New Science Impacts Book of Mormon DNA Studies - Southerton is at it again!

[mfbukowski]

And then of course we have the account of Moroni in Mormon 8:

2 And now it came to pass that after the great and tremendous battle at Cumorah, behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed.

3 And my father also was killed by them, and I even remain alone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people. But behold, they are gone, and I fulfil the commandment of my father. And whether they will slay me, I know not.

4 Therefore I will write and hide up the records in the earth; and whither I go it mattereth not.

5 Behold, my father hath made this record, and he hath written the intent thereof. And behold, I would write it also if I had room upon the plates, but I have not; and ore I have none, for I am alone. My father hath been slain in battle, and all my kinsfolk, and I have not friends nor whither to go; and how long the Lord will suffer that I may live I know not.

So why is it not a plausible idea that Lehi has no living descendants today?

[Nathair/|\]

And then of course we have the account of Moroni in Mormon 8:

So why is it not a plausible idea that Lehi has no living descendants today?

2 Nephi 13:30-31

30 Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the ^aland of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the^bmixture of thy ^cseed, which are among thy brethren. 31 Neither will he suffer that the Gentiles shalldestroy the seed of thy brethren.

[mfbukowski]

Well that's what happens when this old non-literalist tries to make a literal argument. It doesn't work.

I always took those as "spiritual seed".

But thanks for the correction! I just have a hard time taking any scripture literally I guess. To me we are all the savior's descendants anyway since he is the father of our salvation, but I guess that's just me. The DNA connection is definitely not going to work there.

Well I guess this is one for the literalists to work out then. Best wishes!

[LifeOnaPlate]

All this assumes the Book of Mormon writers meant "DNA" when they spoke of "seed." I see no good reason why we should assume that to be the meaning. I see good reason why we shouldn't. (The obvious one being that Watson and Crick weren't around yet.)

[Bunk]

For "seed" to be taken literally you would have to believe Lehi was some kind of herb.

Somehow I doubt Perego, Woodward, and the other scientists DCP spoke of were laughing off Southerton's argument because they think Lehi has no living descendants according to the Book of Mormon. Instead, I presume they are thinking along the lines of their past arguments, where for technical reasons we are not yet able to detect those who are literal descendants of Lehi. I credit you guys for thinking ahead. When the day comes that enough data is amassed to say whether Lehi has living descendants or not, you've got an apologetic alibi in case it comes up negative. I hope somebody is writing this down.

[ERayR]

Earlier, I raised this possibility with Lehi's descendants and got no replies. Those lines among the Lamanites could have died out, and we know from the BOM that the Nephites were purposefully wiped out by the Lamanites.

I thought it was an interesting solution- was this idea just too far from orthodoxy to fly?

I also quoted Jacob who shows us that even by the time of the death of Nephi there were multiple populations- it appears to be many many groups- of Nephites and Lamanites and various others- so many that he gave up trying to characterize them.

This could not have happened without others being present when the Nephite boat landed- showing that the mixture of bloodlines happened within a few years.

This sounds totally plausible to me- yet I got no replies. What's wrong with the idea?

Edit:

Jacob 1:

It is not even plausible to me that so many disparate groups could have arisen within Nephi's lifetime without intermarriage having already occurred.

If one reads Moses 1: 27-29

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.

28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

Some interpret this to mean other worlds but to me he doesn't get to other worlds until verse 33.

[hagoth7]

I credit you guys for thinking ahead....I hope somebody is writing this down.

I will say this - there are a number of gems in this thread alone - that I've wanted to comment on - but will let unfold on its own in a more enjoyable way first. Specifically in the first post.

ARCHIVISTS!!! PLEASE SAVE THIS THREAD!

[mfbukowski]

For "seed" to be taken literally you would have to believe Lehi was some kind of herb.

Somehow I doubt Perego, Woodward, and the other scientists DCP spoke of were laughing off Southerton's argument because they think Lehi has no living descendants according to the Book of Mormon. Instead, I presume they are thinking along the lines of their past arguments, where for technical reasons we are not yet able to detect those who are literal descendants of Lehi. I credit you guys for thinking ahead. When the day comes that enough data is amassed to say whether Lehi has living descendants or not, you've got an apologetic alibi in case it comes up negative. I hope somebody is writing this down.

