Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[dimbulb]

Alma 45:14 "But whosoever remaineth, and is not destroyed in that great and dreadful day, shall be numbered among the Lamanites, and shall become like unto them, all, save it be a few who shall be called the disciples of the Lord; and them shall the Lamanites pursue even until they shall become extinct. And now, because of iniquity, this prophecy shall be fulfilled."

It's around 73 B.C. when Alma is talking, but he's prophecying about the destruction of the Nephites. Verse 10 tells us he's talking about 400 years after Christ comes to visit the Nephites.

Well, except for the fact that he's talking about the descendants of Nephi, you might have a point. He's saying here that those who remain of Nephite descent will be numbered with the Lamanites. He's not saying that Asian nomads who came over the land bridge will be numbered with the Lamanites.

[Moksha]

So, everyone alive in the Americas starting around 400 a.d. became the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

[charity]

dim, if you have looked at the information about "others" you can see that many scholars believe that the early Nephites became aware very soon after arrival that they were not the only ones on the continents. By 400 a.d. there had been much intermingling. By then, there were no pure Nephites around, by my calculations. I think Alma was talking about every one he knew of. Not just pure descendants of Nephi.

[Deborah]

I found an interesting article on some new DNA findings from the Smithsonian:

Evidence for diverse migrations into the New World also comes from Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) research on living American Indian populations. These studies have consistently shown similarities between American Indians and recent populations in Asia and Siberia, but also unique American characteristics, which the very early crania have also shown. Evidence for only four mtDNA lineages, characterizing over 95 percent of all modern American Indian populations, may suggest a limited number of founding groups migrating from Asia into the New World. Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia. Naturally, generations of conflict, intermarriage, disease, and famine would influence the genetic makeup of modern Native Americans. Further work with mtDNA, nuclear DNA (which is more representative of the entire genome), and Y-chromosome data, the male-transmitted complement of mtDNA, will permit better estimates of the genetic similarities between Old and New World groups and help to determine when they would have shared a common ancestor.

for the whole article: http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmnh/origin.htm

[charity]

Thanks, Deborah. I have been trying to get this very point across, in different topics over time. Science has put in the final word yet, and those who hopped on earlier results to "prove" that there were only Asian DNA here. Hah.

[Deborah]

The point is science is always evolving and to base one's faith on it is basing it on a foundation of sand. I have no problem with the DNA findings. I think there can me many answers and I think there are many more things to be revealed. Remember we only got one third of the BoM and that was only an abridgement of a portion of the record. There are references to many different records. We only got the part that pertains to what we need to know in the Latter days. So who knows what other records might reveal about the ancient inhabitants and their relations with other groups.

[Pahoran]

So, everyone alive in the Americas starting around 400 a.d. became the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

[Moksha]

So, everyone alive in the Americas starting around 400 a.d. became the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

[nao crer]

Concerning the X DNA

Scientific investigations of the X lineage continue but are unlikely to reveal anything specific to the Book of Mormon period. In order for the X lineage to be relevant, apologists need to explain the following issues:

Amerindian DNA lineages belonging to the X family are at least as diverse as the lineages belonging to the A, B, C and D lineage families, meaning that they have been present in the New World for just as long.1

The X lineage is rare, occurring at a frequency of about 1.6% across the New World. It occurs at a frequency of 8% in Canadian tribes and 3% in tribes from the United States. The vast majority of apologists consider Mesoamerica to be the only plausible setting for the Book of Mormon narrative because of the Book of Mormon

[charity]

gabriel, thanks for the information. I would just wish that people could look at information from the scientific community as being constantly changing. As soon as someone "whoops" onto some little scientific tidbit they yell "proof" when it isn't really anything more than an indication. That goes both ways.

[dimbulb]

dim, if you have looked at the information about "others" you can see that many scholars believe that the early Nephites became aware very soon after arrival that they were not the only ones on the continents. By 400 a.d. there had been much intermingling. By then, there were no pure Nephites around, by my calculations. I think Alma was talking about every one he knew of. Not just pure descendants of Nephi.

Yes, I know that some people believe that the Nephites were not the only ones there. That the text says nothing about others and specifically says that the land will be kept from the knowledge of others doesn't seem to matter.

[dacook]

...Also Lehi was a descendent from Joseph, who married a woman of Egypt (I don't know that her lineage was ever discussed) so they would not necessarily share DNA with remnants of Judah...

Joseph married Asenath, who became the mother of Manasseh, from whom Lehi was descended.

Unfortunately I can't put my hand on the source, but from what I remember reading some time ago at the time of Joseph, Egypt was ruled by the Hyksos regime, who had come from Asia. Asenath was daughter of a priest, who therefor could well have been from this ruling clan.

