New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies

[_Simon Southerton]

I don't have a dog in this race in terms of the alleged historcity of the Book of Mormon. As far as I'm concerned, the most serious "problems" with the Book of Mormon have nothing to do with DNA studies and population genetics. That said, I have been somewhat of a student of the scientific theories concerning the origins of the various populations of the Americas... they are finding that there is evidence of extensive contact between Europe and the Americas, all throughout ancient times. The old theory about the Bering Straits being the only avenue of emigration into the Americas is being shown as entirely inadequate to explain the evidence. The Raghavan study published in Nature in November of last year is just the most recent study to underscore the increasing amount of evidence that the DNA picture of ancient America is not nearly as simple as most of the non-Mormon/ex-Mormon arguments would have one believe.

So argue against the Book of Mormon all you want. ... The picture emerging from the latest studies is one that seems to suggest lots of contact between the "Old World" and the "New World" going clear back to Roman times and earlier.

Where is the evidence for your last claim Mr somewhat of a student? There is currently no genetic evidence of significant pre-Columbian migrations from anywhere other than sub-arctic regions via eskimo migrations.

All the Raghavan study proved is that living Europeans share DNA markers with a 24,000-year-old Siberian. It is largely irrelevant because it predates the Book of Mormon and Israel (and Adam and Eve, and the Flood) by about 20,000 years. Populations in ALL major geographic regions share common sets and subsets of DNA markers. All living Eskimos share some DNA markers with Australian Aboriginals. Does that prove Eskimos came from Australia?

The "old Bering Strait theory" as you put it, is by far the best explanation for an abundance of facts. It is a well established truth that essentially all of the ancestors of the American Indians descend from Asian ancestors.

When Mormons are faced with uncomfortable scientific facts they are invariably told by their leaders that science is changing all the time so they shouldn’t be concerned. In the essay we are told the DNA data is “tentative”. But it is LDS beliefs about Native American ancestry that have been proven to be tentative. Once LDS apologists boldly aligned the Book of Mormon civilizations with the Olmec and Maya. The Lamanite presence has rapidly been contracting to the point that it has now vanished. In contrast to back-flipping prophets there has been a century long scientific consensus about where the ancestors of Native Americans came from and when they arrived in the New World. DNA is just helping to refine our knowledge.

[_Ludd]

So argue against the Book of Mormon all you want. You have my blessing when it comes to demonstrating the numerous evidences that cast doubt on Joseph Smith's story of where the Book of Mormon came from, but using DNA evidence as a way to "prove" the Book of Mormon is not historical is, in my opinion, a really stupid way to go about things. It makes you look more "anti-science" than otherwise. The picture emerging from the latest studies is one that seems to suggest lots of contact between the "Old World" and the "New World" going clear back to Roman times and earlier.

Anti-science?

The Book of Mormon was written by someone who believed, literally, that God flooded the world about 4,000 years ago, and the only human survivors floated away safely to the Mideast on a ark.

The Book of Mormon offered an explanation to those people who believed in the flood, how and when the native Americans came to the new world.

The reason there is no mention of the others in the Book of Mormon, is because the existence of native Americans is incongruent with the story of the global flood.

I am truly puzzled that anyone who has come to accept the fact that homo sapiens have walked this planet for 200,000 years, and that story of the global flood is a religious myth, can still cling to the possibility that Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon have any basis in fact.

You apparently did not read what I wrote. Or, if you did in fact read it, you grossly misunderstood/misinterpreted my meaning. Re the part of your reply I bolded, and assuming you intended to direct that statement to what I wrote, all I can say is: what the hell caused you to conclude (from what I wrote) that I "cling to the possibility that Smiths' slaims about the origin of the Book of Mormon have any basis in fact?"

The arguments you make above are exactly the kinds of things I was referring to when I wrote "... the most serious "problems" with the Book of Mormon have nothing to do with DNA studies and population genetics."

