LDS Writers on Amerindian DNA

[sidewinder]

"When the federal government establishes a state religion -- necessarily Mormonism -- and begins issuing grants to support theologically-committed denominational research. In the meantime, there's that pesky Constitution."

When faithful Mormon scientists begin revolutionizing mesoamerican studies, the BOM will no longer be just a religious matter. When secular scientists catch on, and realize the strength of the arguments for the BOM as a real historical document, it will be to their advantage to get into the action early on, to ensure their own noteriety. And whether or not it's the "presidential award" or something else, many of us skeptics will just have to eat or words, and begin taking the "evidence" seriously.

No Danial Peterson, I am not making a hasty generalization here. I'm warning the others to not fall for yours:

Some of Jones' scientific writings are credible because he has received an award

Therefore, all of Jones' scientific writings are credible.

"Like Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll, they undergo a mysterious (and never actually witnessed) transformation...""

I'm also warning the others not to fall for your false dichotomy. You seem to want to make out the skeptical position to be that LDS apologists are all a bunch of hacks, posturing out of their league. If you can't have this, then we at least must be claiming they undergo a mysterious, and unlikely transformation as to undermine what the apologists would like to see as a small inductive leap from scientist of the university, to scientist of the chapel.

But I have already thrwarted your false dichotomy with my example of Isaac Newton. It was the same mind which helped invent calculus which delved deeply into alchemy and predicted the second coming. Jehova's Witnesses in fact I believe to this day, use Newtons prophetic writings, which I'm sure constitute some of the most brilliant and well thought out crackpottery around, and they boast what a learned scientist he was. (then again, the label of "crackpottery" is more difficult to pin going back in time, as "science" isn't so well established.)

This, to evade the rather obvious point, that even the greatest thinkers are often wrong. Sometimes that wrongness ends up as crackpottery. The concentration thereof, likely linked to quirky ideology or religious beliefs. Again the point being, the inductive leap you require us to take on scientists turned apologist, is greater than you wish to acknowledge, and it has nothing to do with a Mr. Hyde.

"ere again -- following the standard pattern -- although no actual evidence or analysis has been offered..""

Not so, the topic here is the connection between the credentials of certain scientists, and what those credentials mean to LDS apologetics. I have in fact, offered analysis. Like you, I have not actually delved into the substance of their papers offering my opinion on their actual arguments. You've argued that these scientists should be taken seriously in their apologetics by virtue of their acheivments as real world scientists. I've argued to the contrary. Why they should or shouldn't be taken serious by a close examination of the content of their papers would be derailing this thread.

[Daniel Peterson]

Some of Jones' scientific writings are credible because he has received an award

Therefore, all of Jones' scientific writings are credible.

I made no such argument. How does it really help your case to distort what I've said?

Let's take the first part of your implied syllogism first:

Some of Jones' scientific writings are credible because he has received an award

You've misrepresented my contention.

I'm responding to the proposition -- let's revert to the real world's Dr. Butler -- that Dr. Butler is widely regarded by real scientists as an incompetent buffoon and a laughingstock. You'll observe that the point is not whether or not Dr. Butler's work is credible, but, rather, whether or not it is widely and generally scorned. While the first question would be settled by scientific evidence, the second is more the kind of question that would be answered by polling. Or, at least, by quoted comments from a representative sample of scornful scientists.

I note, for one thing, that no actual evidence for that allegedly widespread opinion has actually been presented.

Then I point out that there seems to be considerable contrary evidence. It seems unlikely, for example, that a recognizably and obviously incompetent buffoon and laughingstock would be granted a doctorate in biochemistry by a respected university. It's still possible, though, that Dr. Butler is precisely such an incompetent buffoon and laughingstock. Perhaps he merely fooled his doctoral committee. The possibility is diminished, however, when Dr. Butler turns out to be employed in a responsible position of scientific leadership by a federal science agency. And it is diminished still further when, having already published nearly seventy peer-reviewed articles in his scientific specialty and having served as guest editor of the principal scientific journal in his field, he publishes a textbook on his area of expertise and wins an award for it from the British Medical Association. It becomes even less likely when, though still a young man, he continues to win prestigious national scientific and service awards.