Well this is another time I have found that I agree with you. I can't decide if I should be scared or not.

I agree that I hope that someone else with actual clout in the apologetic system also notices this line of reasoning. It is absurd to me to think that some geneticist could actually think that the BOM could even in principle be "disproven" by genetic data, and I see no reason we should interpret the scriptures in such a way that we are implicitly in collusion with that view when there is no need to be.

Having always had this view, to me the whole DNA contoversy was laughable when it first came up and there seemed to be a period where some LDS actually thought this could be a telling argument.

But that's just me I guess.

[mfbukowski]

All this assumes the Book of Mormon writers meant "DNA" when they spoke of "seed." I see no good reason why we should assume that to be the meaning. I see good reason why we shouldn't. (The obvious one being that Watson and Crick weren't around yet.)

An excellent excellent point which should even work for the literalists. And don't adoptions count as "seed"?

I think all adopted parents look upon their children as THEIRS.

We are told repeatedly that in Baptism we take upon ourselves the name of Christ and become part of his family. We are told that as members of the church, even if we are not genetic descendants of Abraham, we become adopted as his children.

I see no reason whatsoever in this context to assume that anyone has to literally have Lehi's DNA or Jesus' DNA or Abraham's DNA in theirs to be part of any of these families or carry the "seed" of what they stood for.

I think there is a reason the BOM goes out of it's way to tell the story of the extermination of the Nephites, and this may be it.

There is no other theological function for this entire portion of the contents of the BOM.

The doctrines of the BOM would be untouched if the Nephites remained and simply apostatized - I believe that we are missing a functional piece of doctrine if we just think that it was unimportant doctrinally that all the Nephites be exterminated.

[Nathair/|\]

I think there is a reason the BOM goes out of it's way to tell the story of the extermination of the Nephites, and this may be it.

There is no other theological function for this entire portion of the contents of the BOM.

What about the fact that the BOM was written for our day, to help us deal with the issues we face now and, in this case, to show us the logical consequences of typical 20th-early 21st century behavior?

Yours under the prophetic oaks,

Nathair /|\

[mfbukowski]

What about the fact that the BOM was written for our day, to help us deal with the issues we face now and, in this case, to show us the logical consequences of typical 20th-early 21st century behavior?

Yours under the prophetic oaks,

Nathair /|\

I am sure you are right. And it does that very well, and as a child of the 50's when we learned "duck and cover" I have no doubt that we could well do ourselves in by doing something stupid.

But as we know, scripture often has more than one intepretation and more than one meaning.

Let me quote you and add something:

What about the fact that the BOM was written for our day, to help us deal with the issues we face now and, in this case, to show us the logical consequences of

... of DNA arguments which suggest that the Nephites were not exterminated.

[Nathair/|\]

I am sure you are right. And it does that very well, and as a child of the 50's when we learned "duck and cover" I have no doubt that we could well do ourselves in by doing something stupid.

But as we know, scripture often has more than one intepretation and more than one meaning.

Let me quote you and add something:

... of DNA arguments which suggest that the Nephites were not exterminated.

I confess I'm over my head when it comes to DNA issues (that's part of why I am going into Celtic Studies rather than ArchaeAstronomy and the SETI program like I had originally planned). I was just doing my poor best to answer some questions that seemed excessively absolutist to me. If I misread your posts, I apologize.

Yours under the hesitant oaks,

Nathair /|\

[mfbukowski]

I confess I'm over my head when it comes to DNA issues (that's part of why I am going into Celtic Studies rather than ArchaeAstronomy and the SETI program like I had originally planned). I was just doing my poor best to answer some questions that seemed excessively absolutist to me. If I misread your posts, I apologize.

Yours under the hesitant oaks,

Nathair /|\

Not at all! I appreciated your posts, and asked for what was wrong with this point of view- I specifically wanted to look at what was "wrong" in the argument so that it could be tweaked as necessary to at least get the point across to those with a bit more traditional view than mine, which is perhaps virtually everyone! And ultimately with Bunk and LOAP's points, we have a stronger, if not perfect, argument imo.

