NOM

I should have asked a long time ago, but does anyone have any resources to help me understand the BoM essay?

I tried reading the essay years ago, and none of it made any sense to me. It was never one of my big issues, so I didn't pursue it. I simply don't understand the apologist argument.

What can help me understand what I need to know?

I really enjoyed this podcast when looking into this issue. John Dehlin discusses the essay with Jamie Hanis Handy, Simon Southerton and Eric Fairfield.

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/t ... chael-ash/

We've got Hagoth's DNA annotated essay up at https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/ldsessay-dna

Brother Jake covers it in one his videos which is a funny listen @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL8pYyJmWbk

MormonThink also covers it @ http://www.mormonthink.com/essays-bom-dna.htm

There's some good responses from Simon Sutherton from the more recent DNA studies where he makes it clear that the European descent being found was AFTER Columbus arrived as well.

One thing in the Church apologists favor is that they have never strongly pushed the idea that the Lamanites were cursed by God with Asiatic DNA. Not sure if that hesitancy is related to Church missionary efforts in Asia.

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:03 pm One thing in the Church apologists favor is that they have never strongly pushed the idea that the Lamanites were cursed by God with Asiatic DNA. Not sure if that hesitancy is related to Church missionary efforts in Asia.

Wow talk about "whack-a-mole", apologists could claim the "curse" was to make them Asian, but then they would have to find a way to apologize to the Asians!

slavereeno wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:24 pm

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:03 pm One thing in the Church apologists favor is that they have never strongly pushed the idea that the Lamanites were cursed by God with Asiatic DNA. Not sure if that hesitancy is related to Church missionary efforts in Asia.

Wow talk about "whack-a-mole", apologists could claim the "curse" was to make them Asian, but then they would have to find a way to apologize to the Asians!

One of the many outs the essay attempts to create is the question about the ancestral origin of Lehi's wife Saraia. I guess they want you to consider that maybe she was Asian? Which would make Nephi, Laman, and Lemuel half Asian. Even as ridiculous as that suggestion is, you would still have to eliminate the Lehi's half of the DNA somehow. And you can't put any shade on Lehi's ancestry because one of the reasons they chopped off Laban's head was to get the genealogy the proved he was descended from Joseph.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:51 pm I tried reading the essay years ago, and none of it made any sense to me.

So it worked. I think one of the main purposes of that essay is to make you feel like it's too confusing for ordinary people and that you can rest assured that smarter people in the church have it all figured out for you. The problem is that the essay doesn't give you an answer. It drops a pile of convoluted alternate-universe "what-ifs" and then tells you to just trust and believe because it's impossible to get to the real facts.

"Genetic drift" sums up the defense, as well as "we don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like".

The problem is we do know what Asian or Siberian DNA looks like and it looks a lot like modern "lamanites" LOL.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:13 am

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:51 pm I tried reading the essay years ago, and none of it made any sense to me.

So it worked. I think one of the main purposes of that essay is to make you feel like it's too confusing for ordinary people and that you can rest assured that smarter people in the church have it all figured out for you. The problem is that the essay doesn't give you an answer. It drops a pile of convoluted alternate-universe "what-ifs" and then tells you to just trust and believe because it's impossible to get to the real facts.

There's that 372(ish) page response to the CES Letter by the 'former CES Employee' which is like the FAIR response except more sarcastic and takes on some more fringey-apologetics

Anyway - when you get to the DNA part he basically says "I'm not a DNA specialist so I'm not going to deal with this," as if to say that the CES Letter's claims on DNA shouldn't be taken seriously.

The church loves that approach - this is too complicated and dificult to understand, so just have faith and stay in the boat.

The reality, however, is that we have a lot of experts and they ALL agree that the Book of Mormon narrative is a lie when it comes to who the Lamanites were.

And if that's not bad enough, Joseph Smith claims repeatedly that GOD told him to preach to the Lamanites (Indians).

So either God doesn't know who the Lamanites are, or Joseph is making it up. Take your pick because you can't have it both ways.

Thanks for all the responses. Hopefully I will have time this weekend to look through them.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:13 am

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:51 pm I tried reading the essay years ago, and none of it made any sense to me.

So it worked. I think one of the main purposes of that essay is to make you feel like it's too confusing for ordinary people and that you can rest assured that smarter people in the church have it all figured out for you. The problem is that the essay doesn't give you an answer. It drops a pile of convoluted alternate-universe "what-ifs" and then tells you to just trust and believe because it's impossible to get to the real facts.

Oh, definitely. Luckily for me, I had enough other issues I didn't need the BoM essay and I'd read the responses on plenty of other issues at that point to assume they were all the same garbage.