At this point, it becomes reasonable to ask where all of the guffawing scientists might be who ostensibly regard Dr. Butler as an incompetent buffoon and a laughingstock. It seems unlikely that Dr. Butler's Ph.D. and his various awards were granted to him purely as a practical joke by supersophisticated mockers, and, thus far, not a single scorning scientist has actually been identified by those who say that such scorners are common.

If Dr. Butler's work lacks credibility, that now needs to be demonstrated. It won't be enough simply to assert, both without evidence and in the face of powerful counterevidence, that Dr. Butler is universally recognized to be an incompetent buffoon and a laughingstock, and, thus, to pretend that any specific article of his can simply be ignored without a reading.

Now let's look at the conclusion that you falsely attribute to me

Therefore, all of Jones' scientific writings are credible.

I have, of course, never suggested that Dr. Butler is infallible. I don't attribute infallibility to any human being.

But, all things being equal, the statements, on his scientific discipline, of a recognized and reputable scientist are worthy of more attention than those of an incompetent buffoon and laughingstock.

Since it has been demonstrated that Dr. Butler appears to be a recognized and reputable scientist, and not, as some have falsely maligned him, an incompetent buffoon and laughingstock, it seems that his statements on his scientific discipline are worthy of more attention than his slanderous critics have wanted to allow.

You seem to want to make out the skeptical position to be that LDS apologists are all a bunch of hacks, posturing out of their league.

There is no single "skeptical position." But one skeptical position is precisely as you describe it. It is stated repeatedly, and even made an appearance here on this board with "religiously free's" a priori declaration that the FARMS writers on DNA had no expertise in genetics and were paid apologists. She was, of course, wrong on both counts. But she was not the first to have made those assertions, and she won't be the last.

But I have already thrwarted your false dichotomy with my example of Isaac Newton.

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

...Not so, the topic here is the connection between the credentials of certain scientists, and what those credentials mean to LDS apologetics.  I have in fact, offered analysis.  Like you, I have not actually delved into the substance of their papers offering my opinion on their actual arguments.  You've argued that these scientists should be taken seriously in their apologetics by virtue of their acheivments as real world scientists.  I've argued to the contrary.  Why they should or shouldn't be taken serious by a close examination of the content of their papers would be derailing this thread.

Way I see it, we have Murphy (Anthropologist who took a couple genetics classes) and Southerton (Plant Biochemist turned botanical molecular biologist/geneticist) taking good science, combining this with a questionable database of data (there are Genetics scientists who see reason to believe that there might be up to a 50% range of error in the current DNA database), and turning these into bad science by making incorrect assumptions and asking the wrong questions of the valid data. On the other hand, I see legitimate scientists in the FARMs camp who acknowledge the limitations of the science and call for more correct methodology. From where I sit, the only hacks, laughingstocks, and buffoons I see reside squarely in the Murphy camp.

[Beowulf]

And then we have Southerton's word that Whiting's articles are not to be trusted because he is "arrogant".

Why? Because he disagreed with Southerton, I wonder?

Beowulf

Beowulf's Maxim: If you can't win the argument, attack the messenger.

[Confidential Informant]

I agree with Mr. Pyle.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what these LDS scientists have actually done. I've read their articles, and to my recollection they haven't made any positive assertions. Rather they are critiquing the assumptions of the critics who have published in this area.

Moreover, I would bet that their analysis is dead on and would be readily acceptable to their peers. Why do I say that? Well, look at what Whiting has actually done.

1. Murphy produces a book report and claims that current DNA science shows asiatic origins for Amerindians. His conclusion appears to be that this is a death blow of the claims of the book of Mormon.

2. Mormon scholars (not even apologist, just scholars) assert that a) Murphy's findings/conclusions regarding Amerindian origins are substantially correct. (All the critics scream, "See, Told ya!") However, they also assert that Murphy (and if I'm anticipating his response to hamblin correctly, Vogel) has essentially attacked a strawman. The "real" Book of Mormon (not the version imagined by Metcalfe, et al., ) depicts an infusion of a small group of people, presumably of Israelite descent) into a much larger and pre-existing population. (Here is where Murphy, Metcalfe, et al., turn to the writings of prior LDS leaders in an attempt to prove that the land was actually empty and no pre-existing population existed, thus exposing their fundamentalist bent but that's beside the point).

