DNA Vs Mormonism

[MelanieAnne]

I’m all up for talking about DNA evidence sadly most of what has been discussed here is religious belief in a DNA fad.

Mitochondrial (sp ?) DNA is not a fad. That’s what’s been discussed. That it may be new, unfamiliar or hard for some people to understand, or that it may adversely affect the Book of Mormon story, does not make it a fad.

Belittling the evidence does not advance your position.

 

[teancum79]

Mitochondrial (sp ?) DNA is not a fad. That’s what’s been discussed. That it may be new, unfamiliar or hard for some people to understand, or that it may adversely affect the Book of Mormon story, does not make it a fad.

Belittling the evidence does not advance your position.

I’m simply pointing out the logical flaws in what is being promoted as hard facts.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m simply pointing out the logical flaws in what is being promoted as hard facts.

When are you going to do that?

 

[teancum79]

When are you going to do that?

Several times I know it s hard for highly religious people to look at their beliefs from any other approach, but I’ve posted several issues with the “scientific” claims being made here.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Several times I know it s hard for highly religious people to look at their beliefs from any other approach, but I’ve posted several issues with the “scientific” claims being made here.

I’m not sure what you mean. If you are describing yourself as a “highly religious” person that is having trouble looking at your belief from another approach, then, yes, there has been evidence of that.

I’ve seen no refutation of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the Book of Mormon story is factual, based on DNA patterns. I’ve seen complaints about conclusions drawn from the absence of DNA in the population to confirm the Book of Mormon story, but nothing that rises to the level of factually or analytically refuting the scientific data presented.

 

[teancum79]

I’m not sure what you mean. If you are describing yourself as a “highly religious” person that is having trouble looking at your belief from another approach, then, yes, there has been evidence of that.

I’ve seen no refutation of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the Book of Mormon story is factual, based on DNA patterns. I’ve seen complaints about conclusions drawn from the absence of DNA in the population to confirm the Book of Mormon story, but nothing that rises to the level of factually or analytically refuting the scientific data presented.

As I’m sure I’ve stated many times before the “science” is flawed. We can’t test it outside its base assumptions. Genetic markers are not 100% (which seems to have been missed by many here)

Yet what I keep seeing is a repeated that science has proven the BoM is false. Attacks on Joseph Smith and a lot of denying of the historical evidence that supports the BoM. (Is not history a really big thing in the CC?)

I am not the one who can’t see past my own religious thoughts for 5 mineute to look at evidence at hand.

 

[MelanieAnne]

As I’m sure I’ve stated many times before the “science” is flawed. We can’t test it outside its base assumptions. Genetic markers are not 100% (which seems to have been missed by many here)

Yet what I keep seeing is a repeated that science has proven the BoM is false. Attacks on Joseph Smith and a lot of denying of the historical evidence that supports the BoM. (Is not history a really big thing in the CC?)

I am not the one who can’t see past my own religious thoughts for 5 mineute to look at evidence at hand.

I submit that anyone who rejects the science as “flawed” does not understand the science in question. There has been no credible refutation of the science presented.

The Book of Mormon is false, for a variety of reasons and indeed, it is the array of reasons, from a variety of aspects, that works to confirm that conclusion. But years of the mantra of the Mormon church may dull the ability for many people to think critically about the subject. You yourself have stated that even unequivocal proof that it was false would not deter you from your current spiritual path, so it is a mystery why anyone with that opinion would care about the truth or falseness of the Book of Mormon anyway.

It is ironic that you would suggest that anyone might not be able to see past their own religious thoughts for 5 minutes to look at the evidence at hand. If any of the Mormons posting on this thread were able to do that it would be most refreshing.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

As I’m sure I’ve stated many times before the “science” is flawed. We can’t test it outside its base assumptions. Genetic markers are not 100% (which seems to have been missed by many here)

I don’t think you meant to say this specifically in the way you said it and I think I know what you meant to say so if my presumption is wrong I hope you’ll correct me.

I believe you meant to say “Those who discredit the Book of Mormon are deriving fallacious conclusions FROM the DNA evidence available” not “The science is flawed / DNA markers are not 100%”. If this is indeed what you meant to say, then I’m inclined to agree.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” after all.

This brings us back to the LDS favorite of “appeals to possibility”. It is indeed possible that those who left Judaea to come to the Americas just so happened to be a part of the 0.8% (almost all of whom have very little Jewish maternal ancestry) or so of the Jewish community that do not have 4 very uniquely Jewish haplotypes. If this were the case, then obviously no one in pre-Columbian America would exhibit these and the data would be expected to appear exactly as it does today.

