Simon Southerton's response to ....

[vtanderson]

As someone who's just discovered this forum, I've found this topic riveting. nice to know there are those of you out there who think similarly and are prepared to debate the issue. I think Jarrod summed it up nicely about the mistaken notions of members for the past 180 years. I'll continue to listen to the experts in the field before drawing any conclusion.

[exegete]

Hi CI:

You wonder,

How much do you actually know about pre-classic [sic] mesoamerica [sic]?

I'm familiar enough with the literature to know that preclassic is most often spelled without a hyphen and that Mesoamerica begins with a capital M. So by my count, that's two more things than you know.

Hi Brant,

Time permitting, I'll offer a rejoinder to your comments on Jaredite survivors in the next day or so.

Hi Greg,

My initial "*sigh!*" stems from the fact I've been down this DNApologetic path more times than I care to count; I apologize if it offended you. David Stewart and I discussed his various opinions over on ZLMB a few years back, and I'll say to you now what I effectively said to David then: I see no reason to defend scientific hypotheses that are fully embraced by both LDS and non-LDS biologists and geneticists simply because you think you have a novel opinion on the matter.

For instance, consider the following snippets from LDS specialists:

Since current population genetics suggests that Native Americans (presumed by some to be the direct genetic descendants of the Lamanites) have an Asian genetic signature, the above [global colonization] hypothesis is indeed incorrect.

...

Nor am I disputing the inference that Native Americans have a preponderance of genes that carry a genetic signature for Asian origination.

[Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12.1 (2003): 28, 31, 35, emphasis added.]

Most Native Americans are of Asian origin, whereas some small subset is of Middle Eastern origin. This latter hypothesis has two subservient hypotheses:

a. No genetic evidence of the Middle Eastern subset has been found, but will eventually be found.

b. No genetic evidence of the Middle Eastern subset has been found, and probably never will be found.

[D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?" JBMS 12.1 (2003): 43, emphasis added.]

The historical population structure of Native Americans may be characterized by the four major haplogroups A, B, C, and D. All have been associated with an Asian origin.

[David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?" FARMS Review 15.2 (2003): 76, emphasis added.]

If you feel that you have some revolutionary finding that challenges population geneticists' foundational hypotheses involving, among other things, polymorphisms, UEPs, and time to coalescence, then take it up with them. I'll leave it to you to tell these LDS and non-LDS specialists how Amerindian haplogroups A, B, C, and D actually derived from Middle Easterners ~2,500

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brent writes:

The problem with Jaredite survivors doesn't rest solely, or even mostly, on what the text doesn't say, but on what it does say.

And the Merneptah stele makes the claim "Israel is no more". The evidence that Israel continued to exist after the conquest by Merneptah is considered far more significant than the text.

You noted (years ago on ZLMB):

Coriantumr is informed that he will survive the Jaredite obliteration to see a new people inherit that land and that they will bury him (Ether 13:21; see also 11:21).

But this creates a problem - because of course, Coriantumr is not the author of Ether 13:21. And in fact, the author of Ether 13:21 is a millenia removed from Croiantumr, and the text is as best a paraphrase of a translation of someone else's comments. You want to assert the text as if it has a single author without ambiguity - you want to read the text as being a fictional account written in the modern era - and then use this assertion to explain what is going on in the text - from outside the text.

Finally, you comment:

Such a situation is nonsensical in a region swarming with indigenous populations

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

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.

Actually, do we know this? An interesting read on this subject was Keith Whitelam's article: "'Israel is Laid Waste; His Seed is No More': What if Merneptah's Scribes were Telling the Truth" in Biblical Interpreation 8-1/2 (Brill, 2000).

The problem that you have Dan is that the Book of Mormon is a literary work - by its nature. And so claims within it must be weighed against its purpose.

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

[Nisfor]

So - with all the talk of "acquired immunity" vs. "genetic immunity" - why was it possible to bring people, animals, and plants from the "Old World" to the "New World" without some diseases tagging along? As was evidenced in the later introduction of "Old World" diseases into the "New World" - they can be transported to, live and thrive in the Americas - there's no reason diseases wouldn't have followed the Nephites/Jaradites onto their "ships of curious workmanship" along with their plants and animals?