3. Whiting et al., then ask the question, "Would we expect to find genetic evidence of a small group of people (whose genetic make up was far from uniform by this point anyway) injected into a larger population and intermixing with that population for over 2500 years? His answer was, of course, no we wouldn't. And I would bet large sums of money that his peers agree with is assessment. (Thus, you don't see any claims in the scientific community that the abscense of European DNA among the Amerindians is "proof" that European migrations never happened).

4. The only response that Murphy, Metcalfe, et al., can now take is to start summoning the quotes of LDS Leaders Long Dead (LDSLLD) which state that the Lehites were the "primary" ancestors of the Lamanites, and that Joseph Smith thought all Indians were "Lamanites" etc. This, of course, is a fundamentalist reponse for reasons I've already articulated in another thread. If LDS scholars say, "well that was just their opinion and it was wrong" then the skeptics come back and say, "well how do you know when they aren't expressing an opinion." And if we simply accept that those leaders were right, then we get hit with "Well the science says you are wrong." If we were Baptists, all this might have some effect. But we aren't so it doesn't.

C.I.

[YH8]

Straining at a gnat...

It was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Dang. I started to write Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and somehow got sidetracked.

FARMS is a fraud. The Church is false. There is no God.

But it's been corrected, so no damage. Muchas gracias.

Hold on a minute. Mormons must be perfect. THerefore we will ignore your "correction." You left out Mr. Hyde in your original post. No corrections for you.

However, you spelled it correctly. If you would've just included Mr. Hyde originally we wouldn't have to deal with this further piece of evidence that the LDS Church isn't true.

Wait, this just goes to show how lame BYU is; they hired someone who left off Mr. Hyde when talking about classic literature.

Wait, what are you doing talking about classic literature; you're expertise is in things Arabic? Are you trying to claim that Jekyll and Hyde is an Arabic thing? You are aren't you?

Doc, everytime you open your mouth you just provide more evidence against the Church. It's great to have you on this board!

[cinepro]

which state that the Lehites were the "primary" ancestors of the Lamanites,

This isn't just a teaching of "LDSLLD". A very similar claim is in the introduction of the current version of the Book of Mormon being distributed all over the world since the early 1980's.

From LDS.org:

The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/intrdctn , (emphasis added)

Also...

The "real" Book of Mormon depicts an infusion of a small group of people, (presumably of Israelite descent) into a much larger and pre-existing population.

This isn't an obvious reading, but is one theory used to shrink the claims of the Book of Mormon away from contradictory evidence.

For me, the most obvious verses that support the "empty land" theory are in 2 Nephi:

2 Nephi 1

[5] But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

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

[7] Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

[8] And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

[9] Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever

There are certainly many ways to approach these verses (Lehi didn't know there were others already there, mis-translation and assumptions of JS being read into the text, the promise only lasted for a very short time etc.) But I think one very good explanation is that when they got there, there wasn't anyone else around except for others that had been led out of Jerusalem (Jaredites and Mulekites).

Which verses do you think strongly support the idea that there were other dominant civilizations that "swallowed up" the Nephites and Lamanites?

Keep in mind that the Nephites ruled over cities, continued to war with the Lamanites, practiced the Law of Moses, and never mention doing Missionary work among non-Lehite descendants. And for several hundred years after Christ's visit, there was homogenous Christianity in the land.

[TrespassersW]

I'm wondering if someone can set me straight about my facts (got most of 'em from PBS, so beware )

Almost all Native American DNA falls into one of five types: Haplogroup A, B, C, D, or X. A, B, C, and D, are known to come from East Asia. X is of unknown origin, with some believing it came from Asia, some believing it came from Western Europe or even Japan. Wherever it came from, though, there is general agreement that we can't find, or haven't found so far, the original population that this group migrated from. Their ancestors are lost.

Is that a fairly accurate representation of the facts?