The probability of this however is extremely small, howbeit possible (then again ANYTHING is possible).

For all intensive purposes most would conclude that this evidence “disproves” the validity of the Book of Mormon, though in a strictly empirical sense this is not true.

In all technicality the only conclusion one can draw is:

“There is no evidence that a Jewish population lived in pre-Columbian America”

NOT

“There is evidence that Jewish populations didn’t live in pre-Columbian America”.

As an empiricist myself, I will run with the probability and tentatively conclude (for myself) that there were no pre-Columbian Jewish-American populations simply because there is not a shred of evidence that implies their existence.

Now I must point out though that the Book of Mormon is stuck in a “catch 22” predicament.

On the one hand, there is strong DNA evidence that suggests that the BOM characters are fictional (since it is highly improbable that those certain “Jews” who sailed to the Americas all lacked their ethnic haplotypes.

On the other hand (assuming that those who sailed to the Americas indeed were real AND lacked the haplotypes) then that would indicate that they were actually NOT JEWS!!!

The religious implications of this as one can see are just as damning, for these voyages are alleged to occur prior to Jesus and thus when the Mosaic law was practiced (including a Jewish identity relying SOLELY on the mother from whom mtDNA is bestowed to a child).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

…
On the other hand (assuming that those who sailed to the Americas indeed were real AND lacked the haplotypes) then that would indicate that they were actually NOT JEWS!!!

The religious implications of this as one can see are just as damning, for these voyages are alleged to occur prior to Jesus and thus when the Mosaic law was practiced (including a Jewish identity relying SOLELY on the mother from whom mtDNA is bestowed to a child).

I see this argument, but not entirely – the book of Ruth for example. Those were Moabitesses – who are supposedly related to the Jews through a lineage pre-dating Abraham (eg: lot and cousins.)
Now, Ruth marries Boaz who himself is not a pure-bred Jew – because the text indicates that the next in line to marry Ruth and inherit the property of her deceased husband didn’t want his children’s pedigree soiled by marrying ruth
(even though the children would be counted as his brother’s and not his…)

Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest,
I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
…
Ruth 3:9 And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.
…
Ruth 3:11 And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous wom
an.
Ruth 3:12 And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
Ruth 3:13 Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman’s part:
but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the LORD liveth: lie down until the morning.
…
Ruth 4:5 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise
up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
Ruth 4:6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.

Now, it is true that Boaz as a non-mother could not pass these mother based markers – right? So, being as this is a father of Jesse – the very one who would bring forth David – Jesus himself does not receive the marker from his greeeeeeat grand-mother, but only by a later marriages – where purebred mothers bring the markers in.

So, when you say the probability is low – I can’t but answer in the affirmative.
Perhaps I don’t see it – but is there a way to make the argument air-tight in light of marriage like unto that of Ruth? For clearly, Ruth was a “soil” to the inheritance of someone – and thereby “less” Jewish – but at the same time there was an exception of some kind where at least a “partial Jewness” was accepted by the fact that a husband and wife become ONE flesh – and Ruth’s husband was a Jew.

 

[why_me]

When the DNA and the book of mormon first hit the internet, it was a big thing or issue. There was much discussion about it and to some extent, there is still discussion. Some members left the lds church over the issue. But now it has all died down. Most mormons have come to terms with it. The book of mormon is more than DNA. It is a history of a people and the religious struggles that they endured. Plus, the book itself can stand on its own merits. At this moment in LDS sunday schools the book is being discussed. From a religious point of view much can be gleamed from the book. The DNA issue is more or less a moot point these days.

As I have said before, it is all about faith and not scientific evidence. If science would have found hebrew DNA markers in the american indian and in the latin american populations, many on this board would be in a quandry. Any many people from other faiths would flock to the lds faith because of science and not because of faith. God seems to work with faith and not evidence.

 

[MelanieAnne]

When the DNA and the book of mormon first hit the internet, it was a big thing or issue. There was much discussion about it and to some extent, there is still discussion. Some members left the lds church over the issue. But now it has all died down. Most mormons have come to terms with it. The book of mormon is more than DNA. It is a history of a people and the religious struggles that they endured. Plus, the book itself can stand on its own merits. At this moment in LDS sunday schools the book is being discussed. From a religious point of view much can be gleamed from the book. The DNA issue is more or less a moot point these days.

