Mormon church and DNA?

[Paul_G]

PaulDupre:

The Mormon Church has always insisted that American Indians are descended from one of the tribes of Israel. The Book of Mormon explains how this happened. Recent DNA research has debunked this idea and proved that Native Americans are descended from Mongolians who crossed the Bering straits during the last ice age, and that Native Americans have no genetic markers for Israelites. This has caused a crisis of faith among thinking Mormons.

I think at one time this was true. This was certainly my thinking at one time. However, as more information and knowledge about genetics has come forth, he idea that all indigenous people of America were the descendants of the Book of Mormon people is no longer accepted. I have noticed that some other posters on this thread assume that the only people in the Book of Mormon are Nephites and Laminites, but as a former member of the Church, I’m sure you know that is not the case.

I must disagree with you statement that this subject produces a crisis of faith among Mormons. As the majority of members are “thinking” people we view all the evidence. In dealing with theories of science there are many different conclusions to which one can come, depending on one’s own personal view point

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Paul G:

I think at one time this was true. This was certainly my thinking at one time. However, as more information and knowledge about genetics has come forth, he idea that all indigenous people of America were the descendants of the Book of Mormon people is no longer accepted. I have noticed that some other posters on this thread assume that the only people in the Book of Mormon are Nephites and Laminites, but as a former member of the Church, I’m sure you know that is not the case.

I must disagree with you statement that this subject produces a crisis of faith among Mormons. As the majority of members are “thinking” people we view all the evidence. In dealing with theories of science there are many different conclusions to which one can come, depending on one’s own personal view point

Hi Paul G;

May I ask, what do you believe concerning the Book of Mormon, given the lack of DNA evidence supporting the earlier view of your church with regard to the ancestry of native americans?

It seems to me that the early Mormons believed that all of the inhabitants of the Americas were related to the tribes of Israel, yet this belief has apparently changed - and quite recently.

How do you reconcile acceptance of church teaching authority where it has apparently been so wrong for so long on this issue?
In your mind, does it call into question the ability of the LDS church to teach inerrently on matters of doctrine?

Doctrine seems to be the crux of the issue. Did the LDS church require its members to believe that native americans were the descendents of the tribes of Israel, or was this just a non-doctrinal tradition that arose among the communitis of LDS.

It seems to me that an LDS could argue that because the DNA evidence does not address doctrinal issues, but only historical ones, the LDS need not be rejected as a sound teacher on matters of doctrine. However, this would also seem to require members to conclude that the BoM is not historically accurate in all respects? Would you agree?

 

[PaulDupre]

Not only is the BOM now seen by the LDS as historically inaccurate, their prophets are no longer any more correct in their teachings than any self-appointed minister. Even Joseph Smith, who claimed to have had many lengthy discussions with the angel Moroni about the BOM peoples, their culture and history, taught incorrectly that the American indians were “Lamanites” and that they carried the blood of Father Lehi in their veins. Joseph and all of the LDS prophets that succeeded him were so wrong about so many things, that their value as teachers of truth is really no better than anyone else.

BTW, the intro to the BOM still says that the Lamanites were “the principal ancestors of the American Indians”. I wonder when they’re going to change that? I suspect that they will first try to redefine what they meant by “principal”. That should be interesting.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul G:

I have noticed that some other posters on this thread assume that the only people in the Book of Mormon are Nephites and Laminites, but as a former member of the Church, I’m sure you know that is not the case.

Actually the BOM is quite explicit that the Americas was a land that was preserved, set aside and kept only for the people of Lehi. Except for the Jaredites (and a stray Mulekite or two), the people of Lehi were indeed the only people in the Americas according to the BOM.

I must disagree with you statement that this subject produces a crisis of faith among Mormons. As the majority of members are “thinking” people we view all the evidence. In dealing with theories of science there are many different conclusions to which one can come, depending on one’s own personal view point

I have found that most of the Mormons I have known shut off their brains when it comes to their religion. They are just too scared of official reprisals (or losing their friends and families) to question or challenge the party line. With good reason, too. Look at all of the BYU professors and other intellectuals getting excommunicated for publishing well-researched conclusions contrary to the GAs.