[Confidential Informant]

This isn't just a teaching of "LDSLLD". A very similar claim is in the introduction of the current version of the Book of Mormon being distributed all over the world since the early 1980's.

Which of course is supposed to have been written by Bruce R. McConkie (and inserted over the objection of others). Thus, it is indeed from a LDSLLD.

This isn't an obvious reading, but is one theory used to shrink the claims of the Book of Mormon away from contradictory evidence.

It doesn't matter if it is the most "obvious" reading. I'm not convinced that the empty land theory is that "obvious" either. The point is, Mormons are neither inerrantists or fundamentalists, and are not "locked in" to any one persons particular interpretation of some verse.

[5] But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

How does this support the empty land hypothesis? In fact, it appears to my reading to deny it. First of all, it says they'll have a land of inheritance but does not gurantee that inheritance will preclude the existence of other peoples. This verse also specifically states that the Lord would lead other people out of other coutries and bring them here. The Book of Mormon include an account of one such occurance (the Jaredites, who were not Israelites, Hebrews or even relate to them). Thus, the verse says the others would come here and the book sets the precedent that others had come previously. Why is it such a stretch to assume that others not mentioned had been led her previously also?

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

Okay, and how does this moot my point? Are you making the unwarranted assumption that if the Lord brings someone to this land, "by his Hand" that the people thus brought are aware of it? I see no basis for any such assumption. Some will know God brought them here. Others won't. Viewed from God's possible perspective, bringing someone here by his hand could mean something as simply as providing low sea levels such as to create an asia to alaska land bridge which allowed people to enter the new continent for a certain period of time until the waters rose.

[7] Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

I really don't mean to be intentionally obtuse, but I don't see how this precludes the existence of previouisly existing populations.

[8] And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

This is, of course, the verse I'm most familiar with and suppose the proper understanding of it comes from a proper understanding of the term "nations" as it is used here. I've always understood a "nation" to represent an organized political unit. I've never understood "nation" to represent a small group of vagbond refugees. Thus, IMO, this verse simply refers to God's decision to keep the existence of this land from the knowledge of political entites such as the Spaniards, the English, the French, etc., refering to these groups as a politcal "nation."

And whether your view is as legitmately precolumbian as I do, or 19th century as you appear to, the verse is still correct. When other nations (beginning traditionally with Cristobol Colon) did discover this land, it was overrun.

[9] Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever

[Dr. Shades]

Daniel Peterson writes:

There is no reason to believe that, rather in the manner of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, respected scientists like Drs. Butler, Crandall, and Whiting suddenly abandon their usual standards of evidence and analysis, and forget their professional training, when writing or consulting for FARMS. . . you wish to claim, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that, when they write on Mormon topics, they temporarily become incompetent buffoons and laughingstocks.

Okay, then let me ask this: How are Drs. Butler, Crandall, and Whiting's LDS-apologetic DNA studies received by their non-Mormon peers?

D. Charles Pyle, 38[°], K. T. writes:

Way I see it, we have Murphy (Anthropologist who took a couple genetics classes) and Southerton (Plant Biochemist turned botanical molecular biologist/geneticist) taking good science, combining this with a questionable database of data (there are Genetics scientists who see reason to believe that there might be up to a 50% range of error in the current DNA database), and turning these into bad science by making incorrect assumptions and asking the wrong questions of the valid data.

I find that assertion hard to believe. Please list some specific accounts of their having done this.

[Zeitgeist]

Peer review issues aside, Dr. Peterson - you come close to committing an appeal to authority fallacy. Now I am in way trying to discredit the fine gentlemen you have write reviews like Mr. Butler, but they too are human. They are also no doubt not experts in many parts of the discipline. So they can too make mistakes, even in this sense. Like many of the doctors I work with. They know much about certain aspects of medicine, but are also wholly ignorant about many things others do around them in medicine. Even within their own practice they too are not up-to-date in everything, nor are they always as sharp on certain procedures. They also more often than not fall victim to error (or incomplete information) because of their training, who trained them, and what circumstance or situations they have found themselves in.

