New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies

[_Jaybear]

So what? Joseph Smith was a 19th-century man. I discount what he had to say because he likely didn't have all the facts himself. The Book of Mormon may have a basis in fact (i.e. there really are plates) and Joseph Smith could have misunderstood what they really represented or who the Lehites (and others) really were.

What is better explanation for the absence of any discussion of the native population.

1. The Nephites had no meaningful interactions with the natives worthy of mention.
2. Whoever wrote the book was not aware that the Americas were colonized over 10,000 years ago, and there was no global flood.

[Guest]

Maybe you should ask these guys why they do.

That's the thing - THEY DON'T.

And here is where you clearly are trolling.

On Edit.

Tell you what WD, if you can produce a signed statement from any of those men expressing any doubt about any person and event accurately described in the Book of Mormon happened, I'll send you a $100.00

[_aznative]

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.

Because the Book of Mormon may not be any of the things you claim it is. A small group of human-beings from the Middle-east could have travelled here and set up a small colony. They may have had little to no contact with the larger civilizations already here and their descendants could now be part of the larger mixed population of Native Americans. Nothing Simon (or the rest of his pet bozos) have presented show that is untrue.

According to this FAIR publication http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/adding-up-the-book-of-mormon-peoples, it was not a small Middle Eastern Colony.

Considering that (conservatively) twenty-five percent of the population were either “foreign born” or children of immigrants, it is reasonable that more than 490,000 people were living in the Nephite and Lamanite areas by 150 B.C. (more than enough to accommodate the thousands of dead mentioned in Mosiah 9:18-19).51 It is also plausible that more than seven million people were alive at the time of Jesus Christ’s mortal ministry.52 Even assuming only a “tithe” of survivors (more than 700,000) of the catastrophes described in 3 Nephi 8-11, a population of up to 100 million by AD 350 is not beyond reason. This figure is more than sufficient to sustain the hundreds of thousands of Nephite dead during the “Battle of Cumorah.”

It takes into account that for the numbers of dead that are recorded into the Book of Mormon, they would have had to of taken in immigrant populations. If we are talking about the great civilizations of people that are accounted for in the Book of Mormon, we would have to take into account the culture of said civiliztions. To not expect any intermarriage is ridiculous.

Additionally, the church taught for many generations that the Book of Mormon was a recorded history of the native peoples of the Americas. Not a small part of, or a lost middle eastern colony that we cannot account for. It was an accounting of the principal ancestors of the Lamanites. Unquestionably, we were taught the Native Americans are the Lamanites.

And now we cannot account for them through DNA? We use DNA to establish genealogy to conduct posthumous ordinances in our temples. We use it to bind families together forever. The LDS controlled Utah legislature has determined that DNA evidence is suffecient to convict and put to death those responsible for heinous crimes.

Yet DNA is not good enough to establish the veracity of the historical claims of the church concerning the Book of Mormon. Whatthefuckever.

[_Tobin]

So what? Joseph Smith was a 19th-century man. I discount what he had to say because he likely didn't have all the facts himself. The Book of Mormon may have a basis in fact (i.e. there really are plates) and Joseph Smith could have misunderstood what they really represented or who the Lehites (and others) really were.

What is better explanation for the absence of any discussion of the native population.

1. The Nephites had no meaningful interactions with the natives worthy of mention.

The Book of Mormon doesn't mention these other large civilizations that were clearly here. IF the Book of Mormon has a basis in fact, that seems consistent with the account itself. And the Lamanites themselves may have been as a result of the Lehites intermarrying with other small groups of natives they met here. Bear in mind, that the Lehites were supposedly a small group of less than 100 people that arrived here. Yet, within a short period there are seemingly thousands of them and they are conducting wars.

2. Whoever wrote the book was not aware that the Americas were colonized over 10,000 years ago, and there was no global flood.

That may simply be an incorrect interpretation of events.

[_Tobin]

Because the Book of Mormon may not be any of the things you claim it is. A small group of human-beings from the Middle-east could have travelled here and set up a small colony. They may have had little to no contact with the larger civilizations already here and their descendants could now be part of the larger mixed population of Native Americans. Nothing Simon (or the rest of his pet bozos) have presented show that is untrue.

According to this FAIR publication http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/adding-up-the-book-of-mormon-peoples, it was not a small Middle Eastern Colony.