Maybe they all got priesthood blessings before they got on the boat?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, your argument is based on far too many assumptions

...

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

I used those words and phrases to make clear that these are my opinions and are often based on conclusions/assumptions based on the evidence as I see it. Some evidence is strong enough, imo, to approach reality and fact (in terms of probablility). There is very little in life that is absolute, and I try to recognize that in my arguments. Folks can agree or disagree all they want, to swallow or not swallow. I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong, and for Semitic DNA to be found in Mesoamerica, etc. Can it possibly happen in the future? Sure, and I hope it does. But as the scientific evidences mount (not just DNA, but all others) in ways that do not support BofM historicity (based on teachings, beliefs, assumptions, etc., in the Church, past and present), I become less hopeful.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Are you honestly claiming that BRM's discussion of blood lineage within his topic of "American Indians" is not speaking to genetic or biological ancestors of American Indians? There's no mention in that section of "adoption." Remember, BRM is speaking of American Indians' "predominant blood lineage." Using your argument, this would mean that Native Americans are predominantly 'adopted' into the House of Israel, while also being partially 'adopted' into 'tribes' for Vikings, Asiatics, and post-Columbian Europeans (the other sources for possible dilution to blood lineage mentioned by BRM). I submit this makes no sense; perhaps you ought to rethink your argument.

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.

[Greg Smith]

So - with all the talk of "acquired immunity" vs. "genetic immunity" - why was it possible to bring people, animals, and plants from the "Old World" to the "New World" without some diseases tagging along? 

It probably wasn't, to an extent.

The thing is, the diseases that came along for plants and animals would have been diseases those animals and plants had already been exposed to, in the old world. Thus, they would have some degree of resistance or ability to fight the disease.

(The human case was different since you had two groups of the same species. One group brought diseases the other group had never seen, and so the entire population was vulnerable.)

In fact, such diseases (such as hookworms) virtually require a trans-oceanic voyage for them to have survived intact (see Sorenson's paper in the latest JBMS).

As was evidenced in the later introduction of "Old World" diseases into the "New World" - they can be transported to, live and thrive in the Americas -

These were, by and large HUMAN diseases, not animal diseases (since the flora/fauna wasn't the same). Indeed, animals/plants sometimes had the opposite problem--they had no natural enemies in their new setting, and so were able to run wild, overwhlem existing species, fill ecological niches previously held by indiginous plants/wildlife, ect.

there's no reason diseases wouldn't have followed the Nephites/Jaradites onto their "ships of curious workmanship" along with their plants and animals?

In the case of human diseases, this presumes that the groups would have still been infectious upon their arrival. The Jaredites took >1 year to cross, according to the text. That's probably well beyond the 'burn out' time of most epidemic infections. (TB springs to mind as a possible exception; I don't know it's frequency or incidence in that time period, though.)

Either everyone in each boat was uninfected to start with, immune to begin with, people got sick and got better, or they got sick and died and were disposed of enroute. (You always wondered what the hole in the bottom of the boat was for, right? :-))

The Nephite group was rather small, and had been voyaging for >8 years in the deseret prior to sailing, while (apparently) attempting to avoid a lot of human contact. Again, this probably meant that true epidemic disease of the pandemic sort (e.g. smallpox, measles, influenza, plague, etc.) would have a hard time persisting in such a small group over so long a time. Either they were never sick, or got sick and got better, or got sick and died.

[subject for Sunday School speculation--did Ishmael have smallpox? :-)]

And as you (tongue in cheek) point out, those are merely the strictly naturalistic perspectives. Presumably, if God is trying to establish people somewhere without wiping everyone out, He can. :-)

Kind regards,

Greg

[Confidential Informant]

I'm familiar enough with the literature to know that preclassic is most often spelled without a hyphen and that Mesoamerica begins with a capital M. So by my count, that's two more things than you know. wink.gif

I see. So your advanced training in "Mesoamerican" studies of the "preclassic" era is exactly the same as your advanced studies in everything else: None.

