Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Nighthawke]

Some may find this of interest:

Rollo is this all that Southerton wrote? Where did you get this?

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Southerton previously has agreed that, scientifically, a "founder's effect" could have so diluted Lehite DNA as to be undetectable today, but he has pointed out that LDS theology (1823 forward, long after the Conquistadors arrived) does not seem to allow for this. An example is the BofM Introduction's reference to Lamanites as the "principal" ancestor of today's Native Americans (we can argue how that word is interpreted today, but when it was first published in 1981 the overwhelming LDS view was that Native Americans had a predominant Israelitish blood lineage). Even Joseph Smith's quoting the Angel Moroni as describing American Indians as "literal descendants of Abraham" and the nearly universal teaching for over a century by Church leaders that American Indians a/k/a "Lamanites" are closely connected to their BofM progenitors (even today's CES curriculum continues to teach this presumption). So far DNA has shown this belief and teaching to be incorrect -- whatever connection American Indians have to BofM peoples is so slight as to be undetectable, and perhaps, irrelevant. If nothing else, DNA evidence suggests the Church revisit traditional beliefs and teachings about present-day "Lamanites."

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo is this all that Southerton wrote? Where did you get this?

He posted it yesterday on RfM on a thread entitled "Getting Iced in Iceland." Here is a link:

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ind...exmobb_recovery

[Brant Gardner]

Rollo Tomasi:

but he has pointed out that LDS theology (1823 forward, long after the Conquistadors arrived) does not seem to allow for this.

I agree that it is a theological question. I am confused as to how DNA keeps getting mixed up in a theological issue. I am also confused as to how Southerton has become an expert on LDS theology, especially when his definition contradicts officially stated church positions.

[smac97]

Some may find this of interest:

Rollo is this all that Southerton wrote? Where did you get this?

It was a post over on RfM. Southerton adds an interesting statement:

>> Carmella: But by the same logic, wasn't the Native American population severely killed off by Old World diseases? I believe some anthropologists estimate up to 90%. I know that dna testing has been performed on some pre columbian remains and, of course, no Semitic dna, but I don't know if there's a big enough sample to say that there wasn't any geneflow.

> Southerton: Bottom line is that 90% of all native people were wiped out. If the theoretical Lamanites were 20% of the New World population pre-1492, then the collapse would not necessarily have changed their proportion in the population.

==I wonder where he gets the "20%" figure. Sheer speculation, I suppose.

-Smac

[Brant Gardner]

Jarrod:

My apologies.

[USU78]

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.

Southerton previously has agreed that, scientifically, a "founder's effect" could have so diluted Lehite DNA as to be undetectable today, but he has pointed out that LDS theology (1823 forward, long after the Conquistadors arrived) does not seem to allow for this.

{snip advocacy of Southerton self-apologetic}

Queen: Good Hamlet, cast thy nighted colour off,

And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.

Do not for ever with thy vailed lids

Seek for thy noble father in the dust.

Thou know'st 'tis common. All that lives must die,

Passing through nature to eternity.

Hamlet: Ay, madam, it is common.

Queen: If it be,

Why seems it so particular with thee?

Hamlet: Seems, madam, Nay, it is. I know not 'seems.'

Seems to me that Southerton's self-apologetic (and Rollo's advocacy thereof) over this "seems," on such a point is rather self-indulgent to the point of meaninglessness. To advocate for an article of faithlessness which arises out of "seems," is a sad, sad thing.

[smac97]

Rollo,

> Southerton previously has agreed that, scientifically, a "founder's effect" could have so diluted Lehite DNA as to be undetectable today, but he has pointed out that LDS theology (1823 forward, long after the Conquistadors arrived) does not seem to allow for this.

==LDS theology has nothing to say about undetectable DNA.

==It has been pointed out already, but it bears repetition: The debate isn't about "DNA versus the Book of Mormon," but rather "DNA versus contemporary interpretations of the Book of Mormon." If some aspects of that interpretation has been in error, can "LDS theology...allow for this?" Certainly.

> An example is the BofM Introduction's reference to Lamanites as the "principal" ancestor of today's Native Americans (we can argue how that word is interpreted today, but when it was first published in 1981 the overwhelming LDS view was that Native Americans had a predominant Israelitish blood lineage).

==You're only confirming my previous statement. Nobody defending Southerton quotes the Book of Mormon. They quote contemporary interpretations of the Book of Mormon.