 

[Mike_D30]

PaulDupre:

Look at all of the BYU professors and other intellectuals getting excommunicated for publishing well-researched conclusions contrary to the GAs.

There was recently a black professor let go from BYU, he was/is a faithful Mormon. But they didn’t like the racial issues he brought up, so bye bye…I think his name was Darron Smith and his class was cancelled too.

But back on track, the Book of Mormon most definitely defined the Lehites as the pricipal ancestors of the Native Americans. Now they need a little time to regroup and come up with a solid explanation to this disparagy.

 

[MJE]

What has the ancestory of the American Indian got to do w/ “everlasting life”? Does this have an impact on say, the Mormons in other parts of the world?

 

[Paul_G]

Robert in SD:

Hi Paul G;

May I ask, what do you believe concerning the Book of Mormon, given the lack of DNA evidence supporting the earlier view of your church with regard to the ancestry of native americans?

I believe there are some but not all related to the Book of Mormon people.

Who told you there is no evidence to support the Book of Mormon. DNA studies have found that there are at least 5 different contributors to the genetic diversity of the indigenous people of America and not just from Mongolia.

It seems to me that the early Mormons believed that all of the inhabitants of the Americas were related to the tribes of Israel, yet this belief has apparently changed - and quite recently.

You may be right, In recent years our thinking about this, because of new information, has had to be adjusted as to the extent of ancestry which is attributed to the Book of Mormon people. However, that by no means nullifies contributions by the Book of Mormon people.

How do you reconcile acceptance of church teaching authority where it has apparently been so wrong for so long on this issue?

How about honesty?

In your mind, does it call into question the ability of the LDS church to teach inerrently on matters of doctrine?

Why would it? This is not a question of doctrine but of history, the leaders of the Church 100 years ago are subject like anyone else to the current knowledge available.

Doctrine seems to be the crux of the issue. Did the LDS church require its members to believe that native americans were the descendents of the tribes of Israel, or was this just a non-doctrinal tradition that arose among the communitis of LDS.

The subject of the ancestry of the indigenous people of America is not included in the Book of Mormon narrative. As I said it is not a doctrinal question the idea in question arose from a logical extension of the narrative and not from any actual proclamations found in the Book of Mormon. However, it does include some prophecies about their descendants in the last days.

I

t seems to me that an LDS could argue that because the DNA evidence does not address doctrinal issues, but only historical ones, the LDS need not be rejected as a sound teacher on matters of doctrine. However, this would also seem to require members to conclude that the BoM is not historically accurate in all respects? Would you agree?

Scientific evidence is in the eye of the beholder. There is a body of literature which may validate our claims as well.

 

[Mike_D30]

Paul G:

The subject of the ancestry of the indigenous people of America is not included in the Book of Mormon narrative. As I said it is not a doctrinal question the idea in question arose from a logical extension of the narrative and not from any actual proclamations found in the Book of Mormon. However, it does include some prophecies about their descendants in the last days.

I disagree with that, the Introduction of the Book of Mormon states:

“After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

If you look up the words ALL and PRINCIPAL in the dictionary, it’s obvious what is implied.

Tell me honestly and don’t dodge this:

Do you think Jospeh Smith and the early prophets taught explicitly that all American Indians were descendants of the Lamanites?

 

[Paul_G]

Mike_D30:

I disagree with that, the Introduction of the Book of Mormon states:

“After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

If you look up the words ALL and PRINCIPAL in the dictionary, it’s obvious what is implied.

I have already conceded that our ideas about the totality of the ancestry of the indigenous people have changed in light of new information, and at some point the introduction may reflect this. The introduction is not from the translation of Joseph Smith, so I’m not sure what point your trying to make.