Yet, you pretend to act as an authoritative source for counter arguments against Brant.

Okie dokie.

C.I.

[Greg Smith]

Rollo:

Are you honestly claiming that BRM's discussion of blood lineage within his topic of "American Indians" is not speaking to genetic or biological ancestors of American Indians?  There's no mention in that section of "adoption."  Remember, BRM is speaking of American Indians' "predominant blood lineage."

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear, because there are two separate issues.

1) I suspect that Elder McConkie is talking about biological descendants. Many LDS have held this view, even to a more extreme view than his expressed Mormon Doctrine opinion. My point with regards to his claim here, though, is that saying biologic or blood does not equal "has genetically detectable markers." So, this claim of Elder McConkie's could be consistent with what we see genetically, at the moment. (There are other scenarios that would also be consistent with the genetics and NOT consistent with Elder McConkie's claim.)

Most people either have no descendants with given DNA at a given locus, or they have LOTS of descendants with those markers. Yet, whether or not you have the genetic marker doesn't change whether you ARE, in fact, the blood descendants. I'm just cautioning reading every mention of "blood descent" as arguing "must have detectable genetic signature," since that just isn't the way that such genetic signatures work. (Remember, 99.9% of the genome is the same in everyone, so that inherited genetic material won't be detectable by source via any test.)

I'm saying, you can't say blood descendant = must have genetic marker. It just doesn't work that way, and you'll distort both the meaning of the speaker and confuse yourself in what to expect from the science if you don't keep that distinction firmly fixed.

2) The second issue is that the Book of Mormon tends to adopt people back and forth into "Lamanite" and "Nephite" designations with gay abandon; thus it is not unreasonable to suppose that non-Jerusalemers would be adopted into those groups. (Whether there were other non-Jerusalemers is, of course, as separate point.)

We know it lasted nearly 1,000 years, since Mormon says he is a "pure" descendant of Lehi.

Again, what does "pure" mean? How did Lehiites trace descent? Our ideas of genetically "pure" groups is probably quite separate from how any ancient people considered the idea.

But, again you also miss that most true DESCENDANTS won't have Y or mtDNA markers, even though they are still descendants. Then, wipe out 90% of those people with the European arrival prior to modern DNA, and you've got another set of variables.

And why does your argument not hold true for the Lemba in Africa, which left Israel around the same time as Lehi's band but today still show a Semitic DNA connection?

An excellent question. For a number of reasons:

1) the only reason the Lemba show a "Semitic connection" is that they carry the "Cohen modal haplotype." Only 2-3% of current "Jews" have this marker, and it is held by those who claim descent from the cohen/priesthood group). Since the Book of Mormon peoples give no hint that they claim priestly descent (they are Ephraim and Mannaseh), they would be unlikely to carry the CMH on their Y chromosome.

(This is one of the many things that Murphy gets brutally wrong or overlooks, incidentally, in his 2000 paper. If you rely on him on this point, you will be misled.)

2) The thing you're looking at is different. In the case of the Amerindians, mtDNA is considered. Well, look at Lemba people mtDNA and what do you see? It's "indistinguishable from other Bantu-speaking groups." They're Jews, and yet their mtDNA looks like no other known Jewish group, and matches that of other people in their region. (This should ring some Book of Mormon bells!)

So, are the Lemba NOT of Jewish descent? The critics' "arguments" rule out the Amerindians on the same grounds that would also rule out the Lemba. Only the CMH saves the Lemba as Jewish, but we wouldn't expect the CMH in the Nephites anyway.

3) Nephites and Lamanites are not "Jews," they are of other of the 10 tribes. So, they're one step removed from a "Jewish" consideration, which at least has a modern extant group to act as a control group (though this too has its problems even for Jews).

So, given the expected absence of CMH, what does this tell you about trying to use genetics to prove/disprove Israelite links for Amerindians via these techniques? The Lemba are a great example of how unlikely that might be, without the good luck of CMH.

