Does DNA evidence disprove Book of Mormon claims?

[Middleman]

I was listening to Christian radio. They stated that the Book of Mormon claims that New World people descend from the so called Lost Tribe of Israel. They say that DNA evidence proves otherwise.

Ironically, some of these Christian people also believe in a literal creation of life on Earth according to Genesis, something that I personally think is an allegorical story, not literal.

How do Mormons explain DNA evidence? I think the whole story of American Natives descending from Israelites was just a made up 19th century theory based on the speculation of one man who lacked evidence. Now we know more about the world and that has been disproved.

 

[Marie5890]

I was listening to Christian radio. They stated that the Book of Mormon claims that New World people descend from the so called Lost Tribe of Israel. They say that DNA evidence proves otherwise.

Ironically, some of these Christian people also believe in a literal creation of life on Earth according to Genesis, something that I personally think is an allegorical story, not literal.

How do Mormons explain DNA evidence? I think the whole story of American Natives descending from Israelites was just a made up 19th century theory based on the speculation of one man who lacked evidence. Now we know more about the world and that has been disproved.

They have pretty much backed off the idea that all Native Americans, Polynesians and Latin Americans can trace back their roots to Hebrew, but believe that there maybe small pockets of people somewhere in South America can.

 

[Middleman]

So, the LDS church just changes their doctrine when the evidence comes in, or it’s too politically damaging to their organization? Didn’t they do that with polygamy and their doctrine about Blacks? I suppose they will soon be embracing homosexuality.

 

[Answersplease]

Why is it that all the changes to Mormon doctrine since Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor correspond to social pressures or styles of the times? The answer is either
A: God wants Mormons to become more popular and accepted by the mainstream(an idea that is in total opposition to the stories and history of the Bible). Or,
B: Mormon doctrine is man-made and thereby influenced by society at large.

A few cases in point:
*Polygamy-rejected after extreme pressure from the federal govt.
*Changes in temple garments-came after changes in clothing styles that no longer covered the forearms and calves.
*Word of wisdom - instead of being a suggestion as stated in the Doctrine & Covenants, became a commandment during the great temperance movement of the late 19th century
*Blacks given the priesthood - came about after extreme pressure from society at large.
*Changes in the Book of Mormon(God’s word?) to alter racist comments to match current social norms
*Changes to the temple ceremonies themselves-Changed due to violent nature and to distance Mormon from Masonic rituals
*Acceptance of contraception and some forms of abortion-due to the current social norms.

A church that changes it’s doctrine on matters of faith and morals cannot be the church of an unchanging God. I predict that it won’t be long (less than 50 years) until you’ll see gay marriages in the temple and women holding the priesthood. That IS the pattern…is it not?

 

[ParkerD]

So, the LDS church just changes their doctrine when the evidence comes in, or it’s too politically damaging to their organization? Didn’t they do that with polygamy and their doctrine about Blacks? I suppose they will soon be embracing homosexuality.

Middleman or others who may read this thread,

The idea of your last sentence shows you certainly don’t have an awareness of the LDS church at all, or never watch the news or read the newspaper. If you had, you would be aware that the LDS church has been on the forefront of engaging against any law that will redefine “marriage” from the traditional marriage definition.

For one to assume that because the LDS at one time practiced plural marriage, which was practiced at times in the Bible by people who were still guided by God even when they practiced that, then later removed the practice when God revealed it should no longer be practiced, that God will ever reveal that the societal change in a norm about traditional marriage would ever be acceptable to God, means that that person has not read the Bible at all.

As to the Book of Mormon, it repeatedly states that there will be more people within the continents that later are called the Americas than the descendants of the Lamanites, so it was not a change in the Book of Mormon or its doctrine to change the introduction by changing the words “principal ancestors”. For example, one may read the following verse:

“…he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them…” (2 Nephi 1:11) This happened in 400 AD among the group who were called the “Lamanites” and those other nations in the continents of the Americas, in the fulfillment of the prophecies of Lehi and other prophets among the groups in the Book of Mormon. The Lamanites would be nearly decimated by those other nations but would not become “utterly extinct”.

