Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[Blentyn chan Celi]

Mormons only – how do you respond to claims that DNA demonstrates that Native Americans are descended from Asiatic Peoples and are not in any way related to Hebrews?

Do you believe that the evidence is inconclusive?

Is the book of Mormon not to be taken literally?

Here is what I have read. Hope someone can help.

Lamanites No More.

Does DNA evadence refute the book of Mormon?

 

[Katzpur]

Mormons only – how do you respond to claims that DNA demonstrates that Native Americans are descended from Asiatic Peoples and are not in any way related to Hebrews?

Do you believe that the evidence is inconclusive?

Is the book of Mormon not to be taken literally?

Here is what I have read. Hope someone can help.

Lamanites No More.

Does DNA evadence refute the book of Mormon?

Okay, well here's another perspective: DNA and The Book of Mormon.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

Okay, well here's another perspective: DNA and The Book of Mormon.

So, he is saying that comparing the DNA of Native Americans and Jews that are alive today is an invalid comparison because their gene pools have been heavily mixed? I’m having trouble finding unbiased sources of information. Either the articles I find discredit the science, or they openly bash Mormons. I can find any objective work.

Tell me if this sounds right.

I concur that over the past 2,000 years there has been ample opportunity for Jewish DNA to mix with European and Asian DNA. But, as far as I can tell, researchers didn’t compare Jewish DNA to anything. They examined two types of DNA carried by 700 more or less pure-blooded Native Americans; then they looked to see what population it matched. Whoever did this study says that they matched North Asian DNA. Do you think they are cheery-picking the actual findings, or is that not the issue?

Anyhow, thanks for the link.

 

[Scott C.]

Mormons only – how do you respond to claims that DNA demonstrates that Native Americans are descended from Asiatic Peoples and are not in any way related to Hebrews?

Do you believe that the evidence is inconclusive?

Is the book of Mormon not to be taken literally?

Here is what I have read. Hope someone can help.

Lamanites No More.

Does DNA evadence refute the book of Mormon?

I believe the Book of Mormon is to be taken literally. I believe the Book of Mormon people resided somewhere in the "Americas". I don't know enough about DNA to comment on what can or cannot be concluded from the research. I can't imagine a scenario in which the Book of Mormon is scripture from God, but not a literal story.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

I believe the Book of Mormon is to be taken literally. I believe the Book of Mormon people resided somewhere in the "Americas". I don't know enough about DNA to comment on what can or cannot be concluded from the research. I can't imagine a scenario in which the Book of Mormon is scripture from God, but not a literal story.

Fair enough.

 

[Katzpur]

So, he is saying that comparing the DNA of Native Americans and Jews that are alive today is an invalid comparison because their gene pools have been heavily mixed? I’m having trouble finding unbiased sources of information. Either the articles I find discredit the science, or they openly bash Mormons. I can find any objective work.

Tell me if this sounds right.

I concur that over the past 2,000 years there has been ample opportunity for Jewish DNA to mix with European and Asian DNA. But, as far as I can tell, researchers didn’t compare Jewish DNA to anything. They examined two types of DNA carried by 700 more or less pure-blooded Native Americans; then they looked to see what population it matched. Whoever did this study says that they matched North Asian DNA. Do you think they are cheery-picking the actual findings, or is that not the issue?

Anyhow, thanks for the link.

I'm sorry, Blentyn, but I'm not even going to pretend to understand mitochondrial DNA. It's not my intention to ignore your question, but that's one topic I'm just not prepared to debate. Perhaps DeepShadow will see this thread. I know he has enough knowledge on the subject to be able to discuss this with you.

 

[Sola'lor]

Mormons only – how do you respond to claims that DNA demonstrates that Native Americans are descended from Asiatic Peoples and are not in any way related to Hebrews?

I don't know enough about the research to make a conclusion. The Native Americans aren't 100% the decendants of the Lamanites. There are many people that have come to the America's throughout history. Those genetics would all come into the mix.

I just thought of something. Maybe the Lamanites were reduced to just a few hundred people and then many Asiatic people migrated to the Americas after or eve before the Lamanites then they intemixed and the Asiatic DNA was more dominant than the Lamanite DNA.

Do you believe that the evidence is inconclusive?

Again I don't know enough about it.

Is the book of Mormon not to be taken literally?

I believe the Book of Mormon is supposed to be taken literally.