And you did exactly what I requested- you showed me what was wrong with my argument from a traditional point of view. Rather than an apology from you, I owe you a "thank you" for answering my question. Thank you!

[Nathair/|\]

Not at all! I appreciated your posts, and asked for what was wrong with this point of view- I specifically wanted to look at what was "wrong" in the argument so that it could be tweaked as necessary to at least get the point across to those with a bit more traditional view than mine, which is perhaps virtually everyone! And ultimately with Bunk and LOAP's points, we have a stronger, if not perfect, argument imo.

And you did exactly what I requested- you showed me what was wrong with my argument from a traditional point of view. Rather than an apology from you, I owe you a "thank you" for answering my question. Thank you!

You may be right about the Lehites dying out, I don't know enough to really have an opinion. It would be disappointing, but I can't say that it's wrong. I appreciate your graciousness.

Yours under the still-learning oaks,

Nathair /|\

[LifeOnaPlate]

I credit you guys for thinking ahead. When the day comes that enough data is amassed to say whether Lehi has living descendants or not, you've got an apologetic alibi in case it comes up negative. I hope somebody is writing this down.

Thinking ahead, or trying to make good sense out of the information we actually have? I can vouch for myself as to my motives, thanks. Besides, I already wrote my thoughts on it:

What is the relationship between the Lamanites of the Book of Mormon and Indigenous Americans? How does modern DNA science help answer the question? Different Latter-day Saints have answered these questions in radically different ways. Some argue DNA studies support the claims of the Book of Mormon. Others say the current information is not enough to answer the question. Others have claimed DNA science disproves the claims of the Book of Mormon.1 Because I'm no scientist I'd like to address the question from a different direction.

In the Book of Mormon we read about Lehi and his descendants (or "seed"). An obvious but crucial consideration is that the writers of the Book of Mormon didn't know about DNA. Further, they almost certainly didn't think about kin in the same way we do. If contemporary readers avoid reading contemporary ideas back into the Book of Mormon a new and perhaps more enlightening reading is possible.2

A few semesters ago I was reading about the ritual of sacrifice among early Semitic peoples. Anthropologist W. Robertson Smith has researched the origins of animal sacrifice. He discussed the idea of kinship:

The idea that kinship is not purely an affair of birth, but may be acquired, has fallen out of our circle of ideas; but so, for that matter, has the primitive conception of kindred itself. To us kinship has no absolute value, but is measured by degrees, and means much or little, or nothing at all, according to its degree and other circumstances. In ancient times, on the contrary, the fundamental obligations of kinship had nothing to do with degrees of relationship, but rested with absolute and identical force on every member of the clan

[Ariarates]

@hagoth 7: you are right, the exclusion of faith is not, in itself, the most objective approach to the BoM. I didn

[ERayR]

@hagoth 7: you are right, the exclusion of faith is not, in itself, the most objective approach to the BoM. I didn

[Ariarates]

There is plenty of coherent information for the BoM being literal history, just none you will accept.

I'd be interested to learn of this coherent evidence - coherent as in fitting what is generally known about the New World, not isolated facts which, taken by themselves might be evidence that the BoM is historically accurate (and are hailed as such by apologists) if only it weren't for the thousands of other facts which point in a completely different direction.

So, if you have that kind of evidence, or even a theory, don't be shy, the world will be at your feet.

The "historical and factual" absurdities you see are very possibly because of the very problem that LifeOnaPlate has described. That and the arrogance to counsel God on how it should be done.

What problem would that be? That I don't read the BoM in the same enlightened way? Talk about arrogance...

[charity]

It always amuses me how many people (who think like Southerton and his fans) start off three steps down a path, not even realizing they are already headed the wrong direction. That "wrong path" makes an assumption that cannot be verified. "Lehi's DNA is not found in modern day indigenous American genetic makeup, therefore the Book of Mormon is faolse." I know this has been pointed out before, but it is impossible to compare modern populations' DNA to Lehi's because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT LEHI'S DNA WAS! The whole issue should be a non-starter. If Southerton were a scientist, he would know that.

[hagoth7]

An excellent excellent point which should even work for the literalists. And don't adoptions count as "seed"?