So Asian mit-DNA could have been introduced into Lehi's ancestry without it being in the rest of the tribes.

edit:

From Encylcopedia Britannica:

Hyksos

group of mixed Semitic-Asiatics who settled in northern Egypt during the 18th century BC. In about 1630 they seized power, and Hyksos kings ruled Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630

[Stormin' Mormon]

Yes, I know that some people believe that the Nephites were not the only ones there. That the text says nothing about others and specifically says that the land will be kept from the knowledge of others doesn't seem to matter.

Actually, the text also says that if others are to dwell on this continent, then they will be brought here by the hand of the Lord. These two concepts are not mutually excusive.

2 Nephi 1:6

Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

I've also liked the following verse, which in my mind is pretty clear.

2 Nephi 5:23

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed, for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.  And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

Notice, that at the time Nephi wrote this, the mixing of seeds had already occurred. With whom did they mix their seed? Everyone else is accounted for in verse 6 of the chapter as not having mixed their seed with Laman and Lemuel's family (Zoram, Sam, Jacob, Joseph, Nephi's sisters, and their respective families). Who was left to mix seed with Laman and Lemuel and receive the cursing that Nephi said had already occurred?

[charity]

dim, you wrote: "Yes, I know that some people believe that the Nephites were not the only ones there. That the text says nothing about others and specifically says that the land will be kept from the knowledge of others doesn't seem to matter."

I think you are being sarcastic here? I have read, and assume you would have to, the explanation about the brevity of the text and how it really is only of the one lineage, with others only as they directly impact the direct lineage represented.

And about the knowledge of the land. When did really extensive exploration and discovery of these continents begin, where the word got out? Not until the late 1400's.

[dimbulb]

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed, for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.  And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

Are you suggesting that the mixing had already occurred? I read this as saying that the curse was done on the Lamanites and that the Nephites would be curse for mixing with their seed.

Also, the notion that others would come in the future is fine with me. The problem is with saying that there already were others there. Is there any clear evidence for that?

[dimbulb]

charity,

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I just find it interesting that we have to find stuff that isn't in the text to make our current theories work. No one felt the need to posit prior inhabitants until current scientific information made it necessary. There certainly is no hint in the text of hordes of others already present.

You yourself said that science is constantly changing. Maybe something will change that validates what the text says. As I said, I just find it interesting that we are making inferences from what the text does not say to support the text in light of what we currently believe scientifically.

Thomas Kuhn was right.

[Stormin' Mormon]

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed, for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.

[dimbulb]

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that precludes the possibility that there were others on the continent before the Lehites or the Jaredites. The only condition is that these "others" must have been brought here by the hand of the Lord.

To be fair, though, there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that explicitly states that there were others on the continent. However, the brief glimpses and indications that we do have are pretty convincing to me.

Again, I find it interesting that such notions, convincing or not, came about because of a shift in scientific knowledge.

Please be clear that I am not insisting on a literalist interpretation of the text. My comment was on how belief changes in the face of external knowledge.

And I think we just disagree on our reading of 2 Nephi 5:23.

[nao crer]

Concerning mixing with other people who were already here:

"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 remnent are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

(Joseph Smith Jr., published in Times and Seasons March 1, 1842 and in

History of the Church, Vol 4).

[charity]

dim, I went away for a while to find this. In 1992, in the FARMS publication, John Sorenson wrote a 34 page article on "Were There Others?" I couldn't link it here because it is subscription on the FARMS website.

There are convincing arguments to me that the Book of Mormon includes many indications that there were others. One is found in Jacob 5, where Sherem feels he has to introduce himself, when the number of males in the community, if there were only Lehi's descendants, would have numbered less than 50. Also from Jacob, where did the "many wives and concubines" come from if they were only the original immigrant group?

There is a lot more than this.

[dimbulb]

There are convincing arguments to me that the Book of Mormon includes many indications that there were others. One is found in Jacob 5, where Sherem feels he has to introduce himself, when the number of males in the community, if there were only Lehi's descendants, would have numbered less than 50. Also from Jacob, where did the "many wives and concubines" come from if they were only the original immigrant group?

A skeptic might say that insisting on the presence of others is necessary to account for these obvious problems with the text.

Again, I'm really not arguing against the presence of others, whoever they might be. I just find it interesting that no one ever thought to look for others until science, and the aforementioned textual problems, demanded it.

[Brant Gardner]

dimbulb:

No one felt the need to posit prior inhabitants until current scientific information made it necessary. There certainly is no hint in the text of hordes of others already present.