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.

Well, so much for the "most correct book on the face of the earth," huh?

Hardly. It seems very strange that one would expect an ancient text to reflect modern concerns, sensibilities, or word usage. In science, we have very precise terminology that splits fine hairs, but that's the exception in the world generally, not the rule.

This much we do know: every post-Jaredite person or group in the BofM that discusses lineage traces it back to an Israelite immigrant. 

Of course. Because, this is what was important in Nephite society. There were lots of guys with Mulekite groups, but we only hear about one person of importance for descent--Zarahemla, the former king.

Moroni tells JS that Native Americans in 1823 were the "literal descendants of Abraham." 

An idea about which I--or any other "pro"-LDS writer I have read--have no problem. I am the literal descendant of several generations of Smiths. It does not follow, however, that I am not also a descendant of several Regehrs, Reimers, Collets, Litchfields, and (I swear) someone named "Allgreen Pickles." Really.

Perhaps ... if you read between the lines.  But this 1,000 history makes no reference to any "other" or "others."  From Lehi to Mormon/Moroni, all lineage is Israelite.

Exactly. They are there, but in a lineage history like the Book of Mormon, they care about THEMSELVE, and very little about anyone else. The leaders' lineage (however understood; I don't think it meant completely uncontaminated by anyone else, since there are very few examples of that sort of thing in the real world anyway) was Israelite. But, the others are there.

No mention of any other lineage or people, although apologists claim that Lehi's band might have been subsumed by numerous "others" already there when they arrived.

Indeed, the text makes no sense if this is not the case. See Sorenson; please cite and rebut examples if you don't agree. Generalities don't help much.

We're not talking about a mistake made on one occasion by one Church leader.  We are talking about a universal teaching and belief for well over a century by numerous prophets, seers and revelators -- i.e., that Native Americans are literally biological descendants of BofM peoples.

Well, be careful what you're claiming. No one is claiming (that I know of) that Indians aren't descendants of Israel. What I am claiming is that Israel is not their SOLE ancestry.

And, the claim of "SOLE" ancestory is NOT a universal teaching. Many people have believed it. But, Bruce R. McConkie didn't believe it, though he believed that they were "dominant" (or as he meant, I suspect, "majority.")

Many others, though, have thought that they were a distinct minority. I'll quote a few again for you:

There must be a clear distinction, it grows every year more evident, between the origins of America's ancient people and the sources of their culture. The human material of the pre- Columbian societies probably came from Asia by way of Alaska, the orthodox route long accepted for the American Indians

[Greg Smith]

Rollo:

Are you honestly claiming that BRM's discussion of blood lineage within his topic of "American Indians" is not speaking to genetic or biological ancestors of American Indians?  There's no mention in that section of "adoption."  Remember, BRM is speaking of American Indians' "predominant blood lineage."

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear, because there are two separate issues.

1) I suspect that Elder McConkie is talking about biological descendants. Many LDS have held this view, even to a more extreme view than his expressed Mormon Doctrine opinion. My point with regards to his claim here, though, is that saying biologic or blood does not equal "has genetically detectable markers." So, this claim of Elder McConkie's could be consistent with what we see genetically, at the moment. (There are other scenarios that would also be consistent with the genetics and NOT consistent with Elder McConkie's claim.)

Most people either have no descendants with given DNA at a given locus, or they have LOTS of descendants with those markers. Yet, whether or not you have the genetic marker doesn't change whether you ARE, in fact, the blood descendants. I'm just cautioning reading every mention of "blood descent" as arguing "must have detectable genetic signature," since that just isn't the way that such genetic signatures work. (Remember, 99.9% of the genome is the same in everyone, so that inherited genetic material won't be detectable by source via any test.)

I'm saying, you can't say blood descendant = must have genetic marker. It just doesn't work that way, and you'll distort both the meaning of the speaker and confuse yourself in what to expect from the science if you don't keep that distinction firmly fixed.