Considering that (conservatively) twenty-five percent of the population were either “foreign born” or children of immigrants, it is reasonable that more than 490,000 people were living in the Nephite and Lamanite areas by 150 B.C. (more than enough to accommodate the thousands of dead mentioned in Mosiah 9:18-19).51 It is also plausible that more than seven million people were alive at the time of Jesus Christ’s mortal ministry.52 Even assuming only a “tithe” of survivors (more than 700,000) of the catastrophes described in 3 Nephi 8-11, a population of up to 100 million by AD 350 is not beyond reason. This figure is more than sufficient to sustain the hundreds of thousands of Nephite dead during the “Battle of Cumorah.”

It takes into account that for the numbers of dead that are recorded into the Book of Mormon, they would have had to of taken in immigrant populations. If we are talking about the great civilizations of people that are accounted for in the Book of Mormon, we would have to take into account the culture of said civiliztions. To not expect any intermarriage is ridiculous.

Additionally, the church taught for many generations that the Book of Mormon was a recorded history of the native peoples of the Americas. Not a small part of, or a lost middle eastern colony that we cannot account for. It was an accounting of the principal ancestors of the Lamanites. Unquestionably, we were taught the Native Americans are the Lamanites.

And now we cannot account for them through DNA? We use DNA to establish genealogy to conduct posthumous ordinances in our temples. We use it to bind families together forever. The LDS controlled Utah legislature has determined that DNA evidence is suffecient to convict and put to death those responsible for heinous crimes.

Yet DNA is not good enough to establish the veracity of the historical claims of the church concerning the Book of Mormon. Whatthefuckever.

I don't care what FAIR has to say and their projections are ridiculous. A small colony of less than 100 original Lehites somehow becomes a 100 million in a pre-industrial era? That is beyond stupid.

[_Fence Sitter]

And here is where you clearly are trolling.

No, here is where you clearly are an either ignorant or intentionally dishonest, misrepresenting LDS theology. LDS do not engage in blind faith, or more correctly, are taught not to. I will not speak for everybody. I can tell you though, in direct response to what the gospel has taught me, I don't blindly accept truth from any man or men on any subject. You, on the other hand, DO!

Excellent points WD, I mean if the LDS were encouraged to seek truth for themselves no one would stand up in conference and say something as silly as;

"Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith"

Clearly I have no idea how LDS culture works.

[_aznative]

I don't care what FAIR has to say and their projections are ridiculous. A small colony of less than 100 original Lehites somehow becomes a 100 million in a pre-industrial era? That is beyond stupid.

SO that which is written in your canon is stupid? The numbers of population mentioned in your standard works is stupid?

See, here is the amazing thing. Even the Book of Mormon states that they grew and flourished and gave away in marriage and the population grew from the births. Obvioulsy FAIR had to pull some numbers from somewhere and introduced the immigration factor.

So here is the stupid thing. It is stupid that one would suppose the Book of Mormon to be that which the church claims it to be. An actual historical accounting of a bunch of Jews caught up in a bad story line from Gilligans Island in which they become the principal ancestors of the indigenous Native American peoples.

That's the stupid thing. It is nothing more than the inspired historical fictoin that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

See? In the end it proves the CofC is the one true correct church. Their leadership has obviously been inspired enough to see what's up. Unlike our dying leadership in SLC.

[_Tobin]

I don't care what FAIR has to say and their projections are ridiculous. A small colony of less than 100 original Lehites somehow becomes a 100 million in a pre-industrial era? That is beyond stupid.

SO that which is written in your canon is stupid? The numbers of population mentioned in your standard works is stupid?

Try again. That isn't what I said.

See, here is the amazing thing. Even the Book of Mormon states that they grew and flourished and gave away in marriage and the population grew from the births. Obvioulsy FAIR had to pull some numbers from somewhere and introduced the immigration factor.

See above.

So here is the stupid thing. It is stupid that one would suppose the Book of Mormon to be that which the church claims it to be. An actual historical accounting of a bunch of Jews caught up in a bad story line from Gilligans Island in which they become the principal ancestors of the indigenous Native American peoples.

Your characterization, not mine.

That's the stupid thing. It is nothing more than the inspired historical fictoin that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

I really take a dim view of blanket assertions. I don't think it reflects very well on the person making them.

See? In the end it proves the CofC is the one true correct church. Their leadership has obviously been inspired enough to see what's up. Unlike our dying leadership in Salt Lake City.

There is no such thing.

Luke 17:21 (KJV)

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

[_aznative]

This is silly. The point isn't that DNA evidence is entirely unreliable. It's that it can't tell us much about population dynamics over long periods of time. Sure, it is very valuable and very reliable when it comes to things that are known to have occurred recently (evidence of rape, parentage of children within a few generations, etc.) but because of the very reasons the church essay cites (bottleneck, founder effect, etc.) it isn't a reliable method of tracing populations over considerably longer periods of times (in the hundreds or thousands of years).

