NOM

So I have been reading lately about the Nephite, Lamanite, and Amerindian DNA lineage issue. I spent some cash and bought some books that I am starting to delve into. It is a fascintating subject to me. Both sides of the argument are absolutely convinced of the supremacy of their argument. In my skulking around boards and forums I have read alot of rancor directed towards apologists like Sorenson, Peterson, Lindsay, and others. I have not really seen the source of the rancor, but this subject seems to be one where the gloves come off.
It has been eye opening for me to see apologetics in full spin mode. Maybe its my ex-mo perspective coloring my rationality but the arguments made by apologists when it comes to DNA seem weak. I will post more on that later. Right now this quote was amusing to me. Its from Michael Whiting in an essay titled, DNA and the Book of Mormon, a Phylogenetic perspective.

But is the global colonization hypothesis the only hypothesis emerging from the Book of Mormon? This is the crux of the matter. Critics who argue that DNA analysis disproves the authenticity of the Book of Mormon need to demonstrate that the global colonization hypothesis is the only way to interpret the Lamanite lineage history and the only hypothesis under question. The authenticity of the Book of Mormon is in question only if this is an accurate interpretation of the historical population dynamics inferred as existing before, during, and after the Book of Mormon record takes place.

Ok, here is a quote from the Big Cheese himself, Joespeh Smith.

We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of descendants of Jospeh. The Jaredites were destroyed, about the same time that the Isrealites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principle Nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians who now inhabit this country.

This quote came from a book entitled "An original history of denominations at present in the United States. Joseph Smith wrote the chapter on the Mormons. Looks to me like indeed the only way interpret Lamanite lineage history is through the Global colonization hypothesis, unless one is willing to "throw brother Joseph under the bus."

The DNA spin is also one that has thrown me multiple times. As time passes and the church is backing out more and more from the American Indians being primarily Laminites, to now "among" the ancestors, its interesting how the doctrines change with the times.

I could probably deal more with the DNA problem if there were other archaeological supports. But they don't exist from everything I've read: the food is wrong, the "horse" problem exists, the swords from these massive battles are missing, and the clear references to breast plates and rusted swords in the B of M? What about the chariots?

Pretty soon you start grabbing at straws. It doesn't add up.

Emower,

This is one of my favorite topics and I have packed a ton of research into my annotated version of the DNA essay:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tz7 ... sp=sharing

(It's long, but action-packed )

The current state of Book of Mormon historicity apologetics, particularly as it applies to genetic population studies, pretty much requires that you abandon everything the Book of Mormon says about itself, what Joseph Smith and other prophets and General Authorities have said about it, and what the Lord himself said about it in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is really a fascinating study of intentional self-delusion maintained at an institutional level.

And thanks for that Joseph Smith quote. That's pure gold.

The believers are using the tactic of simply showing that DNA presents a non-zero chance of the Book of Mormon being historically accurate. They would love to have DNA prove the Book of Mormon as historically likely and respectable. But they best they can claim is that DNA does not conclusively disprove the Book of Mormon. They simply have nothing interesting to bring to the discussion except a poor understanding about standards of evidence.

This is combined with a strong faith in supporting evidence that will be found in the future. There are a lot of ruins that have not been fully studied and could remain undiscovered. Zarahemla should be hiding out there with it's ruins containing an inscription about Nephites and Lamanites. This is the LDS version of Russell's Teapot. No one can conclusively prove that the Book of Mormon is or is not a historically accurate record. But this does not mean that anyone is necessarily obligated to believe them or start paying tithing to the LDS church.

We have the 1972 video Ancient America Speaks made by BYU with the full support of the First Presidency. Spencer Kimball was a strong proponent of Book of Mormon historicity. In contrast, an updated version is not available nor are you likely to find regular showings in LDS meetings. The institutional LDS church will happily let apologists play defense for them without having to endorse them. DNA falls into the same category.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:20 am The believers are using the tactic of simply showing that DNA presents a non-zero chance of the Book of Mormon being historically accurate.

