Simon Southerton's response to ....

[juliann]

- it just seems silly that he wouldn't ensure inerrancy on that one thing - the thing that the LDS church hangs it's hat on.

Why? I think it is "silly" that God hasn't given us the cure for all the diseases. That bothers me a lot more than him missing out on an introduction. Come on. Join a fundamentalist church. You will be a lot more fulfilled than trying to herd Mormons.

[Daniel Peterson]

I could see your point in the world of mormonism as a whole, but I'm talking about one specific thing - the BOM - the primary conversion tool.  Sure, prophets give talks, write books, give blessings, etc. and it doesn't have to all be inspired - they're men, they make mistakes.  But the BOM as a singular item - given it's standing as the 'keystone' of the LDS religion - it just seems silly that he wouldn't ensure inerrancy on that one thing - the thing that the LDS church hangs it's hat on.

What does or doesn't "seem silly" is a very subjective judgment. This matter doesn't strike me as silly in the slightest degree. Sorry.

The original text of the Book of Mormon doesn't claim to be inerrant. ("If there are mistakes," says the Title Page, "they are the mistakes of men.") Why should the 1981 introduction be inerrant when the scriptural text itself isn't?

Latter-day Saints are not fundamentalists. We don't even aspire to be fundamentalists.

I don't see God intervening to prevent printing errors in the Book of Mormon, either, or binding problems, or bad illustrations, or inaccurate secondary translations. The Book of Mormon can and still does convert and convey the truth, even in the face of human errors. God also doesn't prevent missionaries from saying foolish things. Yet hundreds of thousands of people accept the Gospel every year. (As J. Golden Kimball is reputed to have said, "The Church must be true. Otherwise, the missionaries would have destroyed it years ago.")

[Who Knows]

Juliann wrote:

I think hanging around a message board and pounding strangers day after day after day with  personal disappointments is about as ridiculous as it gets.

I'd have to agree with you there.

Your complaints about the BOM are said every day against the Bible or any other religious text.  So what.  I want to believe in something "ridiculous".  You want to believe in something else that is equally "ridiculous".

I've said nothing about the bible, or my lack of belief in it...

At what point does a responsible and rational person stop worrying about the other guy who is doing the same thing he is?

When it gets boring?

[Who Knows]

I could see your point in the world of mormonism as a whole, but I'm talking about one specific thing - the BOM - the primary conversion tool.

[Confidential Informant]

I was raised with the belief that it was the most correct book on earth. Now I find out it's subject to errors just like any other book. Kind of a let down.

Indeed, and it never struck you to stop and actually consider what that means. First, "most correct" is a comparative statement. "Most correct" as compared to what?

Second, when Joseph Smith said it was the "most correct" book he could not have been referring to the Introduction since that didn't exist and wounld't for 150 years.

Third, "most correct" in what sense? Scientfically? Historically? Doctrincally?

I find your assumption that "most correct" equates to "inerrant" to be a reflection of the fact that that was your assumption as a child and the assmption remains childish to this day.

C.I.

[Daniel Peterson]

Where do the errors stop?  Do you know all of the errors in the BOM?  Have all the errors been found?  Could some of what the prophet Nephi wrote be errant?  He was just a man after all. 

I was raised with the belief that it was the most correct book on earth.  Now I find out it's subject to errors just like any other book.  Kind of a let down.

There's a middle ground between inerrancy, which the Church has never taught regarding the Book of Mormon or prophets, and Nephi's being "just a man" or the Book of Mormon's being "subject to errors just like any other book."

And there is considerable distance between being "the most correct book" and being an "inerrant" book. The Church has always affirmed the former. It has never claimed the latter.

It has very often been my experience that people leave the Church because they are essentially fundamentalists who wake up one morning to realize that they are not members of a fundamentalist church. Many of them simply turn to some other form of fundamentalism (e.g., Protestant or, as seems to have happened with Tal Bachman, secularist).

[Who Knows]

I was raised with the belief that it was the most correct book on earth. Now I find out it's subject to errors just like any other book. Kind of a let down.

Indeed, and it never struck you to stop and actually consider what that means. First, "most correct" is a comparative statement. "Most correct" as compared to what?

Second, when Joseph Smith said it was the "most correct" book he could not have been referring to the Introduction since that didn't exist and wounld't for 150 years.