2) The second issue is that the Book of Mormon tends to adopt people back and forth into "Lamanite" and "Nephite" designations with gay abandon; thus it is not unreasonable to suppose that non-Jerusalemers would be adopted into those groups. (Whether there were other non-Jerusalemers is, of course, as separate point.)

We know it lasted nearly 1,000 years, since Mormon says he is a "pure" descendant of Lehi.

Again, what does "pure" mean? How did Lehiites trace descent? Our ideas of genetically "pure" groups is probably quite separate from how any ancient people considered the idea.

But, again you also miss that most true DESCENDANTS won't have Y or mtDNA markers, even though they are still descendants. Then, wipe out 90% of those people with the European arrival prior to modern DNA, and you've got another set of variables.

And why does your argument not hold true for the Lemba in Africa, which left Israel around the same time as Lehi's band but today still show a Semitic DNA connection?

An excellent question. For a number of reasons:

1) the only reason the Lemba show a "Semitic connection" is that they carry the "Cohen modal haplotype." Only 2-3% of current "Jews" have this marker, and it is held by those who claim descent from the cohen/priesthood group). Since the Book of Mormon peoples give no hint that they claim priestly descent (they are Ephraim and Mannaseh), they would be unlikely to carry the CMH on their Y chromosome.

(This is one of the many things that Murphy gets brutally wrong or overlooks, incidentally, in his 2000 paper. If you rely on him on this point, you will be misled.)

2) The thing you're looking at is different. In the case of the Amerindians, mtDNA is considered. Well, look at Lemba people mtDNA and what do you see? It's "indistinguishable from other Bantu-speaking groups." They're Jews, and yet their mtDNA looks like no other known Jewish group, and matches that of other people in their region. (This should ring some Book of Mormon bells!)

So, are the Lemba NOT of Jewish descent? The critics' "arguments" rule out the Amerindians on the same grounds that would also rule out the Lemba. Only the CMH saves the Lemba as Jewish, but we wouldn't expect the CMH in the Nephites anyway.

3) Nephites and Lamanites are not "Jews," they are of other of the 10 tribes. So, they're one step removed from a "Jewish" consideration, which at least has a modern extant group to act as a control group (though this too has its problems even for Jews).

So, given the expected absence of CMH, what does this tell you about trying to use genetics to prove/disprove Israelite links for Amerindians via these techniques? The Lemba are a great example of how unlikely that might be, without the good luck of CMH.

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.

Well, so much for the "most correct book on the face of the earth," huh?

Hardly. It seems very strange that one would expect an ancient text to reflect modern concerns, sensibilities, or word usage. In science, we have very precise terminology that splits fine hairs, but that's the exception in the world generally, not the rule.

This much we do know: every post-Jaredite person or group in the BofM that discusses lineage traces it back to an Israelite immigrant. 

Of course. Because, this is what was important in Nephite society. There were lots of guys with Mulekite groups, but we only hear about one person of importance for descent--Zarahemla, the former king.

Moroni tells JS that Native Americans in 1823 were the "literal descendants of Abraham." 

An idea about which I--or any other "pro"-LDS writer I have read--have no problem. I am the literal descendant of several generations of Smiths. It does not follow, however, that I am not also a descendant of several Regehrs, Reimers, Collets, Litchfields, and (I swear) someone named "Allgreen Pickles." Really.

Perhaps ... if you read between the lines.  But this 1,000 history makes no reference to any "other" or "others."  From Lehi to Mormon/Moroni, all lineage is Israelite.

Exactly. They are there, but in a lineage history like the Book of Mormon, they care about THEMSELVE, and very little about anyone else. The leaders' lineage (however understood; I don't think it meant completely uncontaminated by anyone else, since there are very few examples of that sort of thing in the real world anyway) was Israelite. But, the others are there.

No mention of any other lineage or people, although apologists claim that Lehi's band might have been subsumed by numerous "others" already there when they arrived.

Indeed, the text makes no sense if this is not the case. See Sorenson; please cite and rebut examples if you don't agree. Generalities don't help much.