I think all adopted parents look upon their children as THEIRS.

We are told repeatedly that in Baptism we take upon ourselves the name of Christ and become part of his family. We are told that as members of the church, even if we are not genetic descendants of Abraham, we become adopted as his children.

I see no reason whatsoever in this context to assume that anyone has to literally have Lehi's DNA or Jesus' DNA or Abraham's DNA in theirs to be part of any of these families or carry the "seed" of what they stood for.

Brings to mind this NT passage:

Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

To say they were literal descendants of the prophets might be an exaggeration. But by faithfully believing in their promises, they were counted as among their seed.

I think there is a reason the BOM goes out of it's way to tell the story of the extermination of the Nephites

I agree.

and this may be it.

Perhaps.

There is no other theological function for this entire portion of the contents of the BOM.

While I see your intended point, I respectfully disagree with the assertion.

I can see two very functional purposes for that portion - but either would divert the thread.

[ERayR]

I'd be interested to learn of this coherent evidence - coherent as in fitting what is generally known about the New World, not isolated facts which, taken by themselves might be evidence that the BoM is historically accurate (and are hailed as such by apologists) if only it weren't for the thousands of other facts which point in a completely different direction.

So, if you have that kind of evidence, or even a theory, don't be shy, the world will be at your feet.

Ahh I see your problem, you are coming at the problem backwards. It is not isolated facts which taken by themselves. That is not possible. It is isolated facts that taken as a whole that brings the most enlightenment. Bits and pieces taken by themselves are just pieces to a puzzle. Its when you start combining the pieces that a picture begins to emerge. Spend some time and try it.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Ahh I see your problem, you are coming at the problem backwards. It is not isolated facts which taken by themselves. That is not possible. It is isolated facts that taken as a whole that brings the most enlightenment. Bits and pieces taken by themselves are just pieces to a puzzle. Its when you start combining the pieces that a picture begins to emerge. Spend some time and try it.

I think that's why he was also inviting a theoretical response. Maybe you could string the disparate facts together into a nice coherent necklace for him?

[Bunk]

It always amuses me how many people (who think like Southerton and his fans) start off three steps down a path, not even realizing they are already headed the wrong direction. That "wrong path" makes an assumption that cannot be verified. "Lehi's DNA is not found in modern day indigenous American genetic makeup, therefore the Book of Mormon is faolse." I know this has been pointed out before, but it is impossible to compare modern populations' DNA to Lehi's because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT LEHI'S DNA WAS! The whole issue should be a non-starter. If Southerton were a scientist, he would know that.

What you are saying is half of the story. It is the half that means you could never prove a candidate was positively Lehi's lineage.

The other half of the story is finding those anomalous candidates in the first place. The new SNP technology offers the opportunity to do that using autosomal DNA. Now, what would you conclude if there aren't even any candidates? In that case, Lehi would have no chance of having living descendants among the Native Americans. Do you agree?

(Then you are left with mfbukowski's argument that the BoM says Laman should have no living descendants. Do you agree with his assessment?)

So I'm saying the issue isn't a non-starter, but rather a non-finisher.

[Ariarates]

I think that's why he was also inviting a theoretical response. Maybe you could string the disparate facts together into a nice coherent necklace for him?

Coming up with a theory of your own might be a bit much to ask. Why not start easy, pick a generally accepted theory, textbook or overview of some aspect of the Americas (their history, archeology, biology, geology, populations, religion - whatever) and show how the BoM fits into that theory as a historical document. That should be doable, with libraries bulging at the seams with such materials?

Indeed, my approach may be called "coming at the problem backwards" i.e. from a fact-based, not a faith-based point of view. That was kind of my point.

[hagoth7]

Coming up with a theory of your own might be a bit much to ask. Why not start easy...

...my approach may be called "coming at the problem backwards"...

You are essentially asserting that one should first leap into the unknown (toss a dart on the map and have that be your starting place/time in ancient American history), and work forward from that guess into the known. That's upside down.

In any exploration of someone's ancestry, the common rule is that you start instead from the known, from established fact, and push outward, one careful step at a time, into the unknown, thereby expanding the known - and carefully documenting your trail for others to follow and weigh your line of research - should they so wish.

Make sense?