I wrote a critique to one of your reveiws - here on FAIR. There are plenty of others who would disagree (yes, perhaps more appeal to authority fallacies) with the assements of your Reviewers. In fact, in showing it around to some of the people I have talked with at several universities - they had to laugh. In a nutshell here is what most had to say: DNA doesn't prove it wrong - everything else does. DNA only further adds to the hole of nonexistent evidence for the Book of Mormon. I would agree with their assesment that at this juncture trying to disprove the Book of Mormon with DNA is not science - but rhetorical. It happens to be very effective with the masses. The masses do not understand science. You can find an authority who would side with anything. Thank goodness we have the ability to use reason on our own. I am sure you have your reasons for belief. I have mine for disbelief. These do get in the way often.

Now in discussion of the science. When I see a reputable organization such as Science, Nature or the like print something that moves the debate in your direction than I would consider that Mormons have something in the Book of Mormon, but until then I will have to back the inital assesment the Smithsonian took with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon hasn't added a single thing to the world of knowledge about anything in the material world.

Zeitgeist

[Daniel Peterson]

Peer review issues aside, Dr. Peterson - you come close to committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

How?

I conjecture that you're laboring under much the same misconception that afflicted sidewinder earlier on this thread. He imagined that I was arguing, because Dr. Butler et al. have earned superb professional reputations in fields relevant to biology and genetics, that their FARMS articles on Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon are reliable.

But I've never made such an argument. And, in fact, I've expressly denied making such an argument on this very thread.

The argument that I've actually made, and that I've explained at least twice on this thread, runs as follows:

1) Certain critics of the Book of Mormon contend that contemporary DNA science proves the Book of Mormon false.

2) Several denials of that contention have been published, most notably by FARMS.

3) The aforementioned critics have dismissed those denials, on the grounds that the individuals who wrote or consulted on them are generally regarded by real scientists as incompetent buffoons and laughingstocks who, thus, lack the qualifications to have meaningful opinions on the subject. Or, as "religiously free" falsely asserted on this board, because the FARMS authors have no expertise in genetics.

4) I counter the grounds advanced for such dismissal by noting that, in fact, the FARMS authors/consultants do have considerable expertise in genetics, that there is utterly no evidence of which I'm aware to indicate that the FARMS authors/ consultants are generally regarded by real scientists as iincompetent buffoons and laughingstocks, and that, quite to the contrary, there is considerable and rapidly growing evidence for the proposition that the FARMS authors/consultants are exceedingly well regarded in their genetics-related professional work.

5) My conclusion is that the a priori dismissal of the FARMS authors/consultants advocated by certain critics cannot be justified by the reasons given to to legitimate such a dismissal, since they are bogus.

Now I am in way trying to discredit the fine gentlemen you have write reviews like Mr. Butler, but they too are human.

[Beowulf]

At last, you admit that DNA is irrelevant to the BofM. The whole point that FARMS has been trying to make for the past three years!

Now, can we move on to the text, where the real answers lie, and where evidence that does have use in the material world (as Dan Peterson just hinted about) can be found in great amounts?

Beowulf

[Zeitgeist]

Dr. Peterson, that is why I said "come close to." I have a number of times here expressed that I agree with your position on the DNA. I just am not so optimistic, nor do I think it actually helps your position. In fact, I can see a number of potential ways around the deflection Whiting gave. I have proposed several of them here. I have discussed them with a number of geneticists in Europe that are currently doing what I have proposed with ancient Greek, Persian, Minoan, and Lebanese populations. They agree that there is a way to test the Book of Mormon with DNA.

There is one element that makes Whiting's repsonse weak - time and space. In theory he is correct, but it is a limited response that is designed to shut down the criticism, but fails to answer any possible questions or ways around the problem he proposes. The most important is: Is there no way in which to test the hypothesis? Whiting conservatively declares it not testable, due to several problems. If it was real it is testable and is only a matter of time.

Examining Whitings argument it was more designed than productive. He answered that it is currently not possible to test the hypothesis as Thomas Murphy has framed the criticism. Declaration of victory is hardly warranted. The HGT model is dead. Murphy won that round. Murphy also argued, like those I have talked with, and as I believe that DNA is not alone in its condemning the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. He argued it confirmed that which we know from other disciplines. So the problem is compounded. Now, the LGT I admit is not so easily hit by this argument. However, it doesn't have much support anywhere or with any scholars other than FARMS and BYU. Nor is it looking like it ever will. This is called being pushed into a corner. There are some hints that the LGT is soon to face a similar difficulties from emerging genetics studies.