But in so doing they are forced to completely rewrite the BoM in nuance-ese and throw the prophets and the God of the D&C under the bus.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:20 am This is combined with a strong faith in supporting evidence that will be found in the future.There are a lot of ruins that have not been fully studied and could remain undiscovered. Zarahemla should be hiding out there with it's ruins containing an inscription about Nephites and Lamanites.

But they fail to realize that this line of logic affords just as much credibility to a theory that Americas were colonized by a race of giant talking marshmallow bunnies who have now vanished, so we should have faith that evidence will some day support this hypothesis. The current state of apologetics on the issue places Jaredites and Lehites on somewhat less solid ground than ancient aliens, bigfoot and Atlantis.

I keep waiting for some kind of multiverse explanation for how the Americas can have two entirely different histories.

As someone who has delved into the world of NGS DNA testing for curiosity about my lineage (not for temple work), the findings and the methods seem to change rapidly. For example, it wasn't that long ago that all they had to go on for Y-dna testing was 12 STR markers. Later that increased to 24, then 37, 67, then 111. Then the fact that these markers can mutate every generation and mimic people you're not even related to was discovered, which necessitated using markers called SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphism) which are mutations that occur once and stay the way, allowing you to prove ancient connections pretty well. The DNA testing is growing more and more definitive as the granularity of testing increases. Eventually the current apologetic arguments will have to change.

It seems to me all they need to do to prove who a Lamanite is, is test ancient bones from Jerusalem, get the list of SNP's and then look for any matching SNP's in modern polynesians or native americans. If we still had Zelph's thigh bone, we could sort this all out in short order. Convenient that it was reinterred somewhere in Missouri. (OR WAS IT?!?) Maybe it's sitting in a vault with other relics.

This was a big shelf item for me and it broke when I found out the COB changed "primary ancestors" to "among". This was an admission of guilt IMO. I came up against the DNA thing about 12 years ago, when my XW was introducing my kids to these things and they stopped believing. I was even doing gymnastics to the point where I told myself (and even said this in an FTM) that God could change skin color so he could change DNA and perhaps this was part of wiping out the Nephites or part of the curse or mark on the Lamanites, cutting them off from the house of Israel. I wonder if very many other TBMs put themselves through these same painful mental processes to try and make it work. I am convinced that 80% or more simply ignore science and new research findings, unless of course it fits nicely into their GD lesson plan that week. I'm a bit of a science geek so this DNA science was important to me and thus it was a big item on my shelf.

Gee, that's damn near chiasmus with me starting and ending with the big shelf there

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:49 amIt seems to me all they need to do to prove who a Lamanite is, is test ancient bones from Jerusalem, get the list of SNP's and then look for any matching SNP's in modern polynesians or native americans. If we still had Zelph's thigh bone, we could sort this all out in short order. Convenient that it was reinterred somewhere in Missouri. (OR WAS IT?!?) Maybe it's sitting in a vault with other relics.

That would be nice, but we can do the next best thing. Zelph's bones came from Naples-Russell Mound 8 near Griggsville, Illinois. Any human remains from the area that date to the same time period should be either Lamanite or Nephite, considering that this is the place that Joseph Smith specifically identified as the "plains of the Nephites." Why aren't BYU archaeologists and scholars crawling all over this site and the surrounding region? What better clue could you ask for in finding evidence of the Book of Mormon than having the man himself put an x on the map and say "dig here?"

It turns out that the mound has been excavated and curated, along with many others in the "plains of the Nephites." They actually date to the BoM timeframe but they fit right into the expected picture of Eastern Woodlands cultures. I'm not sure if any DNA work has been done specifically on the mounds in the Griggsville area. Current relations with tribal nations involves a lot of eggshell-walking these days when it comes to handling Native American remains. Hopewell DNA from the general region, has been well studied and its origin is Asian and consist of the same major haplogroups as all other Native Americans.

When we get into these discussions about DNA we tend to overlook the can of worms that the apologists consistently choose not to open: the Polynesians.