We're not talking about a mistake made on one occasion by one Church leader.  We are talking about a universal teaching and belief for well over a century by numerous prophets, seers and revelators -- i.e., that Native Americans are literally biological descendants of BofM peoples.

Well, be careful what you're claiming. No one is claiming (that I know of) that Indians aren't descendants of Israel. What I am claiming is that Israel is not their SOLE ancestry.

And, the claim of "SOLE" ancestory is NOT a universal teaching. Many people have believed it. But, Bruce R. McConkie didn't believe it, though he believed that they were "dominant" (or as he meant, I suspect, "majority.")

Many others, though, have thought that they were a distinct minority. I'll quote a few again for you:

There must be a clear distinction, it grows every year more evident, between the origins of America's ancient people and the sources of their culture. The human material of the pre- Columbian societies probably came from Asia by way of Alaska, the orthodox route long accepted for the American Indians

[Rollo Tomasi]

Greg:

Sorry, but for some reason the "quote" function didn't work right, so it looks a bit funky below:

My point with regards to his claim here, though, is that saying biologic or blood does not equal "has genetically detectable markers." So, this claim of Elder McConkie's could be consistent with what we see genetically, at the moment.

I think that given BRM's statement of American Indians' "predominant [israelitish] blood lineage," he would fully expect to find genetic markers consistent with this statement.

Most people either have no descendants with given DNA at a given locus, or they have LOTS of descendants with those markers. Yet, whether or not you have the genetic marker doesn't change whether you ARE, in fact, the blood descendants. I'm just cautioning reading every mention of "blood descent" as arguing "must have detectable genetic signature," since that just isn't the way that such genetic signatures work.

But, again, I must emphasize we are talking "predominant."

The second issue is that the Book of Mormon tends to adopt people back and forth into "Lamanite" and "Nephite" designations with gay abandon; thus it is not unreasonable to suppose that non-Jerusalemers would be adopted into those groups.

I disagree, because whether Nephite or Lamanite or other "ite," every post-Jaredite lineage discussed in the BofM goes back to an Israelite immigrant.

Again, what does "pure" mean? How did Lehiites trace descent? Our ideas of genetically "pure" groups is probably quite separate from how any ancient people considered the idea.

At the very least, I think it shows that Lehi's band was not subsumed by "others" within 1,000 years of arriving in the New World. Moreover, however they traced descent, every lineage discussed (via Nephite, Lamanite or otherwise) goes to an Israelite immigrant.

But, again you also miss that most true DESCENDANTS won't have Y or mtDNA markers, even though they are still descendants.

But yet they found this in the Lemba tribe, even though the Lemba showed no outward sign of being Semitic.

the only reason the Lemba show a "Semitic connection" is that they carry the "Cohen modal haplotype." Only 2-3% of current "Jews" have this marker, and it is held by those who claim descent from the cohen/priesthood group). Since the Book of Mormon peoples give no hint that they claim priestly descent (they are Ephraim and Mannaseh), they would be unlikely to carry the CMH on their Y chromosome.

Yet even those of priestly descent among the Lemba looked like everyone else in the tribe -- black African with no indication of an Israelite connection (other than oral history, and later, DNA). Moreover, the CMH was not the only evidence among the Lemba (about 10% of males had the CMH) -- 70% of Lemba Y chromosomes were found to be Semitic and 30% Bantu. Among BofM peoples, we have BofM Lamanites described as the "principal" ancestors of American Indians; we have Mormon describing himself as a "pure" descendant of Father Lehi 1,000 years later, we have Moroni calling Native Americans in 1823 the "literal" descendants of Abraham, and we have an 1845 Proclamation to the world by the (then governing) Quorum of the 12 speaking to the "Israelitish origin" of Native Americans.

Only the CMH saves the Lemba as Jewish, but we wouldn't expect the CMH in the Nephites anyway.

True, but we would expect some Semitic connection (given the examples I give above), but have found none.