Third, "most correct" in what sense? Scientfically? Historically? Doctrincally?

I find your assumption that "most correct" equates to "inerrant" to be a reflection of the fact that that was your assumption as a child and the assmption remains childish to this day.

C.I.

Yes, thinking that this great huge miracle of the BOM would be inspired by God and not subject to error, was, in hindsight, a childish assumption. Don't worry, I've grown up and know better now.

[Hawkmoon]

Rollo, your argument is based on far too many assumptions, for example you consistently use phrases such as:

"likely made some..."

"In my opinon..."

"I think..."

"Many believe..."

"I believe..."

"taken to mean..."

"it appears..."

"perhaps..."

Just to name a few. Now this is all well and good on its own except when you decide that your assumptions (no matter how educated you feel they may be) become reality. To illustrate further:

You assume that most leaders of church believed that principal means "primary ancestor of" the amerindians.

You assume that since most lay and church leaders believe this it is the official position of the church.

You assume that BRM wrote the introduction of the BoM in 1981.

You assume that he wrote this word as a reflection of his previous writings.

You assume that since it made it into the BoM that the church endorsed the idea.

You assume that there is no other definition for principal that is appropriate.

You assume that our knowledge of DNA today is concrete and unchangeable.

You assume that science has proven this to be false.

You have assumed that because of your assumptions the brethern owe an apology or clarification on the error.

That is a lot of assumptions to swallow I'm afraid.

I do agree with you on one thing which is admitting error (especially on such a minor detail, IMO ) is NOT something that should be frowned upon. I also hold that you MAY well be right in all of your assumptions. I just find it odd that you BELIEVE that these constitute facts that the brethern should act upon.

[juliann]

Where do the errors stop? 

When the last human expires?

Do you know all of the errors in the BOM?

Nope.

Have all the errors been found?

[juliann]

Yes, thinking that this great huge miracle of the BOM would be inspired by God and not subject to error, was, in hindsight, a childish assumption. Don't worry, I've grown up and know better now.

Then why are you expressing disappointment over your lost childish demands for complete certainty and a life with no ambiguity?

[Dan Vogel]

Hi Ben,

Jaredite survivors is another apologetic assumption and hence another circular argument.

But not an unreasonable assumption.

Certainly more reasonable than what the BOM claims.

Do we think that we should accept the Merneptah stele at face value and decide that long before the Babylonian exile of Israelites, that Israel as a nation had ceased to exist?

I have agreed that some ancient texts make false claims, but we know these are ancient texts making false claims. The same cannot be said for the BOM.

Again, as Brant pointed out, this criticism can only work if we assume that this is not a real history - and isn't subject to the same sorts of challenges that other historical claims of cultural annhiliation are subject to.

The problem is the distinct possibility that such unhistorical statements in the BOM could have also been the result of JS

[Dan Vogel]

Brandt Gardner,

Hopefully, these other texts have more positive evidence than the BOM does.

That statement is a good starting point. If we recognize that authentic historical texts behave in certain ways, then we can use that information to judge texts that claim historicity.

I assume that you agree that scholars accept that statements of utter destruction in historical texts are hyperbole and do not reflect the reality as typically reconstructed through archaeology. This is known to be true for biblical archaeology and well as Mesoamerican.

If, for some reason, you don't accept the scholarly consensus on this principle, please let me know and I'll provide some documentatiton.

I have already agreed that authentic historical documents sometimes make unhistorical statements. That

[Greg Smith]

Exegete:

There is no sound exegetical evidence of such [Jaredite] survivors

With all due respect, what exactly equals

[Greg Smith]

Dan Vogel: But I do grasp the fact that Native American DNA can be linked to Asia.

Actually, Amerindian DNA is linked to Asians or a group common to both.

But, you

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

The issue is as I stated: are the unhistorical statements the result of making the same kinds of mistakes as some ancient documents, or the result of JS

[groove]

Just popped in on this thread and thought I would add a couple of things.

First, forgive me if someone has already mentioned this, but Southerton's resonse seems extraordinarily naive for someone who is well enough versed in genetics to have earned a PhD. in molecular biology. His response can basically be summarized as an objection based on the fact that there are documented genetic "bottlenecks" in Iceland's history where significant portions of the gene population were eliminated by certain events, thus distorting the present makeup, making it a flawed "facsimile" of its ancestry. He then points out a vague reference to the Book of Mormon mentioning that the population "multiplied exceedingly."