Beowulf: I admit that many have told me that DNA has little to do with "proof" of the Book of Mormon as false. You cannot prove a negative. Before you get too excited, read my previous posts and you will see that none of them thought DNA helped the Book of Mormon's case. In fact they said it added more against it. This is a postiion I take, but I go further. DNA does discredit the Book of Mormon and has most certainly inflicted the greatest damage yet - killing the HGT. So it seems that DNA does have something to do with the Book of Mormon - it does help in your critics arguments. A fact, that I think is going to get worse for the faithful as time moves on. But that is only an opinion.

Zeitgeist

[Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson, that is why I said "come close to."

I frankly don't see how I even come close.

There is one element that makes Whiting's repsonse weak - time and space.

You're aware, aren't you, that Dr. Whiting's is not the only response? The most substantial is, in fact, Dr. David McClellan's.

The HGT model is dead.  Murphy won that round.

Murphy's contribution was minimal. Professor Sorenson's arguments against the hemispheric model have been in print for two decades, and circulated in samizdat form long before that. No serious student of Book of Mormon geography has advocated a hemispheric view in many, many years. DNA was irrelevant to this development, which predates Crick and Watson.

However, it doesn't have much support anywhere or with any scholars other than FARMS and BYU.  Nor is it looking like it ever will.

We shall see. I view the situation quite differently than you do.

This is called being pushed into a corner.

There is no sense whatever, at FARMS, that we're on the defensive overall. Quite the opposite.

There are some hints that the LGT is soon to face a similar difficulties from emerging genetics studies. 

We'll simply have to await those developments, and see whether or not they materialize.

[Doc]

which state that the Lehites were the "primary" ancestors of the Lamanites,

This isn't just a teaching of "LDSLLD". A very similar claim is in the introduction of the current version of the Book of Mormon being distributed all over the world since the early 1980's.

From LDS.org:

The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/intrdctn , (emphasis added)

I actually see no problem with the phrase "principal ancestors" in the intro to the BofM. The problem arises when "principal" is viewed as a noun as opposed to an adjective. If you look at dictionary.com the definition of "principal" as an adjective is:

1. First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth, or degree; chief.

While there may be some who disagree that Lehi and his family were the "foremost in importance" of all the possible progenitors of the Native Americans, I think it is fair to say that from the BofM point of veiw this is certainly the case.

Doc

~

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

I actually see no problem with the phrase "principal ancestors" in the intro to the BofM.  The problem arises when "principal" is viewed as a noun as opposed to an adjective.  If you look at dictionary.com the definition of "principal" as an adjective is:

1. First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth, or degree; chief.

While there may be some who disagree that Lehi and his family were the "foremost in importance" of all the possible progenitors of the Native Americans, I think it is fair to say that from the BofM point of veiw this is certainly the case.

Doc

~

I agree. We first need to come to agreement as to what was meant by principal by the author. That would be a little difficult seeing as the identified author of the preface is now deceased. Short of that, ALL is speculation. Yet, even if we took it literally, there still is room for debate. For example, if any given person had ten thousand Jewish ancestors (remember there is no such thing as Israeli mtDNA and there never has been) but one person in the proper slot of a different lineage, no test for mtDNA of these ten thousand ancestors is ever going to show anything about this person's principal ancestry, even if we assumed that a certain mtDNA lineage should be there. Period.

mtDNA from Israel's descendants all came from outsiders, and even today, mtDNA in modern Israelis for the most part matches that of the general population in the region in which they have been living for any length of time more than a few generations. This is why mtDNA studies tell us nothing and can tell us nothing about ancient Israel. No proper controls can be set up, meaning that proper science cannot be done and be used to attack the Book of Mormon. Anything along the lines of the work of Southerton and Murphy are nothing more than ad hoc hypotheses with the air of scientific validation. Of course, since most people are not familiar with the science and the limitations thereof, it all looks good to anyone who wants to have an excuse to disbelieve the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Those who are familiar with the science or who have proper knowledge can spot such snake-oil science as Murphy and Southerton offer readers a mile away.