As I have said before, it is all about faith and not scientific evidence. If science would have found hebrew DNA markers in the american indian and in the latin american populations, many on this board would be in a quandry. Any many people from other faiths would flock to the lds faith because of science and not because of faith. God seems to work with faith and not evidence.

With all due respect, isn’t that another way of saying that in order to accept the Book of Mormon story as true that you also have to ignore the scientific evidence of mDNA migration patterns? So to accept the Book of Mormon story you basically have to check your brain at the door? I don’t say that to be sarcastic, but either one or the other is true, not both. So to accept the story, you have to reject the science.

 

[ralphinal]

When the DNA and the book of mormon first hit the internet, it was a big thing or issue. There was much discussion about it and to some extent, there is still discussion. Some members left the lds church over the issue. But now it has all died down. Most mormons have come to terms with it. The book of mormon is more than DNA. It is a history of a people and the religious struggles that they endured. Plus, the book itself can stand on its own merits. At this moment in LDS sunday schools the book is being discussed. From a religious point of view much can be gleamed from the book. The DNA issue is more or less a moot point these days.

As I have said before, it is all about faith and not scientific evidence. If science would have found hebrew DNA markers in the american indian and in the latin american populations, many on this board would be in a quandry. Any many people from other faiths would flock to the lds faith because of science and not because of faith. God seems to work with faith and not evidence.

For the record, if there had been evidence, I would not change my opinion, and most Catholics on here would not either. Too many of us have issues with the Book of Mormon far deeper than if some Jews took a boat to America.

Here is the thing to me. If science does not support my faith either the science is wrong or I do not fully understand the faith. The science shows that the ancient Jews did not get to America. Now, it is possible that the science is wrong, but that would mean that genetics, linguistics, archeology, and history are all wrong. Again, that is possible, but the more witnesses you have the less likely the story to be wrong. So, could it be that the BoM is misunderstood? Perhaps, unless it is incorrect all together on this issue.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The science shows that the ancient Jews did not get to America. Now, it is possible that the science is wrong, but that would mean that genetics, linguistics, archeology, and history are all wrong. Again, that is possible, but the more witnesses you have the less likely the story to be wrong. So, could it be that the BoM is misunderstood? Perhaps, unless it is incorrect all together on this issue.

And then there is always the possibility that the BoM is a fictional work trotted out as divine revelation, the creation of someone who never dreamed that at some point in the future science would produce a result to refute his story. So he was imaginative, but not quite imaginative enough.

 

[ralphinal]

And then there is always the possibility that the BoM is a fictional work trotted out as divine revelation, the creation of someone who never dreamed that at some point in the future science would produce a result to refute his story. So he was imaginative, but not quite imaginative enough.

Likewise, that is a possibility. I forgot to mention that the entire faith may be wrong. In that case, what do you do? You can cling to it saying taht it is your faith come hell or high water OR you can investigate it and see if there is another with claims that are more accurate.

 

[teancum79]

With all due respect, isn’t that another way of saying that in order to accept the Book of Mormon story as true that you also have to ignore the scientific evidence of mDNA migration patterns? So to accept the Book of Mormon story you basically have to check your brain at the door? I don’t say that to be sarcastic, but either one or the other is true, not both. So to accept the story, you have to reject the science.

So just like in the Bible where the book says Christ rose from the dead and science tells us that can’t happen. Or the creation where God was in change and science tells us that it happened by chance with no guidance. I’ll not go into the many many miracles in the Bible where the scriptures and sciance see thigns differently

Do you check your brain at the door when you open the scriptures?

 

[ralphinal]

So just like in the Bible where the book says Christ rose from the dead and science tells us that can’t happen. Or the creation where God was in change and science tells us that it happened by chance with no guidance. I’ll not go into the many many miracles in the Bible where the scriptures and sciance see thigns differently

Do you check your brain at the door when you open the scriptures?

Actually, this is an excellent point. There are times that miracles occure. Events that science cannot explain. That does not mean that they did not happen.

Take for example the Resurection. That is against all laws of nature, true. Does that present a problem? Yes, except that we beleive that the God who wrote the Laws of Nature allowed this exception. You can deny the Resurection by denying God, but you cannot have the former without the latter.