Well, similar "bottleneck" events do exist in the Book of Mormon narritive. For example, we do not know how much of the population was lost during the cataclysms preceeding the visit of Christ, but it was certainly a significant porportion. Throughout the narrative there were also major wars which presumeably involved significant population losses, and ultimately culminating in the final extinction of one of the main nations in the story. This is also completely ignoring the founder effect present at the beginning of Lehi's arrival as well as the amplification of any small changes to the gene pool during the establishment years of the Nephite/Lamanite nations. The final blow to this rebuttal lies in the fact that the Book of Mormon cannot tell us about any major changes in the genetic makeup of the population after the narrative ends. It is entirely possible that further genetic "bottleneck" events ocurred.

As a parting shot, I find it interesting that he plays loosely with terms like "population" to say that 70% of the population either left or died. If we look at "population" as *people*, this is totally wrong. Iceland has a population of about 300,000. A population *increase* of 600% since the 1700s. I think under any definition, Icelanders have "multiplied exceedingly." What Southerton really means to say is that approximately 70% of the potential genes that could have contributed to the makep of Icelands population were undable to do so because of the bottleneck events... even though Icelander as a people have "multiplied exceedingly." All I can say to this is well... "duh." That was Butler's point about the Book of Mormon to begin with.

I also just want to set a few things straight:

Brant, in writing about Old World diseases in the Americas writes:

"If the Lehites/Mulekites/Jaredites were the only contributors to the genetic makeup of the New World, then their presumed immunity to some of the Old World diseases might have been expected to be passed on."

This is a misunderstanding of how immunity works. Direct immunity against the vast majority of (Infectious ) diseases is not an inherited genetic trait. For example, one cannot inherit immunity to smallpox. There are a few caveats to this, but they are mostly examples of genetic flukes involving processes in the body that happen fortuitously to confer some degree of immunity (such as people with sickle cell anemia traits being resistant o malaria or other with immune receptor deficiencies being resistant to HIV). The point is that the actual immune system of the body mainly learns by hard won experience. Those who were immune to Old World diseases were resistant to them because they were brough up in that environment, and likely received small exposures over time and thus built up resistances, or received antibodies by being exposed to people who already had antibodies. This "herd" immunity phenomena is the reason behind using oral polio vaccines in developing countries where the immunized literally cough and sneeze out antibodies that immunize their community.

When Europeans came to the New World, the immune systems of the natives had never been exposed to these new pathogens. Mothers were unable to pass on the antibodies that European mothers had long since passed to their future explorer babies to protect them from the ravages of early disease. There was no "low-level" exposure. You see this in microcosm when you travel to some foreign country and end up with the inevitable "travelers" diarrhea, that doesn't seem to affect the locals.

What this means is that each generation "forgets" what the previous generation learned. So in the case of Lehi's party, their children would likely have become susceptible to diseases that their parents were immune to. We see this today in the case of our older generations being immunized against things like smallpox, and with new epidemics when communities decide they don't have to vaccinate their kids anymore. This has been a hard learned lesson in Russia with their new pandemic of Diptheria.

Also, Europeans contributed significantly to foster the social health disasters like slavery that favored close contact contagions like Cholera and Typhus.

Katherine wrote:

I don't know enough about the development of disease to know the answer, but it seems like a good point. How long does it take for an ethnic group to lose such an ability to survive disease?

The answer is "one generation." Certain antibodies are transferred from mother to child, but these only last a few months while the baby's immune system develops, so you could theoretically argue that more babies in the first generation would survive things that would otherwise kill them. But the immunity would largely be lost. This is why we keep seeing diseases which were once mostly eradicated pop back up in populations that decide to quit vaccinating for whatever reason (and is the reason why the non-vaccinating neighbors put everyone elses kids in danger).

[Greg Smith]

Rollo quoth:

[Citing Greg: So President Kimball is a "Lamanite."  I'm guessing Jaredites qualify.]

Again, my BRM quote went to blood lineage (which is why it was relevant to our DNA discussion), not LDS adoption theology.

But, even assuming McConkie is right (and he's not inerrant, and not speaking officially on this point in Mormon Doctrine) "blood" does not necessarily equal "genetic."