Tell me honestly and don’t dodge this:

Do you think Jospeh Smith and the early prophets taught explicitly that all American Indians were descendants of the Lamanites?

I’m not aware of any explicit teaching. With the knowledge available to them at that time they very well may have taught it.

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

It seems to me that the early Mormons believed that all of the inhabitants of the Americas were related to the tribes of Israel, yet this belief has apparently changed - and quite recently.

I am not sure that it has changed. LDS scholars, like all scholars, are free to speculate about these things as much as they want. That is their job. But their speculations are neither here nor there as far as authoritative LDS doctrine is concerned. My understanding of LDS scripture is that they are related to the tribes of Israel. I don’t rule out the possibility that at some point or other a couple of boats from a seafaring nation such as the Vikings may have accidentally strayed into the Americas. But that would not have been sufficient to alter the population mix of the indigenous inhabitants.

How do you reconcile acceptance of church teaching authority where it has apparently been so wrong for so long on this issue?

Who says it has been wrong? You say it has been wrong. I don’t say it has been wrong. I have no difficulty accepting that the Lamanites, or the indigenous populations of the Americas, are principally the descendents of the Book of Mormon People, for the reasons I have already explained in my previous posts. Genetics and DNA analysis may be an exact science when you are trying to solve a recent crime incident; but it is anything but when you are dealing with large population movements across continents spanning many centuries.

amgid

 

[PaulDupre]

Perhaps, Amgid, you have not read the DNA studies of pre-columbian people in the Americas. There were two parts:

Part 1: They sampled over 6000 living American Indians from all over North and South America. They found genetic markers for Mongolians in all of them. In a small minority, they found genetic markers for European and African ancestry. This is accounted for by recent intermarriage with Europeans and Africans in post-Columbian times. These samples had no genetic markers for Jews or any other middle-eastern people.

Part 2: They sampled DNA from the bone marrow of over 400 American Indian skeletons carbon-dated from well before Columbus. These were found to have genetic markers for Mongolians, but no genetic markers for Europeans, Africans, Jews or other middle-eastern people.

Your thoughts?

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

It’s been several months since I last posted here. I think now I remember why.

The DNA issue is a lot more complicated than the critics make it seem. It’s not LEGOS. I have tried to understand this topic more fully, and it’s not easy for me. I think that it’s prett pointless to argue this unless we really know something significant about genetics. It seems that most of us here are pretty ignorant. I know I am. So unfortunately, when I hear an anti-Mormon say, “DNA disproves the Book of Mormon” and then see a BYU professor of genetic studies write a book on how that statement is probably false, I must say that it simply goes over my head. I really cannot draw a conclusion myself since I know slim to nothing about DNA. So it’s all a moot point for me. Some of you will be thinking that I’m just using an excuse to not have to deal with it. That, though, is false; I have tried to understand it, and I do, but only on a superficial level, which doesn’t help the detailed analysis much. Or you may think that I should study it so that I can justify my faith. Well, sorry, but I’d rather get a career in linguistics rather than biology. You can only do so much schooling, you know, before you run out of money. The topic is simply more complex than you believe. A blanket statement like, “DNA shows that the Book of Mormon is false” seems a bit over-simplified, doesn’t it?

Here is my take on it, in the most basic language. The critics say that since many Indians have been shown to have certain modern genetic markers on the Y-chromosone, as compared to those of modern Asia, then the Americans must be Asians, not Hebrews – and thus is the Book of Mormon theorom of American ancestry proven false. On the other side, the argument is that if the Asians crossed the strait 50,000 years ago then why is their modern DNA similar to modern Native American DNA? With a 50,000 year deviation in both parties, that’s a little strange. The fact is that we don’t know as much as we’d like about this field. The science is always changing, and we’re constantly re-evaluating what we know. Getetic markers can get lost over time. It has happened. In Iceland there were DNA studies done that showed that most people descended from two people after 150 years, even though there are historical records that say otherwise. This doesn’t mean that the tests were incorrect, but that we don’t know as much about this as the critics make us think. It’s a very new science. Anyway, some good links on this:

farms.byu.edu/publications/dna/ButlerBofMandDNA_Feb2006.php
farms.byu.edu/multimedia/viewmovie.php?id=1
fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html

The reason we LDS refer to the Bible in cases like this is because, while we do indeed believe in it, we are pointing out a double standard, which is a logical fallacy. We know which position we take, which favors both BoM and Bible; we are trying to show that the approach the critics take to the BoM (negative, false) also must apply to the Bible, logically.