So those following the DNA logic (which has many flaws anyway) have no basis for saying the Book of Mormon is disproved by DNA evidence. Even with that logic as it currently is touted, they would need to get the DNA of every single tribal remnant in the Americas–and then compare not with those in the Middle East but with those whom they would have to prove for certain were descendants of the particular ancestor Manasseh and more particularly his wife, who was not from the House of Israel so the maternal blood line would not match Israelites. Nor was Joseph’s wife from the House of Israel, and he was the father of Manasseh–so there is a double non-Jewish non Israelite maternal ancestry.

 

[Dokimas]

So, the LDS church just changes their doctrine when the evidence comes in, or it’s too politically damaging to their organization? Didn’t they do that with polygamy and their doctrine about Blacks? I suppose they will soon be embracing homosexuality.

Don’t you think you should stick to what you can prove to BE true and not on what you ‘suppose’ might become true.

 

[Middleman]

Don’t you think you should stick to what you can prove to BE true and not on what you ‘suppose’ might become true.

I was speculating based on past changes in the Mormon church. They haven’t been around all that long, what, 150 years or so? In that short history they’ve done about faces more than once, when it became politically untenable for them to hold the course on teachings. We’ve seen many other churches cave into the secular world and try to explain away traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality, just as the above poster tries to explain away DNA evidence related to believing native Americans descended from Israelites.

I have real respect for Mormons and they have a very solid social aspect to their church. But, doctrine wise, it’s all made up in my opinion.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

When the Spaniards arrived in the New World they were impressed by the lack of noise from wheeled vehicles in the cities. It seems strange that if the ancient Israelites came to the New World that they did not bring the wheel with them.

 

[ParkerD]

When the Spaniards arrived in the New World they were impressed by the lack of noise from wheeled vehicles in the cities. It seems strange that if the ancient Israelites came to the New World that they did not bring the wheel with them.

Joe Kelley,
Such wheels would have been made of wood, which of course would decompose and not leave evidence of their existence. The other cultures that took over may not have had wheels, and those other cultures became the dominant and artifact-leaving cultures.

 

[aspirant]

Such wheels would have been made of wood, which of course would decompose and not leave evidence of their existence.

This idea is flawed for more than one reason.

(A) Many ancient wooden artifacts still exist, like this first century boat from Galilee, this first century bowl and these first century combs from Qumran, etc.

(B) There are still ancient chariots around. Here’s a 2nd century chariot being unearthed in Bulgaria. This was sheathed in bronze, but “The [archaeological] team also unearthed well-preserved wooden and leather objects, some of which the archaeologists believe were horse harnesses. The remains of horses were uncovered nearby.” Similarly, here’s a 2600 year-old bronzed Etruscan war chariot.

(C) Even after wooden artifacts have decayed, other ancient documentation of their existence can survive, as in this relief carving of Ramses II, this ancient Persian sculpture, and so forth.

We do know that wheels existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, e.g. on small objects that look like pull-toys. They were not used for large vehicles, however, because there were no native draft animals (like horses, bulls, elephants, etc.) to power such vehicles.

 

[ParkerD]

This idea is flawed for more than one reason.

(A) Many ancient wooden artifacts still exist, like this first century boat from Galilee, this first century bowl and these first century combs from Qumran, etc.

(B) There are still ancient chariots around. Here’s a 2nd century chariot being unearthed in Bulgaria. This was sheathed in bronze, but “The [archaeological] team also unearthed well-preserved wooden and leather objects, some of which the archaeologists believe were horse harnesses. The remains of horses were uncovered nearby.” Similarly, here’s a 2600 year-old bronzed Etruscan war chariot.

(C) Even after wooden artifacts have decayed, other ancient documentation of their existence can survive, as in this relief carving of Ramses II, this ancient Persian sculpture, and so forth.

We do know that wheels existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, e.g. on small objects that look like pull-toys. They were not used for large vehicles, however, because there were no native draft animals (like horses, bulls, elephants, etc.) to power such vehicles.