The point is that the Book of Mormon clearly shows that affiliation with Nephite/Lamanite can shift easily via 'adoption' into the group. But, once you've done that, you just added your genetic material and "blood" to the mix of the group thereafter. So, the Book of Mormon's tendency to adoption (not just, or even primarily an LDS doctrine of adoption) will thus change what kind of genetic signal one might see.

Plus, it is entirely possible (and, under the conditions described in the Book of Mormon, almost overwhelmingly likely even without the LGT) for one to be a blood descendant without leaeving a genetic trace to be seen now 2600 years later. Most Y and mtDNA lineages will be obliterated.

GBH even referred to the "blood of Lehi" flowing in the veins of members when he dedicated some temples in Mexico and Latin America

Again, you must not forget that:

1) blood does not equal DNA, and may well not (almost certainly will not) be testable

2) LDS leaders tend to be focusing on the (as you say) LDS doctrine of adoption, so trying to read this as some sort of scientific declaration on what a 'blood test' will show probably does violence to their intent anyway.

But, remember, this is the same Spencer Kimball who, on at least two occasions that I know of, spoke of witnessing Native American skin become lighter in fulfillment of the prophesy that Lamanites would again become white and delightsome.

So what? This appears to be a none-too-subtle attempt to poison the well. It is irrelevent since:

1) No one claimed that SWK was inerrant

2) an error on one point does not imply an error on another

3) he was speaking about something he saw--perhaps he did. Miracles do happen in an LDS world-view, and given his great love for the Amerindians generally, he would be the sort of person in the sort of circumstances that might well be blessed with that sort of thing.

Was SWK not being "cautious" when he spoke of Native American skin becoming lighter?

As I said, I don't think that any remarks along these lines had much to do with genetics or population dynamics. I suspect that he would have viewed such things as miraculous and religious in nature. Trying to wedge that sort of thing into a mtDNA pidgeonhole will probably distort.

Perhaps, but I would be amazed that if the small number of Nephites (a few dozen, some apologists claim) were quickly overcome by millions of "others" already in the Americas, that nearly 1,000 years later a Nephite could call himself a "pure" descendant of a member of that small band.

Again, I think this risks presentism. You read the text as a modern reader might read it, and get something along the lines of "homologous strain," or "genetically uncontaminated" by any other influence when you see the word pure.

I'm not sure that Mormon et al would have seen it that way. In fact we don't know how the Nephites traced or thought about descent, but it almost certainly wouldn't have been in a pure genetic sense. Did it, for example, mean that he was a lineal father-to-son descendant from an exclusively Lehite kin group? Was it maternally traced? Did both parents have to Did "pure" have some ritual/religious meanings which are now opaque to us?

This is why trying to turn modern DNA testing on the issue as if they were a true-breeding strain of bacteria in a petrie dish is going to confuse us.

Moreover, this is consistent with the fact that throughout the 1,000 years covered by the Lehite BofM (i.e., post-Jaredite), every individual or group (whether Nephite, Lamanite, or otherwise) that discusses lineage traces it back to an Israelite immigrant.  Every single one that is mentioned in the BofM.  There are no "others."

Well, there are no "others" cited as ancestors, but (see Sorenson, JBMS 1:1) evidence of others is there. (The only non-Lehite cited is, I think, Zarahemla, but this isn't likely to have been the only one in the Mulek group. Again, one sees the Nephite preoccupations (us in detail-versus-them in generalities if mentioned at all), not the whole story.)

This should tell us, then, something of how the Nephites thought about descent and lineage (and how they didn't think about it). There were things that they focused on, and things that they didn't, and the focus was not on those things that would be helpful to a modern population geneticist. But, being 1500 years before Mendel and 2600 before Watson and Crick, Mormon can perhaps be forgiven.

Brant Gardner can probably enlighten us on this further.

"Traditional teachings" are not official doctrines.  Never have been.  Never will be.

Well, so much for the Church's special claim to living prophets, right?

No. Good grief, this is absurd. And, it goes all the way back to Joseph Smith. ("A prophet is only a prophet," remember?)