> Even Joseph Smith's quoting the Angel Moroni as describing American Indians as "literal descendants of Abraham"

==Chapter and verse, please, as to where Joseph Smith quotes Moroni "as describing American Indians as 'literal descendants of Abraham.'"

==An even assuming Joseph said this, so what? Is he wrong? Has so-called "DNA evidence" precluded the possibility?

> So far DNA has shown this belief and teaching to be incorrect

==It has shown no such thing.

> whatever connection American Indians have to BofM peoples is so slight as to be undetectable,

==A connection need not be "slight" to be undetectable.

> and perhaps, irrelevant.

=="Irrelevant" in what context? Who decides what is "irrelevant" and what isn't? How does "DNA evidence" address "relevance?"

> If nothing else, DNA evidence suggests the Church revisit traditional beliefs and teachings about present-day "Lamanites."

==Sure. But such a revisiting started long before "DNA evidence" came around.

-Smac

[Rollo Tomasi]

I agree that it is a theological question. I am confused as to how DNA keeps getting mixed up in a theological issue.

Speaking only for myself, the teachings I heard and read throughout my life concerning the "Lamanite" lineage of Native Americans (including Polynesians, Maoris, etc.) led me (initially) to expect that Native American DNA would reveal some Semitic connection. Alas, none has been found (to my knowledge), leading me to conclude that the theology and science are at odds. Now, I think much of the theology was based on incorrect assumptions, and therefore, DNA gives the Church an excellent opportunity to revisit traditional beliefs and teachings (some still in official curriculum) and make corrections where needed. Just my $.02.

[katherine the great]

A good point? Children aren't born with their parents' immunity to disease if that were the case then why vaccinate children if mom was vaccinated as a child?

You might need to do a little research about communicable disease...

Diseases mutate. That's what all the fuss is about with today's avian influenza. I understand the Spanish Influenza of 1918 might have been a type of avian influenza and yet I don't hear scientists saying, 'Relax, if your grandparents lived through it, then your mom and dad were immune to it, and now you're immune to it too.'

Nighthawk, please. Influenze is an RNA virus and it mutates rapidly. Smallpox is a DNA virus. Apples and oranges.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Seems to me that Southerton's self-apologetic (and Rollo's advocacy thereof) over this "seems," on such a point is rather self-indulgent to the point of meaninglessness. To advocate for an article of faithlessness which arises out of "seems," is a sad, sad thing.

The word "seems" was mine alone -- I was paraphrasing what I have understood Simon to be saying in his past writings. If I misinterpreted him, then I alone am to blame.

[Danite3459]

The only good argument I see him make is this: Why didn't the Lamanites have a resistence to the Old World diseases? If anything, they would have had increased immunity and been the survivors and not the victims.

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? 

Don't confuse genealogy with genetics. Wars, diseases and natural disasters muddy the waters genetically in terms of what can be tested and proven or disproven by current scientific tools. They did not wipe out all native American populations. A "remnant" of the seed of Lehi has been preserved just as the Book of Mormon suggests, but like the Iceland case, wars disease and natural disasters make it unlikely that we can gain a clear and complete picture of native American ancestry by such tools.

[USU78]

Seems to me that Southerton's self-apologetic (and Rollo's advocacy thereof) over this "seems," on such a point is rather self-indulgent to the point of meaninglessness.  To advocate for an article of faithlessness which arises out of "seems," is a sad, sad thing.

The word "seems" was mine alone -- I was paraphrasing what I have understood Simon to be saying in his past writings. If I misinterpreted him, then I alone am to blame.

I found your summary of his argument to be nicely nuanced and accurate.

Don't beat yourself up over doing a good job.

USU "That one may smile and smile and [seem] a villain" 78

[GMGEE]

Simon Southerton has posted this response on RfM:

Hi Folks,

In a recent FARMS article defending the Book of Mormon, John Butler made reference to a research paper on the population of Iceland by Hagelson et al (2003).* Hagelson and his team found that the large majority of people living in Iceland 300 years ago have one or no living descendants. Butler used these findings to support apologist arguments that it is quite possible that Lamanite DNA disappeared but that American Indians are still descended from them.

The only detail the authors of this paper give about Iceland

[Tarski]

Hmm. Maybe I just don't get the point yet but so what if "the large majority of people living in Iceland 300 years ago have one or no living descendants"???