 

[majick275]

First of all, outside of LDS circles FARMS/FAIR have no credibility due to sloppy scholarship and lack of true peer review. The specific references here appear to be grasping at straws for how it still COULD be true (BoM) without ever truly refuting the evidence at hand or making a case that IS true. BYU professors in the past who have published “non-faith promoting” works have been fired, excommunicated, etc. This provides a significant incentive to be less than objective.

I think it more important though to look at the claims. LDS don’t get it both ways. Either they have real prophets, in which case they have to stand by the prophetic proclamations of these men OR they do not, in which case all of this is moot. LDS prophets have on numerous occasions made clear, authoratative statements regarding BoM, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders and even geographic locations. Some of these statements are now OBVIOUSLY false from well known scietific facts. Waving these off as personal opinions of these men is less than honest and at the very least casts doubt on all of their statements.

I won’t say that DNA “proves” the BoM false, but I think it accurate to say that DNA along with other well documented, peer reviewed findings provide a sufficient body of evidence for anthropologists to show us that native americans came here from specific locations in fairly well defined “waves” over a similarly well defined timeline. That along with waht has so far been discovered, verified and proven about pre-columbian civilizations gives us a clear enough picture to see that the BoM cannot be historically accurate. When we place that next to Joseph Smith Jr.'s claims and those of the LDS church over the years, I come to firm conclusion that the BoM is not of divine origin.

I find it very common for LDS to get “tired head” on the facts and seek a shortcut. just pray if the church is true and if you feel good then it is and you can just say we don’t really know what anything means but that doesn’t matter so just follow the brethren. That isn’t how God works. You have to use the reason he gives you and establish with him your spiritual education. God doesn’t play tricks with us. Satan on the other hand loves to play on emotions and twist facts to appeal to our pride and help us to rationalize what he tells us we want to believe.

You can’t just ignore verifiable facts. the body of evidence has become so large that it seems blatantly obvious to most here that Mormonism is a manmade, false religion.

 

[Tmaque]

I agree that the BOM evidence is pointing toward it being a non-historical work. I think that is where it will eventually end up. That however, will not dissuade many LDS from leaving a faith which is as spiritually satisfying and vibrant as modern Mormonism. The BOM will be seen as a spiritual allegory given to Joseph Smith as real revelation meant to teach spiritual truths.

I’m in the midst of reading the latest Joseph Smith biography “Rough Stone Rolling”. It’s a great book, very interesting. I’m struck by the fact that those around him really did testify to their witness of the golden plates, and also the alledged supernatural events that took place at the beginning of the LDS Church. It’s difficult to get that many people to lie and hold to those lies their entire lives. I believe they believed they were being truthful.

It’s easy to just discount all these people as fakes phonies and frauds. I think that’s the easy way out. I don’t believe the LDS Church is true, but I haven’t yet reconciled these particular events with the larger fact that the Catholic Church IS the authentic Christian Church.

 

[majick275]

I don’t think all of the early LDS were frauds. I think many were deceived themselves and thus truly believed what they were spreading. I think the high number of “defections” though amongst the leaders is evidence of some type of problem. Some seemed to be “in on the con” and some seemed to have been character assassinated when they found out some of the truth. I thought William Laws interview with the Salt Lake was paper was particularly informative. He had been a member of the first presidency and seemed quite objective in his version of what he witnessed. I think it gives insight into how Joseph was able to manipulate that many people. As far as believing spiritual experiences goes, you need only look at the folks packing the Benny Hinn “shows” to see that those who want to believe will find a way.