Your first sentence is demonstrably incorrect - a popular recent sentiment - but still incorrect. Perhaps the best historical overview is "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," by Matthew Roper. It is in the volume of FARMS Review that requires subscription, but when a new volume comes out, this one should be available to non-subscribers. I understand that should be fairly soon. Roper points out the acceptance of others in the New World with a history into the late 1800's. I am personally aware of that information since the 70's and know that the people I talked to had been working on it for more than 20 years prior to that. The idea that no one spoke of prior inhabitants until current scientific information made it necessary is worse than incorrect. I don't suggest you are the one who made up the idea, but whoever did either didn't do much research or actually chose to misrepresent history.

As for there being no hint of others in the text, that is the issue. Depending on how you understand ancient texts and what they say - and don't say - there is quite a bit of information on the "others" in the text. I find 2 Nephi 5:6 very strong evidence of "others." Nephi names almost everyone we know about who go with him (save the very obvious Laman, Lemuel and families). He then states that he took "all those who would go with me." He has already named virutally everyone. Who else is there? Who are those who are going who are not named.

The majority of the evidence is inferred rather than stated. It is clear that there are much larger populations much faster than the original group allowed. Either they came from the "others" or this is evidence of Joseph not making up a convincing story. The historicity of the text depends on other data, but when those data are weighed, then the implicit presence of the others is certain.

Two questions should remain. Why aren't they mentioned by name and why are people to be kept from the land?

The second first: The "land" is not the hemisphere in the text. This is part of the promise of the land, and that promise moves with the people. It varies from place to place. The Land of Nephi was kept from others for a while - but by the time Mosiah leaves it is quite certain that someone else had found it.

The first question: Ancient texts exhibit a couple of traits that are relevant. One is the tendency to create an us/them division in naming peoples. We are "us" and everyone else is "them." The Jew/Gentile distinction is easy to understand. For the Greeks there were members of certain cities and "barbarians" - or non-Greeks. For the Nephites, there were Lamanites. See Jacob's rather explicit redefinition of Nephite and Lamanite in Jacob 1:13-14.

The second tendency is related to the nature of ancient polities. We tend to think of nations. For most of the ancient world, they spoke of cities. Think Greece and the city-states, not a larger nation that we see as Egypt or Assyria. Sparta and Athens were both Greek, but were independent and considered themselves different. The evidence for the western hemisphere is that the city was the dominant political unit for most of its pre-columbian history. Therefore, we expect people to speak, not of an "Egypt" but of a city - a "Sparta." That is, of course, exactly what we get in the Book of Mormon. People are designated by city, not by nation. There were cities, there were not nations. Even the land of Zarahemla is hardly a nation. The dependent cities have ties to the center, but it isn't a nation. The cities are independent (a picture that has recently been discovered for the Maya city-states).

The third tendency is for official written texts to have their own agenda and mention only what they find most important to them. I just finished a book by William G. Dever entitled Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Dever's entire thesis is that there was a pervasive folk religion that has left more arcaheological evidence than much of the official religion. Nevertheless, it is only hinted at in the official text and frequently sees evidence that it was officially downplayed. That process is hardly unusual.

Since the Book of Mormon is a highly edited text (save Jarom, Omni, and Moroni) we would expect that what is in the text is the direct result of the purposes of the writer. The two that concern us are primarily Nephi and secondarily Mormon (Mormon secondarily because he is much later in time). Nephi is critical because he is the one that is right at the beginning of meeting and incorporating these "others." So what is the nature of his text? He tells us that it is a specifically edited text that does not replicate the secular history that has been written. The 1 Nephi material shows evidence of heavy editing to tell a particular story. The less heavily edited historical material is crammed into 2 Nephi 5, and is written 30 years after the fact, when details of "others" are not as interesting as the rest of Nephi's purpose in writing.

There are other details in the text that demonstrate the presence of others in the text, but all of them require first establishing the historicity of the text. With that established, then it can be read as other ancient texts and mined for the clues for what was going on that it doesn't explicitly state (much as Dever has done in his discussion of folk religion).

[charity]

I would reply that we only look for an answer when there is a question. If no one thought to ask, no one thought to answer before.

[Deborah]

dacook, thanks for the information. I just think there is so much we don't know and so much yet to be revealed that we shouldn't jump to conclusions too quickly just because we have "scientific evidence" that tests our basic beliefs. Truth will be borne out in time. I also think some things we just need to accept on faith in spite of what the world tells us differently. That is putting your trust in the arm of God and not of man.

[dimbulb]

The idea that no one spoke of prior inhabitants until current scientific information made it necessary is worse than incorrect. I don't suggest you are the one who made up the idea, but whoever did either didn't do much research or actually chose to misrepresent history.

I stand corrected, then. Can you tell me what the motivation was for these 19th-century people positing the presence of others? I'm assuming it has to do with the textual issues that charity pointed out.