All I'm trying to say here is that I have become convinced, based on the continuing research into the origins of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, that the old Bering Straits/"they all came from Asia" theories have been all but completely disproven. It has become very clear, at least from the things I have read on the topic, that ancient civilizations were capable of trans-oceanic travel. At least to some degree. And they "got around". From what I have read (and as far as I know, these are not "fringe" theories supported by highly disputed evidences) the Chinese and the Japanese had extensive contact with South America, going back long before Columbus. Way back, like to Roman times and thereabouts. Other studies I recall coming across in the past several years have talked about evidences of Roman, Phoenician, and even possible Egyptian contact with the Americas.

So what I'm trying to say here is that the DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon are never going to be winning arguments for the simple reason that they depend on assumptions about the Americas that are as rigid and unsupportable as the Book of Mormon saying that no one was on the continent after a global flood of Noah until the Jaredites hit the shore in their fancy submarines. The trend in ancient America anthropology/archaeology is towards an understanding that recognizes multiple prongs of contact from the so-called "Old World", both across the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. From Africa to Norway on the one side and from the South Pacific to Siberia on the other. I think we're just beginning to understand how amazingly mobile ancient civilizations really were, and our knowledge of who could possibly be represented in the DNA of "native" Americans is changing from year to year.

Anyway, that's all I'm driving at with my comments. The historicity of the Book of Mormon can be easily brought into question in all kinds of ways. But, in my opinion, the DNA argument is a totally losing proposition in the sense that it is no longer a scientifically valid argument to claim that incursions to the Americas from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, etc. did not occur until after Columbus bumped into the Caribbean on his way to China.

[_Chap]

From what I have read (and as far as I know, these are not "fringe" theories supported by highly disputed evidences) the Chinese and the Japanese had extensive contact with South America, going back long before Columbus. Way back, like to Roman times and thereabouts. Other studies I recall coming across in the past several years have talked about evidences of Roman, Phoenician, and even possible Egyptian contact with the Americas.

This paragraph is the thirteenth strike of the clock, so far as Ludd's credibility in my eyes goes: not only incredible in itself, but casting into doubt all that preceded it.

[_Themis]

Anyway, that's all I'm driving at with my comments. The historicity of the Book of Mormon can be easily brought into question in all kinds of ways. But, in my opinion, the DNA argument is a totally losing proposition in the sense that it is no longer a scientifically valid argument to claim that incursions to the Americas from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, etc. did not occur until after Columbus bumped into the Caribbean on his way to China.

DNA evidence is huge when it comes to the Book of Mormon, and it's only getting worse. The advantage for the church is that it is a complicated science few understand well, as can be seen from comments from you, tobin, and WD. The article by the church uses this ignorance in order to try and make it look like it's no big deal. It will work since most are not going to educate themselves and will never listen to any future arguments about it since the church has said it is not a big deal and they don't understand it. Ignorance is the main tool protecting incorrect beliefs.

[_aznative]

.Anyway, that's all I'm driving at with my comments. The historicity of the Book of Mormon can be easily brought into question in all kinds of ways. But, in my opinion, the DNA argument is a totally losing proposition in the sense that it is no longer a scientifically valid argument to claim that incursions to the Americas from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, etc. did not occur until after Columbus bumped into the Caribbean on his way to China.

You have got to be kidding me. Seriously? Acadamia has proof of extinct civilizations and people that pre-date Columbus. Whole civilizations. The human genome is being mapped at an incredible pace.

Yet in no way can we find either archealogically or through DNA research a civilization that reached over 1 million souls. A civilization that had advanced technology, and advanced agricultural skills. A civilization that had horses and elephants. A civilization so great they had road systems and an advanced trade system. Monarchies, and judges. All manner of fine and precious metals.

Yet we have nothing. NOTHING. Absolutely zero physical proof that such a Jewish based society EVER existed in the Americas pre-Columbus. And the native peoples discovered here by European civilizations, who are supposed to be the direct and principal ancestors of these Jewish castaways have absolutely no genetic make up in which to prove this?

Get a clue.

[_Shulem]

LDS Newsroom
The conclusions of genetics, like those of any science, are tentative, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the origins of the native populations of the Americas.

SGS
The DNA science is not tentative or inconclusive. It is consistent with scientific conclusions about Native American origins from numerous other scientific disciplines.

The Presidency news room might just as well say:

The conclusions of Egyptology, like those of any science, are tentative, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the meanings of the Facsimile No. 3 and the Explanations given thereof.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

LDS Newsroom
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.”