 

[Starfish]

I just thought of something. Maybe the Lamanites were rerduced to just a few hundred people and then many Asiatic people migrated to the Americas after or eve before the Lamanites then they intemixed and the Asiatic DNA was more dominant than the Lamanite DNA.

Interesting idea and very possible.

I believe the Book of Mormon is to be taken literally. I believe the Book of Mormon people resided somewhere in the "Americas". I don't know enough about DNA to comment on what can or cannot be concluded from the research. I can't imagine a scenario in which the Book of Mormon is scripture from God, but not a literal story.

Agreed.

IMO God wants us to have testimonies based on faith. We all want science to validate the BoM, (which I believe ultimately will); but we want the evidence now! God could provide us with some sort of indisputable proof to the world, but then we no longer need our faith. Kind of like wanting a sign. We want the sign before our faith.
The evidences are out there; we all know that. But only the faithful really see them. The non-faithful find reasons to dispute them. So when the Lord is ready (and we are ready) the physical evidences will come. Till then we must have faith.

 

[tomspug]

Here we go again! I guess this argument boils down to a question of science vs. religion. Which do you trust more, the scientific perspective on science with respect to religion or the religion's perspective on science with respect to religion?

 

[Sola'lor]

Here we go again! I guess this argument boils down to a question of science vs. religion. Which do you trust more, the scientific perspective on science with respect to religion or the religion's perspective on science with respect to religion?

Mmm. I don't agree. It's not science vs. the Book of Mormon. Science hasn't come up with anything that directly opposes the Book of Mormon.

 

[DeepShadow]

The problem with any kind of scientific rebuttal of the Book of Mormon is that the scientist needs to be familiar with what the Book of Mormon ACTUALLY CLAIMS, rather than what other people (including LDS!) say it claims. The DNA evidence currently supports a hypothesis put forward over fifty years ago, that a) the Mulekites were a remnant of the Jaredites, and b) the Jaredites were of North Asian extraction.

If these claims are true, then the Book of Mormon has NO problem with the current DNA evidence. Quite the contrary. No, this is only a problem for people who make hasty generalizations about the Book of Mormon history.

I cover all this and more in my thread on Mulekites as Jaredite descendents, and would welcome the chance to discuss it all again.

 

[Autodidact]

IMO God wants us to have testimonies based on faith. We all want science to validate the BoM, (which I believe ultimately will); but we want the evidence now! God could provide us with some sort of indisputable proof to the world, but then we no longer need our faith. Kind of like wanting a sign. We want the sign before our faith.
The evidences are out there; we all know that. But only the faithful really see them. The non-faithful find reasons to dispute them. So when the Lord is ready (and we are ready) the physical evidences will come. Till then we must have faith.

You need to have faith because what you don't have is evidence.

short response to the OP:

There is no, none, zip, zilch evidence of any whatsoever a shred an iota of a link between any people from the ancient near east and the American Indians. There is strong genetic evidence that American Indians are most closely related to people from Northern Asia. Period.

The Mormon response, as represented by FAIR, is to try to show that none of the genetic studies can be relied on, for various reasons. The only people who believe this are Mormons. No non-Mormon anthropologist has ever found any link between American Indians and near-eastern people, whether genetic or cultural.

 

[DeepShadow]

There is strong genetic evidence that American Indians are most closely related to people from Northern Asia. Period.

Wow! That actually supports Hugh Nibley's 1952 hypothesis. Imagine that.

The Mormon response, as represented by FAIR, is to try to show that none of the genetic studies can be relied on, for various reasons.

Except that FAIR's is not the only Mormon response. There have been many.

I could equally say that the non-Mormon response as represented by Autodidact, is to lecture people about looking at the whole picture, and then refuse to look at the entire picture herself. I'm still waiting for your explanation of why you think there were no significant discoveries in the Old World since the time of Joseph Smith.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

The problem with any kind of scientific rebuttal of the Book of Mormon is that the scientist needs to be familiar with what the Book of Mormon ACTUALLY CLAIMS, rather than what other people (including LDS!) say it claims. The DNA evidence currently supports a hypothesis put forward over fifty years ago, that a) the Mulekites were a remnant of the Jaredites, and b) the Jaredites were of North Asian extraction.

If these claims are true, then the Book of Mormon has NO problem with the current DNA evidence. Quite the contrary. No, this is only a problem for people who make hasty generalizations about the Book of Mormon history.

