New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies

[_aznative]

justrob part2

We also must rule out, as the article has done, the possibility of Lehi's family being the only group in the Americas, despite some church leaders preaching that, the Book of Mormon chronicling rough population numbers throughout (reaching millions), claiming they filled the land, stating that the land was preserved only for the righteous, & explicitly detailing the story of the 1 person they found not of their group (Coriantumr).

To continue, we will assume the most diluting possibility, that Lehi's group was a minority in an abundantly populated land.

To explain the missing DNA, we must assume that no one (or very few) of Lehi's descendants ever reproduced with the other people of the Americas, else traces of their DNA would be found in autosomal testing (those telling Old testament DNA passages).

While the Nephites were unlikely to intermarry with others, the Lamanites had no such reservations & frequently interbred with Nephite defectors. Book of Mormon apologists also use the presence of other groups of people in the Americas as a means to justify rapid population growth. To claim complete isolation may help the DNA argument, but would cause population difficulties.

Even if the Lamanites had remained an isolated tribe, during and after the Book of Mormon narrative, it would mean that the tribe would have to not be tested but still have had the gospel contained in the Book of Mormon preached to them.

Many modern LDS prophets have claimed groups of Native Americans as Lamanites & even sent missionaries under that pretext to fulfill prophecy. There are several passages of canonized scripture detailing Lamanites after the establishment of the church including Doctrine & Covenants 10, 28, 30, 32, 49, & 54.

It seems, to me, that the church has painted itself into a corner.

While it is admirable that they are attempting to address difficult concerns, it is reprehensible that their approach has been that of omission & deceit.

I implore my friends and family, nearly all of whom are LDS, to honestly evaluate their beliefs.

I am constantly encouraged to read LDS literature, and expected to never be upset because "they are only worried about my soul, because they love me." Not only do I comply, but I do so without anger toward those making the request.

Please keep that in mind as I ask you to consider these facts. Do it with an open heart, with real intent, and realizing that I do it because I don't want you to have the detriment any longer of an institution of men profiting off your belief.

What is it worth if it isn't true?

Ezra Taft Benson wrote, "The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon."

Jeffery R Holland said "Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward. Not everything in life is so black and white, but it seems the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our belief is exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those."
https://www.LDS.org/new-era/1995/06/true-or-false

Through pondering and studying the Book of Mormon for most of my life, I have determined that it is neither divine nor true. It is a fraud containing plagiarized text (notably "The Late War").

What's worse, is that it is used as a means of control over millions of kind and loving people. It is sent into the world with a sales force of thousands of young believers (of whom I was one) peddling it to the masses.

Its narrative is anachronistic at best, and immoral at worst. The church that claims it damages the lives of its members financially, emotionally, and in some cases physically (how many young disease-ridden RMs do you know, or parents of a missionary who died?).

Please, please, please re-evaluate your beliefs. If you believe I am mistaken, I am happy to hear your reasons, but please don't just dismiss facts because your church published an article saying that you shouldn't trust science or external facts. Most members (my former self included) are afraid to read or research for fear of discovering facts outside of their faith. If you have the truth, why should you fear? If god were on your side, who could be against you?

Please read. Please think.
-Rob

P.S. this post assumes a high level of understanding of LDS scripture and history. You may contact me for references to anything I've stated as assumed knowledge above.

P.P.S. anyone may copy or share this post freely.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

I can summarize it for you without reading it.

When you have Faith, Facts don't matter.

[_aznative]

:rolleyes:

The problem Rob identifies is the same problem probably most of you here suffer from, and that is that you were raised in the church and had things passed down to you that simply weren't true. Things became ingrained in the culture, passed down as lore, and the core doctrines of the gospel were taken for granted. Those core doctrines being the concept of personal revelation and truth coming from God not Man. For whatever reason your parents apparently failed to teach you that you shouldn't take things for granted or accept the gospel blindly, perhaps because they didn't understand this themselves. Apparently you did accept it blindly, and because you never actually had a real understanding of the gospel, or a real testimony, you perceive all of this out of context. Joseph Smith himself said he didn't blame anybody for not believing him and didn't expect anyone to take anything he was saying blindly, and that if the roles were reversed, he'd be a skeptic. I really do appreciate Rob's attitude, but it is based on the very sort of blind faith he thinks he's arguing against.