Nephites and Lamanites are not "Jews," they are of other of the 10 tribes. So, they're one step removed from a "Jewish" consideration, which at least has a modern extant group to act as a control group (though this too has its problems even for Jews).

The reason I have used the words "Semitic" and "Israelite."

It seems very strange that one would expect an ancient text to reflect modern concerns, sensibilities, or word usage.

Not really -- we do profess that the BofM is the "most correct book on the face of the earth." That should count for something, right?

Because, this is what was important in Nephite society. There were lots of guys with Mulekite groups, but we only hear about one person of importance for descent--Zarahemla, the former king.

This statement would seem inconsistent with the claim by some that Lehi's small band, limited to a small geographic area, was effectively subsumed by the many "others" already in the New World. Fact is, the only lineage ever discussed by post-Jaredite persons and groups in the BofM is Israelite, and that undercuts claims of "others," "founders effect," etc.

An idea about which I--or any other "pro"-LDS writer I have read--have no problem. I am the literal descendant of several generations of Smiths. It does not follow, however, that I am not also a descendant of several Regehrs, Reimers, Collets, Litchfields, and (I swear) someone named "Allgreen Pickles." Really.

Yes, just like we can all say we are "literal" descendants of Adam and Eve, but Moroni (as Church leaders from JS on down believed) was talking of a very close and strong connection between BofM Lamanites and modern-day Native Americans. Hence, the reason the word "principal" is used in the BofM Introduction, and why the Quorum of the 12 felt they could issue a global proclamation in 1845 about "the Israelitish origin" of American Indians, and why Joseph Smith (in 1833) described the BofM as a record "of the forefathers of our western Tribes of Indians" and that the Indians "are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt." This is why the BofM has always been so special to Native Americans.

They are there, but in a lineage history like the Book of Mormon, they care about THEMSELVE, and very little about anyone else.

But how would this be possible if Lehi's band was quickly subsumed by the many "others" already there? How could a 1,000-year history completely ignore the many "others" apparently part of their culture and people? This makes no sense to me.

The leaders' lineage (however understood; I don't think it meant completely uncontaminated by anyone else, since there are very few examples of that sort of thing in the real world anyway) was Israelite. But, the others are there.

So the "leaders" stayed "Israelite" for 1,000 years, all the while taking over the many "others" that dwarfed their little band? But, somehow, the "others" took over genetically? You're painting yourself in a corner, I'm afraid.

Well, be careful what you're claiming. No one is claiming (that I know of) that Indians aren't descendants of Israel. What I am claiming is that Israel is not their SOLE ancestry.

Not "sole," just "principal" or "predominant." And DNA makes clear this simply is not the case.

This is the 1920s. In general conference. By a general authority, talking about how research he thinks is proving the Book of Mormon. If universal descent from Jerusalemites is an official doctrine, why on earth does Elder Young (or Elder McConkie) not hold to that doctrine?

Yet, 61 years after Elder Young's talk, the Introduction is included in the BofM (and every edition since) with the statement that the BofM Lamanites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians."

Janne M. Sjodahl,

[charity]

Predominant, principal, both mean "most important" not "greatest percentage of genes."

The egg is on the face of those critics who perserverate on the % issue. It is not attractive there, guys.

[Guest Five to one]

Charity,

In a word, horsehockey. Here's Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: pre

[juliann]

This is the silliest argument I have ever heard. The LDS church has from the beginning taught that the Lamanites were the ancestors of the American Indians. Has that changed?

Actually, they haven't taught that from the beginning. I did a thread asking if any countermopologist had admitted to the presence of multiple statements in teaching manuals, general conference and other church publications....no one acknowledged their existence. The traditional view has been that the American Indians are Lehi's direct descendents. As to that changing....yeeeessss. The church website article links to articles explaining this.

[Guest Five to one]

I missed that thread. I just came back here.

So, the position is that it was a "traditional" teaching but not by any means the last word on this issue. Seems reasonable.

