toward proving certain historical elements found in the bible.

I must disagree, only the infrastructure has been uncovered not the history. I do not believe the Bible or the Book of Mormon to be historical documents. They are religious writings communicating to us our Father’s will and plan for us.

Science will never prove that Christ was resurrected–certain basic Christian beliefs like that totally depend upon faith. But unlike the bible, the BoM has absolutely no scientific support whatsoever of any kind. What happened to all those people? Did they leave nothing behind in evidence of their existence? Where is their writing, their language, their cities, their artifacts?

Only a small portion of the ruins that are known to day have been studied, not to mention those that may yet be found. The study of these lands is only beginning. To early I think to speak in absolute terms.

How could they write a 600 page BoM, but leave no other writing behind whatsover to show they ever existed? For the thinking Mormon, this should cause some concern.

These writings where complied from a private collection of religious writings handed from father to Son, or one leader to another. Perhaps the source material will be found one day, after all, it took a young boy, after 2000 years, to find the dead sea scrolls.

Paul

 

[pnewton]

I do not believe the Bible or the Book of Mormon to be historical documents. They are religious writings communicating to us our Father’s will and plan for us.

I am curious to see over the next couple if the LDS shift opinion on the Book of Mormon to where historical validity is not only unnecessary, but not to be expected. I hate to use the word myth because of the connotation, but more of a parable.

 

[Paul_G]

I am curious to see over the next couple if the LDS shift opinion on the Book of Mormon to where historical validity is not only unnecessary, but not to be expected. I hate to use the word myth because of the connotation, but more of a parable.

I believe not any more than to the extent that we need physical evidence of the Exodus or the 40 years of wondering in the desert to believe it to be true as well. What is of more importance to me about the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, is what it contains. The critics of the Bible will always find some inconsistency to argue, just as critics of the Book of Mormon will. Since such people can not criticize the message of the Book of Mormon, that Jesus is the Christ, they turn to inconsequential arguments.

Paul

 

[pnewton]

I believe not any more than to the extent that we need physical evidence of the Exodus or the 40 years of wondering in the desert to believe it to be true as well.

But one would not expect to still see footprints in the desert sands. The genetic markers of American natives do reveal their origins. So far, it points to the land bridge from Siberia, not Jews. If the Lamanites existed, it will become evident. I am surprised that if the LDS really had confidence in the story, that they have not tried to prove this.

 

[zagjames]

Yes, we knew it was Egypt, that there were mummies, buildings, artefacts, etc. We knew they were Egyptian because there was a continuance known history of the area. How ever we did not know anything of the culture. Culture is not in the things, but what people do with the things - This we had no knowledge of. If we had just stumbled on to all the things you noted without any prior knowledge of them, and no rosetta stone we would not have any knowledge what so ever about this lost culture and would be left to speculate as to their meaning.

Paul

We would know plenty about there culture from the neighboring cultures. We know stuff about the egyptians from the jews and the greeks and the romans. etc. So shouldnt we know about the BoM people from indian groups in n. america?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am just curious as time goes on how Mormon leaders will respond to genetic evidence.

They already have. It used to be that the mormon church taught that all Native Americans, North to South, and all Polynesians were “Lamanites”. They no longer claim this and now teach that once, there were descendants of the Book of Mormon people, just they don’t know who they were for sure and who knows why there is no evidence. DNA, archaeological, cultural, it all just somehow disappeared.

The Mormon church recently changed the intro to their Book of Mormon, to match this changed teaching.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, we knew it was Egypt, that there were mummies, buildings, artefacts, etc. We knew they were Egyptian because there was a continuance known history of the area. How ever we did not know anything of the culture. Culture is not in the things, but what people do with the things - This we had no knowledge of. If we had just stumbled on to all the things you noted without any prior knowledge of them, and no rosetta stone we would not have any knowledge what so ever about this lost culture and would be left to speculate as to their meaning.

Paul

There are plenty of cultural and daily life sort of references in the Book of Mormon, and they didn’t exist, pre-Columbian. You know the list, I am sure. Metal swords, horses, etc.