 

[Tmaque]

majick275:

I don’t think all of the early LDS were frauds. I think many were deceived themselves and thus truly believed what they were spreading. I think the high number of “defections” though amongst the leaders is evidence of some type of problem. Some seemed to be “in on the con” and some seemed to have been character assassinated when they found out some of the truth. I thought William Laws interview with the Salt Lake was paper was particularly informative. He had been a member of the first presidency and seemed quite objective in his version of what he witnessed. I think it gives insight into how Joseph was able to manipulate that many people. As far as believing spiritual experiences goes, you need only look at the folks packing the Benny Hinn “shows” to see that those who want to believe will find a way.

I find it amazing that none of those people that did leave the LDS Church ever recanted their testimonies regarding the golden plates, heavenly visitations, etc. It makes me believe that something supernatural did occur. Maybe a supernatural experience that was not from God. It’s a stretch to claim that several people hallucinated the same vision at the same time. That leaves fraud as the explanation or that they actually did see something.

 

[PaulDupre]

Or else they had been informed of the consequences of recanting - a visit from the Danites?

 

[IAMLDS]

I could go in many directions as a response to this tread. I have to chuckle when I read from my Catholic friends that their side of the debate is settled. The debate I refer to is the challenge made by athiest and athiest scientist to all religious belief. At some point you believe in God. But the fact is each of our reasons for believing in God is very personal. We base our belief on experience and reasoning. Mormons throw in a belief experience while, if I’m understanding my Catholic friends correctly, their belief is arrived at through a long study process. (I’m sure my Catholic friends have a spritual experience somewhere along the way, I just don’t read about them admitting to it.) The neat thing about a spiritual experience is it is subjective, individualistic, nonreproducible, unrecordable, and IT’S MINE! Either way we both walk by faith. Neither one can claim 100% victory in their conclusions. If you don’t believe me let’s pull in Bill Nyes the Science Guy and let him have a go at us.

I would argue we both have a little wiggle room of uncertainty. You bring up doubts cast on my beliefs based on DNA science. I could do the same for a few Catholic beliefs. Beliefs that seem to fly in the face of science. Don’t ask me which ones. If you give it some thought I’m sure you can come up with a few.

It was stated that it seems LDS faithful put their brains on hold when it comes to certain scientific findings. We, Mormons and Catholics, have to do this, (I wouldn’t call it putting our brains on hold). There are contradictions between science and religion, but we need to be careful not to too quickly side with science. Doing that gets us into trouble. Remember what happened when the religious team accepted the science team’s Earth Centered Universe view and refused to accept alternate explanations. What we got was division among our team. In the end truth was established but a few of us got their eye blackened. Turns out the scriptures were being understood incorrecly.

So, when it comes down to science and religion butting heads, I think we are on the same team.

May I present these little diddies (Axioms or whatever you call them):

Man’s wisdom is finite, God’s is infinite.
When man’s wisdom contradicts what God has revealed, put your money on God.

I too am reading “Rough Stone Rolling”. What a great book. Pages 398 to 402 of the book has some bearing on this discussion.

Patrick

 

[Tmaque]

IAMLDS:

I could go in many directions as a response to this tread. I have to chuckle when I read from my Catholic friends that their side of the debate is settled. The debate I refer to is the challenge made by athiest and athiest scientist to all religious belief. At some point you believe in God. But the fact is each of our reasons for believing in God is very personal. We base our belief on experience and reasoning. Mormons throw in a belief experience while, if I’m understanding my Catholic friends correctly, their belief is arrived at through a long study process. (I’m sure my Catholic friends have a spritual experience somewhere along the way, I just don’t read about them admitting to it.) The neat thing about a spiritual experience is it is subjective, individualistic, nonreproducible, unrecordable, and IT’S MINE! Either way we both walk by faith. Neither one can claim 100% victory in their conclusions. If you don’t believe me let’s pull in Bill Nyes the Science Guy and let him have a go at us.