That is why I look forward to advances of epigenetics and other emergent forms of the science. I believe these likely can tell us more than can mtDNA. HLA DNA studies have been interesting, although what they demonstrate is not yet certain. In a number of cases, markers have been found among Mesoamerican populations that commonly are found only in the Middle East. What is of interest to me is that these regions so far concentrate in overlapping regions where various Uto-Aztecan dialects and languages are spoken. What is significant about that is that these same languages have many affinities with Hebrew and may be the remnant of a creolized Hebrew! Many words in Uto-Aztecan match up with Hebrew words, their meanings, and basic structures in an amazing way, following consistent rules of vocalization and linguistic shift. Does this prove anything regarding the Book of Mormon? No. More study remains to be done. Even still, these studies can only show that Middle easterners who spoke Hebrew may have come to that region. It still would not prove that Nephites lived there or that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, notwithstanding it would add plausibility to the basic premise of the Book of Mormon.

[Beowulf]

I admit that many have told me that DNA has little to do with "proof" of the Book of Mormon as false. You cannot prove a negative. Before you get too excited, read my previous posts and you will see that none of them thought DNA helped the Book of Mormon's case. In fact they said it added more against it. This is a postiion I take, but I go further. DNA does discredit the Book of Mormon and has most certainly inflicted the greatest damage yet - killing the HGT. So it seems that DNA does have something to do with the Book of Mormon - it does help in your critics arguments. A fact, that I think is going to get worse for the faithful as time moves on. But that is only an opinion.

Sometimes I feel like I am talking past someone, not to him. (sigh)

For me, HGT was a dead issue 30 years ago. Long before Murphy and Southerton were even far enough in school to study about DNA, let alone use it to blast the HGT.

As I have already said on this board several times over the past few days. The LGT did not suddenly make its appearance in 2001 in response to Murphy and Southerton.

In fact, I read Southerton's "testimony" over on RFM (on why he left the church) before I was aware of his participation in the DNA project, and my first reaction was: "You poor soul. Didn't somebody ever tell you about LGT?" It had been floating around the LDS scholarly camp since Simon was in grade school.

No Zeitgeist, there was no "blow" to the BofM. It was only in the minds of people who already had decided to disbelieve, for whatever other reason.

Beowulf

[Bill Hamblin]

Personally, I can't remember ever believing in the hemispheric geography. Certainly not since seminary days. I suppose there may have been some prereflective time of my life when I did, but, if so, I really can't remember it. The point is, obviously, that DNA studies have had nothing to do with the demise of the HGT. The text of the BOM is solely responsible for its timely death.

[Quinn]

Amen, BWolf.

Kevin Barney's response to Southerton and Murphy in Anthropology News is particularily pertinent to your point:

A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event" by Kevin L Barney

Q

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

Personally, I can't remember ever believing in the hemispheric geography....

Myself included. So far as I can recollect, I never believed HGT and always believed the LGT. I remember getting into arguments with HGT adherents and with those LGT adherents who had different theories.

[Beowulf]

Oooh, the truth will out!

We were all apostates, way back in Seminary...

So why are we still here?

[Daniel Peterson]

Personally, I can't remember ever believing in the hemispheric geography.  Certainly not since seminary days.  I suppose there may have been some prereflective time of my life when I did, but, if so, I really can't remember it.  The point is, obviously, that DNA studies have had nothing to do with the demise of the HGT.  The text of the BOM is solely responsible for its timely death.

That was my experience, too. I've never believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, not since the earliest time I gave the issue any thought. If DNA had anything to do with the "fall" of the hemispheric view, in my case it was my personal DNA.

[cinepro]

If DNA had anything to do with the "fall" of the hemispheric view, in my case it was my personal DNA.

Are you suggesting that Internet Mormons are born that way?

[Daniel Peterson]

Are you suggesting that Internet Mormons are born that way? 

Absolutely yes. Internet Mormons -- exactly like leprechauns, genies, and unicorns -- are genetically determined to be what they are.