And it seems that only the people who wrote on metal plates and buried them knew how to write, as no writings like Smith’s scratchings have ever been found. There are thousands of examples of Egyptian writings, many that were found long before the discovery of the rosetta stone.

 

[Jerusha]

There are plenty of cultural and daily life sort of references in the Book of Mormon, and they didn’t exist, pre-Columbian. You know the list, I am sure. Metal swords, horses, etc.

However, the Vikings had swords, fine cloth, European livestock on Greenland, stone houses and churches, etc.

And it seems that only the people who wrote on metal plates and buried them knew how to write, as no writings like Smith’s scratchings have ever been found. There are thousands of examples of Egyptian writings, many that were found long before the discovery of the rosetta stone.

Smith’s scratchings vaguely resemble the symbols of Sequoyah’s syllabary, possibly copied from memory. In addition, there is the use of the prefix ani- which, according to Robert Conley, Cherokee novelist, is the plural prefix in that language. On the page next to that usage, there is the use of the prefix anti- which makes no sense in the English “opposed to”, but makes perfect sense as “ani”, the plural prefix. (Don’t make me look up the exact place at this moment, Gutenberg Project can find it for you)

 

[Chris-WA]

To test any scientific hypothesis, we must determine if the controls of the research are valid. For example would modern Jewish genes be the base line to compare against Native American genes. If so we must determine the probability that they are representative of ancient Jewish genes. I think with all the upheavals in Jewish population movements from 600BC till now, I’m not sure this can be established. So what we are left with is withdrawing bits and pieces of information that may support your position, from studies designed to test an unrelated thesis. This is not good science, but it is good for polemics.

Actually not true. Geneticists can determine, with a very high degree of probability, such lineages based on modern DNA samples of Native Americans. We’re not talking about finding one individual in a criminal case based on DNA. We’re talking about large populations, and the genetic research is more and more, day by day, pointing to the conclusion that Native Americans are decended almost exclusively from Siberian (Asian) populations. There is almost no trace of Middle Eastern (don’t limit yourself to modern-day Jewish) DNA whatsoever. Geneticists are able to group DNA into families that are traceable way back before BoM times. You are not qualified, nor am I, to say that what they have done is “not good science.” Let’s leave it up to the scientists.

When that person’s faith fails them.

That’s not a bad thing if what the person had faith in turns out to be a hoax.

I

must disagree, only the infrastructure has been uncovered not the history. I do not believe the Bible or the Book of Mormon to be historical documents. They are religious writings communicating to us our Father’s will and plan for us.

Of course they’re not historical documents, but they do contain historical people, places, and events, and in some cases science can be used to either support or refute those historical elements. Please don’t try to reduce the BoM to religious allegory in order to avoid facing the fact that some of its claims can be scientifically tested. Now, in the case of the bible, I will restate that science, archeology in particular, has provided supportive data that certain places and peoples existed, just as the bible claims. And, I will say again, when it comes to the BoM, the exact opposite is true.

Only a small portion of the ruins that are known to day have been studied, not to mention those that may yet be found. The study of these lands is only beginning. To early I think to speak in absolute terms.

Very well, but this I can say this with absolute certainty–no evidence verifying a place, person, or event from the BoM has ever been found–none, nada, zip. So I guess FARMS can keep looking, but sooner or later as more places are searched and nothing turns up, sooner or later the LDS Church is going to have to decide if they wish to keep proclaiming the BoM as true history or instead change it to religious allegory only.

These writings where complied from a private collection of religious writings handed from father to Son, or one leader to another. Perhaps the source material will be found one day, after all, it took a young boy, after 2000 years, to find the dead sea scrolls.

You’re not getting what I’m saying. I wouldn’t require an archeologist to find Mormon and Moroni’s “private collection” of BoM source material in order to show some evidence for the BoM. What is utterly mystifying is that Mormon and Moroni seem to have left the only writing of the entire Nephite and Lamanite civilizations. Do you get how utterly untenable that is? Does it make any sense that Mormon and Moroni were the only two individuals in the history of the Nephite people to write anything down? Because that’s where we are–no other writing at all from either the Lamanites or the Nephites, not to mention any other artifacts.