[juliann]

Welcome back, Five. Here is the link with some of the quotes throughout the 20th cent. I think you will be pretty stunned when you look at who was doing most of the publishing on this...the church. No Mormon is going to deny the traditional or majority view...but no countermo is going to admit that variations of the LGT have consistently been there all along... behavior which I find much more interesting than the DNA nonsense.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=13634&st=0 oops...forgot the link.

[The Dude]

...but no countermo is going to admit that variations of the LGT have consistently been there all along... behavior which I find much more interesting than the DNA nonsense.

It must be because we are experiencing cog-dis. Isn't that interesting?

[Pahoran]

Greg:

Sorry, but for some reason the "quote" function didn't work right, so it looks a bit funky below:

That's because there are two more "quote" than there are "/quote." If you fix the Janne M. Sjodahl and William E. Berrett quotes, it'll be right.

You'll still be wrong, but your quotes will be right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

But as the scientific evidences mount (not just DNA, but all others) in ways that do not support BofM historicity (based on teachings, beliefs, assumptions, etc., in the Church, past and present), I become less hopeful.

I'm a bit at a loss as to how the "DNA evidence" is "mounting." It seems, at most, of marginal relevance to me.

Oh well. Just for the record, Professor John Clark, who is reputed to know something about Mesoamerican archaeology, thinks that the overall archaeological picture is trending fairly nicely in the direction of the Book of Mormon.

That was the basic thrust of his remarks at the Library of Congress symposium last year, which are now available in the latest issue of BYU Studies. And he will make a similar case in the next issue of the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

[charity]

521 wrote: "Charity, In a word, horsehockey. Here's Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: pre

[Guest Five to one]

Sorry to have angered you. I've always liked you and did not intend to say anything hurtful. I was thinking of Sherman Potter saying gently, "Horsehockey, son!"

On the bright side, now I can say I'm an "award-winning" poster.

Again, sorry for offending you. It wasn't intentional.

[cdowis]

Rollo,

Please give us the following:

1. The DNA characteristics of Lehi, Zoram, Ishmael and compare those characteristics with the modern amerindians. Actually we do not need the characteristics of an individual such as Lehi. Just show us for the inhabitants of Jerusalem around 600BC -- a wide sampling of the DNA would do.

2. Show us in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites, in general, refused to intermarry with any other inhabitants in the Americas.

3. I assume that you know that Moroni, and the majority of the Nephites were killed in the last battle, and any comment by Moroni about his lineage and the lineage of the Nephites is totally and completely irrevelant, since he and the vast majority of the Nephites presumably left no children.

I realize that you want to throw out as many arguments that you can to see if any "stick on the wall", but you really would have more credibility, with me at least, if you would use thoughtful arguments. Your posts abound with assumptions, speculation and flawed logic.

[The Dude]

Please give us the following:

1. The DNA characteristics of Lehi, Zoram, Ishmael and compare those characteristics with the modern amerindians.

I'll give them a shot.

Once and for all, it doesn't matter that we don't know the DNA characteristics of Lehi et al., since there is no reason to think they carried the Asian characteristics found in modern amerindians.

2. Show us in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites, in general, refused to intermarry with any other inhabitants in the Americas.

First, there is hardly evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were any other inhabitants. Second, so what if the Lamanites intermarried from the day they landed in america...the Nephites did not behave that way until later in the story when the size of their population could be expected to hold its own upon mixing with a Lamanite gene pool.

3. I assume that you know that Moroni, and the majority of the Nephites were killed in the last battle, and any comment by Moroni about his lineage and the lineage of the Nephites is totally and completely irrevelant, since he and the vast majority of the Nephites presumably left no children.

Well before you get to the end of the Book of Mormon, there were several periods where Nephites and Lamanites intermingled and had children together, thus dispersing Lehite-specific markers throughout the population. Even if Moroni and all his children were all killed off, the Lamanites themselves would have reacquired a portion of those Lehite-specific genes, and could be expected with some probability to have passed them into modern amerindians. Again, this all assumes the BoM says there were "others" to begin with.

[charity]

Five to One, I shouldn't have been offended. My apologies to you.