Joseph was reported as bemoaning this attitude among the members:

Jesse Crosby quotes him as saying that he (Joseph) did not enjoy the gift promised "every American citizen; that of free speech." Joseph, Crosby said, could not give his private opinions, for "on any subject of importance his words were often garbled and their meaning twisted and then given out as the word of the Lord because they came from him." - Mark L. McConkie, Remembering Joseph: Personal Recollections of Those Who Know the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003); citing  (Crosby, n.d. ).

Prophets don't always speak as prophets, and Church members are perfectly free to study, think, and work on a vast variety of topics, on which they are free to have a great range of opinions, which may (and will, and probably should) change over time as they learn "line upon line," and as God will reveal many great and important things (as well, I suspect, as rather trivial but fascinating ones like population dynamics).

Only revelation can tell you which is which, and that's the intent. Again, you express a fundamentalist presupposition, and it's false under LDS doctrine.

This is not to be judgmental; it's not surprisingly to me that people like or want or expect a 'fundamentalist' prophet view. It is so much easier, so much less work, and one can be absolved of personal responsibility if the fundamentalist assumptions hold. But, that was never the point. The calling of Joseph Smith and successors was not to give a prophet to inerrantly hand down God's will from on high which we robot-like endorse. Rather, it was

...that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh

[Kevin Graham]

== This is a misunderstanding of how immunity works. Direct immunity against the vast majority of diseases is not an inherited genetic trait. For example, one cannot inherit immunity to smallpox.

Well, everyone in my family, because of inherited DNA, is immune to sickle-cell anemia.

== "blood" does not necessarily equal "genetic."

OK, just how ludicrous is this discussion going to get?

[Ethesis]

It doesn't refute Butler because there are corallarys between the events he describes as occurring in Iceland and events which occurred in Mesoamerica. What percentage of the native population was wiped out after the Spaniards came to due to disease and conflict?

Moreover, Mesoamerica suffered some fairly severe volcanic eruptions also.

After the death of many natives there has for the past several hundered years been an influx of immigrants.

Seems to me that Simon is simply making Butler's case for him.

C.I.

Yep, not to mention the wars, etc. in the Book of Mormon.

Neat when someone can give good examples to support a theme when they don't realize that is what they are doing.

[Ethesis]

Your complaints about the BOM are said every day against the Bible or any other religious text.  So what.  I want to believe in something "ridiculous".  You want to believe in something else that is equally "ridiculous".

I've said nothing about the bible, or my lack of belief in it...

That would be an excellent topic to discuss then, to put it in comparison with your feelings about the Book of Mormon.

[Who Knows]

Your complaints about the BOM are said every day against the Bible or any other religious text.  So what.  I want to believe in something "ridiculous".  You want to believe in something else that is equally "ridiculous".

I've said nothing about the bible, or my lack of belief in it...

That would be an excellent topic to discuss then, to put it in comparison with your feelings about the Book of Mormon.

Sure, lets talk about it. How do you know the bible is true? How about the BOM? How about God?

Wait, let me guess - a spiritual witness?

So, what do you want to discuss?

[Greg Smith]

== "blood" does not necessarily equal "genetic."

OK, just how ludicrous is this discussion going to get?

What do you mean? Most people who have blood descent from someone have no genetic markers at a given loci to indicate that descent.

You have thousands/millions of ancestors ("blood descent"), yet a given loci of Y or mtDNA will only reveal genetic links to very few of them.

That's not ludicrous at all; it's ludicrous to believe anything different. That's how genetic markers work for this sort of thing.

[The Dude]

Katherine wrote:

I don't know enough about the development of disease to know the answer, but it seems like a good point. How long does it take for an ethnic group to lose such an ability to survive disease?

The answer is "one generation."

I think you are right about this. The answer I gave Katherine earlier didn't take into account the more important aspects of acquired immunity that you point out in your post.

[katherine the great]

This is a misunderstanding of how immunity works. Direct immunity against the vast majority of (Infectious ) diseases is not an inherited genetic trait. For example, one cannot inherit immunity to smallpox. There are a few caveats to this, but they are mostly examples of genetic flukes involving processes in the body that happen fortuitously to confer some degree of immunity (such as people with sickle cell anemia traits being resistant o malaria or other with immune receptor deficiencies being resistant to HIV).

Thanks for the interesting biology lesson. It's actually a little scary though to consider future possibilites (for our children.)

[groove]

I think you are right about this.