OK–though it would seem important to remember that the Nephite and Lamanite cultures were snuffed out while their numbers were relatively small, and any use of wheels could have been by a small number of people who happened to have the know-how to produce them while others may not have had similar know-how.

 

[PaulDupre]

The BOM says that the Nephites wore linen clothes, and raised wheat and barley. Linen is made from flax (the species is known as Linum usitatissimum). Flax is native to the Old World, and no flax existed in the Americas until the Spaniards brought it in 1492. Neither was there any wheat or barley.

How do we know that? Plants, especially flowering plants like flax, leave pollen behind. Pollen settles to the bottom of lakes and ponds, and is found in abundance in soil cores.

Pollen is among the most indestructable of organic substances. It lasts virtually forever. There is absolutely no pollen from any species of flax, wheat or barley in ancient American soil cores.

The crop pollens that are found in ancient American soil cores are maize, squash, beans and amaranth. It is worth noting that (with the exception of Indian corn, which the New Yorkers of 1827 knew about) the BOM never mentions these crops - the crops that the ancient Amerindians really grew and which were the staples of their diet for thousands of years.

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)

 

[aspirant]

it would seem important to remember that the Nephite and Lamanite cultures were snuffed out while their numbers were relatively small

The last of the Nephites were supposedly hunted down and murdered around 400AD. When was the Lamanite culture “snuffed out”?

any use of wheels could have been by a small number of people who happened to have the know-how to produce them while others may not have had similar know-how.

These people were supposedly present for at least 1000 years (c. 600BC - AD400), and in later years there were supposedly hundreds of thousands of Nephites (cf. Mormon 6:10-15)… and even millions if we believe what some Mormon apologists claim.

(The earlier Jaredites, according to the BOM, numbered in the millions and also used steel.)

It leaves one wondering why neighboring would peoples not, in all this time, notice the useful technology and animals of BOM people and seek to adopt them?

 

[zach_dunn]

I was listening to Christian radio. They stated that the Book of Mormon claims that New World people descend from the so called Lost Tribe of Israel. They say that DNA evidence proves otherwise.

Ironically, some of these Christian people also believe in a literal creation of life on Earth according to Genesis, something that I personally think is an allegorical story, not literal.

How do Mormons explain DNA evidence? I think the whole story of American Natives descending from Israelites was just a made up 19th century theory based on the speculation of one man who lacked evidence. Now we know more about the world and that has been disproved.

One thing I think disproves the Book of Mormon is that we can find no remains, no hints, not one artifact from the great battle between the Nephites and Lamanites as described in the Book of Mormon. We have tools and weapons from thousands of years ago, but no one has yet produced an artifact from this great war, at least to my knowledge anyway.

I’ve also read somewhere that the Book of Mormon mentions honey bees being brought from Israel when honey bees were actually brought to the Americas by the Spaniards . . . but I have no way of validating this claim.

 

[ParkerD]

The BOM says that the Nephites wore linen clothes, and raised wheat and barley. Linen is made from flax (the species is known as Linum usitatissimum). Flax is native to the Old World, and no flax existed in the Americas until the Spaniards brought it in 1492. Neither was there any wheat or barley.

How do we know that? Plants, especially flowering plants like flax, leave pollen behind. Pollen settles to the bottom of lakes and ponds, and is found in abundance in soil cores.

Pollen is among the most indestructable of organic substances. It lasts virtually forever. There is absolutely no pollen from any species of flax, wheat or barley in ancient American soil cores.

The crop pollens that are found in ancient American soil cores are maize, squash, beans and amaranth. It is worth noting that (with the exception of Indian corn, which the New Yorkers of 1827 knew about) the BOM never mentions these crops - the crops that the ancient Amerindians really grew and which were the staples of their diet for thousands of years.

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)

To the general reader:

It is important to understand that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni, as the principal writers of the Book of Mormon, would have used symbols from their cultural background to convey the communication about their lives and their history, with tiny glimpses of their culture. If Nephi was familiar with “linen” as a fabric made of a plant in the Old World where he came from, and passed that word on to his children and others within their culture as they described the plant they had access to (cotton) using the word that they understood meant “cloth made from a plant”, then it would be not only expected but completely logical that Mormon would describe the clothing made from plants in Ancient America as “fine linen” rather than “cotton”. (Some Indian tribes used cotton and weaved cloth from it.)