What probably hurt me more than the convoluted message in the essay, were the years of indoctrination that told me I was stupid. It wasn't told to me so much as implied that if I didn't get "it," whatever "it" was, then I just wasn't very smart. I know now it had nothing to do with my intelligence and was the fact that there was nothing to "get" in the first place. But it's been a bad habit to get out of, the self-deprecating belief that I'm stupid so I should just try harder and trust others.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:50 am
What probably hurt me more than the convoluted message in the essay, were the years of indoctrination that told me I was stupid. It wasn't told to me so much as implied that if I didn't get "it," whatever "it" was, then I just wasn't very smart. I know now it had nothing to do with my intelligence and was the fact that there was nothing to "get" in the first place. But it's been a bad habit to get out of, the self-deprecating belief that I'm stupid so I should just try harder and trust others.

I for one would really like to apologise to you and some other women I have associated with in the church for being a part of this debacle.

I remember when I was in the Bishopric having a newly called Relief Society president come to me and say, "Bro. Pale, I've prayed and pondered over these two names of sisters in our ward and I would like to have them called as my counselors."

My response was, "I'm sorry sister 'Smith', but according to the church handbook of instructions you may submit two or three names of possible candidates for your counselors, but the Bishop has the final say about who will be called and who is available to serve."

That poor woman looked at me just for a split second with a totally defeated look in her eyes and then said, "Alright, just let me know what the Bishop thinks about these names..." Neither name was available as per the Bishops instructions. A woman in the church may THINK she has access to inspiration from the Lord but oddly her inspiration will always be subordinate to the priesthood.

I can't tell you how much I would like to go back to her and say how sorry I am for being a part of such a sham. There were numerous times when my conscience said, "This is wrong" but when you're in a leadership position it is drilled into you that you tow the line whether you agree with it or not because EVERYONE above you is wiser, smarter and more faithful than you are.

So we do what we're told.....

They try to tell us that Mountain Meadows was an anomaly. An aberration. That it could never happen today because we're so much smarter now.

Don't you believe it.....

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:20 am That poor woman looked at me just for a split second with a totally defeated look in her eyes and then said, "Alright, just let me know what the Bishop thinks about these names..." Neither name was available as per the Bishops instructions. A woman in the church may THINK she has access to inspiration from the Lord but oddly her inspiration will always be subordinate to the priesthood.

My DW was a secretary in a primary presidency several years back when new counselors needed to be called. The primary president prayed and such and submitted two names, they were denied. She submitted more names and they were also denied, in addition the bishop called her in and chastised this woman for not worthily tapping into to "The Spirit (TM)" to submit better names. This woman was in tears after this meeting with the bishop.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:05 pm

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:20 am That poor woman looked at me just for a split second with a totally defeated look in her eyes and then said, "Alright, just let me know what the Bishop thinks about these names..." Neither name was available as per the Bishops instructions. A woman in the church may THINK she has access to inspiration from the Lord but oddly her inspiration will always be subordinate to the priesthood.

My DW was a secretary in a primary presidency several years back when new counselors needed to be called. The primary president prayed and such and submitted two names, they were denied. She submitted more names and they were also denied, in addition the bishop called her in and chastised this woman for not worthily tapping into to "The Spirit (TM)" to submit better names. This woman was in tears after this meeting with the bishop.

Wow, that is messed up. That man is a jerk.

Linked wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:43 pm
Wow, that is messed up. That man is a jerk.

He may be a jerk, but it's critical to remember "culture and behavior grow out of doctrine" If the doctrine is false or is the doctrine of men, you're going to get some crappy behavior.

Just like a computer. Garbage in.... garbage out.

So the root blame truly lies with Joseph Smith and every screwed up leader that followed him up to the present day. Present day leadership must take blame and be responsible because they do very little to make things right. They perpetuate a fraud even though somewhere deep down inside in that little place in their conscience where they don't like to visit.....they know some things are seriously wrong.

Otherwise, why are they taking these baby steps to change temple ordinances??? When enough people call B.S. on this stuff, they cave in and change it. If it was truly from God and they were convinced it was righteous, they would be immovable on these issues.

In reality, they are gutless cowards. Damned if they do....damned if they don't.

ETA: Didn't mean to hijack this thread.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:18 am "...as well as "we don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like".

That's the part of the essay where they pretend this is some sort of CSI investigation and you can't connect two people if you don't have a sample of both sets of DNA. Red Herring. Another red herring is pretending this is all about mitochondrial DNA and we can only follow the female line.The technology is decades beyond that.

What do we know about the genetics of the founding BoM Peoples?

1) Lehi: an Israelite who could trace his lineage back to Joseph (and therefore at least as far back as Abraham). Why assume his wife is some kind of weird alien? He was led to a land that, according to the BoM and modern LDS leaders, was kept barren of other people.