I cover all this and more in my thread on Mulekites as Jaredite descendents, and would welcome the chance to discuss it all again.

I hope you don’t mind going over all of this again, and I hope you will excuse my limited knowledge of the BoM.

I can only find one passage in the BoM that states that the Laminates are descended from Abraham. That is 2 Nephi 30:4. It says…

“And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of the Jews.”

Nephi is fairly vague about who “they” are but it seems that he is referring to the people he was writing too – the Native Americans. Is this correct?

 

[DeepShadow]

I can only find one passage in the BoM that states that the Laminates are descended from Abraham. That is 2 Nephi 30:4. It says…

“And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of the Jews.”

Nephi is fairly vague about who “they” are but it seems that he is referring to the people he was writing too – the Native Americans. Is this correct?

It says that their seed will know that they are descended from the Jews. That would be correct. Some assumptions being made by critics are:

1) That the "seed" referred to are the entirety of the indigenous American population.

2) That these "seed" are not simultaneously descended from any other groups.

3) That the "lineage" spoken of is passed along the same matrilineal lines as mitochondrial DNA.

Consider: according to the precepts of the LDS church, I am of the "lineage" of Ephraim. This lineage has nothing to do with my ancestry. Any such adoptions into the Abrahamic line could screw up the genetics, and the earlier the adoption, the more far-reaching the effect.

This is but ONE of MANY reasons why the DNA argument is shaky.

 

[Scott C.]

All of my life I had understood that all native americans, be they from North, Central, or South America have some of the blood of the Book of Mormon people. I always knew they would likely be descendants from other people as well, who have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. The DNA discussions and what I have read here and in other places has caused be to rethink this. I absolutely believe in the literal truthfullness of the Book of Mormon. Book of Mormon people did live somewhere in the Americas and the stories are true. I realize now that I have no idea how many people walking the earth today have Book of Mormon people in their ancestry. I will stay tuned as more evidence is found, more apologetics written, and eventually as the Lord reveals all things.

 

[tomspug]

Mmm. I don't agree. It's not science vs. the Book of Mormon. Science hasn't come up with anything that directly opposes the Book of Mormon.

My point was that the 'scientific consensus' (strictly restricted to the science community) completely rejects the Book of Mormon's history. The LDS church's argument is that the evidence is only partly right.

 

[tomspug]

Wow! That actually supports Hugh Nibley's 1952 hypothesis. Imagine that.

Um... Asia. We're talking about Asia. It spans a third of the globe! Do you have any idea how far away the Bering Strait is from Israel? No scientist that believes in a North-Asian ancestry is referring to Israel, which is practically an African country in proximity!

 

[Autodidact]

Wow! That actually supports Hugh Nibley's 1952 hypothesis. Imagine that.

What hypothesis is that? Could you explicate for those of us not as familiar with Mormon "scholarship"?

Except that FAIR's is not the only Mormon response. There have been many.

Well, feel free to present them. So far that's the only one in the thread.

I could equally say that the non-Mormon response as represented by Autodidact, is to lecture people about looking at the whole picture, and then refuse to look at the entire picture herself.

What part did I leave out? The non-existent part where there exists a peppercorn of evidence supporting the factual basis of the Book of Mormon?

I'm still waiting for your explanation of why you think there were no significant discoveries in the Old World since the time of Joseph Smith.

Why would you wait for something I know nothing about? However in this sentence you seem to be saying that there have been no recent archeological discoveries in the near east. You couldn't mean that, could you? Maybe you should re-state your assertion here.

 

[Autodidact]

All of my life I had understood that all native americans, be they from North, Central, or South America have some of the blood of the Book of Mormon people.

And yet all the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. Does this have any impact on your belief?

always knew they would likely be descendants from other people as well, who have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. The DNA discussions and what I have read here and in other places has caused be to rethink this. I absolutely believe in the literal truthfullness of the Book of Mormon. Book of Mormon people did live somewhere in the Americas and the stories are true.

How do you know? Does the archeological evidence support this? Have we found artifacts of the objects, crops, animals and plants described in the BoM? Does the DNA evidence support it?

I realize now that I have no idea how many people walking the earth today have Book of Mormon people in their ancestry. I will stay tuned as more evidence is found, more apologetics written, and eventually as the Lord reveals all things.

Well, according to the evidence, it looks like zero.