The notion that the Pacific Islanders are Lehites by way of Hagoth is confirmed by many official statements, such as dedicatory prayer of for the New Zealand temple given by President David O. McKay: “We express gratitude that to these fertile Islands Thou didst guide descendants of Father Lehi.” The Gospel Principles manuals support this: “Great numbers of Lamanites in North and South America and the South Pacific are now receiving the blessings of the gospel” (Gospel Principles 1997, 268). To lump the Polynesians and Native Americans into a single lineage completely destroys any apologetic attempts to explain away the specific DNA problems concerning the Native Americans. Their DNA shows that the Pacific Islanders come from a different location in Asia than the American Indians (Nature, 03 October 2016) and that the islands specifically identified by modern prophets and apostles as being populated by Hagoth and his descendents were actually settled long AFTER Book of Mormon times. And we can't blame this on misguided church manual writers. Brigham Young first said, “Those islanders and the natives of this country (United States) are of the House of Israel, of the seed of Abraham, (Journals of Religious History 8:90-104) and many others reiterated this idea. So places like New Zealand were populated by Hagoth even thought they were not populated until after the BoM story ended? The Polynesian/Lamanite doctrine unsupportable by any degree of apologetics and the indisputable evidence directly clashes with the words of the prophets.

The response so far seems to be a deep cranial burial in sand.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:20 am The response so far seems to be a deep cranial burial in sand.

And that is the part that spells shelf collapse to me. You can't make these statements, and then when attacked shovel dribble to avoid answering clear direct concerns.

Avoiding the problem and letting others handle it is a cop out of major proportions. It smacks of cover-up.

This is what started me down the rabbit hole. I was reading the Salt Lake Tribune online at work when I stumbled upon an article on DNA and the Book of Mormon. It piqued my interest and I started reading and googling.

Google led me to a youtube video about the Book of Abraham. I found really bad apologetic arguments about both subjects. I was a nonbeliever within a couple of hours.

oliblish wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:12 pm This is what started me down the rabbit hole. I was reading the Salt Lake Tribune online at work when I stumbled upon an article on DNA and the Book of Mormon. It piqued my interest and I started reading and googling.

Google led me to a youtube video about the Book of Abraham. I found really bad apologetic arguments about both subjects. I was a nonbeliever within a couple of hours.

I have come to the conclusion that it has a lot to do with how different brains are wired. Some of us just happen to be more evidence-oriented than others. That doesn't mean you'll cross the barrier in a couple of hours once confronted with evidence, as in your case, Oliblish. Some of us got stuck in cognitive dissonance for years or decades because we kept tripping over inconvenient evidence until we just couldn't avoid it any longer.

I have heard people say that they really don't care about evidence. I actually heard someone respond to BoM issues with the statement (I'm paraphrasing) "oh, those are just facts, I prefer to focus on more important things." The word truth seems to have different meanings for different people. A guy in Peru was telling me about his pursuit of a mysterious race of 12-foot tall people who live among us and he said, "but that's just my truth, I don't expect you to believe it." Although that is a distortion of the meaning of the word, I really liked his attitude. I wish more Mormons thought along these lines.

Sometimes we are perplexed by how easily our friends and loved ones step around these problems that we consider showstoppers. In the end I think it's more important for a lot of people to feel like they are on the right side and part of the special group, regardless of empirical complications.

The DNA issue is a great example of that. The church created an essay specifically devoted to answer a very serious problem, and they had a vast array of scientists, scholars, and prophets/seers/revelators to draw from. Despite all of that, they came up with absolutely no evidence to support their case, just a grocery list of excuses and misdirection. But the real kicker is that this is good enough for most of the members. The vast majority have no desire to even read it, but it provides a checkbox to reassure them that someone else has taken care of the problem.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:59 pm In the end I think it's more important for a lot of people to feel like they are on the right side and part of the special group, regardless of empirical complications.

This.

In a world filled with uncertainty, the possibility of finding THE ONE TRUTH, that not only saves us but makes us one of the chosen, the special, the blessed......is just too much to resist.