I would argue we both have a little wiggle room of uncertainty. You bring up doubts cast on my beliefs based on DNA science. I could do the same for a few Catholic beliefs. Beliefs that seem to fly in the face of science. Don’t ask me which ones. If you give it some thought I’m sure you can come up with a few.

It was stated that it seems LDS faithful put their brains on hold when it comes to certain scientific findings. We, Mormons and Catholics, have to do this, (I wouldn’t call it putting our brains on hold). There are contradictions between science and religion, but we need to be careful not to too quickly side with science. Doing that gets us into trouble. Remember what happened when the religious team accepted the science team’s Earth Centered Universe view and refused to accept alternate explanations. What we got was division among our team. In the end truth was established but a few of us got their eye blackened. Turns out the scriptures were being understood incorrecly.

So, when it comes down to science and religion butting heads, I think we are on the same team.

May I present these little diddies (Axioms or whatever you call them):

Man’s wisdom is finite, God’s is infinite.
When man’s wisdom contradicts what God has revealed, put your money on God.

I too am reading “Rough Stone Rolling”. What a great book. Pages 398 to 402 of the book has some bearing on this discussion.

Patrick

Patrick,

I don’t believe there are any contradictions between science and the Catholic religion. When the Church challenged Galileo it was primarily because the majority of the scientific community was challenging him as well. The Church no longer challenged Galileo’s findings as soon as they were accepted by the larger scientific community. Even today, the Catholic Church does not challenge the theory of evolution , the big bang, etc, because these theories are based on good science and are generally well accepted by the scientific community.

You wrote:
“I could do the same for a few Catholic beliefs. Beliefs that seem to fly in the face of science. Don’t ask me which ones. If you give it some thought I’m sure you can come up with a few.”

Please do bring up Catholic beliefs that fly in the face of established scientific study and research. I would love to know about that. My experience has been just the opposite.

As for religious experiences, I 've had the most amazing religious experiences as a Catholic, and with far greater intensity than I ever had as a LDS. These experiences give me some sense of validation but I would never use them as proof. This is because, as you said, they were subjective experiences.

 

[majick275]

Tmaque:

I find it amazing that none of those people that did leave the LDS Church ever recanted their testimonies regarding the golden plates, heavenly visitations, etc. It makes me believe that something supernatural did occur. Maybe a supernatural experience that was not from God. It’s a stretch to claim that several people hallucinated the same vision at the same time. That leaves fraud as the explanation or that they actually did see something.

There is some evidence that some of them were “tricked”. The voice of the “Lord” that was heard on the banks of the river that was said to have sounded an awful lot like Sidney rigdon. Then there is the fact that some of these people were very scared to recant.There are some writings from back then that wold seem to indicate that Joseph Smith Jr. was not above having enemies killed. (see this link:

xmission.com/~country/reason/lawint2.htm )

The “witnesses” to the BoM were all a small group of family and friends. They didn’t claim any more than seeing and hefting a “book” of golden plates. there is some doubt about wether or not they even claimed this much except in “vision” with their “spiritual eyes”. Martin Harris made similar claims about the Shaker book and the D&C documents MANY LDS believing in the “revelations” coming from Hiram Page’s “peepstone”.

While “personal revelation” makes you feel all special and singled out to become a God some day, these “spiritual witnesses” that comprise the LDS “testimony” are often the result of nothing more than the simple psychology of “wanting to believe”. This is seen in the Islamic homicide bombers who seal their testimonies with their blood. On a more subdued level we see it in the masses at the convention centers going to get “healed” and “slain by the spirit”, the spiritual warfare folks doing the exorcisms live on stage.

Don’t eat the cheerios. Combine your reasoning with the Bible, viewed in the context of tradition. THEN through prayer God will reward your efforts by leading in finding your own answers.