So by having things passed down to us that simply aren't true, the church must have fallen into apostasy then, correct? Because all of these things which you reference as not being true are being taught as true in the classrooms and from over the pulpit today.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

I can summarize it for you without reading it.

When you have Faith, Facts don't matter.

This is complete BS. When you have faith, the facts matter more. You do not at all understand faith.

Yep, the fact there is no such thing as a lamanite really helps one know the Truth, doesn't it?

[_Themis]

I can summarize it for you without reading it.

When you have Faith, Facts don't matter.

This is complete b***s***. When you have faith, the facts matter more. You do not at all understand faith.

Apparently you don't.

[Guest]

:rolleyes:

The problem Rob identifies is the same problem probably most of you here suffer from, and that is that you were raised in the church and had things passed down to you that simply weren't true. Things became ingrained in the culture, passed down as lore, and the core doctrines of the gospel were taken for granted. Those core doctrines being the concept of personal revelation and truth coming from God not Man. For whatever reason your parents apparently failed to teach you that you shouldn't take things for granted or accept the gospel blindly, perhaps because they didn't understand this themselves. Apparently you did accept it blindly, and because you never actually had a real understanding of the gospel, or a real testimony, you perceive all of this out of context. Joseph Smith himself said he didn't blame anybody for not believing him and didn't expect anyone to take anything he was saying blindly, and that if the roles were reversed, he'd be a skeptic. I really do appreciate Rob's attitude, but it is based on the very sort of blind faith he thinks he's arguing against.

So by having things passed down to us that simply aren't true, the church must have fallen into apostasy then, correct? Because all of these things which you reference as not being true are being taught as true in the classrooms and from over the pulpit today.

Since the worth of one soul is so great, please do me the favor of helping to save mine. Please point out these testimony shattering, faith cancelling heresy's and false doctrines that are being taught from the pulpit and from the classrooms that are not true. Surely, as claiming to be one that has such insight and information, it is your responsibility to declare it here and now, to set matters straight, and to help I and others find the Christ through his one true church.

[_Themis]

I don't have a dog in this race in terms of the alleged historcity of the Book of Mormon.

Are you suggesting you are a non-mormon who just has a mild interest in Mormon issues?

[_aznative]

I don't have a dog in this race in terms of the alleged historcity of the Book of Mormon.

Are you suggesting you are a non-mormon who just has a mild interest in Mormon issues?

He's so fullofshit when he starts out a response like that. Of course he does, and he proved it plainly in his attempted "non-defense" defense of tscc.

[_Brackite]

I just saw this posted on NOM but haven't had a chance to read through it yet:

https://www.LDS.org/topics/book-of-morm ... s?lang=eng

LOL!!! That Essay References John L. Sorenson's, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Essay.
From That Essay:

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.6 At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”7

...

John L. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (Fall 1992), 1–34. These arguments were summarized more recently in John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (2013). Sorenson suggests that indicators in the book’s text makes it “inescapable that there were substantial populations in the ‘promised land’ throughout the period of the Nephite record, and probably in the Jaredite era also” (“When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 34).

From REINVENTING LAMANITE IDENTITY:

WHERE CAN Book of Mormon readers find the throngs of indigenous “others” who revisionist scholars claim intermingled with the Jaredite and Amerisraelite societies? Those who uncover “others” lurking in the narrative often perceive them buried in subtle, or even problematic, rhetorical nuances. Hugh Nibley and John Sorenson, for example, discover non-Israelite “others” in a prayer offered by Alma on behalf of the Zoramites: “O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren” (Alma 31:35, emphasis added). Nibley and Sorenson read “many” (i.e., not all ) as an indication of “other [non-Israelite] things going on”5 and “ethnic variety.”6 Despite its appeal, Nibley and Sorenson’s interpretation is unsound.