 

[BartBurk]

We don’t have to find something saying, “Moroni was here” to make the Book of Mormon plausible. All we need is some evidence indicating there was a major civilization living by Jewish law and descended from Hebrews. That should be easy to find if it really happened, but there is no evidence for that anywhere.

 

[Jerusha]

And evidence that the basic story is derived from the Viking invasion clinches the argument that there were no Hebrews involved. None.

 

[Brian_C]

Speaking as an American archaeologist, I can tell you that no, there is no material evidence to support the claims of the LDS. Genetic evidence is one thing and material remains of a great Pre-Columbian culture are another. Archaeologists in North America are in the midst of rethinking the traditional models of the peopling of the Western Hemisphere. But tracking the origins of bands of nomadic hunter gatherers (whether they came by land or sea, what routes, where from, and how fast) is not the same as the claim that there is a whole advanced civilization out there that has been missed.

Smith’s ideas came in large part from the prevalent (and quite racist) belief of the day that the mounds spread over Eastern North America were far too sophisticated and exquisite to have been produced by the “shiftless, savage” Indians that were being subjugated across the continent. Rather, there was a belief that a mythical, mystical mound building culture once existed in North America that was perhaps descended from the Egyptian pyramid builders.

Forgive me if I step on the toes of any LDS on the forum, and I know this is where everyone will chime in that we once didn’t believe X or Y or Z and now at long last there’s proof. But to argue that an entire advanced Old World Bronze or Iron Age culture of the magnitude suggested by the Book of Mormon has been overlooked…well, that’s hard to swallow.

 

[PaulDupre]

These writings where complied from a private collection of religious writings handed from father to Son, or one leader to another. Perhaps the source material will be found one day, after all, it took a young boy, after 2000 years, to find the dead sea scrolls.

Paul

But Paul,
We know from the BoM itself that the Nephites were a literate culture and that the scriptures were widely read:

Now these sons of Mosiah were with Alma at the time the angel first appeared unto him; therefore Alma did rejoice exceedingly to see his brethren; and what added more to his joy, they were still his brethren in the Lord; yea, and they had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God. (Alma 17:2)

And behold, ye do know of yourselves, for ye have witnessed it, that as many of them as are brought to the knowledge of the truth, and to know of the wicked and abominable traditions of their fathers, and are led to believe the holy scriptures, yea, the prophecies of the holy prophets, which are written, which leadeth them to faith on the Lord, and unto repentance, which faith and repentance bringeth a change of heart unto them— (Hel 15:7)

There are many more examples but this should suffice. If the Nephites produced a great deal of written material, especially scripture, then we should expect to find examples of scripture passages engraved in the ruins of cities, or on monuments and temples.

We should also find many examples of commercial transactions such as bills of lading, bills of sale and contracts committed to writing in Hebrew or some variation thereof, as one finds all over the Middle East in the native languages of that area from much older periods than the BoM times.

The complete lack of evidence for the Nephite culture belies any credibility for the Book of Mormon or for Joseph Smith.

Paul

 

[Jerusha]

But to argue that an entire advanced Old World Bronze or Iron Age culture of the magnitude suggested by the Book of Mormon has been overlooked…well, that’s hard to swallow.

Absolutely impossible to swallow. Joseph and friends let their imaginations run wild to develop that book on such minimal evidence as Native stories of pre-Columbian history. The only evidence that lines up with any details of the story is that of the Vikings. And that lines up quite well.

 

[justinthemartyr]

yes, wishful thinking at best. Have you ever read the book of mormon? It is like a 7th grader read the Bible and then made up their own new strories. Read the book of Moroni, it is hilarious. Especially the parts about infant baptism. I got a huge laugh in my bosom over that, and then my face was burning from the laughter. and they told me I would get a burning in my bosom. sounds like heartburn. how would you know the difference? I wonder if they give away a roll of rolaids with the book just in case?