2) Mulek: son of Judean king Zedekiah who could trace his genealogy back as far as you care to ask, at least 18 generations back to David.

3) Brother of Jared: The BoM places him at the Tower of Babel, before people were scattered and languages changed (if you believe the Bible and the BoM), so not much chance he and his clan were anything but long-time Mesopotamians. They were sent to "that quarter where never had man been."

4) All of those "other" people the essay talks about (i.e. real, nonfictional people): Oops, the BoM doesn't mention them, even though the essay tells us that they had already filled the land.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:58 pm

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:18 am "...as well as "we don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like".

That's the part of the essay where they pretend this is some sort of CSI investigation and you can't connect two people if you don't have a sample of both sets of DNA. Red Herring. Another red herring is pretending this is all about mitochondrial DNA and we can only follow the female line.The technology is decades beyond that.

I can't remember for sure, but I think this is where they lost me and I felt like I just didn't know the basic info and terms enough to be competent to make a judgment regarding the argument.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:58 pm What do we know about the genetics of the founding BoM Peoples?

1) Lehi: an Israelite who could trace his lineage back to Joseph (and therefore at least as far back as Abraham). Why assume his wife is some kind of weird alien? He was led to a land that, according to the BoM and modern LDS leaders, was kept barren of other people.

2) Mulek: son of Judean king Zedekiah who could trace his genealogy back as far as you care to ask, at least 18 generations back to David.

3) Brother of Jared: The BoM places him at the Tower of Babel, before people were scattered and languages changed (if you believe the Bible and the BoM), so not much chance he and his clan were anything but long-time Mesopotamians. They were sent to "that quarter where never had man been."

4) All of those "other" people the essay talks about (i.e. real, nonfictional people): Oops, the BoM doesn't mention them, even though the essay tells us that they had already filled the land.

Oddly enough, this is so simple and easy to understand and refutes EXACTLY what the church taught me. No fancy words or terms used.

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:20 am I for one would really like to apologise to you and some other women I have associated with in the church for being a part of this debacle.

Thanks. I did experience some of what you wrote about. Priesthood leadership always knew best. I thought I wasn't well-read or couldn't understand the gospel because I didn't go on a mission. But there was a lot of it that I think happens to both men and women. If I didn't get an answer to Moroni's promise, it was my problem for not understanding how the spirit worked or having unreasonable expectations. If the concept of faith (belief in things not seen but true) made no sense to me, I was just too simple to understand. If I couldn't memorize the temple ceremony at the veil, I just wasn't smart enough (no, it was a stupor of thought like I'd never experienced before.) When the earth being 6000 years old didn't make sense, I didn't understand the deep doctrine and physics of time on Kolob. Everything would make sense when I went to the temple, except it didn't - again, I was too simple to understand the deep truth within. I stared reading BCC in the mid-2000s and even though I felt like I found my people, I didn't have a PhD or a law degree so again, I wasn't smart enough to have an opinion. And the sad part of this is that I am a pretty bright person. I've done great in school, I'm extremely well-read. I didn't pursue more education because I thought I was stupid and I never really studied the church because I always assumed it was simply beyond me.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:45 pm And the sad part of this is that I am a pretty bright person. I've done great in school, I'm extremely well-read.

Yep, it happens to both men and women in the church but probably women much more than men.

When I went to my SP about the things that were troubling me with church history he eventually said that he had read all the bad stuff and it didn't bother him.

That was right after he inferred that perhaps I was involved in some deep dark sin or maybe I was just lazy and didn't like the work involved in leadership....

The big message being implied is, "You aren't as spiritually strong as I am. Don't be stupid. Just forget all that anti-mormon crap and do what you're told."

It was anger inducing, humiliating and the last thing I was expecting from a leader who is supposed to be understanding and supportive.

I suddenly realized who it was that had the real problem and it wasn't me. Of course things have changed a little in the last ten years but it's a day late and a dollar short. Leadership slowly learned (speaking of being stupid) that being dismissive with membership wasn't working or keeping people in the church. I'm wondering how long it will take the idiots to figure out the game is up and their bare butts are blowing in the breeze....

I just wanted to throw out some resources from people who study DNA:

Thomas Murphy is an anthropologist who did research into native american DNA and the Book of Mormon.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Murphy11

Simon Southerton is a geneticist from Australia who has written about the subject:
http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/

blazerb wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:38 pm Simon Southerton is a geneticist from Australia who has written about the subject:
http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/

Southerton's Losing a Lost Tribe really got the earth shaking as far as DNA and the BoM. It also led to his excommunication, although the distasteful lengths the church went to in order to create trumped-up charges to make it look like there were other reasons were abhorrent. They really don't like having bishops calling them out on lies.