SGS
I find it hard to pay attention to the words of a member of the First Presidency from 85 years ago because the words of many, more recent, prophets are RINGING IN MY EARS.

Like Marion G. Romney for example. The church is throwing their prophets and apostles under the bus. It's a massacre. The church is not only guilty of lying but also spiritually murdering it's former apostles. I'd say the LDS church is just plain EVIL!

Paul O

[_Simon Southerton]

[
So what I'm trying to say here is that the DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon are never going to be winning arguments for the simple reason that they depend on assumptions about the Americas that are as rigid and unsupportable as the Book of Mormon saying that no one was on the continent after a global flood of Noah until the Jaredites hit the shore in their fancy submarines. The trend in ancient America anthropology/archaeology is towards an understanding that recognizes multiple prongs of contact from the so-called "Old World", both across the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. From Africa to Norway on the one side and from the South Pacific to Siberia on the other. I think we're just beginning to understand how amazingly mobile ancient civilizations really were, and our knowledge of who could possibly be represented in the DNA of "native" Americans is changing from year to year.

Ludd, you need to get your head out of the popular anthropology and archaeology magazines and stop thinking the Discovery Channel is science. Most of what they produce is wild speculation and you are just regurgitating it. Junk science mags and docs have been banging on about Phoenecian, Japanese, Chinese, Jewish, Spaceman migrations for the last 50 years. Its all BS designed to sell more copy and to get bums on seats. Its about $$$$. And the sensationalist approach works because a new crop of gullible fools comes along every generation, hungry for this sort of crap.

The DNA is not the magic bullet but you would be foolish to think that it hasn't made a dent on the Book of Mormon. that's why the essay was written. This was a very risky essay for the church to put out. But they had no choice because the church is bleeding its youth who are much more swayed by science. The fact is that all Native American DNA is derived from Asia. The handful of lineages that are not are clearly derived from post-Columbus admixture. They are either Africa or western European. There may have been the odd Polynesian or Viking who stumbled into the Americas but their contribution to the gene pool was insignificant.

[_Simon Southerton]

[
So what I'm trying to say here is that the DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon are never going to be winning arguments for the simple reason that they depend on assumptions about the Americas that are as rigid and unsupportable as the Book of Mormon saying that no one was on the continent after a global flood of Noah until the Jaredites hit the shore in their fancy submarines. The trend in ancient America anthropology/archaeology is towards an understanding that recognizes multiple prongs of contact from the so-called "Old World", both across the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. From Africa to Norway on the one side and from the South Pacific to Siberia on the other. I think we're just beginning to understand how amazingly mobile ancient civilizations really were, and our knowledge of who could possibly be represented in the DNA of "native" Americans is changing from year to year.

Ludd, you need to get your head out of the popular anthropology and archaeology magazines and stop thinking the Discovery Channel is science. Most of what they produce is wild speculation and you are just regurgitating it. Junk science mags and docos have been banging on about Phoenecian, Japanese, Chinese, Jewish, Spaceman migrations for the last 50 years. Its all b***s*** designed to sell more copy and to get bums on seats. Its about $$$$. And the sensationalist approach works because a new crop of gullible fools comes along every generation, hungry for this sort of crap.

The DNA is not the magic bullet but you would be foolish to think that it hasn't made a dent on the Book of Mormon. That's why the essay was written. This was a very risky essay for the church to put out. But they had no choice because the church is bleeding its youth who are much more swayed by science. The fact is that all Native American DNA is derived from Asia. The handful of lineages that are not are clearly derived from post-Columbus admixture. They are either Africa or western European. There may have been the odd Polynesian or Viking who stumbled into the Americas but their contribution to the gene pool was insignificant.

[_Arrakis]

Ludd, you need to get your head out of the popular anthropology and archaeology magazines and stop thinking the Discovery Channel is science. Most of what they produce is wild speculation and you are just regurgitating it. Junk science mags and docs have been banging on about Phoenecian, Japanese, Chinese, Jewish, Spaceman migrations for the last 50 years. Its all b***s*** designed to sell more copy and to get bums on seats. Its about $$$$. And the sensationalist approach works because a new crop of gullible fools comes along every generation, hungry for this sort of crap.