A slightly different, yet significant, rendition of this prayer is preserved in the Book of Mormon original manuscript, print-er’s manuscript,7 and 1830 edition: “. . . and many of them are our near brethren.”8 In other words, “many”—but not all—of the Zoramites are close relatives of Alma and some of his com-panions.9 Amulek employs the same usage in his recollection, “As I was journeying to see a very near kindred . . .”10 A rig-orous evaluation of Alma’s supplication provides no evidence for an awareness of non-Israelite “others” in the promised land during the Nephite reign.

...

6. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS , 1985), 242; see also Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (Fall 1992): 8–9.
7. I’m indebted to Van E. Hale for alerting me to this variant in the printer’s manuscript.
8. Alma chapter XVI, p. 313 (1830 edition). Royal Skousen renders the original manuscript, “& many of them are our {r<%e%>|n}ear Breth / -re{r|n}” (Royal Skousen, ed., The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon—Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text [Provo: FARMS, 2001], 297, virgule line break added), and the printer’s manuscript, “& many of them are our near brethren” (Skousen, ed., The Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Part Two, Alma 17–Moroni 10—Typographical Facsimile of the Entire Text in Two Parts
[Provo: FARMS , 2001], 553); “near” is absent for the first time in the 1837 edition Book of Mormon.

See Also: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 36#p380136

[_DrW]

:rolleyes:

The problem Rob identifies is the same problem probably most of you here suffer from, and that is that you were raised in the church and had things passed down to you that simply weren't true. Things became ingrained in the culture, passed down as lore, and the core doctrines of the gospel were taken for granted. Those core doctrines being the concept of personal revelation and truth coming from God not Man. For whatever reason your parents apparently failed to teach you that you shouldn't take things for granted or accept the gospel blindly, perhaps because they didn't understand this themselves. Apparently you did accept it blindly, and because you never actually had a real understanding of the gospel, or a real testimony, you perceive all of this out of context. Joseph Smith himself said he didn't blame anybody for not believing him and didn't expect anyone to take anything he was saying blindly, and that if the roles were reversed, he'd be a skeptic. I really do appreciate Rob's attitude, but it is based on the very sort of blind faith he thinks he's arguing against.

Water Dog,

What you are saying here is that the gospel, as taught at any time before the latest DNA apologetics were required to keep it from appearing fraudulent, was not really the correct gospel.

In other words, you appear to be a proponent of the idea that Mormon doctrines, beliefs and scriptural interpretation can change, at a moments notice, in an attempt to avoid direct conflict with science.

Over the years, Mormons have been forced to change their beliefs when it comes to the age of the Earth, global flood of Noah, evolution, the curse of Cain, and the list goes on and on. To some extent, the faithful have been able to come up with implausible and convoluted explanations to allow their unfounded religious beliefs to comport with the science. BCSpace and his make it up as you go along theories on evolution are a prime example of how ridiculous this kind of self delusion can become.

When it comes to the Book of Mormon/DNA issue, however, there is really no way out. Anyone who wishes to ignore the scientific evidence to maintain belief in the Book of Mormon must be counted among the blatant and full blown science deniers.

You claim to be a student of population genetics, yet I see no evidence whatsoever that you even read Dr. Southerton's posts upthread, let alone understood what he wrote.

So, just to let you know who you are throwing under the bus when you try to hide behind the LGT model, or try to say that Lamanite DNA just somehow disappeared, here are a few reminders from approved LDS sources.

"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western Tribes of Indians... By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt…".
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Letter to Rochester, New York, newspaper editor N. C. Saxton, January 4, 1833

"In this important and interesting book, the history of 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."
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Official Church Publication Times and Seasons, (March 1, 1842) III:707.

You were apparently not convinced by the conversation that Joseph Smith claimed to have had with Moroni, even though is recorded as scripture in the PoGP. I trust that the above two statements by Joseph Smith himself, as well as the story of Zelph below, will be sufficient evidence as to what Joseph Smith himself believed as to the descendents of the Lamanites and their geographic distribution in Book of Mormon times.

And there is always the saga of Zelph the white Lamanite:

In June 1834, the Prophet Joseph Smith recounted the discovery of the skeleton of 'Zelph, the white Lamanite' in a mound in Illinois, referring to "the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this country - Nephites, Lamanites, etc., subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. .. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites."
- Documentary History of the Church, II:79-80; Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1:482-83, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City.)