Now, let’s look at dinosaurs. They existed. They existed before man. Does that mean that Genesis is wrong? No, it means that we are reading it incorrectly. God created everything from nothing. He may or may not have used 7 24 hr periods. It may have taken millions of years. Al that we must know is that He did it and He saw it as good.

There were no pointless miracles in the Bible. All of them had a reason. Could there be a reason God lead Jews to America? Yes. Would there be a reason that they left no trace? Perhaps. Would there be a reason that they left no DNA? Maybe. Is it possible that God erased the record from the DNA? No. Why would He?

 

[J_C]

As I have said before, it is all about faith and not scientific evidence. If science would have found hebrew DNA markers in the american indian and in the latin american populations, many on this board would be in a quandry. Any many people from other faiths would flock to the lds faith because of science and not because of faith. God seems to work with faith and not evidence.

that’s a big IF.

IF green men had come from mars then things would be different.

IF we had cold fusion then there’d be no energy crisis.

that’s a strange argument to make, whyme.

myself, no, i would never abandon my Cathoilic faith. there’s a lot more to this than whether Joseph Smit was or was not a phony.

to me, the biggest indicator is the other cults and sects that rose up in the same days as the mormons rose up. I think the mormon religion comes out of the same fevered imaginations of those others. It wasn’t born in a sterile environment, you know. Look what was going on in the neighborhood.

America is the hothouse for strange religion. mormon is just another among many. it didn’t exist before 1830, and would have died out altogether after 1844 if not for the strong leadership of B.Young and the advantage he had of having the LDs people all to himself for 30 years in the isolation of the Utah territory.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Actually, this is an excellent point. .
…
Now, let’s look at dinosaurs. They existed. They existed before man. Does that mean that Genesis is wrong? No, it means that we are reading it incorrectly. God created everything from nothing. He may or may not have used 7 24 hr periods. It may have taken millions of years. Al that we must know is that He did it and He saw it as good.

As an aside, if you re-read the passage of Genesis carefully there is one act which God does not call good (he just doesn’t say anything). In comparing Genesis to pagan liturature of the day, it becomes evident that the author(s) of Genesis had a purpose in not calling that one creation good. This also suggests a key to understanding the story not based on 7 - 24 hour days, among other things.
Settig science, evolution, etc. aside – there are other reasons to believe that Genisis is speaking differently than the ignorant unbiased reader might think that relate very clearly to the time and reason it was written…

 

[ibkc]

Or the creation where God was in change and science tells us that it happened by chance with no guidance.

Not true. Science helps to explain the “how” of things, but it cannot explain the “why”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So just like in the Bible where the book says Christ rose from the dead and science tells us that can’t happen. Or the creation where God was in change and science tells us that it happened by chance with no guidance. I’ll not go into the many many miracles in the Bible where the scriptures and sciance see thigns differently

Do you check your brain at the door when you open the scriptures?

Ah yes, the old Mormon standby. You can’t defend your BoM, so you fall back on discrediting the Bible. It is understandable considering the Mormon doctrine that all of Christianity is in apostasy. Discrediting Christianity, including our scriptures, is the Mormon apologetics de rigueur of “proving” Mormonism.

What you are failing to grasp is that there are miracles within the Bible that are known by faith. The BoM has nothing. The entire book, from front to back, has to be believed as a miracle.

There are witnesses to Christ’s resurrection. We have texts and Sacred Tradition. We have Sacramental and liturgical evidences both of the Jewish and Christian Traditions.

There are witnesses to creation, just go stand outside and look around. That some scientists looks at creation and denies God’s hand in it doesn’t mean that creation doesn’t exist. You can see it for yourself.

There are no contemporary witnesses to the BoM, nothing that supports it as even remotely factual. No contemporary texts, not even ONE in the make believe language of “reformed Egyptian”. No Sacred Tradition within Native American groups that indicate any mid Eastern culture was ever in contact with anyone in the Americas. No evidence of Christianity, not even a remnant that has been paganized. No Christian Sacraments. No form of Christian liturgy, at all. No archaeological remnants of an ancient midEastern civilization as described in the BoM. No crops as described in the BoM. No technology as described in the BoM.

Science looks at DNA and finds no supporting evidence for the non-miracle aspects of the BoM. It is just another evidence that the BoM is a lie.

The science of DNA proves the existance of the people named in the Bible. It is supporting evidence for the Bible, that goes along with archaeology, cultural, Sacramental and liturgical evidence.

You have nothing but a wish for it to be “true”.