As long as the institution keeps asking us to ignore that man behind the curtain, we will do so if it keeps us from having to face that same uncertainty that the rest of the world grows up and learns to live with.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:16 am Emower,

This is one of my favorite topics and I have packed a ton of research into my annotated version of the DNA essay:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tz7 ... sp=sharing

(It's long, but action-packed )

The current state of Book of Mormon historicity apologetics, particularly as it applies to genetic population studies, pretty much requires that you abandon everything the Book of Mormon says about itself, what Joseph Smith and other prophets and General Authorities have said about it, and what the Lord himself said about it in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is really a fascinating study of intentional self-delusion maintained at an institutional level.

And thanks for that Joseph Smith quote. That's pure gold.

I look forward to reading this. It's interesting to see the abandonment of the main Book of Mormon narrative. I knew it had happened, and I knew it was due to DNA arguments, but I didn't know details.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:59 am That would be nice, but we can do the next best thing. Zelph's bones came from Naples-Russell Mound 8 near Griggsville, Illinois. Any human remains from the area that date to the same time period should be either Lamanite or Nephite, considering that this is the place that Joseph Smith specifically identified as the "plains of the Nephites." Why aren't BYU archaeologists and scholars crawling all over this site and the surrounding region? What better clue could you ask for in finding evidence of the Book of Mormon than having the man himself put an x on the map and say "dig here?"

Because according to Sorenson, Butler, and Whiting that's not how science works. You can't just go around willy nilly asking questions and then use available information to answer them. Noooo, they have to be "the right" questions. You must first ask yourself whether this will damage your worldview. Only then may you proceed.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:20 am The believers are using the tactic of simply showing that DNA presents a non-zero chance of the Book of Mormon being historically accurate. They would love to have DNA prove the Book of Mormon as historically likely and respectable. But they best they can claim is that DNA does not conclusively disprove the Book of Mormon. They simply have nothing interesting to bring to the discussion except a poor understanding about standards of evidence.

The claims of how science is supposedly supposed to work are interesting to me. I agree that taking data that has not been gathered for the express purpose of your research question, and applying it is generally frowned upon. It can be done however and some perfectly good research has been done in a wide variety of fields with second hand data. As long as assumptions and biases are recognized and dont pose a problem it should be fine. This is typically what peer review is designed to take care of. So the journal of Mormon studies just doesn't do it for me. So, if someone has collected some DNA data in an area where Isrealite DNA should have been found, I think the scientific method is perfectly OK with applying that DNA to your question, "is this DNA middle eastern or not?" Its fairly cut and dry.

Now about proving or disproving the Book of Mormon. Great job bringing up Russell's teapot. The claim that the Book of Mormon might be true is completely unfalsifiable, thus landing itself right into a huge philosophical debate. As long as the Book of Mormon rests on any type of physical truth claims however, it does subject itself to the scientific method regardless of what apologists say. At some point there is a preponderance of data that just doesn't support its claims and in some cases contradicts its claims. End of story for me, but I am a rational person who respects using a brain rather than a heart to make life-altering decisions.

Great JS quote in your OP here Emower. Can you please cite this for future use?

BTW you referenced you ex-mo status. Is that official? How did DW take that? Have you had your first drink yet?

MalcolmVillager wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:08 pm Great JS quote in your OP here Emower. Can you please cite this for future use?

BTW you referenced you ex-mo status. Is that official? How did DW take that? Have you had your first drink yet?

Here is the website:
https://archive.org/details/originalhistoryo00unse
The quote is found on page 406 of that book.

I consider myself ex-mo now. The wife has taken it very well, probably because I took it really slow and it still appears on the outside that I could be mormon. I still go to SM for her, and I sit in the foyer and read for the rest of it. I'm coming to peace with it, and she is listening to the details of why I feel the way I feel. I'm on a good sustainable path.

This quote is originally from the Wentworth Letter. You can find it in the July 2002 Ensign on LDS.org:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the- ... r?lang=eng

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... dApp_Tweet


See, new populations are being discovered all the time! The BOM is twuuuuuu!