A similar pattern can be followed with respect to the word “wheat”, meaning “grain”. It likely was maize or the forerunner of maize in Ancient America, but Mormon would use the word from the Old World for grain, which was “wheat”, and certainly would not use the term “maize” or “corn” since those words were not Old World words at all.

 

[zach_dunn]

To the general reader:

It is important to understand that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni, as the principal writers of the Book of Mormon, would have used symbols from their cultural background to convey the communication about their lives and their history, with tiny glimpses of their culture. If Nephi was familiar with “linen” as a fabric made of a plant in the Old World where he came from, and passed that word on to his children and others within their culture as they described the plant they had access to (cotton) using the word that they understood meant “cloth made from a plant”, then it would be not only expected but completely logical that Mormon would describe the clothing made from plants in Ancient America as “fine linen” rather than “cotton”. (Some Indian tribes used cotton and weaved cloth from it.)

A similar pattern can be followed with respect to the word “wheat”, meaning “grain”. It likely was maize or the forerunner of maize in Ancient America, but Mormon would use the word from the Old World for grain, which was “wheat”, and certainly would not use the term “maize” or “corn” since those words were not Old World words at all.

My question is why wouldn’t Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni bring flax seeds with them? By the time they supposedly came to the Americas humankind had a decent knowledge of agriculture and I doubt that any civilization would simply leave their main source of clothing behind, especially because they had no reason to suspect there would be flax or any means of making clothing in the New World.

 

[ParkerD]

My question is why wouldn’t Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni bring flax seeds with them? By the time they supposedly came to the Americas humankind had a decent knowledge of agriculture and I doubt that any civilization would simply leave their main source of clothing behind, especially because they had no reason to suspect there would be flax or any means of making clothing in the New World.

Zach Dunn,
That is good thinking and a good question. Perhaps Lehi’s group did bring flax seeds with them to the New World, but found they didn’t grow as well (this is true in the New World even now) as the cotton plants they found native to the continent, and shifted to cotton. Since they were only a small group of people, it would be totally unlikely that such a shift would be traceable in archeology.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach Dunn,
That is good thinking and a good question. Perhaps Lehi’s group did bring flax seeds with them to the New World, but found they didn’t grow as well (this is true in the New World even now) as the cotton plants they found native to the continent, and shifted to cotton. Since they were only a small group of people, it would be totally unlikely that such a shift would be traceable in archeology.

I’m not so sure about this Parker, you may be right that they would have tried flax and noticed that cotton grew better, but as PaulDupre pointed out, we can find no trace of flax pollen in American soil cores . . . so I just think they never came to the Americas.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m not so sure about this Parker, you may be right that they would have tried flax and noticed that cotton grew better, but as PaulDupre pointed out, we can find no trace of flax pollen in American soil cores . . . so I just think they never came to the Americas.

Zach Dunn,
One who would think that perhaps 100 seedling plants would leave “flax pollen in American soil cores” to the extent that they would be findable and traceable and thus be evidence of flax plants being in the New World, or not, is extremely reliant on faulty logic. Do you realize how much soil would have had to be tested (from the east coast to say about 200 miles inland and from upstate New York to northern South America) to figure out such an “evidence”? (You needn’t respond–this was a rhetorical question.)

 

[Tmaque]

So, the LDS church just changes their doctrine when the evidence comes in, or it’s too politically damaging to their organization? Didn’t they do that with polygamy and their doctrine about Blacks? I suppose they will soon be embracing homosexuality.

They caved on polygamy (or they were going to lose all church property)
then they caved on contraception, (following the protestants and the culture)
then they caved on blacks and the priesthood, (waking up to the evil of this practice and political pressure)
then they caved on the native american lineage issue (can’t deny obvious science anymore)

But they won’t on homosexuality. Only because they’re hiding behind the robes of a giant on this issue. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church has never caved on any issue and never will. That’s because it is THE true church.