This does nothing to contradict the fact that the DNA does in fact show that ancient Icelanders migrated from Scandinavia. To suppose that they came from somewhere else, say "X-land", but that those those ancestors died without offspring defies statistics since it implies that the forces of nature and random contingency of survival would have had to systematically kill off just those from the hypothetical "X-land". That represents an unexplained bias in nature. We can't do science that way--always supposing that God/Nature is trying to thwart us by stacking the deck and ruining reasonable assumptions about probability and statistics.

[Rollo Tomasi]

LDS theology has nothing to say about undetectable DNA.

But it certainly has as to detectable DNA:

[F]or the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 33 (bold mine for emphasis)

Nobody defending Southerton quotes the Book of Mormon.  They quote contemporary interpretations of the Book of Mormon.

Simon himself quotes many passages from the BofM in his book, Losing a Lost Tribe (see pp. 4-8, 13-15, 154-55, 161, and 195-96), to support his position.

Chapter and verse, please, as to where Joseph Smith quotes Moroni "as describing American Indians as 'literal descendants of Abraham.'"

Joseph Smith's journal entry for November 9, 1835 ("[Moroni] said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham ...."), quoted in Dean Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, p. 70.

An even assuming Joseph said this, so what?  Is he wrong?  Has so-called "DNA evidence" precluded the possibility?

Certainly not; my problem is that I expected DNA to support this and many other similar teachings and beliefs (when, in fact, it doesn't support them in the least).

A connection need not be "slight" to be undetectable.

You're right; it could also be "none."

[Pahoran]

Some may find this of interest:

FARMS recently published a brief article by John Butler addressing questions about the BofM and DNA research.  In that article, Dr. Butler wrote this:

An interesting study reported in the June 2003 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics leads me to believe that it is possible for Book of Mormon peoples to be ancestors of modern Native Americans and yet not be easily detected using traditional Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests.

[Pahoran]

LDS theology has nothing to say about undetectable DNA.

But it certainly has as to detectable DNA:

[F]or the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 33 (bold mine for emphasis)

Bruce's Doctrine is not an authoritative source of "LDS theology" and only the most unscrupulous anti-Mormons flourish it as if it was.

As you perfectly well know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

then the collapse would not necessarily have changed their proportion in the population.

This assumes that the 20% (whereever he got that figure) is evenly distributed over the affected areas. If one does assume a 20% (which assumption is based on a smaller group mixing in with a larger group surely), then there is no reason to also assume a consistent mixture, but rather higher concentrations in various areas. There were significant areas that were almost completely wiped out (as well as smaller ones that were apparently completely wiped out).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Southerton is playing word games with us. Note, please, the very salient point he avoids:

In other words, the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors.

They lived. They were real ancestors. They have living descendants. Their DNA is undetectable in those descendants even though the records prove the connection. Southerton FAILS ENTIRELY to addresss this point.

Actually, I thought Southerton's overall point was to explain why the Icelandic folks living 300 years ago have a dearth of living descendants in Iceland today.

[Tarski]

Still don't get it! (see my post above)

[Rollo Tomasi]

Bruce's Doctrine is not an authoritative source of "LDS theology" ....

I disagree. And I further submit that his statement about American Indians' "dominant blood lineage" reflects what was meant by "principal" when the BofM Introduction was first published in 1981.

[The Dude]

The only good argument I see him make is this: Why didn't the Lamanites have a resistence to the Old World diseases? If anything, they would have had increased immunity and been the survivors and not the victims.

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?

Katherine:

I think if there were zero selection pressure to keep resistance to smallpox, etc., it would very likely be lost from 600 BC-1492 AD.

[Pahoran]

Southerton is playing word games with us.  Note, please, the very salient point he avoids:

In other words, the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors.

They lived. They were real ancestors. They have living descendants. Their DNA is undetectable in those descendants even though the records prove the connection. Southerton FAILS ENTIRELY to addresss this point.

Actually, I thought Southerton's overall point was to explain why the Icelandic folks living 300 years ago have a dearth of living descendants in Iceland today.

While Butler's point was to explain why Icelanders living 300 years ago, with living descendants today, are undetectable via DNA studies. If St. Simon wishes to address a completely different point he is of course fully entitled to do so; but let's not pretend that he is in any way "responding" to Dr. Butler.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jan]

Bruce's Doctrine is not an authoritative source of "LDS theology" ....

I disagree. And I further submit that his statement about American Indians' "dominant blood lineage" reflects what was meant by "principal" when the BofM Introduction was first published in 1981.

I disagree. It may be what Bruce R McConkie (and others) thought it meant. Not what every LDS has to think it means.

Nor is it scripture.