Obvioulsy, since most all of us here are so dim, would you please enlighten the rest of us who are not as credentialed as you are, being "somewhat of a student" regarding all there is to do with DNA, what is an acceptable, reliable, and accurate measure using DNA to, say, trace back DNA to conduct posthumous ordinances for our families, and to insure that the lines of certain European monarchies are in tact? I mean, wht I'm driving at is just how far back is DNA reliable for? Because if it isn't in the hundreds or thousands, then why are we even using this stuff at all?

[Guest]

Some old boy out there on the interwebz puts it rather succintly...

justrob wrote:

I'd like to apologize in advance for the many people I will offend, but ask that you please read what I have to say.

I largely leave people to their beliefs, but recent deception of the LDS church has compelled me to encourage my friends and family to evaluate their relationship with this institution to whom they pay 10% of their income.

In 1971, Spencer W Kimball said "Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/07/of-royal-blood


Yet, a recent article refuting science makes quite a different pronouncement

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-morm ... na-studies

It blames its members for making assumptions about the size and exclusivity of the Book of Mormon culture, but fails to reference the articles from church leaders who preached those exact claims, or the introduction to the Book of Mormon which claimed, until very recently, that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans.

They claim science cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, while changing their scriptures to evade conflict.

What I consider most deceptive is this article's egregious misuse of science in a section titled "Understanding the Genetic Evidence." It criticized Y-chromosome and mitochondrial testing, only mentioning autosomal DNA as a side note, despite autosomal DNA being used almost exclusively to test ethnic origins. The difficulties they enumerated do not invalidate autosomal tests. Their specific example about the founder effect is exactly why autosomal DNA is the preferred test for origin.

Their examples were overly simple and didn't address autosomal DNA, so I will provide my own:
--Imagine that every book had 23 chapters
--A book represents a person
--A chapter represents a chromosome
--The text represents the 0.1% unique DNA each person has (over 100,000 letters per chapter after all the shared DNA was deleted)

In order to reproduce 2 people swap text ONLY per chapter. Generally swaps are several pages at a time, rather than every other word or letter. Swaps are also of equal length & location (if 1 chapter offers the middle 3 pages to swap, the other book's chapter reciprocates with its middle 3 pages).

So after many generations of book-swapping, when we see the text "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" we quickly identify Exodus as one of its ancestors.

But what's more, we can see large swatches of text, and compare them to our library of books. While we don't have every book in our library, we do have a massive library. It is also a library of swapped books, so the odds that we have at least a few pieces of most book are quite high (except for isolated or extinct gene pools).

So we can quickly run a book through our computer and tell you most of its parents. Because of swap rates and mutation rates (a word getting copied down wrong) we can even tell you roughly how many swaps occurred first, and can identify if you came from a sub-group of books that came from a sub-ancestor that had half a page of Exodus ending with "Thou shalt have no other gods" abutted with a page of Hamlet starting with "to be or not to be".

So now that you understand autosomal DNA testing, let's talk about Lehi.

While we don't know the genome of Lehi, Sariah, Zoram, Ishmael or his wife's, we know when & where they lived, as well as Lehi's explicit ancestry of Manasseh. Unless all 5 were non-intermarried migrants (in a very exclusionary time), we have a good sense of their genotype. We also know that they were among the tribes of Israel, who considered marrying outside of their group a sin (very unlikely they were outsiders). Using Biblical text as metaphor for DNA, we might not find "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" in their gene books, but are sure to find several other snippets from the Old Testament identifying them with the other fairly homogenous group of self-isolating Israelites.

(I must note that the Israelites were exiled to Babylon after Lehi's departure, but we still have a large test sample of descendants who themselves show Old Testament DNA snippets in their genome).

So the options become either the extinction of Lehi's gene pool or extreme isolation.

Let's quickly rule out extinction. The Book of Mormon itself prophesies that it was written for the Lamanites: "Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel… Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever", so if the Lamanites were extinct (removing the DNA concern) the book would be false for failed prophecy, & its account of the origins of the Americas would be untrustworthy. More importantly, for my LDS friends, it would not be divine scripture.

So we are left with isolation.

We have to assume that Spencer W Kimball was wrong to number sixty million Lamanite descendants, since doubtless many of those explicit groups have been tested. While outsiders would brush this aside, it carries more weight among LDS members who view Spencer W Kimball as a Prophet, Seer, & Revelator even though he was only acting President of the church at that time.